Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 12:57:35 EDT

That returns me to the question as to why?

I am trying to understand your position, not answer what I consider to
be meaningless questions?
I wonder who is stalling here?

In Christ

On 10/16/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Answer the question to the best of your knowledge and ability. Thais is all.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 12:28 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)
>
>
>
> What makes you think I am dishonest?
>
> On 10/16/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > Quit stalling and answer this legitimate question honestly.
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:36 AM
> > To: Alexanian, Moorad
> > Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > Subject: Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)
> >
> > The relevance being?
> >
> > On 10/16/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > > Suppose evolutionary theory can thoroughly explain altruism. Given
> > that
> > > knowledge, what data do you need about a particular individual in
> > order
> > > to predict or give the corresponding probabilities that that
> > individual
> > > is an altruist or not.
> > >
> > > Moorad
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:13 PM
> > > To: Alexanian, Moorad
> > > Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)
> > >
> > > What is one to make of such ad hoc claims? Proof by assertion seems
> > > rather circular an approach here.
> > >
> > > Let's take the concept of altruism, surely as nonphysical as any of
> > > the ones claimed by Alex, and yet we can study it, and even find
> > > plausible evolutionary explanations for it. So what am I to make of
> > > such assertions? Perhaps responding to it already makes too much of
> > > them, but I am really attempting to understand the logic involved.
> > >
> > > On 10/14/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Consciousness and rationality are purely nonphysical, since purely
> > > physical devices cannot detect them, and can only be "detected" by the
> > > self in humans. In addition, life cannot be reduced to the purely
> > > physical, so living beings are both physical and nonphysical.
> > >
> >
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 16 12:58:38 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 16 2007 - 12:58:38 EDT