Dear John Shook,
I had sent a note to Peirce-L about a lecture that a colleague and I had
presented on May 31st. And it was extremely critical of GPT and related
systems. Their only good and reliable contribution is their ability to do
better machine translation than previous AI systems.
Jon, Jack, John Shook, List,
I also concur with John Shook's critique of Jack's latest argumentation.
While Jon's message here should at least put to rest what Peirce's position
is in this matter (although it no doubt won't), his succinct summary of
that position (especially when taken along with
Jon, John, list,
There is no Peircean Semeiotic, whatsoever - without the Kantian thing in
itself. The object as thing must be in itself beyond all possible cognition and
experience.
H1)O(H2
H1[O'])O(H2[O']
-
)=experience, necessarily mediated, thus
Jack, List:
John Shook's assessment of your latest argumentation is spot-on. The two
different perceiving objects do not perceive two different "copies" of
object 1, they both directly perceive the very same object 1 itself.
However, their different perceptual perspectives and faculties give them
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.
