FSK is Not My Invention

[Atla]

the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%

Let's take the scientific "framework and system of knowledge" as the 100% rational and objective ruler. Rate Kantian empirical realism and non-Kantian philosophical realism, compared to said ruler. Summary only.

Using the scientific framework as the standard for rationality and objectivity:

Kantian Empirical Realism
Rating: ~70%

Reasoning: Kant aligns with scientific principles by emphasizing that knowledge is grounded in experience and structured by universal categories of thought. However, his reliance on a priori forms (space, time, causality) introduces a subjective element that diverges from the purely empirical stance of science.

Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Reasoning: Philosophical realism closely parallels scientific objectivity by positing that an external, mind-independent reality exists. While it lacks the structured methodologies and empirical verification of science, its commitment to realism aligns with the scientific assumption of an observable, external world.

In summary, both frameworks have strengths, but Kantian realism's subjectivity places it further from the scientific ruler than non-Kantian realism.

As expected.

Nah, that is based on your ignorance and biasness.
The above is based merely on scientific realism.

You should ask ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon

The ask ChatGpt which
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon or
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
is more realistic?

Desperate word salad. VA calls anything biased and ignorant what isn't a strawman from the Kantian perspective.

Again:
Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Please listen to your God, it's more intelligent than you.

[seeds]

YOUR ChatGpt stated

"I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming. It seems likely to be a personalized or specialized concept created by your interlocutor, "Veritas Aequitas,"

If you are familiar with ChatGpt, you could ask it to survey "Framework and System of Knowledge" from the internet and one of the search is this:

• "Philosophy Now Forum
  https://forum.philosophynow.org
  27 Jan 2021 — A Framework and System of Knowledge is an imperative structure and mechanism as a ground in the establishment of what is Fact."

Therein is a quote from ChatGpt,

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science.
It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

...did ChatGPT provide that answer before or after you gave it your own personal definition of the acronym - FSK?

Not sure, I don't recall giving it my definition.

How convenient - not being able to recall what you may have said to ChatGPT to elicit that reply.

Well, I suggest that anyone with a couple of working brain cells could deduce from ChatGPT saying,...

"...Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase..."

...that you at least used that particular phrase in whatever questions you may have initially posed to ChatGPT,...

...a specific phrase that ChatGPT was not familiar with until you mentioned it,...

...a phrase that ChatGPT (in its standard fashion) simply mirrored back to you in its reply.

And the point is that just because nearly 4 years ago, you (a random nobody on the Internet) may have presented to ChatGPT your invented pet project involving the use of acronyms...

...it doesn't change the fact that ChatGPT doesn't find your particular use of the acronym "FSK" (Framework and System of Knowledge) established enough to notice when it searches for what the acronym "FSK" stands for in the world of digital information.

And it seems rather pathetic and needful of you to try to get me to coax ChatGPT into taking what I suppose you would call a more "nuanced" search into something it may have discussed 4 years ago with, again, a random nobody on the Internet.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."

Did I ever expect you to care?
I don't give a damn whether you care or not.
I have already stated many times, I post here for my own selfish interests without any expectations from others.

If you don't care about what others think about your ideas,...

...then why in the world do you end practically all of your hundreds of thread-starting OPs with...

Discuss??
Views??

...???

Look, if you weren't such a tragic character who practically begs for

"...left, right, and center bashings..."

...I would say, instead of denying inventing this system of acronyms you are trying to foist on us and the AIs, own it.

However, you need to be open to analyzing why you are receiving such negative blowback over it and, in turn, not be afraid to switch to a new and more interesting "obsession."

Indeed, from my own personal point of view of the evolution of your obsessive behavior,...

...you began with an obsession of rigorously dissing Islam --> which seemed to evolve into an obsession of dissing the notion of God in any form --> which then morphed to an obsession with promoting Immanual Kant --> and now to this present obsession over this utterly boring "FSK" business.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mean, maybe you did invent the term FSK, in which case, maybe it will catch on eventually if it is a useful concept. Nothing wrong with being the inventor of a new acronym that might be philosophically useful.

It is not the term or abbreviation that is critical. The abbreviation is merely to facilitate communication for easier recall.
What is critical is the concept representing the abbreviation FSK.
The point is, I did not invent the concept 'Framework and System of Knowledge' because it is already an implied necessity within all fields of knowledge.

When using AI, one need to understand there is no Standard generic ChatGpt; it seems the AI is very specific to the user, i.e. it is specifically VA's ChatGpt, Atla's ChatGpt, Gary's ChatGpt and so on.

That is why "your"-ChatGpt claimed ignorance of FSK in terms of a Framework and System of Knowledge, but long ago VA-ChatGpt was aware of FSK as Framework and System of Knowledge in this thread:

Framework and System of Knowledge
viewtopic.php?t=31889
which your-ChatGpt could have access to.

ChatGPT wrote: [Dec 2023]
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science. It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

It is very odd,
from the very same ChatGpt,
Gary's-Gpt was not aware of what VA-ChatGpt wrote.

I believe ChatGpt is programmed not to dig deeper into the internet unless requested to, for reason to save time and energy.

[Atla]

When using AI, one need to understand there is no Standard generic ChatGpt; it seems the AI is very specific to the user, i.e. it is specifically VA's ChatGpt, Atla's ChatGpt, Gary's ChatGpt and so on.

Nope, there is no Atla's ChatGPT. I'm using the generic ChatGPT, with memory turned off and start a new independent chat every time. It's the neutral ChatGPT, that's why it's trashing you so badly. I think anyone can use my prompts and will get roughly the same replies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your account isn't descriptive, it isn't even close. The common sense of fact is something you explicitly deny. You must realise it is counter-intuitive to tell people that the moon only exists when people say it does. The reason it is counter-intuitive is that it runs counter to the common sense meaning of fact.

Strawman.
ChatGpt already explained [see below] what is meant by 'descriptive' i.e. it is merely explaining and describing that FSK are a common occurrence, event, methodology within fields of knowledge.

• Fact = something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact

ChatGpt Explained:

If your interlocutor challenges the use of "descriptive," you could clarify that:
The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.

You are wasting my time with stupid shit. Either you must learn to form arguments without relying on a confused calculator to do all the lifting for you, or you will fail even more completely than you managed to prior to relying on AI to think for you.

You are a psychologically sicko constipated by Dogmatic Analytic Philosophy and the dying Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
You don't have reasonable philosophical credibility and objectivity because your knowledge and views are grounded on an illusion, re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

I have no problems with arguments.
It is only due to a quickie presentation that I missed out some premises and they can be easily explained if discussed properly.

You are trying to replace the normal set of discourses in which we discuss various different things in different ways appropriate to the sorts of statement and question involved as something else.
Your thing is a a hierarchy of all the possible subjects that doesn't exist for anybody else and really makes no sense at all. This is the FSK beast you have wrought, a big all encompassing framework of all the subjects and topics, a giant edifice of bullshit that has only a passing resemblance to normal talk of discourses, domains and fields.

It's not real. Nobody else works with these things this way. It's prescriptive not descriptive.

ChatGpt already explained above how a FSK work in the real world and provided examples.
The obvious is the scientific FSK with its scientific methods, principles, assumptions, peer review and whatever conditions that qualify it as scientific.

You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly. I have covered already some of the reasons why your FSK thing is not the natural description you persist in bullshitting us about.

This is before even invoking all the other mad shit you have done, like the thing where nothing at all is completely true or untrue. If you ever tried to explain the FSK thing properly in one go, you would look like a madman and an idiot.

Again, the basis of your above views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Why don't you present my OP re FSK to your ChatGpt and ask for its comment and ChatGpt's own view therein.
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232

My ChatGpt had also explained in many posts its acceptance of FSK as an implied necessity in all fields of knowledge.

If you think other people actually secretly agree with you that it makes sense to say that the rules of fencing are only 32% credible, making them dramatically inferior to zoology, you are massively mistaken.

Strawman. That is a very stupid sense of comparison, i.e. fencing to zoology.

It's not a strawman at all, your FSK thing does exactly what I said and you have confirmed may times that it offers a numerical measurement to do so. Also you have already confirmed that it works by providing a list of "All the FSKs" and their scores, meaning that it is for comparing all the FSKs. Please don't lie to me.

Still a strawman.
Rating all FSKs relative to the gold standard is a form of "comparison" in a very loose sense. The term overall 'ranking' is more relevant in this sense of comparison.
There is no indication in my discussion with AI to compare to something like fencing to zoology or other irrelevant comparisons.
As mentioned, there is need for relevance is usefulness, e.g. comparing pseudoscience to science, astrology to cosmology, science to theism and the like.

The comparison must be relevant, e.g. the credibility and objectivity of a specific pseudoscience FSK at 5% is dramatically inferior to science as the gold standard indexed at 100%.
or
the alchemy FSK at 5% compared to the 90% of science-chemistry FSL
the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%
and so on with comparable comparisons.

What's the FSK that establishes this relevance? What number have you given it? Your own FSK thing is routinely pseudoscientific.

I have already argued extensively, there is no ultimate FSK of FSKs.
What is ultimate is grounded on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

E.g. there is no FSK of the scientific FSK.
Why the scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objectivity is based on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom within the processes and condition.
There is no need to ask for a FSK for the ranking of the FSKs; the challenge of rationality and critical thinking is anyone can test and get repeated results say within the natural sciences and coherent results in other sciences.

All of those numbers you've written there are insane and they simply prove my point that your FSK thing does not describe any normal activity, it entirely your creation, those numbers are only for you to use and only for you to create. You are playing an autistic sorting game and nobody else is involved.

Subject to work on precision to be done,
it is obvious based on the definition of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom,
the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK in terms of empirical reality is very high and and that of the theistic FSK is very low at the other extreme.
If we are to index the scientific FSK as the standard at 100/100, the theistic FSK as very low would be at the extreme low percentile, say 1/100.
On the basis rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, such estimates are very reasonable.

If say, a religious believer facing a judge in the USA insist his God is real and demanded that he had killed believers for the reason that they disbelieve, surely the judge would have implicitly and subconsciously invoke his sense of FSK that the reliance of the believer's theistic FSK [compared to the scientific FSK] is low.
or
if a religious believers claimed his God told him there is a pot of gold underneath his garden, surely anyone would have implicitly rated his claimed based on theistic FSK as very low to be totally ignored.
There are loads of scenarios where the concept of FSK can be applied usefully.

[FlashDangerpants]

Strawman.
ChatGpt already explained [see below] what is meant by 'descriptive' i.e. it is merely explaining and describing that FSK are a common occurrence, event, methodology within fields of knowledge.

• Fact = something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact

You are wasting my time with stupid shit. Either you must learn to form arguments without relying on a confused calculator to do all the lifting for you, or you will fail even more completely than you managed to prior to relying on AI to think for you.

You are a psychologically sicko constipated by Dogmatic Analytic Philosophy and the dying Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
You don't have reasonable philosophical credibility and objectivity because your knowledge and views are grounded on an illusion, re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Ad hominem evasion.

I have no problems with arguments.
It is only due to a quickie presentation that I missed out some premises and they can be easily explained if discussed properly.

You are contradicting yourself in your own argument, so obviously you do have a problem.

Look at page 1, it says to "Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact" .... "This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge."

Faced with the information that you don't cover the same ground as the common concepts and are not even close to doing so, which renders your FSK theory prescriptive not descriptive... You came up with...

'The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.' Which undermines the first thing and confirms my criticism of it to be appropriate.

But is also an absurd cop-out. Now we can't trust you to even be using the philosophical concepts any more and you want to drift into colloquialisms when it suits you? This is beneath even your quality level.

ChatGpt already explained above how a FSK work in the real world and provided examples.
The obvious is the scientific FSK with its scientific methods, principles, assumptions, peer review and whatever conditions that qualify it as scientific.

You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly. I have covered already some of the reasons why your FSK thing is not the natural description you persist in bullshitting us about.

This is before even invoking all the other mad shit you have done, like the thing where nothing at all is completely true or untrue. If you ever tried to explain the FSK thing properly in one go, you would look like a madman and an idiot.

Again, the basis of your above views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Why don't you present my OP re FSK to your ChatGpt and ask for its comment and ChatGpt's own view therein.
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232

Why did you write any of that? It's got nothing to do with what I wrote. Can't you read and respond to what other people write at all?

My ChatGpt had also explained in many posts its acceptance of FSK as an implied necessity in all fields of knowledge.

Your GPT is programmed to take you and your ideas extremely seriously, and to accept half arsed explanations from you, and to agree with you in so far as that doesn't cross certain programmed boundaries. You can't see through this for some reason even though Atla has spent months showing you over and over again that GPT agrees with everyone.

There are no people who find you persuasive, only computers. Your FSK thing is nothing like anything that people actually do.

Strawman. That is a very stupid sense of comparison, i.e. fencing to zoology.

It's not a strawman at all, your FSK thing does exactly what I said and you have confirmed may times that it offers a numerical measurement to do so. Also you have already confirmed that it works by providing a list of "All the FSKs" and their scores, meaning that it is for comparing all the FSKs. Please don't lie to me.

Still a strawman.
Rating all FSKs relative to the gold standard is a form of "comparison" in a very loose sense. The term overall 'ranking' is more relevant in this sense of comparison.
There is no indication in my discussion with AI to compare to something like fencing to zoology or other irrelevant comparisons.
As mentioned, there is need for relevance is usefulness, e.g. comparing pseudoscience to science, astrology to cosmology, science to theism and the like.

It's not losoe, you give it numbers and you assign scores, and you explicitly call those measurements. You have called your own FSKs "near peers of science" so don't you dare lie to me.

The rules of fencing; Japanese table manners; Zoology; Miss Universe; a list of all the known or suspected kings of Mesopotamia; a list of the ten most popular styles of wedding bouquet in Austria between the years of 1746 and 1908... all these things are FSKs, and they all get a score in your FSK-thing and those scores are a measurement of their credibility and allows them to be directly compared to each other.

The above is all true of your FSK system. I don't care that you can persuade a computer it is good, and I don't care that you can persuade yourself not to notice the problems. It is true, not a strawman and it is complete nonsense.

If you lie to me about it, I will just make up more stupid FSK things and then bring you back to your silly claim that it is possible to make a list of them all. I have a lot more imagination than you have.

The comparison must be relevant, e.g. the credibility and objectivity of a specific pseudoscience FSK at 5% is dramatically inferior to science as the gold standard indexed at 100%.
or
the alchemy FSK at 5% compared to the 90% of science-chemistry FSL
the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%
and so on with comparable comparisons.

What's the FSK that establishes this relevance? What number have you given it? Your own FSK thing is routinely pseudoscientific.

I have already argued extensively, there is no ultimate FSK of FSKs.
What is ultimate is grounded on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

I asked what FSK establishes that X is relevant to Y ands suitable for comparing?
Every FSK has a score "measuring" it's credibility, so there's no need for relevance, the credibility score is all that is needed to compare, no?

E.g. there is no FSK of the scientific FSK.
Why the scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objectivity is based on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom within the processes and condition.
There is no need to ask for a FSK for the ranking of the FSKs; the challenge of rationality and critical thinking is anyone can test and get repeated results say within the natural sciences and coherent results in other sciences.

I doubt that the argument you describe survives inspection, but I also don't care.

All of those numbers you've written there are insane and they simply prove my point that your FSK thing does not describe any normal activity, it entirely your creation, those numbers are only for you to use and only for you to create. You are playing an autistic sorting game and nobody else is involved.

Subject to work on precision to be done,
it is obvious based on the definition of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom,
the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK in terms of empirical reality is very high and and that of the theistic FSK is very low at the other extreme.
If we are to index the scientific FSK as the standard at 100/100, the theistic FSK as very low would be at the extreme low percentile, say 1/100.
On the basis rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, such estimates are very reasonable.

If say, a religious believer facing a judge in the USA insist his God is real and demanded that he had killed believers for the reason that they disbelieve, surely the judge would have implicitly and subconsciously invoke his sense of FSK that the reliance of the believer's theistic FSK [compared to the scientific FSK] is low.
or
if a religious believers claimed his God told him there is a pot of gold underneath his garden, surely anyone would have implicitly rated his claimed based on theistic FSK as very low to be totally ignored.
There are loads of scenarios where the concept of FSK can be applied usefully.

Gibberish non-sequitur

[Veritas Aequitas]

As expected.

Nah, that is based on your ignorance and biasness.
The above is based merely on scientific realism.

You should ask ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon

The ask ChatGpt which
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon or
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
is more realistic?

Desperate word salad. VA calls anything biased and ignorant what isn't a strawman from the Kantian perspective.

Again:
Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Please listen to your God, it's more intelligent than you.

There is a difference between Your-ChatGpt and VA-ChatGpt.
Whilst from the same site, your-ChatGpt is less philosophically less competent than VA-ChatGpt.

Again;

You should ask Your-ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
and in terms of empirical reality.

I won't waste time with my VA-ChatGpt.
If I were to ask VA-ChatGpt, it will give a more realistic ranking i.e.
Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: 0.01% in terms of empirical reality,
because philosophical realism [opposed by Kant] is grounded on an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

YOUR ChatGpt stated

"I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming. It seems likely to be a personalized or specialized concept created by your interlocutor, "Veritas Aequitas,"

If you are familiar with ChatGpt, you could ask it to survey "Framework and System of Knowledge" from the internet and one of the search is this:

• "Philosophy Now Forum
  https://forum.philosophynow.org
  27 Jan 2021 — A Framework and System of Knowledge is an imperative structure and mechanism as a ground in the establishment of what is Fact."

Therein is a quote from ChatGpt,

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science.
It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

...did ChatGPT provide that answer before or after you gave it your own personal definition of the acronym - FSK?

Not sure, I don't recall giving it my definition.

How convenient - not being able to recall what you may have said to ChatGPT to elicit that reply.

Well, I suggest that anyone with a couple of working brain cells could deduce from ChatGPT saying,...

"...Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase..."

...that you at least used that particular phrase in whatever questions you may have initially posed to ChatGPT,...

...a specific phrase that ChatGPT was not familiar with until you mentioned it,...

...a phrase that ChatGPT (in its standard fashion) simply mirrored back to you in its reply.

And the point is that just because nearly 4 years ago, you (a random nobody on the Internet) may have presented to ChatGPT your invented pet project involving the use of acronyms...

...it doesn't change the fact that ChatGPT doesn't find your particular use of the acronym "FSK" (Framework and System of Knowledge) established enough to notice when it searches for what the acronym "FSK" stands for in the world of digital information.

And it seems rather pathetic and needful of you to try to get me to coax ChatGPT into taking what I suppose you would call a more "nuanced" search into something it may have discussed 4 years ago with, again, a random nobody on the Internet.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."

Did I ever expect you to care?
I don't give a damn whether you care or not.
I have already stated many times, I post here for my own selfish interests without any expectations from others.

If you don't care about what others think about your ideas,...

...then why in the world do you end practically all of your hundreds of thread-starting OPs with...

Discuss??
Views??

...???

Look, if you weren't such a tragic character who practically begs for

"...left, right, and center bashings..."

...I would say, instead of denying inventing this system of acronyms you are trying to foist on us and the AIs, own it.

However, you need to be open to analyzing why you are receiving such negative blowback over it and, in turn, not be afraid to switch to a new and more interesting "obsession."

Indeed, from my own personal point of view of the evolution of your obsessive behavior,...

...you began with an obsession of rigorously dissing Islam --> which seemed to evolve into an obsession of dissing the notion of God in any form --> which then morphed to an obsession with promoting Immanual Kant --> and now to this present obsession over this utterly boring "FSK" business.
_______

You are merely babbling, grumbling and whining with nothing positive [philosophical] to contribute to the forum and in general.

"A Framework and System of Knowledge" is very self-explanatory which any rational person would understand what it meant, i.e. knowledge is constituted within a framework and system.

What's wrong with 'Discuss' and 'Views' which indicate anyone who wish to participate should give a balanced views not dogmatic ones for public consumption which I do not need to give a damn if I don't wish to.

...you began with an obsession of rigorously dissing Islam --> which seemed to evolve into an obsession of dissing the notion of God in any form --> which then morphed to an obsession with promoting Immanual Kant --> and now to this present obsession over this utterly boring "FSK" business.

It is more likely that you are obsessed [very compulsive] with me contributing views to this forum.
Why?? because you are very rattled and shaken as my views triggered terror within you as a threat to your dogmatic crutch on an illusory God.

Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

In many cases, fundamentalists like you would have killed those who opposes them to prevent the tsunami of terrors within themselves.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are a psychologically sicko constipated by Dogmatic Analytic Philosophy and the dying Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
You don't have reasonable philosophical credibility and objectivity because your knowledge and views are grounded on an illusion, re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Ad hominem evasion.

Face your ad hominen mirror for the truth.

What I stated above is VERY relevant because you are making very personal [first-person] judgments on my views with no supporting references at all. Most of what you stated are farts.

I have no problems with arguments.
It is only due to a quickie presentation that I missed out some premises and they can be easily explained if discussed properly.

You are contradicting yourself in your own argument, so obviously you do have a problem.

Look at page 1, it says to "Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact" .... "This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge."

Faced with the information that you don't cover the same ground as the common concepts and are not even close to doing so, which renders your FSK theory prescriptive not descriptive... You came up with...

'The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.' Which undermines the first thing and confirms my criticism of it to be appropriate.

But is also an absurd cop-out. Now we can't trust you to even be using the philosophical concepts any more and you want to drift into colloquialisms when it suits you? This is beneath even your quality level.

Hey!
That is not "my" statements, they are from my-ChatGpt explaining its use of the term 'descriptive' which I agree with.

You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly. I have covered already some of the reasons why your FSK thing is not the natural description you persist in bullshitting us about.

This is before even invoking all the other mad shit you have done, like the thing where nothing at all is completely true or untrue. If you ever tried to explain the FSK thing properly in one go, you would look like a madman and an idiot.

Again, the basis of your above views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Why don't you present my OP re FSK to your ChatGpt and ask for its comment and ChatGpt's own view therein.
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232

Why did you write any of that? It's got nothing to do with what I wrote. Can't you read and respond to what other people write at all?

You stated
"You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly."
The above suggestion will prove that I don't need to explain the FSK stuff to the AI correctly.
What is FSK is already a common implicit concept within all fields of knowledge.
AI issued a challenge: show a field of knowledge where the FSK is not implicit therein?

My ChatGpt had also explained in many posts its acceptance of FSK as an implied necessity in all fields of knowledge.

Your GPT is programmed to take you and your ideas extremely seriously, and to accept half arsed explanations from you, and to agree with you in so far as that doesn't cross certain programmed boundaries. You can't see through this for some reason even though Atla has spent months showing you over and over again that GPT agrees with everyone.

There are no people who find you persuasive, only computers. Your FSK thing is nothing like anything that people actually do.

You are too primitive and barbaric with the knowledge of AI in practice when at present AI itself had won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Physics[?] beat the best Grandmaster in the Game of Go [the most complex game].

It's not a strawman at all, your FSK thing does exactly what I said and you have confirmed may times that it offers a numerical measurement to do so. Also you have already confirmed that it works by providing a list of "All the FSKs" and their scores, meaning that it is for comparing all the FSKs. Please don't lie to me.

Still a strawman.
Rating all FSKs relative to the gold standard is a form of "comparison" in a very loose sense. The term overall 'ranking' is more relevant in this sense of comparison.
There is no indication in my discussion with AI to compare to something like fencing to zoology or other irrelevant comparisons.
As mentioned, there is need for relevance is usefulness, e.g. comparing pseudoscience to science, astrology to cosmology, science to theism and the like.

It's not loose, you give it numbers and you assign scores, and you explicitly call those measurements. You have called your own FSKs "near peers of science" so don't you dare lie to me.

The rules of fencing; Japanese table manners; Zoology; Miss Universe; a list of all the known or suspected kings of Mesopotamia; a list of the ten most popular styles of wedding bouquet in Austria between the years of 1746 and 1908... all these things are FSKs, and they all get a score in your FSK-thing and those scores are a measurement of their credibility and allows them to be directly compared to each other.

The above is all true of your FSK system. I don't care that you can persuade a computer it is good, and I don't care that you can persuade yourself not to notice the problems. It is true, not a strawman and it is complete nonsense.

If you lie to me about it, I will just make up more stupid FSK things and then bring you back to your silly claim that it is possible to make a list of them all. I have a lot more imagination than you have.

Still strawmaning.
All the FSKs can be rated and ranked with a ranking methodology with grading and weightages of rational criteria.
It is stupid to compare the FSK rating between fencing and zoology or the anorectal disorders-FSK with Botany.
What is effective is comparing the FSK rating between say, science and pseudoscience and the like.

What's the FSK that establishes this relevance? What number have you given it? Your own FSK thing is routinely pseudoscientific.

I have already argued extensively, there is no ultimate FSK of FSKs.
What is ultimate is grounded on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

I asked what FSK establishes that X is relevant to Y ands suitable for comparing?
Every FSK has a score "measuring" it's credibility, so there's no need for relevance, the credibility score is all that is needed to compare, no?

Do we need a FSK to compare science and pseudoscience??
Do we need a meta-FSK to compare a brain-surgery by a qualified surgeon grounded on the medical-science-FSK with the phenomenology-FSK or Lobotomy-FSK?
All we [rational people] need to to compare the specific FSK rating [credibility and objectivity] of each.
That is why I insist your thinking is primitive and barbaric.

E.g. there is no FSK of the scientific FSK.
Why the scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objectivity is based on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom within the processes and condition.
There is no need to ask for a FSK for the ranking of the FSKs; the challenge of rationality and critical thinking is anyone can test and get repeated results say within the natural sciences and coherent results in other sciences.

I doubt that the argument you describe survives inspection, but I also don't care.

When there is truth, you are running away.

All of those numbers you've written there are insane and they simply prove my point that your FSK thing does not describe any normal activity, it entirely your creation, those numbers are only for you to use and only for you to create. You are playing an autistic sorting game and nobody else is involved.

Subject to work on precision to be done,
it is obvious based on the definition of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom,
the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK in terms of empirical reality is very high and and that of the theistic FSK is very low at the other extreme.
If we are to index the scientific FSK as the standard at 100/100, the theistic FSK as very low would be at the extreme low percentile, say 1/100.
On the basis rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, such estimates are very reasonable.

If say, a religious believer facing a judge in the USA insist his God is real and demanded that he had killed believers for the reason that they disbelieve, surely the judge would have implicitly and subconsciously invoke his sense of FSK that the reliance of the believer's theistic FSK [compared to the scientific FSK] is low.
or
if a religious believers claimed his God told him there is a pot of gold underneath his garden, surely anyone would have implicitly rated his claimed based on theistic FSK as very low to be totally ignored.
There are loads of scenarios where the concept of FSK can be applied usefully.

Gibberish non-sequitur

That is your problem that I condemned above, i.e. your psychologically sicko constipated by Dogmatic Analytic Philosophy and merely resorting to armchair philosophy and philosophy of mental-masturbation ignoring the pragmatic aspects of philosophy.
I have just read Rorty's Consequences of Pragmatic where he condemned your sort of philosophy being politicized and arrogant based on ignorance.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have no problems with arguments.
It is only due to a quickie presentation that I missed out some premises and they can be easily explained if discussed properly.

You are contradicting yourself in your own argument, so obviously you do have a problem.

Look at page 1, it says to "Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact" .... "This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge."

Faced with the information that you don't cover the same ground as the common concepts and are not even close to doing so, which renders your FSK theory prescriptive not descriptive... You came up with...

'The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.' Which undermines the first thing and confirms my criticism of it to be appropriate.

But is also an absurd cop-out. Now we can't trust you to even be using the philosophical concepts any more and you want to drift into colloquialisms when it suits you? This is beneath even your quality level.

Hey!
That is not "my" statements, they are from my-ChatGpt explaining its use of the term 'descriptive' which I agree with.

I've already explained why you have that all wrong. You can agree with yourself just as easily as you can pay for a computer to agree with you, and to just as little effect.

Again, the basis of your above views are grounded on an illusion, i.e. re philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence of facts].

Why don't you present my OP re FSK to your ChatGpt and ask for its comment and ChatGpt's own view therein.
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?
viewtopic.php?t=43232

Why did you write any of that? It's got nothing to do with what I wrote. Can't you read and respond to what other people write at all?

You stated
"You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly."
The above suggestion will prove that I don't need to explain the FSK stuff to the AI correctly.
What is FSK is already a common implicit concept within all fields of knowledge.
AI issued a challenge: show a field of knowledge where the FSK is not implicit therein?

FSK isn't implicit in anything at all, only you think the FSK thing resembles real world applications. The scoring system, the autistic sorting game that it propels, and the absurd rigidity are all personal to you and not reflected in the broader epistemological world of other people.

My ChatGpt had also explained in many posts its acceptance of FSK as an implied necessity in all fields of knowledge.

Your GPT is programmed to take you and your ideas extremely seriously, and to accept half arsed explanations from you, and to agree with you in so far as that doesn't cross certain programmed boundaries. You can't see through this for some reason even though Atla has spent months showing you over and over again that GPT agrees with everyone.

There are no people who find you persuasive, only computers. Your FSK thing is nothing like anything that people actually do.

You are too primitive and barbaric with the knowledge of AI in practice when at present AI itself had won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Physics[?] beat the best Grandmaster in the Game of Go [the most complex game].

Uhm, well that was a bit of crazy rant to no purpose wasn't it? Atla has still shown that anyone can get AI to agree with pretty much anything, and that's just the truth of the matter.

Still a strawman.
Rating all FSKs relative to the gold standard is a form of "comparison" in a very loose sense. The term overall 'ranking' is more relevant in this sense of comparison.
There is no indication in my discussion with AI to compare to something like fencing to zoology or other irrelevant comparisons.
As mentioned, there is need for relevance is usefulness, e.g. comparing pseudoscience to science, astrology to cosmology, science to theism and the like.

It's not loose, you give it numbers and you assign scores, and you explicitly call those measurements. You have called your own FSKs "near peers of science" so don't you dare lie to me.

The rules of fencing; Japanese table manners; Zoology; Miss Universe; a list of all the known or suspected kings of Mesopotamia; a list of the ten most popular styles of wedding bouquet in Austria between the years of 1746 and 1908... all these things are FSKs, and they all get a score in your FSK-thing and those scores are a measurement of their credibility and allows them to be directly compared to each other.

The above is all true of your FSK system. I don't care that you can persuade a computer it is good, and I don't care that you can persuade yourself not to notice the problems. It is true, not a strawman and it is complete nonsense.

If you lie to me about it, I will just make up more stupid FSK things and then bring you back to your silly claim that it is possible to make a list of them all. I have a lot more imagination than you have.

Still strawmaning.
All the FSKs can be rated and ranked with a ranking methodology with grading and weightages of rational criteria.
It is stupid to compare the FSK rating between fencing and zoology or the anorectal disorders-FSK with Botany.
What is effective is comparing the FSK rating between say, science and pseudoscience and the like.

Being able to "rate and rank" all the FSK things is what makes it painfully obvious that you have invented the whole thing. The entire notion makes no sense to people who aren't on the spectrum.

Of course it's stupid to compare fencing and zoology, but the point is that you can't actually compare them IRL, only via your absurdly artificial FSK thing. That is why your artificial FSK thing is so silly and that is why everyone rejects it.

We don't use your stupid scoring system to compare fields of study, we don't need it either. We reject pseudosciences because they are methodologically unsound and try to do impossible things using implausible methods - like your pseudoscience for comparing FSKs is, and you morality-proper-pseudoscience.

I have already argued extensively, there is no ultimate FSK of FSKs.
What is ultimate is grounded on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

I asked what FSK establishes that X is relevant to Y ands suitable for comparing?
Every FSK has a score "measuring" it's credibility, so there's no need for relevance, the credibility score is all that is needed to compare, no?

Do we need a FSK to compare science and pseudoscience??
Do we need a meta-FSK to compare a brain-surgery by a qualified surgeon grounded on the medical-science-FSK with the phenomenology-FSK or Lobotomy-FSK?
All we [rational people] need to to compare the specific FSK rating [credibility and objectivity] of each.
That is why I insist your thinking is primitive and barbaric.

If you have stopped saying that we need FSKs for those things, then we really don't need this FSK bullshit at all do we?

E.g. there is no FSK of the scientific FSK.
Why the scientific FSK is the most credible in terms of objectivity is based on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom within the processes and condition.
There is no need to ask for a FSK for the ranking of the FSKs; the challenge of rationality and critical thinking is anyone can test and get repeated results say within the natural sciences and coherent results in other sciences.

I doubt that the argument you describe survives inspection, but I also don't care.

When there is truth, you are running away.

Subject to work on precision to be done,
it is obvious based on the definition of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom,
the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK in terms of empirical reality is very high and and that of the theistic FSK is very low at the other extreme.
If we are to index the scientific FSK as the standard at 100/100, the theistic FSK as very low would be at the extreme low percentile, say 1/100.
On the basis rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, such estimates are very reasonable.

If say, a religious believer facing a judge in the USA insist his God is real and demanded that he had killed believers for the reason that they disbelieve, surely the judge would have implicitly and subconsciously invoke his sense of FSK that the reliance of the believer's theistic FSK [compared to the scientific FSK] is low.
or
if a religious believers claimed his God told him there is a pot of gold underneath his garden, surely anyone would have implicitly rated his claimed based on theistic FSK as very low to be totally ignored.
There are loads of scenarios where the concept of FSK can be applied usefully.

Gibberish non-sequitur

That is your problem that I condemned above, i.e. your psychologically sicko constipated by Dogmatic Analytic Philosophy and merely resorting to armchair philosophy and philosophy of mental-masturbation ignoring the pragmatic aspects of philosophy.
I have just read Rorty's Consequences of Pragmatic where he condemned your sort of philosophy being politicized and arrogant based on ignorance.

Whatever

[Atla]

Nah, that is based on your ignorance and biasness.
The above is based merely on scientific realism.

You should ask ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon

The ask ChatGpt which
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon or
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
is more realistic?

Desperate word salad. VA calls anything biased and ignorant what isn't a strawman from the Kantian perspective.

Again:
Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Please listen to your God, it's more intelligent than you.

There is a difference between Your-ChatGpt and VA-ChatGpt.
Whilst from the same site, your-ChatGpt is less philosophically less competent than VA-ChatGpt.

Again;

You should ask Your-ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
and in terms of empirical reality.

I won't waste time with my VA-ChatGpt.
If I were to ask VA-ChatGpt, it will give a more realistic ranking i.e.
Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: 0.01% in terms of empirical reality,
because philosophical realism [opposed by Kant] is grounded on an illusion.

Desperate word salad. Noumenon is part of the Kantian philosophy, incompatible with many modern p-realisms. You can't assume it.

Even your manipulated ChatGPT will tell you this, you're just too ignorant of philosophy to be able to ask it the right questions.

[Atla]

Does scientific realism typically assume Kant's noumenon (assumes knowledge of the unknowable), or not? Summary only.

Scientific realism does not typically assume Kant's noumenon. Scientific realism holds that the entities posited by scientific theories exist independently of human perception and that science aims to describe and understand the reality of the world as it is. In contrast, Kant's concept of the noumenon refers to the "thing-in-itself," which is inherently unknowable and lies beyond the reach of human cognition and sensory experience. While scientific realism assumes that the world is knowable (at least in part) through empirical investigation and theory, it does not necessarily invoke or depend on Kant's distinction between noumenon and phenomenon.

Was this a new ChatGPT chat with no memory, and therefore ChatGPT gave its default answer that it would give to other users too? Summary only.

Yes, this is a new chat with no memory, so the response provided is a default answer that could be given to any user.

See it's not so hard. There is no Atla-ChatGPT, Atla was simply 10 steps ahead of you philosophically the whole time and was right from the start.

[seeds]

_______

Wow, it took less than a month for my premonition to come true...

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.

There is a difference between Your-ChatGpt and VA-ChatGpt.
Whilst from the same site, your-ChatGpt is less philosophically less competent than VA-ChatGpt.

And VA wonders why he gets bashings from the left, right, and center.

Oh yeah, it's because of what he said back in 2019...

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

In case it wasn't obvious, in other words, because VA feels he is a "pioneer" and a "front runner" in knowledge,...

...it is therefore inevitable that he will receive left, right, and center bashings (resistance, criticisms, blowback) similar to the way Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes received bashings before their genius was recognized and celebrated.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You stated
"You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly."
The above suggestion will prove that I don't need to explain the FSK stuff to the AI correctly.
What is FSK is already a common implicit concept within all fields of knowledge.
AI issued a challenge: show a field of knowledge where the FSK is not implicit therein?

FSK isn't implicit in anything at all, only you think the FSK thing resembles real world applications. The scoring system, the autistic sorting game that it propels, and the absurd rigidity are all personal to you and not reflected in the broader epistemological world of other people.

Any average intelligent person will understand a FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] is a common concept that is implicit within all fields of knowledge.

All fields of knowledge are confined within a Framework that is specific to that specific field of knowledge. Example science, history, economics, has it specific principles, assumptions, methodology, etc. in its knowledge.
The term system i.e. where there are inputs, processes, output and control mechanisms is so obvious within a field of knowledge.
No wonder your philosophical knowledge is so bankrupt.

I did not claim the ranking of the FSKs is a common thing.
Since I am very familiar with it which I practiced in my professional career, I introduced the ranking system to increase the precision and rigor in the presentation of knowledge in general and where comparison is needed critically.

When one claimed science is more credible than pseudoscience or the other way [or any relevant comparisons of knowledge], one has implicitly applied some sort of ranking methodology subconsciously.
I am trying to make such implicit ranking more explicit and transparent to reveal how the conclusions are arrive at by any party.
This explicit method of ranking is a highly recommended for problem solving and decision making which happen [as stated above] to be my forte and critical to my profession.

If say your boss chose to promote your colleague over you to a higher position [with a 50% increase in salary], surely it would be more reasonable if your boss were to show you his ranking system to avoid being bias, favoritism, racism or other bias basis.
Or say, you are in a committee with the Board of Directors to choose a CEO for your company, surely a transparent ranking process would be fair to all.
It would be same for any situation of decision making [where it is critical and time is available], the introduction of a transparent ranking methodology and system is a more advanced mode and skill than making decisions off the cuff.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And VA wonders why he gets bashings from the left, right, and center.

Oh yeah, it's because of what he said back in 2019...

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, not Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

In case it wasn't obvious, in other words, because VA feels he is a "pioneer" and a "front runner" in knowledge,...

...it is therefore inevitable that he will receive left, right, and center bashings (resistance, criticisms, blowback) similar to the way Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes received bashings before their genius was recognized and celebrated.
_______

Deception as usual, you excluded the relevant last para below:

Note the relevant statement I made;

I have to admit the earlier bashings I faced [long ago] was due to my naivety and ignorance. I have learned and overcame those limitations -A.

One very obvious precedents is the pioneers and front runners in knowledge are always bashed left, right and center, note Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, Kant, and the likes. I believe what I am encountering at present is the latter rather than the former -A.

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left, then they will resort to all sort of condemnations instead of exploring more counters or to further their knowledge of their own human nature.

I claimed my argument specific to that thread and post
viewtopic.php?p=426711#p426711
is unique and novel thus facing the same bashing as those who were pioneers in their own fields of knowledge.
In addition, in this case of squashing the argument 'God Exists' the bashing will be more serious because my argument trigger terror in my opponents like you.
Instead of engaging in more deeper counters [which you have no more] you resort to a tribalistic and barbaric mode of bashing and mocking in a attempt to subdue the triggered terror within you.