Why would the models we construct of ourselves be any different than our models we construct for other phenomena? We construct these models, and we measure our success when the model's behavior matches that of the actual system. This we call "understanding" the system. We build a model, and then test it by making predictions and seeing where those predictions go awry, and tweaking or revamping the model until it correctly predicts both the new and old behavior we have observed. When we stop having to tweak/revamp the model even as new experience continues to come in, we consider it a good model. It's like a mini version of Science, in our heads. It's what the Scientific Method was originally based on -- we built a model of what happens in our heads already, a working system, and recreated it in a formal model which now guides all of our ongoing advancements as a species. We bothered to do this because the benefits that stood out so clearly: the system (our original, naturally evolved, internal implementation of the Scientific Method that we call curiosity & rational thought) clearly works. Why would we be especially unable to build a model for our own internal workings? What's special about the particular system we call the mind that makes it unamenable to modelling?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > Giovanni, > > Going back to your earlier posting in this thread... > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Why the brain gets stuck in so many fallacies and misconceptions? >> >> Why does it take a lot of discipline and training to get rid or minimize >> these misconceptions and fallacies? >> >> Why so much human behavior is based on a world view and model of the >> world that is imaginary and very far from a realistic and physics based >> interpretation of reality (see religion as a powerful force in much of >> human history?). >> > > We model EVERYTHING, including ourselves. People develop models of what is > happening behind their eyeballs that have NOTHING in common with what is > really happening. > > The "study" of our models of ourselves, that probably have nothing in > common with actual operation, is called Cognitive Psychology. > > Some people even attempt to write code to mimic their mental models, and > we call these people AGIers. > > I have attempted to engage in discussions about this fallacy with Ben, > Richard, and others, but there has been no "pushback". This seems to be > from two causes: > 1. Anyone (like me) who dismisses nearly the whole of cognitive > psychology MUST be crazy. > 2. They couldn't grok that there was absolutely no reason to believe that > their models had anything to do with reality. > > Now, others are stepping in to fill this"void". > > Those who would argue this: Please don't post any arguments without > including a sentence or two indicating that you grok the argument that our > models of ourselves are probably unrelated to what is really happening, and > then explain why you disagree with this. > > Steve > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
