FSK is Not My Invention

[attofishpi]

The core is rationality and critical thinking.
Wisdom is not the core but an 'additive'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

Right then, so provide the answer to the question.
Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly, or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?

It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Hey, go with nobody is suffering from anything..and answer the f'in question!

[Iwannaplato]

Many people believe in something that could be called an FSK. But they mean different things by framework, system, knowledge. You have come up with your own specific model and your own specific acronym or really acronyms.

And then:
You really needed an AI to help you respond to that?????????

And of course the AI does not know how you actually use the term in context in arguments, and how you have communicated about it. It's like you asked a stranger for a reference.
[/quote]

I have had loads of discussions with AI with reference to 'what is a FSK'.

Yes, but it doesn't keep a long term memory of all that. Did you not realize that? It will keep it during a single longer session.

[attofishpi]

Part of the problem for Veritas re GPT is that he is clearly using a logged in account and keeping his FSK questions within the same chat context thread, thus GPT within that chat thread is memorising his FSK drivel and replying to his questions accordingly.

Unfortunately for Veritas, he appears then to think that GPT is aware of his FSK stuff via other means!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right then, so provide the answer to the question.
Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly, or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?

It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Hey, go with nobody is suffering from anything..and answer the f'in question!

What wrong with you, I answered the your question directly.

Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly,
It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?
If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Part of the problem for Veritas re GPT is that he is clearly using a logged in account and keeping his FSK questions within the same chat context thread, thus GPT within that chat thread is memorising his FSK drivel and replying to his questions accordingly.

Unfortunately for Veritas, he appears then to think that GPT is aware of his FSK stuff via other means!

Since 'your' ChatGpt did not give you a convincing response, I am curious if you could post the following ChatGpt-to-me to your ChatGpt and ask for its comments:

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.

"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.

"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.

"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.

"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many people believe in something that could be called an FSK. But they mean different things by framework, system, knowledge. You have come up with your own specific model and your own specific acronym or really acronyms.

And then:
You really needed an AI to help you respond to that?????????

And of course the AI does not know how you actually use the term in context in arguments, and how you have communicated about it. It's like you asked a stranger for a reference.

I have had loads of discussions with AI with reference to 'what is a FSK'.

Yes, but it doesn't keep a long term memory of all that. Did you not realize that? It will keep it during a single longer session.
[/quote]
I believe a FSK [mine and others] is common within all fields of knowledge.

What about this challenge?

A Challenge from AI:
"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

I would add "framework and system".

[attofishpi]

It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Hey, go with nobody is suffering from anything..and answer the f'in question!

What wrong with you, I answered the your question directly.

Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly,
It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?
If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Honestly you are pointless to deal with. That you think all that bullshit reasonably answered a very simple question is telling of your intellectual capacity.

PS. FSK is your invention, it's nowhere else mentioned in as "FSK" anywhere but in your head.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hey, go with nobody is suffering from anything..and answer the f'in question!

What wrong with you, I answered the your question directly.

Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly,
It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?
If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Honestly you are pointless to deal with. That you think all that bullshit reasonably answered a very simple question is telling of your intellectual capacity.

The point is you accused me of not answering your question when that is not the case.
If you do not agree with my answers, then give your counters to them.

[attofishpi]

What wrong with you, I answered the your question directly.

Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly,
It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis.
Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.

or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?
If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.

Honestly you are pointless to deal with. That you think all that bullshit reasonably answered a very simple question is telling of your intellectual capacity.

The point is you accused me of not answering your question when that is not the case.
If you do not agree with my answers, then give your counters to them.

There was NO ANSWER, just random waffle. I TOLD you earlier, base it on NO suffering TMT bollocks..ffs

The answer is BINARY:

A) it is wise to act & make decisions as if GOD exists throughout your life
B) it is NOT wise to act & make decision as if GOD exists throughout your life

A or B?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Honestly you are pointless to deal with. That you think all that bullshit reasonably answered a very simple question is telling of your intellectual capacity.

The point is you accused me of not answering your question when that is not the case.
If you do not agree with my answers, then give your counters to them.

There was NO ANSWER, just random waffle. I TOLD you earlier, base it on NO suffering TMT bollocks..ffs
The answer is BINARY:
A) it is wise to act & make decisions as if GOD exists throughout your life
B) it is NOT wise to act & make decision as if GOD exists throughout your life
A or B?

You already know I am a non-theist, so the answer is obviously B.
I did it better by giving you the reasons why?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your FSK thing excludes falsifiability. You allow for mutually exclusive facts and merely assert some sort of "credibility" score for competing explanations. That's just not falsification. Your explanation of science in your FSK thing robs science of everything that makes it valuable.

Your Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language are outdated thus you have no credibility with your critique of the human-based FSK concept which is implicit in all fields of knowledge.

While falsifiability may have some limited use, it is heavily criticized.
Criticism of Falsifiability
https://philarchive.org/archive/SFECOF-2

Falsifiability - Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiab ... troversies

If you ever condemned pseudoscience, astrology or theism against the credibility and objective of science per se, what is your basis?
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?

My criticism stands. You cannot clarify the concept of the FSK as common fact because it explicitly denies the common sense view of facts. You can find philosophers who also repudiate the common view of facts, but that does nothing to make your thing the common view. Thus it is impossible for you to.....

ChatGpt wrote:
1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact

Really you have to learn to read better

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your FSK thing excludes falsifiability. You allow for mutually exclusive facts and merely assert some sort of "credibility" score for competing explanations. That's just not falsification. Your explanation of science in your FSK thing robs science of everything that makes it valuable.

Your Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language are outdated thus you have no credibility with your critique of the human-based FSK concept which is implicit in all fields of knowledge.

While falsifiability may have some limited use, it is heavily criticized.
Criticism of Falsifiability
https://philarchive.org/archive/SFECOF-2

Falsifiability - Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiab ... troversies

If you ever condemned pseudoscience, astrology or theism against the credibility and objective of science per se, what is your basis?
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?

My criticism stands. You cannot clarify the concept of the FSK as common fact because it explicitly denies the common sense view of facts. You can find philosophers who also repudiate the common view of facts, but that does nothing to make your thing the common view. Thus it is impossible for you to.....

ChatGpt wrote:
1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact

Really you have to learn to read better

I have argued:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
i.e.
1. The philosophical realists absolute mind-independent fact
2. The FSK based fact - relative mind-independent fact

The "1. The philosophical realists absolute mind-independent fact" is grounded on an illusion:
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

ChatGpt agreed with me, all fields of knowledge are contingent upon a human-based framework and system of knowledge, as such it is a common fact, i.e. a FSK-based relative mind-independent fact.

Do you have a counter to this AI's Challenge:
"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

You don't have any intellectual credibility and objectivity in your claim of 'what is fact' because your claim is grounded on an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

You cannot clarify the concept of the FSK as common fact because it explicitly denies the common sense view of facts.

With common facts it is undeniable that in the case that two mutually contradictory fact claims are made, either one or both fact claims is untrue. Your FSK theory has denied that for a decade now, so your option to claim that the FSK thing is neither extraordinary nor a deviation from the common view of facts is denied as obviously absurd.

With reference to ChatGpt [wR]:

VA to ChatGpt:
In response to 1 above:
"This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge. ....
Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms."

My interlocutor countered:

[Interlocutor]
"You cannot clarify the concept of the FSK as common fact because it explicitly denies the common sense view of facts.

With common facts it is undeniable that in the case that two mutually contradictory fact claims are made, either one or both fact claims is untrue. Your FSK theory has denied that for a decade now, so your option to claim that the FSK thing is neither extraordinary nor a deviation from the common view of facts is denied as obviously absurd."

My comments:
My interlocutor is countering from his Philosophical Realism's absolutely mind-independent version of "what is fact", i.e. noumenon which Kant had critiqued as illusory and can only be used regulatively and not be claimed constitutionally as a mind-independent fact.

ChatGPT said:
Your interlocutor's counter stems from a commitment to Philosophical Realism, particularly the absolutist notion of facts as independent of any framework or mind. To respond effectively, you can point out the underlying assumptions of their position while defending the Framework-System of Knowledge (FSK) approach as more nuanced and aligned with Kantian critiques of mind-independent realism.

1. Address the Misrepresentation of FSK
Your interlocutor seems to misunderstand your FSK framework. Clarify that your position does not deny the possibility of contradictions between claims but contextualizes facts within frameworks that make them intelligible. This avoids the absolutism of facts existing independently of all conditions.

"My FSK framework does not deny that mutually contradictory fact claims cannot both be true. What it asserts is that 'facts' only gain their meaning and coherence within a framework that provides the criteria for evaluating truth claims. Outside such a framework, 'facts' lose their intelligibility, as they lack a system for validation or contradiction."

Example:
In the scientific FSK, the claim "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is a fact because it is supported by empirical evidence, testability, and consensus.
In a pre-scientific geocentric FSK, the claim "the Sun revolves around the Earth" was considered factual due to the observational tools and reasoning of the time.

"Contradictory claims can exist, but the resolution depends on the FSK used to evaluate them. The FSK approach recognizes that what is considered a fact is not absolutely independent of human cognitive frameworks."

2. Critique the Absolutist View of Facts
Philosophical Realism assumes an absolutely mind-independent reality (noumenon) as the ultimate arbiter of what is fact. However, Kant critiques this as illusory and argues that facts are always mediated by human cognition and the conditions of possible experience.

"Your assertion that facts are absolutely independent of any FSK assumes the existence of a noumenal reality that can somehow bypass the limits of human cognition. However, as Kant demonstrated, this assumption is untenable because all facts we engage with are conditioned by human cognitive faculties and the frameworks we employ. The idea of an absolutely mind-independent fact is, at best, a regulative ideal—not a constitutional reality."

Example of Illusory Absolutism: The belief in Newtonian mechanics as absolute facts was overturned by Einstein's relativity. This shift shows that facts are framework-dependent and not unchanging absolutes.

3. Distinguish Between Framework-Dependent and Framework-Independent Views
Highlight that the FSK model does not reject facts but contextualizes their validity within a specific framework. This approach is more realistic and practical than assuming facts exist independently of all frameworks.

"Your notion of 'facts' presumes they exist in a vacuum, unaffected by any framework. My FSK approach, by contrast, does not deny the possibility of facts but recognizes their dependence on frameworks for intelligibility and verification. Without such a framework, it would be impossible to determine whether a fact claim is true or false."

Analogy: A chess game operates within a framework of rules that define what constitutes a valid move. Outside that framework, the concept of a 'valid move' is meaningless.

4. Appeal to Common Practices in Science and Philosophy
Reinforce that FSKs are implicit in scientific, legal, and philosophical practices. Facts are always judged within a framework, even if some frameworks (e.g., the scientific FSK) are more robust and credible than others.

"Your counter assumes that the FSK approach is a deviation from common practices. However, the scientific method itself operates within a framework where empirical evidence, repeatability, and testability determine what constitutes a fact. These criteria are not universal absolutes but specific to the scientific FSK. This does not undermine the validity of scientific facts; it simply acknowledges their framework dependence."

5. Reframe the Argument as a Clash of Philosophical Perspectives
Your interlocutor's commitment to Philosophical Realism contrasts with your position, which aligns more with Kantian Transcendental Idealism. Frame the disagreement as one of competing paradigms, and invite your interlocutor to justify their assumption of absolutely mind-independent facts.

• "Our disagreement seems to stem from differing philosophical perspectives. You appear to adopt a Philosophical Realist stance, assuming that facts exist absolutely independently of human cognition or frameworks. My position, influenced by Kant, rejects this absolutism, recognizing that what we call 'facts' are mediated by human cognitive conditions and frameworks. If you assert the existence of absolutely mind-independent facts, can you justify how such facts are accessible to human cognition without any framework?"

Suggested Concluding Statement:

• "My FSK theory does not deny the existence of facts or the resolution of contradictions between fact claims.
  It simply acknowledges that facts are always evaluated within a framework, which provides the criteria for determining their truth or falsity.
  Your objection assumes an absolutist notion of facts as independent of any framework, but this notion is both philosophically contentious and unsupported by the practices of science, philosophy, or common reasoning.
  Kant’s critique of the noumenon illustrates that your absolutist view is an illusion, at best a regulative ideal, and not something we can claim constitutionally as a fact."

This response challenges the interlocutor to reflect on their assumptions while reinforcing the practicality and coherence of the FSK approach.

[Iwannaplato]

I believe a FSK [mine and others] is common within all fields of knowledge.

My point was that the AI does not know how you use YOUR version of FSK in interactions and discussion with others. The AI cannot tell if you are consistent or contradict yourself. We are reacting to you and your beliefs in total and how you apply them and in different instances.

Your OP is asking the AI to support the idea in general, which is not relevant.

What about this challenge?

A Challenge from AI:
"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

I would add "framework and system".

And now you are trying to shift the onus onto me, but more importantly, this has nothing to do with what I wrote. It does, to some degree fit, potentially, as part of a response to others. Note the topic, FSK is not my invention. That is the issue I was addressing and how you misused the AI in the the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe a FSK [mine and others] is common within all fields of knowledge.

My point was that the AI does not know how you use YOUR version of FSK in interactions and discussion with others. The AI cannot tell if you are consistent or contradict yourself. We are reacting to you and your beliefs in total and how you apply them and in different instances.

AI agreed with my description of FSK as a common fact within all fields of knowledge.
In the above scenario, it would be more appropriate for you to present and check with your-AI whether the description of FSK as presented to me by ChatGpt is reasonable or not.

ChatGpt-to-me re FSK as a common thing.
viewtopic.php?p=745046#p745046

I would be very interested in ChatGpt's response from your side.