From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Tue Jan 28 12:18:14 EST 1992
Article 3181 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan27.201926.20498@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <11927@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 20:19:26 GMT

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:
>] 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.
>
Several people can read the same instrument and decide whether they agree what
it says. Then they accept what they agree on. That's how science is done.
But no one except you can introspect on your 'understanding' (or whatever). 
Hence it is not science. Haven't you found out that your introspection tells
you sometimes contradictory things (am I happy or not? am I conscious or am I
dreaming?) In case of reading an instrument you can compare your experience
with that of others, in case of feeling that you understand, you can't. The 
first is science, the second is 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.  

Hence you claim that the conclusions from your introspection are more certain
that those reached by consensus with other people? Isn't this called
solipsism?

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?
>
Not true. Mathematics has an attribute of being communicable to other people
(at least some :-)) in a way that leads to a consensus. 

>] 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.
>
This seems to imply to me that according to you consciousness is possible 
(by your definition) only in beings that _are like us_, unless proven otherwise.
It also seems that you cannot imagine how this could ever be proven and even
tend to think it is impossible in principle.
To me it sounds like: 'I am convinced that humans have souls until you prove
otherwise. In fact it might be impossible in principle to disprove existence
of a soul'
I prefer a different approach: Unless you prove that humans have souls
I see no reason to believe that there exists such a thing and see no merit 
in discussing consciousness as something which _in principle_ cannot be 
determined from outside, independent of our beliefs who or what can be
conscious. 
>--
>					David Gudeman
>gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
>noao!arizona!gudeman


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


