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
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
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 machin
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
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=sl
4 matches
Mail list logo
