Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!news.unige.ch!usenet
From: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot)
Subject: Re: limits of thoughts
Message-ID: <1995Feb15.132735.19172@news.unige.ch>
Sender: usenet@news.unige.ch
Reply-To: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
References: <3hpql9$8ak@arcadia.informatik.uni-muenchen.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:27:35 GMT
Lines: 41

In article 8ak@arcadia.informatik.uni-muenchen.de, gruenera@informatik.uni-muenchen.de (Florian Gruener) writes:
>
>A first quick answer could be the following:
>
>The limits of thoughts are the thoughts themself, that is, what one has not
>perceived or was not taught about is unthinkable.
(deleted stuff)

Great.
Happy to see someone who thinks.

Going further on what you say :
The only way  to concieve things we can't talk about is by looking at people who don't
know the things you know. That is, we refer to "differential knowledge".

>Second, there are things you perceive but you don't "think" them in a rational
>way, i.e. "feelings", intuition, etc. But at least you "know" or "feel" what
>they might be.

This, is less clear because of the sharing properties with consciousness. But it's not
important since it would be necessary to define what consciousness is and that's not
what we are trying to do here (well, I think...)

I think, we could go on talking about unthinkable things like the concept of "infinite
numbers", "death"...

Do you think these ideas would fall in the same category as what you mention in your
article (like taylor's polynoms, for example) ?


-----------------

"Is anyone alive down there ?"

     sylvere@divsun.unige.ch 
   

Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT



