Dynamic Subject & Object

[Atla]

If you like "fucking" so much, go and f your ..

You keep bringing this up, is this your only experience with "fucking"?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=723632&sid=0a9fda9dc3b7 ... 84#p723632

Yes we saw it, you got wrecked there like always. Don't start a debate when you don't even know what you're talking about. Also look up the word 'oxymoron' already in a dictionary.

[FlashDangerpants]

However, in many other occasions [recently with Atla], I have got ChatGpt to change its views when I switch from the general to the more rigoristic and refined perspective. I don't intend to do it here as implied in the OP.

Don't lie fucking retard, switching to a special subtopic and then dancing around victoriously has nothing to do with rigor and refinement. It's called a strawman and an implied ad hom.

He does it by instrucitng GPT to forget things he doesn't like and by requiring it to take his views into account as a self declared subject matter expert.

That's why he hides the transcript.

[Flannel Jesus]

However, in many other occasions [recently with Atla], I have got ChatGpt to change its views when I switch from the general to the more rigoristic and refined perspective. I don't intend to do it here as implied in the OP.

Don't lie fucking retard, switching to a special subtopic and then dancing around victoriously has nothing to do with rigor and refinement. It's called a strawman and an implied ad hom.

He does it by instrucitng GPT to forget things he doesn't like and by requiring it to take his views into account as a self declared subject matter expert.

That's why he hides the transcript.

You are indeed correct. The guy getting an AI to "change sides" with his broken English just shows that AI is made to please the person it's speaking with.

[Iwannaplato]

I am sure there are realists who both realize/belief that objects are changing, certainly at the subatomic level, and yet are realists. And, as pointed out, saying objects are changing every nanosecond, that's realism. That there is something, out there, mind independent, that is changing over time, fits with realism. IN fact it fits with the description that objects are changing, slightly at least, in every nanosecond.

The OP deliberately stated, it is opened for discussion.

You quoted me discussing.

Yes, p-realism [by default] claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over time.
The point is, is p-realism's claim realistic and tenable to to be real when there is an eternal Reality-Gap between what is known and what is really out there.

I think even most realists would acknowledge that we do not get an exact piece of perfect knowledge. However if they would think that if you leave a metallic cube in a room, 1 meter cubed, and then come back to the room, it doesn't matter very much if the subatomic particles have shifted or are even the same ones. They think they know something about what they will find when they return. The think that something unlike a one inch sphere of ice was present in the room. The vote for parsimony of explanationf or why they find something so similar to what was there before that one needs things like an electron microscope to find differences and also that their sense of the object gives them information about the thing in itself. They think that they know something about these two kinds of objects, as they really are without being experienced - for example related to extension or at what rate the thing in itself is changing (faster with the ice), even if that knowledge is not perfect. You disagree, There is no thing, no room when no one is looking in there, and further we can't know anything at all about the things in themselves. I think some good arguments can be made for that postion. But as long as you paint realism as primitive and dangerous creatures, you are taking a radical position about them, and one that I think is worth opposing.

Those who reject the above p-realism's claim. i.e. ANTI-p-realism do not claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over mind-independent time and space.

But you claim there is nothing. Which is claiming knowledge not based on the empirical, and there go against, for example, Kant and other antirealists.

Yes, if we ask AI, and if from the realist perspective, it will answer in the affirmative and also AI will agree with realism somewhat because it is the majority's view.

That's the only reason? I don't know how you could know this. It couldn't possibly be because realism as a model, for example in science, has worked so well. No. Somehow you know that the AI's heuristics there and the arguments it presents are just based on popularity. Good then, that's a good argument to stop using AIs in your posts. Because then the answers the AIs present to support your views are just the most popular ones, given what ever limits you give it in your framing of your questions.

However, if we ask AI to give a balanced view, it will provide alternative views, i.e. antirealists views.
Then I further will discuss with AI to argue that the realist's philosophical realism is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective and AI will agree that is reasonable.

Sure, and a realist would get the AI to back some of his or her position if he asked the AI to use a realist's perspective to support their postion.

A good argument to stop using AIs except as a tool to help arguments or to find out about different philosophers.

You just presented a couple of good categories of evidence supporting NOT using AIs the way you do here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am sure there are realists who both realize/belief that objects are changing, certainly at the subatomic level, and yet are realists. And, as pointed out, saying objects are changing every nanosecond, that's realism. That there is something, out there, mind independent, that is changing over time, fits with realism. IN fact it fits with the description that objects are changing, slightly at least, in every nanosecond.

The OP deliberately stated, it is opened for discussion.

You quoted me discussing.

Yes, p-realism [by default] claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over time.
The point is, is p-realism's claim realistic and tenable to to be real when there is an eternal Reality-Gap between what is known and what is really out there.

I think even most realists would acknowledge that we do not get an exact piece of perfect knowledge. However if they would think that if you leave a metallic cube in a room, 1 meter cubed, and then come back to the room, it doesn't matter very much if the subatomic particles have shifted or are even the same ones. They think they know something about what they will find when they return. The think that something unlike a one inch sphere of ice was present in the room. The vote for parsimony of explanationf or why they find something so similar to what was there before that one needs things like an electron microscope to find differences and also that their sense of the object gives them information about the thing in itself. They think that they know something about these two kinds of objects, as they really are without being experienced - for example related to extension or at what rate the thing in itself is changing (faster with the ice), even if that knowledge is not perfect. You disagree, There is no thing, no room when no one is looking in there, and further we can't know anything at all about the things in themselves. I think some good arguments can be made for that postion. But as long as you paint realism as primitive and dangerous creatures, you are taking a radical position about them, and one that I think is worth opposing.

Strawman!
I am not against realism per se.
As stated I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. what is real and knowable is mind-independent and confined to the empirical world and the empirical possible [possible experience] as contingent upon a human based FSERC.

What I oppose is philosophical realism [-p-realists like you?] who adopt realism as an ideology 'fundamentalistically' and dogmatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Those who reject the above p-realism's claim. i.e. ANTI-p-realism do not claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over mind-independent time and space.

But you claim there is nothing. Which is claiming knowledge not based on the empirical, and there go against, for example, Kant and other antirealists.

Again, I am an Empirical Realist.

Yes, if we ask AI, and if from the realist perspective, it will answer in the affirmative and also AI will agree with realism somewhat because it is the majority's view.

That's the only reason? I don't know how you could know this. It couldn't possibly be because realism as a model, for example in science, has worked so well. No. Somehow you know that the AI's heuristics there and the arguments it presents are just based on popularity. Good then, that's a good argument to stop using AIs in your posts. Because then the answers the AIs present to support your views are just the most popular ones, given what ever limits you give it in your framing of your questions.

Science?? You are ignorance of;
Scientific Realism [philosophical] is chasing an illusion beyond the empirical;
Scientific empirical realism*- confined to the empirical & FSERC.
*generally, scientific antirealism

You are clinging onto scientific realism, i.e. scientific philosophical realism which is chasing an illusion.

However, if we ask AI to give a balanced view, it will provide alternative views, i.e. antirealists views.
Then I further will discuss with AI to argue that the realist's philosophical realism is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective and AI will agree that is reasonable.

Sure, and a realist would get the AI to back some of his or her position if he asked the AI to use a realist's perspective to support their position.

Did you read above?
"Then I further will discuss with AI to argue that the realist's philosophical realism is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective and AI will agree that is reasonable."

A good argument to stop using AIs except as a tool to help arguments or to find out about different philosophers.

You just presented a couple of good categories of evidence supporting NOT using AIs the way you do here.

It is very unintelligent not use AI optimally while being mindful of its limitation.
It is like preferring to walk to your destination [regardless of distance] instead of using modern transport means.

[Iwannaplato]

The OP deliberately stated, it is opened for discussion.

You quoted me discussing.

Yes, p-realism [by default] claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over time.
The point is, is p-realism's claim realistic and tenable to to be real when there is an eternal Reality-Gap between what is known and what is really out there.

I think even most realists would acknowledge that we do not get an exact piece of perfect knowledge. However if they would think that if you leave a metallic cube in a room, 1 meter cubed, and then come back to the room, it doesn't matter very much if the subatomic particles have shifted or are even the same ones. They think they know something about what they will find when they return. The think that something unlike a one inch sphere of ice was present in the room. The vote for parsimony of explanationf or why they find something so similar to what was there before that one needs things like an electron microscope to find differences and also that their sense of the object gives them information about the thing in itself. They think that they know something about these two kinds of objects, as they really are without being experienced - for example related to extension or at what rate the thing in itself is changing (faster with the ice), even if that knowledge is not perfect. You disagree, There is no thing, no room when no one is looking in there, and further we can't know anything at all about the things in themselves. I think some good arguments can be made for that postion. But as long as you paint realism as primitive and dangerous creatures, you are taking a radical position about them, and one that I think is worth opposing.[/quote]

Strawman!
I am not against realism per se.
As stated I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. what is real and knowable is mind-independent and confined to the empirical world and the empirical possible [possible experience] as contingent upon a human based FSERC.

What I oppose is philosophical realism [-p-realists like you?] who adopt realism as an ideology 'fundamentalistically' and dogmatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I've told you before that one can be even a philoophical realist with those adjectives. They are meaningless in a philosophical discussion. There is nothing in what I quoted that is a strawman. Nothing. And you have quoted nothing in particular that is a strawman from inside my quote. Your position is radical in the sense that it goes beyond Kant and beyond other types of antirealist in saying that noumena and things in themselves do not exist.

What you wrote in no way responds to anything I wrote.

Those who reject the above p-realism's claim. i.e. ANTI-p-realism do not claims [assumes] there is something out there existing absolutely mind independent and changing over mind-independent time and space.

But you claim there is nothing. Which is claiming knowledge not based on the empirical, and there go against, for example, Kant and other antirealists.[/quote]

Again, I am an Empirical Realist.

And notice how you do make clear in this response whether you say and do exactly what I am saying. You could say, no, I no longer claim any knowledege that there are no noumena. Or you could acknowledge that you do in fact think noumena do not exist. But you do neither here.

Yes, if we ask AI, and if from the realist perspective, it will answer in the affirmative and also AI will agree with realism somewhat because it is the majority's view.

That's the only reason? I don't know how you could know this. It couldn't possibly be because realism as a model, for example in science, has worked so well. No. Somehow you know that the AI's heuristics there and the arguments it presents are just based on popularity. Good then, that's a good argument to stop using AIs in your posts. Because then the answers the AIs present to support your views are just the most popular ones, given what ever limits you give it in your framing of your questions.

Science?? You are ignorance of;
Scientific Realism [philosophical] is chasing an illusion beyond the empirical;
Scientific empirical realism*- confined to the empirical & FSERC.
*generally, scientific antirealism

You are clinging onto scientific realism, i.e. scientific philosophical realism which is chasing an illusion.

I'm aware of what you mention here. You do not manage to integrate it in any way with what I have written. This is not a response to the points I made.

Sure, and a realist would get the AI to back some of his or her position if he asked the AI to use a realist's perspective to support their position.

Did you read above?
"Then I further will discuss with AI to argue that the realist's philosophical realism is chasing an illusion from the Kantian perspective and AI will agree that is reasonable."

Obviously.

A good argument to stop using AIs except as a tool to help arguments or to find out about different philosophers.

You just presented a couple of good categories of evidence supporting NOT using AIs the way you do here.

It is very unintelligent not use AI optimally while being mindful of its limitation.

And you did not interact with my points at all. You simply asserted something.

It is like preferring to walk to your destination [regardless of distance] instead of using modern transport means.

Yes, precisely, you're like all these people now using electric bicycles and el-scooters while I walk and bike around. They are getting fatter and weaker using more modern technology for no good reason. Sure, a tiny percentage might not be able to walk and bike under their own power and I am glad they have this option that is better than using a car, for all of use. But otherwise it's a bad trend. (see the problem with certain analogy based arguments meant to insult?) ((and yes, I saw your [regardless of distance], but the problem is, people have no idea how far they can walk and bike, because they are addicted to technology for use in general. It's only once in a while I bike to the next nearest city. I'm getting up to retirement age. But most people have no idea what they are capable of and what they are doing to their bodies/minds and in the case of AI, their minds, by their dependence. You don't need a walker.))

And as usual you did not respond to any point I made. You did not intregrate any points I made into any of your responses. You restate opinions. Label something strawman without in the least responding to what I wrote. You raise issues that you claim I am ignorant of when I am not. I mean, apart from being aware of them myself, I've read you say those things 100 times.

This is a pattern in your posting. I often go and read your 'responses' to my posts and find that you have not responded to what I wrote, so I just ignore them. Using AIs in the ways you do is not going to help this pattern. It's going to make it worse.