From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 10:07:49 MST
> Hilary: Do you believe we mean the same thing by the word "belief"?
>
> Phenomenologist: Do I believe it? Just a moment while I introspect.
> Yes, it turns out that I do believe it.
>
> Hilary: My goodness, do you mean to say that you can't even tell me what you
> believe without introspecting?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Of Course not.
>
> FRANK: But most people when asked what they believe simply TELL you.
> Why do you, to find out your beliefs, go through the fantastically roundabout
> process of focu to your own brain and then
> finding out what you believe on the basis of the machine's reading?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: What other scientific, objective way is there of finding
> out what I believe?
>
> FRANK: Oh come now, why don't you just ask yourself?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST (sadly): It doesn't work. Whenever I ask myself what I
> believe, I never get any answer.
>
> FRANK: Well, why don't you just STATE what you believe?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: How can I state what I believe before I know what I believe?
>
> FRANK: Oh, to hell with your knowledge of what you believe; surely you have
> some IDEA or BELIEF as to what you believe, don't you?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Of course I have such a belief. But how do I find out what
> this belief is?
>
> FRANK: I am afraid we are getting into another infinite regression. Look, at
> this point I am honestly beginning to wonder whether you may be going crazy.
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Let me consult the machine. Yes, it turns out that I may be
> going crazy.
>
> FRANK: Good God man, doesn't that frighten you?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Let me check! Yes, it turns out that it does frighten me.
>
> FRANK: Oh please, can't you forget this damn machine and just tell me whether
> you are frightened or not?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: I just told you that I am. However, I only learned of this
> from the machine.
>
> FRANK: I can see that it is utterly hopeless to wean you away from the
> machine. Very well then, let us play along with the machine some more. Why
> don't you ask the machine whether your sanity can be saved?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Good idea! Yes, it turns out that it can be saved.
>
> FRANK: And how can it be saved?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: I don't know, I haven't asked the machine.
>
> FRANK: Well, for God's sake, ask it!
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Good idea. It turns out that ...
>
> FRANK: It turns out what?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: It turns out that ...
>
> FRANK: Come on now, it turns out what?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: This id the most fantastic thing I've ever come across!
> According to the machine the best thing I can do is cease to trust the
> machine.
>
> FRANK: Good! What will you do about it?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: How do I know what I will do about it; I can't read the
> future!
>
> FRANK: I mean, What do you presently intend to do about it?
>
> EPISTEMOLOGIST: Good question, let me consult the machine. According to the
> machine my present intentions are in complete conflict. And I can see why!
> I am caught in a terrible paradox! If the machine is trustworthy, then I
> had better accept its suggestion to distrust it. But if I distrust it,
> then I must also distrust its suggestion to distrust it. But if I distrust
> it then I must also distrust its suggestion to distrust it, so I am really
> in a total quandary.
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:06 MST