4 ms·

Very interesting point. I wonder: are subjective experiences knowledge? Not scientific knowledge. One one side they are part of who we are. On the other side,

Very interesting point. I wonder: are subjective experiences knowledge? Not scientific knowledge. One one side they are part of who we are. On the other side, same as an airplane does not copy a bird 100%, it makes sense that to make a machine "think" we would feed it rational content. That is, content that follows the scientific method.

WJW 3y ago
I suppose that depends on what type of AI you are trying to build. One that is used to help design airplanes can mostly get by with pure scientific knowledge, although it still needs to know about softer phenomena like claustrophobia and personal space to understand that packing in humans as close as physically possible is not desired. On the other end of the AI spectrum, an AI being trained to be a childrens toy, old people companion, nursing robot or even psychologist would be incredibly deficient if it didn't understand emotions. I don't think using purely content that follows the scientific method would be sufficient for such an AI.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  Good points. I especially like the claustrophobia one in planes. On the other side, there are textbooks about "emotions". I own a Cognitive Behaviour Therapy manual (seemed interesting) that goes step by step through how to conduct a session (it is aimed at therapists or at the reader being their own) as it progresses. As a textbook, similar professional references could be more useful than say reddit or some blogs. Those other sources on the internet will be mostly derived from the reference materials in the field, or from personal anecdotes. I can imagine textbooks exists on how to deal with people on the spectrum, or for them to recognize social cues, or how symptoms of depression look like. I am still skeptical. You did not say anything of the sort, but the scientific method is not the opposite of emotions. It shows us what we know of emotions so far. Psychology has the reproducibility scandal but it is our best try. Even in the case of planes, I would not be surprised if an engineering manual mentions a minimum space for passengers to be comfortable, as part of regulations, or any other data that might as a side-effect solve the claustrophobia issue. TL;DR. Scientific knowledge is not antithetic to "human" knowledge. Scientific knowledge is what we actually know. Otherwise we have mysticism, or faith.
  - WJW 3y ago
    I'm still skeptical tbh. The scientific method in psychology seems like it could only ever work in a very probabilistic manner since, unlike physical phenomena, humans predict very different to the same stimulus depending on their own unique circumstances. For example: People react very different to being offered a bacon pizza depending on (at least) the time (not for breakfast thanks), location (funerals are right out), their pizza topping preferences, their faith, whether they've already just eaten, how much they trust the person offering the pizza, if they're currently in a group or not (is there enough for everyone?), whether they've ever had any traumatic experiences with pizza or not, if any other foods may be available, whether they have dinner with other people planned, their current dietary restrictions, whether they're ill right now or not, whether they know you are doing pizza-based experiments on them, etc etc etc etc. All of these might radically alter the response you get. It might be possible to get enough information about someone to make a reasonable guess, but you can never know if your model is complete enough. Even if the same inputs occur twice, the output might still be different based on something you cannot reasonably know. So I think it would be very difficult to construct a predicable stimulus/response model for individuals. Groups might be easier because the differences sometimes average out, but quite often the internal communication leads to feedback loops that disturb any predictions you were trying to make about their behavior. Btw there is a third option beyond "scientific knowledge" and "faith", which is simply "we do not know and may never know" without ever getting to fill in that gap. Things like "what, if anything, created the universe" fall in that category as we cannot observe such a thing. Given some information about the position of a particle, we can never be sure of its speed per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Accurate models of people could be similar: it might simply be that they cannot be meaningfully reduced to simple formulas.
    - mejutoco 3y ago
      Thanks for your reasoned answer. I agree with what you are saying. A couple more comments, not to correct anything but simply for conversation. > Btw there is a third option beyond "scientific knowledge" and "faith" The three I usually see mentioned are: I know because "argument" (reason/scientific); I believe (faith) and mysticism (I just know/I had a revelation). I agree with you, different ways of not taking a position are positions in themselves. Skepticism, nihilism, etc. > Accurate models of people could be similar: it might simply be that they cannot be meaningfully reduced to simple formulas. I agree. All models are false but some are useful.

WJW 3y ago

I suppose that depends on what type of AI you are trying to build. One that is used to help design airplanes can mostly get by with pure scientific knowledge, although it still needs to know about softer phenomena like claustrophobia and personal space to understand that packing in humans as close as physically possible is not desired. On the other end of the AI spectrum, an AI being trained to be a childrens toy, old people companion, nursing robot or even psychologist would be incredibly deficient if it didn't understand emotions. I don't think using purely content that follows the scientific method would be sufficient for such an AI.

mejutoco 3y ago
Good points. I especially like the claustrophobia one in planes. On the other side, there are textbooks about "emotions". I own a Cognitive Behaviour Therapy manual (seemed interesting) that goes step by step through how to conduct a session (it is aimed at therapists or at the reader being their own) as it progresses. As a textbook, similar professional references could be more useful than say reddit or some blogs. Those other sources on the internet will be mostly derived from the reference materials in the field, or from personal anecdotes. I can imagine textbooks exists on how to deal with people on the spectrum, or for them to recognize social cues, or how symptoms of depression look like. I am still skeptical. You did not say anything of the sort, but the scientific method is not the opposite of emotions. It shows us what we know of emotions so far. Psychology has the reproducibility scandal but it is our best try. Even in the case of planes, I would not be surprised if an engineering manual mentions a minimum space for passengers to be comfortable, as part of regulations, or any other data that might as a side-effect solve the claustrophobia issue. TL;DR. Scientific knowledge is not antithetic to "human" knowledge. Scientific knowledge is what we actually know. Otherwise we have mysticism, or faith.
- WJW 3y ago
  I'm still skeptical tbh. The scientific method in psychology seems like it could only ever work in a very probabilistic manner since, unlike physical phenomena, humans predict very different to the same stimulus depending on their own unique circumstances. For example: People react very different to being offered a bacon pizza depending on (at least) the time (not for breakfast thanks), location (funerals are right out), their pizza topping preferences, their faith, whether they've already just eaten, how much they trust the person offering the pizza, if they're currently in a group or not (is there enough for everyone?), whether they've ever had any traumatic experiences with pizza or not, if any other foods may be available, whether they have dinner with other people planned, their current dietary restrictions, whether they're ill right now or not, whether they know you are doing pizza-based experiments on them, etc etc etc etc. All of these might radically alter the response you get. It might be possible to get enough information about someone to make a reasonable guess, but you can never know if your model is complete enough. Even if the same inputs occur twice, the output might still be different based on something you cannot reasonably know. So I think it would be very difficult to construct a predicable stimulus/response model for individuals. Groups might be easier because the differences sometimes average out, but quite often the internal communication leads to feedback loops that disturb any predictions you were trying to make about their behavior. Btw there is a third option beyond "scientific knowledge" and "faith", which is simply "we do not know and may never know" without ever getting to fill in that gap. Things like "what, if anything, created the universe" fall in that category as we cannot observe such a thing. Given some information about the position of a particle, we can never be sure of its speed per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Accurate models of people could be similar: it might simply be that they cannot be meaningfully reduced to simple formulas.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    Thanks for your reasoned answer. I agree with what you are saying. A couple more comments, not to correct anything but simply for conversation. > Btw there is a third option beyond "scientific knowledge" and "faith" The three I usually see mentioned are: I know because "argument" (reason/scientific); I believe (faith) and mysticism (I just know/I had a revelation). I agree with you, different ways of not taking a position are positions in themselves. Skepticism, nihilism, etc. > Accurate models of people could be similar: it might simply be that they cannot be meaningfully reduced to simple formulas. I agree. All models are false but some are useful.