All your above are strawman.Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:06 pmmeh
Atla the KG wrote: Can the version of transcendental idealism which denies any mind-independent objective features of reality, explain the consistency of perceptual illusions?VA's God wrote: The version of transcendental idealism that denies any mind-independent objective features of reality could potentially explain the consistency of perceptual illusions by positing that our perception constructs the illusionary features based on the inherent structures of our cognitive faculties rather than the external world. In this view, perceptual illusions arise due to the limitations or biases of our perceptual mechanisms rather than reflecting objective properties of the external world.Atla the KG wrote: Can indirect realism explain the same?VA's God wrote: Yes, indirect realism could also explain the consistency of perceptual illusions. Indirect realism posits that we perceive the world indirectly through our sensory experiences, which are mediated by our perceptual systems. Perceptual illusions occur when there is a discrepancy between the information provided by our senses and the true nature of the external world. This can happen due to various factors such as sensory limitations, cognitive biases, or environmental conditions. So, indirect realism can account for the consistency of perceptual illusions by attributing them to the way our perceptual systems process and interpret sensory information.Atla the KG wrote: Which explanation is more likely to be correct according to empirical observation?Can you demonstrate just one thing that your kind of transcendental idealism gets right and indirect realism doesn't?VA's God wrote: According to empirical observation, indirect realism is more likely to align with our understanding of reality. Empirical evidence consistently suggests that there is an external world that exists independently of our perception. Through scientific experiments and observations, we gather data that supports the existence of objective features and properties of the external world.
While perceptual illusions and biases are acknowledged within indirect realism, they are seen as deviations from accurate perception rather than evidence against the existence of an external reality. Empirical studies in psychology and neuroscience often explore how these illusions arise from the workings of our perceptual systems, while still affirming the existence of an external world.
Transcendental idealism, while offering valuable philosophical insights, may be less directly supported by empirical observation as it posits that our perception is fundamentally shaped by the structures of our minds. However, empirical evidence does not definitively rule out transcendental idealism; rather, it may suggest that indirect realism is a more straightforward interpretation of empirical observations.
As I had stated the focus is on empirical realism [mentioned many times] not transcendental idealism.
Get back to ChatGpt and ask on the focus and basis of Kant's empirical realism and not solely on transcendental idealism.
I am confident I can counter all the above based on your presentation of a narrow view with its nuances to ChatGpt.
Btw, ChatGpt made reference to modern science above, but that is based on the scientific realism perspective which I can easily countered with scientific anti-realism.
Scientific realism merely ASSUME [without proof] an absolute mind-independent reality where such an ASSUMPTION is a weakness to start with.