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 other perceiving objects exist.
Premise 3: These two perceiving objects perceive the same object (object
1) differently due to subjectivity.
Premise 4: Two "copies" of the form of object 1 exist in each of the
perceiving objects.
Premise 5: These copies cannot be the object 1 as it is in itself, as
they are copies.
ChatGPT Conclusion: The copies of object 1 perceived by the two
perceiving objects cannot be the object itself as it exists
independently of their perceptions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shook's comments: This argument is actually unsound, with validity
problems as well. Premise 4 is false, for typical observers of typical
objects. Furthermore, this argument is invalid, since it is circular:
only by tacitly accepting that Conclusion would Premise 4 then seem
sensible (this matter of "copies"), much less true. Furthermore, Premise
3 is in conflict with Premise 4: if Premise 4 is accepted as true at
first, the observers would not be able to verify the truth of Premise 3
(or verify premise 1 either if “an object” means “one singular object”).
A valid and not unsound version of an argument would instead be this:
Premise 1. An Object exists.
Premise 2. Two other perceiving objects exist.
Premise 3. These two perceiving objects perceive the same object (Object
1) differently.
Premise 4. An object that objectively exists is (usually) perceived
differently by two different perceivers at the same time. (by definition
of ‘objective’)
Premise 5. Two perspectives of Object 1 occur for each the perceiving
objects.
Premise 6. (from 4 and 5) The observers understand they are
simultaneously viewing the Object, not anything else like an
ontologically different “copy” (definition of "direct perception")
Conclusion: Object 1 is directly perceived as existing.
John Dewey in a few papers from 1904-1912 argued in this manner against
dualistic and indirect theories of veridical perception.
I leave others to comment on the logical limitations of ChapGPT. And we
must hesitate before supposing that any AI will independently confirm
the logicality of any substantive or ontological proposition. Chapbot
has not confirmed any merit to representationalism.
best to all,
john shook
On 6/10/2023 4:30 PM, JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY wrote:
Premise 1: An object exists.
Premise 2: Two other perceiving objects exist.
Premise 3: These two perceiving objects perceive the same object
(object 1) differently due to subjectivity.
Premise 4: Two "copies" of the form of object 1 exist in each of the
perceiving objects.
Premise 5: These copies cannot be the object 1 as it is in itself, as
they are copies. what is the conclusion?
ChatGPT
Based on the premises you provided, the conclusion would be:
Conclusion: The copies of object 1 perceived by the two perceiving
objects cannot be the object itself as it exists independently of
their perceptions.
This conclusion follows logically from the premises and highlights the
distinction between the perceived copies of object 1 and the object
itself. It suggests that the perceived copies are subjective
representations or experiences of the object rather than being
identical to the object as it exists independently of perception.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
