Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning

[Iwannaplato]

Reminds me of those QM interpretations that treat quantum behaviour as "not real", but when we look for the results, those are "real".

Then I always ask: how can something that DOESN'T EXIST, arrange the results exactly in accordance with the laws of QM? How can NOTHING affect SOMETHING, and even does so perfectly consistently?

The reply to my question is always a befuddled blank stare, and then they simply repeat their stance.

I did spend a long time trying to get VA to answer about the consistency of what is constructed. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally when we, alone, enter an empty room, we find not only what was there before - no zebras, collections of shells that were there, and so on - but what other people find there. He tried to defend against this way saying that the things are not necessarily the same. But that misses the point that we would still categorize them similarly, even if somehow how those atoms are not the same or it's all really a kind of sensory hallucination, we have very similar ones and this holds even across cultures. Why is there such persistance of objects, even over long periods of time, if it's really just constructivist perception working on something like a field of random pixels? Given that every object would, thus, be a bunch of random pixels, but we keep making the same things out of them. And this works across species. Put some meat in a room and your dog wolf lion, maggots, will eat that. They construct something edible out of the pixels. And it's gone when you later go in the room.

Put a rock in there and then let in the animal and it's still there after the animal comes out and you enter. Why the persistence and consistency?

I don't think this is a nail in the coffin, but he never answered it well. As always I think he doesn't take his antirealism far enough to be consistent. It's actually just a rear guard action against PH's attack on morals not being objective. OK, VA thought, I will take away your objectivism and make it something else so my morals can be objective.

It's difficult to take your Kantian antirealism far enough considering Kant wasn't even an antirealist..

I don't have a Kantian antirealism. And I don't know what VA has. I'd call Kant cautious, not antirealist. Hey, we don't know, let's work with what we do know and black box that stuff. He wouldn't be showing images of pixels of what is there before we experience phenomena. But, in any case, the above is not me proposing an antirealism, but pointing out a problem. If he's right and there are just fields of pixels, why do we keep making the same things out of them? Why does this work regardless of background or even, at least at a gross level, species, when we can have all sorts of expectations of what is in a box or empty room and yet we all find the same things. He says it is because we all have similar physiologies - which is 1) a realist defense but 2) our physiologies and backgrounds could expect anything in an empty room or box, yet there is so much consistency, person to person. Nothing about our physiology and senses mean that 40,000 people will find a frisbee on a table. And then later a chicken egg when we change the object. Realism says that there is an egg there when the room is empty and the box is closed. I have never seen an adequate answer from his antirealism - and it would likely need to be quite parsimonious to compete with realism. What lovely parsimony. We put an egg in there. It stayed there because no one moved it. Each person entered the room and saw the egg. His antirealism means that everyone went in there and for some reason constructed from random pixels an egg. Time and again, from all the possiblities. That seems statistically wild and also not parsimonious at all. Unless some simplicity is argued and I haven't seen that.

[Iwannaplato]

To me, he seems to be saying that those pixels aren't ontologically real, but exist enough anyway to serve as the basis of his FSRC or whatever process.

How can something not be ontologically real but exist?

Their necessity in the steps of an argmument calls them forth. He has an active anti-realism. He takes constructivism literally. He gets to make things real.

Reminds me of those QM interpretations that treat quantum behaviour as "not real", but when we look for the results, those are "real".

Then I always ask: how can something that DOESN'T EXIST, arrange the results exactly in accordance with the laws of QM? How can NOTHING affect SOMETHING, and even does so perfectly consistently?

The reply to my question is always a befuddled blank stare, and then they simply repeat their stance.

Another approach is that he's been tossing out Popper of late - likely earlier.
Is his antirealism falsifiable?
Is his statement that ding an sich don't exist falsifiable?

He's always giving us tools to use. Here's why PH is wrong? Oh, great Popper, I'm so glad you brought him up. Ok, let's look at your transcendental idealism through Popper.

It saves us having to demonstrate that Popper is correct. He's already appealing to his authority and even around falsifiablity. Great, thanks VA. Let's use that tool.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a question here on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

The central point is the evolutionary default of metaphysical realism or philosophical realism:

Philosophical realism ... is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

...... realism [p] is contrasted with idealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Those who oppose the above are anti-p-realists.

Kant is ultimately an antirealist, i.e. anti-p-realist.

From the start, we have declared ourselves in favour of this Transcendental Idealism;
CPR-A370

While being a transcendental Idealist i.e. anti-p-realist, Kant is an empirical realist;

The Transcendental Idealist, on the other hand, may be an Empirical Realist CPR-A370

There is no confusion in the above, the point is Kant's empirical realism is subsumed within his ultimate transcendental realism [anti-p-realist].


Kant also categorize p-realists as Transcendental Realists which implied they are delusional in believing reality is absolute mind-independent.
Transcendental Realists believe what is reality is transcendental i.e. beyond the reach of human minds, exist regardless of humans i.e. absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

There is a question here on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

It wasn't a question, idiot. Even your God can tell you that you don't even know what realism and anti-realism mean.

Was Kant neither realist nor anti-realist?

Kant's philosophical stance is often considered distinct from both realism and anti-realism. He proposed a unique framework known as transcendental idealism, which asserts that our knowledge is based on the interaction between our subjective perceptions and the inherent structures of the mind. This perspective doesn't neatly fit into the categories of realism or anti-realism, as it emphasizes the role of the mind in shaping our understanding of reality rather than positing an objective reality independent of our perceptions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a question here on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

It wasn't a question, idiot. Even your God can tell you that you don't even know what realism and anti-realism mean.

Was Kant neither realist nor anti-realist?

Kant's philosophical stance is often considered distinct from both realism and anti-realism. He proposed a unique framework known as transcendental idealism, which asserts that our knowledge is based on the interaction between our subjective perceptions and the inherent structures of the mind. This perspective doesn't neatly fit into the categories of realism or anti-realism, as it emphasizes the role of the mind in shaping our understanding of reality rather than positing an objective reality independent of our perceptions.

Again you are asking ChatGpt based on your ignorance.

I can easily represent the full story to ChatGpt and correct the above in its proper context which would be another embarrassment to you.
I have corrected your error so many times already, I won't waste time on it.

My answer is actually presented in my earlier post.

[Atla]

There is a question here on whether Kant is realist or antirealist?

It wasn't a question, idiot. Even your God can tell you that you don't even know what realism and anti-realism mean.

Was Kant neither realist nor anti-realist?

Kant's philosophical stance is often considered distinct from both realism and anti-realism. He proposed a unique framework known as transcendental idealism, which asserts that our knowledge is based on the interaction between our subjective perceptions and the inherent structures of the mind. This perspective doesn't neatly fit into the categories of realism or anti-realism, as it emphasizes the role of the mind in shaping our understanding of reality rather than positing an objective reality independent of our perceptions.

Again you are asking ChatGpt based on your ignorance.

I can easily represent the full story to ChatGpt and correct the above in its proper context which would be another embarrassment to you.
I have corrected your error so many times already, I won't waste time on it.

You can't, and you haven't corrected it once. You are a pathological liar.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It wasn't a question, idiot. Even your God can tell you that you don't even know what realism and anti-realism mean.

Again you are asking ChatGpt based on your ignorance.

I can easily represent the full story to ChatGpt and correct the above in its proper context which would be another embarrassment to you.
I have corrected your error so many times already, I won't waste time on it.

You can't, and you haven't corrected it once. You are a pathological liar.

Note this case, I got ChatGpt to correct its presentation to you [based on your narrow thinking]:

viewtopic.php?p=704295#p704295
Your gnat thinking is too bankrupt.

[Atla]

Again you are asking ChatGpt based on your ignorance.

I can easily represent the full story to ChatGpt and correct the above in its proper context which would be another embarrassment to you.
I have corrected your error so many times already, I won't waste time on it.

You can't, and you haven't corrected it once. You are a pathological liar.

Note this case, I got ChatGpt to correct its presentation to you [based on your narrow thinking]:

viewtopic.php?p=704295#p704295
Your gnat thinking is too bankrupt.

No, I've shown that you simply lied to ChatGPT there, presenting to it the opposite of what I said.

Atla: it is incorrect to call all realism to be based on absolute independence, as the distinction between mind-independence and absolute independence is important in philosophy.
ChatGPT: Very much agree!
VA: Transcendental idealism is based on relative independence and realism is based on absolute independence!!!
ChatGPT: Yes, we can say that in a general comparison, realism is based on more absolute independence...
VA: Atla was wrong!!!! Realism is based on absolute independence!!!!!! Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that realism is more "absolutist", that's why it's called realism. Why are you even here?

And we can of course also do something like this:

Yes, transcendental idealism can be interpreted in various degrees of absolutism. Some interpretations may emphasize a more absolute understanding of idealism, positing that reality is entirely dependent on the mind or consciousness. Others may take a more nuanced approach, acknowledging the role of both consciousness and external reality in shaping experience. The absolutist interpretations tend to assert a stronger form of idealism, while less absolutist interpretations allow for a greater degree of interaction between consciousness and external reality.

[Impenitent]

I asked ChatGPT about Popper and it said that Popper is still working at the movie theater

https://68.media.tumblr.com/f253011c31a ... o1_500.gif

-Imp