On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:16:45AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Russell Standish 
> 
> 1) Introspection is subjective because it is only
> only available to me: it is personal and private (1p),
> not public (3p).

By modelling your mind by introspecting my own, I can have a fair idea
what you are thinking. Furthermore, I know you are doing the same, so
I can get a fair idea of what you think about me. The more we
interact, the more accurate that model will be, although it will never
be perfect.

To that extent, introspection is very public (1p shareable, rather
than 3p, if you grok the distinction).

> 
> 2) Computers are 3p cannot read my 1p mind.
> 

I cannot read your 1p mind either. But there is no reason why
computers cannot form a theory of the mind like how I do, and
reason about others' introspection. It would appear that the problem
is not as simple as might first be believed, but significant advances
have been made in achieving it. Just image recognition was not as
simple as initially thought, but nowadays is quite routine.

> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/11/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Russell Standish 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2012-12-10, 17:36:01
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped 
> bycognitivescience
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:59:20AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> > Hi Russell Standish 
> > 
> > Actual introspection is subjective, not objective.
> > Computers as I understand them can only think objectively.
> > 
> 
> Two points: 
> 
> 1) Why do you think introspection is subjective? By contrast, I
> suspect it is one of the most objective features of consciousness - we
> can test it with things like the mirror test. We can know when other
> animals exhibit introspection, whilst still retaining doubt about
> their phenomenal consciousness.
> 
> 2) Why do you think computers can only think objectively? Bruno, of
> course, argues the opposite, although from with the assumption of COMP.
> 
> -- 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> 

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to