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

From: gordon brown <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 13:10:40 EDT

Wouldn't it be better for you two to continue this exchange privately?

Gordon Brown (ASA)

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, PvM wrote:

> 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.
>

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 13:11:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 16 2007 - 13:11:38 EDT