Let me elaborate a bit: Psychology Researchers and Theorists: If your findings and Theories aren't good and CLEAR (clearly and explicitly empirically-based and well-founded) enough for Artificial Intelligence, THEN HOW ARE THEY CLEAR ENOUGH AND GOOD ENOUGH FOR ANYONE (including you and your associates) ??? Please, pray tell; DO EXPLAIN. [ And, don't tell me: "progress can be made from where we are"; that does not "cut it" for me -- I fundamentally dispute THAT (a bad direction does not automatically "straighten out" OR get "straightened out"); many cases supporting my view can be cited. And: Don't think brain science itself can save you NOR interdisciplinary studies -- looking for salvation in such can also easily be argued against. ]

See: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Doesnt_a_Theory_of_Behavior_that_can_be_fully_programmed_to_simulate_human_behavior_ie_an_AI_program_have_to_be_clear_specific_and_Concrete

and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology

P.S. Once information-processing theories had to be clear enough for you (or close to that); how and why do you think you do not need to reciprocate?

More Brad Jesness's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions