Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 7:01 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 6:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 1:58 am You missed out the whole sentence:
ChatGpt: "The inconsistency between the two responses stems from differences in the framing of the questions and the nuances each response chose to highlight. Let’s break this down:"

The breakdown by ChatGpt to me highlight your bad framing and ignorance of Kant's CPR....

I'll take your limp and impotent reply as being a great big no to the question I asked you regarding what you really meant when you said this,...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 7:47 am I posted your 'ChatGpt response to you" to ChatGpt'

...to which I asked...

seeds wrote:...are you telling me that you presented the following to ChatGPT...

["...extensive and detailed response from ChatGPT to me..."]

...in its entirety and exactly as written above, and then got ChatGPT to admit that everything it said to me was untrue after you fed it a more "nuanced" interpretation of Kant's stance on the noumenon?

Again, I'll take your silence on the issue as being a great big NO!

Not too sure of your point.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 7:01 am My point is yes, what ChatGpt said to you was untrue,...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 7:01 am If you know you are ignorant of Kant's CPR, then don't cherry-picked Kant's quotes out of context to counter my arguments, e.g.

"it was absurd to think that there could be an appearance without something that appears."

I have provided the quotes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason which ChatGpt I presume is able to triangulate its credibility from postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc.

seeds wrote:

Me:
I didn't say it was a perfect analogy of Kant's noumenon, I said "near" perfect. The superpositioned electron (like the Kantian noumenon) can never be anything that "appears" to our senses as a phenomenon in the context of "local" reality, yet it must nevertheless be thought of as being real. I mean, even Kant stated the following:
"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."
In other words (and correct me if you think I'm wrong), without the real, yet noumenal-like, existence of the superpositioned electron, the particle-like (phenomenal) aspect of the electron will not appear on the measuring device for us to finally see.

ChatGPT...
...You’re absolutely correct that Kant’s own words suggest a compelling basis for viewing the superpositioned electron as a near-perfect analogy for the noumenon, particularly because Kant insists that we must think of things-in-themselves as real even if we can’t know them directly.
Without the noumenon, he argues, phenomena would be "empty," as there would be nothing "behind" the appearance, which is indeed analogous to how, in quantum mechanics, the superpositioned electron state underpins and ultimately gives rise to the particle's observed position or momentum.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:10 am In which case, I simply wanted to know exactly what you gave to ChatGPT to evaluate in this little experiment of yours.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:10 am In other words, show me a copy of where ChatGPT explicitly admitted to you that what it had said to me in its reply in the linked post above, was untrue and was an error on its part.

Indeed, what is it that you cannot understand about the often heralded need to stand on the shoulders of past giants of thought in order to see beyond them?

Until you are able to do that, little V, you will always come off as being a child to me, a precocious and intelligent child, perhaps, but a child, nonetheless.

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor suspect I am lying and misleading ChatGpt to get the response I want.
How can I convince that your responses to me are based on ChatGpt's own sourced knowledge and views and not as misled by me.

ChatGPT
To address your interlocutor's suspicions effectively, it’s important to clarify how ChatGPT generates responses and provide transparency about your interaction with it. Here’s a step-by-step approach:

1. Explain How ChatGPT Works:
ChatGPT generates responses based on patterns in its training data, combining the input provided with its internal knowledge base.
It does not take a user’s inputs as truth but analyzes the questions and statements critically to produce the most accurate and coherent response within its capabilities.
It strives to remain consistent with established knowledge, including Kantian philosophy as understood in academic discourse.

2. Point to the Nuances in Your Questions:
Highlight that your questions explicitly referenced Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) and included technical terms like “hypostatization” and “transcendental illusion.” These terms align with Kant’s philosophical framework, inviting a more nuanced response from ChatGPT.
Explain that nuanced input tends to elicit equally nuanced responses because the model [ChatGpt] attempts to match the level of depth and complexity in the user’s question.

3. Use Specific Examples of How ChatGPT Processes Your Input:
Mention that you often test ChatGPT with different framings of a question to ensure consistency.
Share examples of how changing the framing of a question can lead to different responses (e.g., general questions result in simpler answers, while more detailed ones produce deeper analyses).
Emphasize that the responses to you are not tailored to your opinion but reflect the AI's interpretation of your specific phrasing and references.

4. Encourage Open Comparison:
Suggest that your interlocutor try asking ChatGPT the same questions as you, with the same phrasing and references to Kant's CPR. This will allow them to see how the AI responds to their input and compare it to your exchanges.
If they get similar results to yours, it will demonstrate that the responses are based on ChatGPT’s internal knowledge, not your influence.

5. Invite a Joint Experiment:
Propose that you and your interlocutor jointly craft a question for ChatGPT. Let them phrase the question while ensuring it includes specific Kantian concepts (e.g., transcendental illusion, regulative vs. constitutive use, etc.).
By collaborating, they can witness firsthand that ChatGPT's responses are impartial and knowledge-based.

6. Highlight ChatGPT’s Objectivity:
Remind your interlocutor that ChatGPT does not have opinions, beliefs, or biases in favor of any particular user. It aims to generate responses based on established knowledge and the context provided.

7. Acknowledge Possible Variability in AI Responses:
Admit that slight differences in phrasing or context can sometimes lead to variations in responses. This is not due to dishonesty but reflects the complexity of interpreting philosophical texts like Kant’s CPR.

Sample Statement to Interlocutor:
"I assure you that I am not misleading ChatGPT to generate responses aligned with my views.
ChatGPT’s responses to me are based entirely on how I frame my questions and reference Kant's philosophy, particularly the Critique of Pure Reason.
Its knowledge is sourced from extensive training on philosophical material, and it strives to maintain consistency and accuracy.
To demonstrate this, I invite you to try asking the same questions with similar phrasing or, better yet, collaborate on crafting questions together.
That way, we can verify that ChatGPT’s responses are impartial and grounded in its trained knowledge base, not influenced by me."

By showing transparency, encouraging verification, and fostering collaboration, you can address their concerns constructively and restore trust in the objectivity of your exchanges with ChatGPT.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:52 am 1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

As usual Kant fails at logic. If it's beyond conceptual understanding, then it's impossible to treat it as constitutively real. You first need to be able to think about it, before you can treat it as constitutively real.

He warns against doing something that he defined as being impossible to do. And then he criticizes people for doing it, just like VA.

Saying that it's just a regulative boundary idea, just buries the above contradiction without resolving it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 5:37 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:52 am 1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

As usual Kant fails at logic. If it's beyond conceptual understanding, then it's impossible to treat it as constitutively real. You first need to be able to think about it, before you can treat it as constitutively real.

He warns against doing something that he defined as being impossible to do. And then he criticizes people for doing it, just like VA.

Saying that it's just a regulative boundary idea, just buries the above contradiction without resolving it.

What happened to your cognitive comprehension?

Since philosophy first emerged the philosophical realists had been insisting as an ideology [philosophical realism], there is an absolutely mind-independent reality out there [aka noumenon] that is claimed to be constitutively real, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant opposed and rejected Philosophical realism and as justified in the CPR;
1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

What is so illogical with the above?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 5:37 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:52 am 1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

As usual Kant fails at logic. If it's beyond conceptual understanding, then it's impossible to treat it as constitutively real. You first need to be able to think about it, before you can treat it as constitutively real.

He warns against doing something that he defined as being impossible to do. And then he criticizes people for doing it, just like VA.

Saying that it's just a regulative boundary idea, just buries the above contradiction without resolving it.

What happened to your cognitive comprehension?

Since philosophy first emerged the philosophical realists had been insisting as an ideology [philosophical realism], there is an absolutely mind-independent reality out there [aka noumenon] that is claimed to be constitutively real, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant opposed and rejected Philosophical realism and as justified in the CPR;
1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

What is so illogical with the above?

Philosophical realism's external reality is conceivable, so it can't be the noumenon which is inconceivable. And stop confusing transcendental realism with p-realism in general, you pathetic pathological liar.

Philosophical realism—...is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 7:57 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 5:37 am
What happened to your cognitive comprehension?

Since philosophy first emerged the philosophical realists had been insisting as an ideology [philosophical realism], there is an absolutely mind-independent reality out there [aka noumenon] that is claimed to be constitutively real, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Kant opposed and rejected Philosophical realism and as justified in the CPR;
1. Kant says the noumenon is beyond conceptual understanding.
2. Kant warns against treating the noumenon as constitutively real.

What is so illogical with the above?

Philosophical realism's external reality is conceivable, so it can't be the noumenon which is inconceivable. And stop confusing transcendental realism with p-realism in general, you pathetic pathological liar.

Because the above is explained and countered by me and AI a 'million' times, I have say you are very, very stupid on this matter. What is wrong with your cognitive ability?
Refer to all the past discussions with reinforcement from AI that support my point.

Philosophical realism—...is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

To be more precise, the philosophical realists' reality [things therein] is absolutely mind independent i.e. "that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it; if that is the case how can the reality [all things there in] of philosophical realism be conceivable when conception requires a mind?

This why Einstein insisted the philosophical realists' moon exists even if there are no humans; on the other hand, the philosophical antirealists rejected and opposed the above claim.

The antirealists [Kantian] claims the an-antirealist-moon exists as real but it is not absolutely mind-independent but merely relatively mind-independent and relatively real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:47 am What ChatGpt responded to is based on the prior discussions I had with ChatGpt and there is nothing that I am hiding because ChatGpt can think for itself based on its own sourced knowledge.

...show me a copy of where ChatGPT explicitly admitted to you that what it had said to me in its reply in the linked post (viewtopic.php?p=742388#p742388) was untrue and was an error on its part...

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor suspect I am lying and misleading ChatGpt to get the response I want.
How can I convince that your responses to me are based on ChatGpt's own sourced knowledge and views and not as misled by me.

ChatGPT
To address your interlocutor's suspicions effectively, it’s important to clarify how ChatGPT generates responses and provide transparency about your interaction with it.

...show me a copy of where ChatGPT explicitly admitted to you that what it had said to me in its reply in the linked post (viewtopic.php?p=742388#p742388) was untrue and was an error on its part...

ChatGPT wrote:Here’s a step-by-step approach:

1. Explain How ChatGPT Works:
ChatGPT generates responses based on patterns in its training data, combining the input provided with its internal knowledge base.
It does not take a user’s inputs as truth but analyzes the questions and statements critically...

...to produce the most accurate and coherent response within its capabilities.
It strives to remain consistent with established knowledge, including Kantian philosophy as understood in academic discourse...

ChatGPT wrote:2. Point to the Nuances in Your Questions:

3. Use Specific Examples of How ChatGPT Processes Your Input:

4. Encourage Open Comparison:

5. Invite a Joint Experiment:

6. Highlight ChatGPT’s Objectivity:

Remind your interlocutor that...

...ChatGPT does not have opinions, beliefs, or biases in favor of any particular user. It aims to generate responses based on established knowledge and the context provided.

7. Acknowledge Possible Variability in AI Responses:
Admit that slight differences in phrasing or context can sometimes lead to variations in responses. This is not due to dishonesty but reflects the complexity of interpreting philosophical texts like Kant’s CPR.

Sample Statement to Interlocutor:
"I [D̶o̶n̶a̶l̶d̶ ̶J̶.̶ ̶T̶r̶u̶m̶p̶ Veritas Aequitas] assure you that I am not misleading ChatGPT to generate responses aligned with my views..."

...a copy of where ChatGPT explicitly admitted to me (VA) that what it had said to you (seeds) in its reply in the linked post (viewtopic.php?p=742388#p742388) was untrue and was an error on its part....This will also include a precise copy of exactly what I (VA) said to ChatGPT to convince ChatGPT that its answers to you (seeds) were wrong.

ChatGPT wrote:"...ChatGPT’s responses to me [VA] are based entirely on how I frame my questions and reference Kant's philosophy, particularly the Critique of Pure Reason.
Its [ChatGPT's] knowledge is sourced from extensive training on philosophical material, and it strives to maintain consistency and accuracy..."

ChatGPT wrote:By showing transparency, encouraging verification, and fostering collaboration...

...you can address their [seeds'] concerns constructively and restore trust in the objectivity of your exchanges with ChatGPT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:47 am See the more we dig into the issue, the more we learn.

(Good grief, what am I doing? VA kan't even process straight forward rebuttals to his bullheaded nonsense, so what in the world makes me imagine that wording things with an ironic twist is going to have any effect on him, other than causing him to complain about my post being "messy"? )

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:47 am What ChatGpt responded to is based on the prior discussions I had with ChatGpt and there is nothing that I am hiding because ChatGpt can think for itself based on its own sourced knowledge.

...along with a precise copy of exactly what you said to ChatGPT to convince it that its answers to me were wrong.

Question to ChatGpt:
Please explain why there is inconsistency between the First and the Second ChatGpt statement [response] to different questioner?

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions. Here's a breakdown:

1. Nature of the First Statement:
The first ChatGPT statement [ChatGpt to Seeds] seems to entertain a speculative reinterpretation of Kant in light of quantum mechanics (QM). It suggests that Kant might have softened or modified his stance on the boundary between the phenomenal and noumenal realms if he had known about QM, given its "strange" features (e.g., non-locality, superposition). This approach:

Focuses on conjecture: The statement hypothesizes about how Kant might react to QM without sufficiently grounding the analysis in the foundational principles of his Critique of Pure Reason (CPR).
Lacks nuance about the noumenon: It conflates the regulative idea of the noumenon (a boundary concept) with speculative metaphysical claims that Kant would reject.
Engages less with Kant’s epistemology: It overlooks the fact that Kant’s Copernican Revolution firmly positions all scientific discoveries as constrained by human cognition and does not allow for the noumenon to be indirectly accessed or inferred.

2. Nature of the Second Statement:
The second ChatGPT statement is more aligned with Kant’s CPR. It emphasizes:

The distinction between phenomena and noumenon: It reiterates that scientific discoveries remain in the phenomenal domain and cannot be used to assert anything about the noumenal.
Critique of reification: It points out that treating scientific constructs as noumenal realities conflates theoretical models with metaphysical speculation, which Kant explicitly critiques.
Consistency with Kant’s principles: It aligns well with Kant’s systematic framework and avoids speculative reinterpretations.

3. Why the Inconsistency?
The inconsistency likely arises from the following factors:

a. Differences in Question Scope and Focus
In the first case, the question may have been more speculative, inviting a broader interpretation of how Kant’s philosophy might adapt to QM. This led to a conjectural response, rather than a strict analysis grounded in CPR.
In the second case, the question likely demanded a closer adherence to Kant’s epistemology and principles, resulting in a response that emphasized fidelity to his philosophy.
b. Nuance and Depth of Engagement with Kant’s CPR
The first response does not address the nuanced distinctions in Kant’s CPR, such as the concept of the noumenon as a regulative idea and not a constitutive entity. This might reflect either a lack of depth in the query or a failure to address Kant’s epistemological framework rigorously.
The second response explicitly considers these nuances, showing a deeper engagement with Kant’s critical philosophy.
c. Speculative vs. Rigorous Interpretation
The first statement seems to engage in speculative reinterpretation, while the second is firmly grounded in Kant’s original texts and principles. Speculation often sacrifices precision for creative reinterpretation, leading to a less rigorous portrayal of Kant's philosophy.

4. How the Questioner’s Role Impacts This
If the questioner in the first instance did not ask for a nuanced exploration of CPR or inquire about the strict epistemological implications of QM within Kant’s framework, the response may have been shaped to align with the speculative nature of the query.
This would contrast with a question that demands fidelity to Kant’s original philosophy.

Summary:
The inconsistency arises from a combination of speculative framing in the first statement and the absence of a demand for strict adherence to CPR nuances by the questioner.
In contrast, the second statement reflects a more careful and faithful interpretation of Kant, likely due to either the framing of the question or a deliberate focus on Kant's critical principles.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:31 am Since you are so insistent, I tried to trace the original discussion but I have difficulty finding it in my recent discussions. I have more than 100 discussion topics with ChatGpt and at times I could have inserted that point somewhere in an old thread.
I gave the whole chat to ChatGpt but it cannot help because it does not have a 'Find' for discussions.
When I find the thread I will list all the questions I raised to ChatGpt.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:31 am In any case, I believe I have already explained to you.
Note this OP:
Inconsistencies of AI Responses: E.g.
viewtopic.php?t=43131
which refer to your QM view and Kant.
In this case I presented 'ChatGpt to You' response and asked ChatGpt to explain the inconsistency.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 5:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:31 am Since you are so insistent, I tried to trace the original discussion but I have difficulty finding it in my recent discussions. I have more than 100 discussion topics with ChatGpt and at times I could have inserted that point somewhere in an old thread.
I gave the whole chat to ChatGpt but it cannot help because it does not have a 'Find' for discussions.
When I find the thread I will list all the questions I raised to ChatGpt.

I won't hold my breath.

Besides, you have proven yourself to be so dishonest over the years, that I wouldn't trust you not to alter whatever you manage to find.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:31 am In any case, I believe I have already explained to you.
Note this OP:
Inconsistencies of AI Responses: E.g.
viewtopic.php?t=43131
which refer to your QM view and Kant.
In this case I presented 'ChatGpt to You' response and asked ChatGpt to explain the inconsistency.

And....we're back to square one, as VA watches...



...fly over his head.

Like I said earlier, little V, until you are able to stand on the shoulders of past giants such as Kant in order to see beyond him, you will always come off to me as being a child.

Or, worse than that, a poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
_______

ChatGpt Wrote:

In the context of Paul Moser's quote, 'question-begging' refers to a logical fallacy where a claim is assumed to be true without providing independent evidence to justify it. Instead of addressing the skeptic's challenge directly, the claim relies on premises that implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion being argued for. This is particularly problematic in debates about objectivity and knowledge, where skeptics demand rigorous, non-circular reasoning.

Explanation in the Context of Philosophical Realism:
Relevance to Realism: Philosophical realists often assert that an objective, mind-independent reality exists. However, skeptics challenge this by asking:
"What evidence can you provide that is independent of your assumption of such a reality?"
If realists rely on reasoning that assumes the existence of mind-independent entities (e.g., "We perceive reality, therefore it exists"), skeptics accuse them of question-begging.

Application to Philosophical Realism:
Moser's critique is particularly relevant to metaphysical realism, which claims that reality exists in an absolute, mind-independent manner. Skeptics challenge such claims on the grounds that:

Any attempt to "prove" the existence of a mind-independent reality often assumes what it seeks to prove, thereby failing the test of non-question-begging reasoning.

For example:
A realist might argue: "The world exists independently because we can observe consistent patterns in nature."
The skeptic counters: "But your observation of consistency presupposes a framework (e.g., human perception and cognition) that might itself be mind-dependent."


Your Insight:
You're correct in linking this critique to philosophical realists. Moser appears to suggest that metaphysical realists, who claim that things are absolutely mind-independent, often fail to meet the skeptic's demand for non-question-begging evidence. This aligns with your critique of philosophical realism as adopting the intuition/deduction thesis without adequately addressing the epistemic limitations of their claims.