I don't think you understand what the word 'whiny' means. In any case, I understand the AI's view. If you don't agree that it's inablity to understand issues with its examples matter, fine.
in not understanding AI's view which I believe is reasonable and acceptable.
obviously.
So not to waste time, I suggest you can pass it over because the ordinary examples are not the critical ones.
If the ordinary examples are very critical [..I do not think it is] I can ask AI to give more clearer examples acceptable by you.
Or you could think for yourself. I can go to AIs and ask them questions without you as an intermediary.
And since you were using AIs I did in fact ask about the love example and an AI agreed with my assessment, for whatever such things are worth. I looked just to see what would happen if you decided to check with the AI itself.
The examples are important because to me they show problems in the AI in understanding the topic itself.
I also pointed out the problem of using these concepts, given what happens if you use the idea of hypostastization regarding mind. I also asked AIs about that to see what would happen if you did this.
As I had stated, the critical examples are the ones related to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [as defined and intended by Kant], do you have a problem with that?
I actually did write about this. I talked about what happens if we look at language in general. For me Kant did not always look at the full consequences of his ideas and he also was not aware of recent developments in science. So, I was pointing out that this idea of hypostatization and also reification and subreption lead to much more complicated consequences than just what is happening when we use the word fact. Sure, mind and other abstractions - and if you look at the concept of mind in relation to these ideas the position ends up being much closer to PH's position than one might realize. But it actually calls into question all permanence and all reference to 'things' as if they are permanent. INcluding, at the more disturbing end, the persistence of a self - a la Buddhism.
We don't get to just cherry pick the consequences of ideas. If X is true, it might indicate Y. But then one has opened pandora's box. Does it also entail Z, A and B. Further what does X say about itself. Those three ideas, those concepts this thread is focusing on have a broad set of implications, some that may not fit with your positions or Kant's. If you're not interested, just ignore the posts. I read when you said the AI was right about love. I read when you said, after, that, well, it doesn't matter. I heard you. I've expressed why I think it is important. If you don't want to continue responding to that issue, fine. If you think because your position is that all concepts are mind-dependent the fact that the AI will agree with that 'mind' is hypostatized doesn't matter. But here's the thing, it will not have the same reaction to body and PH was making that distinction. Further the AI is not recognizing how words about the physical are actually hypostatizations, especially given Kantian ideas where we only experience and know about phenomena. What the hell is the physical in that situation? There are phenomena. It's not about substance. And physical things will, as you have said many times before, not be experienced the same the next time. You even made arguments based on the changes at the subatomic level and how one object is nto the same object the next time we 'see it'. So, reification and hypostatization are happening even in relation to physical ideas.
One thing you may not notice is that I actually read your posts, have for a long time, think about them. I notice how ideas you write fit into the larger schema you present here. I find it interesting and have said to others that I think it is positive that you bring in the ideas you do. Yes, I am critical about how you interact with others about your posts and ideas.
So, when I notice oddities or contraditions it is partly because of how much I have listened to and carefully, And honestly sometimes it seems like I take what you have written elsewhere more seriously than you do. What you are writing in a specific thread in a specific post you take very seriously, but how this fits with things you have said elsewhere, they often seem forgotten.
I think these ideas are very interesting. I do not think the AI can handle these ideas. I see AIs handle other topics much better. So, I am going to point that out. Futher I think the distinctions Kant and the AI make are not the same and also are problematic in and of themeselves. I will likely explore that in a variety of ways, since these are ideas I have htought a lot about.
We disagree on one set of issues, others haven't been responded to, and you think I am focusing on something not important, and which I do. The AI wrote those examples to help explain it's understanding of the concepts. I think there are problems there and key ones to the whole antirealism/realism debate. I sometimes take things in bitesize chunks. I need to mull.
Other people may appear in the thread and respond to you and/or me. Ignore me if you like, that's fine. I won't take that in any way as you conceding I am right or afraid to post to me. I'll assume that you just don't find it relevant or interesting.