Kant refuted in 1 step

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, if there is no reality then we are an example of the brain in the vat.

That is a strawman.

I did not say there is no reality.

What is reality [ultimate] is not something that is not recognizable, and that there is something [absolutely] mind independent and you cannot tell exactly what it is.

Whatever is reality is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects, human-based framework and system [FS], which range from common sense to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.
One can know exactly what is reality but must be qualified to a specific human-based FS.

So, we are not a brain-in-a-vat. We have and know we are in reality [as defined above] and that is verifiable and justifiable from the common sense FS to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.

You mentioned that "With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all". Now you are saying that it is something. Could we please focus on Kant instead of your FSK?

Note, I stated there is no 'something of substance at all' i.e. 'substance' as in;

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.[1][2] Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Obviously there are things or something, but it is not a thing re substance theory of which you are claiming upon.
According to Kant, whatever is a thing [empirically real] it is contingent upon a human-based FS, e.g. science, mathematics, language, social, economics, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No it's not a strawman. You can't be genuinely this stupid, it's just not possible.

Reality only exists if a mind is perceiving it = reality is mind-dependent.
Mere appearance in the eye of the beholder = reality is mind-dependent.
You say reality is mind-dependent, so reality is dependent on the mind. And you also say that reality is not mind-dependent, the mind is a part and parcel of the whole.

Again Kant's philosophy is refuted, if this is what he meant. A philosophy has to have internal consistency, has to make sense. Yours never once made sense.

I have not stated the above.
They are are all your own words and interpretation.

I have said my intended points above.

Yes you did state it, you literally just wrote it. You've been saying the same thing for years and not once did it make coherent sense.

What I state is never in the absolute but merely relative sense.

Re "dependent" I have even raised a thread to explain why I do not want to use the term 'dependent' because it can be very misleading.

"Not Mind-Independent" is not equal to "Mind-Dependent" [for me]
viewtopic.php?t=40562
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

[Atla]

I have not stated the above.
They are are all your own words and interpretation.

I have said my intended points above.

Yes you did state it, you literally just wrote it. You've been saying the same thing for years and not once did it make coherent sense.

What I state is never in the absolute but merely relative sense.

Re "dependent" I have even raised a thread to explain why I do not want to use the term 'dependent' because it can be very misleading.

"Not Mind-Independent" is not equal to "Mind-Dependent" [for me]
viewtopic.php?t=40562
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

What are you on about? All you've been talking about for years is that reality is shaped by the human conditions, and without humans there would be no reality. Of course your reality is mind-dependent or human-dependent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes you did state it, you literally just wrote it. You've been saying the same thing for years and not once did it make coherent sense.

What I state is never in the absolute but merely relative sense.

Re "dependent" I have even raised a thread to explain why I do not want to use the term 'dependent' because it can be very misleading.

"Not Mind-Independent" is not equal to "Mind-Dependent" [for me]
viewtopic.php?t=40562
I don't use the mind-dependent term because it is too confusing to the extent that I will be accused of claiming the universe came about dependent of the individual human mind or the collective minds as if it is magic show.

What are you on about? All you've been talking about for years is that reality is shaped by the human conditions, and without humans there would be no reality. Of course your reality is mind-dependent or human-dependent.

That is the problem with your thinking, i.e. in either black or white without considering nuances.
Of course, there is something serious with my point to the extent I had raised a thread to explain it.

Again,
I have never asserted "reality is shaped by the human conditions".

Note analogy of Chaos Theory, i.e.
"your fart can cause a hurricane in Florida"
it does not mean the hurricane is "dependent" on you, it merely mean, somehow you [or humans] are involved.
The point is also not extended to if there are no humans there are no hurricane in Florida which is merely crude logic.

[Atla]

What I state is never in the absolute but merely relative sense.

Re "dependent" I have even raised a thread to explain why I do not want to use the term 'dependent' because it can be very misleading.

What are you on about? All you've been talking about for years is that reality is shaped by the human conditions, and without humans there would be no reality. Of course your reality is mind-dependent or human-dependent.

That is the problem with your thinking, i.e. in either black or white without considering nuances.
Of course, there is something serious with my point to the extent I had raised a thread to explain it.

Again,
I have never asserted "reality is shaped by the human conditions".

Note analogy of Chaos Theory, i.e.
"your fart can cause a hurricane in Florida"
it does not mean the hurricane is "dependent" on you, it merely mean, somehow you [or humans] are involved.
The point is also not extended to if there are no humans there are no hurricane in Florida which is merely crude logic.

That's exactly what you've been saying all along. Reality doesn't exist without humans. Reality doesn't pre-exist humans. Don't you remember? And you've exactly been saying that reality IS shaped by the human conditions (subsumed) what the fuck is wrong with you?

And now you come back at me with your hurricane analogy which is clearly a p-realist stance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are you on about? All you've been talking about for years is that reality is shaped by the human conditions, and without humans there would be no reality. Of course your reality is mind-dependent or human-dependent.

That is the problem with your thinking, i.e. in either black or white without considering nuances.
Of course, there is something serious with my point to the extent I had raised a thread to explain it.

Again,
I have never asserted "reality is shaped by the human conditions".

Note analogy of Chaos Theory, i.e.
"your fart can cause a hurricane in Florida"
it does not mean the hurricane is "dependent" on you, it merely mean, somehow you [or humans] are involved.
The point is also not extended to if there are no humans there are no hurricane in Florida which is merely crude logic.

That's exactly what you've been saying all along. Reality doesn't exist without humans. Reality doesn't pre-exist humans. Don't you remember? And you've exactly been saying that reality IS shaped by the human conditions (subsumed) what the fuck is wrong with you?

And now you come back at me with your hurricane analogy which is clearly a p-realist stance.

Yes I have been stating the above BUT I have not categorical and absolutely committed to 'reality is dependent on humans' which if literally can be misinterpreted.

If the hurricane is related to humans how can it had existed absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Suggest you read this SEP article,
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921
to understand Kant's view that the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus no question of it being knowable or unknowable in terms of a normally-regarded-as-real thing.

[Atla]

That is the problem with your thinking, i.e. in either black or white without considering nuances.
Of course, there is something serious with my point to the extent I had raised a thread to explain it.

Again,
I have never asserted "reality is shaped by the human conditions".

Note analogy of Chaos Theory, i.e.
"your fart can cause a hurricane in Florida"
it does not mean the hurricane is "dependent" on you, it merely mean, somehow you [or humans] are involved.
The point is also not extended to if there are no humans there are no hurricane in Florida which is merely crude logic.

That's exactly what you've been saying all along. Reality doesn't exist without humans. Reality doesn't pre-exist humans. Don't you remember? And you've exactly been saying that reality IS shaped by the human conditions (subsumed) what the fuck is wrong with you?

And now you come back at me with your hurricane analogy which is clearly a p-realist stance.

Yes I have been stating the above BUT I have not categorical and absolutely committed to 'reality is dependent on humans' which if literally can be misinterpreted.

If the hurricane is related to humans how can it had existed absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Suggest you read this SEP article,
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921
to understand Kant's view that the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus no question of it being knowable or unknowable in terms of a normally-regarded-as-real thing.

Suggest you ditch Kant and switch to a serious philosophy like indirect realism. Then you'll know how to make sense of relations and dependencies, and you'll be able to actually mean what you say.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's exactly what you've been saying all along. Reality doesn't exist without humans. Reality doesn't pre-exist humans. Don't you remember? And you've exactly been saying that reality IS shaped by the human conditions (subsumed) what the fuck is wrong with you?

And now you come back at me with your hurricane analogy which is clearly a p-realist stance.

Yes I have been stating the above BUT I have not categorical and absolutely committed to 'reality is dependent on humans' which if literally can be misinterpreted.

If the hurricane is related to humans how can it had existed absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Suggest you read this SEP article,
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921
to understand Kant's view that the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus no question of it being knowable or unknowable in terms of a normally-regarded-as-real thing.

Suggest you ditch Kant and switch to a serious philosophy like indirect realism. Then you'll know how to make sense of relations and dependencies, and you'll be able to actually mean what you say.

I have done a VERY serious into what is Indirect Realism and noted it is full of holes:

See:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607&sid=799bb9acc19c8 ... bab8bfef24

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#SH2b
Problems for Indirect Realism
-Dualism
-Adverbialism
-The Veil of Perception

Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception.
All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data.
What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
In drawing the focus of our perception away from the world and onto inner items, we are threatened by wholesale skepticism.
Since we can only directly perceive our sense data, all our beliefs about the external world beyond may be false.
There may not actually be any coffee cups or olive oil tins in the world, merely sense data in my mind.

I recalled, ChatGpt had also given you a list of counters against Indirect Realism.

Why don't you raised a thread to argue for Indirect Realism and counters all the objections against indirect realism.

[Atla]

Yes I have been stating the above BUT I have not categorical and absolutely committed to 'reality is dependent on humans' which if literally can be misinterpreted.

If the hurricane is related to humans how can it had existed absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Suggest you read this SEP article,
Kant's Critique of Metaphysics
viewtopic.php?t=42921
to understand Kant's view that the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is an illusion, thus no question of it being knowable or unknowable in terms of a normally-regarded-as-real thing.

Suggest you ditch Kant and switch to a serious philosophy like indirect realism. Then you'll know how to make sense of relations and dependencies, and you'll be able to actually mean what you say.

I have done a VERY serious into what is Indirect Realism and noted it is full of holes:

See:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607&sid=799bb9acc19c8 ... bab8bfef24

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#SH2b
Problems for Indirect Realism
-Dualism
-Adverbialism
-The Veil of Perception

Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception.
All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data.
What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
In drawing the focus of our perception away from the world and onto inner items, we are threatened by wholesale skepticism.
Since we can only directly perceive our sense data, all our beliefs about the external world beyond may be false.
There may not actually be any coffee cups or olive oil tins in the world, merely sense data in my mind.

I recalled, ChatGpt had also given you a list of counters against Indirect Realism.

Why don't you raised a thread to argue for Indirect Realism and counters all the objections against indirect realism.

You were dumb enough to make threads dedicated to indirect realism, where I've shown the superiority of IR over TI in more detail. You are unaware of this of course since the debate was over your head and you didn't even participate in it - I used AI to list the best arguments from the TI perspective, and then beat them.

[Age]

What can be seen here is that these older human beings back when this was being written had become so lacking in 'critical thinking' and in 'logical reasoning' that they, actual, resorting to using 'machines', with the laughable name of 'artificial intelligence', of all things. to do 'their arguing', for them.

So, instead of just using 'actual Intelligence', which they, literally, had DIRECT ACCESS TO, these older human beings would 'turn to' using 'artificial intelligence', instead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Suggest you ditch Kant and switch to a serious philosophy like indirect realism. Then you'll know how to make sense of relations and dependencies, and you'll be able to actually mean what you say.

I have done a VERY serious into what is Indirect Realism and noted it is full of holes:

See:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607&sid=799bb9acc19c8 ... bab8bfef24

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#SH2b
Problems for Indirect Realism
-Dualism
-Adverbialism
-The Veil of Perception

Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception.
All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data.
What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
In drawing the focus of our perception away from the world and onto inner items, we are threatened by wholesale skepticism.
Since we can only directly perceive our sense data, all our beliefs about the external world beyond may be false.
There may not actually be any coffee cups or olive oil tins in the world, merely sense data in my mind.

I recalled, ChatGpt had also given you a list of counters against Indirect Realism.

Why don't you raised a thread to argue for Indirect Realism and counters all the objections against indirect realism.

You were dumb enough to make threads dedicated to indirect realism, where I've shown the superiority of IR over TI in more detail. You are unaware of this of course since the debate was over your head and you didn't even participate in it - I used AI to list the best arguments from the TI perspective, and then beat them.

That is wishful thinking.

I am very interested, to be more precise, why don't you open a thread and post those supposedly "the superiority of IR over TI in more detail."
This is why I raised specific threads for critical points.

[Atla]

I have done a VERY serious into what is Indirect Realism and noted it is full of holes:

See:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607&sid=799bb9acc19c8 ... bab8bfef24

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#SH2b
Problems for Indirect Realism
-Dualism
-Adverbialism
-The Veil of Perception




I recalled, ChatGpt had also given you a list of counters against Indirect Realism.

Why don't you raised a thread to argue for Indirect Realism and counters all the objections against indirect realism.

You were dumb enough to make threads dedicated to indirect realism, where I've shown the superiority of IR over TI in more detail. You are unaware of this of course since the debate was over your head and you didn't even participate in it - I used AI to list the best arguments from the TI perspective, and then beat them.

That is wishful thinking.

I am very interested, to be more precise, why don't you open a thread and post those supposedly "the superiority of IR over TI in more detail."
This is why I raised specific threads for critical points.

I just explained why, because I already did it in your threads.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You were dumb enough to make threads dedicated to indirect realism, where I've shown the superiority of IR over TI in more detail. You are unaware of this of course since the debate was over your head and you didn't even participate in it - I used AI to list the best arguments from the TI perspective, and then beat them.

That is wishful thinking.

I am very interested, to be more precise, why don't you open a thread and post those supposedly "the superiority of IR over TI in more detail."
This is why I raised specific threads for critical points.

I just explained why, because I already did it in your threads.

Where?
I don't have a super memory.
If you cannot produce the reference, it is a good as no argument.

[Atla]

That is wishful thinking.

I am very interested, to be more precise, why don't you open a thread and post those supposedly "the superiority of IR over TI in more detail."
This is why I raised specific threads for critical points.

I just explained why, because I already did it in your threads.

Where?
I don't have a super memory.
If you cannot produce the reference, it is a good as no argument.

If you can't find your own two threads, one of them you just linked, then I agree you don't have a super memory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I just explained why, because I already did it in your threads.

Where?
I don't have a super memory.
If you cannot produce the reference, it is a good as no argument.

If you can't find your own two threads, one of them you just linked, then I agree you don't have a super memory.

Obviously I can find my own threads, but which post[s] from the many pages.