FSK is Not My Invention

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

They will say that discourses, fields of study, knowledge domains and such are commonplace notions. But subject them to the actual specifics of your FSK theory and they will say that it is mostly implausible nonsense.

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.

Stop there and you don't sound like a lunatic yet. Get to the bit where the product of any FSK is fact and thus any FSK you construct is a source of fact though and everyone will see you are mad. As that latter is a crucial part of your FSK theory... and is in fact the entire point of it, I choose not overlook it.

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.

Yeah, you are describing mind maps and diagrams that you use to understand things aren't you? Those are much more important to autistic persons than they are to other people. It's kind of a giveaway that one.

I did not claim the ranking of the FSKs is a common thing.
I introduced the ranking system to increase the precision and rigor in the presentation of knowledge in general and where comparison is needed critically.

The ranking system makes your FSK thing what it is, leave it out and you don't look mad anymore, but you don't get to do your gold standard science thing. But that is the point of it, to have the gold standard and the numbers to amke it official. Why do you keep pretending they are only a small part of it?

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 to be my forte and critical to my profession.

What is your profession? Is it philosopher? This is a philosophy forum, and you are supposedly presenting a philosophical case, so maybe try using the tools of philosophy instead of pointless crap you found lying around the office.

Nobody needs a score to dismiss a pseudoscience. It either is a working science or not a pseudo one, being 17% as good as a real sciecne isn't a thing. That's just some nonsense you made up.

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.

You have forgotten that you were trying to show this is all normal and a descriptive account of how things work in he usual order of things without making any changes?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note this
AI & Nuances within Kant's CPR
viewtopic.php?t=43254
where the default is level 1 -Kindergarten Level.

So, if you ask kindi level question, it will give you kindi level answers.
You are so stupid to be so proud of it.

[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.

Note this
AI & Nuances within Kant's CPR
viewtopic.php?t=43254
where the default is level 1 -Kindergarten Level.

So, if you ask kindi level question, it will give you kindi level answers.
You are so stupid to be so proud of it.

There are no AI levels, and you aren't asking it more nuanced questions, I am. You are just so profoundly incompetent philosophically that you keep asking the AI to evaluate everything from the Kantian perspective, and keep calling that strawman more nuanced:

ChatGpt Explains:

Creating a structured categorization of the levels of understanding of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) is an excellent approach to clarify discussions.

Yes, when the debate is limited to the Kantian perspective only. Strawman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double posted

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this
AI & Nuances within Kant's CPR
viewtopic.php?t=43254
where the default is level 1 -Kindergarten Level.

So, if you ask kindi level question, it will give you kindi level answers.
You are so stupid to be so proud of it.

There are no AI levels, and you aren't asking it more nuanced questions, I am. You are just so profoundly incompetent philosophically that you keep asking the AI to evaluate everything from the Kantian perspective, and keep calling that strawman more nuanced:

ChatGpt Explains:

Creating a structured categorization of the levels of understanding of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) is an excellent approach to clarify discussions.

Yes, when the debate is limited to the Kantian perspective only. Strawman.

Dumb as usual.
The reference to Kantian's CPR is just an example.

OP:
For example, on the subject of Kant's CPR, the user's level of understanding of the CPR can be graded from level 1 to level 5.
Most of the time, Atla, Seeds, IWP and the like will interact with their specific ChatGpt at level 1 of Kant's CPR, and thus their ChatGpt will give them level 1 [kindi] responses.

The principle is generic to all fields of knowledge [science, economics, mathematics, logic, linguistics, and so on] with a range of understandings ranging from Kindergarten to high school to PhD to specialists levels.

Here are the examples of explaining and understanding various subject within 5 levels of difficulties from kindergarten to PhD:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ifficulty+
Chess Pro Explains Chess in 5 Levels of Difficulty (ft. GothamChess) | WIRED
Harvard Professor Explains Algorithms in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
MIT Professor Explains Nuclear Fusion in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Explains Time in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Mathematician Explains Infinity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains the Internet in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
College Professor Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Geometer Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Black Holes in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains Machine Learning in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Teaches Origami in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Nanotechnology Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Hacker Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Scientist Explains Sleep in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Lasers in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Dimensions in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Jacob Collier Explains Music in 5 Levels of Difficulty ft. Herbie Hancock | WIRED
Blockchain Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of of Difficulty

[Atla]

Note this
AI & Nuances within Kant's CPR
viewtopic.php?t=43254
where the default is level 1 -Kindergarten Level.

So, if you ask kindi level question, it will give you kindi level answers.
You are so stupid to be so proud of it.

There are no AI levels, and you aren't asking it more nuanced questions, I am. You are just so profoundly incompetent philosophically that you keep asking the AI to evaluate everything from the Kantian perspective, and keep calling that strawman more nuanced:

ChatGpt Explains:

Creating a structured categorization of the levels of understanding of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) is an excellent approach to clarify discussions.

Yes, when the debate is limited to the Kantian perspective only. Strawman.

Dumb as usual.
The reference to Kantian's CPR is just an example.

OP:
For example, on the subject of Kant's CPR, the user's level of understanding of the CPR can be graded from level 1 to level 5.
Most of the time, Atla, Seeds, IWP and the like will interact with their specific ChatGpt at level 1 of Kant's CPR, and thus their ChatGpt will give them level 1 [kindi] responses.

The principle is generic to all fields of knowledge [science, economics, mathematics, logic, linguistics, and so on] with a range of understandings ranging from Kindergarten to high school to PhD to specialists levels.

Here are the examples of explaining and understanding various subject within 5 levels of difficulties from kindergarten to PhD:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ifficulty+
Chess Pro Explains Chess in 5 Levels of Difficulty (ft. GothamChess) | WIRED
Harvard Professor Explains Algorithms in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
MIT Professor Explains Nuclear Fusion in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Explains Time in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Mathematician Explains Infinity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains the Internet in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
College Professor Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Geometer Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Black Holes in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains Machine Learning in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Teaches Origami in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Nanotechnology Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Hacker Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Scientist Explains Sleep in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Lasers in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Dimensions in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Jacob Collier Explains Music in 5 Levels of Difficulty ft. Herbie Hancock | WIRED
Blockchain Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of of Difficulty

You sure whine a lot after it was consistently shown to you (even using ChatGPT) that you are the kindi one.

[seeds]

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.

And you, in turn, excluded my reply to your so-called "relevant" statement...

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

In other words, there’s a big difference between your assumption of what’s happening, and of that which is really happening.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

Note my argument is a short one;

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

It is absolutely bonkers to think that this same repetitive horse crap has been going on for years now.

And in regard to this...

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.

...and this...

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.

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

...I actually had a brief moment of out-loud laughter at reading your silly nonsense about how your tiny-minded ideas have filled me with "terror!!!"

For some reason, it made me picture you as being Babu Bhatt from Seinfeld...


_______

[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...


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.

And you, in turn, excluded my reply to your so-called "relevant" statement...

I have even explained why people are rejecting my claims and I have squashed their initial counters till they have none left,...

No, Veritas, you merely refuse to accept the validity of people’s counters until they tire of dealing with your bullheadedness.

In other words, there’s a big difference between your assumption of what’s happening, and of that which is really happening.

...then they will resort to all sort of condemnations...

Yes, out of sheer exasperation of your inability to understand the flimsiness of your arguments.

Note my argument is a short one;

• P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
  P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
  C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

All you need is to be prove P1 or P2 is false.

The only thing I can prove in this situation is how foolish I am for continuing to argue with someone who has (as mentioned earlier) a sense of logic equivalent to that of a flat-earther.

For some inexplicable reason, you just cannot seem to get it into your head that your P2...

...“God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect”...

...is complete and total nonsense.

It is absolutely bonkers to think that this same repetitive horse crap has been going on for years now.

And in regard to this...

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.

...and this...

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.

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

...I actually had a brief moment of out-loud laughter at reading your silly nonsense about how your tiny-minded ideas have filled me with "terror!!!"

For some reason, it made me picture you as being Babu Bhatt from Seinfeld...
_______

TMT is terror at the subliminal level that make you lash out or in many cases, other terrified theists had killed those who oppose the argument God exists.

Give more serious counter arguments instead of barbaric lashings and mocking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no AI levels, and you aren't asking it more nuanced questions, I am. You are just so profoundly incompetent philosophically that you keep asking the AI to evaluate everything from the Kantian perspective, and keep calling that strawman more nuanced:


Yes, when the debate is limited to the Kantian perspective only. Strawman.

Dumb as usual.
The reference to Kantian's CPR is just an example.

OP:
For example, on the subject of Kant's CPR, the user's level of understanding of the CPR can be graded from level 1 to level 5.
Most of the time, Atla, Seeds, IWP and the like will interact with their specific ChatGpt at level 1 of Kant's CPR, and thus their ChatGpt will give them level 1 [kindi] responses.

The principle is generic to all fields of knowledge [science, economics, mathematics, logic, linguistics, and so on] with a range of understandings ranging from Kindergarten to high school to PhD to specialists levels.

Here are the examples of explaining and understanding various subject within 5 levels of difficulties from kindergarten to PhD:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ifficulty+
Chess Pro Explains Chess in 5 Levels of Difficulty (ft. GothamChess) | WIRED
Harvard Professor Explains Algorithms in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
MIT Professor Explains Nuclear Fusion in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Explains Time in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Mathematician Explains Infinity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains the Internet in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
College Professor Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Geometer Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Black Holes in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains Machine Learning in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Teaches Origami in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Nanotechnology Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Hacker Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Scientist Explains Sleep in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Lasers in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Dimensions in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Jacob Collier Explains Music in 5 Levels of Difficulty ft. Herbie Hancock | WIRED
Blockchain Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of of Difficulty

You sure whine a lot after it was consistently shown to you (even using ChatGPT) that you are the kindi one.

All you have done is blabbering without arguments and where there is some sort of argument it is always from your kindi level as I have provided the evidences.

[Atla]

Dumb as usual.
The reference to Kantian's CPR is just an example.

OP:
For example, on the subject of Kant's CPR, the user's level of understanding of the CPR can be graded from level 1 to level 5.
Most of the time, Atla, Seeds, IWP and the like will interact with their specific ChatGpt at level 1 of Kant's CPR, and thus their ChatGpt will give them level 1 [kindi] responses.

The principle is generic to all fields of knowledge [science, economics, mathematics, logic, linguistics, and so on] with a range of understandings ranging from Kindergarten to high school to PhD to specialists levels.

Here are the examples of explaining and understanding various subject within 5 levels of difficulties from kindergarten to PhD:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ifficulty+
Chess Pro Explains Chess in 5 Levels of Difficulty (ft. GothamChess) | WIRED
Harvard Professor Explains Algorithms in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
MIT Professor Explains Nuclear Fusion in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Explains Time in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Mathematician Explains Infinity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains the Internet in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
College Professor Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Geometer Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Black Holes in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Neuroscientist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Computer Scientist Explains Machine Learning in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Teaches Origami in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Nanotechnology Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Hacker Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Scientist Explains Sleep in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Lasers in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Physicist Explains Dimensions in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED
Jacob Collier Explains Music in 5 Levels of Difficulty ft. Herbie Hancock | WIRED
Blockchain Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of of Difficulty

You sure whine a lot after it was consistently shown to you (even using ChatGPT) that you are the kindi one.

All you have done is blabbering without arguments and where there is some sort of argument it is always from your kindi level as I have provided the evidences.

All you can ever provide are your Kantian perspective strawmen.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You sure whine a lot after it was consistently shown to you (even using ChatGPT) that you are the kindi one.

All you have done is blabbering without arguments and where there is some sort of argument it is always from your kindi level as I have provided the evidences.

All you can ever provide are your Kantian perspective strawmen.

You have run out of arguments to counter?

The final conclusion is:
Your Indirect Realism is chasing an illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722308#p722308

[Atla]

All you have done is blabbering without arguments and where there is some sort of argument it is always from your kindi level as I have provided the evidences.

All you can ever provide are your Kantian perspective strawmen.

You have run out of arguments to counter?

The final conclusion is:
Your Indirect Realism is chasing an illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722308#p722308

It's just a VA-Kantian claim that IR is chasing an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All you can ever provide are your Kantian perspective strawmen.

You have run out of arguments to counter?

The final conclusion is:
Your Indirect Realism is chasing an illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722308#p722308

It's just a VA-Kantian claim that IR is chasing an illusion.

Prove the ultimate object of IR is really real?

[Atla]

You have run out of arguments to counter?

The final conclusion is:
Your Indirect Realism is chasing an illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722308#p722308

It's just a VA-Kantian claim that IR is chasing an illusion.

Prove the ultimate object of IR is really real?

Prove that it isn't and reality is mind-related.

Are you a level 1 kindi philosopher who thinks proof in philosophy is possible, challenging a level 5 PhD level philosopher who has outgrown this phase ages ago? You can't prove Kant's system either genius.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's just a VA-Kantian claim that IR is chasing an illusion.

Prove the ultimate object of IR is really real?

Prove that it isn't and reality is mind-related.

Are you a level 1 kindi philosopher who thinks proof in philosophy is possible, challenging a level 5 PhD level philosopher who has outgrown this phase ages ago? You can't prove Kant's system either genius.

Cheap shot.
I had always qualify 'prove' in this sense as philosophical not mathematical, i.e. it meant demonstrate or justify with evidence and arguments from the philosophical perspective.

You are the one who is making the positive claim that the ultimate object of IR beyond empirical perception is really real. So the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Anyway, I will add my argument, why your claim is not tenable [done many times]:

• 1. Reality is all-there-is
  2. All-there-is comprised humans [minds].
  3. Therefore, humans [minds] are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].
  4. Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans [minds].

That IR is positing an ultimate object beyond empirical perceptions [human and mind related] is not tenable. [4]

Kant [with his Copernican Revolution] claimed whatever is real is confined to the empirical world and reinforced with critical thinking plus the scientific FSK [scientific antirealism] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Therefore whatever is confirmed by the scientific-antirealism-FSK is real.
So, the apple out there as confirmed by the science-biology-FSK [antirealism] is real as a scientific fact.