VA Conflate TR with PR??

[Atla]

2) note the hilarity of the above: using Chatgpt in an appeal to authority, but with the proviso that we use the right prompt to get the answer, from that authority, to make sure it agrees with you. LOL

First things first

[Iwannaplato]

2) note the hilarity of the above: using Chatgpt in an appeal to authority, but with the proviso that we use the right prompt to get the answer, from that authority, to make sure it agrees with you. LOL

First things first

He still loves that word 'absolutely'. It's his get of jail free card, he thinks.
And what does this mean?
Can't realists understand that minds are a part of reality, this reality and so of course reality is not absolutely mind independent, but rather things like stars will exist after humans wipe themselves out, if they do. Can't the realist know that languages and cultural practices are dependent on humans, while believing that what even when we are not looking at the bottom of the Mariana Trench some really odd deep sea creatures are crangling about? The word absolutely is a bet hedger. It would be as if realists are arguing that reality must not have any mental facets. That there cannot be minds in reality. Of course he will scream strawman, but the point is that his absolutely is not defined. It is this ideal, insane criterion, NOT asserted by most realists. Realists are focused on specific things. Their models include objects that persist when not perceived, that there are appearances and objects.

It ties in with his use of FSERCs to allow him to talk about what existed before humans. Oh, yes, there was a planet before humans arose, but this planet is conditions on the geology/astronomy FSERC.

He cannot see how he is conflating ontology with epistemology. The knowledge of the planet is conditioned on vs. the existence of the planet is conditioned on. Ending up with some kind of retrocausation. Humans made the planet on which they later arose via having an FSERC which the planet is conditioned on. But he'd actually have to have the ability to think of these things to rebut or support, to analyze.

In one moment mind dependence means that to justify your position you are going to have to refer to some field of knowledge.
In another moment mind dependence means that things arise from our knowledge/perception.

And then 'absolutely' gets tossed in, just to make sure the realist has to justify some position most realists don't have,

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is it true
that while Kantian transcendental realism views mind-independence as one concept: external objects exist 100% independently of us and we perceive them as as they are without being shaped by cognitive faculties,
on the other hand most other forms of philosophical realism today view mind-independence as at least two different concepts:
1. external objects exist independently of us, but not necessarily 100% independently and
2. we may or may not perceive them as they are. Summary only.

Yes, your summary captures the distinction. Kantian transcendental realism presupposes that external objects exist completely independently of us and that we perceive them as they truly are, unmediated by cognitive faculties. In contrast, most contemporary forms of philosophical realism tend to separate these ideas:

1. External objects exist independently of the mind, but their independence might not be absolute (e.g., they may interact with or depend on human cognition or perception in specific ways).

2. Whether we perceive these objects as they truly are is a separate question, often allowing for the possibility that our perception is shaped by cognitive processes or other mediating factors.

This reflects a broader and more nuanced understanding in modern realism.

As stated earlier, your above is a strawman misleading ChatGpt without consideration of the nuances.

I suggest you most the following incorporating my objections and the related nuances:

My interlocutor objected to the above and claim the following:
1. The whole of Kant CPR represents the whole of Kantian Transcendental Idealism which opposed philosophical realism i.e. things are absolutely mind-independent; they exist regardless of whether there are humans nor not. During Kant’s time, there was no such term as philosophical realism, thus label the absolute mind-independence claim as his Transcendental Realism.

2. Kant recognized there are mind-independent things, but they are within the scope of Kant’s Empirical Realism where the mind-independence is merely relative [regulative] and not absolutely constitutive.

3. The generally accepted definition of philosophical realism is;
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

4. As per philosophical realism in 2 above, external object [noumenon or thing-in-itself] has to exist 100% independent of mind and humans. Since they are 100% independent of the mind’s perception, they cannot be perceived as-they-are.
If they are not 100% i.e. absolutely mind independent they cannot qualify as Philosophical Realism as defined above.

5. As such, the philosophical realism [as a form of general realism] which has many other forms [scientific realism, indirect realism, platonic realism, mathematical realism] are not represented in two concepts. Philosophical realism has only one grounding i.e. things exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any [human] mind perceiving it.

Is the above in alignment with philosophical realism and Kant’s Transcendental Realism?

Does the above vary the response you gave earlier?

I believe it is only fair you let ChatGpt be aware of my objections and await its response.

I am sure you are unable to fact-check ChatGpt respond to Kant's CPR, so,
I reserve the rights to counter "ChatGpt response to you" if they are not in alignment with philosophical realism [imo] and that of Kant's CPR.

Post the above to ChatGpt and thereafter post its response here.

[Flannel Jesus]

This really isn't all that complicated. No need for extended back-and-forths with our own AIs (lmao).

Transcendental Realism is a specific type of Philosophical Realism. You can be a Philosophical Realist without being a Transcendental Realist, but you cannot be a Transcendental Realist without being a Philosophical Realist.

Philosophical Realism, as it's been used by VA in these conversations, is the broad notion that *there is some objective mind-independent reality*, regardless of it's nature. Transcendental Realism is a more specific variant that says, there is a mind-independent reality, and it's nature is *specifically this one thing*.

[Atla]

This really isn't all that complicated. No need for extended back-and-forths with our own AIs (lmao).

Transcendental Realism is a specific type of Philosophical Realism. You can be a Philosophical Realist without being a Transcendental Realist, but you cannot be a Transcendental Realist without being a Philosophical Realist.

Philosophical Realism, as it's been used by VA in these conversations, is the broad notion that *there is some objective mind-independent reality*, regardless of it's nature. Transcendental Realism is a more specific variant that says, there is a mind-independent reality, and it's nature is *specifically this one thing*.

There is no actual back-and-forth, VA has always meant TR by PR so VA has always been dead wrong. He thinks you are a TRist too so you must be dealt with.

[Atla]

Is it true
that while Kantian transcendental realism views mind-independence as one concept: external objects exist 100% independently of us and we perceive them as as they are without being shaped by cognitive faculties,
on the other hand most other forms of philosophical realism today view mind-independence as at least two different concepts:
1. external objects exist independently of us, but not necessarily 100% independently and
2. we may or may not perceive them as they are. Summary only.

Yes, your summary captures the distinction. Kantian transcendental realism presupposes that external objects exist completely independently of us and that we perceive them as they truly are, unmediated by cognitive faculties. In contrast, most contemporary forms of philosophical realism tend to separate these ideas:

1. External objects exist independently of the mind, but their independence might not be absolute (e.g., they may interact with or depend on human cognition or perception in specific ways).

2. Whether we perceive these objects as they truly are is a separate question, often allowing for the possibility that our perception is shaped by cognitive processes or other mediating factors.

This reflects a broader and more nuanced understanding in modern realism.

As stated earlier, your above is a strawman misleading ChatGpt without consideration of the nuances.

I suggest you most the following incorporating my objections and the related nuances:

My interlocutor objected to the above and claim the following:
1. The whole of Kant CPR represents the whole of Kantian Transcendental Idealism which opposed philosophical realism i.e. things are absolutely mind-independent; they exist regardless of whether there are humans nor not. During Kant’s time, there was no such term as philosophical realism, thus label the absolute mind-independence claim as his Transcendental Realism.

2. Kant recognized there are mind-independent things, but they are within the scope of Kant’s Empirical Realism where the mind-independence is merely relative [regulative] and not absolutely constitutive.

3. The generally accepted definition of philosophical realism is;
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

4. As per philosophical realism in 2 above, external object [noumenon or thing-in-itself] has to exist 100% independent of mind and humans. Since they are 100% independent of the mind’s perception, they cannot be perceived as-they-are.
If they are not 100% i.e. absolutely mind independent they cannot qualify as Philosophical Realism as defined above.

5. As such, the philosophical realism [as a form of general realism] which has many other forms [scientific realism, indirect realism, platonic realism, mathematical realism] are not represented in two concepts. Philosophical realism has only one grounding i.e. things exist absolutely mind-independent, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any [human] mind perceiving it.

Is the above in alignment with philosophical realism and Kant’s Transcendental Realism?

Does the above vary the response you gave earlier?

I believe it is only fair you let ChatGpt be aware of my objections and await its response.

I am sure you are unable to fact-check ChatGpt respond to Kant's CPR, so,
I reserve the rights to counter "ChatGpt response to you" if they are not in alignment with philosophical realism [imo] and that of Kant's CPR.

Post the above to ChatGpt and thereafter post its response here.

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

[Atla]

2) note the hilarity of the above: using Chatgpt in an appeal to authority, but with the proviso that we use the right prompt to get the answer, from that authority, to make sure it agrees with you. LOL

First things first

He still loves that word 'absolutely'. It's his get of jail free card, he thinks.
And what does this mean?
Can't realists understand that minds are a part of reality, this reality and so of course reality is not absolutely mind independent, but rather things like stars will exist after humans wipe themselves out, if they do. Can't the realist know that languages and cultural practices are dependent on humans, while believing that what even when we are not looking at the bottom of the Mariana Trench some really odd deep sea creatures are crangling about? The word absolutely is a bet hedger. It would be as if realists are arguing that reality must not have any mental facets. That there cannot be minds in reality. Of course he will scream strawman, but the point is that his absolutely is not defined. It is this ideal, insane criterion, NOT asserted by most realists. Realists are focused on specific things. Their models include objects that persist when not perceived, that there are appearances and objects.

It ties in with his use of FSERCs to allow him to talk about what existed before humans. Oh, yes, there was a planet before humans arose, but this planet is conditions on the geology/astronomy FSERC.

He cannot see how he is conflating ontology with epistemology. The knowledge of the planet is conditioned on vs. the existence of the planet is conditioned on. Ending up with some kind of retrocausation. Humans made the planet on which they later arose via having an FSERC which the planet is conditioned on. But he'd actually have to have the ability to think of these things to rebut or support, to analyze.

In one moment mind dependence means that to justify your position you are going to have to refer to some field of knowledge.
In another moment mind dependence means that things arise from our knowledge/perception.

And then 'absolutely' gets tossed in, just to make sure the realist has to justify some position most realists don't have,

VA represents the typical stupid human. He reminds me that no matter what we do, stupid people will drag us down eventually anyway and will destroy the world. To me, VA represents hopelessness.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is no actual back-and-forth, VA has always meant TR by PR so VA has always been dead wrong. He thinks you are a TRist too so you must be dealt with.

Ah, well that's exceptionally ignorant, misleading and stupid.

[Atla]

There is no actual back-and-forth, VA has always meant TR by PR so VA has always been dead wrong. He thinks you are a TRist too so you must be dealt with.

Ah, well that's exceptionally ignorant, misleading and stupid.

And then it's even worse, I can't even make him understand that TR isn't the only form of PR because he can't imagine that, can't comprehend that. So he can only imagine that the majority of the world's population should be seriously punished because they are TRists. And he will go to lengths to bring forth this justice.

[Flannel Jesus]

Someone asked me what I like to do for fun.

I said I like to talk to retards on the internet.

She said, isn't that a little politically incorrect?

I said listen, nobody's going to tell me who I can and can't talk to.

[CIN]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

[Impenitent]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

can a textual response be held morally responsible for misleading someone?

-Imp

[CIN]

I feel nostalgic for the days when people actually talked about ethics in this subforum.

can a textual response be held morally responsible for misleading someone?

-Imp

Only if it is intended to do harm. Most moral philosophers are innocent victims of their own mistakes.

[Impenitent]

innocence is no excuse...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant's CPR can't address most modern realisms. You just want it because you really want to hurt "p-realists".

Strawman.

From a nuance view, modern realism-in-general is grounded on mind-independence but there are two senses of it;

1. Absolute mind-independence, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, e.g. philosophical realism, transcendental realism as its subs.

2. Relative mind-independence, i.e. it is relative [not literally dependent] to humans, so no humans, no mind-independence, e.g. empirical realism and various idealisms.

Kant's CPR is grounded on his Copernican Revolution [human orientated] which opposed sense 1 where to Kant is his Transcendental Realism then but in modern times is labelled Philosophical Realism.
Kant Transcendental Realism would cover platonic realism, Descartes realism, rationalism's realism, direct/indirect realism, theism and whatever is grounded on absolutely mind-independent during his time.
So Transcendental Realism to Kant is no different with modern Philosophical Realism, i.e. re absolute mind-independence.

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible.
This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. ... as Kant alternatively puts it.
Our knowledge of the world of our experience is inevitably a knowledge that is constructed through our own frameworks and categories - this gives rise to questions about whether our "knowledge" is anything to do with the "world as it is."
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philoso ... lution.asp

From the above, Kant's Copernican Revolution implies there is no external "world-as-it-is" existing by itself, i.e. absolutely human mind independent, rather, the human is related to what the world is.

Kant's Copernican Revolution [TO] opposed all Transcendental Realism which include any realism that claims absolute mind-independence which in modern time is categorized within Philosophical Realism.
So, Kant's CPR addressed [& opposed] all modern realisms that claimed absolute mind-independence, i.e. classed as Philosophical Realism.