Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

meh

Can the version of transcendental idealism which denies any mind-independent objective features of reality, explain the consistency of perceptual illusions?

The version of transcendental idealism that denies any mind-independent objective features of reality could potentially explain the consistency of perceptual illusions by positing that our perception constructs the illusionary features based on the inherent structures of our cognitive faculties rather than the external world. In this view, perceptual illusions arise due to the limitations or biases of our perceptual mechanisms rather than reflecting objective properties of the external world.

Can indirect realism explain the same?

Yes, indirect realism could also explain the consistency of perceptual illusions. Indirect realism posits that we perceive the world indirectly through our sensory experiences, which are mediated by our perceptual systems. Perceptual illusions occur when there is a discrepancy between the information provided by our senses and the true nature of the external world. This can happen due to various factors such as sensory limitations, cognitive biases, or environmental conditions. So, indirect realism can account for the consistency of perceptual illusions by attributing them to the way our perceptual systems process and interpret sensory information.

Which explanation is more likely to be correct according to empirical observation?

According to empirical observation, indirect realism is more likely to align with our understanding of reality. Empirical evidence consistently suggests that there is an external world that exists independently of our perception. Through scientific experiments and observations, we gather data that supports the existence of objective features and properties of the external world.

While perceptual illusions and biases are acknowledged within indirect realism, they are seen as deviations from accurate perception rather than evidence against the existence of an external reality. Empirical studies in psychology and neuroscience often explore how these illusions arise from the workings of our perceptual systems, while still affirming the existence of an external world.

Transcendental idealism, while offering valuable philosophical insights, may be less directly supported by empirical observation as it posits that our perception is fundamentally shaped by the structures of our minds. However, empirical evidence does not definitively rule out transcendental idealism; rather, it may suggest that indirect realism is a more straightforward interpretation of empirical observations.

Can you demonstrate just one thing that your kind of transcendental idealism gets right and indirect realism doesn't?

All your above are strawman.

As I had stated the focus is on empirical realism [mentioned many times] not transcendental idealism.

Get back to ChatGpt and ask on the focus and basis of Kant's empirical realism and not solely on transcendental idealism.

I am confident I can counter all the above based on your presentation of a narrow view with its nuances to ChatGpt.

Btw, ChatGpt made reference to modern science above, but that is based on the scientific realism perspective which I can easily countered with scientific anti-realism.
Scientific realism merely ASSUME [without proof] an absolute mind-independent reality where such an ASSUMPTION is a weakness to start with.

[Atla]

...

meh

Can the version of transcendental idealism which denies any mind-independent objective features of reality, explain the consistency of perceptual illusions?

The version of transcendental idealism that denies any mind-independent objective features of reality could potentially explain the consistency of perceptual illusions by positing that our perception constructs the illusionary features based on the inherent structures of our cognitive faculties rather than the external world. In this view, perceptual illusions arise due to the limitations or biases of our perceptual mechanisms rather than reflecting objective properties of the external world.

Can indirect realism explain the same?

Yes, indirect realism could also explain the consistency of perceptual illusions. Indirect realism posits that we perceive the world indirectly through our sensory experiences, which are mediated by our perceptual systems. Perceptual illusions occur when there is a discrepancy between the information provided by our senses and the true nature of the external world. This can happen due to various factors such as sensory limitations, cognitive biases, or environmental conditions. So, indirect realism can account for the consistency of perceptual illusions by attributing them to the way our perceptual systems process and interpret sensory information.

Which explanation is more likely to be correct according to empirical observation?

According to empirical observation, indirect realism is more likely to align with our understanding of reality. Empirical evidence consistently suggests that there is an external world that exists independently of our perception. Through scientific experiments and observations, we gather data that supports the existence of objective features and properties of the external world.

While perceptual illusions and biases are acknowledged within indirect realism, they are seen as deviations from accurate perception rather than evidence against the existence of an external reality. Empirical studies in psychology and neuroscience often explore how these illusions arise from the workings of our perceptual systems, while still affirming the existence of an external world.

Transcendental idealism, while offering valuable philosophical insights, may be less directly supported by empirical observation as it posits that our perception is fundamentally shaped by the structures of our minds. However, empirical evidence does not definitively rule out transcendental idealism; rather, it may suggest that indirect realism is a more straightforward interpretation of empirical observations.

Can you demonstrate just one thing that your kind of transcendental idealism gets right and indirect realism doesn't?

All your above are strawman.

As I had stated the focus is on empirical realism [mentioned many times] not transcendental idealism.

Get back to ChatGpt and ask on the focus and basis of Kant's empirical realism and not solely on transcendental idealism.

I am confident I can counter all the above based on your presentation of a narrow view with its nuances to ChatGpt.

Btw, ChatGpt made reference to modern science above, but that is based on the scientific realism perspective which I can easily countered with scientific anti-realism.
Scientific realism merely ASSUME [without proof] an absolute mind-independent reality where such an ASSUMPTION is a weakness to start with.

Trying to be evasive, you're not making sense as usual. The above issues were all empirical.

[Atla]

...

What are you so confident about? Here, you wanted the AI to spell it out for you:

Here is a prior discussion:

User: 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?

ChatGPT wrote:
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.

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

What are you so confident about? Here, you wanted the AI to spell it out for you:

Here is a prior discussion:

User: 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?

ChatGPT wrote:
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.

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity.

As I had stated, you present your ignorant narrow and shallow gnat view to ChatGpt thus what you get is a limited, not nuanced and more true view.
You are trying to cheat with your ignorance and omitting critical and relevant points to ChatGpt.
I have corrected you so many times and upon that I just don't view ChatGpt's response to your deceptive questions are credible at all.
If I am ChatGpt I will insist you F/O for your intended deception;

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt that expose your ignorance:

Topic: Kant Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism:

My interlocutor provided the following from ChatGpt.
(I believe my interlocutor did not provide the proper perspective for ChatGpt's consideration.)

• [ChatGpt]"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity. "

The concept of empirical realism was introduced by Kant in his CPR.
Kant argued for Empirical Realism, i.e. an mind-independent external world but this empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within his Transcendental Idealism which is not mind-independent.

Einstein is a philosophical realist while Kant in contrast is a transcendental idealist. Thus the point re intuition of space between Kant and Einstein is highly debatable.

My point is Kant did argue in his CPR his empirical realism is subsumed within his transcendental idealism and thus both are reconcilable.

Here is ChatGpt [wR] response;

Yes, your points are reasonable and provide a more nuanced understanding of Kant's philosophical framework.

Kant's Empirical Realism within Transcendental Idealism: Kant indeed introduces the concept of empirical realism in his "Critique of Pure Reason" (CPR). Empirical realism, as Kant presents it, acknowledges the existence of a mind-independent external world, but he also argues that this empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within his broader framework of transcendental idealism. In other words, while Kant recognizes the reality of the external world, he emphasizes that our understanding of it is mediated by the structures of our own minds.

Reconciling Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism: Kant's project in the CPR is precisely about reconciling seemingly conflicting perspectives, such as empirical realism and transcendental idealism. While empirical realism posits an objective reality independent of human cognition, transcendental idealism asserts that our perception of reality is shaped by the structures of our minds. Kant's synthesis involves showing how both perspectives can be understood within a unified framework, where empirical reality is not denied but understood in relation to the conditions of human cognition.

Debate over Intuition of Space between Kant and Einstein: Your point about the debate regarding the intuition of space between Kant and Einstein being highly debatable is valid. While Kant's understanding of space and time is indeed different from Einstein's, the comparison between the two is complex and involves considerations of both philosophical and scientific perspectives. Kant's intuition of space and time is tied to his transcendental idealism, while Einstein's theory of relativity introduces a new understanding of spacetime dynamics. However, it's essential to recognize that these perspectives operate within different intellectual contexts and are not necessarily directly comparable.

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

[Atla]

...

What are you so confident about? Here, you wanted the AI to spell it out for you:

Here is a prior discussion:

User: 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?

ChatGPT wrote:
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.

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity.

As I had stated, you present your ignorant narrow and shallow gnat view to ChatGpt thus what you get is a limited, not nuanced and more true view.
You are trying to cheat with your ignorance and omitting critical and relevant points to ChatGpt.
I have corrected you so many times and upon that I just don't view ChatGpt's response to your deceptive questions are credible at all.
If I am ChatGpt I will insist you F/O for your intended deception;

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt that expose your ignorance:

Topic: Kant Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism:

My interlocutor provided the following from ChatGpt.
(I believe my interlocutor did not provide the proper perspective for ChatGpt's consideration.)

• [ChatGpt]"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity. "

The concept of empirical realism was introduced by Kant in his CPR.
Kant argued for Empirical Realism, i.e. an mind-independent external world but this empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within his Transcendental Idealism which is not mind-independent.

Einstein is a philosophical realist while Kant in contrast is a transcendental idealist. Thus the point re intuition of space between Kant and Einstein is highly debatable.

My point is Kant did argue in his CPR his empirical realism is subsumed within his transcendental idealism and thus both are reconcilable.

Here is ChatGpt [wR] response;

Yes, your points are reasonable and provide a more nuanced understanding of Kant's philosophical framework.

Kant's Empirical Realism within Transcendental Idealism: Kant indeed introduces the concept of empirical realism in his "Critique of Pure Reason" (CPR). Empirical realism, as Kant presents it, acknowledges the existence of a mind-independent external world, but he also argues that this empirical realism is ultimately subsumed within his broader framework of transcendental idealism. In other words, while Kant recognizes the reality of the external world, he emphasizes that our understanding of it is mediated by the structures of our own minds.

Reconciling Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism: Kant's project in the CPR is precisely about reconciling seemingly conflicting perspectives, such as empirical realism and transcendental idealism. While empirical realism posits an objective reality independent of human cognition, transcendental idealism asserts that our perception of reality is shaped by the structures of our minds. Kant's synthesis involves showing how both perspectives can be understood within a unified framework, where empirical reality is not denied but understood in relation to the conditions of human cognition.

Debate over Intuition of Space between Kant and Einstein: Your point about the debate regarding the intuition of space between Kant and Einstein being highly debatable is valid. While Kant's understanding of space and time is indeed different from Einstein's, the comparison between the two is complex and involves considerations of both philosophical and scientific perspectives. Kant's intuition of space and time is tied to his transcendental idealism, while Einstein's theory of relativity introduces a new understanding of spacetime dynamics. However, it's essential to recognize that these perspectives operate within different intellectual contexts and are not necessarily directly comparable.

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt that expose your ignorance:

Topic: Kant Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism:

My interlocutor provided the following from ChatGpt.
(I believe my interlocutor did not provide the proper perspective for ChatGpt's consideration.)

• [ChatGpt to Atla]"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity. "

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

Note:
In ChatGpt's reply to you [A]:

"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism.

In ChatGpt's reply to me [Z]:

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

ChatGpt's responses [A and Z] above appear to be contradictory, but that is only because you were ignorant and deceptive and did not present the full picture to ChatGpt.

ChatGpt did not have to believe me, upon my question, it can compare what you provided and what Kant presented in his CPR. I have discussed with ChatGpt on Kant's empirical realism before and I have also presented the relevant references to ChatGpt.
In any case, ChatGpt has access to Kant's CPR from the internet.

You are too arrogant and deceptive based on your ignorance of the subject matter.

[Atla]

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt that expose your ignorance:

Topic: Kant Empirical Realism & Transcendental Realism:

My interlocutor provided the following from ChatGpt.
(I believe my interlocutor did not provide the proper perspective for ChatGpt's consideration.)

• [ChatGpt to Atla]"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism. Empirical realism typically asserts the existence of an objective reality independent of human cognition, while transcendental idealism emphasizes the subjective nature of reality and the role of human cognition in shaping our understanding of the world. When trying to reconcile these perspectives, conflicts may arise, such as in explaining the disparity between classical intuitions of space and time and the findings of Einsteinian relativity. "

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

Note:
In ChatGpt's reply to you [A]:

"Yes, this could be considered an example of inconsistency when attempting to incorporate empirical realism within transcendental idealism.

In ChatGpt's reply to me [Z]:

Overall, your interpretation provides a more accurate portrayal of Kant's philosophical position and his attempt to reconcile empirical realism with transcendental idealism within the framework of the CPR.

ChatGpt's responses [A and Z] above appear to be contradictory, but that is only because you were ignorant and deceptive and did not present the full picture to ChatGpt.

ChatGpt did not have to believe me, upon my question, it can compare what you provided and what Kant presented in his CPR. I have discussed with ChatGpt on Kant's empirical realism before and I have also presented the relevant references to ChatGpt.
In any case, ChatGpt has access to Kant's CPR from the internet.

You are too arrogant and deceptive based on your ignorance of the subject matter.

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt that expose your ignorance:

Note:
In ChatGpt's reply to you [A]:

In ChatGpt's reply to me [Z]:

ChatGpt's responses [A and Z] above appear to be contradictory, but that is only because you were ignorant and deceptive and did not present the full picture to ChatGpt.

ChatGpt did not have to believe me, upon my question, it can compare what you provided and what Kant presented in his CPR. I have discussed with ChatGpt on Kant's empirical realism before and I have also presented the relevant references to ChatGpt.
In any case, ChatGpt has access to Kant's CPR from the internet.

You are too arrogant and deceptive based on your ignorance of the subject matter.

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

You are so desperate.
I have provided the relevant evidence to support my claim.

[Atla]

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

You are so desperate.
I have provided the relevant evidence to support my claim.

Note this is what I actually wrote:

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

but VA left it out in order to strawman me:

My point is Kant did argue in his CPR his empirical realism is subsumed within his transcendental idealism and thus both are reconcilable.

Note that VA has fallen so low that he has to lie to a chatbot. In order to avoid facing the actual wider context, that yes, Kant did argue for their reconcilability, but he was probably wrong. They are usually reconcilable, but probably conflict in a few key areas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman.

Here we have another proof how blatantly dishonest VA is. He didn't present the actual case to ChatGPT, instead he simply said to the AI that I didn't present the proper perspective, which is a lie, and the AI simply believed him, and responded to that claim. It is VA who is deceptive, while trying to frame me as deceptive.

You are so desperate.
I have provided the relevant evidence to support my claim.

Note this is what I actually wrote:

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

but VA left it out in order to strawman me:

My point is Kant did argue in his CPR his empirical realism is subsumed within his transcendental idealism and thus both are reconcilable.

Note that VA has fallen so low that he has to lie to a chatbot. In order to avoid facing the actual wider context, that yes, Kant did argue for their reconcilability, but he was probably wrong. They are usually reconcilable, but probably conflict in a few key areas.

Probably wrong??

A gnat trying to cheat a human-gnat-swatter?
Have you read Kant thoroughly to understand [not agree with] his CPR to enable you to present a reasonable critique of the relevant point?

I am aware ChatGpt is reasonable familiar with Kant's CPR.

[Atla]

You are so desperate.
I have provided the relevant evidence to support my claim.

Note this is what I actually wrote:

Is this an example of an inconsistency when we subsume empirical realism within transcendental idealism?

but VA left it out in order to strawman me:

My point is Kant did argue in his CPR his empirical realism is subsumed within his transcendental idealism and thus both are reconcilable.

Note that VA has fallen so low that he has to lie to a chatbot. In order to avoid facing the actual wider context, that yes, Kant did argue for their reconcilability, but he was probably wrong. They are usually reconcilable, but probably conflict in a few key areas.

Probably wrong??

A gnat trying to cheat a human-gnat-swatter?
Have you read Kant thoroughly to understand [not agree with] his CPR to enable you to present a reasonable critique of the relevant point?

I am aware ChatGpt is reasonable familiar with Kant's CPR.

I read it until the part where he probably went wrong with space and time.
Look transcendental idealism is only a shock to you, I already understood the view decades ago.

[Iwannaplato]

I am aware ChatGpt is reasonable familiar with Kant's CPR.

I read it until the part where he probably went wrong with space and time.
Look transcendental idealism is only a shock to you, I already understood the view decades ago.
[/quote]
He doesn't understand what Chatgpt does. It isn't 'familiar' with Kant's CPR. It has been given data on it. If asked a question, it can access its data and using algorithms deduce (or try to) conclusions. This is even more distanced from 'being familiar with' when the questions are not the standard ones. IOW when they require interpretation, guesswork.

In a sense it is the exact same situation that BINGai is in, an AI that does scour the internet, was not 'familiar' with Kant before, but now used that scanning to produce in real time to generate and answer. Chatgpt has a library at home. Bing Ai goes to outside libraries.

Neither is familiar. They just have tools they throw at data.

[Atla]

In summary, I think it's fair to say that Indirect realism is "closer" to the standard interpretation of Transcendental idealism, than it is to Direct realism.

But still, Indirect realism > Transcendental idealism. Advances in science in the 250 years after Kant make this claim likely to be correct. It's sort of an improvement over Transcendental idealism.

(Imo, today Kant would probably end up being an indirect realist too.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this is what I actually wrote:


but VA left it out in order to strawman me:


Note that VA has fallen so low that he has to lie to a chatbot. In order to avoid facing the actual wider context, that yes, Kant did argue for their reconcilability, but he was probably wrong. They are usually reconcilable, but probably conflict in a few key areas.

Probably wrong??

A gnat trying to cheat a human-gnat-swatter?
Have you read Kant thoroughly to understand [not agree with] his CPR to enable you to present a reasonable critique of the relevant point?

I am aware ChatGpt is reasonable familiar with Kant's CPR.

I read it until the part where he probably went wrong with space and time.
Look transcendental idealism is only a shock to you, I already understood the view decades ago.

Don't bullshit!

You admitted after you read the early part of the CPR you just gave up.

Kant explained his Transcendental Idealism is the very later part of the CPR.

[Atla]

Probably wrong??

A gnat trying to cheat a human-gnat-swatter?
Have you read Kant thoroughly to understand [not agree with] his CPR to enable you to present a reasonable critique of the relevant point?

I am aware ChatGpt is reasonable familiar with Kant's CPR.

I read it until the part where he probably went wrong with space and time.
Look transcendental idealism is only a shock to you, I already understood the view decades ago.

Don't bullshit!

You admitted after you read the early part of the CPR you just gave up.

Kant explained his Transcendental Idealism is the very later part of the CPR.

I grew up in continental Europe genius, the view that our "reality" is constructed using a priori functions of the mind, is somewhat embedded in our cultures here. It's a fairly obvious insight anyway to those like me, who had a few malfunctions of the mind.