4 ms·

> We just accept individual introspection as ground truth Isn't a fundamental of scientific method to not accept introspection, but to require publicly observa

> We just accept individual introspection as ground truth Isn't a fundamental of scientific method to not accept introspection, but to require publicly observable, reproducible evidence?

drb91 8y ago
Yes; however deductive reasoning is stronger evidence if you have it. It seems that’s what the OP might be implying, although I haven’t seen much of this in model research (empirical evidence is much easier to gather).
taneq 8y ago
Yeah, but if a driverless car does something stupid, people want an exact diagnosis ("sensor X failed", "the vision algorithm misidentified Ms. Whatsit as a paper bag due to a bug on line 714", etc.) whereas a human driver can say "I thought they were going to brake" and we just accept that that's why the person did it.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  The difference is that neural nets are technologicl artifacts that we design and manufacture, unlike our own minds. We generally make sure that when we design and create such things, we know how to control them. For example, a car breaking system that randomly failed to stop the car under conditions that were impossible to understand would be unacceptable. When a component of a safety-critical system fails, we want to know why it fails. Not because we're curious, but because we want to avoid failure in the future. If the component is a black box that can't be reasoned about, then we can't know whether it will fail again in the future. Also: "Ms Whatsit"? In view of the Uber accident, that is extremely insensitive.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  The algorithm itself did not provide this diagnostic data, unlike a human who sometimes can. (e.g. was distracted by a phone; it was too dark; the person entered the street from between the cars etc.) Of course they can also lie. Blackbox data is always in need of careful interpretation.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > whereas a human driver can say "I thought they were going to brake" and we just accept that that's why the person did it. We don't accept it. That person is cross-examined, doubted, their statement corroborated with other evidence - were they on their phone? What does the car telemetry say - when did they start braking? How fast were they going? What do witnesses say?
s-shellfish 8y ago
This is clearly the fundamental flaw of any study that attempts to study the mind. You can't publicly observe thoughts. You can convince yourself that the mind functions in a particular way because you may find yourself synced in with a group where it appears your own thoughts are reliable predictors for everything that are not your own thoughts, but this is clearly flawed. All (and obviously, I don't say this lightly) you have to do is ask yourself the question whether you have the ability to select a different thought. A single different thought to use as a ground. You can ask yourself that question for the rest of your life. Causality when it comes to mental events, while removing the ability to accept introspection as a valid means of reasoning. This is pure absurdity at it's finest hour.

> We just accept individual introspection as ground truth Isn't a fundamental of scientific method to not accept introspection, but to require publicly observable, reproducible evidence?

drb91 8y ago

Yes; however deductive reasoning is stronger evidence if you have it. It seems that’s what the OP might be implying, although I haven’t seen much of this in model research (empirical evidence is much easier to gather).

taneq 8y ago

Yeah, but if a driverless car does something stupid, people want an exact diagnosis ("sensor X failed", "the vision algorithm misidentified Ms. Whatsit as a paper bag due to a bug on line 714", etc.) whereas a human driver can say "I thought they were going to brake" and we just accept that that's why the person did it.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
The difference is that neural nets are technologicl artifacts that we design and manufacture, unlike our own minds. We generally make sure that when we design and create such things, we know how to control them. For example, a car breaking system that randomly failed to stop the car under conditions that were impossible to understand would be unacceptable. When a component of a safety-critical system fails, we want to know why it fails. Not because we're curious, but because we want to avoid failure in the future. If the component is a black box that can't be reasoned about, then we can't know whether it will fail again in the future. Also: "Ms Whatsit"? In view of the Uber accident, that is extremely insensitive.
AstralStorm 8y ago
The algorithm itself did not provide this diagnostic data, unlike a human who sometimes can. (e.g. was distracted by a phone; it was too dark; the person entered the street from between the cars etc.) Of course they can also lie. Blackbox data is always in need of careful interpretation.
forapurpose 8y ago
> whereas a human driver can say "I thought they were going to brake" and we just accept that that's why the person did it. We don't accept it. That person is cross-examined, doubted, their statement corroborated with other evidence - were they on their phone? What does the car telemetry say - when did they start braking? How fast were they going? What do witnesses say?

s-shellfish 8y ago

This is clearly the fundamental flaw of any study that attempts to study the mind. You can't publicly observe thoughts. You can convince yourself that the mind functions in a particular way because you may find yourself synced in with a group where it appears your own thoughts are reliable predictors for everything that are not your own thoughts, but this is clearly flawed. All (and obviously, I don't say this lightly) you have to do is ask yourself the question whether you have the ability to select a different thought. A single different thought to use as a ground. You can ask yourself that question for the rest of your life. Causality when it comes to mental events, while removing the ability to accept introspection as a valid means of reasoning. This is pure absurdity at it's finest hour.