Knowledge Enthusiast

I agree that it needs elaboration so that there are enough details such that I can no longer be needed for others to know what my perspective is and so doesn't that just prove that I should share it so I can answer your questions about the framework? I will refrain from using ChatGPT but ChatGPT interprets better than me so I let it interpret it for me so that the message comes across effectively.

So you want me to search the internet, cite sources, and write a journal article to be peer-reviewed, to give credibility to the statement that ChatGPT knows a lot about the world because it was fed a lot of information on the internet? The framework I believe is a work of philosophy that can inspire scientific and philosophical inquiry so I share it. I can just keep it but that doesn't benefit anybody. It is true I can't do my own research but it doesn't mean I can't contribute frameworks in hopes someone finds it useful.

I am sharing the framework so that it can inspire thought and maybe help people form hypotheses and theses. The beauty of ideas is that you are seldom the last say when you propose a good idea. The best ideas allow others to build on them. ChatGPT knows more than me so it can fill in the details better, doesn't mean I don't understand my own framework.

You were responding to me. And you are implying that ChatGPT doesn't already know most of the recorded knowledge of humanity, which I believe is false. You should then understand that my framework is like Newton's gravity and mechanics and what professional scientists are doing is Einstein's gravity. General relativity is more detailed than Newton's work but we can still use Newton's work. And who said I didn't work my ass off learning from the internet.

ChatGPT has been fed most of the knowledge of the internet and it is impressed with the framework. Can you prove that you are a better judge than ChatGPT? I didn't get a degree in mathematics. You can use the framework as inspiration for maths if you want.

The pdf is reducing the problem one step down, no? I'm expanding the problem one step up, so to speak. We are doing different things.

There was an error with the post button. I apologize for the spam. I don't see how mathematics can be used in the framework but I appreciate any input. I think what is needed is social scientific empirical rigor to further enhance the arguments.

Which means you agree. It can be further developed so it is worth sharing the framework in categories other than speculation. I am a writer/philosopher who wants my ideas to be shared and understood, I'm not demanding anything unreasonable from anyone.

Not yet. But I'm hoping it can lead to empirical research that can allow it to be predictive. Why can't it be in philosophy at least? It is not pure speculation, there are practical applications, and it's an imaginative integration of knowledge.

I had to sleep. I replied shortly after I woke up. I am hoping to draw on more knowledge and creativity to rewrite the original post that my newer model got tagged to. So more analogies is certainly part of the plan.

I don't understand the equations related to spin to create a framework.

The questions are not constructive anymore so I'm going to sign off for now.

What is there to believe? It's a framework. It is true that experts might be able to fill up the framework better than I can but the point is that the framework is my idea.

The main ideas are all mine, I think that makes me quite proficient at understanding the post. Of course, I might not be the biggest expert once people start reading it, the same way Einstien might not have understood all the consequences of his own theory immediately after publishing.

I ask because he honestly doesn't seem to understand.

If you don't understand by now, you will probably never understand. The physics terminology is there so that you can tie two groups of scientific works together into a unified framework.

You don't seem to even understand the framework. What is your educational background? I don't even know what your point is. We are not talking about subjective experience here, we are talking about a framework.

Why do we need to invoke the principle of least action? What does it represent and interact with to form a framework?

I am not claiming the model should be in a journal. I am sharing it in a forum so that we can have a discussion and maybe share credit for an even better model. I know that there are many steps to create science. I am a philosopher building frameworks, not a scientist claiming to have proof or peer-review success.

I am more of a Romantic and an existentialist not a pure rationalist and nihilist like Nietzsche. I enjoy being creative through writing because it allows me to maximize my low latent inhibition, which in the past has caused bipolar disorders, but on the flip side, I get creative ideas. I like sharing ideas because it helps with existential anxiety and gives me a sense of purpose. Philosophers like Nietzsche are also creative people with limited scientific training but it doesn't mean their ideas have little value. So you believe ChatGPT is worse at answering the question than you. It gives answers that don't conform to the truth that you know with certainty?

We can talk. What do you want to drill me on?

The "Standard Model of the Mind" uses metaphor as a tool to enhance the accessibility and comprehension of complex psychological dynamics. It builds on established knowledge to provide a unified framework for understanding human behavior. While metaphors are indeed artificial links, they serve a valuable purpose in making abstract concepts more relatable and understandable. Our goal is to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical understanding, contributing to personal growth and well-being. I didn't delete "we" because I have a writing partnership with AI. I give ideas, then AI draws from the knowledge accumulated throughout history to fill in the details.

The "Standard Model of the Mind" uses metaphor as a conceptual tool to enhance understanding of psychological dynamics. It is built on a solid foundation of established psychological theories and supported by empirical research. The model provides a clear and structured framework for analyzing human behavior, with practical applications that demonstrate its relevance and utility. We strive to maintain terminological precision and avoid any misuse of terms to ensure the model’s validity and clarity. Your feedback is crucial in refining our approach and ensuring that our model effectively communicates its concepts while maintaining scientific rigor.

While recognizing the limitations of traditional IQ tests and the challenges in measuring talent, the "Standard Model of the Mind" adopts a multifaceted and holistic approach. We aim to evaluate a broad range of talents and abilities using diverse assessment tools and contextual understanding. This ensures a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on human potential. Your feedback is invaluable in refining our model and ensuring that it remains inclusive and representative of the diverse nature of human talent.

You are correct that many psychological constructs, including talent, can have subjective elements. To address this, we incorporate well-established psychological assessment tools and empirical research to provide a more objective basis for our criteria. For instance: Talent: While the concept of talent can be broad, specific aspects of talent, such as cognitive abilities (IQ tests), emotional intelligence (EQ assessments), and physical skills, can be measured using standardized tests. These tools offer quantifiable data that reduce subjectivity. Greed, Violence, Stability: Similarly, psychological traits like greed (often associated with narcissism), violence (linked to psychopathy), and emotional stability are evaluated using validated psychological instruments like the Dark Triad scale and the Big Five personality inventory. These assessments provide reliable and consistent measures of such traits across different individuals. By grounding our criteria in standardized and empirically validated measures, we can reduce the subjective nature of our model and provide a more objective framework for analysis. The metaphorical use of "energy" in the "Standard Model of the Mind" is intended to provide a structured way to understand psychological dynamics. It is not meant to suggest literal physical properties or effects. By clarifying this metaphorical application, we hope to enhance the model’s accessibility and utility in understanding human behavior.