Because we're interested in the underlying properties of a physical system, eg., people, and this systems happens to be able to provide extremely poor models of itself (Q&A).
We're not interested in people's extremely poor self-modelling which is pragmatically useful for managing their lives, we're interested in what they are trying to model: their properties.
The same is esp. true of a machine's immitation of "self-reports". We're now two steps removed: at least with people they are actually engaged in self-modelling over time. ChatGPT here isnt updating its self-model in response to its behaviour, it has no self-model nor self-modelling system.
To take the output of a text generation alg. as evidence of anything about its own internal state is so profoundly pseudoscientific it's kinda shocking. The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use about it.
Every advancement in human knowledge is preconditioned on opposing this falsehood; why jump back into pre-scientific religion as soon as a machine is the thing generating the text?
Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees....
This is required, it is non-negotiable. And what we have with people who'd print-off ChatGPT and believe it is the worst form of anti-science
> The whole of the history of science is an attack on this very superstition: that the properties of the world are simply "to be read from" the language we use about it.
This is something where I agree with you. Interestingly, non-naturalistic analytical metaphysics supposes it can do just that.
Philosophy is continuous with science in my view and hence in what words express
That is, in the use of words. Not in words as objects nor words as mirrors --/
this is the road to non-realist spiritualism
I don't have a problem with a person who maintains a non-scientific world view and with electrical AGI mumbojbo
But
of course, few do. They think that they're empiricists, scientists and in the side of some austere hard look at human beings
This is just anti-human spiritualism , it isn't science
what makes me vicious on this point is the sense of injury in what these ideas should be about. in my own mildly aristotleian materialist religion
How awful to overcome one long veil of tears, only to drape another one on -- these people are capable of seeing past human folly, but
fall right into another kind
it's disappointing--- we're animals which are both far much more than electric switches and far
less
this new electic digital spiritualism is a PR grift which i'd prefer dead
On the one hand, you express strong support for empiricism and the scientific method, but on the other, you express strong beliefs on how things must be without offering any empirical justification for them.
>We're not interested in people's extremely poor self-modelling which is pragmatically useful for managing their lives, we're interested in what they are trying to model: their properties.
>Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees....This is required, it is non-negotiable.
Whoa, whoah, whoah, hold on there.
Who says that Q&A in Psychological Research doesn't involve "Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees...."
?
Where are you coming from? Your responses don't sound very scientific. You don't sound like you're even aware of the different research methods within neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Your responses sound like someone who wants to be perceived as supporting a scientific approach, but doesn't understand how to actually do these things.
This is why I quized you and gave you the chance to respond about your issues with Q&A in psychological research. You just came back with surface level platitudes. which doesn't lend much confidence to the ideathat you have anything other prejudice.
Go talk to a neuroscientist, a cognitive psychologist, you need to catch up and quick if you want to speak on these topics.
--
>Whatever way we demonstrate it, it isnt via Q&A. This is the worst form of pseudoscientific psychology you can imagine.
...versus...
>Hash tables dont think, hash tables model conversations, thef. being a model of a conversation is not grounds to suppose consciousness.
--
Before I dissect your contradiction and lay it out, I'll give you the chance to respond.
Why do you feel that Q&A is "the worst form of pseudoscientific psychology you can imagine"
?
reply