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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

This is really stupid.
Where is "your" definition and understanding of "Indirect Realism"?

WIKI or even ChatGpt will always start with the general definition.
Mind-independence is implied in "do not experience the external world as it really is"

If you have posted with ChatGpt enough, you will note for ChatGpt, what is good philosophy is the delve into the various nuances and analyze their validity and soundness.

Note:

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.

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.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.
To me, in terms of being more realistic, the cons of indirect realism outweighs its pros.

[Atla]

What??

I have quoted this "a 1000 times"



Where have you defined Indirect Realism?

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

This is really stupid.
Where is "your" definition and understanding of "Indirect Realism"?

WIKI or even ChatGpt will always start with the general definition.
Mind-independence is implied in "do not experience the external world as it really is"

If you have posted with ChatGpt enough, you will note for ChatGpt, what is good philosophy is the delve into the various nuances and analyze their validity and soundness.

Note:

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.

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.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.
To me, in terms of being more realistic, the cons of indirect realism outweighs its pros.

I use the Wiki definition. I asked: where do you see "absolute independence" in it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

This is really stupid.
Where is "your" definition and understanding of "Indirect Realism"?

WIKI or even ChatGpt will always start with the general definition.
Mind-independence is implied in "do not experience the external world as it really is"

If you have posted with ChatGpt enough, you will note for ChatGpt, what is good philosophy is the delve into the various nuances and analyze their validity and soundness.

Note:

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.

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.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.
To me, in terms of being more realistic, the cons of indirect realism outweighs its pros.

I use the Wiki definition. I asked: where do you see "absolute independence" in it?

What happened to your brain and cognitive abilities.

I have already explain WIKI in general do not go into the details and the very nuanced aspects.

Good philosophy necessitate dealing with the nuances of an issue.
I stated, the concept of 'absolute independence' is necessary in the nuance of the above issue.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.

[Atla]

This is really stupid.
Where is "your" definition and understanding of "Indirect Realism"?

WIKI or even ChatGpt will always start with the general definition.
Mind-independence is implied in "do not experience the external world as it really is"

If you have posted with ChatGpt enough, you will note for ChatGpt, what is good philosophy is the delve into the various nuances and analyze their validity and soundness.

Note:



Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.
To me, in terms of being more realistic, the cons of indirect realism outweighs its pros.

I use the Wiki definition. I asked: where do you see "absolute independence" in it?

What happened to your brain and cognitive abilities.

I have already explain WIKI in general do not go into the details and the very nuanced aspects.

Good philosophy necessitate dealing with the nuances of an issue.
I stated, the concept of 'absolute independence' is necessary in the nuance of the above issue.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.

Again, here is the nuance from your OP:

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.

Wiki disagrees with you. ChatGPT disagrees with you. They agree with me. It's called mind-independence, not absolute independence. Where are YOU getting your definition from?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I use the Wiki definition. I asked: where do you see "absolute independence" in it?

What happened to your brain and cognitive abilities.

I have already explain WIKI in general do not go into the details and the very nuanced aspects.

Good philosophy necessitate dealing with the nuances of an issue.
I stated, the concept of 'absolute independence' is necessary in the nuance of the above issue.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.

Again, here is the nuance from your OP:

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.

Wiki disagrees with you. ChatGPT disagrees with you. They agree with me. It's called mind-independence, not absolute independence. Where are YOU getting your definition from?

Your above is a strawman in relation to my argument:

You did not specify the context and nuances involved as in;

ChatGpt wrote:
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.

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.

ChatGpt agrees with me when the nuances are presented.

[Atla]

What happened to your brain and cognitive abilities.

I have already explain WIKI in general do not go into the details and the very nuanced aspects.

Good philosophy necessitate dealing with the nuances of an issue.
I stated, the concept of 'absolute independence' is necessary in the nuance of the above issue.

Where is your definition of "Indirect Realism" and for its nuances, what are its pros and cons.

Again, here is the nuance from your OP:

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.

Wiki disagrees with you. ChatGPT disagrees with you. They agree with me. It's called mind-independence, not absolute independence. Where are YOU getting your definition from?

Your above is a strawman in relation to my argument:

You did not specify the context and nuances involved as in;

ChatGpt wrote:
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.

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.

ChatGpt agrees with me when the nuances are presented.

No, ChatGPT did NOT agree with you, because all of philosophy is NOT generally about Transcendental idealism. ChatGPT only said that in THAT specific context you brought up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, here is the nuance from your OP:



Wiki disagrees with you. ChatGPT disagrees with you. They agree with me. It's called mind-independence, not absolute independence. Where are YOU getting your definition from?

Your above is a strawman in relation to my argument:

You did not specify the context and nuances involved as in;

ChatGpt wrote:
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.

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.

ChatGpt agrees with me when the nuances are presented.

No, ChatGPT did NOT agree with you, because all of philosophy is NOT generally about Transcendental idealism. ChatGPT only said that in THAT specific context you brought up.

That is where you are ignorant.
I stated the focus is on the mind-independence of empirical realism and not on Transcendental Realism.

[Atla]

Your above is a strawman in relation to my argument:

You did not specify the context and nuances involved as in;



ChatGpt agrees with me when the nuances are presented.

No, ChatGPT did NOT agree with you, because all of philosophy is NOT generally about Transcendental idealism. ChatGPT only said that in THAT specific context you brought up.

That is where you are ignorant.
I stated the focus is on the mind-independence of empirical realism and not on Transcendental Realism.

I was talking about indirect realism vs transcendental idealism. Not about transcendental realism, and the empirical realism subsumed within transcendental idealism is a secondary issue.

What are YOU talking about?

[Atla]

... kindi ...

Note to VA: here is an example of asking AI a more advanced question:

Can the version of transcendental idealism which denies any mind-independent objective features of reality, explain the disparity between the a priori intuition of "absolute" space and time and Einsteinian spacetime?

The version of transcendental idealism that denies any mind-independent objective features of reality would likely struggle to explain the disparity between the a priori intuition of "absolute" space and time and Einsteinian spacetime. This is because such a view typically emphasizes the subjective nature of reality, rooted in human cognition, rather than acknowledging the possibility of objective features existing independently of the mind. In contrast, Einsteinian spacetime posits a dynamic, interconnected framework that challenges the classical notions of absolute space and time, suggesting an objective reality that exists regardless of human perception. Therefore, the denial of mind-independent objective features may not adequately accommodate the profound shift in our understanding of space and time brought about by Einsteinian relativity.

Can indirect realism explain the same?

Indirect realism, which posits that we perceive external objects indirectly through the mediation of ideas or sense data, can offer an explanation for the disparity between the a priori intuition of "absolute" space and time and Einsteinian spacetime. According to this view, our perception of space and time is constructed from our sensory experiences, which are subject to interpretation and influenced by various factors.

In the context of Einsteinian spacetime, indirect realism could suggest that our perception of space and time is shaped by the sensory data we receive, but it doesn't necessarily reflect an objective, mind-independent reality. Instead, our understanding of space and time evolves based on our experiences and the conceptual frameworks we develop, which may be influenced by scientific theories such as relativity.

Indirect realism allows for the acknowledgment of the dynamic nature of our perceptual experiences and conceptual frameworks, which can accommodate the profound shift in our understanding of space and time brought about by Einsteinian relativity. However, it's essential to recognize that indirect realism still maintains a distinction between our perceptions and the external reality they purportedly represent, leaving open the question of the ultimate nature of spacetime.

[Iwannaplato]

Basically, your OP is yet another thread starter that is an ad hom. It's not a new take on the actual disagreement between you and Atla. It's just saying he doesn't use AIs correctly.

For which you give zero evidence.

So, instead of actually continuing to make the case for your position and/or interact with and respond to points Atla made, you clutter up the New Post section with yet another thread started by you, and in one of your common forms: an attack on a person. Instead of showing the weakness of their arguments you prattle about their AI use, or the psychology, or the potential violence of them because the don't have the same beliefs you do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Basically, your OP is yet another thread starter that is an ad hom. It's not a new take on the actual disagreement between you and Atla. It's just saying he doesn't use AIs correctly.

For which you give zero evidence.

So, instead of actually continuing to make the case for your position and/or interact with and respond to points Atla made, you clutter up the New Post section with yet another thread started by you, and in one of your common forms: an attack on a person. Instead of showing the weakness of their arguments you prattle about their AI use, or the psychology, or the potential violence of them because the don't have the same beliefs you do.

Are you a grandmother [an old hag and a nagger]?

[Atla]

That's funny, let's ask AI:

According to someone, grandmothers are old hags and naggers.

It's important to remember that such statements are often based on stereotypes and prejudices rather than reality. Grandmothers, like anyone else, are individuals with their own unique personalities and qualities. It's unfair and disrespectful to generalize them in such a negative way.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you a grandmother [an old hag and a nagger]?

It's good to see you own your sexism and agism, Veritas. Not good that you have them, but good that your honest that you have them.

Again,
1) you create threads where most people would, politely, continue discussions in already-made-threads on the same topic. This leads to clutter, especially for those looking at New Posts. Not only are there more threads there, but many seem to have the same topic.
2) in this particular thread, instead of, for example, showing in a particular case, in a particular topic, Atla didn't use an AI well,
you
ad hommed him
implicitly placed yourself above him (at PHD level)
all without evidence.
IOW the OP is an ad hom claim that got its own thread.

A defensive reframe. Oh, the problem isn't that AIs can be easily used in confirmation bias questioning, people aren't on my PHD level ability to use them

In some already started thread you could have simply said: I think I use the AIs better than you do.

But you've created a whole thread with basically no content, calling someone out.

I'll happily take on the role of an elder to your sexist little boy.

[Atla]

So, instead of actually continuing to make the case for your position and/or interact with and respond to points Atla made

I'm afraid, he never really did either of those things, to begin with. We could maybe have had a somewhat interesting debate between Kant's position and indirect realism (which I would have won in the end), but he never even sufficiently understood his own position, and never could actually interact with what I said.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm afraid, he never really did either of those things, to begin with

.
Yes, that's part of my point. He does this kind of start a new thread thing to move away from unfinished discussions and unanswered critique. Then he refers to those threads that are not finished as if they are finished: I already said, I already demonstrated, I already proved
+ link.

I am not saying he is being consciously cagey like that. But I see a pattern that avoids problems and makes it easier to make silly claims.

We could maybe have had a somewhat interesting debate between Kant's position and indirect realism (which I would have won in the end), but he never even sufficiently understood his own position, and never could actually interact with what I said.

I do notice sometimes that if I take his positions seriously and point out how he is contradicting them, he cannot see this or, at least, admit this.

He's a bricoleur. Which makes sense when one is dealing with (limited) material options. In fact, I think it's cool. But there's no reason for it here. One can try to make things fit together.