🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.212232.4200@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu  
(Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
> These are at best the SCIENTIFICALLY interesting questions.  What makes you
> think that nothing except science is interesting?

To be interesting, I'd say a question about the natural world should have an  
answer that is in some way verifiable, testable, checkable, or at the very  
least minimally derived from things that are.

I.e., not just an opinion, based on vague argumentation or
arbitrary hypotheses. If you want such,
talk about ethics or justice.

Of course, philosophers may disagree with this, as they are more interested
in argumentation itself than in understanding the natural world.

Hey, fine. To each their own. But I'd put my money on the scientific
approach to produce really interesting things about intelligence 
and consciousness, not the alternatives. (remember the history 
of the nature of space and time....)

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)