There are known two modes in AI: M-mode and I-mode, the first one is abbreviation to mechanical mode, meaning that the artificial agents would act mechanically following the algorithm they are programmed, the intelligent mode is the challenge AI scientists strive for. It is a condition where the artifacts or machines jump out of the system and think about the system. This way we could create machines that think and act like human.

Dear Festim Halili

I had the I-mode (AGI, General Artificial Intelligence) in mind with my Discussion topic.

Dear Brad,

As I see it, psychology is still a pre-paradigmatic science. Does it make sense to speak of a paradigmatic shift in a science where there is not yet a true paradigm if I can borrow from T. Kuhn's terminololgy?

So, the problem for psychology is not a paradigm shift, but a shift from a pre-paradigmatic to a paradigmatic science. Dear Brad, when you post a question you make much more than this because your post is followed for your response to it.

Because of this, you may inadvertantly and to some extent, close more than open the debate on the question you raise. Note that, say, a normal reader can be influenced by your responses and you can get what you want. As I see it, it woud be better to hide than to reveal your answer to your question, at least when you formulate it initially.

kind regards,

Orlando

Dear Orlando

I thank you for the thoughtful and insightful responses. I have no problem at all viewing present Psychology (General and Developmental) as pre-paradigmatic "science" -- and I do wonder if any such thing could even be considered a real science (I think not). This view of it being pre-paradigmatic is very, very likely what I should have fully realized and made explicit all along. Looking at it that way, it should be even more helpful to see a proposed actual paradigm (like the truly full-fledged one I put forth, at length).

I realize I provide answers to my own Questions; I do have some good answer oftentimes, and really use Questions and Discussions and even my Answers to others' Questions and Responses as opportunities to write short essays on the matters I do feel I already have something to say about (and all that turns out to be related to my "grand view" -- the paradigm). [ Actually, through this "method", I have written, in essence, a long book -- about 800 pages at this point. This, sort of by "bouncing off of others" (at least indirectly) was my method for this. Yet, nothing keeps others from offering other answers or further answers -- though, perhaps as you say, some bias is put in from the beginning (what I see as a good "bias", though). ]

Thanks again.

P.S. Dear Orlando,

Kuhn, who I have always seen as having a only a partial (that is: just a "some-parts" understanding) of a paradigm, still seems at least in the direction of being correct in some noteworthy ways. According to Kuhn :

An immature science is preparadigmatic -- that is, it is still in its natural history phase of competing schools. Slowly, a science matures and becomes paradigmatic. (End of short summary of some of his views.) [ It will be clear I do not fully agree with these views, in particular: the " 'natural' history" part. ]

I would say that preparadigmatic is not yet science at all and characterized by flailing and floundering UNTIL a paradigm is found (and RATHER: actually, this should be done NOW and with any necessary efforts: FORMULATED). Preparadigmatic is nothing good, clear or even "natural"; it is a state of insufficiency, failing to provide for making clear sustained integrated progress (and even, as indicated, I would say: unnecessary -- see my delineation of the characteristics of a paradigm * to see why this situation in Psychology is unnecessary and INEXCUSABLE, because clearly you MUST be doing paradigm definition the best you can, clearly and respectably). _AND_ we are not talking about progress in one vein (sub-"area"), but some interpretable, agreeable findings for the whole field -- a necessary condition of HAVING ANY sort of general SCIENCE AT ALL; obviously Psychology does not have that and should not be considered a science just because people in that field want to say that and supposedly aspire in that way [ ("aspire" somehow -- usually essentially mythologically, irrationally, and just "hoping beyond hope" (as people say)) ] In short: that state of preparadigmatic should not be tolerated; major efforts should be clearly going on to improve from this state immediately ("if not sooner", as they say -- i.e. this SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER).

Since I think I DO KNOW at least many of the characteristics of a paradigm (presented elsewhere, for one: in the description of the "... Ethogram Theory" Project *) AND since mine is the only paradigm being "offered up", Psychology people should damn well take full note of that and fully read and come to a reasonable understanding of my perspective and approach -- all that leading to clear, testable hypotheses that, IF SHOWN CORRECT, would be of general applicability and importance and very reliable (in the formal sense) and , thus (as I say): agreeable. IN short, I OFFER THE ONLY FULL-FLEDGED GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY PARADIGM and if someone is in the Psychology field and really cares about science, they must take note (and fully assess it) (no reason for any exception): Minimally, all must "see" AND READ:

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

and

Book "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory" (2015-2019)

Orlando, thanks to what you have pointed out, barring any "competition", my paradigm should be studied and fully understood -- NO REASONABLE SCIENCE CHOICE ABOUT IT. It stands alone in Psychology, as a proposal for NECESSARY "ingredient" for SCIENCE.

* FOOTNOTE (this footnote is referenced-to twice in the essay above): The characteristics of a paradigm are presented the Project referred to: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY

(in particular, in its description)

Dear Kelvin Mutter

I consider neuroscience as typically only indirectly (and usually only very vaguely) related to behavioral science, behavioral science (aka Psychology) being (or seeking to be) the science of behavior patterns AND corresponding environmental aspects

The idea of a "paradigm for psychology" would only make sense if "psychology" was a single thing, rather than a congeries of efforts to understand, predict and explain quite disparate aspects of human experience and behavior. No single theoretician can formulate a paradigm (in the sense used by Kuhn) because a paradigm is a set of understandings of ontology, epistemology and methodology generally accepted by scientists in a given field. That is to say, a paradigm emerges from the practices prevalent in a given science at a given time, rather than being an encompassing explanatory theory. The study of learning, for example, has certainly had paradigm candidates, such as "behaviorism" or more recently "cognitive psychology". While both shared a more or less similar understanding of epistemology, their ontologies and dominant methodologies were quite different. As Kuhn also recognized, despite the "incommensurability" of different paradigms in the history of a science, there is nevertheless cumulation based on consensus. So, for example, behaviorism's ontology has been almost completely abandoned, but some of its methods live on as part of the methodological repertoire of modern psychology.