"What is good for General Artificial Intelligence is good for Psychology" sounds like a theorem - It should be proved.

Dear Iliescu Dragos

Maybe with my 800 pages of writings available (and relevant to the question) perhaps I have proved it -- to the extent something (i.e. all key major aspects of a theory and related models) may be directly grounded or clearly founded empirically in direct observation of overt phenomenon, thus "proven".

In my opinion, general artificial intelligence maybe emotionless, therefor there is no any problem for Psychology.

Brad Jesness

I didn't notice about your 800 pages. Sorry for that.

But since this is already proven, why do you think it is ignored? It is a matter of GAI or Psychology?

Dear Iliescu Dragos

Thanks for your question. The answer is: Psychology. It has, by definition, supposed to be the science of behavior. The field has been around for over 100 years, but has yet to develop an outlook and approach that could be considered a legitimate science paradigm. To put it in more concrete terms: Psychology does not strive for, or achieve, a necessary good level of empiricism (its "empiricism" is , in a sense, 'fake', too indirect: in particular, inadequate FOR clear interpretation of findings -- for very strong inter-observer reliabilities). Good empiricism requires that everything must be grounded in, clearly founded in, key directly observable overt phenomenon; there must be, for every concept, in any theory or model, some key directly observable overt phenomenon from which EVERY BEHAVIOR pattern discussed/"covered" clearly STEMS: AT LEAST at the INCEPTION of any significant new behavior pattern(s), there MUST BE key directly observable overt phenomenon that define them (and THEN, some continuity from THAT must be shown).

My system provides for meeting this empirical standard, an empirical standard that, at the core, DEFINES a SCIENCE or is obviously ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for science. My outlook and approach is a science paradigm for Psychology. It appears it is a "first" for General Psychology. No reasonable scientist or psychologist could disagree with the standard set (much less dispute it). If Ethogram Theory is "wrong", it is NOT "wrong" for the empirical standard set (and this standard supposedly works "within"/for this theory, for ALL allowed concept/model development).

Brad Jesness

1. I rather seen a connection among AI and Technology. But if the GAI - Psychology exists also, it looks now like a triangle Psychology - GAI - Technology exists too. Not a "simple" triangle, but one where some specific relationships run over. The most intriguing relationships are, in my view, those of Technology - Psychology link. How you see this triangle, or the Psychology - Technology link? (the most important keyword in this link is the one of consciousness).

2. I have noticed you used the term of 'good' in your posts. What is meaning of 'good' (i.e. good level of empiricism)? Is it specific enough to classify Psychology?

Dear Iliescu Dragos

You ask, " How you see this triangle, or the Psychology - Technology link? (the most important keyword in this link is the one of consciousness)". I consider the overlap of necessary Psychology conceptualizations and between these in Psychology and necessary developments in AGI to be most notable and quite substantial (NOTE: regarding some of the major conceptualizations for Psychology: some are still needed by way of new observations and THE clearer actual patterns there yet to be truly or reasonably-fully discovered) *. My Project https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology will clearly indicate at least many major facets of this *.

Regarding consciousness, see my recent answer (of today) to: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_consciousness_still_mysterious

I use the term "good" to refer to the way empiricism is done, indeed. This "way" is just insisting on clear, reliable and seemingly valid links between ALL concepts AND/with (minimally) some KEY directly observable overt phenomenon -- at some linked time (e.g. in the ontogeny of the organism, at the inceptions of clear, new behavior patterns).

* FOOTNOTE: Also see my Project, https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-for-PSYCHOLOGY All my work is available on RG.

Brad Jesness

I just take a short tour of what you proposed. OK, your main point falls on Psychology, since myself come with Technology. I do not claim that on this short tour I fully understand your point(s), especially the one where you declare about the consciousness is not mysterious anymore. There are so many others saying it still is...

Or, the machines that must developed themselves, again there are so many other they are denying this.

However, returning to the initial post theme "Simple but ignored..." let put it in these terms: simple - a representation of soundness. The term of ignored is making me a bit of confusion. It is the Psychology involved here as you mentioned above, but I think myself that I am on the Technology side. So, in conclusion, I do respect your work in the field, but still it do not demonstrate the ignored term. Or I am the one I do not understand.

Thank you for your explanations.

Dragos iliescu

Dear Iliescu Dragos

My recent response in the thread of the Question, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Many_things_behaviors_are_explained_on_sensorimotor_bases_but_unable_to_be_shown_at_the_same_time_in_Psychology_Piaget_is_losing_popularity , MAY WELL GIVE YOU an imaginable over-view of what I am talking about related to theory (my Ethogram Theory, in particular).

Maybe to encourage reading of this Response, I will quote a major portion of it here: (I have been in contact with major AGI people about all this)(perhaps since I am quoting myself, I could leave out the quotes -- but I shall do as I usually do):

"My writings are certainly pertinent to ideas about Internal V External world; in fact, my theory and the related testable hypotheses have to do with the concrete bases of abstraction (abstract thought) at their inceptions (also indicated as having happened by soon-coming qualitative shifts in thinking likely with also-observable effects on behavior patterns, though these may be yet more subtle): these concrete (overt directly observable) inceptions of what makes for abstract thought are potentially observable with new eye technology (even in the lab, if you know what you are looking for and are looking at the right times (correct points in ontogeny), in the right way); in any case they occur quickly because these inceptions involve perceptual shifts, which soon become perceptual/attentional shifts -- phenomenon, which occur quickly and may develop at least at first quickly (this making for why they indeed can be literally: seen).

... ... at this point major interest has been from general artificial intelligence people (aka AGI people)) *

....

* FOOTNOTE : AGI people being people who need somethings to properly impel qualitative shifts in behavior of their "robots", some (in particular) coming from, or instigated by, the "agent" itself. (Having a basis for this eliminates at least 3 of 5 major lingering problems in AGI -- and that is SOMETHING. As our understandings have followed information-processing theories in the past, so this may occur again -- if the AI people are the first to try to apply such things as I outline.)"

(end quote of myself, from that other thread)

Some of this seems clearly pertinent to your concern of: " ... the machines that must developed themselves, ..."

I would add (do add) here in THIS thread that AI and AGI people have a great advantage in that they can guess and then test their guesses quickly. I should also mention that the "perceptual shifts" I speak of (in the human) involve conditions of "memory" (the Memories), this allowing for an "opening" for new input (processing of information) from other/new aspects of the environment (these NOT necessarily present in every instance of the circumstances -- BECAUSE of "memory"). [ This completes about the shortest overview I can provide. ]

A very "little" P.S. for my friend, Iliescu Dragos : the entire phrase that "ignored" appears in in the title of the "Question" may be deleted (i.e. "Simple, but ignored:" may be deleted). You certainly do some close examination, so much so that I really did not understand your concern here. In any case you have my regards and best wishes.