From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:18:02 EST 1992
Article 3168 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 04:01:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: optima.11927
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 84

In article  <1992Jan26.220013.7722@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]In article <11920@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>really that profound?  As I have written at least twenty times in the
]>last couple of months: the belief that humans are conscious is not
]>based on behavior but on introspection.  Unless you have achieved a

And in the part of the article that you conveniently elided from your
quote I wrote:

]] It takes little faith to believe that other humans are like you in
]] this regard, regardless of any ability to explain their actions
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]] otherwise.  For even if there was a purely physical way to explain
]] their behavior, the same mechanisms would work in you, and you would
]] still be able to sense your own consciousness.

Yet you write:

] Wrong.  ... Your
]belief that others are conscious is based on the fact that they behave
]in ways which you believe would require consciousness for you if you were
]to act the same way in the same circumstances.

Not content with misrepresenting my views, you go on to make
statements about the philosophy of science that show that you know
nothing about the topic:

] The problem, however, is that yours is a completely unscientific approach.
]Using introspection means observing yourself.  This means you are subject
]to total bias.  Scientific investigation must avoid bias.

If introspection is total bias, then so is reading an instrument.  In
either case the observation is a personal one, and someone else can
deny that you are correct, even though you are certain that you are
correct.  Furthermore, the conclusion that _I_ am conscious is even
more certain than any conclusion I can get from my senses.  My senses
can be fooled, but I cannot be fooled into thinking I am conscious
unless I _am_ conscious.  The conclusion that I am conscious follows
logically from the premise that I think about whether I am conscious
or not.

It is not possible for "science" to prove any fact with more certainty
than that.  And it is not possible for _empirical_ sciences to even
approach that level of certainty.  Furthermore, all of mathematics is
based on the same sort of introspection by which I determine the fact
of my own consciousness.  Is mathematics not objective?

Now the opinion that a computer is not conscious does not have this
same level of certainty.  My belief that computers are not conscious
is identical to my belief that any other arbitrary lump of metal,
plastic, and silicon is not conscious.  Now that belief is arguably a
religious belief (and its converse is certainly a religious belief),
but I have not argued that position on this group.  Of course, even if
you do believe that any arbitrary lump of minerals can be conscious,
the Turing test still does not tell you anything.

] You have two choices.  You can come up with a method of determining
]consciousness which is free of bias, or you can declare consciousness as
]an area where science is not applicable.

No, I have a third choice.  I can simply observe that there is no
known method of determining consciousness _in others_ which is free of
_believing that they are like you_, and reserve my opinion on whether
such a thing might ever be possible.  This, coincidentally, is the
choice I take.

]  The Turing Test is an attempt at
]the first approach.

A failed and groundless attempt.  I'm still waiting for someone to
come up with an argument for why passing the Turing test should be
seen as evidence of consciousness.  Consciousness does not change into
something you can observe by method X just because method X is the
only way you currently have to try to observe it.

]  The second approach, which you seem to prefer, is
]often referred to as religion.

Only by people who don't know the difference between religion
metaphysics.  And I do not prefer that approach.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


