Thank you for this. Some of the answers given by ChatGPT seem quite "reasonable" (even though supposedly the AI model cannot reason). Although some answers are not in the form of principles, but rather definitions of methodologies; presumably those could be re-formulated as principles as "Methodology X is a reliable method of belief formation, knowledge acquisition, or epistemic justification", or in some similar form.
In the end, ChatGPT offered a version of foundationalism, as a system of axioms. Of course, all of the proposed "bedrock" principles are vulnerable to skeptical questioning.
Josiah McElheny's beautiful work was an excellent choice to accompany the article. I have long admired his work, which is often exhibited at the James Cohan gallery here in NYC. That gallery also represents another relevant artist, Eamon Ore-Giron, whose work is also focused on infinite regresses. https://jamescohan.viewingrooms.com/viewing-room/32-eamon-ore-giron-the-symmetry-of-tears/
Thank you for this. Some of the answers given by ChatGPT seem quite "reasonable" (even though supposedly the AI model cannot reason). Although some answers are not in the form of principles, but rather definitions of methodologies; presumably those could be re-formulated as principles as "Methodology X is a reliable method of belief formation, knowledge acquisition, or epistemic justification", or in some similar form.
In the end, ChatGPT offered a version of foundationalism, as a system of axioms. Of course, all of the proposed "bedrock" principles are vulnerable to skeptical questioning.
Josiah McElheny's beautiful work was an excellent choice to accompany the article. I have long admired his work, which is often exhibited at the James Cohan gallery here in NYC. That gallery also represents another relevant artist, Eamon Ore-Giron, whose work is also focused on infinite regresses. https://jamescohan.viewingrooms.com/viewing-room/32-eamon-ore-giron-the-symmetry-of-tears/
Thanks for your comments and the link to Ore-Giron's work.