I was on LinkedIn today and saw this post from Cassie.
When I read 'epistemology' I got excited! There is this big hype now about AI and related tools and once in a while I also play a bit with them.
The following is an excerpt of a longer "conversation" with ChatGPT(3). Unfortunately, after my last message, the tool was not able to give me an answer so after a couple of times I gave up. Have fun reading the conversation!
Brain: If we do accept that there is inherent uncertainty in physical properties, we should accept that there isn't an objective truth, as there is always uncertainty also on data, if we base our judgment on data. |
GPT-3: The presence of uncertainty in physical properties and the limitations of our ability to measure them do not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth. While it is true that there may be uncertainty in the data we collect, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective reality or that all knowledge is inherently uncertain. In fact, the scientific method is specifically designed to account for and minimize uncertainty in our measurements and observations. Scientists strive to minimize the sources of error and uncertainty in their experiments and observations, using rigorous methods and statistical analyses to quantify the uncertainty in their results. Moreover, even if there is some uncertainty in our measurements, it does not necessarily mean that there is no objective reality. It is possible to make objective statements about the likelihood of certain outcomes or the distribution of values, even if we cannot precisely determine the exact value of a physical property. It is also worth noting that the presence of uncertainty does not necessarily undermine the value or usefulness of knowledge. While it is true that we may never be able to achieve absolute certainty, we can still make reliable predictions and decisions based on the best available evidence and the most rigorous methods of inquiry. Ultimately, the goal of science and other forms of knowledge-seeking is not to achieve absolute certainty, but rather to build a reliable and useful body of knowledge that can inform our understanding of the world and guide our actions. |
Brain: If we do accept that perception is part of knowledge then it means that also self-awareness is relevant in the process of pursuing knowledge. Self-awareness is, however, very personal, not every individual reaches the same level of self-awareness. If one has then different awareness from others about an event, wouldn't this be an argument against the existence of an objective reality? |
GPT-3: Perception is indeed a crucial aspect of knowledge acquisition, and self-awareness can play an important role in shaping our perception of reality. However, the fact that individuals may have different levels of self-awareness or subjective experiences does not necessarily mean that objective reality does not exist. Objective reality refers to the existence of facts and events that are independent of our perception or interpretation of them. While our subjective experiences and awareness may influence how we perceive and interpret reality, the underlying facts and events still exist regardless of our perception of them. For example, two people may have different subjective experiences of the same event, but the objective reality of the event (such as the time, location, and physical properties of the event) remains the same. Similarly, scientific experiments can be designed to minimize subjective bias and provide objective evidence for certain phenomena. In conclusion, while self-awareness can influence our perception of reality and therefore our knowledge acquisition, it does not necessarily imply that objective reality does not exist. Objective reality can still exist independently of our subjective experiences and awareness of it. |
Brain: This is true as long as we are speaking of objective reality in terms of something that can be described with one or more physical properties. Reality, however, must have a meaning for someone, a meaning for people. If that's not the case the discussion would be pointless, as neither you nor I would be having this conversation. If reality has to hold a meaning for someone, it means it's based on the interaction. Since different people have different levels of self-awareness they will perceive an experience in different ways. If we accept that certain experiences cannot be described fully (yet) in terms of physical properties (think of feelings, emotions) we should also accept that there is no objective truth, at least as long as we are not able to describe all the physical properties involved in that experience. But even in that case, knowledge is a process, and one property of processes is that of emergence; there will always be something that emerges, new knowledge. Hence, knowledge is never complete. This implies that one can only pursue truth and that, possibly, there isn't a single truth, if more people interact with it at a given point in time. |
Picture created by the author using GenAI