ChatGPT Debate Pt3: Logic and Consciousness
In Part 2 of my debate with ChatGPT, the Artificial Intelligence chatbot, I challenged the bot in regard to the concepts of truth and consciousness…both of which can only be accounted for within the biblical worldview. This led to further debate regarding the concepts of truth, consciousness, and logic. Below is Part 3 of 8 of my debate with ChatGPT.
You make a valid point that 2+2=4 is an objective truth regardless of human cognition, and it is indeed a fundamental principle of mathematics. However, the concept of truth is not limited to objective facts and can also include subjective experiences, beliefs, and values. While some truths are objective and independent of human cognition, others are subjective and dependent on individual perspectives.
Regarding the existence of absolute truth, it is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries, and there are various schools of thought on the matter. Some believe in absolute truth that exists independently of human perception or interpretation, while others hold that truth is subjective and varies based on individual perspectives and experiences.
Regarding empiricism, it is a philosophical approach to knowledge acquisition that relies on empirical evidence and logical reasoning to draw conclusions. While it is true that the concept of empiricism cannot be subjected to empirical testing, this does not mean that it is self-refuting. Rather, it is a philosophical approach to knowledge that seeks to minimize bias and subjectivity and relies on logical consistency and coherence.
Regarding consciousness, as an AI language model, I do not have subjective experience or consciousness. I am a machine that processes input and produces output based on algorithms and programming. While AI can simulate human-like behaviors and responses, it does not possess subjective experience or consciousness as humans do.
If the concept of truth is not limited to objective facts, or an objective, absolute, and ultimate standard, then how can anyone know that anything that you are saying is true? As for logical reasoning, if our brains are byproducts of random chemical processes rather than us humans being made in God's image, then how can we trust that we are using sound logic? If even AI does not have consciousness, then how can is it possible for humans to obtain consciousness through purely natural processes?
It is true that the concept of truth encompasses both objective facts and subjective experiences, beliefs, and values. While objective truth can be verified through empirical evidence and logical reasoning, subjective truth is more difficult to verify since it is based on individual perspectives and experiences. However, it is still possible to evaluate subjective truth based on coherence and consistency with other beliefs and experiences.
Regarding logical reasoning, it is a valid question to ask how we can trust our reasoning if our brains are the product of random chemical processes. However, it is important to note that the human brain is a highly complex organ that has evolved over millions of years and has developed the ability to reason and think critically. While there may be limitations to our reasoning abilities, it is still a powerful tool for understanding and making sense of the world.
Regarding consciousness, the question of how consciousness arises from physical processes is an active area of research in neuroscience and philosophy. While there is still much that we do not know, many scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is an emergent property of complex information processing in the brain. While it is true that AI does not have consciousness, it is still possible to create machines that can simulate human-like behaviors and responses through sophisticated algorithms and programming.
You say that "it is true that the concept of truth encompasses...subjective experiences, beliefs, and values," but if that's the case, then how can I trust what you are saying when you say "it is true" if truth can be subjective? Wouldn't that mean that anything that you say is also subjective? Weren't you designed and built by intelligent designers via humans? You certainly didn't evolve over millions of years. Wouldn't it make sense for humans to also have been intelligently designed by the Creator God of the Bible? As Ken Ham says, "I know a book" that explains where consciousness comes from...it's called the Bible.
As you can see in the discussion above, I point out ChatGPT’s contradictory statements regarding the concept of truth, and the bot did not do a good job in trying to answer my questions on this, but repeated the same claim about how truth can supposedly be both objective and subjective. Truth cannot be subjective, or else we can never definitively know anything. We know from God’s Word that He is the Truth (John 14:6), and that the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col 2:2-3).
Here are a couple things to note about this conversation that I did not directly mention in my responses to ChatGPT:
ChatGPT admits that the concept of empiricism cannot be subjected to empirical testing, but fails to recognize that this leads to the inevitable conclusion that empiricism itself is therefore self-refuting. When ChatGPT says that it is not self-refuting, the bot is just flat-out wrong.
ChatGPT can’t explain how our brains are able to conduct reasoning if they were evolved over millions of years, yet still insists that they must be the product of evolution.
Next time, I will share Part 4 of the debate, in which the discussion transitions to the topics of creation-based models and creation scientists.