From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!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 3293 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!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: <12064@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Date: 30 Jan 92 11:27:31 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 75

In article  <1992Jan27.231359.28438@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]In article <11962@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>In article  <1992Jan27.060945.27989@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]
]>] 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
]
]  I AM claiming that measuring your own blood pressure is different from
]measuring someone else's.  I believe that the majority of physicians
]would agree with that.  There is a considerable degree of judgement
]involved at deciding the exact moment to read the gauge, and the biases
]of self measurement can indeed result in bias.

You are stretching the analogy far beyond its breaking point.

]  Observing myself to determine my own consciousness does not tell me about
]your consciousness.  Similarly measuring my blood pressure does not tell
]me anything about your blood pressure.

Your analogy is further flawed.  I'm not asking you to measure your
consciousness in any way, only to determine that it exists.  And no,
determining the existence of your consciousness does not prove the
existence of mine.  But then determining that the water in container A
can freeze does not prove that the water in container B can freeze
also.  The conclusion is one of likelihood, not certainty.

]>] I guess you don't understand mathematics!
]>
]>Well, one of us doesn't understand mathematics.  Or science for that
]>matter.
]
]  Aw shucks!  I've been found out.  I guess I'll have to turn in my Ph.D.  Come
]to think of it, I will have to recall the Ph.D. of several others for whom I
]served as thesis advisor.

You are a plumber who has no idea what runs through the pipes.  Maybe
you can put the pipes together, but you can't distinguish between the
fresh water and the sewer.  So I don't care how many degrees you have,
there is a sense in which you demonstrably do not understand
mathematics and science.

]>]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
]
] Well, I admit it is a disappointment after all these years to discover
]that independently verifiable proofs have nothing to do with mathematics.

You also have problems with logic.  My assertion that there is
something wrong with your sentence above does not entail that
independently verifiable proofs have nothing to do with mathematics.
I'd tell you what's wrong with the statement, but with your inadequate
background, you would not comprehend the answer, and would just
respond with another meaningless rebutal.

You know, when someone tells me that I have an inadequate background
for the discussion going on, I at least consider the possibility
seriously.  Maybe, just maybe, in the last 2500 years of writing on
the philosophy of mathematics and science, some important points have
been made.  And maybe, just maybe, you are not enough of a
philosophical genius to spontaneously generate the answers to
questions that stumped lesser men for 2300 years.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


