From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman Fri Jan 31 10:27:15 EST 1992
Article 3292 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <12063@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Date: 30 Jan 92 11:12:36 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 25

In article  <1992Jan27.180502.16042@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]
]  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.

Hmm.  You realize, of course, that by maintaining that all the
mathematicians are examining the same set of axioms, that makes you a
Platonist?  And here I thought you were a monist.

]  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.

The tools are quite available to any person capable of introspection.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


