Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Is Scientific Introspection Possible?
Message-ID: <1994Dec12.043135.17357@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <3cge5h$qun@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <3cgh4g$dvo@agate.berkeley.edu> <3cgi2l$qun@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 04:31:35 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <3cgi2l$qun@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <3cgh4g$dvo@agate.berkeley.edu>, jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Gerardo Browne) writes:
>|> Randall A Helzerman (helz@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>|> 
>|> I'm not sure that I am in a much better position to imagine my own
>|> reaction to something, than I am to imagine someone else's reaction, if
>|> I know that person well enough.
>
>Indeed, Good's technique can be used to estimate other's degree of belief
>just as easily as it can be used to estimate one's own degree of belief.
>
>Is this true in general for all possible introspective techniques, i.e. 
>is it true that there really is no difference between introspection and 
>interogating an external subject?

This is the topic of Gilbert Ryle's great book, "The Concept of Mind."
He shows many reasons to be skeptical of introspection as an important
"privileged tool".  Surely it is not true in general but, as Freud
showed, neither should you in general expect to get reliable information
about yourself from introspection.

