ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

[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.

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?

Blatant lying, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You have simply ignored all my comments supporting indirect realism. Also, why ask for philosophers now when we both agree theat science is most credible.

[Atla]

@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.

What a dishonest request, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You know very well that in ordinary English the word "absolutely" means 100%, total independence which is not what indirect realism claims.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Blatant lying, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You have simply ignored all my comments supporting indirect realism. Also, why ask for philosophers now when we both agree theat science is most credible.

I have mentioned a 1000 times;
there are two perspective to science, i.e.

1. scientific realism [philosophical realism and indirect realism]
2. scientific antirealism [FSERC-ed based empirical realism].

Science is basically credible and objective but your claims grounded on philosophical realism and indirect realism is grounded on an illusion as supported by this OP.

Scientific antirealism relies solely on empirical evidence based on observations and measurements only reinforced with coherentism, i.e. a coherence set of belief.
Scientific antirealism does not assume nor claim there is anything [thing-in-itself] beyond observations and measurements that is contingent upon the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects within the science FS.

[Atla]

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?

Blatant lying, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You have simply ignored all my comments supporting indirect realism. Also, why ask for philosophers now when we both agree theat science is most credible.

I have mentioned a 1000 times;
there are two perspective to science, i.e.

1. scientific realism [philosophical realism and indirect realism]
2. scientific antirealism [FSERC-ed based empirical realism].

Science is basically credible and objective but your claims grounded on philosophical realism and indirect realism is grounded on an illusion as supported by this OP.

Scientific antirealism relies solely on empirical evidence based on observations and measurements only reinforced with coherentism, i.e. a coherence set of belief.
Scientific antirealism does not assume nor claim there is anything [thing-in-itself] beyond observations and measurements that is contingent upon the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects within the science FS.

Scientific antirealism has nothing to do with your FSERC-ed based empirical realism, it's just instrumentalism.

[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.

What a dishonest request, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You know very well that in ordinary English the word "absolutely" means 100%, total independence which is not what indirect realism claims.

It is the context that counts to differentiate whatever is relative, i.e. that is the absolute.
Indirect realism claim 100% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. in the context, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If not the above, what does indirect realism claims.
Show with supporting evidence and reference what does mind-independent means if not 00% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Problem is indirect realist as philosophical realism missed out the nuances in their psychological desperation to resolve the painful cognitive dissonance arising from an evolutionary default.
It is a commonly understood, evolution is about survival, selfish genes and not about finer truths which indirect realists are clinging on as an ideology.
Now that when we have to discuss the finer truth, indirect realists [philosophical realist and theists in the same boat] are caught with their dogmatic ideology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Blatant lying, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You have simply ignored all my comments supporting indirect realism. Also, why ask for philosophers now when we both agree theat science is most credible.

I have mentioned a 1000 times;
there are two perspective to science, i.e.

1. scientific realism [philosophical realism and indirect realism]
2. scientific antirealism [FSERC-ed based empirical realism].

Science is basically credible and objective but your claims grounded on philosophical realism and indirect realism is grounded on an illusion as supported by this OP.

Scientific antirealism relies solely on empirical evidence based on observations and measurements only reinforced with coherentism, i.e. a coherence set of belief.
Scientific antirealism does not assume nor claim there is anything [thing-in-itself] beyond observations and measurements that is contingent upon the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects within the science FS.

Scientific antirealism has nothing to do with your FSERC-ed based empirical realism, it's just instrumentalism.

My FSERC is a form of instrumentalism.

[Atla]

I have mentioned a 1000 times;
there are two perspective to science, i.e.

1. scientific realism [philosophical realism and indirect realism]
2. scientific antirealism [FSERC-ed based empirical realism].

Science is basically credible and objective but your claims grounded on philosophical realism and indirect realism is grounded on an illusion as supported by this OP.

Scientific antirealism relies solely on empirical evidence based on observations and measurements only reinforced with coherentism, i.e. a coherence set of belief.
Scientific antirealism does not assume nor claim there is anything [thing-in-itself] beyond observations and measurements that is contingent upon the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects within the science FS.

Scientific antirealism has nothing to do with your FSERC-ed based empirical realism, it's just instrumentalism.

My FSERC is a form of instrumentalism.

No it's not, you base it on transcendental idealism.

[Atla]

@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.

What a dishonest request, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You know very well that in ordinary English the word "absolutely" means 100%, total independence which is not what indirect realism claims.

It is the context that counts to differentiate whatever is relative, i.e. that is the absolute.
Indirect realism claim 100% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. in the context, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If not the above, what does indirect realism claims.
Show with supporting evidence and reference what does mind-independent means if not 00% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Problem is indirect realist as philosophical realism missed out the nuances in their psychological desperation to resolve the painful cognitive dissonance arising from an evolutionary default.
It is a commonly understood, evolution is about survival, selfish genes and not about finer truths which indirect realists are clinging on as an ideology.
Now that when we have to discuss the finer truth, indirect realists [philosophical realist and theists in the same boat] are caught with their dogmatic ideology.

Indirect realism makes two different dependence/independence claims. Why the fuck are you on a philosophy forum if you argue for months against a position you haven't even looked up, don't know what it claims?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What a dishonest request, you don't belong on a philosophy forum. You know very well that in ordinary English the word "absolutely" means 100%, total independence which is not what indirect realism claims.

It is the context that counts to differentiate whatever is relative, i.e. that is the absolute.
Indirect realism claim 100% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. in the context, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If not the above, what does indirect realism claims.
Show with supporting evidence and reference what does mind-independent means if not 00% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Problem is indirect realist as philosophical realism missed out the nuances in their psychological desperation to resolve the painful cognitive dissonance arising from an evolutionary default.
It is a commonly understood, evolution is about survival, selfish genes and not about finer truths which indirect realists are clinging on as an ideology.
Now that when we have to discuss the finer truth, indirect realists [philosophical realist and theists in the same boat] are caught with their dogmatic ideology.

Indirect realism makes two different dependence/independence claims. Why the fuck are you on a philosophy forum if you argue for months against a position you haven't even looked up, don't know what it claims?

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

Can you present something more rational and intellectual.
Where are your supporting references?

[Atla]

It is the context that counts to differentiate whatever is relative, i.e. that is the absolute.
Indirect realism claim 100% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. in the context, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

If not the above, what does indirect realism claims.
Show with supporting evidence and reference what does mind-independent means if not 00% total independence from the human conditions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Problem is indirect realist as philosophical realism missed out the nuances in their psychological desperation to resolve the painful cognitive dissonance arising from an evolutionary default.
It is a commonly understood, evolution is about survival, selfish genes and not about finer truths which indirect realists are clinging on as an ideology.
Now that when we have to discuss the finer truth, indirect realists [philosophical realist and theists in the same boat] are caught with their dogmatic ideology.

Indirect realism makes two different dependence/independence claims. Why the fuck are you on a philosophy forum if you argue for months against a position you haven't even looked up, don't know what it claims?

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

Can you present something more rational and intellectual.
Where are your supporting references?

In the indirect realism topic for example where you failed to counter my comments. Actually you failed to counter anything I wrote for like the last 3 years.

[Iwannaplato]

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

LOL.
There's an oughtness to get emotional in all our brains. It is universaI except in damaged brains.
If Atla got emotional he was simply following the objective moral fact in his brain which is conditioned on both the neuroscience FSERC and the human interpersonaI FSERC when dealing with someone who conflates assertions with justification.

This FSERC is called the Interpersonal WDWSWCAWJ FSERC.

I have now demonstrated the objective moral fact that Atla's response was objectively moral.

I will link to this post in the future and referred to it as when I demonstrated that it is objectiveIy moraI to get angry at you.

Notice how universal that oughtness to react emotionally, given it is in your own post quoted above.

UnfortunateIy for you AtIa does not conflate assertion with argument, so your emotionaI reaction is not supported as AtIa's was by the
Repeated FaIIacies are Annoying FSERC.

So, this Ieaves your emotional reaction supported by one fewer FSERC than AtIa's, so in degrees of objectivity you were Iess objectiveIy moraI.

That is the naiI in the coffin of your behavior.

[Atla]

Dunno, does slightly amused ridicule count as an emotion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

LOL.
There's an oughtness to get emotional in all our brains. It is universaI except in damaged brains.
If Atla got emotional he was simply following the objective moral fact in his brain which is conditioned on both the neuroscience FSERC and the human interpersonaI FSERC when dealing with someone who conflates assertions with justification.

This FSERC is called the Interpersonal WDWSWCAWJ FSERC.

I have now demonstrated the objective moral fact that Atla's response was objectively moral.

I will link to this post in the future and referred to it as when I demonstrated that it is objectiveIy moraI to get angry at you.

Notice how universal that oughtness to react emotionally, given it is in your own post quoted above.

UnfortunateIy for you AtIa does not conflate assertion with argument, so your emotionaI reaction is not supported as AtIa's was by the
Repeated FaIIacies are Annoying FSERC.

So, this Ieaves your emotional reaction supported by one fewer FSERC than AtIa's, so in degrees of objectivity you were Iess objectiveIy moraI.

That is the naiI in the coffin of your behavior.

Getting angry is not within the ambit of morality.
Yes, anger is an 'oughtness' in the brain within the science-biology-psychology FSERC.

Aristotle:
"Anybody can become angry-that is easy; but to be angry
with the right person, and
to the right degree, and
at the right time, and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way
-that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy."

Anger is dealt within the Virtue-FSERC not morality and ethics, virtue merely support the moral function.

In the above case, Atla is getting angry irrationally without impulse control and initiating a negative tit-for-tat.

[Atla]

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

LOL.
There's an oughtness to get emotional in all our brains. It is universaI except in damaged brains.
If Atla got emotional he was simply following the objective moral fact in his brain which is conditioned on both the neuroscience FSERC and the human interpersonaI FSERC when dealing with someone who conflates assertions with justification.

This FSERC is called the Interpersonal WDWSWCAWJ FSERC.

I have now demonstrated the objective moral fact that Atla's response was objectively moral.

I will link to this post in the future and referred to it as when I demonstrated that it is objectiveIy moraI to get angry at you.

Notice how universal that oughtness to react emotionally, given it is in your own post quoted above.

UnfortunateIy for you AtIa does not conflate assertion with argument, so your emotionaI reaction is not supported as AtIa's was by the
Repeated FaIIacies are Annoying FSERC.

So, this Ieaves your emotional reaction supported by one fewer FSERC than AtIa's, so in degrees of objectivity you were Iess objectiveIy moraI.

That is the naiI in the coffin of your behavior.

Getting angry is not within the ambit of morality.
Yes, anger is an 'oughtness' in the brain within the science-biology-psychology FSERC.

Aristotle:
"Anybody can become angry-that is easy; but to be angry
with the right person, and
to the right degree, and
at the right time, and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way
-that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy."

Anger is dealt within the Virtue-FSERC not morality and ethics, virtue merely support the moral function.

In the above case, Atla is getting angry irrationally without impulse control and initiating a negative tit-for-tat.

How could I become actually angry with you when I can't even take you seriously? Sounds like you're just projecting your own anger and lack of impluse control.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect realism makes two different dependence/independence claims. Why the fuck are you on a philosophy forum if you argue for months against a position you haven't even looked up, don't know what it claims?

Hey mf, you are getting emotional.

Can you present something more rational and intellectual.
Where are your supporting references?

In the indirect realism topic for example where you failed to counter my comments. Actually you failed to counter anything I wrote for like the last 3 years.

Handwaving without justifications is a "chickening out" fallacy.

Prove the below is wrong?

[ChatGpt] "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 ..