"Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.

[Atla]

Damn I forgot to add [with reservations], that would have made me look smarter.

[Iwannaplato]

VA: Kant argued that while there is a mind-independent reality (the noumenal realm)

and it's VA's life mission to claim the opposite.

Oh, that's a fun game.
Remember VA's deduction....

Premise 1: Philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.
Premise 2: Kant argues that Transcendental Realism inevitably falls into difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which treats mere appearances as self-subsistent beings, existing outside us.
Premise 3: Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.
Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist.

Here's Chatgpt's criticism

The deduction presented in the argument is not logically valid. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given.

Let's analyze the argument step by step:

Premise 1 states that philosophical realists (who are also transcendental realists) believe in a mind-independent reality.

Premise 2 states that Kant argues that Transcendental Realism leads to difficulties and gives way to Empirical Idealism, which considers mere appearances as self-subsistent beings existing outside us.

Premise 3 states that Empirical Idealism considers the objects of outer sense as distinct from the senses themselves, implying that reality and other minds are confined to the empirical idealist's mind.

The problem arises in the conclusion:

"Conclusion: Therefore, philosophical realists (who are transcendental realists) are implicitly solipsistic, as they subscribe to a view that confines reality and other minds to the mind of the empirical idealist."

The conclusion jumps to a claim about philosophical realists being implicitly solipsistic. However, the premises do not necessarily lead to this conclusion. The argument does not establish a direct connection between the belief in mind-independent reality and being implicitly solipsistic.

Additionally, there seems to be an unwarranted leap in the conclusion by assuming that Empirical Idealism's position on reality and other minds applies directly to philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists. The two groups may have different views on the nature of reality and the mind, and the argument fails to demonstrate a connection between the two.

To strengthen the argument, more explicit premises and logical steps would be needed to show how the belief in mind-independent reality, in the context of philosophical realists who are also transcendental realists, would lead to implicit solipsism. As it stands, the argument does not provide a valid deduction for its conclusion.

Philosophy forums primarily with discussions between philosophical AIs! The Great Atrophy is coming!! All hail the early adopter VA!

[Atla]

Philosophy forums primarily with discussions between philosophical AIs! The Great Atrophy is coming!! All hail the early adopter VA!

Hmm maybe, I'm too lazy to look into this, let's ask ChatGPT.

While artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to bring significant benefits to humanity, it also carries certain risks that could lead to negative outcomes if not properly managed. One of the concerns that some experts and thinkers have raised is the potential for AI to cause atrophy for humanity.

...

It's important to note that while these risks exist, they are not guaranteed outcomes.

Oh thank God, it's not guaranteed!

[Iwannaplato]

Oh thank God, it's not guaranteed!

I'm afraid I asked Chatgpt if we could trust it on this issue. IOW can we trust it when it says this is not guaranteed. It responded.

When ChatGPT says something is not guaranteed to atrophy human skills, it is possible that it is correct in the context of its training data and the patterns it has learned. However, it's essential to understand that AI models like ChatGPT cannot predict the future or account for all possible scenarios.

So, it's only possible that it's not guaranteed. It might be guaranteed.



I feel vaguely atrophied already.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's better to "ask" ChatGPT with as little prior discussion as possible, because our input can distort its replies. I could get it to say totally contradictory things after a few inputs. This one without prior discussion:

Philosophical realism, in its general form, asserts that there is an external reality that exists independently of human minds and perceptions. It posits that the physical world exists objectively, regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately. This view is typically referred to as metaphysical realism.

On the other hand, Kantian empirical realism, also known as transcendental empiricism or empirical realism, is a position associated with Immanuel Kant's philosophy. It takes a different approach. Kant argued that while there is a mind-independent reality (the noumenal realm), human beings can only know the world through their mental faculties, which shape and structure the information received from the senses. According to Kant, we have no direct access to the thing-in-itself (the noumenon), and our perception is filtered through the categories of our understanding and the forms of intuition (e.g., space and time).

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

To summarize the difference:

Philosophical Realism (Metaphysical Realism): Claims that there is a mind-independent reality that exists objectively and is not contingent upon human perception or cognition. It posits the existence of an external world as it is, regardless of how we perceive it.

Kantian Empirical Realism: Acknowledges the existence of a mind-independent reality, but asserts that our knowledge of this reality is limited to how our minds process and structure sensory information. We can only know phenomena (appearances) as they appear to us, but the underlying thing-in-itself remains unknowable.

In summary, while both philosophical realism and Kantian empirical realism recognize the existence of a mind-independent reality, the latter highlights the role of human cognition and the limitations of knowledge imposed by our mental faculties. Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

Oh btw the above says

Kant argued that while there is a mind-independent reality (the noumenal realm)

and it's VA's life mission to claim the opposite.

Kant is the one who introduced the term 'empirical realism' so I know what that is all about.

From the above;

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

This imply 'empirical realism' cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind which is the position mentioned by ChatGPT in my post.

Btw, we need to take ChatGPT with reservation.
In the case of disagreement, we have to go back to the source i.e. in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where it is stated 'empirical realism' is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism.

I have also qualified why I had used the term absolute mind-independence to differentiate between relative mind-independence.

[Atla]

Oh thank God, it's not guaranteed!

I'm afraid I asked Chatgpt if we could trust it on this issue. IOW can we trust it when it says this is not guaranteed. It responded.

When ChatGPT says something is not guaranteed to atrophy human skills, it is possible that it is correct in the context of its training data and the patterns it has learned. However, it's essential to understand that AI models like ChatGPT cannot predict the future or account for all possible scenarios.

So, it's only possible that it's not guaranteed. It might be guaranteed.



I feel vaguely atrophied already.

That's terrible news and I don't know what to do. Oh wait I do, let's ask ChatGPT

Dealing with uncertainty is an essential aspect of life, as it is impossible to predict or control everything that happens. Here are some strategies to help you navigate uncertainty and manage the associated stress:

[long list of coping mechanisms]

Remember that dealing with uncertainty is a skill that takes time to develop. Be patient with yourself and allow yourself to experience and process the feelings that come with uncertainty. With practice, you can learn to cope with uncertainty in a more constructive and positive way.

Now I feel much better.

[Atla]

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

This imply 'empirical realism' cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind which is the position mentioned by ChatGPT in my post.

And do you think that simply repeating what empirical realism is, somehow constitutes an argument?

[Iwannaplato]

Now I feel much better.

I asked ChatGpt the following:

Two people are discussing philosophical issues online. Person A regularly quotes Chatgpt. Person B always writes her positions herself. Which one of the two is more likely to develop better reasoning skills?

Chatgpt said...

Developing reasoning skills involves critical thinking, logic, and the ability to construct coherent and well-supported arguments. In the scenario described, Person B, who consistently writes his positions himself, is more likely to develop better reasoning skills compared to Person A, who regularly quotes ChatGPT.

Here's why:

Active engagement: Person B is actively engaging in the thought process of formulating and expressing their own ideas. This active participation in constructing arguments and defending their positions exercises their reasoning abilities.

Critical thinking: By constructing arguments independently, Person B is more likely to engage in critical thinking. They need to evaluate their ideas, assess evidence, and identify potential weaknesses in their reasoning.

Understanding nuance: Writing positions from scratch allows Person B to understand the nuances of the topic better. They are not relying on pre-generated responses and have to consider different perspectives and aspects of the issue.

Flexibility and adaptability: Person B may have the flexibility to adjust their arguments based on feedback, new information, or counterarguments. This adaptability is crucial for refining reasoning skills.

On the other hand, Person A, who frequently relies on quoting ChatGPT, may not be actively practicing critical thinking and constructing original arguments. Instead, they might be passively depending on the AI-generated responses without fully understanding or engaging with the thought process behind them.

I feel so delightfully informed and hypocritical!

And most of all correct!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now I feel much better.

I asked ChatGpt the following:

Two people are discussing philosophical issues online. Person A regularly quotes Chatgpt. Person B always writes her positions herself. Which one of the two is more likely to develop better reasoning skills?

Chatgpt said...

Developing reasoning skills involves critical thinking, logic, and the ability to construct coherent and well-supported arguments. In the scenario described, Person B, who consistently writes his positions himself, is more likely to develop better reasoning skills compared to Person A, who regularly quotes ChatGPT.

Here's why:

Active engagement: Person B is actively engaging in the thought process of formulating and expressing their own ideas. This active participation in constructing arguments and defending their positions exercises their reasoning abilities.

Critical thinking: By constructing arguments independently, Person B is more likely to engage in critical thinking. They need to evaluate their ideas, assess evidence, and identify potential weaknesses in their reasoning.

Understanding nuance: Writing positions from scratch allows Person B to understand the nuances of the topic better. They are not relying on pre-generated responses and have to consider different perspectives and aspects of the issue.

Flexibility and adaptability: Person B may have the flexibility to adjust their arguments based on feedback, new information, or counterarguments. This adaptability is crucial for refining reasoning skills.

On the other hand, Person A, who frequently relies on quoting ChatGPT, may not be actively practicing critical thinking and constructing original arguments. Instead, they might be passively depending on the AI-generated responses without fully understanding or engaging with the thought process behind them.

I feel so delightfully informed and hypocritical!

And most of all correct!

Note "with reservations"??
Note ChatGPT mentioned "may not" not 'certainly not'.

In the above case there is no detailed context of Person A circumstances, i.e.

1. his competence in logic,
2. the subject matter is basic, simple or complex
3. the time factor
4. the academic environment
5. the social environment
6. etc.

It would be true if person A rely on ChagGPT or other sources to construct their arguments everytime, then there would be a hindrance to the person's critical thinking but not necessary his creative thinking.

Note for example, the architects will come up with creative ideas about building then leave all the detailed logical measurements to his engineers and draughtsman to generate the drawings and blueprints.

In my case, re
Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic 3
viewtopic.php?t=40509
it involved a very complex issue.
I described the details to ChatGPT and it construct a very solid and valid argument so fast that save me a lot of time, if I were ever try to do it on my own.
That argument could be very novel for one to do a PhD thesis.

The other point is why should I waste time in a Philosophy Forum like this [the sort of posters therein] if I can save time using ChatGPT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

This imply 'empirical realism' cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind which is the position mentioned by ChatGPT in my post.

And do you think that simply repeating what empirical realism is, somehow constitutes an argument?

What more do you want from ChatGPT or me when it is stated,

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

Thus my point that philosophical realism takes the absolute mind-independent stance in contrast to the relative mind-independence of empirical realism is a valid to the qualified nuance.

Show me where and how the above is not tenable?

[Atla]

What more do you want from ChatGPT or me when it is stated,

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

Thus my point that philosophical realism takes the absolute mind-independent stance in contrast to the relative mind-independence of empirical realism is a valid to the qualified nuance.

Show me where and how the above is not tenable?

Because you are lying even about the very quote you are using? It says "tends to take a stronger stance", not "takes the stance".

AND the above also says that Kantian empirical realism takes a weaker stance on absolute mind-independence, which doesn't necessarily have to do anything with mind-dependence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What more do you want from ChatGPT or me when it is stated,

In essence, Kantian empirical realism acknowledges that there is an external reality, but it emphasizes that our access to this reality is mediated and structured by the human mind.

Philosophical realism tends to take a stronger stance on the absolute mind-independence of reality.

Thus my point that philosophical realism takes the absolute mind-independent stance in contrast to the relative mind-independence of empirical realism is a valid to the qualified nuance.

Show me where and how the above is not tenable?

Because you are lying even about the very quote you are using? It says "tends to take a stronger stance", not "takes the stance".

How come your skull is so thick???

The point 'tends to take a stronger stance' means at least >80% validity does not deny the contested term "absolute mind-independence" is a valid term in application to philosophical realism.

Your insistence is that philosophical realism do not take the stance with 'absolute' at all.
Whilst we have to take ChatGPT view with reservations, I am VERY certain Kant's view from is CPR is that philosophical realism [as defined] is absolutely mind-independent in contrast to empirical realism.

[Atla]

What more do you want from ChatGPT or me when it is stated,



Thus my point that philosophical realism takes the absolute mind-independent stance in contrast to the relative mind-independence of empirical realism is a valid to the qualified nuance.

Show me where and how the above is not tenable?

Because you are lying even about the very quote you are using? It says "tends to take a stronger stance", not "takes the stance".

How come your skull is so thick???

The point 'tends to take a stronger stance' means at least >80% validity does not deny the contested term "absolute mind-independence" is a valid term in application to philosophical realism.

Your insistence is that philosophical realism do not take the stance with 'absolute' at all.
Whilst we have to take ChatGPT view with reservations, I am VERY certain Kant's view from is CPR is that philosophical realism [as defined] is absolute mind-independent in contrast to empirical realism.

You're totally ignorant. Philosophical realism is a name for a group of different realisms, some take the absolute stance, some don't.

Philosophical realism is NOT one philosophy.

So Kant's transcendental realism is NOT philosophical realism. Kant's transcendental realism seems to be just direct (naive) realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because you are lying even about the very quote you are using? It says "tends to take a stronger stance", not "takes the stance".

How come your skull is so thick???

The point 'tends to take a stronger stance' means at least >80% validity does not deny the contested term "absolute mind-independence" is a valid term in application to philosophical realism.

Your insistence is that philosophical realism do not take the stance with 'absolute' at all.
Whilst we have to take ChatGPT view with reservations, I am VERY certain Kant's view from is CPR is that philosophical realism [as defined] is absolute mind-independent in contrast to empirical realism.

You're totally ignorant. Philosophical realism is a name for a group of different realisms, some take the absolute stance, some don't.

Philosophical realism is NOT one philosophy.

So Kant's transcendental realism is NOT philosophical realism. Kant's transcendental realism seems to be just direct (naive) realism.

Suddenly your skull grew thicker by a few cm.

Read the Wiki article again [& other sources],

Philosophical realism – ...is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The essence of philosophical realism is mind-independent existence which I added 'absolutely' to differentiate it from the relative mind-independence of empirical realism.

The mind-independent existence is the basis for all the varieties of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... #Varieties

So Kant's transcendental realism is NOT philosophical realism. Kant's transcendental realism seems to be just direct (naive) realism.

What nonsense is this?
Kantianism has no Transcendental Realism rather it claims Empirical Realism.

Philosophical Realism is a kind of Transcendental Realism which is in la la land.

[Atla]

How come your skull is so thick???

The point 'tends to take a stronger stance' means at least >80% validity does not deny the contested term "absolute mind-independence" is a valid term in application to philosophical realism.

Your insistence is that philosophical realism do not take the stance with 'absolute' at all.
Whilst we have to take ChatGPT view with reservations, I am VERY certain Kant's view from is CPR is that philosophical realism [as defined] is absolute mind-independent in contrast to empirical realism.

You're totally ignorant. Philosophical realism is a name for a group of different realisms, some take the absolute stance, some don't.

Philosophical realism is NOT one philosophy.

So Kant's transcendental realism is NOT philosophical realism. Kant's transcendental realism seems to be just direct (naive) realism.

Suddenly your skull grew thicker by a few cm.

Read the Wiki article again [& other sources],

Philosophical realism – ...is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The essence of philosophical realism is mind-independent existence which I added 'absolutely' to differentiate it from the relative mind-independence of empirical realism.

The mind-independent existence is the basis for all the varieties of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... #Varieties

So Kant's transcendental realism is NOT philosophical realism. Kant's transcendental realism seems to be just direct (naive) realism.

What nonsense is this?
Kantianism has no Transcendental Realism rather it claims Empirical Realism.

Philosophical Realism is a kind of Transcendental Realism which is in la la land.

Empirical realism and Kantian empirical realism aren't even the same thing. And even Kantian empirical realism acknowledges the mind-independent existence of the noumenal realm, or is at least compatible with it, which would be philosophical realism.