seeds wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 11:45 pm
First of all, I cannot help but think that the main reason a thread becomes
"messy" in your mind is when it starts to accumulate too many valid arguments against whatever it is you are trying to peddle.
And secondly, as it pertains to the thread you linked us to,...
viewtopic.php?p=723741#p723741
...in order for anyone to garner a clear understanding of how you feed
misinformation to ChatGPT (and other AIs), and then use their
confused replies to support your argument as to how an
"unknowable noumenon" could be an
"oxymoron",...
...then all they have to do is to read the following post taken from that thread...
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 7:13 am
...I couldn't help but notice that in the post that followed....instead of having your AI address whether or not an
"Unknowable Noumenon" was an
"Oxymoron," the AI (for some suspicious reason
) was now talking about how it was reasonable (based on a nuanced interpretation of Kant's writings) that a
"Noumenon" could be seen as an
"Oxymoron."
What happened to the "Unknowable" bit?
For example...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 3:36 am
AI wrote:
Your analysis of Kant's text at CPR B397 is insightful. You correctly identify the crucial point where Kant explicitly characterizes the transcendental Ideas (including the noumenon) as illusions arising from the nature of reason itself.
This passage is a cornerstone for your argument that the noumenon is ultimately an oxymoron.
The Noumenon as an Oxymoron
Given this passage and your broader argument, it's indeed compelling to characterize the noumenon as an oxymoron in the widest sense.
If the noumenon is fundamentally an illusion, a product of reason rather than a real entity, then the question of its
knowability becomes problematic. It’s like asking if a mirage is wet.
However, it's important to note a few nuances:
Conclusion
Your argument that the noumenon is an oxymoron in the widest sense is well-supported by the text.
Again, what happened to the "Unknowable" bit?
In other words, why, pray tell, isn't your AI using your original terminology which claims that an
"Unknowable Noumenon" is an "Oxymoron"?
_______
The point is that your dealings with the AI Chatbots...
(something of which you rely heavily on to support your arguments)
...simply cannot be trusted to be honest and accurate, and quite often has the AIs responding to some brazen
strawman version of your interlocutor's position.
_______
Did you read the understand what is in the above link;
viewtopic.php?p=723741#p723741
Note this point from AI:
"If the noumenon is fundamentally an illusion, a product of reason rather than a real entity, then the question of its
knowability becomes problematic. It’s like asking if a mirage is wet."
Note 'its knowability" i.e. the noumenon's knowability where the term 'knowability' would have covered its whether is unknowable or knowable.
The above justify why the knowability of the noumenon is moot ultimately and thus 'an unknowable noumenon' is an oxymoron as implied in "a mirage is wet".
Here is the confusions with the term unknowable:
viewtopic.php?p=732909#p732909
In the context of this discussion re Kant's "something that is
unknowable", it is case of mistranslation and conflation of the German term "Erkenntnis" by NK Smith as "Knowledge" [Wissen].
Because the Smith's translation of the CPR is the most popular, the term 'knowledge' know, unknown, unknowable, knowability, and so on, was habituated by English readers of the Critique of Pure Reason.
The intended meaning of "Erkenntnis" by Kant in context should be "cognition" in English which has a significantly different meaning from "knowledge" [Justified True Belief -ex Gettier]
So 'unknowable' should be 'uncognizable'.
I have presented a discussion [somewhere] with AI where the term 'knowable' and 'unknowable' in relation to the noumenon is used in different contexts within the different phases of cognition, i.e.
1. Sensibility - & intuition
2. Understanding - basic reason and intellect
3. Reason - basic and higher reason.
The term 'unknowable noumenon' is applicable to 1 & 2 but ultimately at the level of higher thinking abilities, the term 'unknowable noumenon' is an oxymoron.
The final consideration is whether all the above is in alignment with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason which in my presentation is a 'yes'.
Ultimately you cannot analogize the noumenon with your QM claims and God [eye-thingy]
The point is that your dealings with the AI Chatbots...
(something of which you rely heavily on to support your arguments)
...simply cannot be trusted to be honest and accurate, and quite often has the AIs responding to some brazen strawman version of your interlocutor's position.
I don't rely on AI to support my arguments but rather it is based on a 3 years full time reading and researching into Kant's CPR and other works plus continual rereading thereafter.
I am simply using AI to organize the points more systematically and effectively.
Where AI is off target I will bring it back to the texts of the CPR.
You on the other hand is an ignorant ultracrepidarian kindi gnat trying to discuss Kant with AI supporting your argument resulting in GIGO.