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?
Since Gödel 's undecidability theorem ... metamathematics have proved the limit of the logic that is the basis of our reasoning ... Our native intelligence allows us to solve and create some problems and to stay alive for a period of time. Certainly our intelligence helps us to understand the world. But we remain creatures, all our intelligence is intrinsic to our essence as a thinking thing, a created thing .... we can not escape to our being-thing (dynamic creature). Intelligence is basically not a thing, but we are a thing since we are created. How to escape? it will be necessary to put an end to death! impossible ? it's the dual of life! ... so we are meta-intelligent :) we create artificial intelligence :)
Dear Ashkan Latifi
I am not reducing psychology to AI (as you seem to think somehow); clearly, I am just noting (from evaluation) that psychology is not objective, empirically-grounded OR well-founded enough TO BE GOOD ENOUGH TO USE FOR AI .
I should add, as I indicated before, that modern psychology is really NOT GOOD ENOUGH for ANY continuously progressing science -- thus, in a sense, modern psychology is not good enough (or anything near the best it might be) for anything or for any decent scientist (including those in psychology itself). It is not good enough for anything to be truly or well understood AND is not moving in an appropriate direction to further establish itself (towards more essentially-needed objectivity, empiricism). Here's the basic case:
Modern psychologies (and this is true of EVERY BRANCH) is not able to be put many of its central concepts in any concrete terms (OR in terms that are always clearly RELATED to directly observed key concrete happenings); specifically: [it lacks] having all significant behavior (including ALL that goes on "in the head") CLEARLY RELATED TO SOME KEY DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (occurring at some key times), OPERATING AS A PROXIMATE CAUSES (along with the key, relevant aspects of the environment, present at that time -- also as proximate causes).
Dear Ashkan Latifi
Indeed it seems a clarification of what I am talking about as "psychology" is needed. I am happy to provide that. ALL psychology I think about is that which fits with the classic definition: The science of behavior (all types, including cognition and cognitive processes, AND centrally: the Memories) _AND_ the environmental aspects to which the behavior patterns are a response. That is it for me: behavior and environment. AND, I believe a full science of JUST THAT is possible (and I make this more than clearly plausible in my writings, available through RG), even with no help from brain science or anything else. That classic psychology alone can provide a true science with endless progress possible --- and there is a way it can all be the most empirically-based psychology possible !!!
I largely abhor philosophers; I see most as deceitful, pretending "pure" general conclusions when they arrive at supposedly-such but, really, only with a hidden "ax to grind", i.e. only with some significantly biasing hidden assumptions -- even if some may not recognize their deceit or being deceitful. I certainly see almost all the philosophers who have been taken-in as part of our culture this way. Philosophy IS the basis of all the huge problems with psychology, outlooks and pseudo-'assumptions' used AND making us (that is : 'THEM', and most of us) ABSOLUTELY BLIND TO MORE-LIKELY, BIOLOGICALLY-COMPATIBLE AND BIOLOGICALLY-CONSISTENT REAL ASSUMPTIONS, often the opposite of the unproven, baseless, unjustified, and foundationless "assumptions" used by psychology today. This culture of grandiosity from philosophy (e.g. that ubiquitous simple sorts of "learning" is all there is) limits even the ability to IMAGINE OR CONSIDER certain likely possibilities, so much so that today's psychologists posit things without ANY direct evidence (and which will never will have any direct evidence) and which are absurd* -- and could only come about through such serious bias and related skewed-ness (
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology