G

Georgina-Woodward

Human beings relate to the World through our senses. Potential sensory stimuli are released into the environment from absolute existing things. It is by receiving those stimuli and processing them into a model of the external environment that a relative truth (true for the observer) is obtained. This is not just the case for human observers but relative truth can be obtained using devices such as cameras, that take in electromagnetic radiation from the environment from a particular viewpoint rather than all possible viewpoints.

A clear metaphysics of truth is absent from science. It has been unclear what exactly the ‘truth’ means in the context of science. While there are common sense notions about correspondence with fact, this then poses the question-What is a fact? Facts correspond to actual things - actualizations i.e. absolute existing things, and absolute relations between them and absolute change, happenings. Pertaining to either current or former actualization, their relations and happenings. Actualizations are only at uni-temporal Now. Always current. Facts however can relate to former configurations of existence, former relations and happenings.

I can see a semantics problem . We sometimes speak of a true likeness , meaning similarity of form or some particular characteristic. In that sense an image that is not an observation product can be even more of a true likeness than one that is, generated from more or better quality information. That 'true' meaning must be distinguished from a record of an actual relation between the subject and an observer/s. Meaning one does not become meaning 2 ,however accurate in likeness. Similar to imagination not being actualized existence and events, however vivid. Maybe we should talk of accurate artifice rather than true likeness to be clear about what is meant.

I'm glad to see that Gerardo Adesso's original blog post is here now. It would be good if it was close to his subsequent post.

This makes me think about the truth value of photorealistic fakes. For a genuine photo of good quality we might assign truth value of 1. Though it is only a relative observation product and many more images could be produced from the potential data in the environment. Each additional image can add to a composite truth value. A significantly different viewpoint , another 1 added. We might say B/W only 1/2 true as all the info. interpreted as colour is missing. Any distortion, less than optimal brightness and low resolution can also subtract from the relative truth value. Fidelity adds to truth of a genuine observation product photo. The fake however is truth value 0. Likeness to an existing object, possibly a person, who was not the direct source of the information used to generate the fake, does not increase its truth value. High resolution, no distortion, optimal brightness, full colour -still fake, truth 0. Which means the source of the photorealistic fake must be known or at least that the existing, absolute, thing who's likeness is portrayed was not the 'source of truth' used in its fabrication. That might be difficult to demonstrate.

I've got Stable diffusion to illustrate the fictional blue wolf. I have Tibetan blue wolf and blue wolf II in a different habitat. As well as some other nice Tibetan style habitat images. I had to put some anime into the prompt before it would give me anything but wild type wolves, as if it knows they shouldn't be blue.

Georgina-Woodward I tried to link the video but didn't succeed. Its called "Stephen Wolfram Answers Live Questions About ChatGPT" copy and paste https://youtu.be/zLnhg9kir3Q

Here is a video by Stephan Wolfram in which he clearly explains how ChatgPT works. His plausible blue wolves tale near the beginning is cautionary. A reminder that what is clearly articulated is not necessarily true, ( as in a factual, reality or a high fidelity semblance of the actualization), because of that.
This would follow on from my replies on Can ChatGPT be the Ultimate Brain for Scientific Discovery? by Gerardo Adesso but his introduction and my replies to it seem to be missing.