Philosophical Speculations

You're welcome, rezam. It might be a lot to watch and read, but if you are interested in objections to AI, and want to watch Bernardo's reply to them, including to mine, plus counter-comments, here are the links: https://youtu.be/4E6irMB2ANs comments on video reply Anyway for me, the most interesti...

Thank you very much Federica for your sound answer. I think I should also read your specific comments (viewtopic.php?p=17172#p17172). I would come back to you if I had any points worth mentioning. Thanks again.

Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:57 pm
Also note that, despite the name of this forum, not all of its members are followers of BKs idealism (I am not).

Hello Federica

May I know where you depart from BK's idealism? (Or what's your comment on BK's idealism?).

Thank you

If you used a simple pin-hole camera and captured images - these captured images line up very closely to what you actually percieve with your own eyes. Other recording devices (audio as well) confirm this. I think it's reasonable to discard the 'dashboard theory' - and simply commit to gross object...

The issue is in the very framing of the question, which implicitly imports a correspondence theory of truth. The way to avoid this and reason out the actual relations between percepts and our thinking concepts is here - https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_c05.html Thank you so m...

Thank you very much Forrest. See if the following makes sense. The question is not why should we assume that what we see is the same as the reality of what is out there. Whatever the things out there are in themselves (even if they are mental), when we make a distinction between things in themselves...

I greatly appreciate receiving your answer to the following question about analytical idealism. ———————— Q1: Whatever the reality of the outside world is (even if we accept that it is mental), why should we assume that its appearance in our mind necessarily and correctly mirror or correspond to what...