But never mind, I do not expect you to answer a single question I pose to you (look how many you have dodged so far in this conversation).
> What we have is a methodology that generates accurate enough
I see you have moved the goalposts from "an accurate map of the world" to "accurate enough" (which is an assumption, or a tautology).
> that at the end of that process of winnowing out those that do not accurately map reality we have a functional useable model of what exists in the world
You are representing a modal problem space as binary. Is this accidental?
> If you are an anti-realist I highly suggesting standing under a grand piano I will suspend above your head and then release from 50 feet above your head. Your metaphysical blah, blah, blah will not save you, and nothing of value will be lost when you are crushed. A win all around to be sure!
You could answer some of my questions above and demonstrate that you are as smart as you are representing yourself to be.
Will you do that? If not, are you willing to reveal why you will not?
> P.S. It is certainly possible there is more to the world like a transcendental god, or whatever
Such as something that you (or humanity) do not possess knowledge of? Could it be possible that you (and humanity) do not actually know everything?
> Just because the maps are not the thing in itself, from that it does not follow the models have no value....
Here you are correct. Unfortunately, you are arguing against a simulation (I did not make that claim). Out of curiosity: do you (or did you, at the time of writing) believe that I made that claim?
> Not "every human being," that is a red herring.
I also said "(or even humanity as an aggregate)".
But never mind, I do not expect you to answer a single question I pose to you (look how many you have dodged so far in this conversation).
> What we have is a methodology that generates accurate enough
I see you have moved the goalposts from "an accurate map of the world" to "accurate enough" (which is an assumption, or a tautology).
> that at the end of that process of winnowing out those that do not accurately map reality we have a functional useable model of what exists in the world
You are representing a modal problem space as binary. Is this accidental?
> If you are an anti-realist I highly suggesting standing under a grand piano I will suspend above your head and then release from 50 feet above your head. Your metaphysical blah, blah, blah will not save you, and nothing of value will be lost when you are crushed. A win all around to be sure!
You could answer some of my questions above and demonstrate that you are as smart as you are representing yourself to be.
Will you do that? If not, are you willing to reveal why you will not?
> P.S. It is certainly possible there is more to the world like a transcendental god, or whatever
Such as something that you (or humanity) do not possess knowledge of? Could it be possible that you (and humanity) do not actually know everything?
> Just because the maps are not the thing in itself, from that it does not follow the models have no value....
Here you are correct. Unfortunately, you are arguing against a simulation (I did not make that claim). Out of curiosity: do you (or did you, at the time of writing) believe that I made that claim?
A mind reading philosopher, oh how standards are declining.
You people may deserve everything you get.
No, I think you're a Normie (one reason being your unironic belief that you can read minds).
Why do you believe you can read my mind?
Since you seem to have a not very comprehensive curriculum:
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/