Why did you read a lot of Kant if you found him boring and pedantic? — Janus

I like to be informed about my judgments.

Unless the questions of ontology and epistemology are correctly answered first, no rational ethical / political principles can be established. — Elric

What counts as a correct answer to ontological questions?

What do you mean by "totality of the world"? Is thinking about that different than thinking about what the Real is? — Janus

Yes. The "Real" is abstract and is itself hard to define. Is it merely that which is not False? That is more epistemology.

Metaphysics is just what you think the basic principles of your philosophy are. Physicalists refuse to admit they are doing metaphysics. As Wittgenstein said, logical necessity is just a failure of the imagination.

If metaphysics is taken to be the science of the Real (where "real" is understood to be what is independent of human experience) then Kant was not doing metaphysics. His aim was to establish what characteristics all possible human experience and judgement must have. — Janus

I don't define metaphysics as the science of the real. It is just a topic in philosophy about what we think the totality of the world is.
And Kant is rather petty in his understanding of the world. I've read a lot of Kant and I find him boring and pedantic.

My point is that if metaphysics is taken to be the attempt to arrive at a definitive answer as to the nature of absolute reality, then it is not, and cannot be, adequate to the task. — Janus

Metaphysics is no more the definitive answer to absolute reality than epistemology is the definitive answer to absolute truth and knowledge.
And Kant was simply doing metaphysics under the guise of epistemology.

Good explanation. Thanks.

I may have missed your point. Are you saying we cannot be angry without using words to say we are angry?

Then what do you mean by experience?

direct, unspoken experience — T Clark

what is a direct unspoken experience?

I am not a doctor.

I don't reject physicalism because of the spiritual--I have no idea what spiritual means. I reject physicalism because it is incoherent. If we say everything is physical, we have explained nothing.
Physicalism is a metaphysics.

My motto is, "No one ever accomplished anything by doing nothing."

I think Hume's argument is more like UFO sightings. It is more probable that it is something that the viewer cannot identify than a spaceship from somewhere else in the universe.

I am not a doctor. Don't have any knowledge of the neurology of dementia.

Depends on how you define religion.

How do you measure deep?

Philosophy has no requirements of prior knowledge. Unlike in physics, you can debate someone's claim on truth without having prior technical knowledge.

I subscribe to panpsychism.
The one difference is I would substitute "intelligence" for "consciousness."
That is, intelligent systems do not have to have consciousness, but consciousness is always a process of intelligence.