Your argument is weak here. First of all you didn't repute the idea that
inconsistency is bad you merely showed a case of where consistency can
have Ill effects. I could argue that consistency is a necessary but
insufficient condition for achieving the good. I expected more from you
Professor, shall we do this dance again?
>
>
> > > Suppose that A was being alive. Then Not A is dead. Your life
> would be
> > > totally different because you'd be dead. (Let me guess your
> counter
> > > response: Hurray! Dead people have come back to life!)
>
> I only have to walk downtown or watch TV to know that zombies do, in
> fact,
> rule the earth.
>
> With your supposition, is a nebula A or Not A? A piece of bark? A
> mold
> spore? A cell? The earth's bioshpere? Defining "alive" becomes very
>
> important, doesn't it? And that definition can't help but be
> subjective.
>
> -Prof. Tim
Life: 1) A self replicating unit capable of passing information changes
in its design to the next generation of replicating units. 2)Self
replicating unit is still taking in and processing energy. 3) If unit is
sterile then it is still considered alive if it was the product of 1)
and is still using energy.
Anything which has existence can be represented by A. Anything other
than a given A is Not A.
The Nateman