he s probably correct. A lot of what we call "human explanation" is in reality a rationalized version of a hunch, but not necessarily the best representation of

he s probably correct. A lot of what we call "human explanation" is in reality a rationalized version of a hunch, but not necessarily the best representation of it. At most situations, some part of the brain crosses a threshold and causes a decision or action, but it's rather rare that humans can explain that action correctly. It's also rare that causation can be established from unambiguous temporal order (e.g. clouds/rain); in most cases our rationalizations are post-hoc. We get a glimpse of it from recent language models: It's become rather easy to start blurting out language that is convincibly and comfortingly coherent, and it can be nudged to point to one direction or another. that doesnt mean it's true