From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:34 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: Hawking, Penrose: Our universe, highly unlikely. From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Hawking, Penrose: Our universe, highly unlikely. References: <29c16047.0201171128.29f4f98a@posting.google.com> <200201251910.LAA13305@lsil.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201270933.38c09a3c@posting.google.com> "Paul Filseth" wrote > > > > You've again said nothing to rebut my sentence's assertion that > > > > of all the Turing-equivalent computational substrates, Life is > > > > a potentially confusing or misleading one to choose because it > > > > "just so happens to also support a menagerie of subsystems that > > > > people talk about in pseudobiological terms." > > > > > > That's true; I haven't. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Do you counter-assert that this could *not* reasonably be perceived > > > > as confusing or misleading? > > > > > > I do not counter-assert what you suggest. > > > > Thank you. > > If [these "Thanks yous" are] intended to suggest > that my above statements support your Dec. 17 claim that my responses > to your "explanation" were unresponsive, they don't. We'll have to agree to disgree here. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net