Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:04 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:36 am

On review, I noted I missed out [no notification] on one of your above counter from ChatGpt and here is my-ChatGpt response:









So, Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
You have not show me which posters here agree with your monist indirect realism?

There is no one agreeing with Kant's TI here, but TI is basically generally science without any speculation of what is beyond the empirically possible.

Here VA manipulated the AI to work with his strawman lie: "introduces speculative elements when asserting the reality of an external, absolutely mind-independent noumenon. This speculative leap—unsupported by empirical evidence"

In a discussion or debate, you cannot ignore the alternative or counter views.
The proper approach is to present "what ChatGpt presented to me" as above, to your ChatGpt and ask why there is an alternative view and whether it is reasonable or not, e.g.

"In response to your views, my interlocutor countered with a different views below. It is a reasonable view?"

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:04 am In a discussion or debate, you cannot ignore the alternative or counter views.
The proper approach is to present "what ChatGpt presented to me" as above, to your ChatGpt and ask why there is an alternative view and whether it is reasonable or not, e.g.

That's not a discussion or a debate. That's two humans acting as servants for non-conscious machines.
You might as well throw War and Peace at Atla and then he throws Crime and Punishment at you, while pretending you are authors of literature.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 2:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:04 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:42 am Here VA manipulated the AI to work with his strawman lie: "introduces speculative elements when asserting the reality of an external, absolutely mind-independent noumenon. This speculative leap—unsupported by empirical evidence"

In a discussion or debate, you cannot ignore the alternative or counter views.
The proper approach is to present "what ChatGpt presented to me" as above, to your ChatGpt and ask why there is an alternative view and whether it is reasonable or not, e.g.

"In response to your views, my interlocutor countered with a different views below. It is a reasonable view?"

Then why is 100% of your forum activity based on ignoring alternative (non-Kantian) views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 2:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:04 am
In a discussion or debate, you cannot ignore the alternative or counter views.
The proper approach is to present "what ChatGpt presented to me" as above, to your ChatGpt and ask why there is an alternative view and whether it is reasonable or not, e.g.

"In response to your views, my interlocutor countered with a different views below. It is a reasonable view?"

Then why is 100% of your forum activity based on ignoring alternative (non-Kantian) views?

That is very ignorant.
It is expected that within philosophy, it is very common for one to defend one's view until it it rationally convinced to be unacceptable or untenable.
This is why I rejected my previous beliefs in philosophical realism and theism for Kantianism [not 100%] and others.

Other than real nonsense [not yours in this IR case], when and where have I ignored alternative views.
I have always taken yours, your AI's views and other references, give my comments on them and supplement with AI's comments on it.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 2:21 pm
Then why is 100% of your forum activity based on ignoring alternative (non-Kantian) views?

That is very ignorant.
It is expected that within philosophy, it is very common for one to defend one's view until it it rationally convinced to be unacceptable or untenable.
This is why I rejected my previous beliefs in philosophical realism and theism for Kantianism [not 100%] and others.

Other than real nonsense [not yours in this IR case], when and where have I ignored alternative views.
I have always taken yours, your AI's views and other references, give my comments on them and supplement with AI's comments on it.

You are strawmanning IR 100% of the time therefore ignoring it. When you go to philosophy forum, you have to at least first accept what an alternative view claims, before rejecting it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:15 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:30 am
That is very ignorant.
It is expected that within philosophy, it is very common for one to defend one's view until it it rationally convinced to be unacceptable or untenable.
This is why I rejected my previous beliefs in philosophical realism and theism for Kantianism [not 100%] and others.

Other than real nonsense [not yours in this IR case], when and where have I ignored alternative views.
I have always taken yours, your AI's views and other references, give my comments on them and supplement with AI's comments on it.

You are strawmanning IR 100% of the time therefore ignoring it. When you go to philosophy forum, you have to at least first accept what an alternative view claims, before rejecting it.

Nope, I don't have to accept it, rather I need to understand [not necessary agree with] it before I counter it.

I am very interested, show me with references where have I misunderstood IR?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:20 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:04 am In a discussion or debate, you cannot ignore the alternative or counter views.
The proper approach is to present "what ChatGpt presented to me" as above, to your ChatGpt and ask why there is an alternative view and whether it is reasonable or not, e.g.

That's not a discussion or a debate. That's two humans acting as servants for non-conscious machines.
You might as well throw War and Peace at Atla and then he throws Crime and Punishment at you, while pretending you are authors of literature.

Why not?
Regardless, the point is whether any party gain incremental knowledge relative to one's current knowledge base. AI is a catalyst to the above process.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 7:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 2:20 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:30 am That's not a discussion or a debate. That's two humans acting as servants for non-conscious machines.
You might as well throw War and Peace at Atla and then he throws Crime and Punishment at you, while pretending you are authors of literature.

Why not?
Regardless, the point is whether any party gain incremental knowledge relative to one's current knowledge base. AI is a catalyst to the above process.

Using AIs COULD be a catalyst, but copy pasting discussions between AIs is an extremely poor option. It is much worse than working out your own ideas. And given that your use copy pasting more and more, you have regressed from your earlier patterns where you had to wrestle with forming your own arguments and responses.

ChatGpt Wrote
Conclusion [see OP]
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 8:52 am @Atla, this should be the last and final nail for your Indirect Realism as chasing an illusion:

ChatGpt: Conclusion [see OP]
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

If you insist, "prove" your claim 'the ultimate object of Indirect Realism is really real.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 8:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 8:52 am @Atla, this should be the last and final nail for your Indirect Realism as chasing an illusion:

ChatGpt: Conclusion [see OP]
Your view that when indirect realists insist on a real, mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, they are reifying an illusion, is reasonable from a Kantian perspective.

If you insist, "prove" your claim 'the ultimate object of Indirect Realism is really real.

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