From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Jan 28 12:18:08 EST 1992
Article 3174 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.105812.8126@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 15:58:10 GMT
References: <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1992Jan27.060945.27989@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 75
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Jan27.060945.27989@mp.cs.niu.edu> 
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>In article <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu> 
>gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

>>In article  <1992Jan26.220013.7722@mp.cs.niu.edu> 
>>Neil Rickert writes:

NR:
>>] 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.

DG:
>>If introspection is total bias, then so is reading an instrument.  In

NR:
> There is a very big difference between
>	(a) reading an instrument
>and 
>	(b) reading an instrument which is measuring yourself.

If the first-person viewpoint is to be excluded from science, the question
of machine consciousness is moot.

DG:
>>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

NR:
>  But when there is a dispute on reading an instrument, other observers
>can be brought in to repeat the experiment, and reconfirm the results.
>When you read an instrument which measures yourself, in which cannot
>be read by anybody else, there is no possibility of confirmation.

Do the words `thought experiment' mean anything to you?  

DG:
>>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?

NR:
> I guess you don't understand mathematics!  Either that, or your usage of
>"introspection" is different from everyone else's.  

David's use of the term is standard in philosophy, a discipline which you
evidently dont understand, despite your continued posting on its subjects.

NR:
>						     Mathematics is based
>on proofs which are independently verifiable by others.

Where do the mathematical axioms come from?

>-- 
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
>  Northern Illinois Univ.
>  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


