Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:51 am I meant that we may "see" dreams more or less the same way we "see" the external world when we are awake, except in the former case input isn't coming from the eyes but from internal brain parts.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:49 am We always "directly" experience our own minds,...

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 2:06 am There you go again with your faulty interpretation of what I said.

People's "visualization ability" isn't infinitely malleable (I mean how can an "ability" be infinitely malleable?).

No, it's the Spinozan "oneness substance" from which our thoughts and dreams (and all of the phenomenal features of the universe) are created, that's infinitely malleable.

In other words, we're talking about a substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (take the near infinite details of the universe, for example).

Anyway, here's the question:

Do you or do you not believe that it would be possible for you to dream of a "kitten," and a "Christmas tree," and a "plane," and a "star," and a "bonbon," all in one (albeit strange) dream sequence, in which all five of those items appear before your "mind's eye" in accordance with their respective names?

And if so, tell me what you think those distinctly different items would be made of if not your own personal (infinitely malleable) mental imaging energy?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:51 am Did you not understand anything I wrote above? Why would I think that - what is, by all signs - the limited human dreaming and/or visualization ability, would actually be this supposed Spinozan infinitely malleable substance?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 3:51 am Any objective evidence or subjective 'evidence' for this?

• 1. The proposed "Universal Wavefunction," which allegedly binds the entire universe together into one seamless "whole" at the non-local level of reality, and is closely related to...
  
  2. Quantum Entanglement, which also allegedly binds the entire universe together, again, into one seamless "whole" at the non-local level of reality...
  
  ...Click on the following link and it will take you to the specific moment on a YouTube video where Brian Greene talks about that specific concept (#2) with Neil deGrasse Tyson -
  
  https://youtu.be/1L6hinhDXQE?t=2590

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 5:48 am@Atla, this should be the last nail ..

In relation to Moral Theory,

Atla insist Indirect Realism has nothing to do with Kant's transcendental realism and philosophical realism in general.

VA to ChatGpt wrote:
My interlocutor presented this point claimed to be from ChatGpt:
"Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists)."

I am not too sure of the above.
If I put philosophical realism and Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant) within
Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

then, if Kant critique Transcendental Realism, then he is critiquing Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism, which mean he is also critiquing indirect realism and philosophical on their shared Absolutely Mind-Independent basis.

Is the above view reasonable?
ChatGpt's Response [wR]:
ChatGpt wrote:
Your view is reasonable with some nuances. Kant's critique of transcendental realism, which he contrasts with his own transcendental idealism, indeed targets the notion of absolute mind-independence. However, the specifics of his critique and the broader implications for other forms of realism need careful consideration.

Kant's Critique of Transcendental Realism

Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):

Posits that phenomena (the objects of our experience) are identical to noumena (things-in-themselves) and exist independently of our perception and cognition.
Kant argues this position is flawed because it overlooks the role of the human mind in structuring experience.

Kant's Own Position
Transcendental Idealism:
Asserts that while we can know phenomena (the world as we experience it), we cannot know noumena (things-in-themselves) directly.
This implies a form of relative mind-independence, where the empirical world is structured by the human mind but still exists independently of individual perceptions.

Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism

Indirect Realism:
Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data or representations.
Holds that an external reality exists independently of our perception, but our access to it is mediated.

Philosophical Realism:
Broadly asserts that certain kinds of things (physical objects, abstract objects, etc.) exist independently of any mind perceiving them.
This form of realism is varied and not necessarily tied to the specifics of human perception or cognition.

Your Classification [agreed by ChatGpt earlier]
Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)

Kant's Critique in Context
Kant's Critique of Transcendental Realism: He critiques the idea that the phenomena we experience are identical to the noumena and exist independently of the structuring role of the human mind. This critique is primarily directed at the notion that we can have direct knowledge of things-in-themselves.

Implications for Indirect Realism and Philosophical Realism: While Kant's critique of transcendental realism targets the idea of direct access to mind-independent reality, it does not directly address all forms of indirect realism or philosophical realism. However, his emphasis on the mind's role in structuring experience can be seen as challenging any position that asserts a straightforward, unmediated access to reality.

Conclusion
Your view is reasonable, but it is important to note that Kant's critique is specifically aimed at the conflation of phenomena with noumena and the neglect of the mind's structuring role. While this critique has implications for all forms of absolute mind-independent realism, including indirect realism and philosophical realism, it does not directly address all aspects of these positions. Kant's primary concern is with how we can know and experience reality, emphasizing the limits of human cognition rather than outright rejecting the existence of an independent reality.
I am not clear with the last sentence, so I seek clarification:
ChatGpt:
."..emphasizing the limits of human cognition rather than outright rejecting the existence of an independent reality."

Kant stated the noumenon and thing-in-itself can only be taken regulatively and not constitutively as a real independent reality.
When transcendental realists, philosophical realists and indirect realists insist upon the noumenon and thing-in-itself as a real independent reality, then they are reifying an illusion.
Therefore when an indirect realist insist there is a real mind-independent reality constitutively beyond the empirical, he is reifying an illusion.

Is the above view reasonable?
ChatGpt's Response:
Yes, your view is aligned with Kant's philosophy.
Kant's transcendental idealism emphasizes that we can only know phenomena—the world as it appears to us, structured by our sensory and cognitive faculties. The noumenon, or thing-in-itself, is something we cannot know directly; it remains an idea that regulates our thinking rather than constituting a known reality.

Kant's Perspective
1. Noumenon and Thing-in-Itself:
Regulative Use: In Kant's philosophy, the concepts of noumenon and thing-in-itself serve as regulatory ideas. They help to organize our empirical knowledge and limit our claims about what can be known, but they do not correspond to an independent reality that we can know constitutively.
Constitutive Use: Kant argues against using these concepts constitutively, meaning we should not claim that they represent a reality that exists independently of our perception and cognition. Doing so would be to reify an illusion, as we have no direct access to or knowledge of things-in-themselves.

Implications for Different Forms of Realism
2. Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant):

Critique: Kant critiques transcendental realism for conflating phenomena with noumena and claiming direct knowledge of things-in-themselves. This position, according to Kant, wrongly assumes that the world as we perceive it (phenomena) is the same as the world in itself (noumena).

Philosophical Realism:

General Position: Asserts the existence of a mind-independent reality. While not all forms of philosophical realism make strong claims about the noumenon, they generally uphold the idea that some aspects of reality exist independently of human cognition.
Kant's Critique: If philosophical realists insist on the constitutive reality of noumena (things-in-themselves) beyond human experience, they fall into the same trap Kant critiques—reifying what is, according to Kant, an illusion.
Indirect Realism:

Position: Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly, through sensory representations, but that there is a real external world that exists independently of our perception.
Kant's Critique: If indirect realists insist that there is a constitutive, mind-independent reality (noumenon) beyond the empirical realm, they, too, are reifying an illusion. Kant would argue that while we can infer the existence of an external world, we cannot claim direct or constitutive knowledge of it.

Conclusion
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.
Kant would argue that such claims overstep the bounds of what can be known and mistakenly treat regulatory ideas as constitutive realities. Therefore, insisting on the constitutive existence of noumena or things-in-themselves as real independent realities is, according to Kant, a philosophical error.
Atla, the above is the last nail ..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 5:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:20 am
It has no benefits for you that transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
It is just like, genocide is a subset of human evil.

In this case, transcendental realism is a subset of philosophical realism which both are a subset of chasing illusions.


In what sense?

Kant's critique of transcendental realism which is fundamentally the same as indirect realism is that both are grounded and chasing after an illusion.
Why are you so proud that your belief is grounded on an illusion, i.e. unreality?

ChatGpt agrees with 'there are two main class of realism' i.e.
1. Absolute - transcendental realism, indirect realism.
2. Relative - empirical realism

The absolute basis i.e. transcendental realism, indirect realism are critiqued by Kant as grounded on an illusion.
Kant demonstrated his relative basis of empirical realism is realistic empirically.

So, Indirect Realism is Not Realistic.

Stop lying VA. Transcendental realism may be chasing illusions but philosophical realism generally isn't. And Kant has nothing on indirect realism, or you haven't shown so far that he does. Read again what you hang up on the wall.

This for example is on your wall:

God wrote:Philosophical Realism: If one conflates general philosophical realism with Kant's transcendental realism, they might mistakenly believe that Kant is criticizing the broader notion of realism (i.e., that an independent reality exists).

It is You who is the liar who is an ignorant gnat and makes arrogant claims on Kant without a thoroughly understanding of Kant's views.

See ChatGpt's response to the above:
Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 6:03 amWell, if you are going to insist on that conclusion, and unless I misunderstood your position on what we'd been discussing with VA about the difference between "indirect realism" and that of "direct realism,"...

(with "indirect realism" referring to how we experience the outer reality of the universe, whereas "direct realism" refers to how we directly experience our inner thoughts and dreams)

...then you seem to be contradicting this,...

The point is that, no, we do not see" our dreams more or less the same way we "see" the external world when we are awake.

Now with that being said, how about you take a crack at describing exactly what you think "it" is that is "seeing" your dreams?

Seriously, Atla? - again with this "visualization ability" business?

Stop focusing on the human visualization "ability," which has nothing to do with the infinitely malleable substance I've been talking about and, instead, answer the question I posed above about the "kitten" and the "Christmas tree."

However, there's certainly some anecdotal evidence for the "oneness" of reality...

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 6:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 5:48 am@Atla, this

ChatGpt wrote:Conclusion
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.
Kant would argue that such claims overstep the bounds of what can be known and mistakenly treat regulatory ideas as constitutive realities. Therefore, insisting on the constitutive existence of noumena or things-in-themselves as real independent realities is, according to Kant, a philosophical error.
Atla, the above is the last nail ..

Yeah still nothing on indirect realism. Your job has always been to actually prove Kant's claim of transcendental idealism, and refute indirect realism's claim that there is a portion of the external world (probably extending to the edge of the observable universe) that isn't 100% unknowable, just mostly unknowable.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:08 am How come you are so blind?

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

That is after I have highlighted all the relevant nuanced points from Kant's CPR for ChatGpt to take into account and arriving at the above conclusion.

In your earlier discussion with ChatGPT you only referred to a superficial perspective to ChatGpt, thus the limited response for ChatGpt.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:08 am How come you are so blind?

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

That is after I have highlighted all the relevant nuanced points from Kant's CPR for ChatGpt to take into account and arriving at the above conclusion.

In your earlier discussion with ChatGPT you only referred to a superficial perspective to ChatGpt, thus the limited response for ChatGpt.

And indirect realism uses sciense's meaning of "empirical" instead of some Kantian nonsense, where empirical extends to the observable universe. Indirect realism doesn't reify anythig beyond that.

try again idiot

ChatGpt wrote:Indirect Realism:
Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data or representations.
Holds that an external reality exists independently of our perception, but our access to it is mediated.
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism#:~
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:26 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:08 am How come you are so blind?

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

That is after I have highlighted all the relevant nuanced points from Kant's CPR for ChatGpt to take into account and arriving at the above conclusion.

In your earlier discussion with ChatGPT you only referred to a superficial perspective to ChatGpt, thus the limited response for ChatGpt.

And indirect realism uses sciense's meaning of "empirical" instead of some Kantian nonsense, where empirical extends to the observable universe. Indirect realism doesn't reify anythig beyond that.

try again idiot

Where did you get your above definition of indirect realism?
Show the reference?
You are in state of confusion.
You have to resolve your dilemma in this case.

Note ChatGpt already given you the typical definition of what is indirect realism.

ChatGpt wrote:Indirect Realism:
Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data or representations.
Holds that an external reality exists independently of our perception, but our access to it is mediated.
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism#:~
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:26 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:15 am
And indirect realism uses sciense's meaning of "empirical" instead of some Kantian nonsense, where empirical extends to the observable universe. Indirect realism doesn't reify anythig beyond that.

try again idiot

Where did you get your above definition of indirect realism?
Show the reference?
You are in state of confusion.
You have to resolve your dilemma in this case.

Note ChatGpt already given you the typical definition of what is indirect realism.

ChatGpt wrote:Indirect Realism:
Claims that we perceive the external world indirectly through sensory data or representations.
Holds that an external reality exists independently of our perception, but our access to it is mediated.
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism#:~
Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.

You're the one confused, gnat. The external world = the observable universe. Unless we want to make shit up.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:26 am
Where did you get your above definition of indirect realism?
Show the reference?
You are in state of confusion.
You have to resolve your dilemma in this case.

Note ChatGpt already given you the typical definition of what is indirect realism.



Also:

You're the one confused, gnat. The external world = the observable universe. Unless we want to make shit up.

You are getting more confused,
blind again??

it is "the external world as it really is"
note the critical "as-it-really-is", i.e. beyond the empirical observations.
that is literally the thing-in-itself existing "as-it-really-is" independent of empirical observations.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:32 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:28 am
You're the one confused, gnat. The external world = the observable universe. Unless we want to make shit up.

You are getting more confused,
blind again??

it is "the external world as it really is"
note the critical "as-it-really-is", i.e. beyond the empirical observations.
that is literally the thing-in-itself existing "as-it-really-is" independent of empirical observations.

Yes, in the Kantian transcendental idealism vs transcendental realism philosophy, which take you first have to prove.

Seriously are you mentally retarded?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:32 am
You are getting more confused,
blind again??

it is "the external world as it really is"
note the critical "as-it-really-is", i.e. beyond the empirical observations.
that is literally the thing-in-itself existing "as-it-really-is" independent of empirical observations.

Yes, in the Kantian transcendental idealism vs transcendental realism philosophy, which take you first have to prove.

Seriously are you mentally retarded?

You are trying to mess things up:

The whole argument is this:

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

This is why I raised this thread to show the whole argument:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

Provide your counter why the above is wrong?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:42 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:34 am
Yes, in the Kantian transcendental idealism vs transcendental realism philosophy, which take you first have to prove.

Seriously are you mentally retarded?

You are trying to mess things up:

The whole argument is this:

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

This is why I raised this thread to show the whole argument:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

Provide your counter why the above is wrong?

IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S CORRECT. BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT. BECAUSE INDIRECT REALISM DISAGREES WITH THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:42 am
You are trying to mess things up:

The whole argument is this:

Repeat from Above:
ChatGpt:"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."

This is why I raised this thread to show the whole argument:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?p=722323&sid=9a3182927aa2 ... b8#p722323

Provide your counter why the above is wrong?

IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S CORRECT. BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT. BECAUSE INDIRECT REALISM DISAGREES WITH THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE.

Where is your counter argument and supporting evidence re what is indirect realism and it is not chasing an illusion?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:53 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:47 am
IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S CORRECT. BUT IT'S IRRELEVANT. BECAUSE INDIRECT REALISM DISAGREES WITH THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE.

Where is your counter argument and supporting evidence re what is indirect realism and it is not chasing an illusion?

In earlier comments which you have yet to counter.