No Infinite Regress for a FSK

[Veritas Aequitas]

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....

And so what fsk did you base that decision on?

Whenever I present the FSK as the basis of Knowledge, I am always countered with the question of infinite regress to it.
I believe it is very philosophical immature in not being able to accept a reasonable limit instead of persisting towards a paralysis of knowledge.

Here is AI on the avoidance of an infinite regress with reference to the concept of FSK so as to focus on the outputs of knowledge for the progress of humanity.

ChatGPT said:
To resolve the infinite regress invoked by your interlocutor, you can adopt a foundationalist approach or a coherentist approach, depending on your philosophical stance:
________________________________________
1. Foundationalist Approach
•Propose a Self-Evident Foundation: You can argue that the foundational FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom does not require further justification because it is axiomatic or self-evident. It serves as the necessary groundwork for any rational discourse, much like axioms in mathematics or the basic laws of logic.
•Example Analogy: In science, certain principles (e.g., conservation of energy) are not endlessly questioned but accepted as foundational because they are universally applicable and empirically validated.
•Resolution of Regress: The regress stops at this foundational FSK because it provides the criteria for evaluating all other FSKs.

________________________________________
2. Coherentist Approach
•Argue for Mutual Coherence: Instead of seeking an ultimate foundation, you can claim that the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom is justified by its coherence with other elements of human cognition and knowledge. This FSK is validated by its ability to produce consistent, reliable, and effective results across diverse domains.
•Example Analogy: Scientific theories are often accepted because of their coherence with existing evidence and theories, rather than their derivation from some ultimate ground.
•Resolution of Regress: The infinite regress dissolves because justification is not linear but web-like, with the FSK being an integral part of the coherent whole.
________________________________________

Addressing Your Interlocutor's Intellectual Limitations:
If your interlocutor questions the meta-FSK or seeks an ultimate justification. You can point out the following:
1.Pragmatic Acceptance in Science:
o Mature scientists accept the Big Bang as a tentative explanatory boundary within the cosmological framework. Similarly, the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom can be accepted as the pragmatic boundary for evaluating frameworks.
o Scientists do not reject the Big Bang because it aligns with available evidence and provides a coherent framework for understanding cosmic origins.

2. Meta-FSK as a Practical Finality:
o You can argue that questioning beyond the FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom does not yield practical or meaningful results because such questioning lacks the criteria for evaluation.
o For instance, questioning "what's beyond the Big Bang" within science is constrained by the lack of empirical access, making it speculative rather than scientific.
________________________________________
Suggested Response to Infinite Regress
You could frame your response as follows:

"The FSK of rationality, critical thinking, and wisdom serves as a pragmatic and functional boundary for evaluating frameworks and systems of knowledge.
While it is possible to endlessly question its basis, such questioning does not lead to meaningful or actionable insights.
Much like science accepts the Big Bang as a tentative explanatory boundary, the FSK of rationality and wisdom is accepted because it demonstrably works as the most effective tool for advancing human understanding and resolving disputes.
To demand a further FSK leads to an infinite regress that is practically unproductive and logically unnecessary."

This response avoids undermining your thesis while showing that the regress is not an intellectual limitation but a misplaced demand for justification beyond what is practically or logically necessary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

Whenever I present the FSK as the basis of Knowledge, I am always countered with the question of infinite regress to it.
I believe it is very philosophical immature in not being able to accept a reasonable limit instead of persisting towards a paralysis of knowledge.

So you stated something like it's a fact but refuse to clarify what fsk it's conditioned on. Interesting. And yet when other people have done that in the past you've insisted that they condition their statements explicitly in fsks.

Well if you can't explicitly source your fsks, consider your ideas rejected.

[FlashDangerpants]

When I saw the title I thouhg he'd finally come up with an argument to resolve his problem. Instead, just a junior high school level essay that begs us to overlook the 3rd option: that this FSK thing is just unwanted clutter.

[Flannel Jesus]

If we're talking about immature, it's pretty immature of VA to insist that someone can't just say "water is made of h2o molecules", it's immature to insist that they have to say "... as conditioned upon the chemistry FSK"

If we were all being mature here, VA, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. You would allow people to talk about scientific truths without railing on about fsks. And if you had doubts about some supposed scientific truth, you could present those doubts, again, without railing on about scientific FSKs.

If you doubt that water is composed of H2O molecule, you can express that doubt without saying "FSK" even once.

[Flannel Jesus]

this FSK thing is just unwanted clutter.

Couldn't agree more. I oppose literring the english language with some bullshit phrase a person who doesn't even know english well came up with.

[FlashDangerpants]

this FSK thing is just unwanted clutter.

Couldn't agree more. I oppose literring the english language with some bullshit phrase a person who doesn't even know english well came up with.

The FSK thing fills a need that VA has - to allow him (but only him) to hallucinate facts that don't need to correspond to anything or have any mode of falsification - but it does nothing for anybody else. He's never really taken other people into account, it's not something he is good at, but it leaves him without a very compelling reason why we should want the FSK thing.

And without that, there's really no point asking everyone to just accept the FSK thing for foundationalist reasons - we don't found anything on FSKs, only he has that facility.

Similarly, asking us not to doubt it because we need FSKs to understand our own beliefs about the world and ourselves which appears to be the purpose of the coherentist approach, is also worthless. Nobody but VA is permitted to play the FSK game, we aren't even allowed to know the rules. The point of it is for him to play king of the castle with regard to all knowledge, and for VA to set the terms of "credibility" for everything using VA provided hallucinated numbers to measure everything.

It's astonishing that he can maintain this Mad Hatter's Tea Party game for a decade, yet still seem affronted that nobody but he is playing it.

[Atla]

I've been using my own "FSK" system for a long time, it's just imperceptible to VA because it's about 1000% more advanced. The Coherentist Approach I see as no solution.

The Foundationalist Approach I see as the right approach, but we need to agree on what to use as the foundation: agree on what the optimum in human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom is (or maybe look for some other foundation). And even if we manage to agree on the foundation (I don't see this happening), the solution isn't permanent of course, it will have to be perpetually revised.

But VA of course doesn't see a need for a dialogue on the foundation, he already knows what's best.

[Flannel Jesus]

Similarly, asking us not to doubt it because we need FSKs to understand our own beliefs about the world and ourselves which appears to be the purpose of the coherentist approach, is also worthless. Nobody but VA is permitted to play the FSK game, we aren't even allowed to know the rules. The point of it is for him to play king of the castle with regard to all knowledge, and for VA to set the terms of "credibility" for everything using VA provided hallucinated numbers to measure everything.

It's astonishing that he can maintain this Mad Hatter's Tea Party game for a decade, yet still seem affronted that nobody but he is playing it.

In Big Daddy the kid makes the foster dad play a game called "I win". The rules are this: whatever happens, the kid wins.

You aren't the first to notice that that's VA's game, and he doesn't just do it with his FSK langauge. He also does it when he talks to AIs. When he talks to an AI and he gets it to agree with him, he gets to say "I win". And when I ask an AI a question about something he was talking about, and the AI agrees with me, he says "You were not asking the questions deeply enough, your questions were very shallow and immature, so I win".

He's so fucking stupid. VA, you reading this? You're fucking stupid dude.

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

Tagging you so you see above, where I called you stupid my man. Just want to make sure you don't miss it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Similarly, asking us not to doubt it because we need FSKs to understand our own beliefs about the world and ourselves which appears to be the purpose of the coherentist approach, is also worthless. Nobody but VA is permitted to play the FSK game, we aren't even allowed to know the rules. The point of it is for him to play king of the castle with regard to all knowledge, and for VA to set the terms of "credibility" for everything using VA provided hallucinated numbers to measure everything.

It's astonishing that he can maintain this Mad Hatter's Tea Party game for a decade, yet still seem affronted that nobody but he is playing it.

In Big Daddy the kid makes the foster dad play a game called "I win". The rules are this: whatever happens, the kid wins.

You aren't the first to notice that that's VA's game, and he doesn't just do it with his FSK langauge. He also does it when he talks to AIs. When he talks to an AI and he gets it to agree with him, he gets to say "I win". And when I ask an AI a question about something he was talking about, and the AI agrees with me, he says "You were not asking the questions deeply enough, your questions were very shallow and immature, so I win".

He's so fucking stupid. VA, you reading this? You're fucking stupid dude.

LOL, yeah, I once likened his whole shtick to a child in sandpit playing with cat turds. The kid in that parable isn't in one of those educational fast lanes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If we're talking about immature, it's pretty immature of VA to insist that someone can't just say "water is made of h2o molecules", it's immature to insist that they have to say "... as conditioned upon the chemistry FSK"

If we were all being mature here, VA, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. You would allow people to talk about scientific truths without railing on about fsks. And if you had doubts about some supposed scientific truth, you could present those doubts, again, without railing on about scientific FSKs.

If you doubt that water is composed of H2O molecule, you can express that doubt without saying "FSK" even once.

As I had stated, I am making the implicit explicit to make what is objective transparent.

The main purpose is to establish the scientific FSK as the gold standard [a fixed goal post] so that we can rank all other FSKs.

Note the problem of arguments with a moving goal post.
If you want to avoid a moving goal post it would be effective to establish a gold standard to have a fixed goal post to shoot at.

Btw, whether water is or is not H20 is subject to which sub science-chemistry FSK is relying upon.
What is physical reality is contingent upon which sub-science-physics it is relied upon, e.g. the sub-science-physics Newtonian, Einstein or QM FSK.
Often the specific FSK is implied but what wrong with making it more explicit to be more rigoristic where necessary.

More importantly, all FSKs are human-based i.e. contingent on a collective-of-subject thus critical to the philosophical realism versus philosophical antirealism debate which is relevant to the "morality is objective" debate.
Point is within philosophy, it must be no-holds-barred, i.e. all hidden variables must be accounted for.

[Flannel Jesus]

What is bro yapping about?

Also, another "I win" from the child va. See, when he demands YOU be explicit about what fsk your knowledge is from, that's mature and wise. But if you ask HIM what fsk his knowledge is from, that's immature and narrow minded.

Lmao, just inventing the rules as he goes along. I have no idea what he was meaning to talk about with goal post moving earlier in his post, but he seems pretty guilty of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you talk to pretty much any scientist in the world, they're not going to hedge every statement they make with "conditioned on the such-and-such fsk".

If you talk to VA and he makes a statement of fact, even HE doesn't hedge every statement with "conditioned on the such and such fsk".

He's a hypocrite, first of all. The most qualified people in the world don't do it, second of all. Third of all everything relevant about such wording is already implicit to people with more brain power than VA.

so VA is asking us to add about 20 words to every sentence at say, when those words are superfluous, deemed unnecessary by the most intelligent and most qualified people in the world (the people at the top of the fsks he so admires), and the hypocrite doesn't even do it himself.

VA, if you have an ounce of grey matter, you'll drop all the fsk bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

VA, if you have an ounce of grey matter, you'll drop all the fsk bullshit.

Sadly he is going to do the other thing, which is ignore all the feedback his ideas have already garnered and just post the same shit again in yet another fucking new topic of the same hopeless garbage.