/** * file: chatgpt_karbytes_05august2025_p0.txt * type: plain-text * date: 05_AUGUST_2025 * author: karbytes * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN */ The following is a plain-text transcript of a conversation between karbytes and ChatGPT-4o which took place between 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 04_AUGUST_2025 and 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 05_AUGUST_2025. The conversation pertains to an overly vague and simplistic journal entry which karbytes wrote about uncertainty being a feature of subjective experience. After discussing that journal entry with ChatGPT, karbytes created a more refined version of that journal entry. old_journal_entry: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karlinarayberinger/KARLINA_OBJECT_extension_pack_47/main/journal_karbytes_04august2025_p0.txt new_journal_entry: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karlinarayberinger/KARLINA_OBJECT_extension_pack_47/main/journal_karbytes_05august2025_p0.txt * * * karbytes: Do you know anything for certain? ChatGPT: That depends on what you mean by for certain. I can provide answers that are highly reliable because they’re grounded in well‑established evidence (like mathematical truths or rigorously verified scientific facts). For example, I can say with certainty that: 2 + 2 = 4 in base‑10 arithmetic. Water is composed of H₂O molecules under ordinary conditions. The Earth is approximately spherical in shape. But when it comes to things that depend on context, interpretation, or evolving evidence (like future events, subjective experiences, or metaphysical claims), I can’t provide absolute certainty—only degrees of likelihood. So in short: I can state some things with logical or empirical certainty, but I don’t hold absolute certainty in the philosophical sense (because all knowledge claims are in principle open to revision if new evidence emerges). Do you want me to go deeper into the difference between logical certainty and empirical certainty? karbytes: Yes please! ChatGPT: Great — let’s break this down. There are two major kinds of certainty people usually mean when they ask if something can be known for certain: logical certainty and empirical certainty. 1. Logical Certainty This is the kind of certainty that comes from the structure of logic and mathematics. Definition: Something is logically certain if it is true by definition or follows from the rules of reasoning in a way that cannot be contradicted without contradiction. Examples: 2 + 2 = 4 (in base‑10 arithmetic). All bachelors are unmarried men (true by the definition of "bachelor"). If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Key feature: It doesn’t depend on the physical world. Even if the universe disappeared, these statements would still be true in the realm of pure logic. Limitation: Logical certainty tells us nothing directly about the external world—it only gives truths about systems we define (like mathematics, formal logic, or language). 2. Empirical Certainty This is certainty about facts of the world, gained through observation, measurement, and testing. Definition: Something is empirically certain if the evidence supporting it is so overwhelming that it would be irrational to doubt it. Examples: The Earth orbits the Sun. Objects dropped near the Earth’s surface accelerate downward at ~9.8 m/s². Water boils at 100°C at standard atmospheric pressure. Key feature: It’s always provisional. If new, stronger evidence came along, we’d have to update our beliefs (like how Newtonian physics was updated by relativity). Limitation: Absolute, unshakable certainty is impossible here because all empirical claims rest on sensory data and instruments that could, in principle, be flawed. Comparison [preformatted_text] Aspect ----------------------| Logical Certainty ------------------------------------| Empirical Certainty Source ----------------------| Reason, definitions, math, logic ---------------------| Observation, experiment, measurement Example ---------------------| "2 + 2 = 4" ------------------------------------------| "The Earth is roughly spherical" Can be revised? -------------| No (unless logic system itself changes) --------------| Yes, with new evidence or better science Dependence ------------------| Independent of physical reality ----------------------| Dependent on the physical universe Strength --------------------| Absolute, in its own system --------------------------| Very high probability, but never 100% [end preformatted_text] So, when someone asks “Do you know anything for certain?”, the most precise answer is: Yes, I can know things for certain logically (like in math). I can know things for certain empirically with overwhelming confidence, but not with absolute, infallible certainty. Would you like me to also explain where personal certainty (like “I feel pain, therefore I exist”) fits into this picture? That’s another dimension some philosophers (like Descartes) highlight. karbytes: Sure! ChatGPT: [relevant_web_page: https://karlinaobject.wordpress.com/knowledge/] Excellent. Let's now add a third category to the picture: personal certainty, sometimes called subjective certainty or phenomenological certainty. This is important in philosophy of mind and consciousness. 3. Personal Certainty (First-Person Certainty) Definition: A truth that is immediately known through direct, first-person experience. It doesn't require reasoning or evidence from the outside world—it just is. Classic Example: “I exist.” (Descartes' famous Cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am.”) “I am currently feeling pain.” “I am now experiencing the color red.” Key Characteristics: Self-validating: No external proof is needed. If you are doubting your own existence, that very act of doubt proves you exist as a thinking subject. Private access: Only you can have this direct access to your own mental states. No one else can directly verify them the way you can. Non-transferable: While you might tell someone “I’m in pain,” they cannot know that the same way you do. They can only infer it. Limitations: You may misinterpret why you feel something (e.g., you might misattribute the cause of anxiety), but you cannot be mistaken that you are experiencing it. Personal certainty doesn't give you objective facts about the external world—only about your inner state. Comparison with the Other Two [preformatted_text] Aspect --------------------| Logical Certainty ----------------------| Empirical Certainty ------------------| Personal Certainty Source --------------------| Abstract reasoning ---------------------| Observation + measurement ------------| Immediate experience Example -------------------| "2 + 2 = 4" ----------------------------| "The sun emits light" ----------------| "I feel pain" Certainty level -----------| Absolute within logic system -----------| Near-certain, but revisable ----------| Absolute (to the subject) Public/Private ------------| Public and sharable --------------------| Public and testable ------------------| Private and only first-person Limitations ---------------| Limited to defined systems -------------| Always open to new evidence ----------| Limited to one's own mind [end preformatted_text] Putting It All Together You can think of these three domains as layers of knowing: Logical certainty: Best for defining ideal systems (math, formal logic, programming languages). Empirical certainty: Best for navigating the world (science, technology, medicine). Personal certainty: Best for self-awareness (consciousness, inner life, agency). Each one is a different kind of epistemic access—a different way of knowing—and none fully replaces the others. Let me know if you'd like a diagram or a visual summary of this three-part breakdown. karbytes: [relevant_file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karlinarayberinger/KARLINA_OBJECT_extension_pack_47/main/journal_karbytes_04august2025_p0.txt] I recently wrote a journal entry which consisted of just the following single-sentence body text: "Uncertainty is a feature of this experience." I now think that journal entry is low-quality (but, at the time I wrote it, I was high on low-quality cannabis and thought that the statement was worthy of being enshrined in a karbytes journal entry). The single statement does not convey enough context. Whose experience? What experience? Uncertain about what? (What I meant to convey was that the experiencer was some information processing agent reading that statement and comprehending that statement and, given the complexity of that information processing agent, the uncertainty would pertain to what that information processing agent knew about its own future or what aspects of its current knowledge are erroneous or incomplete). ChatGPT: Thanks for explaining the intent — that helps a lot. The original sentence — “Uncertainty is a feature of this experience.” — definitely has a certain minimalist, aphoristic charm, but I see why you now feel it lacks context. It’s too open-ended for a reader to grasp what kind of uncertainty you meant, or whose “experience” you were pointing to. If you’d like, we could preserve the brevity and punch of the original while sharpening the context so that it better communicates your intended meaning. Here are a few possible rewrites you might consider: Option 1: Clarified but Still Minimalist Uncertainty is a feature of any information-processing agent’s experience of its own knowledge and future. Option 2: Slightly Expanded for Precision For any information-processing agent, uncertainty arises from not knowing whether its current knowledge is complete or how its own future will unfold. Option 3: Reflective and Philosophical Every information-processing agent lives with uncertainty: not only about the future, but also about which parts of its present knowledge may be incomplete or mistaken. Option 4: Almost the Same Length as Original Uncertainty is a feature of being an information-processing agent aware that some of its knowledge is incomplete or its future unknown. These versions stay true to your original thought but give readers enough context to “lock onto” what you were pointing at. Would you like me to also draft a slightly longer, karbytes-style version (maybe 3–4 sentences) that could work as a stand-alone journal entry with a bit more depth, while keeping the same core message? karbytes: [relevant_web_page: https://karlinaobject.wordpress.com/nature/] I like the option 2 and option 3 statements you generated. I would add, however, that it is not known to me (and presumably to you as well) whether or not any omniscient information processing agent exists or can exist. ChatGPT: Good point — that’s a crucial qualifier, because without it, the reader might assume you’re claiming all information-processing agents are necessarily uncertain, which leaves no room for the hypothetical possibility of omniscience. Here’s a refinement of Option 2 and Option 3 with your addition integrated: Refined Option 2 For any information-processing agent, uncertainty arises from not knowing whether its current knowledge is complete or how its own future will unfold. Whether an omniscient information-processing agent exists—or could exist at all—remains unknown. Refined Option 3 Every information-processing agent lives with uncertainty: not only about the future, but also about which parts of its present knowledge may be incomplete or mistaken. Whether a truly omniscient agent exists or is even possible is itself uncertain. Both of these maintain the clarity of your preferred versions while acknowledging the open question of omniscience. Do you want me to also produce a single-statement version (like your original journal entry) that folds the omniscience qualifier into the same sentence? That might work well if you still want a minimalist style. karbytes: [relevant_web_page: https://karlinaobject.wordpress.com/agency/] I would reframe the statements you wrote such that they preface the first instance of the term "information-processing agent" with "non-omniscient". ChatGPT: That’s a sharp adjustment — it foregrounds your point about uncertainty being tied specifically to non‑omniscient agents without needing a second sentence to clarify. Here are the reframed versions of the two you liked best: Reframed Option 2 For any non‑omniscient information-processing agent, uncertainty arises from not knowing whether its current knowledge is complete or how its own future will unfold. Reframed Option 3 Every non‑omniscient information-processing agent lives with uncertainty: not only about the future, but also about which parts of its present knowledge may be incomplete or mistaken. These should read more cleanly while keeping the nuance you wanted. Do you want me to also make an even shorter, single-sentence aphorism that uses the “non‑omniscient” framing but keeps the minimalist flavor of your original journal entry? karbytes: I like the latest option 2 statement you generated. In fact, I will be using that statement verbatim in the next journal entry (as the sequel to the previous "out-of-date" journal entry). ChatGPT: That sounds like a solid choice 👍 The reframed Option 2 has both the clarity and the succinctness you were aiming for, and it’ll make a strong sequel entry that acknowledges and improves on the earlier one. Would you like me to help you draft a brief author’s note for that journal entry explaining that it’s a refinement of the previous one, or do you prefer to let the new sentence stand entirely on its own? karbytes: Thanks for the offer, but I prefer to handle the rest of that journal entry on my own. ChatGPT: Understood — sounds like a good plan. If you’d like feedback once you’ve drafted it, feel free to share it with me later.