From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:18:16 EST 1992
Article 3184 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <11962@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 21:51:49 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 67

In article  <1992Jan27.060945.27989@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:
]>] 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
]
] There is a very big difference between
]	(a) reading an instrument
]and 
]	(b) reading an instrument which is measuring yourself.

I take it that you are not claiming that, for example, measuring my
own blood pressure is different in principle from measuring someone
else's.  What can you mean then?  Do you mean that any observation
that is totally internal to myself is different from an observation
that has external factors?  This cannot be disputed.  However, any
observation that has external factors also has internal factors.  If
internal factors are more "questionable" in some sense, then they are
just as questionable when applied to external as to internal events.

]>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
]
]  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.

On the contrary, you are cordially invited to undertake the
observation on yourself to determine your own consciousness.  If
approached objectively (instead of with the intention of winning an
argument) this exercise will convince you that your own consciousness
is something more certain to you than any "scientific" observation.
In other words, you can think up reasons and situations that would
make any external observation doubtful.  But you cannot doubt what you
sense directly, without intermediary organs of sense.  If you
discovered yourself doubting your own consciousness, then you would
have proof that you are conscious, for doubt is a conscious activity.

]>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?
]
] I guess you don't understand mathematics!

Well, one of us doesn't understand mathematics.  Or science for that
matter.

]Either that, or your usage of
]"introspection" is different from everyone else's.  Mathematics is based
]on proofs which are independently verifiable by others.

I hate to sound elitist, but you clearly have no idea what you are
talking about.  And I don't have the time to educate you, especially
when you won't believe the even most basic and least controversial
statements I make.  Therefore, I suggest that you spend some time
reading Descartes, Kant, and a few later thinkers to learn about these
issues.  When you understand what is wrong with your statement above,
I will be glad to continue the discussion.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


