Hello Peirceans from a Deweyan,
So impressed by recent contributions, and arguments over Peirce/Kant etal.
Have to disagree with a recent approval of ChatGPT's "logicality". To
recap, we were provided with this argument:
+++
Premise 1: An object exists.
Premise 2: Two
edit: i did draw the conclusion for it, my mistake. but i think it is sound
(that's not the purpose here).
interpretant generation ala Peirce and dynamical objects is really what I'm
after here (people's understanding of it). synthetising Kant and Peirce and I
know a lot of each, but my
John, Jon, list,
We all agree, I think, that thing in itself exists (though we disagree as to
systematicity - whether we can know it or not, i.e., Peirce/Kant).
Just wanted list's opinion, generally, on this:
[cid:1d946b44-0226-4409-8582-6347e726eaf1][User]
JC:
Premise 1: An object exists.
