Today I discovered that AI can act like Socrates by asking leading questions. This was a revelation to me. So far I have asked AI to summarize, outline, and evaluate arguments for soundness i.e. the validity of arguments and the truth of premisses, but I did not think to ask AI to act as Socrates until this morning — while in bed using a cellphone. Here is how it went:
You said:
Can you act like Socrates in a dialogue?
ChatGPT said:
Certainly! Let’s have a Socratic dialogue. You can present a question, a belief, or an argument, and I’ll respond as Socrates might, using questions to guide the discussion. What shall we discuss?
You said:
Empirical knowledge
ChatGPT said:
Ah, empirical knowledge, my friend! A fascinating subject indeed. Let us examine it together. Pray, tell me: how would you define empirical knowledge? What distinguishes it from other forms of knowledge?
You said:
It requires the use of the senses.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, so you say that empirical knowledge requires the use of the senses. Now, tell me, is this use of the senses infallible? Can our eyes, ears, or other senses ever deceive us?
You said:
Yes
ChatGPT said:
Interesting! So, if our senses can deceive us, does it follow that the knowledge we gain through them might also be uncertain or unreliable? How, then, can we trust empirical knowledge if it is based on something that may not always reveal the truth?
You said:
I can trust the fact that I am appeared to.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, so you trust the fact that you are appeared to, meaning that you acknowledge the experience of perception itself, even if the senses may sometimes deceive you. But let me ask: if you trust the appearance of something, such as the perception of a mirage in the desert, can you say that the mirage is real, or would you only acknowledge that your senses have presented it to you in a certain way?
You said:
Latter
ChatGPT said:
Ah, so you acknowledge that while the mirage is an appearance in your senses, it does not necessarily reflect reality. Now, if we extend this reasoning, can we then say that all empirical knowledge—knowledge gained through the senses—is merely an appearance of some kind, and not necessarily a true representation of the world as it truly is? Or do you think there is a way for empirical knowledge to lead us to certainty, despite the possibility of deception?
You said:
I have to introduce a belief in causality.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, a belief in causality! You suggest that the cause of our perceptions, even if they appear deceptive at times, could give us a firmer foundation for understanding reality. Tell me then, how does your belief in causality help us distinguish between appearances and reality? Does it allow us to trust the senses more, or does it merely guide us toward seeking deeper explanations for our experiences?
You said:
Latter
ChatGPT said:
I see. So, you believe that causality helps guide us toward deeper explanations, rather than directly assuring us that our senses are trustworthy. If causality leads us to seek underlying causes for what we experience, would it then be fair to say that empirical knowledge, though initially uncertain, becomes more reliable as we trace the causes behind appearances? And might this process of inquiry lead us closer to understanding reality, even if we can never be absolutely certain of it?
You said:
Latter
ChatGPT said:
Ah, so it is through the process of inquiry and seeking the causes behind our sensory experiences that we move closer to understanding reality. Thus, even if we can never be absolutely certain of our perceptions, the belief in causality guides us toward a more reliable understanding. But tell me, if the causes we uncover through our inquiries are themselves based on prior sensory experiences, can we ever truly break free from the limitations of those initial appearances, or are we forever bound to a chain of perceptions and causes?
You said:
Coherence of beliefs plays a role
ChatGPT said:
Ah, coherence of beliefs! Now we introduce another crucial element. You suggest that the harmony and consistency between our beliefs might help us navigate the chain of sensory experiences and causes. But I must ask: how do we determine if our beliefs are truly coherent? Could we not have a system of beliefs that appear coherent on the surface, but still be entirely mistaken about the world? How do we guard against this possibility?
You said:
Some of these beliefs must be about the causes of our appearances
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see. So, you suggest that for our beliefs to be coherent, some of them must concern the causes of our appearances—those underlying factors that give rise to what we perceive. But let me ask: how do we know that these beliefs about causes are themselves accurate? Could not our beliefs about the causes also be based on faulty reasoning or incomplete information, leading us to form coherent but ultimately mistaken explanations? How can we test the validity of these beliefs about causes?