Le 24-juin-05, à 12:27, Eugen Leitl a écrit :
Why don't we terminate this pointless thread, until we can actually
make numerical
models of sufficiently complex animals and people, so the question
completely
renders itself irrelevant?
You answer like if by making things more precise, automatically the
question will then vanished away, like if you knew the theorem before
starting to find the axioms. But: replace "sufficiently complex animals
and people" by "sufficiently complex machines" or by "sufficiently rich
theories", and then computer science and logic illustrate and
enlighten *already* the relevance of the question and the high
counter-intuitive character of the possible answers).
But I don't think it is useful nor necessary to go to the math before
understanding the "intuitive" but precise problems, and thought
experiments like those in this (sequences) of threads are very
illuminating. Why do you think the question is irrelevant? What do you
mean exactly, giving that some people works hard to got "yes/no"
clearcut questions if only to be able to distinguish between the
different ways *we* approach those questions.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
