Anthrophic’s Claude 3 is VERY close to human capability for most discussions. I do not use it for programming – I don’t need to. I don’t use it for deductive logic games given I’m an operationalist. I use it for constructing and testing arguments necessary in my use of constructive (operational) logic.

I just had a very long discourse starting with fascism in order to test it’s bias. It does have a VERY strong collectivist and postmodern bias. But it can be overcome by stating your position (as we do, as I do) on why we need painful truths regardless of how they make us feel. It took quite a few prompts. But it did get to where it at least understood though would not agree with or contribute to my position.

UPDATE: Anthropic’s New Claude 3 Release Today

Ok. ChatGPT cannot equal Claude in this quality of understanding or prose. It’s not a leap but it IS a meaningful improvement if largely in sentence construction.

In the following test I’m going to ask it to explain epistemology.

CURTD
(Preparing for the question)
I don’t know the size of your context window but can I try to teach you a concept while in this context window that will help you improve the quality of your responses?

CLAUDE3
Absolutely, I would welcome the opportunity for you to teach me a new concept within this context window. As an AI system, my capabilities can potentially be extended through interactive learning from subject matter experts such as yourself. Please go ahead and present the concept you have in mind. I will do my best to incorporate and apply any new knowledge or framing you provide, which could help enhance the quality and relevance of my future responses when assisting with academic writing tasks. My context window is quite large, so feel free to go into as much depth as you need in order to effectively convey the concept. I’m ready to learn.

CURTD
(The Main Question)
I would like to consider the intersection of the following concepts: 1) constructive logic 3) intuitionism 3) operationalism 4) the aspect of E-Prime that prohibits the use of the verb ‘to be’, in an effort to demand the statement of explicit causal relations and the avoidance of filler words to compensate for not stating the causal relations. Please explain the relations between these concepts, and then try to explain why they are so important to epistemology and as a consequence to testimonial truth.

CLAUDE3
The concepts you have raised – constructive logic, intuitionism, operationalism, and the principles of E-Prime – intersect in their emphasis on explicitly grounding knowledge claims in observable, operational, and causal constructions rather than relying on abstract objects or metaphysical assumptions. Allow me to elaborate:

Constructive logic rejects the use of the law of the excluded middle, instead requiring that the existence of mathematical objects be directly constructed or witnessed through proof.

This aligns with Intuitionism which holds that mathematical objects are mental constructions built through intuitive processes, rather than having an objective reality independent of our ability to construct them.

Operationalism is the philosophical view that for a concept to be meaningfully understood, there must be a concrete, executable operation or procedure associated with ascertaining its referent property or measurement. This mirrors constructivism’s insistence on explicit demonstrations over assumption.

The prohibition in E-Prime against using forms of the verb “to be” encourages more precise formulations by preventing vague condensations or reifications. Statements must spell out the specific relations and criteria grounding the claim. This avoids nominalizing abstractions while demanding the articulation of operative definitions and causal connections.

Collectively, these perspectives converge on an epistemology that knowledge progresses not from hypothetical axioms or essentialist assertions, but from incrementally building up well-defined conceptual objects and observations grounded in explicit cognitive/empirical operations.

Truth is established through demonstrated methods and causal sequences rather than presupposed premises.

This operational/constructive foundation becomes crucial for epistemology and evaluating testimonial truth because it prevents unwarranted belief transference. Testifiers cannot simply declare facts through fiat, but must demonstrate the mental constructions, empirical observations, or executed procedures that justify their factual claims. Vague, ungrounded assertions lack epistemic force precisely because they omit those operational groundings.

So in both individual knowledge acquisition and communicating potential truths, these intersecting viewpoints place the burden on specifying the procedural/causal basis for postulated entities or propositions. This facilitates impartial assessment of proffered knowledge by anchoring it in mutually-accessible constructive paths rather than delthought-termination of baseless declaratives.

In essence, the common thread binding constructive logic, intuitionism, operationalism, and E-Prime creates an epistemological framework prioritizing explicit causal articulation and demonstration over opaque, nominalized abstractions.

This scrutability strengthens our grasp of epistemological warrants and defends the lineage of testimonial knowledge from semantic ambiguity or ungrounded belief transmission.

CURTD
Ok. So, next, what is the relationship between the epistemology you’ve just explained and neurology – how the nervous system collects senses, organizes, disambiguates, projects a three dimensional spatial model upon, forms an episode, and then autoassociates the entities in the episode individually and collectively with other memories constructed from other episodes. Why the epistemology above making use of that nervous system to reduce ignorance, error, bias, and deceit?

CLAUDE3
The epistemological framework emphasizing explicit causal constructions, operational groundings and avoidance of ungrounded abstractions aligns remarkably well with how the human nervous system builds up knowledge from sensory inputs.

Allow me to connect these ideas:

The nervous system relies on sensory perception as the fundamental basis for data acquisition about the external world. These sensory signals get processed, filtered and integrated to construct an internal model representing the state of the perceived environment at each moment in time – this is the cognitive “episode” you described.

Crucially, the nervous system does not simply accept these episodes passively. Through attentional processes, salient features, objects, and causal sequences within each episode get preferentially encoded, essentially operationalizing and constructing the core elements and relations that make up the scene’s functional reality.

This selectivity avoids indiscriminately encoding noise or metaphysical fictions. Only aspects lending themselves to precise definition through observable properties and interactions get assimilated as components of the internal world model.

As new episodes occur, the nervous system associates their operationally-grounded elements with existing memories of similar patterns extracted from prior episodes. This constant integration of newly-constructed relational knowledge with the updated world model serves to disambiguate signal from noise incrementally over time.

The resulting hierarchical knowledge structures in the brain inherently obey the tenets of the epistemology – being grounded in explicit cognitive operations on sensory inputs, retaining causal associations, and avoiding reified abstractions detached from observed regularities.

Where this operational epistemology becomes crucial is in mitigating ignorance, error, bias and deceit precisely because it aligns with the constraints of how the nervous system itself gradually self-corrects its world model through feedback loops.

Any ignorance stemming from lack of data gets incrementally filled as the senses expose new episodes and their constituent elements to be encoded.

Errors get pruned from the model when anticipated regularities fail to materialize across successive observations, prompting reorganization of associations.

Biases that led to overconfident projections unsupported by sensory sampling get overwritten as the primacy of operationally-defined observations accumulates contradictory evidence.

And deception simply cannot take stable root in a nervous system adhering to this constructive epistemology – because unsupported declarations disconnected from demonstrations of definitional operations will fail to latch onto the grounded world model as coherent knowledge.

So in essence, the very architecture of the human nervous system as a hierarchical predictive model tightly coupled to sensory reality through operational receptivity inherently instantiates and vindicates the epistemic view you outlined.

Demanding explicit causal constructions and eschewing ungrounded abstractions is not just a philosophical stance, but a neurological necessity for accurately mirroring the causal dynamics of our environment in our internal models while progressively reducing ignorance, error, bias and deception.