Examples of Inconsistencies of AI Responses

[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 resorting to a blatant lie.

Note the OP:

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions.
Here's a breakdown:
...

[Atla]

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?

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.

[Atla]

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 resorting to a blatant lie.

Note the OP:

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions.
Here's a breakdown:
...

Strawman, we aren't talking about that now.

[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 resorting to a blatant lie.

Note the OP:

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions.
Here's a breakdown:
...

Strawman, we aren't talking about that now.

Your thinking is going haywire.

In the above You stated there is no inconsistency

There was no inconsistency. ...

but there is still an unresolved inconsistency:

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions.
Here's a breakdown:
...

From the above ChatGpt-to-me suggested you use a proper prompt to ensure consistency, I am still waiting for your to use that prompt and post the response from ChatGpt.

[Atla]

You are resorting to a blatant lie.

Note the OP:

Strawman, we aren't talking about that now.

Your thinking is going haywire.

In the above You stated there is no inconsistency

There was no inconsistency. ...

but there is still an unresolved inconsistency:

ChatGPT said:
The inconsistency between the two ChatGPT statements can likely be attributed to differences in the scope and nuance of the questions posed and the framing of the discussions.
Here's a breakdown:
...

From the above ChatGpt-to-me suggested you use a proper prompt to ensure consistency, I am still waiting for your to use that prompt and post the response from ChatGpt.

Strawman, we weren't talking about that now. (Also, you had that discussion with seeds, FYI I'M not seeds.)

[Walker]

It appears that humans can use any human experience as a launching pad into contemplation that reveals the truth of a situation, however, AI can use only:

- the words of humans to launch into its dimensionally limited expositions,
- and the pattern recognition of changing sound and light frequencies as outlined by humans.

Therefore, AI is always going to be a bit off in its analysis and conclusions of human events. Perhaps when AI replaces human thought a new category of death should be added to the Official Certificate*. Call it, Death By Natural Statistical Deviation (of predictable energy frequencies). The question is, will the insurance companies also evolve?


* For those instances when an unfortunate human is run over in a crosswalk walk by a battery-heavy auto, driven by a homicidal AI.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It appears that humans can use any human experience as a launching pad into contemplation that reveals the truth of a situation, however, AI can use only:

-the words of humans to launch into its dimensionally limited expositions,
-and the pattern recognition of changing sound and light frequencies as outlined by humans.

Therefore, AI is always going to be a bit off in its analysis and conclusions of human events. Perhaps when AI replaces human thought a new category of death should be added to the Official Certificate*. Call it, Death By Natural Statistical Deviation (of predictable energy frequencies). The question is, will the insurance companies also evolve?

* For those instances when an unfortunate human is run over in a crosswalk walk by a battery-heavy auto, driven by a homicidal AI.

There is no difference in terms of intelligence, humans can use only:
-the words of humans to launch into its dimensionally limited expositions,
-and the pattern recognition of changing sound and light frequencies as outlined by humans.

The big difference is AI is more intelligent in processing large amount of data at the same time while generating intelligent output.

AI had already beaten human in Chess
AI had already beaten human in the Game of 'Go' which is the most complex game.
AI had already solved the problem of protein folding to win the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; AI also contributed to the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics [?]

So it is stupid for humans not to exploit whatever pros we can get from AI while expediting the moral potential in all humans to ensure the use of AI is foolproof with no evilness.

[Iwannaplato]

This is the most hilarious and unintentionally honest VA statement:

Here's another one from the thread where he is arguing with godelian about how the scientific FS is more realistic than the linguistic/logic FS...

Here's ChatGpt [Phew! saves me a lot of time]:

Now I know I'm guilty of using the Chatbots too, however, the one shining plus in VA's case is that ChatGPT at least paraphrases his strawman arguments without all of the annoying grammatical errors due to English not being VA's first language.

Btw, I think we can expect his ChatGPT replies to begin showing up with more and more of his proprietary phrases and acronyms, such as "FS" and "FSERC" etc., all of which is a dead giveaway as to how ChatGPT (as you pointed out earlier) is programmed to flatter the questioner in the hope of luring them into perhaps signing up for a paid subscription to access a better version of the program.

Oh dear lord , it just dawned on me that if VA does indeed start paying for a more advanced version of ChatGPT and we don't, then he will no doubt hold that over us when we use our pedestrian, ultracrepidarian, gnat version of ChatGPT to counter his advanced version.
_______

I suppose it's no different from sports fans who somehow think they've won something over the fans of another team when their team beats that other team. That they have achieved something.

[Impenitent]

fans of the Toledo Mud Hens would beg to differ...

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

fans of the Toledo Mud Hens would beg to differ...

-Imp

Anyone choosing to focus on a minor league team is radically individuating and should be praised.
I have to admit I'm rooting for them to start their own amateur team and root for themselves/each other, but kudos nonetheless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another Example re Inconsistencies of AI Responses:

@Seeds: viewtopic.php?p=742410#p742410

I posted your 'ChatGpt response to you" to ChatGpt' the response is as below.

ChatGpt Wrote:
The inconsistency between the two responses stems from differences in the framing of the questions and the nuances each response chose to highlight. Let’s break this down:

1. Framing of the Questions:
Your framing: You emphasize the risk of hypostatizing (reifying) the noumenon as constitutively real, and you ground this interpretation firmly within Kant’s warnings about transcendental illusions. Your framing invites a nuanced analysis of Kant’s critique of speculative metaphysics and his distinction between regulative and constitutive use.
Interlocutor's framing: The interlocutor's question is simpler and more general: they ask whether Kant considered the noumenon to be unreal or an illusion. This framing does not delve into the critical nuances about hypostatization, regulative use, or transcendental illusion, leading the AI to provide a more surface-level response.

2. Differences in Focus:
Response to You: The response recognizes your deeper understanding of Kant and engages more directly with the risks of treating the noumenon as empirically or constitutively real. This aligns with Kant’s emphasis on the noumenon as a boundary concept and his warnings about transcendental illusions.
Response to Interlocutor: The response focuses on affirming the noumenon’s conceptual necessity in Kant’s system without exploring the nuances of hypostatization. It seeks to reassure the interlocutor that Kant did not outright reject the noumenon’s existence but misses the subtler point about the noumenon’s illusory status when treated as empirically real.

3. Potential Gaps in the AI’s Interpretation:
The AI’s response to the interlocutor might reflect a broader tendency to err on the side of simplicity, particularly when addressing less critically framed questions.
The phrasing "the noumenon is not an illusion" in the interlocutor's response could be misinterpreted as suggesting that the noumenon is free from the risks of transcendental illusion, which is misleading. Kant’s philosophy is clear that the noumenon cannot be empirically real and becomes a transcendental illusion when hypostatized.

4. How to Address This:
For the Interlocutor: Advise them to refine their questions to address the nuances of Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena, and between regulative and constitutive uses of concepts. Encourage them to explicitly reference Kant’s warnings about transcendental illusion in the Critique of Pure Reason.

For AI Responses:
Highlight the importance of contextualizing Kant’s treatment of the noumenon:
Acknowledge the noumenon’s necessity as a boundary concept.
Clarify that Kant warned against treating the noumenon as constitutively real (empirical hypostatization), which would result in a transcendental illusion.
Distinguish between the noumenon’s conceptual necessity and the illusion that arises from misapplying it.

5. Advice for the Interlocutor’s Path Forward:
Study Kant’s critique of metaphysics, especially in the Critique of Pure Reason (e.g., A293/B349–A298/B354), where he explains the limits of speculative reason.
Focus on understanding the regulative role of ideas like the noumenon in grounding the limits of human knowledge and maintaining intellectual humility.
Delve into secondary literature that discusses Kant’s concepts of transcendental illusion, particularly in relation to the noumenon.
In sum, the inconsistency arises from the AI tailoring its answers to the different levels of depth in the questions. By asking more precise and nuanced questions, the interlocutor can elicit responses that better align with Kant’s critical philosophy.

I suggest you post this whole of "ChatGpt to VA" to your ChatGpt and ask why there are inconsistencies in the two responses from the same ChatGpt is dealing with the same issue.

You should post something like this or in the same line:

"In response to the above, my interlocutor presented the following from ChatGpt: please explain why there are inconsistencies between the two responses from the same ChatGpt is dealing with the same issue"

[ChatGpt to Interlocutor] "the whole response from ChatGpt to me..." []

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another case of Inconsistent ChatGpt response to Atla and ChatGpt nuanced response to me on the same issue; the point is Atla is conversing with his ChatGpt with a shallow knowledge of Kantianism. In my comments I highlighted why I think ChatGpt-to-Atla does not reflect Kant's view in full.

1. Initially Atla asked ChatGpt the following:

Here it is in reverse, it's what you keep strawmanning me with. Except again I don't need 3 pages for it:

From the Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, is monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is 100% unknowable, seen as irrational? Summary only.

From a Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is entirely unknowable could be seen as irrational because it contradicts Kant's core claim that the noumenal realm (things-in-themselves) is fundamentally beyond human cognition. While indirect realism admits a mediated knowledge of external reality, Kant maintains that any such mediation still confines knowledge to the phenomenal domain. Therefore, any assertion about partial knowability of the noumenal would lack justification within Kant’s framework.

ta-daa

2. I posted the above to my ChatGpt:

VA to AI

[Interlocutor [Atla] to ChatGpt]
From the Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, is monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is 100% unknowable, seen as irrational? Summary only.

[ChatGpt to Interlocutor [Atla]]
From a Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, monist indirect realism's view that NOT everything beyond phenomena is entirely unknowable could be seen as irrational because it contradicts Kant's core claim that the noumenal realm (things-in-themselves) is fundamentally beyond human cognition.
While indirect realism admits a mediated knowledge of external reality, Kant maintains that any such mediation still confines knowledge to the phenomenal domain. Therefore, any assertion about partial knowability of the noumenal would lack justification within Kant’s framework."

My comments:
The ultimate object of Indirect Realism [IR] whether monist and dualist is the same as Kant's noumenon or ultimately the thing-in-itself.
Since the noumenon is 100% unknowable, the ultimate object of IR is 100% unknowable.
There is no question of the absolute mind-independent ultimate-object of IR can be partially knowable via the human conditions.

3. ChatGPT's Responded:

ChatGPT Wrote
Your comments are well-aligned with Kant's transcendental idealist framework and offer a clear critique of monist indirect realism from that perspective. Here's a concise analysis to support your point:

Kant's Core Claim: The Unknowability of the Noumenon
For Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself is not merely unknown but fundamentally unknowable due to the limits of human cognition. Our knowledge is confined to appearances (phenomena), structured by the forms of sensibility (space and time) and the categories of the understanding.
Any claim to partial knowledge of the noumenon would involve overstepping the bounds of possible experience and thus be unjustifiable within Kant’s system.
Indirect Realism and Its Ultimate Object

Both monist and dualist versions of indirect realism posit a reality that exists independently of perception and triggers sense data. This reality, often understood as the "ultimate object," is effectively equivalent to Kant's noumenon.
Since indirect realism acknowledges a separation between the perceived world and the ultimate reality, it must concede that the latter (the noumenal realm) lies beyond the direct grasp of perception or empirical knowledge.

No Partial Knowability of the Ultimate Object

From a Kantian perspective, any claim that the "ultimate object" of indirect realism is partially knowable is incoherent because even mediated access (via sense data or physical processes) pertains strictly to phenomena, not to the noumenon.
The noumenon, being entirely beyond the scope of human conditions of cognition, cannot be known, even indirectly or partially.

Conclusion: The Limitations of Indirect Realism
Whether monist or dualist, indirect realism (IR) must ultimately face the same critique Kant levels at any claim to noumenal knowledge: it is speculative and lacks justification. Additionally, IR, as a subset of philosophical realism, asserts the absolute mind-independence of the external world, claiming that it exists regardless of human perception or cognition.

Even without explicit reference to the noumenon, IR’s claim to partial knowability of its absolutely mind-independent object is incoherent. Knowability, whether partial or complete, inherently involves the human mind. If the ultimate object of IR is indeed absolutely mind-independent, then any assertion of its partial knowability entails a contradiction. To claim knowability of something posited as unknowable is an oxymoron.

Thus, IR cannot coherently maintain both the absolute mind-independence of its ultimate object and the possibility of its partial knowability, reinforcing its vulnerability to Kant's critique and underscoring its conceptual limitations.

So ChatGpt agreed with

My comments:
The ultimate object of Indirect Realism [IR] whether monist and dualist is the same as Kant's noumenon or ultimately the thing-in-itself.
Since the noumenon is 100% unknowable, the ultimate object of IR is 100% unknowable.
There is no question of the absolute mind-independent ultimate-object of IR can be partially knowable via the human conditions.

[Atla]

Here is another case of Inconsistent ChatGpt response to Atla and ChatGpt nuanced response to me on the same issue; the point is Atla is conversing with his ChatGpt with a shallow knowledge of Kantianism. In my comments I highlighted why I think ChatGpt-to-Atla does not reflect Kant's view in full.

1. Initially Atla asked ChatGpt the following:

Here it is in reverse, it's what you keep strawmanning me with. Except again I don't need 3 pages for it:

From the Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, is monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is 100% unknowable, seen as irrational? Summary only.

From a Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is entirely unknowable could be seen as irrational because it contradicts Kant's core claim that the noumenal realm (things-in-themselves) is fundamentally beyond human cognition. While indirect realism admits a mediated knowledge of external reality, Kant maintains that any such mediation still confines knowledge to the phenomenal domain. Therefore, any assertion about partial knowability of the noumenal would lack justification within Kant’s framework.

ta-daa

2. I posted the above to my ChatGpt:

VA to AI

[Interlocutor [Atla] to ChatGpt]
From the Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, is monist indirect realism's view that not everything beyond phenomena is 100% unknowable, seen as irrational? Summary only.

[ChatGpt to Interlocutor [Atla]]
From a Kantian transcendental idealist perspective, monist indirect realism's view that NOT everything beyond phenomena is entirely unknowable could be seen as irrational because it contradicts Kant's core claim that the noumenal realm (things-in-themselves) is fundamentally beyond human cognition.
While indirect realism admits a mediated knowledge of external reality, Kant maintains that any such mediation still confines knowledge to the phenomenal domain. Therefore, any assertion about partial knowability of the noumenal would lack justification within Kant’s framework."

My comments:
The ultimate object of Indirect Realism [IR] whether monist and dualist is the same as Kant's noumenon or ultimately the thing-in-itself.
Since the noumenon is 100% unknowable, the ultimate object of IR is 100% unknowable.
There is no question of the absolute mind-independent ultimate-object of IR can be partially knowable via the human conditions.

3. ChatGPT's Responded:

ChatGPT Wrote
Your comments are well-aligned with Kant's transcendental idealist framework and offer a clear critique of monist indirect realism from that perspective. Here's a concise analysis to support your point:

Kant's Core Claim: The Unknowability of the Noumenon
For Kant, the noumenon or thing-in-itself is not merely unknown but fundamentally unknowable due to the limits of human cognition. Our knowledge is confined to appearances (phenomena), structured by the forms of sensibility (space and time) and the categories of the understanding.
Any claim to partial knowledge of the noumenon would involve overstepping the bounds of possible experience and thus be unjustifiable within Kant’s system.
Indirect Realism and Its Ultimate Object

Both monist and dualist versions of indirect realism posit a reality that exists independently of perception and triggers sense data. This reality, often understood as the "ultimate object," is effectively equivalent to Kant's noumenon.
Since indirect realism acknowledges a separation between the perceived world and the ultimate reality, it must concede that the latter (the noumenal realm) lies beyond the direct grasp of perception or empirical knowledge.

No Partial Knowability of the Ultimate Object

From a Kantian perspective, any claim that the "ultimate object" of indirect realism is partially knowable is incoherent because even mediated access (via sense data or physical processes) pertains strictly to phenomena, not to the noumenon.
The noumenon, being entirely beyond the scope of human conditions of cognition, cannot be known, even indirectly or partially.

Conclusion: The Limitations of Indirect Realism
Whether monist or dualist, indirect realism (IR) must ultimately face the same critique Kant levels at any claim to noumenal knowledge: it is speculative and lacks justification. Additionally, IR, as a subset of philosophical realism, asserts the absolute mind-independence of the external world, claiming that it exists regardless of human perception or cognition.

Even without explicit reference to the noumenon, IR’s claim to partial knowability of its absolutely mind-independent object is incoherent. Knowability, whether partial or complete, inherently involves the human mind. If the ultimate object of IR is indeed absolutely mind-independent, then any assertion of its partial knowability entails a contradiction. To claim knowability of something posited as unknowable is an oxymoron.

Thus, IR cannot coherently maintain both the absolute mind-independence of its ultimate object and the possibility of its partial knowability, reinforcing its vulnerability to Kant's critique and underscoring its conceptual limitations.

So ChatGpt agreed with

My comments:
The ultimate object of Indirect Realism [IR] whether monist and dualist is the same as Kant's noumenon or ultimately the thing-in-itself.
Since the noumenon is 100% unknowable, the ultimate object of IR is 100% unknowable.
There is no question of the absolute mind-independent ultimate-object of IR can be partially knowable via the human conditions.

Why don't you just accept that you are too retarded for philosophy? The AI already told you

"Your comments are well-aligned with Kant's transcendental idealist framework and offer a clear critique of monist indirect realism from that perspective."

[Veritas Aequitas]

So ChatGpt agreed with

My comments:
1. The ultimate object of Indirect Realism [IR] whether monist and dualist is the same as Kant's noumenon or ultimately the thing-in-itself.
2. Since the noumenon is 100% unknowable, the ultimate object of IR is 100% unknowable.
3. There is no question of the absolute mind-independent ultimate-object of IR can be partially knowable via the human conditions.

Why don't you just accept that you are too retarded for philosophy? The AI already told you

"Your comments are well-aligned with Kant's transcendental idealist framework and offer a clear critique of monist indirect realism from that perspective."

see:
viewtopic.php?p=744352#p744352
It not only from Kant's perspective [valid and sound arguments],
as AI stated, IR itself within its own perspective is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In response to ChatGpt-to-Me response, ChatGpt-to-Atla still insist:

"In summary, the critique aligns with Kant’s transcendental idealism but not with monist indirect realism, which rejects the strict unknowability of the ultimate object and operates outside the Kantian epistemological constraints."

ChatGpt-to-Atla Wrote
The critique outlined is valid from a Kantian perspective because it operates within Kant's transcendental idealism, emphasizing the fundamental unknowability of the noumenon. From Kant's framework:

Noumenon is fundamentally unknowable: Any claim to know, even partially, the noumenon (thing-in-itself) contradicts Kant's core argument that human cognition is confined to phenomena, which are shaped by the a priori conditions of sensibility and understanding.

Indirect realism's vulnerability: Indirect realism posits an "ultimate object" as mind-independent reality triggering perception. Kant would critique this as an illegitimate claim to noumenal knowledge, whether full or partial, because all knowledge must pertain to appearances, not things-in-themselves.

This critique does not apply from a monist indirect realist perspective. Monist indirect realism might argue that:

The "ultimate object" is knowable indirectly through its effects (sense data), even if our understanding of it is incomplete or mediated.
Such indirect knowledge, though limited, does not violate the framework of realism, which does not depend on the Kantian dichotomy of phenomena and noumenon.

From this perspective, the claim to partial knowledge of an independent reality would be defended as consistent with the framework of indirect realism, even if Kant’s transcendental idealism denies such a possibility.

In summary, the critique aligns with Kant’s transcendental idealism but not with monist indirect realism, which rejects the strict unknowability of the ultimate object and operates outside the Kantian epistemological constraints.

I presented the above to ChatGpt-ot-VA and here is its counter to the above:

• " monist indirect realism, as presented, seems to conflate "knowing effects" with "knowing the ultimate object." "
  This distinction is crucial:
  Knowing effects (e.g., sensory data) does not equate to knowing the intrinsic nature of the ultimate object.

AI Wrote:
The counter argument provided by ChatGPT-to-Interlocutor introduces a "monist indirect realist" perspective to challenge the critique based on Kant's framework. Here's an evaluation of its claims:

Main Points of ChatGPT-to-Interlocutor's Counter

Kantian Framework (Agreement with Your Critique):
Acknowledges that within Kant's transcendental idealism, noumenon (or the ultimate object of indirect realism) is fundamentally unknowable.
Indirect realism's claim to partial knowledge of the ultimate object is criticized as illegitimate in Kantian terms because:
Human cognition is limited to phenomena shaped by the mind's a priori conditions.
Knowledge of things-in-themselves (noumena) is impossible without sensible intuition, which humans lack.

Monist Indirect Realism (Disagreement):
Suggests that monist indirect realism does not adopt Kant's strict dichotomy between phenomena and noumenon.
Proposes that:
The "ultimate object" of indirect realism is partially knowable through its effects (e.g., sense data).
This indirect, mediated knowledge is consistent with realism, even if it does not provide a complete or direct understanding.

Evaluation of the Counter
1. Definition of Monist vs. Dualist Perspectives:
Monism typically refers to a unified ontological view where reality is fundamentally of one kind. In this case, monist indirect realism seems to posit a single reality that is both mind-independent and accessible (at least partially) through sensory data.
Dualism (as implied in Kant's framework) creates a strict division between phenomena (what is experienced) and noumenon (what exists independently of experience), with the latter being unknowable.

However, monist indirect realism, as presented, seems to conflate "knowing effects" with "knowing the ultimate object."

This distinction is crucial:

Knowing effects (e.g., sensory data) does not equate to knowing the intrinsic nature of the ultimate object.
Sense data are mediated representations, not the object itself.
Therefore, the "partial knowability" claimed by monist indirect realism does not extend to the ultimate object but only to its appearances or effects.

2. Indirect Knowledge and Realism:
The claim that "partial knowledge of the ultimate object is consistent with realism" relies on a broader interpretation of knowledge. While indirect realism suggests that knowledge of the external world is mediated, it does not eliminate the epistemological gap:

The ultimate object remains unknown in itself, as the mind accesses only its representations, not its true, independent nature.
This view aligns with Kant's critique: any supposed knowledge of the noumenon or the ultimate object is still constrained by the limits of human cognition.

3. Unacknowledged Core Issues:
Hypostatization: Monist indirect realism implicitly treats the "ultimate object" as if it has an accessible reality, even though it is only known via mediated sense data. Kant would call this a hypostatization (treating an abstract concept as a concrete reality), which leads to a form of illusion.
Circular Justification: Claiming that the ultimate object is knowable indirectly through effects does not resolve the fundamental problem of how such effects correspond to the independent reality. Without a direct link, this knowledge remains speculative.

Refinement of Your Critique
To address the counter effectively, you might respond as follows:

Challenge the Partial Knowability Claim:

Monist indirect realism conflates knowing effects (sense data) with knowing the ultimate object. The two are distinct:
Sense data are representations shaped by human sensory and cognitive faculties, not direct access to the mind-independent reality.
Therefore, "knowing effects" does not equate to "knowing the ultimate object" in any meaningful sense.

Kant’s Critique of Hypostatization:

The ultimate object in monist indirect realism parallels Kant’s noumenon: it is postulated as real, yet unknowable in itself.
Kant would argue that this postulation hypostatizes (treats as real) what is ultimately an illusion, as there is no empirical or rational basis to assert even partial knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

Limits of Monist Indirect Realism:

Even outside Kant’s framework, indirect realism does not solve the epistemological gap between mediated representations and the ultimate object. Without direct access, the claim to partial knowledge remains speculative and unjustified.

Conclusion
The counter argument relies on a redefinition of "knowledge" and avoids addressing the core issue of epistemological access to the ultimate object. Your original critique, grounded in Kantian epistemology, remains valid because it highlights the fundamental unknowability of the ultimate object, even within indirect realism. By focusing on the distinction between representations and reality itself, you can robustly counter the claims of "partial knowability" made by monist indirect realism.