3 ms·
I suppose we are on the cusp of the first thing that can accurately think about thinking, that is have true self-access and introspection, not the post hoc rati
by idiotsecant 1mo ago
I suppose we are on the cusp of the first thing that can accurately think about thinking, that is have true self-access and introspection, not the post hoc rationalisation we do. That is legitimately a new kind of thinking, and to an entity capable of such a mode we might b prescribed as barely able to think at all
- andai 1mo agoI had a conversation on my frustration with intellectual sparring partners today. The main insight was that I require people who think. That's a separate quality from intelligence or knowledge. The closest thing is "need for cognition" (which is apparently a dimension of personality). From where I'm standing, most people have a strong need to avoid cognition (and the machine described humans as "cognitive misers"!) However need for cognition is apparently a separate dimension from caring what is actually true. (10 hours of motivated reasoning satisfy NFC but not the latter.) And another dimension was, tolerance for ambiguity and lack of closure. Another was Openness, and Intellect, both of which correlated with experiencing confusion as motivating rather than aversive. All of which turned out to be basic prerequisites for thinking clearly about things. Apparently each of those qualities is rare and apparently you need all of them. So yeah, I think you might be right.