Examples of Inconsistencies of AI Responses

[Veritas Aequitas]

Imagine 10 artists, namely people, who are each looking at the same ocean landscape, who all decide to recreate it through a painting of what already exists prior to being copied.

Resulting in 10 completely different copies of the same one landscape that everyone was looking at, everyone was seeing the exact same landscape. Ironic then that everyone was seeing the same one landscape; and yet every artistic recreation of that landscape appeared different.


This thought experiment is testable of course and can be seen to be true. The landscape that everyone was seeing was an art that was natural and yet was able to be recreated as an art that was artificial.

So that’s where inconsistencies come into play. In other words what is natural never repeats exactly, and that’s where A.I. comes into play. In other words there is no copy of natural reality; except as an artificially created copy; which is an inaccurate untrue representation of what is only ever a true presentation without copyright, or author.

What we are referring to is the same philosophical principle and the same Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

1. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

2. For the same thing as highlighted above "the external world as it really is" Kant used the term noumenon, i.e.
A noumenon is an object or event that exists independently of human perception and the senses. The term is often used in contrast to the term "phenomenon," which refers to objects as they appear to the senses. [Google Search AI]

However Atla insisted what is claimed as the external world as it really is in indirect realism is not the same as Kant's noumenon.
He got ChatGpt [to Atla] to confirm his view that indirect realism has nothing to do with the noumenon.

However, in ChatGpt [to me] agree with me that the noumenon is what indirect realism is targeting at the mind-independent external reality/thing.
ChatGpt [to me] explained Atla did not give the nuanced prompt to Chatgpt, that is why its response is limited and different.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the issue??
You are the one who is claiming Indirect Realism do not has anything to do with the noumenon.
I insisted Indirect Realism implied the noumenon which is the "absolutely mind-independent of reality as it-really-is" within the general definition of what is indirect realism re WIKI's. The 100% is just a confusion.

Insist all you want, expressions like "absolutely" and "noumenon" don't even show up on the IR Wiki page.

This is because you're an arrogant ignorant gnat who do not understand Kant's thoroughly.
I suggest you put this question to ChatGpt with reference to WIKI's definition,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

This point is critical, you need to get it right.
"The Kantian noumenon is 'reality as it is' within the general definition of what is Indirect Realism"

Blatant lie. 'reality as it is' in IR is not the Kantian noumenon. You need to get the basics right if you want to be taken seriously.

Pfft

Are Kant's noumenon and indirect realisms's reality beyond phenomena the same concepts or different concepts? Summary only.

Kant's noumenon and indirect realism's "reality beyond phenomena" are related but distinct concepts:

Kant's Noumenon: Refers to things as they are in themselves (independent of human perception and understanding). For Kant, noumena are unknowable and serve as a limit to human cognition.

Indirect Realism's Reality Beyond Phenomena: Suggests that an external reality exists independently of our perceptions, but we can only know it indirectly through sensory representations.

Key Difference: Kant claims we cannot access or know the noumenon, while indirect realism generally assumes we can infer or approximate the nature of external reality through mediated perception.

---

The above statement was based on your previous discussions with ChatGpt: it was never my idea at all.

Blatant lie, I never associated IR with perception only. I associate it with all "knowability".

You have misled ChatGpt into a Strawman again.

ChatGpt [to me] had advised that you use the following prompt in asking "are Kant's noumenon and indirect realisms' reality beyond phenomena the same concepts or different concepts?"

""Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant's concept of the noumenon, which refers to a reality independent of human perception.

Does this reliance on a noumenon-like external world make critiques of Indirect Realism—particularly those addressing the epistemological challenges of positing a reality beyond direct experience—valid?
How does this critique interact with the common definition of Indirect Realism?"

If based on the above, ChatGpt still give an inconsistent answer, I will ask ChatGpt to give a better 'prompt' to reconciles its own inconsistencies.

Following its above response [earlier post] to you, you should ask ChatGpt as follows:

My interlocutor provided an alternative response from ChatGpt [to interlocutor] where it stated the the noumenon is the same as the mind-independent reality as in the common definition of indirect realism.
To reconcile the inconsistency, ChatGpt [to interlocutor] suggested the following prompt

""Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant's concept of the noumenon, which refers to a reality independent of human perception.

Does this reliance on a noumenon-like external world make critiques of Indirect Realism—particularly those addressing the epistemological challenges of positing a reality beyond direct experience—valid?
How does this critique interact with the common definition of Indirect Realism?"

Please reconcile the difference in ChatGpt's response to me and to my interlocutor.

I believe the above is a very reasonable request to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies.

[Atla]

I believe the above is a very reasonable request to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies.

But we know what the "inconsistency" is: you keep instructing ChatGPT to strawman IR from the limited Kantian perspective, which simply isn't compatible with IR. Whereas I ask it to compare the two perspectives.

Is the following argument a strawman because indirect realism's external world isn't entirely unknowable like Kant's noumenon is? Summar only. Here is the argument:

"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant's concept of the noumenon, which refers to a reality independent of human perception.

Does this reliance on a noumenon-like external world make critiques of Indirect Realism—particularly those addressing the epistemological challenges of positing a reality beyond direct experience—valid?
How does this critique interact with the common definition of Indirect Realism?"

Yes, the argument could be considered a strawman if it misrepresents indirect realism by equating its external world with Kant’s noumenon in a way that exaggerates their similarity or neglects key distinctions.

While indirect realism posits an external world that is not directly experienced, it does not claim this world is entirely unknowable, as Kant's noumenon is. Indirect realists often argue that we can have indirect knowledge or valid inferences about the external world through representations, even if we don’t access it directly. Conflating the two concepts risks oversimplifying indirect realism and attributing to it epistemological challenges that are specific to Kant's framework, which would misrepresent the position and thus constitute a strawman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe the above is a very reasonable request to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies.

But we know what the "inconsistency" is: you keep instructing ChatGPT to strawman IR from the limited Kantian perspective, which simply isn't compatible with IR. Whereas I ask it to compare the two perspectives.

Is the following argument a strawman because indirect realism's external world isn't entirely unknowable like Kant's noumenon is? Summar only. Here is the argument:

"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant's concept of the noumenon, which refers to a reality independent of human perception.

Does this reliance on a noumenon-like external world make critiques of Indirect Realism—particularly those addressing the epistemological challenges of positing a reality beyond direct experience—valid?
How does this critique interact with the common definition of Indirect Realism?"

Yes, the argument could be considered a strawman if it misrepresents indirect realism by equating its external world with Kant’s noumenon in a way that exaggerates their similarity or neglects key distinctions.

While indirect realism posits an external world that is not directly experienced, it does not claim this world is entirely unknowable, as Kant's noumenon is. Indirect realists often argue that we can have indirect knowledge or valid inferences about the external world through representations, even if we don’t access it directly. Conflating the two concepts risks oversimplifying indirect realism and attributing to it epistemological challenges that are specific to Kant's framework, which would misrepresent the position and thus constitute a strawman.

Noted the above and we are getting into doing serious philosophy, i.e. as I had always recommended, digging deeper and wider into the issue.

ChatGpt provided an alternative prompt:

Prompt Suggested by ChatGpt to Me:
"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Leaving aside questions of knowability or unknowability, philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant’s concept of the noumenon in that both refer to a reality independent of perception and cognition.

Does the reliance on a mind-independent reality make critiques of Indirect Realism—based on the epistemological challenges of positing such a reality—valid?
Specifically, can indirect realism's mind-independent external world be meaningfully distinguished from Kant's noumenon, or does this reliance on a similar concept render the critique valid?"

Critical:
The above is not an argument, don't mislead ChatGpt that it is an argument.
It is a suggested prompt or questions for you to ask ChatGpt from your side and discuss the points raised therefrom.

[Atla]

I believe the above is a very reasonable request to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies.

But we know what the "inconsistency" is: you keep instructing ChatGPT to strawman IR from the limited Kantian perspective, which simply isn't compatible with IR. Whereas I ask it to compare the two perspectives.

Is the following argument a strawman because indirect realism's external world isn't entirely unknowable like Kant's noumenon is? Summar only. Here is the argument:

"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant's concept of the noumenon, which refers to a reality independent of human perception.

Does this reliance on a noumenon-like external world make critiques of Indirect Realism—particularly those addressing the epistemological challenges of positing a reality beyond direct experience—valid?
How does this critique interact with the common definition of Indirect Realism?"

Yes, the argument could be considered a strawman if it misrepresents indirect realism by equating its external world with Kant’s noumenon in a way that exaggerates their similarity or neglects key distinctions.

While indirect realism posits an external world that is not directly experienced, it does not claim this world is entirely unknowable, as Kant's noumenon is. Indirect realists often argue that we can have indirect knowledge or valid inferences about the external world through representations, even if we don’t access it directly. Conflating the two concepts risks oversimplifying indirect realism and attributing to it epistemological challenges that are specific to Kant's framework, which would misrepresent the position and thus constitute a strawman.

Noted the above and we are getting into doing serious philosophy, i.e. as I had always recommended, digging deeper and wider into the issue.

ChatGpt provided an alternative prompt:

Prompt Suggested by ChatGpt to Me:
"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Leaving aside questions of knowability or unknowability, philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant’s concept of the noumenon in that both refer to a reality independent of perception and cognition.

Does the reliance on a mind-independent reality make critiques of Indirect Realism—based on the epistemological challenges of positing such a reality—valid?
Specifically, can indirect realism's mind-independent external world be meaningfully distinguished from Kant's noumenon, or does this reliance on a similar concept render the critique valid?"

Critical:
The above is not an argument, don't mislead ChatGpt that it is an argument.
It is a suggested prompt or questions for you to ask ChatGpt from your side and discuss the points raised therefrom.

How should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But we know what the "inconsistency" is: you keep instructing ChatGPT to strawman IR from the limited Kantian perspective, which simply isn't compatible with IR. Whereas I ask it to compare the two perspectives.

Noted the above and we are getting into doing serious philosophy, i.e. as I had always recommended, digging deeper and wider into the issue.

ChatGpt provided an alternative prompt:

Prompt Suggested by ChatGpt to Me:
"Indirect Realism is generally defined as the view that we do not experience the external world as it truly is but perceive it indirectly through representations or a conceptual framework. This view implies a reliance on an external, mind-independent reality that exists beyond perception and is not experienced directly.

Leaving aside questions of knowability or unknowability, philosophically, this external world aligns with Kant’s concept of the noumenon in that both refer to a reality independent of perception and cognition.

Does the reliance on a mind-independent reality make critiques of Indirect Realism—based on the epistemological challenges of positing such a reality—valid?
Specifically, can indirect realism's mind-independent external world be meaningfully distinguished from Kant's noumenon, or does this reliance on a similar concept render the critique valid?"

Critical:
The above is not an argument, don't mislead ChatGpt that it is an argument.
It is a suggested prompt or questions for you to ask ChatGpt from your side and discuss the points raised therefrom.

How should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

We have discussed the contentious knowability/unknowability in another thread.
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

I believe we will need a suggested prompt for this as well to avoid diversions.

[Fairy]

Imagine 10 artists, namely people, who are each looking at the same ocean landscape, who all decide to recreate it through a painting of what already exists prior to being copied.

Resulting in 10 completely different copies of the same one landscape that everyone was looking at, everyone was seeing the exact same landscape. Ironic then that everyone was seeing the same one landscape; and yet every artistic recreation of that landscape appeared different.


This thought experiment is testable of course and can be seen to be true. The landscape that everyone was seeing was an art that was natural and yet was able to be recreated as an art that was artificial.

So that’s where inconsistencies come into play. In other words what is natural never repeats exactly, and that’s where A.I. comes into play. In other words there is no copy of natural reality; except as an artificially created copy; which is an inaccurate untrue representation of what is only ever a true presentation without copyright, or author.

What we are referring to is the same philosophical principle and the same Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

1. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

2. For the same thing as highlighted above "the external world as it really is" Kant used the term noumenon, i.e.
A noumenon is an object or event that exists independently of human perception and the senses. The term is often used in contrast to the term "phenomenon," which refers to objects as they appear to the senses. [Google Search AI]

However Atla insisted what is claimed as the external world as it really is in indirect realism is not the same as Kant's noumenon.
He got ChatGpt [to Atla] to confirm his view that indirect realism has nothing to do with the noumenon.

However, in ChatGpt [to me] agree with me that the noumenon is what indirect realism is targeting at the mind-independent external reality/thing.
ChatGpt [to me] explained Atla did not give the nuanced prompt to Chatgpt, that is why its response is limited and different.

Any perception of reality as it actually is will automatically manifest as a false but believed to be true secondary reality upon what is ultimately unknowable, and so will appear directly to the perceiver as nothing more than noumenon phenomenizing.

Upon perceiving the external world, that cannot be known, that cannot be seen to know what is being looked upon, or what the looked upon actually is, or why it is, or how it is. . Is unknown.

Except as it is imagined within the dream of illusory separation which is of the knower and the known, or the perceiver and the perception.

[Atla]

Noted the above and we are getting into doing serious philosophy, i.e. as I had always recommended, digging deeper and wider into the issue.

ChatGpt provided an alternative prompt:



Critical:
The above is not an argument, don't mislead ChatGpt that it is an argument.
It is a suggested prompt or questions for you to ask ChatGpt from your side and discuss the points raised therefrom.

How should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

We have discussed the contentious knowability/unknowability in another thread.
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

I believe we will need a suggested prompt for this as well to avoid diversions.

I asked how should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

We have discussed the contentious knowability/unknowability in another thread.
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

I believe we will need a suggested prompt for this as well to avoid diversions.

I asked how should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

This is setting aside the knowability/unknowability of the noumenon.

ChatGpt Writes:

Why This Works
Excludes Ambiguities: By explicitly leaving out "knowability" or "unknowability," it prevents the discussion from veering into epistemological nuances that might distract from the core issue.

Highlights Shared Attributes: It focuses on the metaphysical similarity—the independence from perception and cognition—without conflating the two concepts.

Keeps the Argument Neutral: It avoids overstating or mischaracterizing either Indirect Realism or Kantian philosophy, ensuring the critique remains fair and logical.

The central issue here is whether the mind-independent reality beyond perception of Indirect Realism is fundamentally the same as Kant's noumenon.

Thereafter we can deal with their knowability/unknowability as in
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon or mind-independent reality of Indirect Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42651

[Atla]

We have discussed the contentious knowability/unknowability in another thread.
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon
viewtopic.php?t=42651

I believe we will need a suggested prompt for this as well to avoid diversions.

I asked how should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

This is setting aside the knowability/unknowability of the noumenon.

ChatGpt Writes:

Why This Works
Excludes Ambiguities: By explicitly leaving out "knowability" or "unknowability," it prevents the discussion from veering into epistemological nuances that might distract from the core issue.

Highlights Shared Attributes: It focuses on the metaphysical similarity—the independence from perception and cognition—without conflating the two concepts.

Keeps the Argument Neutral: It avoids overstating or mischaracterizing either Indirect Realism or Kantian philosophy, ensuring the critique remains fair and logical.

The central issue here is whether the mind-independent reality beyond perception of Indirect Realism is fundamentally the same as Kant's noumenon.

Thereafter we can deal with their knowability/unknowability as in
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon or mind-independent reality of Indirect Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42651

This is nonsense. Why don't you just have the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I asked how should we do serious philosophy if we leave out the key issue of knowability/unknowability?

This is setting aside the knowability/unknowability of the noumenon.

ChatGpt Writes:

Why This Works
Excludes Ambiguities: By explicitly leaving out "knowability" or "unknowability," it prevents the discussion from veering into epistemological nuances that might distract from the core issue.

Highlights Shared Attributes: It focuses on the metaphysical similarity—the independence from perception and cognition—without conflating the two concepts.

Keeps the Argument Neutral: It avoids overstating or mischaracterizing either Indirect Realism or Kantian philosophy, ensuring the critique remains fair and logical.

The central issue here is whether the mind-independent reality beyond perception of Indirect Realism is fundamentally the same as Kant's noumenon.

Thereafter we can deal with their knowability/unknowability as in
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon or mind-independent reality of Indirect Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42651

This is nonsense. Why don't you just have the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

Don't be a coward.
Where did I strawman p-realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is still this inconsistency of response from ChatGpt on the same issue regarding the 'noumenon' and your indirect mind-independent reality.
For philosophy sake, we cannot let this inconsistency be in suspension.
The ball in on your court, i.e. to ask ChatGpt using the suggested prompt leaving aside knowability or unknowability temporary.
Do it now.

[Atla]

This is setting aside the knowability/unknowability of the noumenon.



The central issue here is whether the mind-independent reality beyond perception of Indirect Realism is fundamentally the same as Kant's noumenon.

Thereafter we can deal with their knowability/unknowability as in
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon or mind-independent reality of Indirect Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42651

This is nonsense. Why don't you just have the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

Don't be a coward.
Where did I strawman p-realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is still this inconsistency of response from ChatGpt on the same issue regarding the 'noumenon' and your indirect mind-independent reality.
For philosophy sake, we cannot let this inconsistency be in suspension.
The ball in on your court, i.e. to ask ChatGpt using the suggested prompt leaving aside knowability or unknowability temporary.
Do it now.

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is nonsense. Why don't you just have the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

Don't be a coward.
Where did I strawman p-realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is still this inconsistency of response from ChatGpt on the same issue regarding the 'noumenon' and your indirect mind-independent reality.
For philosophy sake, we cannot let this inconsistency be in suspension.
The ball in on your court, i.e. to ask ChatGpt using the suggested prompt leaving aside knowability or unknowability temporary.
Do it now.

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

You are merely making noises without justifications.

The inconsistency is very obvious.

1. ChatGpt responded to you that Indirect Realism has nothing to do with the noumenon.
2. ChatGot responded to me that Indirect Realism's mind-independent reality is the same as the noumenon.
It is obvious 1 is inconsistent with 2 on the same issue.

To reconcile, it is suggested that you use the recommended prompt from ChatGpt-to-me.

If there is still inconsistency, I will continue to grind at it with ChatGpt because I am very confident of my view.

Note these

1. Philosophical realism –– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

2. 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


3. In philosophy, a noumenon is knowledge[1] posited as an object that exists independently of human sense. WIKI

noumenon
-the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.
-a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumenon

The object in 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same absolutely mind-independent object and in a deeper sense, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. the moon existed, exists or will exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

[Atla]

Don't be a coward.
Where did I strawman p-realism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is still this inconsistency of response from ChatGpt on the same issue regarding the 'noumenon' and your indirect mind-independent reality.
For philosophy sake, we cannot let this inconsistency be in suspension.
The ball in on your court, i.e. to ask ChatGpt using the suggested prompt leaving aside knowability or unknowability temporary.
Do it now.

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

You are merely making noises without justifications.

The inconsistency is very obvious.

1. ChatGpt responded to you that Indirect Realism has nothing to do with the noumenon.
2. ChatGot responded to me that Indirect Realism's mind-independent reality is the same as the noumenon.
It is obvious 1 is inconsistent with 2 on the same issue.

To reconcile, it is suggested that you use the recommended prompt from ChatGpt-to-me.

If there is still inconsistency, I will continue to grind at it with ChatGpt because I am very confident of my view.

Note these

1. Philosophical realism –– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

2. 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


3. In philosophy, a noumenon is knowledge[1] posited as an object that exists independently of human sense. WIKI

noumenon
-the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.
-a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumenon

The object in 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same absolutely mind-independent object and in a deeper sense, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. the moon existed, exists or will exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

You are merely making noises without justifications.

The inconsistency is very obvious.

1. ChatGpt responded to you that Indirect Realism has nothing to do with the noumenon.
2. ChatGot responded to me that Indirect Realism's mind-independent reality is the same as the noumenon.
It is obvious 1 is inconsistent with 2 on the same issue.

To reconcile, it is suggested that you use the recommended prompt from ChatGpt-to-me.

If there is still inconsistency, I will continue to grind at it with ChatGpt because I am very confident of my view.

Note these

1. Philosophical realism –– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

2. 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


3. In philosophy, a noumenon is knowledge[1] posited as an object that exists independently of human sense. WIKI

noumenon
-the object, itself inaccessible to experience, to which a phenomenon is referred for the basis or cause of its sense content.
-a thing in itself, as distinguished from a phenomenon or thing as it appears.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumenon

The object in 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same absolutely mind-independent object and in a deeper sense, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. the moon existed, exists or will exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

There was no inconsistency. Again, you lack the decency to admit your incompetence and ignorance that you've been strawmanning p-realism all along, from the useless Kantian phenomena vs noumena perspective, the only thing you knew.

You are making noises as usual.
Where are your justifications?