The Transcendental-Idealism-FSRC is outdated

[Atla]

Note, even after ChatGPT has pointed out the massive conflation fallacy that VA has been fraudulently basing his kindi word salad arguments for years, VA still refuses to admit his mistake.

But because of the incorrect use of the word "absolute", even in this latest response, ChatGPT is forced to phrase it as "more absolute sense" which is really too ambiguous to make sense.

Where did ChatGpt mentioned "massive conflation fallacy".

Here again is what ChatGTP [wR] stated;

Yes, your analysis provides a reasonable interpretation of the nuances involved in the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism and related philosophical frameworks like Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism.

Your distinction between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism, and "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense, is well-founded.

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

Your explanation clarifies the different shades of independence and how they relate to various philosophical perspectives, enriching the understanding of the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism.

In the above ChatGpt agreed my use of 'absolute independence' is relevant within the context of indirect realism.

I don't follow whatever are your later nonsense.

Provide systematic and valid counter to the above if you have any.

Note you only prove again that you don't even know how to read. The above is not within the context of indirect realism, but within the context of transcendental idealism and realisms in general, it is a crude comparison. At this point you use absolute independence to mean 2-3 different things for indirect realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Note what AI [wR] has to say about your argumentation:

Does it prove that transcendental idealism is correct and indirect realism is incorrect, if we keep stating again and again (dozens, hundreds of times) that transcendental idealism is transcendental idealism and indirect realism is indirect realism?

No, simply repeating the terms "transcendental idealism" and "indirect realism" does not prove the correctness of one over the other.
The validity of philosophical positions like transcendental idealism and indirect realism requires rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning, rather than just repetition of terminology.

Your comprehension skill is very bad re the above.

You are asking a very stupid prompt to ChatGpt which insults your own intelligence.

The validity of philosophical positions like transcendental idealism and indirect realism requires rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning, rather than just repetition of terminology.

This is obviously the right approach to follow.

So far I have only made general statements re Transcendental Idealism & Indirect Realism.
I have not presented rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning to support my points because you are such a gnat and obnoxious to have a serious discussion.

I am using my discretion to respond to whatever points you post that I deemed fit to do.

[Atla]

...

Note what AI [wR] has to say about your argumentation:

Does it prove that transcendental idealism is correct and indirect realism is incorrect, if we keep stating again and again (dozens, hundreds of times) that transcendental idealism is transcendental idealism and indirect realism is indirect realism?

No, simply repeating the terms "transcendental idealism" and "indirect realism" does not prove the correctness of one over the other.
The validity of philosophical positions like transcendental idealism and indirect realism requires rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning, rather than just repetition of terminology.

Your comprehension skill is very bad re the above.

You are asking a very stupid prompt to ChatGpt which insults your own intelligence.

The validity of philosophical positions like transcendental idealism and indirect realism requires rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning, rather than just repetition of terminology.

This is obviously the right approach to follow.

So far I have only made general statements re Transcendental Idealism & Indirect Realism.
I have not presented rigorous analysis, evidence, and logical reasoning to support my points because you are such a gnat and obnoxious to have a serious discussion.

I am using my discretion to respond to whatever points you post that I deemed fit to do.

If you weren't incompetent, you would be able to argue for your position instead of making general statements that we already know.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note, even after ChatGPT has pointed out the massive conflation fallacy that VA has been fraudulently basing his kindi word salad arguments for years, VA still refuses to admit his mistake.

But because of the incorrect use of the word "absolute", even in this latest response, ChatGPT is forced to phrase it as "more absolute sense" which is really too ambiguous to make sense.

Where did ChatGpt mentioned "massive conflation fallacy".

Here again is what ChatGTP [wR] stated;

Yes, your analysis provides a reasonable interpretation of the nuances involved in the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism and related philosophical frameworks like Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism.

Your distinction between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism, and "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense, is well-founded.

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

Your explanation clarifies the different shades of independence and how they relate to various philosophical perspectives, enriching the understanding of the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism.

In the above ChatGpt agreed my use of 'absolute independence' is relevant within the context of indirect realism.

I don't follow whatever are your later nonsense.

Provide systematic and valid counter to the above if you have any.

Note you only prove again that you don't even know how to read. The above is not within the context of indirect realism, but within the context of transcendental idealism and realisms in general, it is a crude comparison. At this point you use absolute independence to mean 2-3 different things for indirect realism.

You are just ignorant.
ChatGpt [wR] is well aware of the full contexts of the contents within Transcendental Idealism and Indirect Realism.

ChatGpt wrote this which is sufficient to prove my point re ' absolute independence' underlying Indirect Realism.

Your distinction
between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism,
and "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense,
is well-founded.

[Atla]

Where did ChatGpt mentioned "massive conflation fallacy".

Here again is what ChatGTP [wR] stated;



In the above ChatGpt agreed my use of 'absolute independence' is relevant within the context of indirect realism.

I don't follow whatever are your later nonsense.

Provide systematic and valid counter to the above if you have any.

Note you only prove again that you don't even know how to read. The above is not within the context of indirect realism, but within the context of transcendental idealism and realisms in general, it is a crude comparison. At this point you use absolute independence to mean 2-3 different things for indirect realism.

You are just ignorant.
ChatGpt [wR] is well aware of the full contexts of the contents within Transcendental Idealism and Indirect Realism.

ChatGpt wrote this which is sufficient to prove my point re ' absolute independence' underlying Indirect Realism.

Your distinction
between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism,
and "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense,
is well-founded.

WHICH "absolute indepence"? You are unfathomably incompetent. The AI already explained to you above that in realism, "absolute indepence" generally means something else and usually does not underlie Indirect realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note you only prove again that you don't even know how to read. The above is not within the context of indirect realism, but within the context of transcendental idealism and realisms in general, it is a crude comparison. At this point you use absolute independence to mean 2-3 different things for indirect realism.

You are just ignorant.
ChatGpt [wR] is well aware of the full contexts of the contents within Transcendental Idealism and Indirect Realism.

ChatGpt wrote this which is sufficient to prove my point re ' absolute independence' underlying Indirect Realism.

Your distinction
between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism,
and "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense,
is well-founded.

WHICH "absolute indepence"? You are unfathomably incompetent. The AI already explained to you above that in realism, "absolute indepence" generally means something else and usually does not underlie Indirect realism.

Where did AI state that?

AI stated,

• your analysis provides a reasonable interpretation of the nuances involved in the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism ....
  
  "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism"
  
  Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.
  
  Your explanation clarifies the different shades of independence and how they relate to various philosophical perspectives, enriching the understanding of the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism.

Where did AI state,
"...in realism, "absolute independence" generally means something else and usually does not underlie Indirect realism."

Read again more closely;

• Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world ...., emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

According to AI the mind's independence within Direct and Indirect Realism is;

in a more absolute sense.

[Atla]

Where did AI state that?

AI stated,

• your analysis provides a reasonable interpretation of the nuances involved in the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism ....
  
  "absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism"
  
  Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.
  
  Your explanation clarifies the different shades of independence and how they relate to various philosophical perspectives, enriching the understanding of the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism.

Where did AI state,
"...in realism, "absolute independence" generally means something else and usually does not underlie Indirect realism."

Read again more closely;

• Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world ...., emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

According to AI the mind's independence within Direct and Indirect Realism is;

in a more absolute sense.

Where? In above posts that you dismissed as throwing kindi questions at the AI because you couldn't handle the full explanation. But here it is again:

A person says that transcendental idealism has a relative view on reality, reality is dependent on human cognition. And realism has an absolute view on reality, reality is absolutely independent of human cognition. But there are two kinds of indepence in realism: mind-independence and absolute (100%) independence. Is the person conflating two different kinds of absolute independence?

Yes, it seems the person is conflating two different kinds of absolute independence within realism. Mind-independence refers to the idea that reality exists independently of human thought or perception, while absolute independence suggests that reality exists entirely independently of any form of cognition, not just human cognition. These are distinct concepts within the framework of realism.

Instead of saying that realism is based on absolute independence, should the person say that realism is based on mind-independence (as opposed to the relative mind-dependence of transcendentel idealism)?

Yes, that would be a more accurate characterization. Realism is indeed based on the concept of mind-independence, meaning that reality exists independently of human cognition. This stands in contrast to the relative mind-dependence proposed by transcendental idealism.

Get it now, gnat? At least try to get the basic descriptions of philosophical positions right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where? In above posts that you dismissed as throwing kindi questions at the AI because you couldn't handle the full explanation. But here it is again:

A person says that transcendental idealism has a relative view on reality, reality is dependent on human cognition. And realism has an absolute view on reality, reality is absolutely independent of human cognition. But there are two kinds of indepence in realism: mind-independence and absolute (100%) independence. Is the person conflating two different kinds of absolute independence?

Yes, it seems the person is conflating two different kinds of absolute independence within realism. Mind-independence refers to the idea that reality exists independently of human thought or perception, while absolute independence suggests that reality exists entirely independently of any form of cognition, not just human cognition. These are distinct concepts within the framework of realism.

Instead of saying that realism is based on absolute independence, should the person say that realism is based on mind-independence (as opposed to the relative mind-dependence of transcendentel idealism)?

Yes, that would be a more accurate characterization. Realism is indeed based on the concept of mind-independence, meaning that reality exists independently of human cognition. This stands in contrast to the relative mind-dependence proposed by transcendental idealism.

Get it now, gnat? At least try to get the basic descriptions of philosophical positions right.

Yours is a strawman when you did not include the relevant nuances and emphasis, i.e. as in;

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations.
This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

To ensure integrity, you should quote ChatGpt response to me then ask question based on that.
I use the "the moon existing before and after humanity" example to highlight the need to qualify the "independence of mind" within realism must be absolute in order to contrast the 'relative mind independence' of empirical realism within transcendental idealism.

You did not mention Kant's empirical realism [you are probably ignorant of it] where it recognized the concept of the mind-independence of the external world.

Therefore that is a need to differentiate mind-independence of realism [direct and indirect] as absolute [which it is re 'moon exists regardless of humans] in contrast to the relative independence of empirical realism - the focus here is empirical realism, not so much transcendental realism.

I am sure ChatGpt will agree with my version rather than the version based on your kindi-gnat prompted question. You insist?

[Atla]

Where? In above posts that you dismissed as throwing kindi questions at the AI because you couldn't handle the full explanation. But here it is again:

A person says that transcendental idealism has a relative view on reality, reality is dependent on human cognition. And realism has an absolute view on reality, reality is absolutely independent of human cognition. But there are two kinds of indepence in realism: mind-independence and absolute (100%) independence. Is the person conflating two different kinds of absolute independence?

Yes, it seems the person is conflating two different kinds of absolute independence within realism. Mind-independence refers to the idea that reality exists independently of human thought or perception, while absolute independence suggests that reality exists entirely independently of any form of cognition, not just human cognition. These are distinct concepts within the framework of realism.

Instead of saying that realism is based on absolute independence, should the person say that realism is based on mind-independence (as opposed to the relative mind-dependence of transcendentel idealism)?

Yes, that would be a more accurate characterization. Realism is indeed based on the concept of mind-independence, meaning that reality exists independently of human cognition. This stands in contrast to the relative mind-dependence proposed by transcendental idealism.

Get it now, gnat? At least try to get the basic descriptions of philosophical positions right.

Yours is a strawman when you did not include the relevant nuances and emphasis, i.e. as in;

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations.
This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

To ensure integrity, you should quote ChatGpt response to me then ask question based on that.
I use the "the moon existing before and after humanity" example to highlight the need to qualify the "independence of mind" within realism must be absolute in order to contrast the 'relative mind independence' of empirical realism within transcendental idealism.

You did not mention Kant's empirical realism [you are probably ignorant of it] where it recognized the concept of the mind-independence of the external world.

Therefore that is a need to differentiate mind-independence of realism [direct and indirect] as absolute [which it is re 'moon exists regardless of humans] in contrast to the relative independence of empirical realism - the focus here is empirical realism, not so much transcendental realism.

I am sure ChatGpt will agree with my version rather than the version based on your kindi-gnat prompted question. You insist?

Word salad. ChatGPT writes "more absolute sense" and you write "must be absolute" which is not even the same thing.

ChatGPT writes that because the opposite of relative is "not relative", which is not really the same thing as "absolute".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where? In above posts that you dismissed as throwing kindi questions at the AI because you couldn't handle the full explanation. But here it is again:

Get it now, gnat? At least try to get the basic descriptions of philosophical positions right.

Yours is a strawman when you did not include the relevant nuances and emphasis, i.e. as in;

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations.
This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

To ensure integrity, you should quote ChatGpt response to me then ask question based on that.
I use the "the moon existing before and after humanity" example to highlight the need to qualify the "independence of mind" within realism must be absolute in order to contrast the 'relative mind independence' of empirical realism within transcendental idealism.

You did not mention Kant's empirical realism [you are probably ignorant of it] where it recognized the concept of the mind-independence of the external world.

Therefore that is a need to differentiate mind-independence of realism [direct and indirect] as absolute [which it is re 'moon exists regardless of humans] in contrast to the relative independence of empirical realism - the focus here is empirical realism, not so much transcendental realism.

I am sure ChatGpt will agree with my version rather than the version based on your kindi-gnat prompted question. You insist?

Word salad. ChatGPT writes "more absolute sense" and you write "must be absolute" which is not even the same thing.

ChatGPT writes that because the opposite of relative is "not relative", which is not really the same thing as "absolute".

What??
Isn't it true that 'more x' then it must be x and not y.
It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.

So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

If not, sure, ask ChatGpt.

[Atla]

What??
Isn't it true that 'more x' then it must be x and not y.
It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.

So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

If not, sure, ask ChatGpt.

Wtf, you don't know what "more" means?

If A is more true than B, does that mean that A is entirely the case and B is entirely not the case?

Not necessarily. Saying that "A is more true than B" suggests that A has a higher degree of truth or validity compared to B, but it doesn't necessarily mean that A is entirely true and B is entirely false. Both A and B could contain elements of truth, but A may be more accurate or applicable in a given context.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What??
Isn't it true that 'more x' then it must be x and not y.
It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.

So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

If not, sure, ask ChatGpt.

Wtf, you don't know what "more" means?

If A is more true than B, does that mean that A is entirely the case and B is entirely not the case?

Not necessarily. Saying that "A is more true than B" suggests that A has a higher degree of truth or validity compared to B, but it doesn't necessarily mean that A is entirely true and B is entirely false. Both A and B could contain elements of truth, but A may be more accurate or applicable in a given context.

You are so stupid and creating strawman all the time.
You are such a cheater as usual.

Why don't you address my point directly when asking ChatGpt;

• It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.
  If apple A is more sweet than apple B, then both are nevertheless 'sweet'.
  So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

Ask ChatGpt whether the above is reasonable or valid?

[Atla]

What??
Isn't it true that 'more x' then it must be x and not y.
It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.

So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

If not, sure, ask ChatGpt.

Wtf, you don't know what "more" means?

If A is more true than B, does that mean that A is entirely the case and B is entirely not the case?

Not necessarily. Saying that "A is more true than B" suggests that A has a higher degree of truth or validity compared to B, but it doesn't necessarily mean that A is entirely true and B is entirely false. Both A and B could contain elements of truth, but A may be more accurate or applicable in a given context.

You are so stupid and creating strawman all the time.
You are such a cheater as usual.

Why don't you address my point directly when asking ChatGpt;

• It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.
  If apple A is more sweet than apple B, then both are nevertheless 'sweet'.
  So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

Ask ChatGpt whether the above is reasonable or valid?

Lol

Is it true in philosophy that if something is more absolute rather than relative, then it is entirely absolute?

In philosophy, the distinction between absolute and relative can vary depending on the context and the specific philosophical framework being discussed. However, it's not necessarily the case that something being more absolute means it is entirely absolute. Degrees of absoluteness can exist, and some philosophers might argue for varying degrees of absoluteness or relativity depending on the concept being examined.

---------------------

Generally speaking, is "more absolute" an oxymoron?

Yes, "more absolute" is considered an oxymoron because something that is absolute is already considered complete or perfect in its nature, making the addition of "more" contradictory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wtf, you don't know what "more" means?

You are so stupid and creating strawman all the time.
You are such a cheater as usual.

Why don't you address my point directly when asking ChatGpt;

• It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.
  If apple A is more sweet than apple B, then both are nevertheless 'sweet'.
  So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

Ask ChatGpt whether the above is reasonable or valid?

Lol

Is it true in philosophy that if something is more absolute rather than relative, then it is entirely absolute?

In philosophy, the distinction between absolute and relative can vary depending on the context and the specific philosophical framework being discussed. However, it's not necessarily the case that something being more absolute means it is entirely absolute. Degrees of absoluteness can exist, and some philosophers might argue for varying degrees of absoluteness or relativity depending on the concept being examined.

---------------------

Generally speaking, is "more absolute" an oxymoron?

Yes, "more absolute" is considered an oxymoron because something that is absolute is already considered complete or perfect in its nature, making the addition of "more" contradictory.

Again you are very deceptive and a cheater.

ChatGpt wrote the following:

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations.
This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

For ChatGpt to state "more absolute" is an oxymoron can only be in a certain context and not in the above applicable context.

[Atla]

You are so stupid and creating strawman all the time.
You are such a cheater as usual.

Why don't you address my point directly when asking ChatGpt;

• It is more sweet, then it must be sweet and not otherwise.
  If apple A is more sweet than apple B, then both are nevertheless 'sweet'.
  So, 'more absolute' surely mean it must be absolute and not the opposite, i.e. relative.

Ask ChatGpt whether the above is reasonable or valid?

Lol

Is it true in philosophy that if something is more absolute rather than relative, then it is entirely absolute?

In philosophy, the distinction between absolute and relative can vary depending on the context and the specific philosophical framework being discussed. However, it's not necessarily the case that something being more absolute means it is entirely absolute. Degrees of absoluteness can exist, and some philosophers might argue for varying degrees of absoluteness or relativity depending on the concept being examined.

---------------------

Generally speaking, is "more absolute" an oxymoron?

Yes, "more absolute" is considered an oxymoron because something that is absolute is already considered complete or perfect in its nature, making the addition of "more" contradictory.

Again you are very deceptive and a cheater.

ChatGpt wrote the following:

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations.
This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

For ChatGpt to state "more absolute" is an oxymoron can only be in a certain context and not in the above applicable context.

You're an idiot. YOU forced ChatGPT to say "more absolute", which is generally an oxymoron, and also conflicts with other the "absolute indepence" within realism.

THAT'S WHY WE DON'T CALL IT AS SUCH. WE CALL IT MIND-INDEPENDENCE.