My purpose in creating this summary is not to necessarily debate with people about this or that interpretation, but to just summarize the main points in the Tractatus. There is a lot to disagree with in the Tractatus, but that again is not the point of the summary. If you want to engage, write up a summary, which is what the thread is about, and state in your summary why you think this or that interpretation is incorrect citing the Tractatus. It's not about what you or I disagree with in the Tractatus, at least in this thread.

For people like me who think a lot about what Wittgenstein said I find it challenging to understand his early thinking as compared to his later thinking. It's interesting to trace his thinking throughout his life.

As far as engaging with you on this or that idea, I don't engage that much with people anymore. I do here and there, but not consistently. So don't take it personally.

Since language is used to communicate our ideas it's very important to incorporate linguistic analysis into our thinking as philosophers. It's the starting point of any good philosophical investigation. It's his later philosophy that's most important, along with J.L. Austin's thinking.

thanks

Let's hear your summary, write something instead of making silly statements.

Just write a summary of the Tractatus, maybe I'm wrong.

It's a waste of time. :gasp:

My opinion is that you don't understand the Tractatus, so no, I'm not going to discuss it with you.

You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying if you have a better interpretation of his work, explain it, but I'm moving forward.

Is the world of facts only propositions of natural science? Why would it be so? — schopenhauer1

If you have a better understanding of Wittgenstein's Tractatus explain it in a thread. I'm just giving my interpretation of what he said.

This doesn't make sense though. First off, this statement itself is a metaphysical statement of the world.. one regarding metaphysics relationship with facts — schopenhauer1

Given Wittgenstein's logic about what can be said within the limits of the world of facts, anything that goes beyond the world of facts (beyond the propositions of natural science) is metaphysical and outside the limit of what can be said. His statement doesn't violate his logic, i.e., it's not a metaphysical statement. Of course, Wittgenstein does make metaphysical statements in the Tractatus, but they're meant to show us the way, i.e., they're not meant to be factual in Wittgenstein's sense. They show the way up the ladder, and once the ladder is traversed it can be discarded. What we're left with after the ladder is discarded is all the propositions that connect with the world of facts.

Many people have had experiences of visiting Heaven or Hell, or seeing an angel during prayer. Others still, see visions of Christian-specific events or symbols. This is an argument that proceeds on this basis, that they serve as evidence for Christianity. — Hallucinogen

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical.

I would say that, perhaps, he wants us to be silent about certain kinds of metaphysics. Like Hume before him which said to "cast into the fire" all metaphysics devoid of quantification or qualification, this reduces the sphere substantially. — 013zen

It seems clear to me that metaphysics is beyond the world of facts, and that metaphysics for Wittgenstein is beyond what can be said. This is the distinction between saying and showing.

Can you explain his sarcasm? — bert1

No, I can't. :lol:

You're such an ass, grow up!

Not sure what you mean, explain.

I'm not sure what your point was, that's why I didn't answer the question. This thread wasn't created to engage about ChatGPT. It was created to see what answers ChatGPT would give to certain questions, but maybe many people in here already have GPT 4 and are using it like @Wayfarer.

That is different from noting the success rate of a Bar Exam. — Paine

My point about the bar exam is that GPT 4 can explain more than just basic courses. Remember your point about it doing better than you in low-level classes. From what I've seen it can do well at higher-level explanations, hence, the bar exam point. It will be interesting to see what GPT 5 can do.

:up:

Does it make sense to claim that consciousness is an illusion? Answer in the voice of J. L. Austin from Sense and Sensibilia.

Chat GPT 4 answer:

In the voice of J.L. Austin, from his style in "Sense and Sensibilia":

Now, let’s consider this curious claim that consciousness is an illusion. We must be careful with such grand pronouncements, for they often lead us astray. The very notion of an illusion presupposes that there is something real of which the illusion is a mere semblance or distortion. To say that consciousness is an illusion is to imply that there is, indeed, some ‘real’ consciousness which we are mistaking.

Let us apply some ordinary language scrutiny to this idea. When we speak of illusions in everyday language, we refer to specific cases – a mirage in the desert, a magic trick, a reflection mistaken for a doorway. These are instances where our senses deceive us, but we always have a clear idea of what the reality behind the illusion is. When we say that consciousness is an illusion, what is this supposed reality that we are mistaking it for?

Furthermore, to even discuss the concept of an illusion, we must be conscious. An illusion is something we are conscious of. Therefore, if consciousness itself were an illusion, what is the state we are actually in? It seems rather nonsensical to suggest that the very medium through which we understand illusions could itself be an illusion.

We must also remember the principle of linguistic analysis: words and concepts gain their meaning from their use in ordinary language. ‘Consciousness’ is a term we use to describe our awareness, our experiences, our thoughts. To call this an illusion is to misuse the term, to step outside the bounds of its ordinary usage, and to invite confusion rather than clarity.

In short, claiming that consciousness is an illusion is not just misleading, but fundamentally incoherent. It overlooks the very framework within which we discuss reality and illusions. Let us, therefore, handle such claims with a healthy dose of philosophical scepticism and a preference for clarity and common sense.

Listen to the Q&A if you just have a few minutes.

If you gave it a voice it might be able to engage with others, not just on low-level philosophy courses but higher-level ones too. I've been asking it questions about Wittgenstein's Tractatus and it does well.

GPT 4 scored alongside the top 10% of those who took the bar exam.

I agree.

It can do much more than produce cliff notes, watch the video I linked above. I'll bet it would do better than you in a university setting.

I asked it to pick one of the theories above that best describes how we use the concept truth. This isn't the complete answer, but the summary.

GPT's Answer:

If I were to choose the theory that seems to best fit the general concept and common usage of truth across various contexts, I would lean towards the Correspondence Theory. It aligns with the intuitive and widely accepted notion that truth involves a relationship between statements and the actual state of affairs in the world. This theory provides a straightforward framework for understanding truth in empirical, scientific, and everyday contexts, where verifying statements against reality is fundamental.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that different theories may be more suitable in specific contexts, and a pluralistic approach that incorporates elements from multiple theories might offer a more comprehensive understanding of truth.

I think it's a good general answer. We could get more nuanced answers if we choose to pursue the question in more detail.

I think the definition I gave is probably a good one.

Thanks for the explanation.

The way I understand it, is that it has access to a huge database of possible answers across the internet, but I'm not completely sure. The programming is beyond what I know.

It gives you a menu of possible answers based on different philosophical theories. I was thinking about asking it which theory of truth it thinks best describes what truth is.

Agreed.

The AI generated the answer.

Note that the AI answered that "seemingly meaningless" input can be meaningful, if it was completely meaningless it would be a different answer.

I've been using GPT 3.5 for about six months, but this is a bit better in some subjects, and a lot better in others. Overall, it does a very good job.

Question:

Can AI-generated art be meaningful if the input is meaningless?

Chat GPT 4's answer:

AI-generated art can still be meaningful even if the input is seemingly meaningless. The meaning in art often emerges through various channels, and several factors can contribute to the perceived meaning of AI-generated art:

1) Interpretation by the Viewer:

Subjective Interpretation: Viewers bring their own experiences, emotions, and perspectives to the interpretation of art. Even if the input is meaningless, viewers may find patterns, evoke emotions, or derive personal meaning from the output.

Contextual Meaning: The context in which the art is presented can imbue it with meaning. For example, the title, setting, or accompanying narrative can influence how the art is perceived and interpreted.

2) Artistic Process and Creativity:

Algorithmic Creativity: The process by which the AI generates the art can be seen as a form of creativity, where the AI explores patterns, styles, and combinations that may not have been considered by human artists.

Emergent Properties: The art may exhibit emergent properties or unexpected features that create a sense of meaning or aesthetic value, even if the initial input lacks clear intent or meaning.

3) Role of the Creator:

Curatorial Role: The person or team guiding the AI may select, curate, and present the output in ways that highlight certain aspects, adding layers of meaning.

Intentional Constraints: Even with a seemingly meaningless input, the constraints and parameters set by the creator can shape the output in meaningful ways.

4) Cultural and Social Impact:

Cultural Reflection: AI-generated art can reflect contemporary cultural, technological, and social themes, prompting viewers to consider the relationship between technology and creativity.

Discussion and Debate: The existence of AI-generated art itself can provoke discussions about the nature of art, creativity, and the role of artificial intelligence in human endeavors, adding to its significance.

5) Aesthetic Value:

Visual Appeal: The aesthetic qualities of the art, such as color, form, and composition, can create a sense of beauty or intrigue, leading to an appreciation that goes beyond the input’s meaning.

Summary
AI-generated art can achieve meaning through interpretation, context, the artistic process, the role of the creator, its cultural and social impact, and its aesthetic qualities. Even if the initial input is meaningless, these factors can contribute to the emergence of meaningful and impactful art.

I recently purchased Chat GPT Plus (4.0) and asked it about my definition of philosophy, here is the response.

My question:

Would it be a good definition of philosophy to say that the main thrust of philosophy is the examination of beliefs, systems of belief, and potential beliefs?

ChatGPT 4.0

"Yes, that is a solid definition. The main thrust of philosophy can indeed be described as the examination of beliefs, systems of belief, and potential beliefs. This definition captures the essence of philosophical inquiry, which involves:

"Critical Examination: Analyzing and questioning the nature, validity, and implications of beliefs.

"Systematic Exploration: Investigating how individual beliefs form coherent systems and frameworks.

"Hypothetical Consideration: Exploring potential beliefs and their consequences through thought experiments and logical analysis.

"By focusing on these aspects, philosophy aims to deepen our understanding of fundamental concepts and issues, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

We're buddies now that it agreed with me. :grin:

Depends on what we mean by belief. — Mikie

Take any proposition/statement that you think is true, even if it is just an opinion lacking a strong justification or no justification. Examples are plentiful, "God exists," "God doesn't exist," "AI will destroy us," "Lying is morally wrong," "Consciousness is an illusion," etc, etc. Again, it's any proposition you think is true. Philosophy is constantly analyzing such beliefs. There may be exceptions, but this I think is generally true.

I'm just espousing my beliefs. :grin:

Superficially maybe. I'd rather put it this way: philosophy consists in reflective questioning of the assumptions and implications of "what we believe" (i.e. logic-grammar-dialectics preceeds epistēmē). — 180 Proof

It's not superficial at all. We use deductive and inductive reasoning to analyze what we believe and what others believe. What do you think logic is about? It's about reasoning to a correct conclusion. I'm checking what I believe or what others believe using logic. Making sure my assumptions (my beliefs) are properly reasoned through. If we analyze what others believe using philosophical tools, we are checking systems of belief. The dialectic is a way of analyzing beliefs.

Can you give an e.g. where philosophy doesn't deal with beliefs or belief systems in some way?

That's why epistemology is so important. We like to think as philosophers that our beliefs are more than opinions, we like to think they are justified and true.

In short, if a belief is a (cognitive) disposition towards whether or not a proposition is true or false; then it plainly follows that beliefs do not make propositions true or false. Thusly, moral propositions cannot be true or false relative to cognitive dispositions. — Bob Ross

Suppose someone believes that it's their disposition about a belief that makes a proposition true or false. In that case, it's akin to what I often say about convictions, viz., just because one holds to the conviction the X is true, that in itself means very little in terms of what's morally true or false. The difference is between knowledge (JTB) and mere opinion, or more precisely the difference is between using know as the expression of a conviction and using know as an epistemological point, i.e., being properly justified in one's moral belief.

Your point is an important epistemological statement, and I agree. It's not a matter of pointing to my inner subjectivity that makes a statement true or false, at least not in this example. There may be certain propositions that are dependent on our feelings or intuitions, but moral propositions are not of that ilk.