> But any individual human should be self-consistent, which is what I would expect of a chatbot that "reasons".
OK, should be. Are we, though? I can recall an American president who could not even complete two sentences without a direct contradiction. And if we think about how billions of people claim to base their lives in self contradicting fictitious books, maybe we are not such a self consistent species after all.
Self consistency is not a great criterion for reasoning. If I tell you "because Jesus told me so" after every question, that's consistent but not interesting. It would be trivial to emulate consistency, in fact.
I think we are all talking past each other because everyone had a different definition of reasoning. My main point - which I have hopefully consistently presented! - is that we don't really know how humans reason, so we should not focus on categorical statements about it at all.
OK, should be. Are we, though? I can recall an American president who could not even complete two sentences without a direct contradiction. And if we think about how billions of people claim to base their lives in self contradicting fictitious books, maybe we are not such a self consistent species after all.
Self consistency is not a great criterion for reasoning. If I tell you "because Jesus told me so" after every question, that's consistent but not interesting. It would be trivial to emulate consistency, in fact.
I think we are all talking past each other because everyone had a different definition of reasoning. My main point - which I have hopefully consistently presented! - is that we don't really know how humans reason, so we should not focus on categorical statements about it at all.