Atla: Indirect Realism - U Object Not 100% Unknowable

[Atla]

I didn't ask you to give me your dumb guess about what that implies, I asked you to show me an AI saying that the noumenon of IR is exactly the same as Kant's noumenon within TR, or that TR is the same as PR. And from a neutral perspective, not as a part of a Kantian critique.

Also, for the 3rd or 4th time:

What does the expression 'in its entirety' mean in the following text? Summary only. Here is the text: "Thus, monist indirect realism acknowledges a distinction between the mediated, representational knowledge we have (sense data) and the unmediated, intrinsic reality that underlies those representations, which remains inaccessible in its entirety."

In this context, "in its entirety" means the whole or complete nature of the "intrinsic reality." The phrase indicates that this underlying reality cannot be fully known or understood, as it remains beyond our access.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't ask you to give me your dumb guess about what that implies, I asked you to show me an AI saying that the noumenon of IR is exactly the same as Kant's noumenon within TR, or that TR is the same as PR. And from a neutral perspective, not as a part of a Kantian critique.

Again, it is not a guess, it is implied logically and rationally in the below that the ultimate object of IR is fundamentally, exactly the same as Kant noumenon within TR and PR.

ChatGpt-to-Atla Wrote:
Yes, monist indirect realism generally aligns with the propositions you have outlined:

Knowing effects does not equate to knowing the intrinsic nature of the ultimate object: Monist indirect realism posits that we have access only to the effects or representations caused by mind-independent reality. These representations are mediated by our sensory and cognitive faculties.
As such, while we may infer the existence of external objects, we do not directly know their intrinsic nature.

Sense data as representations shaped by human faculties: This is central to indirect realism, which holds that what we perceive are not the objects themselves but representations (often called sense data or percepts). These representations are shaped by the structure and function of our sensory organs and cognitive systems, suggesting that our perceptions are not faithful duplicates of external reality but are influenced by the characteristics of our human faculties.

Thus, monist indirect realism acknowledges a distinction between the mediated, representational knowledge we have (sense data) and the unmediated, intrinsic reality that underlies those representations, which remains inaccessible in its entirety.
This view underscores the epistemological limits of human cognition while maintaining the ontological existence of a mind-independent reality.

Also, for the 3rd or 4th time:

What does the expression 'in its entirety' mean in the following text? Summary only. Here is the text: "Thus, monist indirect realism acknowledges a distinction between the mediated, representational knowledge we have (sense data) and the unmediated, intrinsic reality that underlies those representations, which remains inaccessible in its entirety."

In this context, "in its entirety" means the whole or complete nature of the "intrinsic reality." The phrase indicates that this underlying reality cannot be fully known or understood, as it remains beyond our access.

I agree, meaning it is 100% unknowable.
That is why it cannot be "Not 100% Unknowable" as you had claimed.

[Atla]

I didn't ask you to give me your dumb guess about what that implies, I asked you to show me an AI saying that the noumenon of IR is exactly the same as Kant's noumenon within TR, or that TR is the same as PR. And from a neutral perspective, not as a part of a Kantian critique.

Again, it is not a guess, it is implied logically and rationally in the below that the ultimate object of IR is fundamentally, exactly the same as Kant noumenon within TR and PR.

ChatGpt-to-Atla Wrote:
Yes, monist indirect realism generally aligns with the propositions you have outlined:

Knowing effects does not equate to knowing the intrinsic nature of the ultimate object: Monist indirect realism posits that we have access only to the effects or representations caused by mind-independent reality. These representations are mediated by our sensory and cognitive faculties.
As such, while we may infer the existence of external objects, we do not directly know their intrinsic nature.

Sense data as representations shaped by human faculties: This is central to indirect realism, which holds that what we perceive are not the objects themselves but representations (often called sense data or percepts). These representations are shaped by the structure and function of our sensory organs and cognitive systems, suggesting that our perceptions are not faithful duplicates of external reality but are influenced by the characteristics of our human faculties.

Thus, monist indirect realism acknowledges a distinction between the mediated, representational knowledge we have (sense data) and the unmediated, intrinsic reality that underlies those representations, which remains inaccessible in its entirety.
This view underscores the epistemological limits of human cognition while maintaining the ontological existence of a mind-independent reality.

Also, for the 3rd or 4th time:

What does the expression 'in its entirety' mean in the following text? Summary only. Here is the text: "Thus, monist indirect realism acknowledges a distinction between the mediated, representational knowledge we have (sense data) and the unmediated, intrinsic reality that underlies those representations, which remains inaccessible in its entirety."

In this context, "in its entirety" means the whole or complete nature of the "intrinsic reality." The phrase indicates that this underlying reality cannot be fully known or understood, as it remains beyond our access.

I agree, meaning it is 100% unknowable.
That is why it cannot be "Not 100% Unknowable" as you had claimed.

Cannot be fully (100%) known or understood doesn't mean it's 100% unknowable. What's wrong with you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cannot be fully (100%) known or understood doesn't mean it's 100% unknowable. What's wrong with you?

The initial issue is this, you wrote:

Indirect Realism [IR] typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

"ultimate object" is not 100% unknowable,
means
"ultimate object" of IR is knowable in some %,

You are confused and conflating knowing the effect [epistemology] as partially knowing the unknowable [ontological metaphysical].

The fact is there is no ultimate object of IR at all, either knowable or unknowable.
It is chasing an illusion [noumenon] when it claim there is an ultimate object of IR beyond observations or perception.

ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607

[Atla]

Cannot be fully (100%) known or understood doesn't mean it's 100% unknowable. What's wrong with you?

The initial issue is this, you wrote:

Indirect Realism [IR] typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

"ultimate object" is not 100% unknowable,
means
"ultimate object" of IR is knowable in some %,

You are confused and conflating knowing the effect [epistemology] as partially knowing the unknowable [ontological metaphysical].

The fact is there is no ultimate object of IR at all, either knowable or unknowable.
It is chasing an illusion [noumenon] when it claim there is an ultimate object of IR beyond observations or perception.

ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607

That's not a fact, that's a Kantian critique. You lie that only Kant's take exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cannot be fully (100%) known or understood doesn't mean it's 100% unknowable. What's wrong with you?

The initial issue is this, you wrote:

Indirect Realism [IR] typically holds that the "ultimate object" isn't 100% unknowable.

"ultimate object" is not 100% unknowable,
means
"ultimate object" of IR is knowable in some %,

You are confused and conflating knowing the effect [epistemology] as partially knowing the unknowable [ontological metaphysical].

The fact is there is no ultimate object of IR at all, either knowable or unknowable.
It is chasing an illusion [noumenon] when it claim there is an ultimate object of IR beyond observations or perception.

ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607

That's not a fact, that's a Kantian critique. You lie that only Kant's take exists.

You are lost.

Here is the general take;

1. There is Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical AntiRealism [Kantian]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Indirect Realism is a subset of Philosophical Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#H2
3. Therefore Philosophical AntiRealism [Kantian] oppose Indirect Realism [as a subset of Philosophical Realism].

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#H2
The indirect realist agrees that the coffee cup exists independently of me.
However, through perception I do not directly engage with this cup; there is a perceptual intermediary that comes between it and me.
Ordinarily I see myself via an image in a mirror, or a football match via an image on the TV screen. The indirect realist claim is that all perception is mediated in something like this way. When looking at an everyday object it is not that object that we directly see, but rather, a perceptual intermediary.

For Kant to oppose Indirect Realism [a subset of Philosophical Realism], obviously Kant's take of Indirect Realism has to be the same as how Indirect Realism is defined as above.

Kant went on to "prove" [philosophically] philosophical realism including indirect realism is chasing an illusion when IR claim the noumenon is real but unknowable.

Btw, who herein his forum support your "unpopular" Indirect Realism position?

Indirect realism is generally considered not very popular in contemporary philosophy due to its potential to lead to skepticism, as it argues that we only directly perceive mental representations of the external world, not the world itself, raising questions about whether we can ever truly know the external world exists as we perceive it; most philosophers today tend to favor forms of direct realism or more nuanced representationalist views.
Key points about why indirect realism is not widely accepted:
.....

[Atla]

The initial issue is this, you wrote:



"ultimate object" is not 100% unknowable,
means
"ultimate object" of IR is knowable in some %,

You are confused and conflating knowing the effect [epistemology] as partially knowing the unknowable [ontological metaphysical].

The fact is there is no ultimate object of IR at all, either knowable or unknowable.
It is chasing an illusion [noumenon] when it claim there is an ultimate object of IR beyond observations or perception.

ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607

That's not a fact, that's a Kantian critique. You lie that only Kant's take exists.

You are lost.

Here is the general take;

1. There is Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical AntiRealism [Kantian]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Indirect Realism is a subset of Philosophical Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#H2
3. Therefore Philosophical AntiRealism [Kantian] oppose Indirect Realism [as a subset of Philosophical Realism].

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#H2
The indirect realist agrees that the coffee cup exists independently of me.
However, through perception I do not directly engage with this cup; there is a perceptual intermediary that comes between it and me.
Ordinarily I see myself via an image in a mirror, or a football match via an image on the TV screen. The indirect realist claim is that all perception is mediated in something like this way. When looking at an everyday object it is not that object that we directly see, but rather, a perceptual intermediary.

For Kant to oppose Indirect Realism [a subset of Philosophical Realism], obviously Kant's take of Indirect Realism has to be the same as how Indirect Realism is defined as above.

Kant went on to "prove" [philosophically] philosophical realism including indirect realism is chasing an illusion when IR claim the noumenon is real but unknowable.

Btw, who herein his forum support your "unpopular" Indirect Realism position?

Indirect realism is generally considered not very popular in contemporary philosophy due to its potential to lead to skepticism, as it argues that we only directly perceive mental representations of the external world, not the world itself, raising questions about whether we can ever truly know the external world exists as we perceive it; most philosophers today tend to favor forms of direct realism or more nuanced representationalist views.
Key points about why indirect realism is not widely accepted:
.....

Kant can't prove this claim. IR doesn't claim the noumenon is real but (100%) unknowable, you had years to read the definition. Philosophy isn't a popularity contest on a phil forum (and IR could still be more popular than TI). You are absolutely retarded.