Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vanjac
From: vanjac@netcom.com (Sylvan Jacques)
Subject: Re: Danah Zohar's pseudoscientific books
Message-ID: <vanjacD00Fsx.BL3@netcom.com>
Sender: vanjac@netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3b5hju$8lv@pobox.csc.fi> <Czzoyo.L07@unx.sas.com> <3bdd8s$g8n@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <3be2as$fn4@uuneo.neosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 03:46:09 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96571 sci.psychology:30555 sci.physics:101726 sci.philosophy.meta:15099 sci.bio:23463 comp.ai.philosophy:22801

In article <3be2as$fn4@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
George McKee <mckee@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: We are conecturing that the laws of quantum mechanics while superbly 
>: accurate for inanimate matter are incomplete for living matter.
>
>The notion that living things obey different laws of nature than
>nonliving things is called "vitalism".  It's been discredited by
>a hundred years of biology, physiology, and biochemistry.  

The idea that animate and inanimate matter obey different physical
laws goes against mountains of evidence that all matter obeys the
same physical laws.

Just because phsyics can't yet deal with very complex systems
doesn't change this.
There is no basis for this conjecture, but there certainly is
a strong basis for not making this conjecture.
-- 

Van  (Sylvan Jacques)        vanjac@netcom.com
