new | show | ask | jobs Github

Workaccount2 5 days ago

There is no source and arguing this is dumb because no one knows what reasoning or understanding is. No one.

So all we have is "Does it swim like a duck, look like a duck, quack like a duck?"

▲

adastra22 5 days ago | parent [-]

I’m sympathetic to your point, but this isn’t quite fair. The field of psychology does exist.

▲

Workaccount2 5 days ago | parent [-]

Neuroscience is the field that would be closest to this. But even they are empty handed with evidence and heavy with hypotheses.

▲

adastra22 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, psychology is right. Psychology studies what the properties of thought are. Neuroscience studies the specific biochemical mechanisms of the brain. Psychology is the study of what mental reasoning IS, while neuroscience is the study of HOW neurons in our brain implement it.

If you are asking “ok, but what is reasoning, really? What definition of reasoning would enable us to recognize whether it is going on in this AI or not?” it is a question of psychology. Unless we are restricting ourselves to whole brain emulation only.

	▲	salutis 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Psychology is stuck in pre-Galilean era. Even if it studies "properties of thought", as you put it, it does so without formal basis, let alone understanding from first principles. As Chomsky said, about psychology and the like, "You want to move from behavioral science to authentic science." [1] [1] Chomsky & Krauss (2015) An Origins Project Dialogue at https://youtu.be/Ml1G919Bts0