Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Atla]

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism. I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT. As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism. Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

Show me an example where you have used ChatGpt to correct me without me able to counter it with ChatGpt itself but within a wider perspective?

I explained to ChatGpt earlier and it replied;

Yes, when considering the basic principle of mind-independent existence alone, it is reasonable to claim that philosophical realism, Kant's transcendental realism, scientific realism, and naive realism share this foundational idea. This principle asserts that external things exist independently of human perception or cognition.

Here is a concise breakdown of this shared principle across the various forms of realism:

Philosophical Realism:
Asserts that certain kinds of things (physical objects, abstract objects, etc.) exist independently of the mind.

Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):
Posits that objects of experience (phenomena) exist independently of our perception and cognition, and are identical to things-in-themselves (noumena). Even though Kant critiques this position, it still maintains the principle of mind-independent existence.

Scientific Realism:
Claims that the world described by scientific theories exists independently of our observations and that scientific theories aim to describe this objective reality.

Naive (Direct) Realism:
Believes that the world is exactly as we perceive it to be, existing independently of our thoughts or perceptions.

By focusing solely on the principle of mind-independent existence, it is clear that all these forms of realism share the view that external things exist regardless of human presence or perception. This commonality highlights their agreement on the fundamental nature of reality being independent of the human mind, despite their differences in other philosophical aspects.

Here you are just using ChatGPT again to group together various forms of mind-independence. Yes various forms of mind-independence are all forms of mind-independence, what a surprire. What do you even imagine to have countered here?

[Atla]

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism.
I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT.
As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism.
Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

Here again, I am using ChatGpt from a wider perspective to squash you narrow minded view;
You must hang this up on your wall.

As stated in the above, Philosophical Realism and Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant) share the same common concept of mind-independence.

But Kant also claimed;
[CPR A370] "The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist."

In this sense, Kant also believe in a concept of mind-independence in the empirical world but not in metaphysical terms.

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Is the above use and differentiation of 'absolute' and 'relative' reasonable?

Here's ChatGpt's Response;

Yes, your differentiation between "absolute" and "relative" mind-independence is a reasonable way to distinguish between different contexts of mind-independence, particularly in the context of Kant's philosophy.

1. Absolute Mind-Independence
Philosophical Realism (including Kant's Transcendental Realism as critiqued by Kant):

Definition: Absolute mind-independence refers to the idea that things exist in and of themselves, completely independently of human perception, cognition, or conditions. This implies that the existence and nature of things are entirely detached from any observer or mind.
Examples:
Philosophical Realism: Abstract objects, moral values, or the physical world exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: As critiqued by Kant, it posits that phenomena (the objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.

2. Relative Mind-Independence
Empirical Realism (within Kant's Transcendental Idealism):

Definition: Relative mind-independence acknowledges that while empirical objects exist independently of an individual's particular perception, their existence and nature are contingent upon the human conditions of experience, including the structure of our mind and sensory apparatus. This is consistent with Kant's Copernican Revolution, which asserts that our knowledge is shaped by the way our mind structures experience.
Examples:
Kant's Empirical Realism: Asserts that empirical objects (phenomena) exist independently of our individual perceptions but are nonetheless structured by the a priori conditions of human sensibility and understanding. They are "mind-independent" in the sense that they are not merely subjective appearances but still depend on the human framework of perception.

3.Summary of Differentiation
Absolute Mind-Independence:

Scope: Philosophical realism, Kant's transcendental realism (as critiqued by Kant).
Concept: Things exist in an absolute sense, independent of any human perception or cognition.

Relative Mind-Independence:

Scope: Kant's empirical realism within transcendental idealism.
Concept: Things exist independently of individual perceptions but are still contingent upon the human conditions of experience (i.e., the structures imposed by our mind).

Using these terms allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

Here once again you are asking ChatGPT to NARROW DOWN the perspective to Kantian philosophy, and yet you claim to be 'squashing' from the wider perspective. What the FUCK is wrong with you?

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

You deliberately set the context to Kant's transcendental realism vs Kant's empirical realism, and just renamed transcendental realism to absolute mind-independence and the other one to relative mind-independence. You instructed the chatbot to work with that. You think I don't see that?

[seeds]

Prove it.

Show me where any branch of science or physics has made a quantum-like (or whatever) measurement of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts I asked for earlier.

You assumed it must be there to be discovered and measured.
This assumption is circular.
How can you believe it is there before it is justified to be true.

Talk about circular reasoning, how in the world could it (the "I Am-ness") be justified to be true (discovered) if there is no feasible way of measuring it?

Anyway, present your argument to the father of modern philosophy...

There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, because these are non-starters for science.

Duh!

They are non-starters for science because, again, there is absolutely no way for science to measure them.

Yet, it (the "dreamer" of dreams and "thinker" of thoughts - i.e., the Cartesian "I Am-ness") is obviously what's formulating and writing these replies on this forum.

Furthermore, science can't even confirm - ontologically - the status of an electron as it transits the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen in the double slit experiment,...



...so it's no wonder science would have trouble confirming something that is even less accessible to their measuring devices.

Seed: Nevertheless, to answer your question, the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.
My mind is only relatively independent of your mind which is empirically obvious, but your mind is not absolutely independent of my mind, given that we are all part and parcel of same reality - all-there-is -[same jacuzzi].

Well, I've already stated in a prior post how we (our bodies) are all connected to each other at the quantum level of reality of this universe...

The quantum fabric of our body is superpositionally entangled with the quantum fabric of, not only the moon, but the furthest stars in the furthest galaxies of the universe.

...so, in that respect, your quaint little "jacuzzi" analogy is correct.

And just for the record, I believe that at the deepest level of the "ALL-THAT-IS",...

(in the spirit of the Spinozan concept of there being only "ONE ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE")

...our minds are indeed connected in some way.

And that is something I attempted to represent in yet another of my illustrations...

Note the fact, at present my mind is invoking terror in your mind with my arguments.

You are a real hoot, VA.

And I have no doubt that if this guy...



...was in this thread telling you about his views regarding the status of the human "I Am-ness," you'd be saying the same childish and boneheaded things to him...

• René: "I think, therefore I am."
  VA: "Your belief in this so-called "I am" thingy is due to an evolutionary default driven by an existential crisis that drive you into desperation."
  René: " -- embrasse mon derrière toi idiot."

Cutting through the near impossible to decipher description you offer of the type of "realist/non-realist" you claim to be, the truth is, at root, you are a "Naive Realist" who cannot see past the thin veneer of the illusion of objective reality.
_______

[Atla]

There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, because these are non-starters for science.

Duh!

They are non-starters for science because, again, there is absolutely no way for science to measure them.

Wonder what these two are on about. If we want to see that the dreams/the dreamer/the thoughts/the thinker are localized to the brain, we just have to look at brain scans, duh. And who cares what Descartes, one of the most destructive people in history, would think.

Btw Atla is probably an ENFP and our brain scans are some of the most interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XxlV0Y5Te4

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove it.

Show me where any branch of science or physics has made a quantum-like (or whatever) measurement of the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts I asked for earlier.

You assumed it must be there to be discovered and measured.
This assumption is circular.
How can you believe it is there before it is justified to be true.

Talk about circular reasoning, how in the world could it (the "I Am-ness") be justified to be true (discovered) if there is no feasible way of measuring it?

Anyway, present your argument to the father of modern philosophy...

Not sure what is your point.
You ask me to show you which science has measured the "I-AM-ness".
I stated it is a non-starter for science to search for the "I-AM-ness" because it is an illusion in the first place.

Descartes' certainty of "I-AM" is actually an illusion.
The most we can confirm is the "I-Think" empirically via science-biology and psychology.
There is no "I-AM" which is by-itself and can survive physical death.

There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, because these are non-starters for science.

Duh!

They are non-starters for science because, again, there is absolutely no way for science to measure them.

Yet, it (the "dreamer" of dreams and "thinker" of thoughts - i.e., the Cartesian "I Am-ness") is obviously what's formulating and writing these replies on this forum.

Furthermore, science can't even confirm - ontologically - the status of an electron as it transits the space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen in the double slit experiment,...

...so it's no wonder science would have trouble confirming something that is even less accessible to their measuring devices.

It is the empirical self [the I-THINK] as evident via common sense, science-biology, science-psychology that is writing on this forum.
There is no I-AM by itself.

Science is NEVER into ontology, so ontology is a non-starter for science.
Whatever science concludes, it is qualified to the human-based scientific framework and system. S is a scientific truth because the science FS said so.
So one don't have to give it a damn whether there is an ontological particle or not.
It up to non-scientists to believe it based on faith and use it [as qualified] to whatever utilities it can offer without the need nor concern for its ontological existence.

So if you mock science like;
"...so it's no wonder science would have trouble confirming something that is even less accessible to their measuring devices."
Science will say accept whatever is confirmed and qualified scientifically or 'F/off' with your ontology.

Seed: Nevertheless, to answer your question, the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.
My mind is only relatively independent of your mind which is empirically obvious, but your mind is not absolutely independent of my mind, given that we are all part and parcel of same reality - all-there-is -[same jacuzzi].

Well, I've already stated in a prior post how we (our bodies) are all connected to each other at the quantum level of reality of this universe...

Well, this connected [i.e. non-independence] is contradicting your claim,
the body is independent of the mind in the same way that my mind is independent of your mind.

The quantum fabric of our body is superpositionally entangled with the quantum fabric of, not only the moon, but the furthest stars in the furthest galaxies of the universe.

...so, in that respect, your quaint little "jacuzzi" analogy is correct.

And just for the record, I believe that at the deepest level of the "ALL-THAT-IS",...

(in the spirit of the Spinozan concept of there being only "ONE ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE")

...our minds are indeed connected in some way.

And that is something I attempted to represent in yet another of my illustrations...

I stated reality is all-there-is, not "ALL-THAT-IS" which that particular 'that' which is still part of all-there-is..
Your "ALL-THAT-IS" i.e. "ONE ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE" is an ontological thing-in-itself and implied a boundary to it.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself. WIKI

"All-there-is" is just a human qualified statement and there is nothing ontological about it

Note the fact, at present my mind is invoking terror in your mind with my arguments.

You are a real hoot, VA.

And I have no doubt that if this guy...


...was in this thread telling you about his views regarding the status of the human "I Am-ness," you'd be saying the same childish and boneheaded things to him...

• René: "I think, therefore I am."
  VA: "Your belief in this so-called "I am" thingy is due to an evolutionary default driven by an existential crisis that drive you into desperation."
  René: " -- embrasse mon derrière toi idiot."

Cutting through the near impossible to decipher description you offer of the type of "realist/non-realist" you claim to be, the truth is, at root, you are a "Naive Realist" who cannot see past the thin veneer of the illusion of objective reality.
_______

There are a tons of critique to the "Cogito,ergo sum"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique

Note:
Hume suggests that the self is just a bundle of perceptions, like links in a chain. To look for a unifying self beyond those perceptions is like looking for a chain apart from the links that constitute it.
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/h ... le-theory/#:

The strongest critique of the "Cogito,ergo sum" is from Kant, where he demonstrated the "I-AM" is an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realism has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism.
I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT.
As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism.
Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

Here again, I am using ChatGpt from a wider perspective to squash you narrow minded view;
You must hang this up on your wall.

As stated in the above, Philosophical Realism and Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant) share the same common concept of mind-independence.

But Kant also claimed;
[CPR A370] "The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist or, as he is called, a dualist."

In this sense, Kant also believe in a concept of mind-independence in the empirical world but not in metaphysical terms.

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

Is the above use and differentiation of 'absolute' and 'relative' reasonable?

Here's ChatGpt's Response;

Yes, your differentiation between "absolute" and "relative" mind-independence is a reasonable way to distinguish between different contexts of mind-independence, particularly in the context of Kant's philosophy.

1. Absolute Mind-Independence
Philosophical Realism (including Kant's Transcendental Realism as critiqued by Kant):

Definition: Absolute mind-independence refers to the idea that things exist in and of themselves, completely independently of human perception, cognition, or conditions. This implies that the existence and nature of things are entirely detached from any observer or mind.
Examples:
Philosophical Realism: Abstract objects, moral values, or the physical world exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
Kant's Transcendental Realism: As critiqued by Kant, it posits that phenomena (the objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.

2. Relative Mind-Independence
Empirical Realism (within Kant's Transcendental Idealism):

Definition: Relative mind-independence acknowledges that while empirical objects exist independently of an individual's particular perception, their existence and nature are contingent upon the human conditions of experience, including the structure of our mind and sensory apparatus. This is consistent with Kant's Copernican Revolution, which asserts that our knowledge is shaped by the way our mind structures experience.
Examples:
Kant's Empirical Realism: Asserts that empirical objects (phenomena) exist independently of our individual perceptions but are nonetheless structured by the a priori conditions of human sensibility and understanding. They are "mind-independent" in the sense that they are not merely subjective appearances but still depend on the human framework of perception.

3.Summary of Differentiation
Absolute Mind-Independence:

Scope: Philosophical realism, Kant's transcendental realism (as critiqued by Kant).
Concept: Things exist in an absolute sense, independent of any human perception or cognition.

Relative Mind-Independence:

Scope: Kant's empirical realism within transcendental idealism.
Concept: Things exist independently of individual perceptions but are still contingent upon the human conditions of experience (i.e., the structures imposed by our mind).

Using these terms allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

Here once again you are asking ChatGPT to NARROW DOWN the perspective to Kantian philosophy, and yet you claim to be 'squashing' from the wider perspective. What the FUCK is wrong with you?

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

You deliberately set the context to Kant's transcendental realism vs Kant's empirical realism, and just renamed transcendental realism to absolute mind-independence and the other one to relative mind-independence. You instructed the chatbot to work with that. You think I don't see that?

The above response from ChatGpt is to answer your points:

Realism [philosophical] has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism.

I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT.
As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism.

Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

ChatGpt agreed with me:

Using these terms [absolute vs relative] allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

So the point is;
Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism which Kant critiqued as Transcendental realism.
They have share the common concept of the existence of an absolutely mind-independent thing ontologically, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Kant has demonstrated such an ontological absolutely mind-independent thing aka noumena/thing-in-itself is an illusion [when insisted to be real].

Indirect Realism [chasing after an illusion] is Not Realistic.

[Atla]

Here again, I am using ChatGpt from a wider perspective to squash you narrow minded view;
You must hang this up on your wall.



Here's ChatGpt's Response;

Here once again you are asking ChatGPT to NARROW DOWN the perspective to Kantian philosophy, and yet you claim to be 'squashing' from the wider perspective. What the FUCK is wrong with you?

In this case, in order to differentiate the different contexts of mind-independence, I have terms philosophical realism [Kant's transcendental realism] as absolute mind-independence, i.e. things exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To differentiate empirical realism, I have termed its related mind-independent as relative, i.e. it is contingent upon the human conditions as per Kant's Copernican Revolution.

You deliberately set the context to Kant's transcendental realism vs Kant's empirical realism, and just renamed transcendental realism to absolute mind-independence and the other one to relative mind-independence. You instructed the chatbot to work with that. You think I don't see that?

The above response from ChatGpt is to answer your points:

Realism [philosophical] has nothing to do with absolute mind-independence unless we insist on it, so independence from the senses in a continuous world is also realism.

I have corrected you using ChatGPT dozens of times, and countless times without ChatGPT.
As usual the word 'absolute' doesn't show up anywhere yet you insist it's the essence of realism.

Stop confusing realism with transcendenteal realism, read the above every day. You are intellectually bankrupt.

ChatGpt agreed with me:

Using these terms [absolute vs relative] allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

So the point is;
Indirect Realism is a subset of philosophical realism which Kant critiqued as Transcendental realism.
They have share the common concept of the existence of an absolutely mind-independent thing ontologically, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Kant has demonstrated such an ontological absolutely mind-independent thing aka noumena/thing-in-itself is an illusion [when insisted to be real].

Indirect Realism [chasing after an illusion] is Not Realistic.

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism but not a subset of transcendental realism. Philosophical realism isn't the same as transcendental realism. You know this by now, you've been strawmanning the forum all along, you didn't know what you were talking about for years, but lack the intellectual integrity to admit it.

ChatGpt agreed with me:

Using these terms [absolute vs relative] allows for a clear differentiation between the varying contexts of mind-independence and aligns with Kantian philosophy's distinctions. This differentiation helps clarify how different forms of realism handle the relationship between the mind and the external world.

He agreed with you within the narrower context of Kantian philosophy (because you instructed it to reply within that context), which isn't the wider context of philosophical realism.

It's also a mistery what you hope to counter by showing that Kant contrasted two positions. I never doubted that in any way, my comments built on the fact that Kant contrasted two positions.

[Atla]

.

I'll teach you how to use ChatGPT. Open a new chat and make your query right away, to minimize distortion. Whenever possible, don't continue the discussion, but start a new chat. The chatbot is good but can't handle new inputs in the same discussion as well as we humans can, the chatbot can become 'confused' over time. Remember that it's a search engine, be exact, specific with your words. It's best to give the chatbot the task to evaluate which one of two positions is (more) correct. For example:

*opening new chat*

Are Kantian transcendental realism and philosophical realism synonymous or not?

Kantian transcendental realism and philosophical realism are not synonymous. They represent distinct philosophical positions with different implications about the nature of reality and our knowledge of it.

Kantian Transcendental Realism

Transcendental realism, as Kant describes it, is the position he critiques in his works, particularly in the "Critique of Pure Reason." According to Kant, transcendental realism holds that:

1. Objects of Knowledge are Independent of the Mind: Objects exist as they are, independent of our perception or understanding of them.
2. Direct Knowledge of Things-in-Themselves: We can have direct knowledge of things as they are in themselves (noumena), rather than just as they appear to us (phenomena).

Kant criticizes this position because he believes it leads to various metaphysical problems and contradictions. Instead, he advocates for transcendental idealism, which asserts that:

While things-in-themselves (noumena) exist independently of us, we can never have direct knowledge of them.
Our knowledge is limited to the realm of phenomena, which are the appearances of things as they are mediated by our senses and cognitive faculties.

Philosophical Realism

Philosophical realism is a broader and more general term that encompasses various positions, but it generally includes the belief that:

1. Existence Independent of Perception: The external world exists independently of our thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs.
2. Knowability of the External World: It is possible, at least in principle, to have knowledge about the external world as it actually is.

There are many forms of philosophical realism, including:

Direct Realism: The view that we perceive the world directly as it is.
Indirect Realism: The view that we perceive the world indirectly through a veil of perceptions or representations.
Scientific Realism: The view that the world described by science is real and exists independently of our observations or theories.

Comparison

Ontological Commitment: Both transcendental realism and philosophical realism assert the existence of an independent reality. However, transcendental realism specifically focuses on the idea that we can have direct knowledge of this reality, which Kant rejects.
Epistemological Position: Philosophical realism broadly allows for the possibility of knowing the external world as it is, while transcendental realism (as critiqued by Kant) assumes direct knowledge of things-in-themselves, which Kant argues against.

In summary, Kantian transcendental realism is a specific form of realism that Kant critiques for its problematic assumptions about direct knowledge of the noumenal world. Philosophical realism is a broader category that encompasses various positions about the existence and knowability of an external, mind-independent reality. They are not synonymous, but transcendental realism can be seen as a specific instance within the broader context of philosophical realism.

[seeds]

VA: There is no way science can confirm ontologically, there is "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, because these are non-starters for science.

seeds: Duh!

They are non-starters for science because, again, there is absolutely no way for science to measure them.

Wonder what these two are on about. If we want to see that the dreams/the dreamer/the thoughts/the thinker are localized to the brain, we just have to look at brain scans, duh.

Nonsense!

When researchers view the results of brain scanning devices such as fMRIs or EEGs, etc., they are not seeing the actual contents of our minds.

No, they are looking at intermediary (indirect) images on screens (or whatever) that are formed from measurable electrons and photons that makeup the structures of the devices themselves.

In other words, they are not seeing the contents of the mind from the first-person perspective of, again, the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, for that would be the metaphorical equivalent of peering into one of those inaccessible "parallel universes" that we like to speculate about.

And in regard to this earlier comment,...

I'm caustic because I have a low tolerance for people who hallucinate out of their own damn fault, after ingesting psychedelics. And then double down on it, again out of their own damn fault, by spending the rest of their lives preaching about how they saw the truth and others should wake up too.

Whereas I was either born with some kind of brain problem, or developed one very early on (probably both), maybe it was just a lot of autoimmune problems, and was thrown into hallucinations from the start and basically had to fight for my life for decades just to stay afloat.

...what difference does it make how either of us escaped the standard (or normal) state of mind that humans are born with.

I'm talking about escaping (at least partially) from an attenuated level of consciousness, mind you, that makes the illusion of objective reality, this...



...seem natural and logical to us when, in fact, it is totally bizarre.

Again, what difference does it make how we were "jarred off the path" of normalcy as long as we are no longer under the influence of the "normal way" of seeing reality?

The point is that regardless of our contrasting circumstances, you took your own unique path in the exploration of the mystery of reality, and I took mine.

And I guess the ultimate point is that I don't know about you, because you evidently had some miserable experiences with your abnormal mental states,...

...but for me, had I not been, again, "jarred off the path" of "normal" thinking, then I'm not so sure I would have liked being a member of the "ignorance is bliss" crowd compared to what I am now.

Not only would I not have met all of you beautiful and interesting people in this virtual space, but, good lord, I may have even ended up like this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AyN34sFk ... ture=share

...
_______

[Atla]

Nonsense!

When researchers view the results of brain scanning devices such as fMRIs or EEGs, etc., they are not seeing the actual contents of our minds.

No, they are looking at intermediary (indirect) images on screens (or whatever) that are formed from measurable electrons and photons that makeup the structures of the devices themselves.

In other words, they are not seeing the contents of the mind from the first-person perspective of, again, the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, for that would be the metaphorical equivalent of peering into one of those inaccessible "parallel universes" that we like to speculate about.

Well duh, that's why I said 'localized to the brain'. (beyond reasonable doubt)

...seem natural and logical to us when, in fact, it is totally bizarre.

Again, what difference does it make how we were "jarred off the path" of normalcy as long as we are no longer under the influence of the "normal way" of seeing reality?

The point is that regardless of our contrasting circumstances, you took your own unique path in the exploration of the mystery of reality, and I took mine.

And I guess the ultimate point is that I don't know about you, because you evidently had some miserable experiences with your abnormal mental states,...

...but for me, had I not been, again, "jarred off the path" of "normal" thinking, then I'm not so sure I would have liked being a member of the "ignorance is bliss" crowd compared to what I am now.

Not only would I not have met all of you beautiful and interesting people in this virtual space, but, good lord, I may have even ended up like this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AyN34sFk ... ture=share

...
_______

Fact is you're just another deluded guy who thinks that his hallucinations are an exploration of the mystery of reality. Another one is atto. Wonder what makes you guys so certain, aside from being inexperienced at handling hallucinations.

[seeds]

Nonsense!

When researchers view the results of brain scanning devices such as fMRIs or EEGs, etc., they are not seeing the actual contents of our minds.

No, they are looking at intermediary (indirect) images on screens (or whatever) that are formed from measurable electrons and photons that makeup the structures of the devices themselves.

In other words, they are not seeing the contents of the mind from the first-person perspective of, again, the "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, for that would be the metaphorical equivalent of peering into one of those inaccessible "parallel universes" that we like to speculate about.

Well duh, that's why I said 'localized to the brain'. (beyond reasonable doubt)

I'm sorry, Atla, I may have misread what you wrote.

Anyway, does that mean that you agree with me that brain scans aren't seeing the actual "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, nor any of the actual dreams and thoughts?

Fact is you're just another deluded guy who thinks that his hallucinations are an exploration of the mystery of reality....

There's just no finding any common ground with you, is there?

And just for the record, I was not under the influence of any hallucinogenic substance when I experienced my alleged "burning bush-like" encounter with what I believe to be God.

Like I asked you earlier...

Are you really one of those types (just like VA, btw) who believe that just because you personally haven't experienced anything in your life that would convince you that a higher Being exists, that nobody else has? Really, Atla? You speak for the estimated 117 billion humans who have lived and died on this planet?

How about this, instead of you being so bitter and dismissive of my take on reality, why don't you tell us...

(in clear and concise terms)

...your take on reality, and how it will benefit humanity if everyone understands it.
_______

[Atla]

I'm sorry, Atla, I may have misread what you wrote.

Anyway, does that mean that you agree with me that brain scans aren't seeing the actual "dreamer" of dreams and the "thinker" of thoughts, nor any of the actual dreams and thoughts?

Come on. Again, nothing we ever experience is the 'actual thing as it is out there from its own first person view', that's just the nature of our indirect perception. But then we can say beyond reasonable doubt that the dream/dreamer/thought/thinker/etc. are part of that other head and we are seeing a sort of residue about them from an external perspective, our first-person perspective.

There's just no finding any common ground with you, is there?

And just for the record, I was not under the influence of any hallucinogenic substance when I experienced my alleged "burning bush-like" encounter with what I believe to be God.

Anyway, my friend who had previously talked me into trying marijuana a few weeks earlier (of which I felt nothing), talked me into trying LSD.

He had already had a good deal of experience with it, and I trusted him.

So, at my place, on what (to the best of my recollection) was a Friday night when all of my other housemates were gone for the weekend, my friend and I, along with another good friend, all dropped acid together.

Now here is where things got interesting...

At the very moment I started to feel the effects of the LSD kicking-in, the phone rang.

...earlier that morning I had taken a mild, non-hallucinogenic substance (probably some kind of horse tranquilizer) that I already had several prior experiences with, so I was quite familiar with its effects. I then went for a long drive on some old country roads in order to mentally prepare an outline in my head of what I was going to write about later that evening.

*(The point of that disclosure is not only meant to demonstrate that I am not trying to hide anything, but also to assure everyone that the effects of that substance had completely worn-off by the time of the occurrence of the event that I am about to describe.)

Yes you probably were, doesn't matter if you didn't take any that day, the drug-induced psychotic episode was probably already in progress.

For example just recently there was this case when a pilot started hallucinating 2 days after taking magic mushrooms
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -mushrooms

Like I asked you earlier...
Are you really one of those types (just like VA, btw) who believe that just because you personally haven't experienced anything in your life that would convince you that a higher Being exists, that nobody else has? Really, Atla? You speak for the estimated 117 billion humans who have lived and died on this planet?

Again, I have experienced many things that could convince many people that a higher Beings exist, possibly far more than you have. Luckily I saw through most hallucinations from the start. If everyone was hallucinating the same thing then we could be onto something but it's usually different for everyone unless they share the same religion, and even then there are smaller differences.

Why would I be so weak to give into unreal hallucinations like a narcissistic shit?

How about this, instead of you being so bitter and dismissive of my take on reality, why don't you tell us...

(in clear and concise terms)

...your take on reality, and how it will benefit humanity if everyone understands it.

Philosophy is first and foremost about the search for truth, not about benefiting humanity. Also, if the truth is that you guys are just hallucinating, then you guys are just hindering humanity by trying to spread your made-up stuff.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism but not a subset of transcendental realism. Philosophical realism isn't the same as transcendental realism. You know this by now, you've been strawmanning the forum all along, you didn't know what you were talking about for years, but lack the intellectual integrity to admit it.

I never claimed philosophical realism is a subset of transcendental realism, it is the other way round.

From ChatGpt [wR] again;

The essence of all realism is that things exist on a mind-independent basis.
There are two main class of realism, i.e.
1. Absolutely mind-independent realism - philosophical realism
2. Relative mind-independent realism - empirical realism

Indirect realism and Kant's Transcendental realism belong to 1, i.e. absolute, because it is claimed to exists regardless of there are humans or not.

Kant's empirical realism belongs to 2, i.e. relative, i.e. grounded to his Copernican Revolution, i.e. human centered realism.

Is the above reasonable?

ChatGpt's Response.

Yes, your classification is reasonable and helps to clarify the different kinds of realism by focusing on the concept of mind-independence. Here's a more detailed breakdown based on your proposal:

The Essence of Realism
Core Principle: All forms of realism assert that things exist on a mind-independent basis.

Two Main Classes of Realism
1. Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism (Philosophical Realism)
2. Relative Mind-Independent Realism (Empirical Realism)

1. Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism (Philosophical Realism):
Definition: Things exist in an absolute sense, entirely independent of any human perception, cognition, or conditions.

Examples:
Philosophical Realism: Abstract objects, moral values, or the physical world exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant): Posits that phenomena (objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.
Indirect Realism: Asserts that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data, but the external world itself exists independently of our perception of it.

2. Relative Mind-Independent Realism (Empirical Realism):
Definition: Things exist independently of individual perceptions but are contingent upon the human conditions of experience, including the structures imposed by our mind.

Examples:
Kant's Empirical Realism: Asserts that empirical objects (phenomena) exist independently of individual perceptions but are nonetheless structured by the a priori conditions of human sensibility and understanding, aligning with Kant's Copernican Revolution which posits that our knowledge is shaped by the way our mind structures experience.

Classification Summary

• Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
  -Philosophical Realism
  -Indirect Realism
  -Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)
  
  Class 2: Relative Mind-Independent Realism:
  -Kant's Empirical Realism

Key Points
Absolute Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist entirely independently of human perception or cognition. This includes traditional philosophical realism, indirect realism, and Kant's transcendental realism as critiqued by Kant.

Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

This differentiation effectively highlights how various forms of realism handle the concept of mind-independence, providing a clear framework for understanding their underlying principles.

[Flannel Jesus]

From ChatGpt []wR again;

Booooo

[Iwannaplato]

From ChatGpt [wR] again;
Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Where do they exist independentIy of individuaI perceptions? What does exist mean in that sentence?