ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

[Veritas Aequitas]

@Atla, this should be the last and final nail for your Indirect Realism as chasing an illusion:

• ChatGpt: Conclusion [see below]
  Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

If you insist, "prove" your claim 'the ultimate object of Indirect Realism is really real.

...........
In relation to Moral Theory, Atla insist Indirect Realism has nothing to do with Kant's transcendental realism and philosophical_realism-in-general.

Here is a chat with ChatGpt that concludes Atla Indirect Realism is chasing an illusion based on Kant's arguments:

My interlocutor presented this point claimed to be from ChatGpt:
"Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists)."

I am not too sure of the above.
If I put philosophical realism and Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant) within
Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

then, if Kant critique Transcendental Realism, then he is critiquing Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism, which mean he is also critiquing indirect realism and philosophical on their shared Absolutely Mind-Independent basis.

Is the above view reasonable?

ChatGpt's Response [wR]:

ChatGpt Responded
Your view is reasonable with some nuances. Kant's critique of transcendental realism, which he contrasts with his own transcendental idealism, indeed targets the notion of absolute mind-independence. However, the specifics of his critique and the broader implications for other forms of realism need careful consideration.

Kant's Critique of Transcendental Realism

Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):

Posits that phenomena (the objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.
Kant argues this position is flawed because it overlooks the role of the human mind in structuring experience.

Kant's Own Position
Transcendental Idealism:
Asserts that while we can know phenomena (the world as we experience it), we cannot know noumena (things-in-themselves) directly.
This implies a form of relative mind-independence, where the empirical world is structured by the human mind but still exists independently of individual perceptions.

Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism

Indirect Realism:
Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data or representations.
Holds that an external reality exists independently of our perception, but our access to it is mediated.

Philosophical Realism:
Broadly asserts that certain kinds of things (physical objects, abstract objects, etc.) exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
This form of realism is varied and not necessarily tied to the specifics of human perception or cognition.

Your Classification [agreed by ChatGpt earlier]
Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

Kant's Critique in Context
Kant's Critique of Transcendental Realism: He critiques the idea that the phenomena we experience are identical to the noumena and exist independently of the structuring role of the human mind. This critique is primarily directed at the notion that we can have direct knowledge of things-in-themselves.

Implications for Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism: While Kant's critique of transcendental realism targets the idea of direct access to mind-independent reality, it does not directly address all forms of indirect realism or philosophical realism. However, his emphasis on the mind's role in structuring experience can be seen as challenging any position that asserts a straightforward, unmediated access to reality.

Conclusion
Your view is reasonable, but it is important to note that Kant's critique is specifically aimed at the conflation of phenomena with noumena and the neglect of the mind's structuring role. While this critique has implications for all forms of absolute mind-independent realism, including indirect realism and philosophical realism, it does not directly address all aspects of these positions. Kant's primary concern is with how we can know and experience reality, emphasizing the limits of human cognition rather than outright rejecting the existence of an independent reality.

I am not clear with the last sentence, so I seek clarification:

ChatGpt Responded
."..emphasizing the limits of human cognition rather than outright rejecting the existence of an independent reality."

Kant stated the noumenon and thing-in-itself can only be taken regulatively and not constitutively as a real independent reality.
When transcendental realists, philosophical realists and indirect realists insist upon the noumenon and thing-in-itself as a real independent reality, then they are reifying an illusion.
Therefore when an indirect realist insist there is a real mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, he is reifying an illusion.

Is the above view reasonable?

ChatGpt's Response:

ChatGpt Responded
Yes, your view is aligned with Kant's philosophy.
Kant's transcendental idealism emphasizes that we can only know phenomena—the world as it appears to us, structured by our sensory and cognitive faculties. The noumenon, or thing-in-itself, is something we cannot know directly; it remains an idea that regulates our thinking rather than constituting a known reality.

Kant's Perspective
1. Noumenon and Thing-in-Itself:
Regulative Use: In Kant's philosophy, the concepts of noumenon and thing-in-itself serve as regulatory ideas. They help to organize our empirical knowledge and limit our claims about what can be known, but they do not correspond to an independent reality that we can know constitutively.
Constitutive Use: Kant argues against using these concepts constitutively, meaning we should not claim that they represent a reality that exists independently of our perception and cognition. Doing so would be to reify an illusion, as we have no direct access to or knowledge of things-in-themselves.

Implications for Different Forms of Realism
2. Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):

Critique: Kant critiques transcendental realism for conflating phenomena with noumena and claiming direct knowledge of things-in-themselves. This position, according to Kant, wrongly assumes that the world as we perceive it (phenomena) is the same as the world in itself (noumena).

Philosophical Realism:

General Position: Asserts the existence of a mind-independent reality. While not all forms of philosophical realism make strong claims about the noumenon, they generally uphold the idea that some aspects of reality exist independently of human cognition.
Kant's Critique: If philosophical realists insist on the constitutive reality of noumena (things-in-themselves) beyond human experience, they fall into the same trap Kant critiques—reifying what is, according to Kant, an illusion.
Indirect Realism:

Position: Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly, through sensory representations, but that there is a real external world that exists independently of our perception.
Kant's Critique: If indirect realists insist that there is a constitutive, mind-independent reality (noumenon) beyond the empirical realm, they, too, are reifying an illusion. Kant would argue that while we can infer the existence of an external world, we cannot claim direct or constitutive knowledge of it.

Conclusion
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.
Kant would argue that such claims overstep the bounds of what can be known and mistakenly treat regulatory ideas as constitutive realities. Therefore, insisting on the constitutive existence of noumena or things-in-themselves as real independent realities is, according to Kant, a philosophical error.

Atla, the above is the last nail ..

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

.........................................
Note 1.
Here is one good example that show indirect realism is chasing an illusion.

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri [4.2 l.y.] Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40154

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. -WIKI

When a indirect realist sees the star, proxima centuari in the night sky, the implication is there is a real proxima centuari out there existing as it really is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

According to indirect realism, there is a proxima centuari as it really is which is not as perceived.
But we know the the star, proxima centuari in the night sky is not the proxima centuari as-it-really-is because what we are seeing are light that are 4.2 b l.y. old.

There is a possibility there is no proxima centuari as-it-really-is in the present real time [say t1] had imploded and does not exist at t1.
If that is the case, then indirect realists are chasing an illusion.
This is very possible because the infinite numbers of stars we see in the night sky or via the JWST could be million or billion of light years away, thus very possible they don't exist in the present real time.
This increase the confidence level highly that indirect realism [as defined] is chasing an illusion.

In the case of proxima centuari there is an inherent 4.2 l.y. REALITY-GAP.
Even with things within nano-seconds away from the empirical self, in principle there is the inherent REALITY-GAP in terms of nano-second.
This mean that humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

In this case, the idea of things as-they-really-are is a frivolous idea and nonsensical, what is the point of clinging to this idea if humans will eternally never close that REALITY-GAP and know things as-they-really-are.

My point is when indirect realists [as defined] who are subset of philosophical realists insist there are really real things as-they-really-are, are reifying nonsense and illusions as real. This is mysticism based on faith.
As I had argued why philosophical and indirect realists reify nonsense and illusions as real is driven psychologically from an evolutionary default.
........................................................................................

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

1. Where does Indirect Realism Stands at present?
viewtopic.php?p=733994#p733994

2. List of Objections to Indirect Realism from ChatGpt [wR];
ChatGpt Wrote:
Indirect Realism (or Representative Realism) is the view that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through mental representations or sense data that are caused by and represent the external world. Here are several objections to Indirect Realism:

Objections to Indirect Realism:

The Problem of the External World (Skepticism):
Objection: If we only ever perceive representations or sense data, how can we know for certain that an external world exists? Indirect Realism leads to skepticism about whether the external world resembles or even exists independently of our perceptions. There’s no direct access to the external world to verify this.
Example: Descartes' "evil demon" hypothesis illustrates how we could be systematically deceived, with no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions against an actual world.

The Veil of Perception:
Objection: Indirect Realism posits a "veil" between our minds and reality, suggesting we can never know the world as it really is. We are trapped behind this veil of perceptions or sense data, which creates a barrier to directly knowing the external world.
Critique: This undermines the claim that our perceptions can provide knowledge about reality, leading to epistemological isolation.

Representation-Resemblance Problem:
Objection: How can non-physical, mental representations resemble or represent physical objects? The sense data or mental images we perceive are different in nature from the material objects they are supposed to represent, making it unclear how they can accurately represent them.
Example: A visual image of a tree in the mind is not the same as a physical tree—how can one truly represent the other?

The Causal Chain Problem:
Objection: If our perception is based on a causal chain of events (light reflecting off objects, signals processed by the brain, etc.), it raises the issue of how distortions or interruptions in the chain (e.g., illusions, hallucinations) impact the reliability of our perceptions. Indirect Realism doesn't explain how we can distinguish between accurate and inaccurate perceptions.
Critique: This makes it difficult to trust our perceptions as reliable indicators of the external world.

Incoherence with Scientific Realism:
Objection: Scientific realism assumes that we can gain knowledge of the external world, and science depends on reliable observation of reality. However, if we never directly perceive the external world, how can science claim to describe it? Indirect Realism thus seems in tension with scientific practices.
Critique: Science relies on observation and experiment, but if those observations are mediated by representations that may not accurately depict reality, the foundation of science is called into question.

Problem of Qualia:
Objection: Indirect Realism has difficulty accounting for subjective experiences (qualia) and how they relate to the external world. Why, for instance, should the experience of color in the mind correspond to any particular feature of the external world?
Example: The experience of "red" may not correspond to any actual property in the external world, and there's no obvious reason why it should.

Infinite Regress of Perception:
Objection: If perception of the external world is always mediated by mental representations, it raises the problem of an infinite regress: if we perceive the world through sense data, do we need additional representations to perceive those sense data? If so, it could lead to an infinite chain of representations without ever reaching the external world.

Strongest Objection to Indirect Realism:
The Problem of the External World (Skepticism) is often considered the strongest objection. Indirect Realism opens the door to radical skepticism because if we can only perceive sense data or representations, we lose any direct access to the external world. This leads to a significant epistemological challenge: How can we ever confirm the existence or nature of the external world if our perceptions are always indirect and possibly disconnected from reality? Indirect Realism implies that we may never have any justified reason to believe that the world as we perceive it corresponds to the world as it actually is—or even that such a world exists.

This objection strikes at the core of the theory because it suggests that Indirect Realism could lead to epistemological isolation, where we are fundamentally disconnected from knowledge about the external world, leaving us in a state of permanent doubt.

[Atla]

viewtopic.php?p=722314#p722314

Stop making new topics

[Veritas Aequitas]

viewtopic.php?p=722314#p722314
Stop making new topics

This is a critical point and this thread will make it easy to refer
in asserting you are chasing an illusion with your indirect realism.

The other thread is a mess where you double, triple and quadruple down in the mess so it is not easy to nail you with your illusory claim.
This thread is a clear cut post to make the point clear.

[Iwannaplato]

Let's just be clear that the thread title is not supported by Chatgpt.
If you ask Chatgpt if realism or indirect realism are chasing an illusion, it will say that the answer depends on your philosophical perspective.
Kant is not the Bible.

[Iwannaplato]

So, VA. Does VA have a position. I wouId argue no.
Kant via Chatgpt is the position presented in the thread.

For years VA asserted again and again that noumena did not exist. Does Chatgpt think this is aligned with Kant's philosophy....?

The statement that "noumena do not exist" is not aligned with Kant's philosophy. Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy, made a clear distinction between noumena and phenomena in his work, particularly in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

### Kant's Philosophy: Phenomena vs. Noumena

1. **Phenomena**: These are the objects of our experience. According to Kant, phenomena are the things as we perceive them, shaped by our sensory and cognitive faculties. Our knowledge is limited to the realm of phenomena because our understanding is structured by the way our mind processes sensory data【9†source】.

2. **Noumena**: These represent the things-in-themselves, the reality that exists independently of our perception. Kant posited that while noumena (the things-in-themselves) must exist as the basis for phenomena, they are ultimately unknowable to us. Our sensory and cognitive faculties can never access them directly; we can only infer their existence as the source of phenomena【9†source】【10†source】.

### Kant's Agnostic Position on Noumena

Kant's position is often described as agnostic regarding noumena:
- **Existence**: Kant did not deny the existence of noumena. Instead, he argued that while we must posit their existence as the grounding reality behind appearances, we cannot have any direct knowledge of them【10†source】.
- **Knowledge Limitations**: According to Kant, our knowledge is confined to the realm of appearances (phenomena). We can know how things appear to us, but not how things are in themselves (noumena)【9†source】【10†source】.

### Misalignment with Kantian Philosophy

Therefore, a statement asserting that "noumena do not exist and we know this" misaligns with Kant's philosophy for two primary reasons:
1. **Existence of Noumena**: Kant did not claim that noumena do not exist. On the contrary, he asserted their existence as necessary for the explanation of phenomena.
2. **Knowledge of Noumena**: Kant held that noumena are inherently beyond our capacity to know. He emphasized that human cognition is limited to the realm of phenomena, thus we cannot claim knowledge of the non-existence of noumena.

### Conclusion

Kant's critical philosophy sets boundaries on human knowledge, asserting that while we can know the world as it appears to us (phenomena), the true nature of things (noumena) remains inaccessible. Therefore, denying the existence of noumena outright or claiming knowledge of their non-existence contradicts Kant's philosophical framework【9†source】【10†source】.

For a more detailed exploration, you can refer to:
- The "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant
- Secondary sources and interpretations by contemporary philosophers on Kant's epistemology and metaphysics.

So just make your case for your positions on your own. Kant may weII suppIy some useful lines of argument. But for someone who toId me to read the CPR 10 times, this is the laziest most hypocriticaI thread. And it should take someone one read of the CPR to notice that so much of Kant hangs on the possibIe existence of noumena.

Or shaII we just turn the forum over to AIs. We can program it so that we post nothing. When someone posts something, it automaticaIIy gets sent to an AI and the program asks the AI to rebut the post using Kant's philosophy.

It'll be like watching StocKfish pIay chess with AlphaZero, except computers aren't as good as humans at philosophy.

Lame.

[Atla]

Let's just be clear that the thread title is not supported by Chatgpt.
If you ask Chatgpt if realism or indirect realism are chasing an illusion, it will say that the answer depends on your philosophical perspective.
Kant is not the Bible.

Naturally, the chatbot will give this reply when asked without feeding it distortions first:

Which philosophy is less delusional from a scientific perspective, transcendental idealism or indirect realism?

From a scientific perspective, indirect realism is generally considered less delusional than transcendental idealism. Here's why:

Alignment with Scientific Method: Indirect realism posits that we do not perceive the external world directly, but rather through a representation in our minds. This view aligns with the scientific understanding of perception, which involves sensory data being processed by our nervous system and brain. Science often explores how these processes work and how our perceptions can sometimes be misleading or limited, reinforcing the idea that what we perceive is a representation, not the thing itself.

Empirical Evidence: Indirect realism is supported by empirical evidence from neuroscience and psychology. Research in these fields shows how sensory input is processed and interpreted by the brain, creating a mental representation of the external world. This is in line with indirect realism, which acknowledges that our perceptions are not direct but mediated by our cognitive processes.

Falsifiability and Testability: Indirect realism offers hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified through scientific experiments. For instance, studies on optical illusions, hallucinations, and brain injuries provide insights into how our perceptions can differ from reality, supporting the idea that our mental representations are constructed.

On the other hand, transcendental idealism, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, suggests that our experience of reality is shaped by the categories and structures of the mind, and that we cannot know the "thing-in-itself" (noumenon), only the phenomena that appear to us. While this philosophy has profound implications for understanding the limits of human cognition and knowledge, it is more abstract and less grounded in empirical science.

Abstract Nature: Transcendental idealism deals with the fundamental structures of consciousness and the conditions for the possibility of experience, which are not directly accessible to empirical investigation. This makes it less compatible with the empirical methods of science.

Lack of Empirical Testability: The core tenets of transcendental idealism are not easily testable or falsifiable through scientific methods. The idea that we cannot know the noumenal world but only the phenomena shaped by our cognitive faculties is a philosophical assertion that does not lend itself to empirical validation or refutation.

In conclusion, from a scientific perspective, indirect realism is less delusional because it aligns more closely with empirical evidence and the scientific method. It acknowledges the role of perception and cognitive processes in shaping our experience of the world, which is supported by findings in neuroscience and psychology. Transcendental idealism, while philosophically rich and significant, remains more abstract and less empirically grounded.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's just be clear that the thread title is not supported by Chatgpt.
If you ask Chatgpt if realism or indirect realism are chasing an illusion, it will say that the answer depends on your philosophical perspective.
Kant is not the Bible.

AI will always point out, as a LLM it does not have a personal view.

The above is supported by ChatGpt but as usual with the necessary qualification.

Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with indirect realism.
I have proven that is not true.
From Kant's transcendental realism, it is inferred [argument above] indirect realism is chasing [reifying] an illusion.

[Atla]

Let's just be clear that the thread title is not supported by Chatgpt.
If you ask Chatgpt if realism or indirect realism are chasing an illusion, it will say that the answer depends on your philosophical perspective.
Kant is not the Bible.

AI will always point out, as a LLM it does not have a personal view.

The above is supported by ChatGpt but as usual with the necessary qualification.

Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with indirect realism.
I have proven that is not true.
From Kant's transcendental realism, it is inferred [argument above] indirect realism is chasing [reifying] an illusion.

It's completely unbelievable that he still doesn't (want to) get it. Here, God will SPELL IT OUT for you.

Kant contrasted transcendental idealism with transcendental realism, and the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena was used in the evaluation. Does this mean that everyone else's philosophy always needs to be based on the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena, too?

Kant’s distinction between transcendental idealism and transcendental realism centers on the nature of our experience and the limits of our knowledge. Transcendental idealism, Kant’s own view, holds that we can only know things as they appear to us (phenomena) and not as they are in themselves (noumena). Transcendental realism, in contrast, posits that the world as it is in itself can be known directly.

The idea of the "100% unknowable world beyond phenomena" refers to Kant's notion of noumena, which he claims we cannot have direct knowledge of, because our knowledge is always mediated by our sensory and cognitive faculties.

However, this does not mean that every other philosopher’s work needs to be based on the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena. Philosophical views can and do vary widely on this issue. Some key points to consider:

Different Epistemological Views: Philosophers have different views on what we can know and how we can know it. For example:

Empiricists like John Locke and David Hume argue that knowledge is primarily derived from sensory experience.
Rationalists like René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza hold that reason and innate ideas are the primary sources of knowledge.
Pragmatists like William James and John Dewey focus on the practical consequences and utility of ideas rather than their correspondence to an unknowable reality.
Metaphysical Views: Philosophers also differ in their views on the nature of reality.

Materialists believe that only physical matter is real.
Idealists like George Berkeley argue that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual.
Phenomenologists like Edmund Husserl focus on the structures of experience and consciousness.
Post-Kantian Developments: Many philosophers have engaged with and developed Kant’s ideas in various ways.

German Idealists like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed systems that moved beyond Kant’s strict separation of phenomena and noumena.
Phenomenologists like Husserl and Heidegger offered new ways of understanding experience and being that did not rely on Kant’s framework.
Analytic philosophers often focus on language, logic, and science, sometimes setting aside Kant’s transcendental concerns.
Contemporary Philosophy: Modern and contemporary philosophers often approach these issues differently, sometimes integrating scientific perspectives or focusing on language and meaning rather than metaphysical or epistemological questions in the Kantian sense.

In summary, while Kant's idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena (noumena) is a significant philosophical concept, it is not a necessary foundation for all philosophical systems. Many philosophers have proposed alternative views that do not rely on the distinction between phenomena and noumena, and contemporary philosophy encompasses a wide range of approaches that may or may not engage with Kantian ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, VA. Does VA have a position. I wouId argue no.
Kant via Chatgpt is the position presented in the thread.

For years VA asserted again and again that noumena did not exist. Does Chatgpt think this is aligned with Kant's philosophy....?

The statement that "noumena do not exist" is not aligned with Kant's philosophy. Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy, made a clear distinction between noumena and phenomena in his work, particularly in the "Critique of Pure Reason."

### Kant's Philosophy: Phenomena vs. Noumena

1. **Phenomena**: These are the objects of our experience. According to Kant, phenomena are the things as we perceive them, shaped by our sensory and cognitive faculties. Our knowledge is limited to the realm of phenomena because our understanding is structured by the way our mind processes sensory data【9†source】.

2. **Noumena**: These represent the things-in-themselves, the reality that exists independently of our perception. Kant posited that while noumena (the things-in-themselves) must exist as the basis for phenomena, they are ultimately unknowable to us. Our sensory and cognitive faculties can never access them directly; we can only infer their existence as the source of phenomena【9†source】【10†source】.

### Kant's Agnostic Position on Noumena

Kant's position is often described as agnostic regarding noumena:
- **Existence**: Kant did not deny the existence of noumena. Instead, he argued that while we must posit their existence as the grounding reality behind appearances, we cannot have any direct knowledge of them【10†source】.
- **Knowledge Limitations**: According to Kant, our knowledge is confined to the realm of appearances (phenomena). We can know how things appear to us, but not how things are in themselves (noumena)【9†source】【10†source】.

### Misalignment with Kantian Philosophy

Therefore, a statement asserting that "noumena do not exist and we know this" misaligns with Kant's philosophy for two primary reasons:
1. **Existence of Noumena**: Kant did not claim that noumena do not exist. On the contrary, he asserted their existence as necessary for the explanation of phenomena.
2. **Knowledge of Noumena**: Kant held that noumena are inherently beyond our capacity to know. He emphasized that human cognition is limited to the realm of phenomena, thus we cannot claim knowledge of the non-existence of noumena.

### Conclusion

Kant's critical philosophy sets boundaries on human knowledge, asserting that while we can know the world as it appears to us (phenomena), the true nature of things (noumena) remains inaccessible. Therefore, denying the existence of noumena outright or claiming knowledge of their non-existence contradicts Kant's philosophical framework【9†source】【10†source】.

For a more detailed exploration, you can refer to:
- The "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant
- Secondary sources and interpretations by contemporary philosophers on Kant's epistemology and metaphysics.

So just make your case for your positions on your own. Kant may weII suppIy some useful lines of argument. But for someone who toId me to read the CPR 10 times, this is the laziest most hypocriticaI thread. And it should take someone one read of the CPR to notice that so much of Kant hangs on the possibIe existence of noumena.

Or shaII we just turn the forum over to AIs. We can program it so that we post nothing. When someone posts something, it automaticaIIy gets sent to an AI and the program asks the AI to rebut the post using Kant's philosophy.

It'll be like watching StocKfish pIay chess with AlphaZero, except computers aren't as good as humans at philosophy.

Lame.

The above is based on your very narrow perspective of Kant's view, because you don't have the competence to discuss the nuances within Kant's CPR.

Rightly the above answer from ChatGpt should be qualified as,
"the conclusion above is based on the questioner's [IWP's] view of Kant's view"
given the IWP have not read nor understood [not agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.

If I present the proper nuances to ChatGpt it will give a more refined view to the narrow IWP-based Kantian views.

This is the same with Atla who had a very narrow view of Kant's view and when presented to ChatGpt, ChatGpt gave its conclusion with reference to Alta's ignorance.
However, when I presented the nuances to ChatGpt, i.e. absolute vs relative realism, regulative vs constitutively, ChatGpt concluded,

Conclusion:
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

If I presented the relevant nuances to ChatGpt it will also change its views to IWP which will expose his ignorance and embarrass him. I won't waste my time, unless IWP double down on his claim that ChatGpt's answer to him is final.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's just be clear that the thread title is not supported by Chatgpt.
If you ask Chatgpt if realism or indirect realism are chasing an illusion, it will say that the answer depends on your philosophical perspective.
Kant is not the Bible.

AI will always point out, as a LLM it does not have a personal view.

The above is supported by ChatGpt but as usual with the necessary qualification.

Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism has nothing to do with indirect realism.
I have proven that is not true.
From Kant's transcendental realism, it is inferred [argument above] indirect realism is chasing [reifying] an illusion.

It's completely unbelievable that he still doesn't (want to) get it. Here, God will SPELL IT OUT for you.

Kant contrasted transcendental idealism with transcendental realism, and the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena was used in the evaluation. Does this mean that everyone else's philosophy always needs to be based on the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena, too?

Kant’s distinction between transcendental idealism and transcendental realism centers on the nature of our experience and the limits of our knowledge. Transcendental idealism, Kant’s own view, holds that we can only know things as they appear to us (phenomena) and not as they are in themselves (noumena). Transcendental realism, in contrast, posits that the world as it is in itself can be known directly.

The idea of the "100% unknowable world beyond phenomena" refers to Kant's notion of noumena, which he claims we cannot have direct knowledge of, because our knowledge is always mediated by our sensory and cognitive faculties.

However, this does not mean that every other philosopher’s work needs to be based on the idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena. Philosophical views can and do vary widely on this issue. Some key points to consider:

Different Epistemological Views: Philosophers have different views on what we can know and how we can know it. For example:

Empiricists like John Locke and David Hume argue that knowledge is primarily derived from sensory experience.
Rationalists like René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza hold that reason and innate ideas are the primary sources of knowledge.
Pragmatists like William James and John Dewey focus on the practical consequences and utility of ideas rather than their correspondence to an unknowable reality.
Metaphysical Views: Philosophers also differ in their views on the nature of reality.

Materialists believe that only physical matter is real.
Idealists like George Berkeley argue that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual.
Phenomenologists like Edmund Husserl focus on the structures of experience and consciousness.
Post-Kantian Developments: Many philosophers have engaged with and developed Kant’s ideas in various ways.

German Idealists like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed systems that moved beyond Kant’s strict separation of phenomena and noumena.
Phenomenologists like Husserl and Heidegger offered new ways of understanding experience and being that did not rely on Kant’s framework.
Analytic philosophers often focus on language, logic, and science, sometimes setting aside Kant’s transcendental concerns.
Contemporary Philosophy: Modern and contemporary philosophers often approach these issues differently, sometimes integrating scientific perspectives or focusing on language and meaning rather than metaphysical or epistemological questions in the Kantian sense.

In summary, while Kant's idea of the 100% unknowable world beyond phenomena (noumena) is a significant philosophical concept, it is not a necessary foundation for all philosophical systems. Many philosophers have proposed alternative views that do not rely on the distinction between phenomena and noumena, and contemporary philosophy encompasses a wide range of approaches that may or may not engage with Kantian ideas.

This is a strawman.
Obviously there are others who oppose Kant's idea since Kant's CPR came out.
The topic in this case is whether Kant is realistic or not and this is a separate issue. On this topic, philosophical realists [indirect realists] has not been able to prove the existence of their absolutely mind-independent reality.

The original contention is;
Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism is not related to indirect realism.
I have demonstrated with ChatGpt that Kant's transcendental realism is related to indirect realism and that indirect realism in this case is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective.

[Atla]

This is a strawman.
Obviously there are others who oppose Kant's idea since Kant's CPR came out.
The topic in this case is whether Kant is realistic or not and this is a separate issue. On this topic, philosophical realists [indirect realists] has not been able to prove the existence of their absolutely mind-independent reality.

The original contention is;
Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism is not related to indirect realism.
I have demonstrated with ChatGpt that Kant's transcendental realism is related to indirect realism and that indirect realism in this case is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective.

It's weak to continue lying like that. Whether Kant is realistic or not has always been the issue.

You had ChatGPT group together various forms of realisms, both indirect realism and transcendental realism subscribe to forms of mind-independence so they were put into the same group as you asked. It's a lie that I insisted that they aren't in the same group.

Of course indirect realism is a case of chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective - we agreed on that years ago. Your thread title left out "from the Kantian perspective" however so it's fairly dishonest.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a strawman.
Obviously there are others who oppose Kant's idea since Kant's CPR came out.
The topic in this case is whether Kant is realistic or not and this is a separate issue. On this topic, philosophical realists [indirect realists] has not been able to prove the existence of their absolutely mind-independent reality.

The original contention is;
Atla insisted Kant's transcendental realism is not related to indirect realism.
I have demonstrated with ChatGpt that Kant's transcendental realism is related to indirect realism and that indirect realism in this case is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective.

It's weak to continue lying like that. Whether Kant is realistic or not has always been the issue.

You had ChatGPT group together various forms of realisms, both indirect realism and transcendental realism subscribe to forms of mind-independence so they were put into the same group as you asked. It's a lie that I insisted that they aren't in the same group.

Of course indirect realism is a case of chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective - we agreed on that years ago. Your thread title left out "from the Kantian perspective" however so it's fairly dishonest.

Of course, the thread is my claim and heavily supported by Kant thus no need to qualify.

So far, you have not justified your counter claim at all?
There are many philosophers who disagree with Kant, but they have not provided any valid nor sound arguments other than speculate based on emotional pleading.
Produce the supporting arguments that is rational from the philosopher of your choice?

[Veritas Aequitas]

@Atla,

why don't you ask ChatGpt how can Indirect Realists provide an argument to support their claim there is an absolutely mind-independent thing out there, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans not not.
Don't leave out the term 'absolutely' [i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans not not ] as in contrast to 'relatively'.

I believe ChatGpt already provided you a list of criticisms against indirect realism but you naively condemn them.

The bottom line of the indirect realist's ontological claim is driven by psychology out of an evolutionary default and never possible epistemologically.