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.



Reply via email to