A Secret About Questions

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A Secret About Questions

I have a secret I recently learned about questions and I want to share it here.

I put this in "Tips for Everyday Living" because this secret can impact your everyday life, just as it did mine.

Here's the secret. And it is a secret although many people already know it. I know I should do a Hollywood build-up, but this one hit me too hard to want to fancy it up. So here goes:

The human brain automatically responds to questions.

I don't know the physiological or biological reasons for this. I didn't learn this secret studying a science paper. But I have found it to be true. I gradually became aware of it studying persuasion techniques from a variety of places. It finally became very clear to me while listening to a Tony Robbins tape on sales motivation.

How do persuaders use this secret? Easy. A question automatically focuses the attention of a target on a topic the questioner chooses. (Do you like how I am now asking you questions? Heh.)

The brain can't stop itself from automatically focusing when a question is asked. It is true that a person can tune out an entire message, but his brain can't be passive to a question that is in a message he is paying attention to—even if the response is something like, "I refuse to contemplate that."

So a trained persuader will ask a question to focus a target's mind on something he wants the target to think about and/or do. There's a lot of sneaky stuff I have read regarding how they use this, too. But those techniques are beyond the scope of what I want to say here. My main purpose is actually a question:

How can we use this secret to improve our lives?

And, to me, this is the good part. The trick is to ask good questions.

If someone asks you a bunch of poor questions, irritation soon sets in. Your brain automatically gives one poor response after another. You can't do that all day and not be affected. A good example is the way parents ultimately get cross with a child who constantly asks, "Why?" to everything. Their brains can't help but try to produce the answers, but they know there are no answers to many of the questions. Also, the child is often horsing around trying to get a reaction instead of asking for actual information. A question interrupts their inner dialog with themselves over nonsense. Then again. Then again. Then again... Then boom!

So how can we use this every day? That's easy, too, as I found out.

All decent marketing materials mention at some point that your attitude will be greatly influenced by the things you surround yourself with. That goes for the thoughts you hold in awareness. In other words, if you hold good positive information in your mind, your attitude will be positive. You will strive harder to achieve your goals as a result. If you focus on mostly negative stuff and only hang out with chronic complainers, you will be down on life and very likely your productivity will suffer.

Here's the rub in choosing the good stuff, though. You have oodles of information stored in your memory. And it's a mess in terms of organization. The good, the bad, the ugly, the useful, the trivial, the sacred, the profane. It's all over the place. In order to bring it to the surface (conscious awareness) according to a standard, you have to tell it to come up. Or you have to tell your subconscious to find certain stuff and shove it up into awareness.

The very best way nature gives us to do this through a filter is to ask questions. If you ask something specific of the brain, it will give you something specific back.

Now what happens if you ask a garbage question? Obviously, the brain will automatically give you garbage information. And if you ask a good question? You get good information, of course.

One of the worst things you can do to yourself is to keep asking questions you know you can't possibly answer.

Why don't those people drive faster?

What's wrong with that jerk?

Why is this happening to me?

Why can't people just do the right thing?

How could he possibly think that?

And so on...

There's no way you can know why "those people" don't drive faster (presuming no one is in front of them). Maybe their car has trouble. Maybe they are getting sick. Maybe they are learning how to drive. Maybe they are rip-roaring assholes. There's know way you can know. And your brain knows it, too. So it loops in one false answer back to the question, back to another false answer and back to the question, and so on until you are nothing but good and mad at the world.

The same goes for the other questions. All they do is make you upset and frustrated. And you can't turn your brain off so long as the question is there.

I caught myself this morning doing this. I was feeling terrible. Depressed and irritable. I kept asking in my mind, "Why do I have to feel bad like this?" "Why won't this go away?" "Why bother?" And so on...

Then I thought, on looking at it, these questions sound like pure garbage. No wonder I feel bad. Let me try a different question. So I asked myself, "What can I do to feel better?"

Whamaroonie!

Just by asking that question, I immediately started to feel better. Then some pleasant ideas started coming. There actually were some things I could do to feel better, starting with thinking about an Internet template I am working on.

And I sat staring for a bit, absolutely astonished.

Dayaamm! It worked!

The truth is it didn't last too long since my depression was a bit deep. But when the good vibes started fading, I asked myself once again, "What can I do to feel better?"

Bam! Up again.

I asked my brain a good question and it responded automatically with a good response.

How cool is that? I'll tell you how cool. It doesn't get any cooler for me. I like it. A lot.

So now what?

I don't know about you, but I'm taking this one to the bank. I've already started planning an Internet marketing project around it.

Why don't you give it a try? (Assuming you don't already do this.) I'm interested in hearing how this works when others do it.

This also got me to speculating about why intelligent grownups with good hearts hold on so strongly to bad ideas—to bad philosophies.

And I got to thinking that maybe the quality of the ideas is not the problem at all. Maybe those ideas are more the result than the cause.

Maybe the real problem (or one of the main problems, anyway) is the quality of the questions they keep asking.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Interesting, Michael.

I can attest to the irritation of the continuous "whys?" I might try the simple "what can you do to feel better?" approach for some of my co-workers that are in a slump.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

Here is what I have been thinking on a political level. It's a bit oversimplified, but I see it all over the place.

Notice that when people ask, "Why doesn't someone do something about poverty?", there is an easy answer and even reasonable people adhere to it (since the brain has to respond with something): pass a law and take a little bit from everyone to redistribute to the poor. Make everybody chip in. This goes by all kinds of names, but that is essentially what it is.

The person who asks: "What can I do about poverty?" does not go this route. His brain answers for him to first get himself out of poverty (or makes sure he is not in it) by working, then employ a lot of others. That gets them and their families out of poverty better than any other solution on earth.

I wonder what would happen if the question:

"Why doesn't someone do something about poverty?"

were countered with another question:

"What can you do about poverty? I mean you personally?"

instead of an argument. With fanatics, I don't see it making a dent (the brain has to respond, but they don't have brains ), but I do see it impacting reasonable people.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

MSK, your point about the importance of asking questions is a good one. I wish more Oists understood how to do that in trying to persuade people or the philosophy instead of delivering long-winded, browbeating lectures.

Questions can assess where you are: "Do you disagree? Do you understand what I mean by rational egoism? Do you think having a theory of ethics is important? Why not? How do you answer these questions?"

They can make the other party think: "How do you -know- there is a God? If he speaks to other people how come he's never spoken to you? What would the world be like if everyone were an altruist? Do you want someone to love you, marry you -purely- altruistically? ..."

They can show that you want the other party's participation, and don't intend to deliver a monologue (so they can take a nap).

[Alfonso Jones]

Just a historical note: Did you notice the similarity between the particular question about poverty, and Barbara Branden's comment, cited by Ayn Rand, on the question about

"What should be done about the poor"

and Barbara Branden's answer being, as reported by Rand

"If you want to help them, you won't be stopped."

The same sort of thing there. Turning it from a "what should some other third party, or a collective (government, society or even an unstated collective)" to "what will you do?"

Regards,

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Just a historical note: Did you notice the similarity between the particular question about poverty, and Barbara Branden's comment, cited by Ayn Rand, on the question about

"What should be done about the poor"

and Barbara Branden's answer being, as reported by Rand

"If you want to help them, you won't be stopped."

The same sort of thing there. Turning it from a "what should some other third party, or a collective (government, society or even an unstated collective)" to "what will you do?"

Regards,

Bill P

My memory may be failing me here, but I think Barbara is no longer cherry with this answer.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Just a historical note: Did you notice the similarity between the particular question about poverty, and Barbara Branden's comment, cited by Ayn Rand, on the question about

"What should be done about the poor"

and Barbara Branden's answer being, as reported by Rand

"If you want to help them, you won't be stopped."

The same sort of thing there. Turning it from a "what should some other third party, or a collective (government, society or even an unstated collective)" to "what will you do?"

Regards,

Bill P

My memory may be failing me here, but I think Barbara is no longer cherry with this answer.

--Brant

I have a similar impression.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This might have been bopping around in my subconscious when I mentioned it, but that is not my point. My focus here is on the subliminal effect of a question. Rand answered with a statement. I wonder how much more powerful her response would have been (in terms of general impact on the public) if she had framed it as a question or added a question to it.

I remember from Sunday School classes when I was young a teacher saying one of the most powerful methods of Jesus's teaching is that he always answered a question with a question.

It certainly seems to work in terms of persuasion. I think I see why, now.

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

Yes, but why do you always have to answer a question with a question?

Reminds me of when my wife and I were raising our daughter. We sort of expected the terrible twos, the tantrum threes, the frustrating fours, etc. etc. etc. We were expecting the age of "WHY?", so, from the time she was born, we never asked "Why" out loud about anything, using the phrase "How come" instead. Wouldn't you know it. When she hit that age, it was "How come this" and "How come that". Can you win for losin'?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Steve Gagne

[CNA]

A Secret About Questions

I have a secret I recently learned about questions and I want to share it here.I caught myself this morning doing this. I was feeling terrible. Depressed and irritable. I kept asking in my mind, "Why do I have to feel bad like this?" "Why won't this go away?" "Why bother?" And so on...

Then I thought, on looking at it, these questions sound like pure garbage. No wonder I feel bad. Let me try a different question. So I asked myself, "What can I do to feel better?"

Whamaroonie!

Just by asking that question, I immediately started to feel better. Then some pleasant ideas started coming. There actually were some things I could do to feel better, starting with thinking about an Internet template I am working on.

And I sat staring for a bit, absolutely astonished.

Dayaamm! It worked!

The truth is it didn't last too long since my depression was a bit deep. But when the good vibes started fading, I asked myself once again, "What can I do to feel better?"

Bam! Up again.

I asked my brain a good question and it responded automatically with a good response.

How cool is that? I'll tell you how cool. It doesn't get any cooler for me. I like it. A lot.

So now what?

I don't know about you, but I'm taking this one to the bank. I've already started planning an Internet marketing project around it.

Truly enjoyed the article and I absolutely love, love, love the inner voice and the persistence of those questions so many people ask themselves but choose to ignore and to never answer. Not all but there's a lot out there that never follow through on it when asking themselves questions. Always the whats and whys of it all and why they do what they do, LOI and LOC. Your signature of Know Thyself speaks volumes....all else seems to follow thereafter. Questions that once were difficult to answer or possibly viewed as garbage questions become easier to answer and draw a conclusion on. If you can't answer one question, always ask another question and approach it from a different angle just as you've indicated. Even if the question is at first answered incorrectly based on the knowledge you possess at that time, the persistence of those questions and approaching it from all angles will eventually narrow down to the correct answer. The questions will never stop and continually build on to each other, the hierarchy of knowledge. I know there are those that snicker at such an idea but I have also found just as you have that this is what works for me in regards to "my" whats and whys!!

Great article!!!

LOL...I wonder if I can get this damn quote thing to work. been here forever but still a damn newbie...Oi

Edited November 15, 2009 by CNA

[syrakusos]

I would like to know more about the ontology of questions. Obviously, there is a syntactic difference between a question and a statement, even for languages that do not have our structures. The rising (or falling) of the tone of voice, or a certain "marker" to denote a question serves the same purpose. To me, the link to whatever is in the brain -- more of a giant "gland" than a digital computer -- must trigger curiosity. The attraction of the unknown is different from the stimulus of food or sex. The unknown is dangerous. At some level predator can become prey -- when I was a kid, the local paper ran snapshots of a grasshopper at the local zoo eating a preying mantiss; "It happens sometimes," said the curator. Sex of course is death, too, for the male mantiss as for other males. Even allowing for that, however -- and perhaps that is, indeed, the kernel of the motivation for curiosity -- it seems that for higher animals, curiosity is a separate drive. It seemingly evolved differently. Curiosity killed the cat. No one accuses dogs or cows of curiosity.

For humans, our intellectual evolution has accelerated since the invention of writing, so much so, that is perhaps now impossible to disentangle the skeins and threads of the effect of literacy on the human mind. It may be -- following Julian Jaynes -- that writing caused personality. That is all the more curious when you consider that literacy was an outgrowth of numeracy: accounting antedates poetry by a thousand years.

So, one theory would be that "how much?" and "how many?" are compelling.

The word "what" -- seemingly simple -- is actually a compound, the neutral of "who". Perhaps identifying "who" is fundamental to our interests ... or perhaps the etymologists overlook the objective inference that a "who" is just another kind of "what".

In any event, your essay on Questions raised more questions.

Thanks!

MEM

[psychoanaleesis]

Wowza! Thanks for bring this up to awareness again Michael! The human brain never stops working and it's said that should it be attached to the right electrical transformer, it could jump start a car! How cool is that???

And you know what, the questions doesn't even have to necessarily answered with a verbal response. What is it? Emotions. Your facial expression changes, body language, everything starts falling in place when you focus on something. I've read somewhere in the Ayn Rand lexicon of a term they use in IT... GiGo - garbage in, garbage out.

Am having a continuous train of positive thoughts because I just asked myself, "What do I need to do to get a better job (than this one)?" and the answer, which I'll keep to myself but we all know gave me that boost of morale.

Edited February 27, 2010 by David Lee

[Selene]

For humans, our intellectual evolution has accelerated since the invention of writing, so much so, that is perhaps now impossible to disentangle the skeins and threads of the effect of literacy on the human mind. It may be -- following Julian Jaynes -- that writing caused personality. That is all the more curious when you consider that literacy was an outgrowth of numeracy: accounting antedates poetry by a thousand years.

So, one theory would be that "how much?" and "how many?" are compelling.

The word "what" -- seemingly simple -- is actually a compound, the neutral of "who". Perhaps identifying "who" is fundamental to our interests ... or perhaps the etymologists overlook the objective inference that a "who" is just another kind of "what".

In any event, your essay on Questions raised more questions.

Thanks!

MEM

Michael:

Good points. I would disagree about the accounting, although I am sure you had a pixieish [new word ?] thought when it was being typed.

Lyrical and oral poetic songs existed way before "writings." However, music and math swirling around the dance floor of man's mine...

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is an old thread, the information is sound, but it didn't light any fires in the audience.

So why am I reviving it? 

Well, I just instructed the OpenAI Playground to give me information about neurochemicals and questions and it blew my mind. Warning, though. Anything coming from AI should be checked before taking it as sourced truth. Still, this was great starting information.

 

This was my instruction: Write a description and list of neurochemicals released in the brain after a question is asked. 

This is what the OpenAI Playground responded.

Quote

When a question is asked, the brain is flooded with a variety of neurochemicals that are involved in the cognitive processes associated with understanding the question, formulating an answer, and communicating that answer. These neurochemicals include dopamine, acetylcholine, glutamate, serotonin, and noradrenaline. 

Dopamine is associated with reward and motivation, and it is released when a question is asked in order to focus the individual’s attention. Acetylcholine is involved in memory and learning, and it helps to store and retrieve information that is relevant to the question. Glutamate is involved in forming new connections in the brain, and it helps to ensure that the individual understands the question. Serotonin is involved in mood regulation, and it helps to modulate the individual’s emotional response to the question. Noradrenaline is involved in alertness and vigilance, and it helps to keep the individual focused on the question.

It's odd that I didn't ask it a question, but ChatGPT was busy and the Playground seems to work better with command-like instructions.

 

So how do you use information like this?

That's easy. If you have anything technical to say or write, instead of listing it off in statements, ask questions as you go along. It will be far less boring that way. Here's a great example. 

Instead of just saying: "Dopamine is associated with reward and motivation, and it is released when a question is asked in order to focus the individual’s attention."

You could preface it with a question. "Does dopamine have anything to do with questions? Turns out it does. Dopamine is associated with reward and motivation, and it is released when a question is asked in order to focus the individual’s attention."

Did you feel it? The second way is far more interesting.

Why? All those neurochemicals.

Also, when you are on a roll passionately discoursing on whatever is moving around in your little heart, but you notice that people's eyes are glazing over, ask some questions. That will reset their brains and wipe away the glaze.

 

Will you feel uncomfortable when you start to ask more questions than you normally do? Hell yes you will. It feels awkward.

Does it feel fake? Yup.

But here's the thing. It works.

So just do it and get used to it. After all, you learned how to ride a bike and that was awkward at first. 

 

I could go on with other examples and comments, but why bother?

I'm sure you got the idea.

Right?

Michael

[tmj]

Ask It if Socrates was on to something.

[william.scherk]

On 1/11/2023 at 7:50 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just instructed the OpenAI Playground to give me information about neurochemicals and questions and it blew my mind.

I asked the ChatGPT borg to summarize MSK's post. Was it fair?

Quote

The writer is discussing their experience using the OpenAI Playground, an AI tool that they instructed to provide information about neurochemicals and questions. They express some caution about taking information from AI as sourced truth, but note that the information provided was a good starting point. The writer goes on to suggest that using questions in writing or speech can make it more interesting, as it activates the release of neurochemicals in the brain that are associated with understanding, formulating, and communicating answers. They also note that asking questions can help to reset the listener's brain and wipe away the "glaze" that can come from listening to a monologue.

I just finished a session with the ChatGPT borg starting with "Can you transform raw YouTube captions into a readable format?"

Borg said, yes ma'am, and we had a useful talk. It blew my mind how much help and in-your-face/use-it tools are provided. Eg, 

It might be about time to Coillect AI-Generator commentary in one spot. The field is on fire with invention and competition. 

Anyone think that is a good idea, a new collector thread? I'll put in on my blog if no other suggestions come in ...

[william.scherk]

Maureen Dowd, seer?

A.I.: Actually Insipid Until It’s Actively Insidious

Opinion | A.I.: Actually Insipid Until It’s Actively Insidious - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

ChatGPT ain’t Shakespeare, but it’s still a threat to humanity.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by william.scherk
Bozed the URL, bolded headline

[Peter]

Maybe I will rewatch all "The Terminator" movie variants again. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why is nobody asking a questions about the following question?

Who is behind ChatGPT?

Wanna know the answer?

Elon Musk is one of the biggies.

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Why is nobody asking a questions about the following question?

Who is behind ChatGPT?

Nobody? 

I'd maybe go with "Who is asking a questions about the following  [blah blah]?"

Some crackhead ChatGPT YouTube mavens asking a questions:
 

 

[Guyau]

On 1/11/2023 at 3:58 PM, tmj said:

Ask It if Socrates was on to something.

These later guys thought Socrates was on to something with "All I know is that I know nothing."

I've noticed a question so unspecified that it fails to join human inquiry: "What if everything we think true is false?" Indeed, that question is at best an entertainment, and if not merely entertainment, it is a de facto succession from the joint enterprise that is human inquiry.

“It is no lack of sincerity to refuse to ask a question that makes no sense” (Étienne Gilson 1939. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge, p. 95).

Questions with traction from Ayn Rand: "Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?" (AS 1031)  

 

[tmj]

Stephen

Michael's idea on the effects of questioning as a technique to encourage engagement made me think that may have been what made Socrates such a rock star , , " man.. there is just something about that dude , I could listen to him all day" .

Now in line with your comments and considering the release of 'feel good brain juices' , I think my inherent contrarianism could be a biological impulse, reinforced evolutionarily, and based more in inquisitiveness than negativity. And even more enlightening as to why I resonated so much with Rand's Socratic treatment of the moral environment the culture had subsumed and cultivated.  

 

 

[Joseph Norris]

On 1/11/2023 at 3:50 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Does it feel fake? Yup.

But here's the thing. It works.

I think "It works" is a bit of a stretch.

It sometimes works. Just like a broken clock is sometimes accurate.

I think it's having an impact like cold reading, sometimes it'll give someone a few good answers and they might be fooled into believing the "psychic". A "psychic" who is right 1 in 20 times can still be right 10 times in a row.

I've tried using it a few times and the degree of accuracy is generally unreliable, and the more precise your question the more incomplete or inaccurate the answer.

I've seen it fail at very simple math problems, this hints at some very serious, deep and most dangerously unpredictable flaws in it. I've also asked it for some very simple C# code to try it out and it's failed at that too.

I wouldn't rely on anything that comes out of it. I think the best I would use it for is to ask it about a subject, and then do my own research about what it mentions in the answer. It could be useful as a way of creating leads to investigate.

 

On the root subject of "Why?"s - you may have heard of the "Five whys" technique for diagnosing a root cause. I will fairly often think "Why?" about a question. Sometimes people ask wrong questions because they've misunderstood something. Sometimes people are salesmen and I'm not interested so (depending how salty I'm feeling) I answer their question with the question "Is this a sales call?".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

28 minutes ago, Joseph Norris said:

I think "It works" is a bit of a stretch.

It sometimes works. Just like a broken clock is sometimes accurate.

Joseph,

That's not a relevant metaphor. The context is learning a new skill. That always feels awkward at first. And the results are never 100% guaranteed. But if you want improvement in results, you have to practice.

That goes for any skill.

If your metaphor were accurate for this, a baseball pitcher who practices to get good at putting the ball where he wants it would only get results like "a broken clock is sometimes accurate." So the ball would sometimes goes where and how he wanted it. But it would be by accident. He would take everey miss as proof that practice doesn't work. If only he could find the perfect logic, then he would he get sure results every time, right?

Nope.

Besides, if that were true, why practice?

Needless to say, better techniques, better analyses, better standards and better logic are always good to learn to develop a skill, but you still have to practice to get good at them. You have to use your brain. You can't automate correct results. The brain doesn't work that way. You can only automate the processes that give correct results. And you can only do that with repetition--and note, focused repetition is far superior to unfocused. Focused repetition is called practice.

 

If querying your subconscious didn't work, why bother doing it at all, right?

So better to never ask yourself questions because the answers you will get will be pot luck, right?

I mean, it's a waste of time imagining your brain has knowledge you can use, right? Far better to find a system where you can turn your brain off...

 

(I'm just messing with you.  )

 

Someday if you are interested in looking at Ayn Rand's Journal, you will see it peppered with lists of questions she asked herself in order to write, and that includes both fiction and nonfiction. Now that I have studied a lot of books on writing, I know for sure that writing out questions was a writing technique widely taught at the time and in the places Rand learned and polished her craft.

If you read Rand's books on writing techniques the ARI folks made from some lessons she gave at home with students, you will see her talk a lot about querying her subconscious. 

 

Here's another thing to think about. Most of the knowledge in your brain is not in verbal form (language and numbers). It's in memories of colors, images, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, memories of events, and all kinds of things. Not to mention the automatic dot connecting and exclusions and inferences that happen during sleep. When you ask yourself a question, you cause the subconscious processes in your brain to fit that knowledge in memory to words in memory and make a story out of it. (One of the main parts that does this is in the left brain. A neuroscientist named Michael Gazzaniga calls this "the interpreter." And it has a physical place right there in the left lobe. That's a fascinating little sucker because it lies at times.  If you are interested in this brain stuff, I can provide you plenty of links and sources. )

 

The point is learning a new skill is not like fitting a proposition to a standard as in a syllogism or math equation. It is repeating and automating a process until it becomes (or at least feels like) second nature.

 

If you want to say this through an organic lens, you could say the improvement in results from learning a new skill comes from growth, not from finding better logic.

 

Don't get me started on this stuff. I can go on about it all day and all night and still want more.

 

 

I just reread your post to see if I missed anything and this is the second time I see you interested in treating, on a fundamental level, the future as if it were the past and vice versa. The past happened and cannot be changed. What's more, we have sensory knowledge about the past in addition to stories we have observed. We have no sensory knowledge about the future like we do about the past, but we can make up stories. And we have processes that keep leading to consistent outcomes. 

More brain stuff coming.  

We have two basic kinds of neurons in our brains: neurons that control muscles and movement, and neurons that process sensory inputs. Narratives, schema and stories come from muscle neurons, just as predicting the future does since that always relies on a story. And these neurons require very little data to operate. The sensory input neurons are where math and logic and measurements come from. They deal with the past well but are a train wreck about the future. We need both kinds of neurons to cast our awareness into the future.

When we "predict" an outcome, say, from computer coding like you mentioned, were are not controlling the future in the same way we measured and verified the past (the tests and checks we ran). We are taking past results and observations and using them as a standard for observing a projected future. We judge our expectations of that future with this standard, and we judge that future itself after it happens with that standard. But there is no way of making a memory of the future in the same way we have memories of the past using that standard. We have to wait for it to happen to become a memory.

We can have memories of our expectations once we have articulated them, but that is not the same thing as having a memory of the future that we can call an absolute.

This is not a denial of causality. Nor even a weakening of it. Far, far from it. But it takes a kind of religious faith about causality out of the picture (as The Absolute, a mistake I have seen far too many people make--including myself at one time) and moves everything all back to observation and memory and systems and, yes, predictions. And causality.

And, to circle back, all this entails not just systems learning. It also entails developing skills through focused repetition. Those are two different things and it is a mistake to judge one as if it were the other, then say it doesn't work.

 

Michael

[Joseph Norris]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's not a relevant metaphor.

I concede that was a bad metaphor.

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He would take everey miss as proof that practice doesn't work. If only he could find the perfect logic, then he would he get sure results every time, right?

Your metaphor also falls flat. The pitcher can objectively measure that his skill is improving. I don't think you can measure that meaningfully with ChatGPT.

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just reread your post to see if I missed anything and this is the second time I see you interested in treating, on a fundamental level, the future as if it were the past and vice versa.

Do you mean that because I tested it and it failed, that I must think the future will always be like the past? I think that's a very big stretch to draw that conclusion about me and it's a very inaccurate conclusion. The problem with your point is it you can't make decisions and approach the truth using information from experiments then you're saying pretty much all pursuit of truth is meaningless as testing your ideas in reality is a very important part of approaching truth.

 

Ok so your underlying point seems to be: There is a skill to using ChatGPT and you think I lack that skill.

My (main) problem with that assumption is:

How can you tell if your ChatGPT results are improving in a meaningful way, rather than improving because you fluked into a run of good results like you just kept going back to the "psychic" until they got it right?

If you want to measure how accurate your results are, you need to ask it a prompt then research the subject independently to see what results you get and see if you get the same answer. Have you done this experiment repeatedly?

If you want to use ChatGPT in a useful way, you need to be able to use the result without having to then go and research independently (because if you have to do that anyway, what's the point of using ChatGPT at all?). So how do you decide that you have reached a skill in using ChatGPT that you will get good results in future?

In other words, what objective principle or measure do you have in using ChatGPT that allows you to have any confidence that it will give results you don't need to go and check anyway? Like the pitcher who knows if they've put the ball where it needs to go because they can measure that result.