This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for
morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html
Mark,
I appreciate your post, and I take any feeling, that what is said here
is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis, as a
misunderstanding of what comp could be, or as an absence of knowledge
of how computer science and mathematical logic force us to revise our
opinion on
Le 21-mars-07, à 22:18, John Mikes a écrit :
Academic - tenure - even Nobel type conventional science is
rfeductionistic
in this sense.. I agree: SCIENCE should be as you identified it.
Thanks for telling. I thought, a bit naively perhaps, that after
Descartes and Popper, say, it was
Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not
experienced in -
- what is called usually as science. Look at the Laws of physics, does
engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are
all believed as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call
4 matches
Mail list logo
