From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jan 28 12:18:12 EST 1992
Article 3178 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.180502.16042@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 18:05:02 GMT
References: <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1992Jan27.060945.27989@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jan27.105812.8126@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 68

In article <1992Jan27.105812.8126@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>NR:
>> There is a very big difference between
>>	(a) reading an instrument
>>and 
>>	(b) reading an instrument which is measuring yourself.

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

  That would sure reduce the amount of bandwidth wasted in this newsgroup.

>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.

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

  Sure.  And if I conduct a thought experiment and conclude that the moon
really is made of green cheese, you would be a damn fool to accept that
as a scientific conclusion.  If, on the other hand, many scientists conducted
similar thought experiments, and all agreed that the moon was made of green
cheese, there might be some reason to take note.

  If you conduct a thought experiment and conclude that MZ's consciousness is
made of green cheese, I would be a damn fool to accept that as scientific.  But
nobody other than MZ can make introspective examinations of MZ's consciousness,
so there is no chance of confirmation or denial.

>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?

  It doesn't much matter where the axioms come from.  They could come from
somebody's introspection, or from random gibberish generated by a random
number generator.  But they will not be adopted by the mathematical community
as a significant part of mathematics until a number of mathematicians
independently determine that they find the axioms interesting.

  If you wish to call that determination an introspection at least note that
it is a consensus judgement of the introspection of many individuals
examining a common set of axioms.  This is very different from a single
individual examining something (his own consciousness) with tools
(i.e. introspective examination of self) that are unavailable to anyone else.

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


