AI's Water Level Effect: e.g. Atla

[Veritas Aequitas]

When using AI it is noted AI will respond with answers to the level of intelligence and knowledge of the questioner.
If one ask kindi level questions, AI will respond accordingly with kindi level answers.
Therefore, for a kindi level physics question, AI would not answer in the PhD QM level.
The embarrassment is when one is ignorant of the above and used one's kindi level Q&A in say physics to apply to the PhD level.
Here is one example:

You are such a gnat and ignorant.

Show evidence where Indirect Realism do not claim "the external world is absolutely independent of the human mind[s]"

If it was absolutely independent, indirect realism couldn't work at all and couldn't make any sense. Unless we employ a lot of magic. Naturally you are the ignorant gnat. If by "absolute" you totally don't mean "absolute", then that's not my problem either.

??? You've been stuck here for years too. I don't know why.

Atla asked ChatGpt based on his kindi level;

Note [wR]

In indirect realism, is the absolute independence of the mind and the external world necessary?

In indirect realism, the absolute independence of the mind and the external world isn't necessary. Instead, it posits that while the external world exists independently of the mind, our perception of it is mediated by mental representations or sense data. So, there's a relationship between the mind and the external world, but it's not one of absolute independence.

GIGO!
You are exposing your foolishness and ignorance;
It is because you are gnat, ignorant, shallow and narrow thinker that you get the above feedback.
Here is a more matured view from ChatGpt [wR];

I asked the following question;

My interlocutor posted the following from [..I believe is] ChatGpt:

"In indirect realism, the absolute independence of the mind and the external world isn't necessary. Instead, it posits that while the external world exists independently of the mind, our perception of it is mediated by mental representations or sense data. So, there's a relationship between the mind and the external world, but it's not one of absolute independence."

I think there are nuances to the term "absolute" in this case.
In Kant's empirical realism, there is the concept of the independence of the mind but this is subsumed within Transcendental Realism which is ultimately involves the human conditions and mind.
In this case, it is appropriate to use the term 'relative independence' because the independence of empirical realism is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism.

On the other hand, realists [direct and indirect] claim the mind is independent of the external world to the extent that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct [assuming the moon has not been destroyed then].
In this case, the term "absolute independent" of human mind is appropriate to differentiate the 'relative independence of empirical realism.

Is the above reasonable?

ChatGpt responded as below:

Your analysis presents an interesting perspective on the nuances of the term "absolute independence" in the context of indirect realism, Kantian empirical realism, and transcendental idealism.

Relative Independence in Kantian Empirical Realism: Your point about Kant's empirical realism is valid. Kant argued for the independence of the mind within the framework of empirical realism, but this independence is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism, where the human mind structures and organizes sensory experience. Therefore, in this context, using the term "relative independence" would indeed be appropriate to acknowledge the dependence of empirical realism on Transcendental Idealism.

Absolute Independence in Realism: In contrast, when discussing realism, whether direct or indirect, the term "absolute independence" is often used to emphasize the idea that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental states. This notion doesn't necessarily imply a complete separation from human cognition but rather highlights the ontological independence of the external world. Your example of the moon existing before and after human existence illustrates this concept well.

In summary, your differentiation between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism and "absolute independence" in the broader context of realism is reasonable.
It highlights the nuanced ways in which philosophers approach the relationship between the mind and the external world within different philosophical frameworks.

This not the first time [it has happened with you and IWP];
I have already got ChatGpt to give more matured and realistic views than the one you asked ChatGpt based on your bias, narrow, shallow and ignorant prompting.

AI will usually respond to the level of the questioner; if the questioner ask at the kindi [gnat] level, AI will respond accordingly with kindi and gnat level answers.

It is the same with all your responses from AI which provide answers in accordance and relevant to your kindi and gnat level.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

This is of course what happens when an incompetent kindi gnat philosopher like VA can't handle that the initial response of ChatGPT was correct, and tries to manipulate its responses, to get it to say what VA wants it to say, trying to make it accept VA's fundamental fallacy.

Note the conclusion to the exchange [in bold]:

Here is a prior discussion between User and ChatGPT:

User wrote: "In indirect realism, is the absolute independence of the mind and the external world necessary?"

ChatGPT wrote: "In indirect realism, the absolute independence of the mind and the external world isn't necessary. Instead, it posits that while the external world exists independently of the mind, our perception of it is mediated by mental representations or sense data. So, there's a relationship between the mind and the external world, but it's not one of absolute independence."

User wrote: "I think there are nuances to the term "absolute" in this case.
In Kant's empirical realism, there is the concept of the independence of the mind but this is subsumed within Transcendental Realism which is ultimately involves the human conditions and mind.
In this case, it is appropriate to use the term 'relative independence' because the independence of empirical realism is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism.
On the other hand, realists [direct and indirect] claim the mind is independent of the external world to the extent that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct [assuming the moon has not been destroyed then].
In this case, the term "absolute independent" of human mind is appropriate to differentiate the 'relative independence of empirical realism.
Is the above reasonable?"

ChatGPT wrote: "Your analysis presents an interesting perspective on the nuances of the term "absolute independence" in the context of indirect realism, Kantian empirical realism, and transcendental idealism.

Relative Independence in Kantian Empirical Realism: Your point about Kant's empirical realism is valid. Kant argued for the independence of the mind within the framework of empirical realism, but this independence is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism, where the human mind structures and organizes sensory experience. Therefore, in this context, using the term "relative independence" would indeed be appropriate to acknowledge the dependence of empirical realism on Transcendental Idealism.

Absolute Independence in Realism: In contrast, when discussing realism, whether direct or indirect, the term "absolute independence" is often used to emphasize the idea that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental states. This notion doesn't necessarily imply a complete separation from human cognition but rather highlights the ontological independence of the external world. Your example of the moon existing before and after human existence illustrates this concept well.

In summary, your differentiation between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism and "absolute independence" in the broader context of realism is reasonable.
It highlights the nuanced ways in which philosophers approach the relationship between the mind and the external world within different philosophical frameworks."

But then haven't we conflated two forms of independence within realism: absolute (100%) independence and mind-independence, which distinction is vitally important in philosophy?

You raise a valid point regarding the distinction between two forms of independence within realism: absolute independence and mind-independence. It's indeed crucial to differentiate between these concepts, as they pertain to different aspects of the philosophical discourse on the nature of reality and perception.

Absolute Independence: This concept refers to the idea that the external world exists autonomously from any subjective perceptions or mental states. It implies a complete separation between the external world and the mind, suggesting that the existence of the world isn't contingent upon any form of consciousness or observation. This notion is fundamental to many realist philosophies, emphasizing the ontological independence of reality.

Mind-Independence: On the other hand, mind-independence pertains specifically to the independence of the external world from individual or collective human minds. It acknowledges that the existence and properties of objects in the world are not determined by human cognition or perception alone. This concept is often discussed in the context of debates about the nature of reality and the reliability of our sensory experiences.

By conflating these two forms of independence, we risk overlooking the nuances of each concept and potentially obscuring important distinctions in philosophical discourse. Recognizing the difference between absolute independence and mind-independence allows for a more precise analysis of philosophical frameworks, particularly within the broader context of realism and its variants. Clarifying these distinctions can lead to more fruitful discussions about the nature of reality, perception, and the relationship between the mind and the external world.

So is it correct to call both of them "absolute independence"?

No, it would not be correct to label both concepts as "absolute independence." Using the term "absolute independence" to describe both forms of independence could lead to confusion and misunderstandings within philosophical discourse.

It's important to maintain clarity by using terminology that accurately reflects the specific nuances of each concept. Referring to the independence of the external world from the mind as "absolute independence" and the independence of the external world from individual or collective human minds as "mind-independence" or "ontological independence" helps to distinguish between these related but distinct ideas.

By utilizing precise language, philosophers and scholars can engage in more nuanced discussions and avoid conflating different aspects of the philosophical debate surrounding the nature of reality and perception.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So is it correct to call both of them "absolute independence"?

You are throwing in kindi stuff to ChatGpt and get kindi level responses.

I have not mentioned both "absolute independence".

What I mentioned is
-my relative independence of empirical realism is realistic
-your absolute independent of indirect realism.

Your absolute independent of indirect realism is fake.

Version 2 from ChatGpt re the different sense of independence:

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.

[Iwannaplato]

When using AI it is noted AI will respond with answers to the level of intelligence and knowledge of the questioner.

Just imagine the confirmation bias in your assessments.

There is some truth to this. But it is not correct, since AI will spout out answers to simply phrased questions that will go over the head of many of the people who do have enough English to phrase them that way. Also even if you phrase something in ways that only a very smart person can, you still may have to remind AIs of parameters you specifically mentioned. One day this will perhaps change, but right now all sorts of responses are possible, at a variety of levels regardless of the user's intelligence. And note the silliness of thinking that we can replace an IQ test with fairly short questions asked to an AI. The AIs will not agree with that assessment.

More importantly what Atla and I and others have pointed out is that one can tweak the AIs with the way one phrases the question.
Further, AIs have a tendency to support conclusions on philosophical issues. If they can find support for a decently worded position, they will go for that support. They may caution that there are several views on the issue, but that can be a one sentence disclaimer.

IOW it is very easy for people to confirm their views through the public access AIs, especially in a field like philosophy where there is plenty of support for two or more sides and many issues.

Which is precisely why we mock your appeal to the authority of AIs.

And the implication that you have PHD understanding, nicely tucked into the OP, is just silly. So stop that. Auditing courses online and not getting feedback from professors does not a PHD make. It's great to do as much as you can as an autodidict but stop implying you are in a position you judge the level of your own framing of questions to an AI.

[Age]

When using AI it is noted AI will respond with answers to the level of intelligence and knowledge of the questioner.

"veritas aequitas" would have to be about one of the most CLOSED and BLINDED human beings here.

If this one really believes that its statement here is true, then it could not be less intelligent.

If one ask kindi level questions, AI will respond accordingly with kindi level answers.
Therefore, for a kindi level physics question, AI would not answer in the PhD QM level.
The embarrassment is when one is ignorant of the above and used one's kindi level Q&A in say physics to apply to the PhD level.
Here is one example:

You are such a gnat and ignorant.

Show evidence where Indirect Realism do not claim "the external world is absolutely independent of the human mind[s]"

If it was absolutely independent, indirect realism couldn't work at all and couldn't make any sense. Unless we employ a lot of magic. Naturally you are the ignorant gnat. If by "absolute" you totally don't mean "absolute", then that's not my problem either.

??? You've been stuck here for years too. I don't know why.

Atla asked ChatGpt based on his kindi level;

Note [wR]

In indirect realism, is the absolute independence of the mind and the external world necessary?

In indirect realism, the absolute independence of the mind and the external world isn't necessary. Instead, it posits that while the external world exists independently of the mind, our perception of it is mediated by mental representations or sense data. So, there's a relationship between the mind and the external world, but it's not one of absolute independence.

GIGO!
You are exposing your foolishness and ignorance;
It is because you are gnat, ignorant, shallow and narrow thinker that you get the above feedback.
Here is a more matured view from ChatGpt [wR];

I asked the following question;

My interlocutor posted the following from [..I believe is] ChatGpt:

"In indirect realism, the absolute independence of the mind and the external world isn't necessary. Instead, it posits that while the external world exists independently of the mind, our perception of it is mediated by mental representations or sense data. So, there's a relationship between the mind and the external world, but it's not one of absolute independence."

I think there are nuances to the term "absolute" in this case.
In Kant's empirical realism, there is the concept of the independence of the mind but this is subsumed within Transcendental Realism which is ultimately involves the human conditions and mind.
In this case, it is appropriate to use the term 'relative independence' because the independence of empirical realism is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism.

On the other hand, realists [direct and indirect] claim the mind is independent of the external world to the extent that the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists after humans are extinct [assuming the moon has not been destroyed then].
In this case, the term "absolute independent" of human mind is appropriate to differentiate the 'relative independence of empirical realism.

Is the above reasonable?

ChatGpt responded as below:

Your analysis presents an interesting perspective on the nuances of the term "absolute independence" in the context of indirect realism, Kantian empirical realism, and transcendental idealism.

Relative Independence in Kantian Empirical Realism: Your point about Kant's empirical realism is valid. Kant argued for the independence of the mind within the framework of empirical realism, but this independence is conditioned upon Transcendental Idealism, where the human mind structures and organizes sensory experience. Therefore, in this context, using the term "relative independence" would indeed be appropriate to acknowledge the dependence of empirical realism on Transcendental Idealism.

Absolute Independence in Realism: In contrast, when discussing realism, whether direct or indirect, the term "absolute independence" is often used to emphasize the idea that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental states. This notion doesn't necessarily imply a complete separation from human cognition but rather highlights the ontological independence of the external world. Your example of the moon existing before and after human existence illustrates this concept well.

In summary, your differentiation between "relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism and "absolute independence" in the broader context of realism is reasonable.
It highlights the nuanced ways in which philosophers approach the relationship between the mind and the external world within different philosophical frameworks.

This not the first time [it has happened with you and IWP];
I have already got ChatGpt to give more matured and realistic views than the one you asked ChatGpt based on your bias, narrow, shallow and ignorant prompting.

AI will usually respond to the level of the questioner; if the questioner ask at the kindi [gnat] level, AI will respond accordingly with kindi and gnat level answers.

It is the same with all your responses from AI which provide answers in accordance and relevant to your kindi and gnat level.

[Age]

In the days when this was being written, and as can be clearly seen here, adult human beings had evolved to not even be able to back up and support their own beliefs and claims with actual Intelligence, nor to use actual intelligence neither to argue against each other. So, they resorted to using 'artificial intelligence' instead. All while thinking or believing that 'artificial intelligence' was better, and would help them better, than 'actual intelligence' could.

Which, obviously, shows and proves how curiosity and interest in learning, and becoming wiser, and even Intelligence, Itself, was just about on the brink of absolute extinction.

[Atla]

So is it correct to call both of them "absolute independence"?

You are throwing in kindi stuff to ChatGpt and get kindi level responses.

I have not mentioned both "absolute independence".

What I mentioned is
-my relative independence of empirical realism is realistic
-your absolute independent of indirect realism.

Your absolute independent of indirect realism is fake.

Version 2 from ChatGpt re the different sense of independence:

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.

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.

At this point there is a near-total lack of clarity about what VA is actually trying to say. And if VA really can't tell apart realism's mind-independence and realism's absolute independence, then VA doesn't even know what he's talking about and never did.

(Also, yes, compared to each other, realisms are generally more "absolutist" than transcendental idealism, but that's simply what the positions entail, that's not an argument for anything. It's like pointing out that the sky is blue. We knew that.

Simply calling anything that works differently than transcendental idealism "fake", is not a killer argument either.)

Note that according to VA, the reason he isn't getting any usable answers from ChatGPT is that VA's intelligence is too low to ask adequate questions.

[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.

[Iwannaplato]

...

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.

But what if you link back to other threads where you asserted it was correct and you like did that many times. I mean, it's got to accumulate.

[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.

But then again you can't even get the general description of indirect realism right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

But then again you can't even get the general description of indirect realism right.

What??

I have quoted this "a 1000 times"

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences;[1][2] out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

Where have you defined Indirect Realism?

[Atla]

Your comprehension skill is very bad re the above.

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


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.

But then again you can't even get the general description of indirect realism right.

What??

I have quoted this "a 1000 times"

In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences;[1][2] out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

Where have you defined Indirect Realism?

Where do you see "absolute independence" in the definition you quoted?