Atla: Indirect Realism Posit No Noumenon

[Atla]

Stop asking the AI to write strawman lies for you already. IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt on the above, I provided relevant references:

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor wrote:
[Interlocutor] "IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" but did not give references.

My comments:
As generally defined "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

My interlocutor "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" don't make sense. What possibility could the ultimate object of indirect realism [as defined] be capable of being known?

Kant argued, the unknowable object is an intelligible object:

[Kant]The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.
A280 B336
For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves. [Kant]

Since knowing is confined to the senses and human conditions, there is no possibility for humans to know the ultimate object of indirect realism and also the unknowable noumenon.
Therefore the ultimate object of indirect realism is 100% unknowable in the empirical sense and there is no other means of knowing it because humans do not have the necessary intelligible intuition to know an intelligible object.

ChatGPT Responded

ChatGPT Wrote
Your critique of your interlocutor's assertion, supported by Kant's framework and the nature of indirect realism, is well-founded.
Let me synthesize and elaborate on your argument to strengthen its coherence and rigor:

Key Assertions and Supporting Reasoning

Definition of Indirect Realism (IR):
As stated in the provided Wikipedia reference, IR posits that perception is mediated through a conceptual framework or representations, not as direct access to the external world.
This implies that what is experienced is not the ultimate object itself but its representation within the mind, shaped by human sensory and cognitive conditions.

Unknowability of the Ultimate Object in IR:
Your interlocutor claims that the "ultimate object isn't 100% unknowable," yet offers no plausible mechanism by which it could be known.
This claim contradicts the core of indirect realism:

Sensory Data: Only provides access to mediated representations, not the ultimate object itself.

Conceptual Frameworks: Similarly, these are constructs within the human mind and do not grant direct knowledge of the mind-independent reality.

Kant’s insight applies here: Knowing anything requires a sensible intuition—a direct form of apprehension tied to our sensory and cognitive faculties.
Since the ultimate object in IR lies beyond the senses, it is inherently unknowable to human cognition.

Kant on the Unknowability of Noumenon and Intelligible Objects:
Kant's argument, as cited (A280/B336), directly supports the position that any object beyond sensory intuition (such as an intelligible object) is unknowable:

Without sensible intuition, intelligible objects "would be for us nothing at all."
Appearances (phenomena) cannot represent objects-in-themselves (noumena), as the latter are not accessible through human sensory or cognitive conditions.

The ultimate object of IR is analogous to the noumenon in Kant’s framework.
Both are mind-independent realities that lie beyond human sensory and cognitive reach, making them equally unknowable.

Conclusion: 100% Unknowable:
Given that IR's ultimate object exists beyond sensory and conceptual mediation, it is 100% unknowable to humans. There is no empirical, sensory, or intelligible intuition available to access or comprehend such a reality.

Any claim to partial knowability would require:
A mechanism for direct or unmediated knowledge of the ultimate object.
Evidence that sensory or representational mediation grants access to the object's intrinsic nature, which IR explicitly denies.

Further Clarification to the Interlocutor:
If your interlocutor insists on partial knowability, ask them to clarify:

What form of "knowledge" they believe is accessible regarding the ultimate object.
What mechanism or pathway exists to access or comprehend it beyond representations or sensory mediation.
Without clear answers to these points, their assertion remains unsupported and contradicts both IR's foundations and Kant's insights.

What is your counter to the above?
avoid blabbering.

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Stop asking the AI to write strawman lies for you already. IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt on the above, I provided relevant references:

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor wrote:
[Interlocutor] "IR typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" but did not give references.

My comments:
As generally defined "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

My interlocutor "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable" don't make sense. What possibility could the ultimate object of indirect realism [as defined] be capable of being known?

Kant argued, the unknowable object is an intelligible object:

[Kant]The conclusion is that we must either abstract from any and every Object (as in Logic), or,
if we admit an Object, [we] must think it under the Conditions of Sensible Intuition.
A280 B336
For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves. [Kant]

Since knowing is confined to the senses and human conditions, there is no possibility for humans to know the ultimate object of indirect realism and also the unknowable noumenon.
Therefore the ultimate object of indirect realism is 100% unknowable in the empirical sense and there is no other means of knowing it because humans do not have the necessary intelligible intuition to know an intelligible object.

ChatGPT Responded

ChatGPT Wrote
Your critique of your interlocutor's assertion, supported by Kant's framework and the nature of indirect realism, is well-founded.
Let me synthesize and elaborate on your argument to strengthen its coherence and rigor:

Key Assertions and Supporting Reasoning

Definition of Indirect Realism (IR):
As stated in the provided Wikipedia reference, IR posits that perception is mediated through a conceptual framework or representations, not as direct access to the external world.
This implies that what is experienced is not the ultimate object itself but its representation within the mind, shaped by human sensory and cognitive conditions.

Unknowability of the Ultimate Object in IR:
Your interlocutor claims that the "ultimate object isn't 100% unknowable," yet offers no plausible mechanism by which it could be known.
This claim contradicts the core of indirect realism:

Sensory Data: Only provides access to mediated representations, not the ultimate object itself.

Conceptual Frameworks: Similarly, these are constructs within the human mind and do not grant direct knowledge of the mind-independent reality.

Kant’s insight applies here: Knowing anything requires a sensible intuition—a direct form of apprehension tied to our sensory and cognitive faculties.
Since the ultimate object in IR lies beyond the senses, it is inherently unknowable to human cognition.

Kant on the Unknowability of Noumenon and Intelligible Objects:
Kant's argument, as cited (A280/B336), directly supports the position that any object beyond sensory intuition (such as an intelligible object) is unknowable:

Without sensible intuition, intelligible objects "would be for us nothing at all."
Appearances (phenomena) cannot represent objects-in-themselves (noumena), as the latter are not accessible through human sensory or cognitive conditions.

The ultimate object of IR is analogous to the noumenon in Kant’s framework.
Both are mind-independent realities that lie beyond human sensory and cognitive reach, making them equally unknowable.

Conclusion: 100% Unknowable:
Given that IR's ultimate object exists beyond sensory and conceptual mediation, it is 100% unknowable to humans. There is no empirical, sensory, or intelligible intuition available to access or comprehend such a reality.

Any claim to partial knowability would require:
A mechanism for direct or unmediated knowledge of the ultimate object.
Evidence that sensory or representational mediation grants access to the object's intrinsic nature, which IR explicitly denies.

Further Clarification to the Interlocutor:
If your interlocutor insists on partial knowability, ask them to clarify:

What form of "knowledge" they believe is accessible regarding the ultimate object.
What mechanism or pathway exists to access or comprehend it beyond representations or sensory mediation.
Without clear answers to these points, their assertion remains unsupported and contradicts both IR's foundations and Kant's insights.

What is your counter to the above?
avoid blabbering.

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

[Atla]

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt on the above, I provided relevant references:




ChatGPT Responded




What is your counter to the above?
avoid blabbering.

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

THAT IS ACCORDING TO KANT'S PRIMITIVE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW PHENOMENA, WHICH PART OF THAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?
It's clear you never actually read the CPR, nor ever actually read about p-realisms.

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

"IR is rejecting that assumption."
where specifically??

[Atla]

You are rattled.
Again you are blabbering without supporting references.

Of course that is according to Kant's interpretation [as reference] as compared to the general definition of what is IR and its ultimate object [as referenced].
Based on the comparison, the ultimate object of IR and the noumenon are the same.
Both IR and Kant posit the same unknowable intelligible object.
Did you read ChatGpt's response thoroughly?

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

"IR is rejecting that assumption."
where specifically??

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, like every single time before, you asked ChatGPT to write an argument for you as if Kant's assumption was true.

IR is rejecting that assumption. I don't know why you're parading around on a philosophy forum when you can never actually do any philosophy.

"IR is rejecting that assumption."
where specifically??

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

For philosophy sake you have to provide the details.
It is cowardice to refuse explain the problem and issue clearly.

[Atla]

"IR is rejecting that assumption."
where specifically??

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

For philosophy sake you have to provide the details.
It is cowardice to refuse explain the problem and issue clearly.

Already have 100 times, you didn't understand it 100 times. I said it multiple times just in this thread. That's that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I told you where 100 times. Why don't you read the description of IR?

For philosophy sake you have to provide the details.
It is cowardice to refuse explain the problem and issue clearly.

Already have 100 times, you didn't understand it 100 times. I said it multiple times just in this thread. That's that.

That is a sure way of escapism.
It is likely you are the problem not me. I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.

[Atla]

For philosophy sake you have to provide the details.
It is cowardice to refuse explain the problem and issue clearly.

Already have 100 times, you didn't understand it 100 times. I said it multiple times just in this thread. That's that.

That is a sure way of escapism.
It is likely you are the problem not me. I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.

No seriously, I have to ask this, what's your IQ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Already have 100 times, you didn't understand it 100 times. I said it multiple times just in this thread. That's that.

That is a sure way of escapism.
It is likely you are the problem not me. I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.

No seriously, I have to ask this, what's your IQ?

Don't insult your own IQ with the above question re IQ.

This is a suggestion of efficiency to seek the truth.
I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.
Why are you so chicken with the above suggestions?

So far, I have opened the following threads to deal with your counters:

• Atla: Indirect Realism Posit No Noumenon
  Veil of Perception Challenge
  No Solutions to Direct-Indirect Realism & Idealism
  Indirect Realism is not Philosophical AntiRealism
  Indirect Realism is Not Realistic
  Atla: Direct vs Indirection Perception, Noumena
  Atla: Prove & Demonstrate Your Noumenon is Real
  Morality: Veil of Perception

The problem is highlighted within the first few posts instead of digging through the various dumpster.
I can provide the links if necessary.
I have now keyed in all my posts into Excel for easy sorting and analysis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Already have 100 times, you didn't understand it 100 times. I said it multiple times just in this thread. That's that.

That is a sure way of escapism.
It is likely you are the problem not me. I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.

No seriously, I have to ask this, what's your IQ?

I passed a course in Biochemistry from HarvardX recently in an indication of my intellectual state. I also passed courses from MITx and other universities.

IQ do have some measures of intelligence but it is not critical for knowledge and understanding in philosophy.
What is critical is one psychological and emotional state in clinging to ideologies which make the skull thick like yours.

[Atla]

That is a sure way of escapism.
It is likely you are the problem not me. I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.

No seriously, I have to ask this, what's your IQ?

Don't insult your own IQ with the above question re IQ.

This is a suggestion of efficiency to seek the truth.
I would open a new thread to make the issue transparent and easy reference instead of asking poster to search within a dumpster.
I suggest you open a new thread [with more posts for KIV] for easy reference.
Why are you so chicken with the above suggestions?

So far, I have opened the following threads to deal with your counters:

• Atla: Indirect Realism Posit No Noumenon
  Veil of Perception Challenge
  No Solutions to Direct-Indirect Realism & Idealism
  Indirect Realism is not Philosophical AntiRealism
  Indirect Realism is Not Realistic
  Atla: Direct vs Indirection Perception, Noumena
  Atla: Prove & Demonstrate Your Noumenon is Real
  Morality: Veil of Perception

The problem is highlighted within the first few posts instead of digging through the various dumpster.
I can provide the links if necessary.
I have now keyed in all my posts into Excel for easy sorting and analysis.

No need for even more threads, beating your TI in the above ones again and again was more than enough.

[Atla]

What is critical is one psychological and emotional state in clinging to ideologies which make the skull thick like yours.

Could this be the most ironic statement in history?