I'd say yes, unless you clearly have something "better" to do. (I am trying very hard to do the best I can on this problem.)
[ For additional contributions I have not generally shared (publicly), contact me -- these are views and positions and facts I have corresponded about with AI people. If psychology will not respond to the identified problems appropriately, I will do my best to make sure AI people create a working human simulation, before the irrationally and unscientifically stuck-in-the-mud psychologists will EVER EQUAL SUCH. It may be I will not continue to have to suffer the abuse of your ignore-ance. ]
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
LET ME ADD MY OWN STANDARD yet possibly sufficient-for-a-start position (in case there is a chance you have not yet seen/heard it):
I continue to be filled with wonder at all the attempts to reduce things to "embodiment" with never ever a decent strong continuous general outlook on EMBEDDED-NESS with the environment. I see that this ridiculousness is intimately related to the assumptions problems, ACTUALLY PRESUMPTIONS limiting considerations of connections with the environment. The still fully active (and abided-by, with consistency), yet not in any way confirmed, "assumptions" continue to be: One: all innate is present at birth: and thus failing to look for innate guided perception AND BEHAVIOR in later childhood and adolescence, after infancy or toddlerhood, ALL BECAUSE OF baseless PRESUMPTION; Notion 2 (with nothing but evidence against it, in this case): that the innate and the learned can be partialed out (and they are never seen as nearly always admixed from the beginning -- which has been SHOWN LIKELY); in addition, their is the unfounded presumption (belief, "conclusion", pseudo-assumption) that the more learning an organism show, the less innate guidance there is; plus, there is a continued rush-to-hypotetico-deductive-systems, not seeing the importance and value in inductive work (thus in "systems" we very rarely hear of real validated lawful (or species-typical) BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, when this should be about all we hear about).
THIS IS COMPLETE TOTAL INSANITY (nothing short of this). I have repeatedly shown the false assumptions that are the CAUSE, in every theory context and from every conceivable angle, yet, with psychology fragmented, there is no reasonable response. You can verify the assumptions are unproven and unfounded !!!! PLUS, I have at length described the beginning of a new way, WITHOUT ALL of the presumptions (but, rather: consistent with basic BIOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS -- imagine that). See my: "A Human Ethogram ... (Ethogram Theory)"
Thank you, Brad. It will take me some time to answer) Regards, Sergii
Dear Sergii
To the extent needed, I believe I can provide a fix of psychology for AI -- so you and others in AI need not be directly concerned with it. Between what you have developed and what I propose you add (communicated recently), it seems close to a complete system that could be operational. Correctly or not, I have gotten "a feel" for it. I do not think there will be so much problems with things being wrong; more likely incompleteness will be the problems. But, in any case, we will fix them.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence