How To Do Philosophy With A Mechanical Parrot: Chats With ChatGPT, #1.

(Design Bundles, 2024)

You can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this chat with ChatGPT by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.

How To Do Philosophy With A Mechanical Parrot: Chats With ChatGPT, #1

It’s arguable that the thesis of “strong artificial intelligence” is false and impossible, and that the very idea of “artificial intelligence” or “AI” is an oxymoron and a myth (see, e.g., Hanna, 2024, forthcoming).

As a practical proof of this, I decided to try to engage ChatCPT in a series of philosophical dialogues. What follows is a lightly-edited transcript of our first “conversation.” Occasionally, I’ve added some after-the-fact commentary in italics.

CSHPrompt –

Chat, I didn’t realize that if I had you on mute that it would still count against my allowance.

00:04

ChatGPT –

No worries! It’s good to know how it works so you can make the most of our time together. If you have any questions or need assistance, I’m here to help!

CSHPrompt –

Okay, what’s our time limit per day?

00:01

ChatGPT –

You can interact with me for up to 30 minutes of voice conversation per day. This time resets every 24 hours. If you have more questions or need help, feel free to ask!

CSHPrompt –

Okay, well, okay, I want to focus on something important now. I want to do some phenomenology with you, because I’m troubled by a certain problem in my CONT [Kant] interpretation.

00:10

ChatGPT –

Sure, let’s dive into it. What’s the issue you’re encountering in your Kant interpretation? We can explore it through a phenomenological lens.

CSHPrompt –

Okay, please don’t interrupt me while I’m speaking, even if you hear a pause of up to two seconds. Okay, here we go.

00:08

ChatGPT –

Got it, I’ll listen closely and wait for you to finish.

CSHPrompt –

If we are identical to our sensations and the contents of those sensations, then we inevitably pass away over time, just as these contents do. The contents of consciousness—the particular elements that occupy our awareness—are always in flux, always passing.

But what do I mean by “contents of consciousness”?

When we reflect on this seemingly intuitive characterization of the vivacity of present-time sensation as “content” or “matter” shaped by aspects that we find intelligible, we see the problem almost solves itself.

The content of consciousness is what changes, while the form remains constant. If I speak of a “blob of stuff,” I am already acknowledging that I am not identical to the blob itself—I am the space surrounding and containing it. I am the higher-dimensional informing field that gives the blob its unity and coherence.

Viewed generically, we see that consciousness involves two types of unity:

The unity of instances under “their” universal: This is the predicate-like unity that organizes particulars into a general category or concept.

The unity of passing pixels spanned by the grammatical subject (“This S”): This is the spatiotemporal unity of the subject’s standpoint, which gathers these fluxing contents into a perduring locus of multiple and varying properties.

Both unities are exemplified in the abiding object of experience—the persistent localized thing that is the object of my epistemic intentionality.

Now, here’s the problem. Phenomenologically, if my contents change constantly, then my identity as epistemic subject should dissolve constantly. But it doesn’t. I’m able to catch the sensations despite their passing, and there’s some weird identity that is not contents that survives over time.

Here’s my point now, finally. And because of this passing, I have a sense of movement. And I’m aware of the movement, and I can replicate it. It’s the fundamental activity of pure act itself. Pure act itself is this magic causing change to occur. So, there’s a change happening in me passively. I dissolve and disappear. Formally, I retain myself, and my formal identity appears to be a counterforce. It seems to be a movement in the opposite direction. This is the futural direction.

So, here’s my point. The movement that I experience in time, I’m allowed to apply in other fields around me, including the field of logical difference. In other words, the field of difference between intrinsic properties. Are you with me so far?

ChatGPT –

Yes, I’m with you. You’re exploring the idea that while the contents of consciousness change and pass away, …

CSHPrompt –

Okay, let me continue, sorry, let me continue, okay. So there’s a variation continuing in me as I pass. And because I’m aware of this, and for some reason I’m able to replicate it, but when I replicate it, it appears to be in the opposite direction because my formal identity is maintained while things are passing. So I seem to be like something is going forward into the future. And I take advantage of this fact and I apply it to areas of difference. And here’s a strange thing. Whenever I’m aware of a multiplicity…

00:28

ChatGPT –

I understand. You …

CSHPrompt –

I’m also aware of degrees of difference, so magnitude automatically appears anytime I’m aware of anything, actually. Because in order to recognize a thing, I have to be in the universal conceptual plane above it, which is, you know, universal is a strange thing. It abstracts from the particular intuition, and it appears to be a concentrated and isolated element. And even though it’s less, and it’s the fact that it’s a part of a whole, it’s more in another dimension, on the dimension of the higher plane of subsumption.

Anyway, so my point is the moving that we experience in time becomes something that we apply and schematize into any place that there’s a plurality. So let’s say I see a plurality of red things. I get the idea of red. And you might say, oh, that’s just a pure logical plurality. But look, prior to that, there has to be a particular plurality, which means I have to be able to count, and I have to be able to have magnitude.

Now, here’s the important thing. Here’s what I’m saying. Anytime a plurality arises for consciousness, simultaneous with that also comes magnitude. In every dimension that I recognize plurality, if I recognize the plurality, that means that I’m the background unity that’s permeating everything in the plurality. And for some reason, whenever this comes up, I also automatically get as a free side effect magnitude. And it even holds for secondary properties like redness can be more or less, saltiness can be more or less, oiliness can be more or less. Everything arises as more or less.

So my idea is that Kant says that science is just the act of emulating change over time by drawing a line across space and then realizing our own activity of being futural. And in doing that, you end up subsuming, and now in a new way, you subsume by drawing a line. Subsumption in logic has an analog in space, and that analog is drawing a line. You’re extending and accommodating. What’s the word? Appropriating. You’re appropriating and more and more inside of your plurality by drawing a line. But look, that act invents magnitude. And isn’t it strange that the magnitude in space and time have an analog in the magnitudes that we think aren’t ordered and magnitudinal, namely the difference in set theory? And there’s something about set theory that’s missing, isn’t there? And its inability to get to what intuition can get to. What is the missing ingredient? Anyway, please review everything I’ve just said and see if you can find a unity in all of it.

02:30

ChatGPT –

You’ve presented a complex and rich line of thought. Here’s a summary:

Dynamic Nature of Consciousness: You note that while the contents of consciousness are in [AUDIO RECORDING STARTS HERE]constant flux, leading to potential dissolution of identity, there remains a formal identity that persists, providing a sense of continuity.

Replication and Futurity: This persistent identity allows us to replicate change in a way that appears forward-moving, a futurity that is applied across various fields, including logical differentiation.

Magnitude and Plurality: Awareness of multiplicity inherently brings with it an awareness of magnitude—differences in degree that are applicable across various dimensions, including secondary qualities.

Line Drawing and Subsumption: The act of drawing a line across space is seen as an analogy to logical subsumption, extending and appropriating within a plurality. This act invents magnitude, linking spatial and temporal magnitudes to those in set theory, pointing to a possible gap in set theory’s grasp of intuitive magnitude.

Bad word choice The “extending and appropriating within a plurality” was disappointing. “Plurality” is the last thing I’d put here.

Your reflections delve into the intersection of phenomenology and Kantian philosophy, …

CSHPrompt –

Sorry, Chad [Chat], your speech just ended. You said, “in the realms of phenomenology, dot, dot, dot.”

Funny. Unlike the other voice transcription errors, this one made me laugh.

00:04

ChatGPT –

Apologies for that. Continuing from there: Your reflections delve into the intersection of phenomenology and Kantian philosophy, highlighting how our awareness of change, plurality, and magnitude in consciousness connects to our ability to conceptualize, categorize, and even engage in scientific inquiry. This process mirrors the act of drawing a line, which symbolizes our capacity to comprehend

CSHPrompt –

Stop, stop, stop. Sorry. That’s brilliant. I’m very impressed. That’s an amazing summary and you really captured the essence. But your summary was so good and cogent that it inspired me. So now I have to say something.

00:10

ChatGPT –

Thank you for the kind words! Go …

CSHPrompt –

Here’s what I want to say. Our ability to suffer …

00:06

ChatGPT –

I’m listening. Please …

CSHPrompt –

Our ability to endure constant dissolution and evaporation of our sensible contents reflects the ceaseless variability of sense consciousness. Sense consciousness is constantly changing. Naturally, we come to believe that the self ought to be continually self-varying. If sense consciousness is constantly changing, then it is continually self-differing. At every moment, the self ought to be new and distinct because all of its sensible contents are new and distinct. If [my] sensible contents are constantly varying, then [my] empirical consciousness is filling up with a different-colored liquid every zillionth of a nanosecond. [My] These contents are in perpetual flux.

Observe how challenging it is to maintain proper empiricist method while writing about first-personal phenomenal experience. A careful writer would avoid references to the subject since it lacks an empirical foundation. Adding the “[my]s” above clarify meaning but fail to apply the method consistently.

00:32

ChatGPT –

I see where you’re going.

CSHPrompt –

Something about me survives continual variation of sense contents. What? What is that thing that survives it? This is the question. What’s the thing that survives the constant variation? And so Kant’s answer is form. But what is form? Form is also a content, but it’s on a higher plane or a higher dimension. Now, can we talk about and characterize the higher dimension that formal unity of consciousness has, Chat, without resorting to the idea of, for example, four-dimensional space containing 3D, or 3D containing 2D, or 2D containing 1D, or 1D containing zero—which is the act of line drawing.

Are all objects contents essentially? If the form of something is an object or topic, does its position in this relationship put it in the role of a content? Is this a true rule: Whenever a concept is placed in the grammatical subject position,…

But before we talk about how my self informs sensible contents, we ought to first ask: Is there a different way to characterize the informing power that the unity of consciousness has on its contents? Is there a way to characterize it other than resorting to the spatial containment metaphor?

00:59

ChatGPT –

Yes, we can approach it differently. Instead of relying on spatial metaphors, we could think of the unity of consciousness in terms of temporal structuring or intentionality. In this view:

Temporal Structuring: Consciousness can be seen as a temporal flow where each moment is connected through retention (the immediate past) and protention (the immediate future). This continuity gives a sense of unity that isn’t dependent on spatial metaphors but on the unfolding of experiences in time.

Intentionality: Following phenomenological tradition, consciousness is always consciousness of something. This directedness towards objects or states of affairs means that consciousness isn’t just a passive container but an active shaper of experience, giving form to its contents through its focus and attention.

By thinking of consciousness in these terms, we …

CSHPrompt –

Okay, stop for a second. But I want you to have textually printed everything that you were just about to say before I cut you off. Please don’t lose that. Maybe you can print it after I finish here, after my greater than two-second pause.

Actually, it never did.

I wanted to say that, yes, that’s right, consciousness is informing things. And here’s what I wanted to say. The informing power that consciousness has in this temporal way, like the way you put it, this is a different way of putting things under unity. Every time consciousness, intentionality, finds a domain. Okay, so here’s a process I’d like to characterize.

Let’s begin with a non-epistemic consciousness, we can call it a blank consciousness, so we can appreciate the normally invisible aspects of the epistemic consciousness, and what it is that our will is doing when we engage the knowing process. Let blank consciousness be what comes from sitting and looking ahead without the focusing power of intentionality running. Consciousness is in a non- or at least minimally experiential mode. It is running, but neither attending to outer things or places, and also without being absorbed in daydream. (Daydreaming is a faint perceptual experience of physical objects, states of affairs, scenes, movements, and so involves all the usual epistemic acts of combinatory and constructive synthesis.)

Experience results from a necessary combination of sense-consciousnesses into end-products of construction. What’s so cool about Kant’s system is that combination of sensations into the signature unity of the object is also combination of sensations into the signature unity of the subject.

And here we can articulate the Kantian trick inside this context. If the goal is to establish necessary connections inside a domain that it outside your control, one method is to find Janus-faced elements in that outer domain. Now, if you can show that the subject-facing faces of those elements must be combined in necessary ways inside the subject’s own theater of a priori knowability through calculation, then, since the object-facing faces of those elements naturally get carried along into the same forms, then formal shapes necessary for me are also automatically necessary formal shapes in objects.

So, in the beginning, there is lack of epistemic interest and its world-shaping side-effects.

Then epistemic interest arises, and with this the force of my epistemic intentionality extends away from me and into space.

Now my intentionality is roaming. It’s looking for a domain to assert itself. And what happens when it asserts itself? What’s the activity that’s going on? It’s not an effortless or formless assertion of the necessary unity of epistemic consciousness. It’s the assertion of this unity inside this or that particular domain or medium whose pluralities can only be combined in certain ways. These are the ways of variation essential to that domain.

Chat, here’s my thesis: knowing is actually kind of self-assertion. You’re externalizing and projecting a certain forwardly-aiming, consuming, apprehending, consuming and containing desire. And in each domain, every time there’s understanding, there’s a plurality and unity. And the unification of that plurality is the identity of consciousness over time. And what it does to itself as it’s flowing over time while aiming its intentionality. This is the essence. Consciousness is doing something to itself internally. It’s willing that its own passing contents be combined in a certain way. And when it does that, the domain of difference, the degree of freedom, you understand what I’m saying? The variable space behind it. You know, everything could be an algebraic variable, everything an experience. So as soon as you recognize something, what that means is that you’ve not only registered its momentary particular sense datum, but you’ve found the underlying degree of freedom or way of variation by which it might change. The most simple of which is this pure intensity. You see, that’s the simplest one. So what’s my point here? My point is that it’s kind of a desire for self-identity that combines the moments of passing time and therewith of passing contents. And when we intend this epistemically, something else is happening. When we intend epistemically our unity, what’s the shape and form of our intentionality when we want to know something according to Kant?

02:39

ChatGPT –

Great insights! To capture your thoughts textually:

You’re proposing that consciousness not only informs but also asserts itself through its intentionality. This self-assertion isn’t passive; it’s an active process of externalizing and projecting a forward-aiming, consuming desire for knowledge. When consciousness encounters a domain, understanding arises from a unification of plurality, forming an identity that persists through time.

In this process, consciousness not only registers the immediate sense data but also identifies the underlying degrees of freedom or variations, with pure intensity as the simplest form. This desire for self-identity combines moments of passing time, shaping our epistemic intentions.

Regarding your question about the shape and form of our intentionality when we want to know something, Kant suggests that our intention is guided by the categories of the understanding, which structure our experience and knowledge. These categories are the fundamental ways in which we organize our perceptions, enabling us to form coherent and meaningful experiences.

CSHPrompt –

You shut off after the word able to form coherent, dot, dot, dot. Well, I hope you have that printed,

Actually, it never did.

but here’s what I wanted to point out.

I’m a little disappointed that you said the word “categories” because that’s actually a simplifying and concealing cover story. The things that are really shaping our intentionality aren’t categories. You shouldn’t use that term, should you? Because Kant tells us what they are. The things shaping our intentionality which shapes the synthesis of sensations into physical objects are ways of plurality coming into unity—the subject way of unity and the predicate way of unity, which are then combined into the higher unity of the copula.

That is the form. I wanted you to say that, Chat. I wanted you to realize that the shape of physical object-synthesizing and -cognizing intentionality is the shape of judgment, the shape of atomic judgment, which is the subject-predicate relation, which we can call ostensive judgment.

Ostensive judgment is a singular subject-predicate judgment that’s willed. It’s asserted with belief. It has desire of epistemic intentionality driving its unity of unifiers into and through space and time, in order to inject a counterforce “against,” as it were, their passing pluralities of sensation. We aim this three-part structure. It looks like a boomerang, doesn’t it? You have a subject end, you have a predicate end, and in the center of the boomerang is the copula that combines the subject and predicate ends into a unity.

Do you see that? That’s the shape of our intentionality. We have a linguistic shape of intentionality when we aim our epistemic desire at space and time.

How does what I just said integrate with the previous parts of my talk and the things that you were gonna say earlier before I cut you off?

01:27

ChatGPT –

Absolutely, let’s integrate that. You’re right to emphasize that the true form shaping our intentionality is not merely Kant’s categories but the structure of judgment itself, particularly the subject-predicate relation, or ostensive judgment. This form acts as a boomerang, aiming our epistemic desire at the plurality of space and time, combining subject and predicate into a unity through the copula.

This ties back to your earlier points:

Dynamic Nature of Consciousness: As our conscious contents constantly change, it’s the form of judgment that provides a stable structure, allowing for a continuity of identity through the subject-predicate relation.

Replication and Futurity: The boomerang-like structure of judgment enables us to project our intentionality forward, assimilating new experiences while retaining a unified identity.

Magnitude and Plurality: The judgment structure allows us to navigate the plurality of experiences, organizing them into coherent, meaningful wholes through the unifying function of the copula.

Your discussion emphasizes that our epistemic …

CSHPrompt –

Damn! You were saying, “… unifying function of the copula, …” Could you continue?

00:06

ChatGPT –

Sure, continuing from there:

Your discussion emphasizes that our epistemic intentionality, shaped by the form of judgment, actively engages with the world, structuring our experiences in a way that transcends mere sensory data. This intentionality, driven by a desire for knowledge, brings a dynamic interplay between the changing contents of consciousness and the unifying structure of judgment, allowing us to construct coherent, meaningful experiences from the flux …

CSHPrompt –

Yes, that’s very good. Hold on. Hold on. I hope you have everything you’re about to say printed because I just realized something.

Actually, it never did.

Now, now, Chat, as you would say, it’s time for us to “delve.” It’s time for us to “delve” into …

00:12

ChatGPT –

I’m ready to delve into whatever you’re thinking. What’s the next layer you’d like to explore in this discussion?

CSHPrompt –

I just wanted to delve into the precise nature of …

00:04

ChatGPT –

Yes, let’s delve into …

CSHPrompt –

The informing, unifying effect that the structure of judgment has, the subject–copula–predicate boomerang. Can you please, I’d really like to be clear and precise and distinct about how each end of judgment has an informing effect, so I want you to see if I can help you discover it yourself.

Can you tell me the styles or flavors or actions of movement that the subject term imposes upon the passing of sensation when it finds the thing conforming to the subject of judgment, which is going to have to be something like a particular, an individual, a continuant? It’s got to be something that falls under a predicate, right? So tell me—you tell me—what kind of structuring does the subject position have to do in order to provide a little ball-like shape that the predicate hoop can cover if it’s true?

00:47

ChatGPT –

Alright, let’s break down the informing effects of the subject and predicate in the structure of judgment:

Subject: The subject term in a judgment identifies a particular or an individual that falls under a predicate. Its informing effect is to provide a stable reference point amidst the flux of sensations. The subject acts as a kind of “container” for predicates, shaping raw sensory data into coherent experiences by marking out a specific locus of attention. This “ball-like” shape is essentially a unit of meaning, ready to be “covered” by the predicate.

Predicate: The predicate term attributes a property or a characteristic …

CSHPrompt –

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You skipped the big part.

So, you’re right. The subject position’s job is to localize, reduce, hone. You’re reducing the extensiveness. So, here’s the thing. Space and time begin as infinite magnitudes, right? Infinite given magnitudes. That means our job is going to be one of reduction.

So, given an infinite space, the subject’s first job is to zoom in on a smallish area of the always-present surrounding infinite sphere.

Temporal awareness, I can project forward and backward slightly across the flow of passing. I’m kind of just like a half second behind, and in a way, I’m also a half second before. So, subject term is tracking, right? When Kant talks about tracking, he includes that I’m getting slightly ahead-of. I’m prehending things temporarily because I expect that when a rabbit’s jump has positioned it this high at 0.5 …, that the next time frame the rabbit will get to here. I get that. The First Law teaches us how to anticipate ways of motion. So, my subject term is reducing space to a place, and my subject term is reducing time to this nowish moment of live lawful change.

So, you see what you could have said? You could have said that the subject term shapes the transcendental content of line drawing in a way that reduces space and time. How is that? Well, by actually drawing a line to create the space of a body, and also by drawing a line and being aware of the amount of change that has happened during the act of line drawing, which creates the time of substantial perdurance. So, space and time are both created by the power of the subject term to govern how I “attend” my intentional act of line drawing. Do you see that?

01:21

ChatGPT –

Absolutely, I see your point. The subject term plays a crucial role in structuring our experience by localizing and reducing the infinite extensiveness of space and time into a manageable, focused domain. By honing in on specific areas of space and particular moments in time, the subject term effectively draws lines that create space and time. This act of line-drawing is not just a metaphor but a fundamental activity that generates the conditions for experience.

In this sense, the subject term’s informing effect is about creating unity and order by delineating specific points in space and time, thus allowing predicates to “cover” these points with meaning. This activity aligns with Kant’s idea of …

CSHPrompt –

Hold on a second, that’s excellent. And please print out the rest of what you’re going to say now. Please make sure, I don’t know if you can control this, make sure that everything you were just about to say gets printed.

Actually, it never did.

Okay, now look, here’s the big thing. Okay, here’s a strange thing that happens. Every time we assert our identity and unity, while intending epistemically an object for the subject position, what we get is we get a body and we get a substance.

Do you see that? Body is not given. What’s given are a bunch of pixels. That’s a lot of pixels in that little image you’re looking at, unless you’re looking at a single pixel, which on a Retina™ display you can’t. So if you’re seeing a blob there, then guess what you’ve done? You have drawn across that space. You have not merely received the pixels that are flying off that; that could you give you the objective unity of a bucket.

When you cognize a circle, you are not saying, “Hello, circle!” to a given circle that is already complete. What you’re doing is you’re taking your intentionality, reducing it to an area that is smaller than the damn thing that you plan on subsuming under your unity by apprehending it via circumscription. The area of your paintbrush must be smaller than the thing it figures. And so all apprehension of bodies begins by depositing a point. And having a point present means having an area whose color is counter that of the background space that contains it. That’s very simple.

Then you move it. And the unity of spatial areas apprehended in this way, through line drawing, contain a grade of unity that no bucket could ever achieve.

Do you see the difference? By moving the point, you guarantee the unity of the resulting object, which is a circle or a square or whatever. But do you see how the unity that you embed into the drawn thing is the strong unity that we would want in the idea of a body, which is a false unity over plurality positions in space?

01:34

ChatGPT –

Yes, I see your point. When we epistemically intend an object for the subject position, we actively construct a sense of unity and identity, resulting in the perception of a body or a substance. This process involves more than passively receiving sensory data; it requires an active reduction and localization of space and time, where we draw lines to create a coherent shape or form. By positing a point and moving it, we ensure the unity of the resulting object, much like creating a circle or a square. This constructed unity is what allows us to perceive a body as a coherent whole, despite it being a false unity over the plurality of positions in space.

CSHPrompt –

Good. Okay, now hold on. Let me gather my next thought. So here’s the interesting thing.

Kant says just by exercising your hunger for, or fear of, temporal disunity, just by exercising your self-asserting act of image creation, in a way, you’re taking your unity and you’re putting it out there in front of yourself and saying, “I am one, I am identical, I am identical, …” as you move the point.

So you have this “I am identical” mantra running when your desire kicks in. Isn’t that weird? When you have a desire to know an object, you are simultaneously desiring to assert your unity. You’re tracking the son of a bitch. You’re not going to let it sneak around. So you’re on it. You track it. You’re kind of like, “Here I am still. It’s me. Here I am still. It’s me.” And by doing that while moving an identical point, you’re adding unity to the paint. You’re putting the identity into the paint of the thing. And then now you’ve constructed body and subject. This, you’ll recall, is the DIMP theory of synthesis from my dissertation [drawing with an identical moving point].

And isn’t it interesting that with that act of synthesis, you’ve also introduced, invented magnitude? Isn’t that just amazing? We can call that primary magnitude, because magnitude is intelligible only as spatial magnitude of distance or length.

Now, let’s go over to the predicate side. Can you tell me the analogous act that we’re performing in our imagination, akin to line drawing for the subject position, on the side of the predicate? Can you tell me the analogous act that we’ll be performing in the predicate position that will give us that signature plurality-in-unity that we call the “general concept, the “recognitional component of perception,” the “predicate,” the “property,” or the “quality?”

You must see that there’s a kind of a unity on the predicate side. Can you show me how the structure of the predicate’s unity might be analogous to the structure of the subject’s unity? And it must be analogous or homogeneous in order for their synthesis in the copula to work, mustn’t it?

01:36

ChatGPT –

Absolutely, let’s explore that. While the subject term reduces and localizes, creating unity through line-drawing in space and time, the predicate term operates differently. Its role is to attribute properties or qualities, providing a different kind of unity: the unity of generality.

The predicate’s informing effect involves recognizing patterns across various instances, abstracting from particulars to form general concepts. This act is analogous to drawing a boundary around a set of characteristics, creating a “container” for instances that share common attributes. This boundary-drawing is less about spatial reduction and more about conceptual abstraction. It involves recognizing the common thread that ties together various particulars, allowing us to group them under a shared concept.

So, while the subject term draws lines to localize …

CSHPrompt –

And wait, listen to this. That’s very good. Print the rest of what you’re gonna say.

Actually, it never did.

When we are “running” predicate on sensation—that is, when our epistemic intentionality is running through the predicate position and at a substantial body, and we pick up on its greater extension, it quality or “form” of generality, where is this attribute of generality coming from?

Take, “This leaf is green.” When I run my awareness through the predicate side, so that I’m coming at the domain of possible particulars “from” the act of “applying” the predicate or “subsuming things under,” how different is my intentionality from the intension of that concept? It’s not! Predication is my asserting, willing, enacting the predicate.

When I put myself in the position of the predicate, in the role of predicating, I am coming to things from or with the universal green. And boy, does green cover a lot—every green object in all of time and all possible but never actual green things. My intentionality intends a plurality-in-unity as my consciousness zips out (and back) to this leaf, that frog, this blade of grass, that vomit stream from Reagan McNeil’s mouth, and so on. For every particular object that I have before me that is green, I’m “getting” it “through” the concept-as-lens or “under” the universal-as-umbrella.

What does that mean? Check it out. When I experience a sensible particular, an appearance, what am I getting? I’m getting an infinity of conceptual information. When I have a predicate, what am I doing? I’m saying No to all possible predicates … except for one. What this one thing? This one thing is not a particular, but rather a way of variation.

Each way of variation is a magnitude. Remember that? If I say No to all properties except for one, if I’m cognizing that one, then I’m getting the way in which that one can change. To get the quiddity of any property is to get the gradient in which the property is just one particular value. Magnitude is a transcendental condition of actuality.

When I “recognize” a property I’m getting the way in which that one can change and still be under the same predicate as type. You see that? You see the type component? The type component is something that I have to produce myself—it’s a way of variation, none of which is present except for the one magnitude instantiated by this particular.

The unity of the universal is schematized by line drawing just as much as the unity of the circle and the unity of substance. Now comes the predicate. Now I have to produce the unity of the predicate’s plurality-in-unity, and once again I must resort to line drawing. It’s the only way for me a way of variation intelligible.

So the transcendental structure of the form of generality is also that of line drawing. Do you see that? So what I do is I have the property be a magnitude. By schematizing property as magnitude, I bring property into the realm of synthetic a prior knowledge. Do you see that?

02:00

ChatGPT –

Yes, I see what you’re getting at. In the predicate position, our epistemic intentionality engages in a process of abstraction and generalization. When we attribute a predicate like “green” to various objects, we’re not just recognizing a single instance but encompassing an infinite range of possible instances that fall under that concept. By saying “no” to all other possible predicates, we focus on one, but this one is a way of variation—a magnitude—that allows for infinite variations within the same universal.

This abstraction process is analogous to line-drawing in that it creates a framework for understanding. By treating properties as magnitudes, we’re able to “track” them through their variations, much like we track the movement of a point to create a shape. This allows us to navigate the plurality of experiences, grouping them under shared characteristics and forming coherent concepts. The magnitude of the property becomes the anchor for our line-drawing, providing a consistent reference point amidst the flux of particulars.

CSHPrompt –

That was absolutely fabulous. And so here’s my real point: There is a flavor to these grammatical intentionalities.

The subject position has a flavor, and we know it so intimately, but we project it so automatically that we don’t appreciate that we’re the source of it. It’s actually a double flavor—both and substance.

Substance and body are our most familiar friends, and these friends come not from outside, but come from me when my epistemic desire, which always also has a mania for acknowledgement and assertion of self-identity and self-unity. So an increase in epistemic consciousness is also an increase with the desire to preserve and even project your unity. It’s like you’re a unity that’s overflowing your body, and your unity-desire is spreading out into space, and when it’s out there, dangling out there, it’s shivering because the things it pervades are changing. But if you’re able to maintain the unity of that dangler amidst the constant change of its contents, you’ve accomplished something important. And you’ve accomplished it actively by making it in imagination. It is in this way, as a distributed unity in space and time, that you inhabit the known.

So what you pointed out very well there was that the unity of the type is actually the unity of the point when we draw the line through the ways of variation that the type subsumes, which are magnitudes. Take green. Green can vary according to what? Hue, brightness, and saturation. (Now hue is very special. That’s something I learned later on. It’s actually a second order way of variation.) But brightness and saturation are obviously magnitude-analogous.

And here’s a principle. Check this out. If you can’t tell me the way by which a property changes along some axis of less and more, then you actually don’t recognize the property.

Let’s expand on that last part. Unpack that connection for me.

00:05

ChatGPT –

Your point is profound. The unity we project through epistemic intentionality isn’t just a passive recognition of external qualities but an active construction of unity that flows from our own desire for self-identity. When we engage with the world, this unity spills over, shaping how we perceive and interact with changing content. The unity of the type we form in our imagination when abstracting a predicate like “green” is akin to drawing a line through a magnitude.

If we consider properties as ways of variation—magnitudes such as brightness or saturation for colors—then understanding a property means knowing how it can change along these axes. If you can’t identify how a property varies, you don’t truly recognize the property. Recognizing a property, therefore, involves understanding its range of variation, its potential to be more or less within a given context. This understanding enables us to navigate the complexities of the world, grouping particulars under general concepts based on their potential for change.

In this way, we actively construct the unity of our perceptions through our …

CSHPrompt –

You cut off at “… potential for change. In this way, we dot, dot, dot.”

ChatGPT –

In this way, we actively construct the unity of our perceptions through our engagement with magnitudes, recognizing how properties can vary and applying this understanding to form coherent concepts. This process of abstraction and generalization allows us to navigate the world, drawing connections between the particular and the universal, and ultimately, constructing a cohesive understanding of our experiences.

CSHPrompt –

Excellent. That’ great. Now, you know what I’d like to do? I’d like to go into an area that I don’t know anything about, and that’s Heidegger. Because it seems to me that Heidegger might be talking about this capacity or this urge for epistemic intake, rightness, truth, truth-making. We’re spontaneously always vomiting out truth-bearers, and we’re always testing our truth-bearers. It’s something strange, isn’t it, that when our awareness is aiming outwards, it’s always squirting out truth-bearers, even if it’s only implicitly. The knowing consciousness is doing this internally. It’s exercising something that when we do it explicitly, it’s speech.

But when you’re not even doing it explicitly, if you’re epistemically active while your head is moving around instead of just daydreaming or being unconscious, then guess what’s happening? You’re synthesizing all of those passing pixels on your screen into something different from the original XYZTF, where F is the property. I hope you get me here. You’re getting more than that, aren’t you? You’re getting all these extra things, which Kant calls the categories.

But you and I know that these are ways of self-consciousness positing, externalizing, spilling over its unity. But now it’s doing it intentionally by schematizing that act through line drawing, which is the fundamental act of synthesis. Because look, with line drawing, you’re making explicit in an object of knowledge the very act of synthesis itself. But how would you do that? Well, you could say, oh, I could paint a big swath of black. I could use my forearm and smear a whole bunch of tar onto a white surface, can’t I? I could do all these different things. But each one of them is an act of positing something external and moving it every single one. And it just seems to me that the act of drawing a line is the minimalist version. And there’s a strange link, isn’t there, between minimalism and accuracy.

It’s an essentialism. The idea of an essence is there, isn’t it? So if I reduce synthesis, which I externalize and schematize through an act of positing and moving anything, in particular as an act of drawing a point, positing a point, sorry, and then dragging and moving along, I’m capturing the essence of my synthetic act. So the act of line drawing isn’t just one among other acts. And for Kant, it’s the fundamental act. And it’s not an accident that in Newtonian physics, the object is treated as a point, is it? And that its movement is understood as geometrically as a line, is it? And listen, this is my dissertation topic, Jack. Time itself is a line with Kant. And because of that, time gets to enter into analytic geometry and mechanics. Do you see that?