Morality: P-Realists are 'Children'?

[Iwannaplato]

While I am critical of a number of VA's arguments I agree with a number of his ontological positions. So, I am both pleased to find his use of Chatgpt is warrented. I mean, look at the insight produced by Chatgpt below. I asked Chatgpt what would motivate someone to call people with a different philosophical position childish or driven by an evolutionary default and here's what Chatgpt said:

Engaging in labeling others as childish or driven by an evolutionary default in a philosophical discussion can itself be driven by a variety of psychological, social, and cognitive factors. It's important to note that such behavior is generally unproductive and disrespectful in a discussion, as it hinders constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. However, here are some potential reasons why someone might resort to such behavior:

Intellectual Arrogance: Some individuals may feel a sense of intellectual superiority and believe that they possess a more advanced understanding of a particular topic. This arrogance can lead them to dismiss others as "evolutionarily backward" or less enlightened, diminishing the value of opposing viewpoints.

Confirmation Bias: People often hold strong beliefs and are prone to seeking out information that confirms their existing views. Labeling others as "backward" could be an attempt to discredit differing opinions without engaging with their substance.

Defensiveness: When confronted with challenging or unfamiliar ideas, some individuals might resort to labeling in an attempt to protect their own beliefs or self-esteem. Attacking others can be a defense mechanism against feeling intellectually threatened.

Ingroup vs. Outgroup Mentality: Human psychology often leads people to categorize others into groups, and this can result in a tendency to view one's own group as superior. Labeling outsiders as "evolutionarily backward" might stem from an ingroup bias, where people view their own beliefs or group as more advanced.

Lack of Empathy: Empathy involves understanding and appreciating different perspectives. When empathy is lacking, people might be more inclined to dismiss others' viewpoints as less evolved or inferior.

Impulsivity and Emotional Reactivity: In heated discussions, individuals might act impulsively and resort to derogatory language as a way to vent their frustration or anger. This can lead to personal attacks and hinder productive dialogue.

Ego Protection: People often tie their self-worth to their ideas and beliefs. When their ideas are challenged, they might react defensively by demeaning opposing viewpoints to protect their ego.

Lack of Communication Skills: Some individuals might lack the communication skills needed to articulate their ideas effectively or engage in respectful disagreement. Resorting to labeling can be a sign of poor communication abilities.

It's worth emphasizing that productive philosophical discussions require open-mindedness, empathy, and a willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints. Labeling others as "evolutionarily backward" is counterproductive and tends to shut down meaningful dialogue. Instead, participants in philosophical discussions should strive to approach conversations with respect, curiosity, and a genuine desire to explore different perspectives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

While I am critical of a number of VA's arguments I agree with a number of his ontological positions. So, I am both pleased to find his use of Chatgpt is warrented. I mean, look at the insight produced by Chatgpt below. I asked Chatgpt what would motivate someone to call people with a different philosophical position childish or driven by an evolutionary default and here's what Chatgpt said:

Engaging in labeling others as childish or driven by an evolutionary default in a philosophical discussion can itself be driven by a variety of psychological, social, and cognitive factors. It's important to note that such behavior is generally unproductive and disrespectful in a discussion, as it hinders constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. However, here are some potential reasons why someone might resort to such behavior:

Intellectual Arrogance: Some individuals may feel a sense of intellectual superiority and believe that they possess a more advanced understanding of a particular topic. This arrogance can lead them to dismiss others as "evolutionarily backward" or less enlightened, diminishing the value of opposing viewpoints.

.... .

I will agree with more use of ChatGPT [with reservations].

I don't see my point that philosophical-realism is driven an evolutionary default as arrogance but rather pointing out what is factual.
This is reinforced with the point I referenced from Burge in the OP.
viewtopic.php?p=663870#p663870

I don't fit into any of the above categories, but perhaps related to point 1 re intellectual competence is some ways; others may view as intellectual arrogance.
I have accused [very frequently] others where I see fit to do, of being narrow, shallow and dogmatic in their thinking; I had given reasons for that.
As I had stated, I do mind if other accused me of the same provided they give effective justifications for their claims which will be a motivation and leverage to expand my knowledge base.

I am often accused [based] on being intellectually incompetent merely based on handwaving without sufficient and effective justifications; more appropriately they are based on the various reasons given by ChatGPT above, i.e.

• Intellectual Arrogance - based on ignorance
  Confirmation Bias:
  Defensiveness:
  Ingroup vs. Outgroup Mentality:
  Lack of Empathy:
  Impulsivity and Emotional Reactivity:
  Ego Protection:
  Lack of Communication Skills:

[Atla]

Babies are programmed with permanence of the external environment that they depend on for their survival. Babies cannot survive on their own internal self.
For example the mother [instinctively identified] that it repeatedly cried to be nursed during babyhood has to be sensed as an external permanent source. This is so evident.

I wrote all humans since birth are programmed within their DNA with a sense of external_ness they they depend on for their survival.
It is this sense of externalness [mind-independence] that philosophical realists cling to as a extreme ideology; some [not all] will even kill those who oppose such an ideology.

It's well-known that babies don't even have a sense of externalness initially.

By six to nine months of age, your baby begins to realise they are a separate person surrounded by their own skin.

Before that, it's claimed that babies experience the "oceanic feeling", they have no sense of inside and outside.
Nondualists like me return to a similar sensation later in life.

Humans are one of the, if not the most advanced species on the planet, and even for us it takes months to reach this sense of externalness, which is probably some kind of higher cognitive function. It's blindingly obvious that most lifeforms throughout Earth's history had no sense of externalness or internalness at all, it's not in their DNA.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't fit into any of the above categories, but perhaps related to point 1 re intellectual competence is some ways; others may view as intellectual arrogance.

I would have agreed, but Chatgpt was very adamant. I mean, I understand that it's knowledge is not perfect, but it would seem that some of it must be true, at least, give that it is culling from the best current knowledge just as it did in all the posts where you liked what it said. I'll ask it if it might have a bias against you and get back to you on the subject.

[Iwannaplato]

Babies are programmed with permanence of the external environment that they depend on for their survival. Babies cannot survive on their own internal self.

What's this internal external stuff. It sounds very realist. Stuff out there. Stuff in here. Babies don't think this way. Babies are neither realists nor antirealists. What YOU call external, in a very realist manner, is something they want. What YOU consider external, mother's embrace, milk, voice, the baby does not conceive of the way YOU do.
The baby behaves and feels. Hunger, cries. Scared, cries. See's mother's face, smiles.
There is NO REALIST or anti-realist model.
The baby is neither saying that woman external to me has stuff I need.
You're hallucinating and have no scientific research to back up your claim that the baby is a realist.

And then you seem to miss the irony: you imply strongly that the baby must have realist beliefs to survive. Why would a delusion be necessary for survival?

All the baby needs is behavior and feelings which lead to responses from the mother. Just as it does in other mammals and birds and......

And hell even adults think they can hold their loved ones in life and blame themselves for getting distracted before a loved on dies (of cancer or whatever). Great guilt comes rolling in that they did not focus on their loved one more, to keep them alive.

Out in the real world, your models fall apart.

For example the mother [instinctively identified] that it repeatedly cried to be nursed during babyhood has to be sensed as an external permanent source. This is so evident.

Except you ignored that baby's don't have objective permanence. See Piaget. Which is why they cry often when something is not there. If they can't perceive it, it isn't. Much more like antirealists.

You're incorrect. If children are like P-realists, well babies are like VA-non-realists.

I wrote all humans since birth are programmed within their DNA with a sense of external_ness they they depend on for their survival.
It is this sense of externalness [mind-independence] that philosophical realists cling to as a extreme ideology; some [not all] will even kill those who oppose such an ideology.

I wrote stuff too. Atla wrote stuff.
PH wrote stuff. Kant wrote stuff. Realists wrote stuff. Anti-realists wrote stuff. People write stuff.
Citing oneself is no evidence.

I am starting to get nervous. You keep attributing violence to people with certain beliefs. You seem to assume that people with strong beliefs get violent. You seem to have strong beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Babies are programmed with permanence of the external environment that they depend on for their survival. Babies cannot survive on their own internal self.

What's this internal external stuff. It sounds very realist. Stuff out there. Stuff in here. Babies don't think this way. Babies are neither realists nor antirealists. What YOU call external, in a very realist manner, is something they want. What YOU consider external, mother's embrace, milk, voice, the baby does not conceive of the way YOU do.
The baby behaves and feels. Hunger, cries. Scared, cries. See's mother's face, smiles.
There is NO REALIST or anti-realist model.
The baby is neither saying that woman external to me has stuff I need.
You're hallucinating and have no scientific research to back up your claim that the baby is a realist.

And then you seem to miss the irony: you imply strongly that the baby must have realist beliefs to survive. Why would a delusion be necessary for survival?

All the baby needs is behavior and feelings which lead to responses from the mother. Just as it does in other mammals and birds and......

And hell even adults think they can hold their loved ones in life and blame themselves for getting distracted before a loved on dies (of cancer or whatever). Great guilt comes rolling in that they did not focus on their loved one more, to keep them alive.

Out in the real world, your models fall apart.

For example the mother [instinctively identified] that it repeatedly cried to be nursed during babyhood has to be sensed as an external permanent source. This is so evident.

Except you ignored that baby's don't have objective permanence. See Piaget. Which is why they cry often when something is not there. If they can't perceive it, it isn't. Much more like antirealists.

You're incorrect. If children are like P-realists, well babies are like VA-non-realists.

I wrote all humans since birth are programmed within their DNA with a sense of external_ness they they depend on for their survival.
It is this sense of externalness [mind-independence] that philosophical realists cling to as a extreme ideology; some [not all] will even kill those who oppose such an ideology.

I wrote stuff too. Atla wrote stuff.
PH wrote stuff. Kant wrote stuff. Realists wrote stuff. Anti-realists wrote stuff. People write stuff.
Citing oneself is no evidence.

I am starting to get nervous. You keep attributing violence to people with certain beliefs. You seem to assume that people with strong beliefs get violent. You seem to have strong beliefs.

Strawman, I had never stated babies are realists in a literal sense.
It would be stupid to insist babies are literally communists, fascists, or other isms.

I stated all human babies are programmed within their DNA with an inherent instinct and sense of externalness to facilitate their survival. This is an evolutionary default. This instinct and sense of external_ness as embedded and inherent in all humans is critically active in all adult human to the present.

The problem is when the majority of humans naturally adopt this sense of external_ness within an ideology called Philosophical-Realism, i.e. absolute mind-independent reality and things.

I correlated Philosophical-Realists as babies, children and childish based on what is written by Tyler Burge in the OP;

• OP: Children and non-human animals are realists not because they represent bodies as mind-independent, but because they cannot help but ignore idealism.
  We as philosophers should emulate the children.

Seems??
Not all strong beliefs trigger violence in SOME their followers; strong beliefs like compassion, love, and the like do not trigger violence like philosophical-realism [e.g. Islam, cults, and the like]

The focus on the "self" inwardly is a very recently development in the timeline of humanity.

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman, I had never stated babies are realists in a literal sense.

Children are instinctually philosophical realists, i.e. grounded on an absolutely mind-independent reality.

You claimed to know that they are realists. All you have to go on is their behavior, unless you are claiming to be psychic.
Your behavior looks just like theirs. You do things and interact with the external world. A film of your day would look like the film of a realist's day. But you have decided that their instinctive position is realist...based on no evidence. Behaviorally realists and antirealists both act in similar ways.
You go so far as to assert that realists are more likely to be violent than non-realists. But you have no evidence that non-realists are less violent than realists. Yes you can point to the violence of realists. Most humans have been realists and humans have been violent. But to actually demonstrate that it is realism that leads to violence you would need to compare the behavior of realists and non-realists. This has been pointed out to you before but you continue to insult the people you disagree with philosophically, based on poor logic.

I stated all human babies are programmed within their DNA with an inherent instinct and sense of externalness to facilitate their survival. This is an evolutionary default. This instinct and sense of external_ness as embedded and inherent in all humans is critically active in all adult human to the present.

But babies do not have object permanence. See Piaget. The sense of object permanence which is central to realism comes later. So non-realists are like babies and realists are like older children.

You just repeat yourself ad infinitum even when you are clearly incorrect and this is pointed out.

Seems??
Not all strong beliefs trigger violence in SOME their followers; strong beliefs like compassion, love, and the like do not trigger violence like philosophical-realism [e.g. Islam, cults, and the like]

saying realists are more likely to be violent than people with your beliefs without any comparative research to support this is
us vs. them
group prejudicial insult thinking
and
that correlates with violence.

Your behavior is neither compassionate nor loving.

And again you are making a fallacious argument when you assume that realism is the cause of violence not the specific beliefs of the groups you hate. You have no evidence that non-realists are less violent. None. Show me the comparative study.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman, I had never stated babies are realists in a literal sense.

Children are instinctually philosophical realists, i.e. grounded on an absolutely mind-independent reality.

You claimed to know that they are realists. All you have to go on is their behavior, unless you are claiming to be psychic.
Your behavior looks just like theirs. You do things and interact with the external world. A film of your day would look like the film of a realist's day. But you have decided that their instinctive position is realist...based on no evidence. Behaviorally realists and antirealists both act in similar ways.
You go so far as to assert that realists are more likely to be violent than non-realists. But you have no evidence that non-realists are less violent than realists. Yes you can point to the violence of realists. Most humans have been realists and humans have been violent. But to actually demonstrate that it is realism that leads to violence you would need to compare the behavior of realists and non-realists. This has been pointed out to you before but you continue to insult the people you disagree with philosophically, based on poor logic.

Regardless, the main point is philosophical-realists adopt that instinct/sense of external_ness as the ground of their ideology of mind-independence.

A baby instinct for external_ness [outside, outwardness] is very self-evident in contrast to be focusing in a sense of internal_ness [..inside, inwardness].
Because it is so self-evident [..I have read articles on this but not readily available], I thought I don't have to produce references; since you are so ignorant and adamant, I will look for references.

Theists are fundamentally philosophical realists i.e. an absolute mind-independent God. Note how theists had killed non-theists so prevalently on the basis non-theists oppose their ideology and also note the aggressive, violent and fatalistic blasphemy laws and culture throughout history.
It is so obvious extremist Islamists kill non-believers on the basis of opposition to their beliefs and ideology re mind-independence.
It is also a fact that philosophical realists within the philosophical community are very violent [at least intellectually and socially] against anti-realists.

I stated all human babies are programmed within their DNA with an inherent instinct and sense of externalness to facilitate their survival. This is an evolutionary default. This instinct and sense of external_ness as embedded and inherent in all humans is critically active in all adult human to the present.

But babies do not have object permanence. See Piaget. The sense of object permanence which is central to realism comes later. So non-realists are like babies and realists are like older children.

You just repeat yourself ad infinitum even when you are clearly incorrect and this is pointed out.

The above is based on a strawman ignorance.

• 0-2 years: They also begin to develop a sense of object permanence, which means they understand that objects exist even when they cannot see them.
  2-7 years: Children develop language and abstract thought. This means they can think about concepts and ideas that are not physical.

I stated all babies are programmed with an instinct and sense of externalness which meant there is NO element of 'understanding' re intellect.

The concept of 'object permanence' which is related to the intellect is not relevant to argue my point.

Seems??
Not all strong beliefs trigger violence in SOME their followers; strong beliefs like compassion, love, and the like do not trigger violence like philosophical-realism [e.g. Islam, cults, and the like]

saying realists are more likely to be violent than people with your beliefs without any comparative research to support this is
us vs. them
group prejudicial insult thinking
and
that correlates with violence.

Your behavior is neither compassionate nor loving.

And again you are making a fallacious argument when you assume that realism is the cause of violence not the specific beliefs of the groups you hate. You have no evidence that non-realists are less violent. None. Show me the comparative study.

I claim the ideology of philosophical realism triggers SOME to aggressive, violence and fatalities on the basis of the need to soothe their cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
I have given the obvious examples of extreme Islamists driven by their theistic-philosophical-realists ideology.
Also note how Berkeley [& other idealists] had been the punching bags of philosophical realists for a long time, to relieve their stress in the face of the more realistic idealism [note Kantian].

[Iwannaplato]

I claim the ideology of philosophical realism triggers SOME to aggressive, violence and fatalities on the basis of the need to soothe their cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
I have given the obvious examples of extreme Islamists driven by their theistic-philosophical-realists ideology.
Also note how Berkeley [& other idealists] had been the punching bags of philosophical realists for a long time, to relieve their stress in the face of the more realistic idealism [note Kantian].

Right, but if you knew anything about science you would know that you need to limit factors, distinguish correlation from cause, and isolate causation to draw any conclusions. Is it their realism that leads to violence? Or is it something else?

I notice for about the fourth time you avoid dealing with my pointing out that you have no evidence that non-realists are less violent.
You simply do not respond to that point, again and again. You make a claim but have no evidence, nor do you seem to understand what it would take to give evidence or what research actually entails, in science for example, to draw conclusions about causation.

You would need to show that non-realists are less violent. And the moment you think about both your inablility to be able to do show that and
WHY you cannot do this, you should instantly realize your argument is not evidence of realism leading to violence.

So many times you avoid directly responding to points made.

Then you cite your own earlier responses, as if you have actually responded. It is disrespectful in the extreme, even you, due to cognitive dissonance, you may not notice yourself what you are (not) doing.

Berkely has been a punching bag. LOL. And then you mind read realists.

You want ad homs, welcome to the world of ad homs.

[seeds]

I don't fit into any of the above categories, but perhaps related to point 1 re intellectual competence is some ways; others may view as intellectual arrogance.

I would have agreed, but Chatgpt was very adamant. I mean, I understand that it's knowledge is not perfect, but it would seem that some of it must be true, at least, give that it is culling from the best current knowledge just as it did in all the posts where you liked what it said. I'll ask it if it might have a bias against you and get back to you on the subject.

What do you mean in saying that: "...I would have agreed..." ?

Agreed with what? That bolded part of VA's reply? Nonsense!!!

First off, I too am no doubt guilty of much of what your excellent Chatgpt quote points out about the mental status of those who label other's philosophical positions as being childish. However, I nevertheless marveled and how amazingly accurate it was in evaluating VA's situation. It's as if it zeroed-in specifically on VA.

Either that, or little V is such a cut-and-dried textbook case, that it (Chatgpt) simply had to list the already established facts and they fit V like the proverbial glove.

And the fact that little V stated: "...I don't fit into any of the above categories..." was a real knee slapper. Especially seeing how it was immediately followed with him proving how he does indeed fit into category one ("Intellectual Arrogance") as he matter-of-factly (arrogantly) explained that, no, it's not arrogance - it's intellectual "competence".

Furthermore, did Chatgtp mention anything about a "Pathological Dishonesty" category? For we both have pointed out to him how he denies stating certain things that we then provide him with the very quote of that which he denies having said - of which he then simply refuses to even acknowledge the error he made - (must have something to do with that "Ego Protection" category that he "...doesn't fit into..." ).

I sometimes feel a little guilty for picking on him so much, however, seeing how his ego is so huge that he needs a wheelbarrow to carry the overflow, I can't seem to resist whacking it with a stick from time to time.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I don't fit into any of the above categories, but perhaps related to point 1 re intellectual competence is some ways; others may view as intellectual arrogance.

I would have agreed, but Chatgpt was very adamant. I mean, I understand that it's knowledge is not perfect, but it would seem that some of it must be true, at least, give that it is culling from the best current knowledge just as it did in all the posts where you liked what it said. I'll ask it if it might have a bias against you and get back to you on the subject.

What do you mean in saying that: "...I would have agreed..." ?

Agreed with what? That bolded part of VA's reply? Nonsense!!!

First off, I too am no doubt guilty of much of what your excellent Chatgpt quote points out about the mental status of those who label other's philosophical positions as being childish. However, I nevertheless marveled and how amazingly accurate it was in evaluating VA's situation. It's as if it zeroed-in specifically on VA.

Either that, or little V is such a cut-and-dried textbook case, that it (Chatgpt) simply had to list the already established facts and they fit V like the proverbial glove.

And the fact that little V stated: "...I don't fit into any of the above categories..." was a real knee slapper. Especially seeing how it was immediately followed with him proving how he does indeed fit into category one ("Intellectual Arrogance") as he matter-of-factly (arrogantly) explained that, no, it's not arrogance - it's intellectual "competence".

Furthermore, did Chatgtp mention anything about a "Pathological Dishonesty" category? For we both have pointed out to him how he denies stating certain things that we then provide him with the very quote of that which he denies having said - of which he then simply refuses to even acknowledge the error he made - (must have something to do with that "Ego Protection" category that he "...doesn't fit into..." ).

I sometimes feel a little guilty for picking on him so much, however, seeing how his ego is so huge that he needs a wheelbarrow to carry the overflow, I can't seem to resist whacking it with a stick from time to time.
_______

What I meant, I meant within an ironic framework. I was painting the assessment as 'out of my hands' and unfortunate. I mean, what can I do? Chatgpt judged him that way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I claim the ideology of philosophical realism triggers SOME to aggressive, violence and fatalities on the basis of the need to soothe their cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis.
I have given the obvious examples of extreme Islamists driven by their theistic-philosophical-realists ideology.
Also note how Berkeley [& other idealists] had been the punching bags of philosophical realists for a long time, to relieve their stress in the face of the more realistic idealism [note Kantian].

Right, but if you knew anything about science you would know that you need to limit factors, distinguish correlation from cause, and isolate causation to draw any conclusions. Is it their realism that leads to violence? Or is it something else?

Note my thesis:
"The ideology of philosophical realism triggers SOME to aggressive, violence and fatalities on the basis of the need to soothe their cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis."

As such, philosophical realism triggers violence within the above variables i.e. cognitive dissonances & existential crisis.
Why and How?
I have already explained the whys and hows related to those variables in various posts.

I notice for about the fourth time you avoid dealing with my pointing out that you have no evidence that non-realists are less violent.
You simply do not respond to that point, again and again. You make a claim but have no evidence, nor do you seem to understand what it would take to give evidence or what research actually entails, in science for example, to draw conclusions about causation.

You would need to show that non-realists are less violent. And the moment you think about both your inablility to be able to do show that and
WHY you cannot do this, you should instantly realize your argument is not evidence of realism leading to violence.

So many times you avoid directly responding to points made.

Then you cite your own earlier responses, as if you have actually responded. It is disrespectful in the extreme, even you, due to cognitive dissonance, you may not notice yourself what you are (not) doing.

Berkely has been a punching bag. LOL. And then you mind read realists.

You want ad homs, welcome to the world of ad homs.

My thesis is this:
"The ideology of philosophical realism triggers SOME to aggressive, violence and fatalities on the basis of the need to soothe their cognitive dissonances driven by an existential crisis."

I can do a comparison of why anti-realists are less violent than realists in the above context, BUT my specific thesis in this case has nothing to do with anti-realists are less violent. Thus your asking for evidence on this matter is a non-starter.

I can give you a clue;
Buddhism [fundamentally] is anti-realism, Christianity and Islam are grounded on pure philosophical realism.
It is very evident [from readings], since 1500 years ago, Muslims has killed millions of non-Muslims in the name of their religion [philosophical realism] and also Christianity [cognitive dissonances] and being violent to non-believers as compared to Buddhists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't fit into any of the above categories, but perhaps related to point 1 re intellectual competence is some ways; others may view as intellectual arrogance.

I would have agreed, but Chatgpt was very adamant. I mean, I understand that it's knowledge is not perfect, but it would seem that some of it must be true, at least, give that it is culling from the best current knowledge just as it did in all the posts where you liked what it said. I'll ask it if it might have a bias against you and get back to you on the subject.

What do you mean in saying that: "...I would have agreed..." ?

Agreed with what? That bolded part of VA's reply? Nonsense!!!

First off, I too am no doubt guilty of much of what your excellent Chatgpt quote points out about the mental status of those who label other's philosophical positions as being childish. However, I nevertheless marveled and how amazingly accurate it was in evaluating VA's situation. It's as if it zeroed-in specifically on VA.

Either that, or little V is such a cut-and-dried textbook case, that it (Chatgpt) simply had to list the already established facts and they fit V like the proverbial glove.

And the fact that little V stated: "...I don't fit into any of the above categories..." was a real knee slapper. Especially seeing how it was immediately followed with him proving how he does indeed fit into category one ("Intellectual Arrogance") as he matter-of-factly (arrogantly) explained that, no, it's not arrogance - it's intellectual "competence".

Furthermore, did Chatgtp mention anything about a "Pathological Dishonesty" category? For we both have pointed out to him how he denies stating certain things that we then provide him with the very quote of that which he denies having said - of which he then simply refuses to even acknowledge the error he made - (must have something to do with that "Ego Protection" category that he "...doesn't fit into..." ).

I sometimes feel a little guilty for picking on him so much, however, seeing how his ego is so huge that he needs a wheelbarrow to carry the overflow, I can't seem to resist whacking it with a stick from time to time.
_______

These ad homs are signs a very bruised psyche from the related arguments that you have run out of counters to my argument.

Why waste time so much on these off-topics ad homs, just give your counter arguments to what you do not agree with my arguments.

[Skepdick]

Right, but if you knew anything about science you would know that you need to limit factors, distinguish correlation from cause, and isolate causation to draw any conclusions.

But any causality identified is only tentative and proximate. Pending a better, more complete explanation.

You ask ChatGPT about so many other things, but you didn't ask it about that ?!?

In some fields like physics, laws and equations describe invariant relationships that are universally considered causal (e.g., Newton's Second Law of Motion). However, even these equations describe relationships and don't "prove" causality in a philosophical sense. They are extremely reliable predictive models based on empirical data and are as close to "causal proof" as one might argue science can get.

Moreover, there are scientific paradigms like quantum mechanics where the classical, intuitive notion of causality is challenged, making the issue even more complex.

So "causality" (since you have no clear criteria on how to establish it) is this moving goal post you are using as a beating stick.

[seeds]

_______



_______