"Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.

[Iwannaplato]

See what a waste of time your mindreading and psychologizing of others is in disagreements.

They react to things like...

You're too emotionally attached to your positions, it seems.

Just like you do.

It's a waste of time, generally fallacious when it is used against people one is disagreeing with. It can be a separate topic. But when in a disagreement, say between realists and antirealists if one starts psychoanalzying the other, it's an insult, a fallacious argument and a distraction from the actual points being made that are on topic.

[Sculptor]

"Realism" taken without qualification

THIS is a perfect example of "NOT EVEN WRONG"

More meaningless bullshit clogging up the Forum.

The real experience of a worm is very different to the real experience of a cow, and ant or a fish.

"Realism" has zero meaning for them. They do not have the intellectual capacity to consider the experience of other animals, yet they do not in habit the same worlds.

It takes reflection and intelligence to understand the notions of idealism, relativism, and subjectivism.

Sadly there are people posing thread on this Forum with less savvy than a worm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

See what a waste of time your mindreading and psychologizing of others is in disagreements.

They react to things like...

You're too emotionally attached to your positions, it seems.

Just like you do.

It's a waste of time, generally fallacious when it is used against people one is disagreeing with. It can be a separate topic. But when in a disagreement, say between realists and antirealists if one starts psychoanalzying the other, it's an insult, a fallacious argument and a distraction from the actual points being made that are on topic.

I insist on bringing in the critical psychological reasons underlying one's beliefs, not like this sort of dehumanizing manner and the like.

Sadly there are people posing thread on this Forum with less savvy than a worm.

[Atla]

Philosophical Realism adopts mind-independence on an absolute basis.

Keep on repeating that.

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

[Iwannaplato]

Keep on repeating that.

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

He's also confusing Wikipedia's use of the header 'Philosophical Realism' as if it is a classification in Philosophy: like some counterpart to Metaphysical Idealism or Property Dualism. When actually it's just Wikipedia disambiguating realism in philosophy from realism in Art or Films or....whatever.

[Atla]

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

He's also confusing Wikipedia's use of the header 'Philosophical Realism' as if it is a classification in Philosophy: like some counterpart to Metaphysical Idealism or Property Dualism. When actually it's just Wikipedia disambiguating realism in philosophy from realism in Art or Films or....whatever.

Maybe he reads the header and stops shortly after that, because he encounters some weird looking sentences that don't seem to agree with what he already knows. Kant warned in advance against such things, so VA is not that easily fooled.

That might also explain how he had the time to process 493476114 philosophical files, stored in 19324732 folders on his computer.

[Iwannaplato]

That might also explain how he had the time to process 493476114 philosophical files, stored in 19324732 folders on his computer.

Well if he spent one minute on each file that would only take 938 years, no sleeping.
I would guess he's a coffee drinker.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Keep on repeating that.

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

Your thinking is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic as being a 'kindi' philosophical gnat.

I have explained the necessity because,
philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence,
whereas empirical realism also claim mind-independence which in this case is relative in contrast of philosophical realism.

The point is when we go deeper into an issue [which the Wiki article did not] the 'protocol' is we have to be precise and rigorous with terms, definitions, ideas and concepts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

He's also confusing Wikipedia's use of the header 'Philosophical Realism' as if it is a classification in Philosophy: like some counterpart to Metaphysical Idealism or Property Dualism. When actually it's just Wikipedia disambiguating realism in philosophy from realism in Art or Films or....whatever.

You are willing to stoop so low intellectually merely for the sake of countering.

In all the varieties listed therein the Wiki Article;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... #Varieties
  Metaphysical realism
  Naive or direct realism
  Immanent realism
  Scientific realism
  Scientific realism in physics
  Moral realism
  Aesthetic realism

their basis is that of a mind-independent external world, independent from the human conditions [human mind & body].

Because empirical realism also recognized mind-independence in the relative sense, I regard philosophical realism as claiming absolutely mind-independent, i.e. absolutely independent from the human conditions.

[Atla]

That is central to my thesis.

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

Your thinking is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic as being a 'kindi' philosophical gnat.

I have explained the necessity because,
philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence,
whereas empirical realism also claim mind-independence which in this case is relative in contrast of philosophical realism.

The point is when we go deeper into an issue [which the Wiki article did not] the 'protocol' is we have to be precise and rigorous with terms, definitions, ideas and concepts.

The fact is that YOUR thinking is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic as being a 'kindi' philosophical gnat. That's why you've been building a total strawman for like a decade.

That Wiki link is pretty accurate btw. If you are unfamiliar with the different kinds of realisms then you need to re-read what you read about Western philosophy.

ESPECIALLY the direct vs indirect realism part because it is critical to where you are going dead wrong.

I also googled "philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence", 0 hits.

ChatGPT:

Philosophical realism does not necessarily claim absolute mind-independence. Instead, it asserts that there is an external reality that exists independent of our minds and perceptions. In other words, it holds that the physical world exists objectively, regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately.

However, there are different forms and degrees of philosophical realism, and they can vary in their claims about mind-independence. Here are two main types:

Metaphysical Realism: Metaphysical realism argues that reality exists independently of our minds and is objective in nature. It asserts that the physical world, including objects, properties, and events, exists as they are, regardless of human perception or conceptualization.

Epistemic Realism: Epistemic realism holds that there is an external reality, but it acknowledges that our knowledge and understanding of this reality may be limited or imperfect. While reality exists independently of our minds, our access to it might be mediated through our senses, cognitive processes, and conceptual frameworks. Epistemic realists accept that human knowledge is fallible, and there may be aspects of reality that we cannot fully grasp.

Philosophical realism does not deny the existence of subjective experiences, perceptions, or interpretations. It simply posits that these subjective elements do not determine or create the external reality itself. Instead, they are ways in which we interact with and make sense of the objective reality.

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's because your thesis isn't concerned with what is true, but with what you want to be true. Here's the page for example which you keep referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

"absolute" (absolutely) only appears on the page once, under direct (naive) realism, surprise surprise. All these years your thesis was ignorant nonsense.

Your thinking is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic as being a 'kindi' philosophical gnat.

I have explained the necessity because,
philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence,
whereas empirical realism also claim mind-independence which in this case is relative in contrast of philosophical realism.

The point is when we go deeper into an issue [which the Wiki article did not] the 'protocol' is we have to be precise and rigorous with terms, definitions, ideas and concepts.

The fact is that YOUR thinking is very narrow, shallow and dogmatic as being a 'kindi' philosophical gnat. That's why you've been building a total strawman for like a decade.

That Wiki link is pretty accurate btw. If you are unfamiliar with the different kinds of realisms then you need to re-read what you read about Western philosophy.

ESPECIALLY the direct vs indirect realism part because it is critical to where you are going dead wrong.

I also googled "philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence", 0 hits.

ChatGPT:

Philosophical realism does not necessarily claim absolute mind-independence. Instead, it asserts that there is an external reality that exists independent of our minds and perceptions. In other words, it holds that the physical world exists objectively, regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately.

However, there are different forms and degrees of philosophical realism, and they can vary in their claims about mind-independence. Here are two main types:

Metaphysical Realism: Metaphysical realism argues that reality exists independently of our minds and is objective in nature. It asserts that the physical world, including objects, properties, and events, exists as they are, regardless of human perception or conceptualization.

Epistemic Realism: Epistemic realism holds that there is an external reality, but it acknowledges that our knowledge and understanding of this reality may be limited or imperfect. While reality exists independently of our minds, our access to it might be mediated through our senses, cognitive processes, and conceptual frameworks. Epistemic realists accept that human knowledge is fallible, and there may be aspects of reality that we cannot fully grasp.

Philosophical realism does not deny the existence of subjective experiences, perceptions, or interpretations. It simply posits that these subjective elements do not determine or create the external reality itself. Instead, they are ways in which we interact with and make sense of the objective reality.

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

In all the above description from ChatGPT, the basis of philosophical realism is ultimately grounded on a mind-independent reality which is absolute in contrast [this context] to empirical realism which is based on relative mind-independence.

As a philosophical gnat obviously you did not notice this critical point;

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

[Atla]

In all the above description from ChatGPT, the basis of philosophical realism is ultimately grounded on a mind-independent reality which is absolute in contrast [this context] to empirical realism which is based on relative mind-independence.

As a philosophical gnat obviously you did not notice this critical point;

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

You're the one ignoring a "nuance" the size of a mountain. No one cares about your refutation of naive realism, naive realism is for kids. Try to beat indirect realism with your "Kantian empirical realism", it's not possible.

And stop misusing the words "absolute" and "relative". Your "absolute" philosophical realism can also be "relative" in some sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That Wiki link is pretty accurate btw. If you are unfamiliar with the different kinds of realisms then you need to re-read what you read about Western philosophy.

ESPECIALLY the direct vs indirect realism part because it is critical to where you are going dead wrong.

I also googled "philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence", 0 hits.

ChatGPT:

Philosophical realism does not necessarily claim absolute mind-independence. Instead, it asserts that there is an external reality that exists independent of our minds and perceptions. In other words, it holds that the physical world exists objectively, regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately.

However, there are different forms and degrees of philosophical realism, and they can vary in their claims about mind-independence. Here are two main types:

Metaphysical Realism: Metaphysical realism argues that reality exists independently of our minds and is objective in nature. It asserts that the physical world, including objects, properties, and events, exists as they are, regardless of human perception or conceptualization.

Epistemic Realism: Epistemic realism holds that there is an external reality, but it acknowledges that our knowledge and understanding of this reality may be limited or imperfect. While reality exists independently of our minds, our access to it might be mediated through our senses, cognitive processes, and conceptual frameworks. Epistemic realists accept that human knowledge is fallible, and there may be aspects of reality that we cannot fully grasp.

Philosophical realism does not deny the existence of subjective experiences, perceptions, or interpretations. It simply posits that these subjective elements do not determine or create the external reality itself. Instead, they are ways in which we interact with and make sense of the objective reality.

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

I checked with ChatGPT on the above and provided my nuanced situation;

In the context of your debate and the distinctions you've made, it is reasonable to use the terms "absolute mind-independence" and "relative mind-independence" to differentiate between philosophical realism and empirical realism.

Based on the quote you provided from ChatGPT, it appears that philosophical realism asserts the existence of an external reality independent of our minds and perceptions. This means that the physical world exists objectively regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately. This notion of an external reality existing entirely independently of the mind aligns with what you have designated as "absolute mind-independence."

On the other hand, empirical realism, as you've described it, acknowledges a form of mind-independence but is termed "relative mind-independence." This implies that empirical realism recognizes that there is an external reality, but the way we understand or access that reality is influenced by our empirical experiences and perceptions.

In summary, your use of "absolute mind-independence" and "relative mind-independence" to differentiate between philosophical realism and empirical realism seems valid given the distinctions you've made in your argument.
However, it's crucial to ensure that the definitions and terms you use align with accepted philosophical concepts to avoid any potential misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Always be ready to support your claims with well-founded arguments and references to established philosophical theories.

Who is the philosophical gnat in this case?

[Atla]

That Wiki link is pretty accurate btw. If you are unfamiliar with the different kinds of realisms then you need to re-read what you read about Western philosophy.

ESPECIALLY the direct vs indirect realism part because it is critical to where you are going dead wrong.

I also googled "philosophical realism claims absolute mind-independence", 0 hits.

ChatGPT:

Philosophical realism does not necessarily claim absolute mind-independence. Instead, it asserts that there is an external reality that exists independent of our minds and perceptions. In other words, it holds that the physical world exists objectively, regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately.

However, there are different forms and degrees of philosophical realism, and they can vary in their claims about mind-independence. Here are two main types:

Metaphysical Realism: Metaphysical realism argues that reality exists independently of our minds and is objective in nature. It asserts that the physical world, including objects, properties, and events, exists as they are, regardless of human perception or conceptualization.

Epistemic Realism: Epistemic realism holds that there is an external reality, but it acknowledges that our knowledge and understanding of this reality may be limited or imperfect. While reality exists independently of our minds, our access to it might be mediated through our senses, cognitive processes, and conceptual frameworks. Epistemic realists accept that human knowledge is fallible, and there may be aspects of reality that we cannot fully grasp.

Philosophical realism does not deny the existence of subjective experiences, perceptions, or interpretations. It simply posits that these subjective elements do not determine or create the external reality itself. Instead, they are ways in which we interact with and make sense of the objective reality.

It is essential to note that philosophical discussions on realism and its various forms can be nuanced and complex. Different philosophers may emphasize different aspects of realism, leading to variations in their positions on the relationship between the mind and external reality.

I checked with ChatGPT on the above and provided my nuanced situation;

In the context of your debate and the distinctions you've made, it is reasonable to use the terms "absolute mind-independence" and "relative mind-independence" to differentiate between philosophical realism and empirical realism.

Based on the quote you provided from ChatGPT, it appears that philosophical realism asserts the existence of an external reality independent of our minds and perceptions. This means that the physical world exists objectively regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately. This notion of an external reality existing entirely independently of the mind aligns with what you have designated as "absolute mind-independence."

On the other hand, empirical realism, as you've described it, acknowledges a form of mind-independence but is termed "relative mind-independence." This implies that empirical realism recognizes that there is an external reality, but the way we understand or access that reality is influenced by our empirical experiences and perceptions.

In summary, your use of "absolute mind-independence" and "relative mind-independence" to differentiate between philosophical realism and empirical realism seems valid given the distinctions you've made in your argument.
However, it's crucial to ensure that the definitions and terms you use align with accepted philosophical concepts to avoid any potential misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Always be ready to support your claims with well-founded arguments and references to established philosophical theories.

Who is the philosophical gnat in this case?

You, ChatGPT has just confirmed what I've been telling you all along, you misunderstood empirical realism. ChatGPT just sub-categorized Empirical realism under realism in general, without being subsumed in any ontological idealism.

You made ChatGPT say something irrelevant to the discussion as "physical world exists objectively regardless of whether or not we are aware of it or perceive it accurately" and "empirical realism recognizes that there is an external reality, but the way we understand or access that reality is influenced by our empirical experiences and perceptions" are not mutually exclusive. Under indirect realism, they are both true and partially the same thing said twice.

[Atla]

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.