ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

[Iwannaplato]

Hm could exposure to VA overload my hippocampus and cause me brain damage?

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Suggest you ditch Kant and switch to a serious philosophy like indirect realism. Then you'll know how to make sense of relations and dependencies, and you'll be able to actually mean what you say.

I have done a VERY serious into what is Indirect Realism and noted it is full of holes:

See:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607&sid=799bb9acc19c8 ... bab8bfef24

https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#SH2b
Problems for Indirect Realism
-Dualism
-Adverbialism
-The Veil of Perception

Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception.
All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data.
What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?
In drawing the focus of our perception away from the world and onto inner items, we are threatened by wholesale skepticism.
Since we can only directly perceive our sense data, all our beliefs about the external world beyond may be false.
There may not actually be any coffee cups or olive oil tins in the world, merely sense data in my mind.

I recalled, ChatGpt had also given you a list of counters against Indirect Realism.

Why don't you raised a thread to argue for Indirect Realism and counters all the objections against indirect realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. List of Objections to Indirect Realism from ChatGpt [wR];

ChatGpt Wrote:
Indirect Realism (or Representative Realism) is the view that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through mental representations or sense data that are caused by and represent the external world. Here are several objections to Indirect Realism:

Objections to Indirect Realism:

The Problem of the External World (Skepticism):
Objection: If we only ever perceive representations or sense data, how can we know for certain that an external world exists? Indirect Realism leads to skepticism about whether the external world resembles or even exists independently of our perceptions. There’s no direct access to the external world to verify this.
Example: Descartes' "evil demon" hypothesis illustrates how we could be systematically deceived, with no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions against an actual world.

The Veil of Perception:
Objection: Indirect Realism posits a "veil" between our minds and reality, suggesting we can never know the world as it really is. We are trapped behind this veil of perceptions or sense data, which creates a barrier to directly knowing the external world.
Critique: This undermines the claim that our perceptions can provide knowledge about reality, leading to epistemological isolation.

Representation-Resemblance Problem:
Objection: How can non-physical, mental representations resemble or represent physical objects? The sense data or mental images we perceive are different in nature from the material objects they are supposed to represent, making it unclear how they can accurately represent them.
Example: A visual image of a tree in the mind is not the same as a physical tree—how can one truly represent the other?

The Causal Chain Problem:
Objection: If our perception is based on a causal chain of events (light reflecting off objects, signals processed by the brain, etc.), it raises the issue of how distortions or interruptions in the chain (e.g., illusions, hallucinations) impact the reliability of our perceptions. Indirect Realism doesn't explain how we can distinguish between accurate and inaccurate perceptions.
Critique: This makes it difficult to trust our perceptions as reliable indicators of the external world.

Incoherence with Scientific Realism:
Objection: Scientific realism assumes that we can gain knowledge of the external world, and science depends on reliable observation of reality. However, if we never directly perceive the external world, how can science claim to describe it? Indirect Realism thus seems in tension with scientific practices.
Critique: Science relies on observation and experiment, but if those observations are mediated by representations that may not accurately depict reality, the foundation of science is called into question.

Problem of Qualia:
Objection: Indirect Realism has difficulty accounting for subjective experiences (qualia) and how they relate to the external world. Why, for instance, should the experience of color in the mind correspond to any particular feature of the external world?
Example: The experience of "red" may not correspond to any actual property in the external world, and there's no obvious reason why it should.

Infinite Regress of Perception:
Objection: If perception of the external world is always mediated by mental representations, it raises the problem of an infinite regress: if we perceive the world through sense data, do we need additional representations to perceive those sense data? If so, it could lead to an infinite chain of representations without ever reaching the external world.

Strongest Objection to Indirect Realism:
The Problem of the External World (Skepticism) is often considered the strongest objection. Indirect Realism opens the door to radical skepticism because if we can only perceive sense data or representations, we lose any direct access to the external world. This leads to a significant epistemological challenge: How can we ever confirm the existence or nature of the external world if our perceptions are always indirect and possibly disconnected from reality? Indirect Realism implies that we may never have any justified reason to believe that the world as we perceive it corresponds to the world as it actually is—or even that such a world exists.

This objection strikes at the core of the theory because it suggests that Indirect Realism could lead to epistemological isolation, where we are fundamentally disconnected from knowledge about the external world, leaving us in a state of permanent doubt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where Does Indirect Realism Stands as Present?

ChatGpt Wrote:
Indirect Realism is a significant but not dominant theory of perception relative to others, especially in contemporary philosophy. Here's an overview of how it stands compared to other theories of perception:

Theories of Perception:

Direct Realism (Naïve Realism):
Core Idea: We perceive the world directly, without any intermediaries like sense data or mental representations.
Popularity: Direct Realism has enjoyed a resurgence in contemporary philosophy, particularly in response to the challenges posed by Indirect Realism and skepticism. Many philosophers today find Direct Realism attractive because it avoids the epistemological problems of skepticism by asserting direct access to the external world.

Indirect Realism (Representative Realism):
Core Idea: We do not perceive the external world directly; rather, we perceive mental representations (sense data) caused by and representing the external world.
Popularity: Indirect Realism has been influential, especially in the modern era (e.g., Locke, Descartes, Kant), and is still taken seriously. However, in recent decades, it has faced substantial criticism, particularly due to its implication of skepticism and the "veil of perception" problem. Its prominence has waned in favor of alternative theories that promise more direct access to the external world.

Idealism:
Core Idea: Reality is fundamentally mental, and physical objects only exist as ideas in minds. What we perceive is not an external, independent world but our own mental constructions.
Popularity: Idealism was highly influential in the 18th and 19th centuries (e.g., Berkeley, Hegel) but is much less popular today. It has a small but active group of defenders in contemporary philosophy, though most scholars tend toward realism of some sort.

Phenomenalism:
Core Idea: Physical objects are reducible to or constituted by collections of sensory experiences or potential sensory experiences.
Popularity: Phenomenalism has largely fallen out of favor since the early 20th century, as it faced significant challenges, such as the problem of how potential experiences (which have not occurred) can constitute reality.

Disjunctivism:
Core Idea: In cases of veridical perception (when we perceive the world accurately), we directly perceive the external world, while in cases of illusion or hallucination, we experience something completely different. The theory distinguishes between these two types of perception rather than claiming we always perceive sense data.
Popularity: Disjunctivism is popular in contemporary philosophy, especially in the context of addressing skepticism. It preserves Direct Realism for veridical perception while accounting for non-veridical cases without invoking representations or sense data.

Sense-Data Theory:
Core Idea: Like Indirect Realism, this theory holds that we perceive sense data (mental representations), but unlike Indirect Realism, it is often associated with the view that sense data are independent entities (not simply mental representations).
Popularity: Sense-data theory was influential in early analytic philosophy (e.g., Russell, Moore) but has since declined due to challenges like the argument from hallucination and difficulties in explaining how sense data relate to the external world.

Phenomenology:
Core Idea: Perception is an embodied, lived experience, where the subject perceives the world through intentionality. It focuses on the structure of conscious experience and how objects appear to us, rather than positing a mental representation or sense data.
Popularity: Phenomenology, especially as developed by Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, has influenced various strands of contemporary philosophy and cognitive science. It has grown in popularity, particularly as a response to the abstract nature of more traditional theories of perception.

Indirect Realism in Context:
Historical Influence: Indirect Realism was particularly influential during the early modern period (e.g., Locke, Descartes) and continues to have defenders. It played a crucial role in the development of modern epistemology and metaphysics, especially concerning the mind-world relationship.

Contemporary Status: Despite its historical influence, Indirect Realism is not as popular in contemporary philosophy as Direct Realism or Disjunctivism. This is largely due to the skepticism it engenders, as well as concerns about the "veil of perception" and the difficulty in verifying any correspondence between sense data and external objects.

Popularity in Specific Fields: In certain areas of philosophy, such as epistemology and philosophy of mind, Indirect Realism still has relevance, especially among philosophers who address the problem of perception with a focus on mental representation and how we process sensory information.

Overall:
Indirect Realism is respected and still considered by some, but it is not as widely held or dominant as other theories of perception like Direct Realism or Disjunctivism in contemporary discussions. Philosophers today often seek to avoid the skepticism and epistemic isolation associated with Indirect Realism by advocating for theories that posit more direct contact with the external world.

[Iwannaplato]

Overall:
Indirect Realism is respected and still considered by some, but it is not as widely held or dominant as other theories of perception like Direct Realism or Disjunctivism in contemporary discussions. Philosophers today often seek to avoid the skepticism and epistemic isolation associated with Indirect Realism by advocating for theories that posit more direct contact with the external world.

So, in the above, an AI, not VA, has asserted that theories even further from metphysical anti-realism than Indirect Realism are currently more popular amongst philosophers: Direct Realism and Disjunctivism, the latter usually a kind of direct realism that has a specific approach to dealing with hallucinations/illusions and skepticism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Overall:
Indirect Realism is respected and still considered by some, but it is not as widely held or dominant as other theories of perception like Direct Realism or Disjunctivism in contemporary discussions. Philosophers today often seek to avoid the skepticism and epistemic isolation associated with Indirect Realism by advocating for theories that posit more direct contact with the external world.

So, in the above, an AI, not VA, has asserted that theories even further from metphysical anti-realism than Indirect Realism are currently more popular amongst philosophers: Direct Realism and Disjunctivism, the latter usually a kind of direct realism that has a specific approach to dealing with hallucinations/illusions and skepticism.

Popularity is not a measure of credibility and objectivity.

In this case, indirect realism is less popular than direct realism and disjunctivism given the loads of objections [especially veil of perception] against indirect realism as compared to the others.

As for antirealism like idealism, phenomenalism and others we need to analyze its principles and make comparison with philosophical realism as a whole.
In general, the best of antirealism is more credible and objective than philosophical realism where indirect realism is the worst of its kind.

[Iwannaplato]

Overall:
Indirect Realism is respected and still considered by some, but it is not as widely held or dominant as other theories of perception like Direct Realism or Disjunctivism in contemporary discussions. Philosophers today often seek to avoid the skepticism and epistemic isolation associated with Indirect Realism by advocating for theories that posit more direct contact with the external world.

Me: ]So, in the above, an AI, not VA, has asserted that theories even further from metphysical anti-realism than Indirect Realism are currently more popular amongst philosophers: Direct Realism and Disjunctivism, the latter usually a kind of direct realism that has a specific approach to dealing with hallucinations/illusions and skepticism.

Popularity is not a measure of credibility and objectivity.

Which I'd be grateful to find out, except I knew that already. I could easily have responded to your AI generated post by telling you or the AI that implicit ad populum arguments are not valid. In fact, that's what I was doing. I was pointing out the irony of what you were doing.

In this case, indirect realism is less popular than direct realism and disjunctivism given the loads of objections [especially veil of perception] against indirect realism as compared to the others.

So? There are loads of objections to direct realism too.

As for antirealism like idealism, phenomenalism and others we need to analyze its principles and make comparison with philosophical realism as a whole.

Sure.

But come on. You know why you posted that AI generated post. Or are we going to pretend that your post, AI generated, was just giving some information.

The point of that post, in this thread, was to show that Indirect Realism is less popular than other positions now. The point was, say, to attack Atla's defense of Indirect Realism, precisely because it is not popular right now.

If you want me to pretend there was some other context for that post, well, I probably want.

So, my response pointed out that the popular current positions by the information given by the AI text in that post are, just as I said, even further from metaphysical antirealism because they are forms of direct realism, obviously in the case of direct realism.

That, obviously doesn't make them correct. It does make the post IN CONTEXT fairly silly, since an antirealist is trying to demean Indirect Realism for not being so popular, when the popular current positions are even futher from his position.

And of course that doesn't make his position wrong. If after all this time you think I'd be someone who believes in ad populum arguments, well, your not a great reader of texts or people. My point was precisely the irony of what was in fact an implicit ad populum critique of Indirect Realism. For example, what's the topic of the thread.

Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

What was the post I responded to about?

Indirect Realism is not so popular now compared to other positions.

Did that post support the thesis of the thread title?

No.

What did it do?

It's an attempt to undermine the standing of Indirect Realism by saying it isn't so popular anymore. It had it's time.

Does that show that Indirect Realism is false?

No.

Does it show that it is chasing an illusion?

No.

It's an implicit ad populum argument. Hey Atla, your position isn't so popular anymore.

So, when I point out that direct realisms, futher from your position, are the ones YOUR CHOSE AI GENERATED TEXT is saying are not so popular,
you respond, without irony, that it's not a popularity context.

Exactly, so the whole point of posting what you did, the implicit ad populum argument you were making
was pointless.

You wanna pretend that wasn't the point of that post, find, you pretend that.
In general, the best of antirealism is more credible and objective than philosophical realism where indirect realism is the worst of its kind.

But let's say that you weren't making an implicit ad populum attack on indirect realism in that post. The post would be utterly off topic. It contains no new information on the topic from the title. It raises no direct objections to Indirect Realism on justifed grounds. The only thing it does, really, is refer to popularity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Overall:
Indirect Realism is respected and still considered by some, but it is not as widely held or dominant as other theories of perception like Direct Realism or Disjunctivism in contemporary discussions. Philosophers today often seek to avoid the skepticism and epistemic isolation associated with Indirect Realism by advocating for theories that posit more direct contact with the external world.

Me: ]So, in the above, an AI, not VA, has asserted that theories even further from metphysical anti-realism than Indirect Realism are currently more popular amongst philosophers: Direct Realism and Disjunctivism, the latter usually a kind of direct realism that has a specific approach to dealing with hallucinations/illusions and skepticism.

Popularity is not a measure of credibility and objectivity.

Which I'd be grateful to find out, except I knew that already. I could easily have responded to your AI generated post by telling you or the AI that implicit ad populum arguments are not valid. In fact, that's what I was doing. I was pointing out the irony of what you were doing.

In this case, indirect realism is less popular than direct realism and disjunctivism given the loads of objections [especially veil of perception] against indirect realism as compared to the others.

So? There are loads of objections to direct realism too.

As for antirealism like idealism, phenomenalism and others we need to analyze its principles and make comparison with philosophical realism as a whole.

Sure.

But come on. You know why you posted that AI generated post. Or are we going to pretend that your post, AI generated, was just giving some information.

The point of that post, in this thread, was to show that Indirect Realism is less popular than other positions now. The point was, say, to attack Atla's defense of Indirect Realism, precisely because it is not popular right now.

If you want me to pretend there was some other context for that post, well, I probably want.

So, my response pointed out that the popular current positions by the information given by the AI text in that post are, just as I said, even further from metaphysical antirealism because they are forms of direct realism, obviously in the case of direct realism.

That, obviously doesn't make them correct. It does make the post IN CONTEXT fairly silly, since an antirealist is trying to demean Indirect Realism for not being so popular, when the popular current positions are even futher from his position.

And of course that doesn't make his position wrong. If after all this time you think I'd be someone who believes in ad populum arguments, well, your not a great reader of texts or people. My point was precisely the irony of what was in fact an implicit ad populum critique of Indirect Realism. For example, what's the topic of the thread.

Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion

What was the post I responded to about?

Indirect Realism is not so popular now compared to other positions.

Did that post support the thesis of the thread title?

No.

What did it do?

It's an attempt to undermine the standing of Indirect Realism by saying it isn't so popular anymore. It had it's time.

Does that show that Indirect Realism is false?

No.

Does it show that it is chasing an illusion?

No.

It's an implicit ad populum argument. Hey Atla, your position isn't so popular anymore.

So, when I point out that direct realisms, futher from your position, are the ones YOUR CHOSE AI GENERATED TEXT is saying are not so popular,
you respond, without irony, that it's not a popularity context.

Exactly, so the whole point of posting what you did, the implicit ad populum argument you were making
was pointless.

You wanna pretend that wasn't the point of that post, find, you pretend that.
In general, the best of antirealism is more credible and objective than philosophical realism where indirect realism is the worst of its kind.

But let's say that you weren't making an implicit ad populum attack on indirect realism in that post. The post would be utterly off topic. It contains no new information on the topic from the title. It raises no direct objections to Indirect Realism on justifed grounds. The only thing it does, really, is refer to popularity.

My points:

I have already demonstrated in the OP, Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion.

Where something is popular in general, there is something to it.
In the case of indirect realism it was once popular [re Locke, Russell, and others then].
That it has lost popularity together with the loads of objections, especially the veil of perception lend support to my main point, Indirect Realism is Chasing an Illusion [as justified in the OP].

Relative to indirect realism, it is noted direct realism has a shorter list of objections.

For example this content from IEP:
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/
1. Direct Realism

2. Indirect Realism
2a The Argument from Illusion
2b Problems for Indirect Realism
---Dualism
---Adverbialism
---The Veil of Perception

There is no detail listing of problems for direct realism in the above as compared to indirect realism.
In addition, ChatGpt listed 7 objections.

The above together with my OP's Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion is indicative of the lower credibility and objectivity of indirect realism in contrast to direct realism.

Instead of being whiny, why don't you raise a thread to support Atla on why Indirect Realism is very credible and objective.

[Iwannaplato]

My points:

I have already demonstrated in the OP, Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion.

You made an argument, yes.

Where something is popular in general, there is something to it.

And so right here you go back to it being an argumentum ad populum.
Exactly, I was correct that that posted I responded to was precisely that.
When I point out the problem with that for an antirealist, you lecture me as if I had started the ad populum argument in the thread. But actually only you made an ad populum argument. I simply pointed out the negative consequences for antirealism of your kind of AI generated ad populum argument.
And now you go back the AP argument.

In the case of indirect realism it was once popular [re Locke, Russell, and others then].
That it has lost popularity together with the loads of objections, especially the veil of perception lend support to my main point, Indirect Realism is Chasing an Illusion [as justified in the OP].

None of which are justified in the post I responded to AND the irony that you keep managing not to notice is that the reason those criticisms were aimed at IR was in preference to Direct Realism, which as I said is further from antirealism.

Relative to indirect realism, it is noted direct realism has a shorter list of objections.

Nah, that's no true and obviously you don't think it's a better or correct position. In fact you lump direct realists with Indirect Realists, asserting on non-scientific grounds that they are more violent amongst other ad homs and insults.

I responsed to that post in the context of your positions in general. And above you confirm precisely my reaction, that the post was a popularity-based attack on IR, which of course, would apply only more so to metaphysical antirealism. Which obviously does not mean that antirealism is wrong, it's just silly that you took this line of attack. If you are going to argue X is wrong because of Y and your own positions are at least or even more vulnerable to the same criticism, obviously someone is going to point this out. Either it's a poor argument - which I think it was - or, if it is a good argument, and you think it does, then it would be hypocrisy not to acknowledge the problem it creates for your own positions. It's a cake and eat it too situation.

For example this content from IEP:
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/
1. Direct Realism

2. Indirect Realism
2a The Argument from Illusion
2b Problems for Indirect Realism
---Dualism
---Adverbialism
---The Veil of Perception

There is no detail listing of problems for direct realism in the above as compared to indirect realism.
In addition, ChatGpt listed 7 objections.

The above together with my OP's Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion is indicative of the lower credibility and objectivity of indirect realism in contrast to direct realism.

Yeah, Kant doesn't have a mass of objections to direct realism. You think metaphysical antirealists don't have a bunch of objections to direct realism I mean, seriously. This is gaslighting.

Instead of being whiny,

You just acknowledged your intellectual dishonesty in this post: argumentum ad populum, acknowledged. Then you try some weird gaslighting where the number of objections to an -ism is the way we measure the problems of it.

Which ends up as if Direct Realism is therefore a better position, when you have spent ages post hundreds of objections to Direct Realism and all the realisms.

The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

We've gone from argumentum ad populum to 'the number of objections' criterion, made by someone who has started a thread every single time he finds anything online that is a criticism of direct realism.

You're willing to pretend, in front of someone who obviously knows about those threads, that you don't have a myriad of objections to direct realism yourself, all of which you clearly respect, just to get out of the contradiction in this thread. Just yet another example of you robbing Peter to pay Paul.

why don't you raise a thread to support Atla on why Indirect Realism is very credible and objective.

Notice that that is the only way you can conceive of this. There are teams. Team members should fight for their -ism. It's beyond you to consider that arguments are valid regardless of team adherence and criticism can be useful when aimed at arguments for positions one agrees with more than others.

Framing this as whining is just you insulting instead of responding to the post.

I was right, it was an argumentum ad populum and this is being hypocritically applied to such a degree that you are now defending Direct Realism after spending years not just criticizing it from a myriad of angles, but insulting not just direct realists here, but everyone who is a direct realist in the world. Not just PH, or other realists here, but anyone who is a realist you insult in your threads.

But in this thread in order to justify your argumentum ad populum you end up creating a new type of justification - the number of objections to a position - when your own posting has produced a huge number of objections to direct realism.

It's not whining to point out the obvious.

[Atla]

Mmm VA so scared of indirect realism that he's making a pact with his arch-nemesis, direct realism? Anyway, two can play the popularity game

Which philosophical view is most popular among scientists: transcendental idealism or indirect realism? Summary only.

Indirect realism is generally more popular among scientists compared to transcendental idealism. Indirect realism, which posits that we perceive the world through representations constructed by our senses, aligns more closely with scientific theories of perception and cognition. Transcendental idealism, a view associated with Immanuel Kant, is less prevalent because it introduces metaphysical considerations about the nature of reality that are less central to empirical science.

Which philosophical view is most popular among philosophers: transcendental idealism or indirect realism? Summary only.

Indirect realism is generally more popular among contemporary philosophers compared to transcendental idealism. Indirect realism, which suggests that we perceive the external world through mental representations, aligns closely with current theories in philosophy of mind and perception. In contrast, transcendental idealism, rooted in Kantian philosophy, is less frequently endorsed today due to its complex metaphysical commitments and less direct applicability to empirical science.

[Iwannaplato]

Mmm VA so scared of indirect realism that he's making a pact with his arch-nemesis, direct realism? Anyway, two can play the popularity game

I found this very odd. He posts what was essentially argumentum ad populum. I see, so I point out that Direct Realism and Disjuntivism are actually further from his point of view and he tells me that being more popular doesn't make something more credible. LOL. When I point out that I knew this and was pointing this out, he denies he intended his post as argumentum ad populum. Then two posts later he openly argues that if something is more popular this is based on something.

Then he invents a new way to evaluation the credibility of something: by the number of objections. And he seems to know the number of objections to Indirect Realism LOL.

So, I point out that he's been post objections, and a very large number of types of objections, to Direct Realism.

We don't need to count them to know that he respects way more objections to Direct Realism than the number he hallucinated for the number of objections to Indirect Realism.

I think a number of people are better scholars and more aware of VA's arguments than he is. He's all tactics. No memory, no overview. Can I beat this person, in this thread, with this tool? Maybe, so he uses it, not for a moment considering that the tool is much more damaging to his own core positions.

When this is pointed out he doubles down. He can't manage to admit that his choice was problematic and he doesn't really believe at least something he has asserted.

[Atla]

Mmm VA so scared of indirect realism that he's making a pact with his arch-nemesis, direct realism? Anyway, two can play the popularity game

I found this very odd. He posts what was essentially argumentum ad populum. I see, so I point out that Direct Realism and Disjuntivism are actually further from his point of view and he tells me that being more popular doesn't make something more credible. LOL. When I point out that I knew this and was pointing this out, he denies he intended his post as argumentum ad populum. Then two posts later he openly argues that if something is more popular this is based on something.

Then he invents a new way to evaluation the credibility of something: by the number of objections. And he seems to know the number of objections to Indirect Realism LOL.

So, I point out that he's been post objections, and a very large number of types of objections, to Direct Realism.

We don't need to count them to know that he respects way more objections to Direct Realism than the number he hallucinated for the number of objections to Indirect Realism.

I think a number of people are better scholars and more aware of VA's arguments than he is. He's all tactics. No memory, no overview. Can I beat this person, in this thread, with this tool? Maybe, so he uses it, not for a moment considering that the tool is much more damaging to his own core positions.

When this is pointed out he doubles down. He can't manage to admit that his choice was problematic and he doesn't really believe at least something he has asserted.

Maybe he's panicking. He's slowly realizing that he really has no ability to create a coherent philosophy of anything, so now he no longer even tries. He's just throwing whatever he can at the opposition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My points:

I have already demonstrated in the OP, Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion.

You made an argument, yes.

Where something is popular in general, there is something to it.

And so right here you go back to it being an argumentum ad populum.
Exactly, I was correct that that posted I responded to was precisely that.
When I point out the problem with that for an antirealist, you lecture me as if I had started the ad populum argument in the thread. But actually only you made an ad populum argument. I simply pointed out the negative consequences for antirealism of your kind of AI generated ad populum argument.
And now you go back the AP argument.

Strawman as usual.

When I stated direct realism is more popular than Indirect Realism and there is something to it, one still need to justify why if it is to be used as a point for argument.
I listed the long list of objections and AI stated direct realism is more popular.
In this case, it would be better off for Atla to opt for direct realism if he is still clinging to philosophical realism.

While I agree direct realism is more popular than indirect realism, it does not mean I agree with direct realism as realistic.

While in this OP I emphasize indirect realism is chasing an illusion, I have argued elsewhere direct realism is also chasing an illusion.
Both DR and IR belong to philosophical realism which I have been insisting with argument, is chasing an illusion.


Note this:
viewtopic.php?t=42601

Two Main Classes of Realism

• Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
  Philosophical Realism
  -Indirect Realism
  -Direct Realism
  -Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)
  -scientific realism
  moral realism [naturalism, non-naturalism]
  
  Class 2: Relative Mind-Independent Realism:
  -Kant's Empirical Realism [with Transcendental Idealism]
  -Anti-Philosophical Realism
  -moral empirical realism
  -scientific anti-realism

IR and DR belong to same class of Philosophical Realism re absolutely mind-independence which I [philosophical realist] have argued is chasing after an illusion.
So, when I stated that DR is more popular than IR [supported by justifications] it does not mean I agree with DR which is also chasing after an illusion.

The rest of the posts are merely whinings.

[Iwannaplato]

Mmm VA so scared of indirect realism that he's making a pact with his arch-nemesis, direct realism? Anyway, two can play the popularity game

I found this very odd. He posts what was essentially argumentum ad populum. I see, so I point out that Direct Realism and Disjuntivism are actually further from his point of view and he tells me that being more popular doesn't make something more credible. LOL. When I point out that I knew this and was pointing this out, he denies he intended his post as argumentum ad populum. Then two posts later he openly argues that if something is more popular this is based on something.

Then he invents a new way to evaluation the credibility of something: by the number of objections. And he seems to know the number of objections to Indirect Realism LOL.

So, I point out that he's been post objections, and a very large number of types of objections, to Direct Realism.

We don't need to count them to know that he respects way more objections to Direct Realism than the number he hallucinated for the number of objections to Indirect Realism.

I think a number of people are better scholars and more aware of VA's arguments than he is. He's all tactics. No memory, no overview. Can I beat this person, in this thread, with this tool? Maybe, so he uses it, not for a moment considering that the tool is much more damaging to his own core positions.

When this is pointed out he doubles down. He can't manage to admit that his choice was problematic and he doesn't really believe at least something he has asserted.

Maybe he's panicking. He's slowly realizing that he really has no ability to create a coherent philosophy of anything, so now he no longer even tries. He's just throwing whatever he can at the opposition.

I think that's been his style for a while. Find something on the internet that attacks Peter Holmes. Start a thread with it. If someone points out that it attacks his own positions, then say it doesn't, and now hang on to this new position as if it is, in fact, integrated in a coherent whole. A byproduct of not being able to not be able to admit wrong turnings.

If this process was conceded as exploratory and the possiblity of saying 'You're right, that doesn't really fit with what I believe' and being open to letting go of the previous belief or the new one being used as a tool, then it's actually a fine way to learn, both for him and others. Let's see what happens. But if every single throwing ideas at others, one then has to pretend fits when it doesn't, it just creates a mess. And the possibility of collabortion is null. I think probably the response to his ideas hasn't been particularly collaborative either. In some ways this is all just the product of online interaction. The great tendency to become this anonymous war. In person, the being social with a living being we can see and hear, might allow something more interesting to happen.

Online there's the pernicious belief knee jerk reaction.
VA sees anyone disgreeing with him as child killers and terrorists permission to kill.
Moral relativists react to yet another moral objectivist out of their knowledge of the history of such people with it's own sets of killings, but also of dead end conversations.

Here on the internet we encounter the permicious belief representative, so on some level we feel free to finally be more blunt and pissy then we would be in direct social encounters.

VAs approach with casting people who disagree with PH, etc., on some issue, without really thinking through if this person, who is now treated as an authority, fits at all with his other beliefs, is a symptom of this 'hit the pernvious belief hard' urge.

[Atla]

I listed the long list of objections and AI stated direct realism is more popular.
In this case, it would be better off for Atla to opt for direct realism if he is still clinging to philosophical realism.

Looks like he's really going off the deep end lmao.

Popularity Comparison
If we consider global populations, philosophical realism plus theism is significantly more popular due to the widespread adherence to theistic religions and the tendency for theists to endorse a form of realism, than philosophical antirealism plus atheism.

List the objections why philosophical realism + theism is more popular than philosophical antirealism + atheism.

The preference for philosophical realism combined with theism over philosophical antirealism paired with atheism can be explained through several objections and reasons. These can be categorized as metaphysical, epistemological, existential, and sociocultural. Below are some of the key points that articulate why realism and theism are more appealing or persuasive for many people:

1. Metaphysical and Ontological Grounds:
Intuitive Fit with Theism: Philosophical realism posits that there is a reality independent of human thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs. This fits well with the theistic view that God exists independently of human minds and that He created a world with a definite structure and nature.
Objective Moral Values and Duties: Realism is typically seen as necessary to ground objective moral values and duties. Theism, particularly classical theism, claims that these moral values are rooted in the nature of God. Antirealism and atheism struggle to provide a similarly robust foundation for morality, which many find unsatisfying.
Existence of Abstract Entities: Realism often includes belief in abstract objects like numbers, universals, and properties. Theism can accommodate this by positing these entities as thoughts in the mind of God, while antirealism has difficulty accounting for these without invoking some form of nominalism or fictionalism.

2. Epistemological Considerations:
Reliability of Cognitive Faculties: Realism presupposes that our cognitive faculties are generally reliable, giving us access to truths about the external world. Theism can explain this by arguing that God designed our faculties to track truth. Atheism, when paired with antirealism, faces the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism," which suggests that if our faculties are the result of unguided evolutionary processes, there’s no guarantee they are aimed at truth.
Coherence with Scientific Realism: Many theists are attracted to philosophical realism because it aligns with scientific realism — the view that scientific theories describe a mind-independent reality. Since science is often seen as a way of discovering God’s creation, this connection reinforces the compatibility of realism and theism.
The Problem of Skepticism: Antirealism, especially in its radical forms, can lead to skepticism about the external world, knowledge, and truth. This skepticism is often seen as intellectually untenable. Realism, combined with theism, can provide a more stable epistemic framework.

3. Existential and Psychological Appeals:
Desire for Meaning and Purpose: Theism offers a sense of ultimate meaning, purpose, and value to human life, which aligns with realism's view that there are objective truths and values. Antirealism, combined with atheism, can be perceived as nihilistic or unable to account for existential needs.
Human Experience and Intuition: Many people find that their experience of the world — the apparent reality of other minds, moral truths, and the physical universe — naturally leads to a realist stance. Theism resonates with these intuitions by offering an overarching explanation that unifies them.

4. Sociocultural and Historical Factors:
Historical Dominance of Realism and Theism: The combination of realism and theism has been the dominant philosophical and religious view throughout much of history, particularly in the Western world. This historical weight influences cultural norms, education, and philosophical preferences.
Influence of Religious Traditions: Religious traditions often teach a realist and theistic worldview, promoting the belief in a mind-independent reality created by a divine being. Antirealism and atheism, by contrast, are more recent developments and can seem counterintuitive or alien to these deeply ingrained perspectives.
Societal Support for Theism: Realism, when tied to theism, has the support of large religious communities, which promote and reinforce these beliefs. Antirealism and atheism do not have comparable institutional backing, making them less popular by sheer sociocultural inertia.

5. Philosophical and Theological Coherence:
Compatibilism of Theism and Realism: Theism is often argued to be more coherent with philosophical realism because it posits a Creator who ensures the reality and intelligibility of the universe. In contrast, antirealism can appear internally inconsistent or lead to self-refuting positions, especially when denying objective truth while asserting the truth of antirealism.
Theistic Explanations of Realism: Theism offers an explanation for why a realist metaphysics should hold — God created a world that exists independently of our minds. In contrast, atheism combined with antirealism might be seen as lacking a compelling account for the existence or nature of reality, other than brute facts or pragmatism.

Overall, realism combined with theism provides a robust framework that aligns with many people’s intuitions, moral commitments, and desire for meaning, while also being supported by historical and cultural precedents. Conversely, philosophical antirealism paired with atheism, though defensible, often struggles to offer a similarly compelling narrative that satisfies both intellectual and existential needs.

You know what to do.