Brad Jesness has added an update
Sep 15,2021
Psychology (and AI/AGI) seriously lack appreciation for inductive reasoning ...
Psychology (and, thus also: AI/AGI) seriously lack appreciation for inductive reasoning, even though that is what humans do and need to do most of the time. The only interest in inductive reasoning comes up with the topic of analogies (this is A TINY FRACTION of the use of induction -- inductive reasoning -- by humans). THIS is Psychology's and AI/AGI's BIGGEST PROBLEM (and this is an extremely serious AND CRITICAL problem); I do offer a cure (how to think, look, and see differently and what comes of that) : READ ME, OR it seems you are VERY STUCK and will stay that way -- time and history has ALREADY shown us that; and, things will improve greatly ONLY IF you can take another critical and much-needed, in fact VITAL, perspective and approach. Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/AI_AGI_what_you_all_need_is_self-generative_processes_otherwise_for-sure_therell_be_NO_AGI
Brad Jesness has added an update
Sep 1,2021
Key parts of my view and position, as briefly as I can present it (for readers, for "starters")
I appreciate that for cognizance , a BRIEF presentation of a view-and-approach needs to be made (the reason is: to be in line with the limited nature of working memory/explicit attention). The following brief overview is one I present late in life -- first stated just in the last couple of days. [ Of course, one must realize this presentation does not include the specifics : specific aspects of the nature of that found, even some of those which must be assumed NOR are the very-near-clear testable hypotheses HERE (in the paragraphs, below). But after digesting the "outline" (actually: part-"picture"), below, ALL that refines the view and approach, in all my all-related writings which have come before, make all (everything, to start behavior science) more clear and more recognizable as truly THAT: the clear view, in totality, at present. ALL writings, articles, numerous essays and a "book" are available here on ResearchGate. ] Here goes, starting with characteristics that must be involved (and adhering to all such as other aspects are described). : First, involved : Establishment of NECESSARY premises and the observance thereof (NOTE, don't worry : All true science, by its basic/necessary/required view and approach, is SELF-CORRECTING; if what you are doing cannot be perfectly well-seen as having the characteristic of self-correction, then THAT -- what you are doing -- is NOT science). ALWAYS : Observation of the Subject with respect to that/those good assumptions. Then see what develops (changes) OR has developed (changed) during the exercise of reliable, directly observable OVERT behavior PATTERNS (Subject action, with Subject-defined (thus : related) environmental aspects). ALL of this -- seen-KEY environment aspects and Subject behavior patterns -- is concrete, right before your eyes OR must have so overtly developed to simply keep empirical consistency while ALWAYS HAVING (or having had) concepts (along with the corresponding behavioral patterns they represent) AT INCEPTION: with clear EMPIRICAL ANCHORS, FOUNDATIONS, OR KEY BEGINNINGS for ANY changes, observed (including this , as thought about -- BUT limit this latter reasoning (your hypothetical-deductive thought) to situations where your thinking is simply a necessity, a MUST, to move on (otherwise completely eschew it)). And, with one's thought-ideas, one must not stray away from basic established principles or from the strict empirical standard of directly observable overt evidence; and so, eventually, your ideas should help DISCOVER more directly observable overt evidence and thus your ideas should fit with the rest of the inductive "story" and, in fact, be part of the inductive "story" (real-life representation, and the representation of THAT). For living things: always see how a behavior pattern relates to other pertinent, established behavior patterns OR such other behavior patterns necessarily present with the clear exercise of the behavior patterns of concern and of note (thus, other behavior PATTERNS are important and always present). The inductive reasoning should only promote the ability to see (and "see") more. (NOTE: All in Psychology is in terms of BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ( behavior patterns, established and associated via necessary observations and strict empirical foundations -- as described above). _THEN_ MORE direct observation, with some inductive reasoning, as needed; the additional necessary observations continuing the clear strict empirical relations (with other pertinent (e.g. surrounding PATTERNS) and environmental aspects). __THEN__ MORE direct observation, with possibly some more inductive reasoning. VERY MUCH of all this (and much concentration and contemplation and abidance is involved -- committed dedication) to stick with properly viewing the Subject (behavior patterns) and for rightly judging all research.) Again, at points, when it it is impossible not to do otherwise: one may cite seeming necessary hypothetical-deductive systems (e.g. models) BUT behavior patterns are still always seen and at play and, THESE, so conceptualized still must not violate strict empirical standards -- so ALL is still with the standard of KEY observable OVERT inceptions, beginnings, clear (agreed upon) foundations; IN FACT absolutely ALL concepts you "believe in" OR have seen clear evidence of MUST HAVE THOSE KEY STRICTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT PATTERNS starting major change (clear beginnings or clear MUST-HAVE foundations). It is seen that, in realizing this strict empiricism, ALL CHANGE INVOLVES SIMPLY ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING. And, also note: all this involves changes that are associated with true, DISCOVERED proximate "causes" (OR "conditions for" [ what's next ] ...). When doing all this, be parsimonious, using ONLY existing concepts and research which abides by or did abide by all noted above. This is part of parsimony -- using only truly good research; the rest is using JUST such research and clear concepts therefrom generated and clearly related or generated as related to your or others research results , under the standard of strict empiricism (most, as with MOST good thought of all thinking humans, is connected from the KEY behavior patterns and connections and that which is represented via inductive reasoning <-- thus, all associated ONLY with pure empiricism).