But isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? Or is there such a thing as universally objective beauty?

Fair point. I don't agree much with ucarr either. I'm talking more about Deacon, which I give ucarr the credit for causing me (and no, that is not a matter of material causation!) to read more of. — Wayfarer

:ok:

This is very much the kind of observation that Deacon starts his book with:

The meaning of a sentence is not the squiggles used to represent letters on a piece of paper or a screen. It is not the sounds these squiggles might prompt you to utter. — Wayfarer

It is certainly an interesting writing in your quote. It sounds like a depiction of close link or cooperation between matter and ideas, rather than a standard materialism.

The reason I was put off by Deacon's argument in the synopsis was when I saw the word "evolution", which he seems to emphasis in the formation of sentience. I disagree with any evolution theories, hence stopped there.

I would give a good try reading the book based on your quote, but I have other books that I am reading, and trying to finish right now. Hence I would just wait for your finishing the book, and telling us about it. :)

I’m in your corner, but so far you have nothing to go on but sentiment. You could benefit from some more reading, starting with the book this thread is about. You may not agree with it, but considering Deacon’s arguments would be instructive. — Wayfarer

No I don't think I was going on sentiment at all. I was just letting the OP know why he was confused when he posts an addlepated questions like "

If your brain were removed from your cranium, would you be using your hands to type messages to me? — ucarr

, when I have never denied the existence of brain for the precondition of mind.

He also seems to think I was an idealist, which I am not. If someone is not materialist, then it doesn't automatically place him into a position of being an idealist.

I did read the synopsis on Deacon's arguments, but it seemed a theory I don't quite agree with. It was good to know about the arguments in outline, but I don't think I would read more about it as it doesn't interest me as a serious theory. However, as I usually do, I would try to respond to all posts directed to me from the OP and all the participants in the thread even if it is not directly related to the topic.

I’m confused? — ucarr

Your questions and posts have been mostly based on the false assumptions and misunderstandings on the other party's stance. Therefore they give impression that either the poster is confused or not reading the posts properly before replying.

Your confusion seems to be based on your misunderstanding that my stance is some sort of an idealist. I am not an idealist.

I am more in the direction of a dualist. A dualist accepts both mind and matter as different substance, like from Descartes. Hence I acknowledge matter exists as material substance, and mind exists as mental substance.

If your brain were removed from your cranium, would you be using your hands to type messages to me? — ucarr

Your "If" statement is implying that it is not a relevant condition for the point, hence your concluding question in your statement is absurd. No one has been denying that brain is the location for the mind. It is a poor logic (again :D)

Our conversation here is specifically concerned with the location, structure and functioning of mind in relation to body. If you think we’re wrong in our thesis that mind emerged from matter via upwardly evolving, dynamical processes, then you need to specifically address that claim by pointing out its flaws. — ucarr

For that info, you must contact a neurologist, and they will be able to provide the info in detail to you. I am not a neurologist, hence I do not have the detailed info off hand.

I think you should deepen your investigation beyond the level of quick scans on the internet. Doing so might empower you to more specifically address perceived flaws in the proffered explanations of the mind/body problem. — ucarr

Thank you for your advice. I will try to do that. My point was trying to clarify on materialism for its problems in the theory.

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof

... you claimed that mind is matter.
— Corvus
I did not "claim" this. :roll:

So you can't answer my questions ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Claiming mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing sounds weird and illogical. And I never said anything about a static thing at all with mind, because my stance is mind is immaterial substance.

Those activities are the functions of the biological bodily organs. Equating them to mind seems to be a deep confusion. When I saw your post contained that statement, I didn't imagine that you would be serious to claim that. :)

Because they are, to reiterate, the basic biological functions of the bodily organs to maintain the life of the living agent. They have nothing to do with sentients, feelings, thoughts, ideas of self or cognitions which are the prime signs of having intelligence or mind. We cannot locate where the mind is situated as its own existence, because, as my claim say, it is not a matter.

We can only identify the core of our minds via those mental events and operations I have listed above, and that is all we can confirm and prove at the present. That is my belief for now.

Okay, I'll move on to someone who has some idea of what s/he is talking about. — 180 Proof

You must first know what you are asking about. :)

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

Or if we make a very unusual inference that there is such a thing as Absolute Nothingness, I think it has to be the space. Space is nothing, and it is absolutely nothing. That nothingness is what makes all the the other things exist.

So space has to exist as absolute nothingness for anything else to exist in it such as all the particles, molecules and atoms (if they did exist), and all the livings and physical objects and the planets and stars, air, sea and lights and waves. So it is a precondition of the whole universe. In reality and actuality, the universe exists, therefore Absolute Nothingness must exists too!!

I don't hold that position positively, I am just pointing out the interaction problem that arises with any dualistic philosophy.
This problem in fact arises with ANY non-physicalist philosophy, including matemathical platonism, or any kind of platonism. — Lionino

For present, I reckon the dualist theory seems to be more plausible than materialism.

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof

Yeah, but if you could remember, that question was only possible to be thrown at you because you claimed that mind is matter. If you claimed that mind is not matter, I could not possibly have asked that awkward question. So your claim has invited the question you see?

How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?
— 180 Proof
I'll wait ... :chin: — 180 Proof

Yeup, this can be a long topic on its own. If you can come up with a totally conclusive answers to this, then you would be nominated to the Noble prize reckon. :D

I know, that is what I was referencing. — Lionino

I thought about it again, and Nothingness must be always about something. Nothingness also implies that it has its past and past existence. But some change took place, which replaced something to nothing.

For example, I had the biscuits in the tin. When the biscuits were all eaten, there was nothing in the tin.
The thing = biscuits were replaced by the nothingness.

So nothingness exists. It has its properties too, which is emptiness and nothingness.

Now absolute nothingness is a strange concept. Absolute nothingness implies there is nothing in real absolute sense. There is no tin, no biscuits, no me, and no world. Hence it is an oxymoron, or the state of the universe before its birth. If it is Absolute Nothingness of oxymoron, then Hume would want to throw it away to the flames in his wood burning stove. But because it is absolute nothing, he might not quite be able to do that, or he doesn't need to.

If it is the state of the universe before its birth, then it is unknowable, hence it is Thing-in-Itself of Kantian terms.

Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof

That is what they call the "hard point", which has many explanations. If mind is matter, then where is it? What shape, size and weight is your mind?

That does not imply that mind is not matter. On the contrary, the fact that it is able to interact with matter points towards the fact that it is also of the same substance. — Lionino

Interesting point. Why do you think mind is same substance as matter?

Hume wrote in his Treaties, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
— Corvus

I like the fragment, but I don't see how it connects with absolute nothingness being an empty concept (something I agree with too). — Lionino

It has been a few months since that post has been written, so I was wondering about it myself, but it was for this point, I think.

In Hume's view, "Absolute Nothingness" is an empty concept, which denotes nothing. — Corvus

because there are clear evidences that it is not
— Corvus

What evidence is that? — Lionino

:cool:

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills. — Corvus

Do you think mind holds causal force over material things? Is so, can you articulate the structure of the handshake linking immaterial to material? If not, can you justify your belief mind is immaterial? — ucarr

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills.

If you say mind operates in domains clearly not material, such as: abstractions, generalizations of tokens to types and computation, then materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr

Mind works with in abstract domains such as abstractions, generalisations of tokens to types and computation as well as with the body it is residing in for all the movements and works it tells the body to carry out as it wants. The clue is in the operations and communications between mind and body. Without mind, body becomes matter with no sign of life, sentience and consciousness. Without body, the mind evaporates. Where the mind goes to is still a mystery. But one thing clear is that, mind is not body itself, and mind is not material.

Can you counter this argument with one that debunks Deacon’s teleodynamics of the ententional, a category that includes: sentience, meaning and purpose. — ucarr

I am not familiar with the idea you tells, but I quickly scanned the internet search of the term. It sounds like teleodynamics of the ententional sounds like a type of evolutionary theory. I am not sure if evolutionary theory has strong grounds for its claims. It seems to have some interesting points but also many vague parts in the theory too. Anyhow, my standpoint for it is that matter alone, and evolution theory alone seem to have some problems in explaining fully on the mind / body problems.

What’re we gonna do ‘bout this barnburner?” — ucarr

Is it not time to commit the old materialism to flames? It has been around since the ancient Greek era even prior to Plato. It is has not progressed even an inch from where it was, since the time of Demorcritus.

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. — ucarr

It would be like saying, one legged man runs faster because he has to move only one leg instead of two when running. Nonsense.

↪Corvus Nice, I hadn't seen these before. I'll add them to my armory! — Vaskane

:cool: :ok:

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose. — ChatteringMonkey

A good hearted person can be name-called as an idiot in real life even these days suppose. I don't think Jesus would have minded being the person who he was.

And he may have called Nietzsche as a sage. Nietzsche might have asked Jesus, why do you called me a sage, when they say I called you an idiot. Jesus might have replied, well hmmmm well, to a sage, everyone appears to be sages, and to an idiot, everyone appears to be idiots.

And Nietzsche would have said "That proves their saying that me calling you an idiot." was a lie and groundless rumours.

If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy — Nietzsche in the Antichrist

C G Jung's seminar seems to suggest AntiChrist was a brother of Jesus who tried to undermine Jesus' values. I am not sure if it is correct fact or misreading the book on my part. This needs to be clarified and confirmed suppose. I am not familiar of the stories in the bible on Jesus, Christianity or AntiChrist at this stage, but I will be starting to read them in the near future.

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. It doesn’t have to address the cosmic transition point: the structural handshake transitioning immaterial into material, or the reverse. — ucarr

That doesn't prove that materialism is correct. It is a poor logic (again :roll: ). It would be like saying eating loads of McDonald hamburgers everyday and watching TV all day for the rest of your life is easy, therefore good for your health.

He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Here is a good article on Nietzsche's idea on Jesus and Anti-Christ in Wiki, and it seems to be the case that Nietzsche thought Jesus was not quite the same figure as the churches depicted him. Nietzsche seems to have liked some characters and the background of Jesus for sure.

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward. — ChatteringMonkey

Couldn't Jesus be a symbolic figure for Nietzsche too? After all, Jesus was a loner, preached truths to the mass, and became a martyr, who suffered the betrayal from one of his disciples and punishment from the evil regime for the values he believed in.

I hope this cleared a few things up. I am looking to formalize my framework of actuality and hypotheticality being used here, so maybe this will be clearer in the future. — Ø implies everything

If you could define the concept "absolute" and "nothingness" separately, then it would help for getting more concrete perspectives on "absolute nothingness" i.e. as a combined idea.

After the process, the first thing we could ask or clarify is whether absolute nothingness is an entity or concept which stands on its own. If it is, then does it have any attributes or properties associated with it?

If not, then is it something that emerged from some other entities, concept or existence? .. so on.

The only similarity is that Jesus and Zarathustra were creators of values. That's the one aspect Nietzsche could respect in Jesus, that he had the strenght of his convictions, and managed to overturn conventional morality and create something new to suit his character. That's why (as I said above) he choose a prophet-type as the mouthpiece for his philosophy in Thus spoke Z, because they were doing a similar prophet thing, creating new tables of values.

Where they took that exercise however, what values they created, could not be more different. — ChatteringMonkey

The C G Jung's seminar seems saying that Zarathustra has nothing to do with the Zoroaster religious figure or Mazdaznan sector. They seem to be in favour of paralleling Zarathustra with Jesus or Nietzsche himself.

But they conclude Thus Spake Zarathustra was Nietzsche himself talking.

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.
— Corvus

Okay, this is a start. What’s your next move? — ucarr

Materialism is a view that everything is made up of matter. If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.

But if they say, mind is not made of matter, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only matter is made up of matter, which is a tautology.

Therefore it is either an incorrect view or a tautology.

but yes, the figure of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra shares similarities with both Jesus and Nietzsche. — Vaskane

Well, that is, any Christian other than Jesus, whom he considers the only true Christian. Nietzsche speaks exceptionally high of Jesus: — Vaskane

So it was natural for Zarathustra was depicting Jesus, and tacitly Nietzsche himself too. I am glad that I am learning something about Nietzsche with this discussion. Thanks. :pray: :up:

For example, a lot of people think that the collective unconscious is something where people send telepathic messages/vibes to other people etc etc, which is just hilarious cause the collective unconscious is more like — Vaskane

The collective consciousness is an interesting concept in philosophy of psychology. It reminds me of the book by Georges Bataille called "Eroticism", but much of Jung's psychology seems to be based on the concept.

Will read the rest of your post later, as I have loads of work to clear today :( Will come back with more points when things get a bit quiet here. Good day~

The automobile is a part of the capitalist society based on the technology and free market. Without them, the society will stop functioning smoothly. There will be economic collapse and many inconveniences in daily life for the society members without the automobiles.

It has many negative aspects as the OP listed, but then is there anything which are 100% positive and problem free under the scrutiny?

A.I. is already in place of some sectors of the current life - business, medical care, military device, education, art, literature and even in philosophy. It definitely offers more efficiency and speed of the operation and transactions in whatever walk of task they are working on than the conventional way of doing the business. However, there will be many uncertainties in aspect of human life in terms of mental wellbeing, economic insecurities and falling general intelligence. Can anyone stop the current trends of the progressing technologies, and turn the time back to the ancient times? Highly unlikely.

The point is that it is not just The automobiles, which have been negatively affecting human life. All technological advances in the capitalistic society impact human life enormously some in positive, and mostly in negative ways.

I don't quite get your argument, but what you wrote in the quote is wrong. Absolute nothingness is oxymoronic because of the existence of something. Remove everything, and suddenly absolute nothingness is no longer oxymoronic, because absolute nothingness is nothing. — Ø implies everything

I totally forgot about this thread. Nice to hear back from you.

A thing is something that can be referred to, by whatever means, be they perceptual, emotive or conceptual. A conceptual reference is defining something. Therefore, the state that is absolute nothingness is a thing, by virtue of being referred to by its definition. Its definition is formalized further down.

EE is the set of all propositions true for some corresponding state; a complete description of that state. If a proposition PP is true in EE, we have that [P]∈E[P]∈E.

AA is the set corresponding to the state of absolute nothingness. The definition of AA is as follows: A=∅A=∅. That means for all propositions PP, we have that P∉AP∉A.

Contradiction:

(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)(A=∅)∧([A=∅]∈A)

So, done deal? We have proved why something must exist, right? Well, look above you; what do you see? Something. Let's denote that something as CC; that is, CC denotes the proposition above.

Now, we know that CC is true, by virtue of simple logic. However, if AA truly was instantiated... Well:

C∉A — Ø implies everything

I feel your arguments seem to be still unsound. It starts from the wrong premises. When you say "absolute nothingness", you cannot even make up a proposition and assign it to an empty set. For example, I have a cookie tin here. It used to have some cookies in it. I can make a proposition A= "The tin has 3 different type of cookies." A = {C,M,T}
When all the cookies are eaten up, the tin is empty. Now A = { }

But when you say "absolute nothingness", you don't even have the tin. You don't have anything to make up a proposition. Absolute nothingness means brutely there is not even you, or the world.Hence the proposition is unthinkable. Is it possible to think about such state or a concept?

If you say, that it is possible, then it was not "absolute nothingness" you were talking about by definition, but something totally different from what I have been thinking about for "absolute nothingness". If you say, no it is not possible to even think about it, then it is a self-contradiction. Microphone over to you.

So, there are many conflations in your question. It's hard to know which conflation you are pursuing or if it's just a joke to you. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe you don't understand the question, and doesn't know the difference between happiness and good in morality. It was not a joke, but just a plain philosophical question.

I would say there are cases for theft to be entirely moral. — Chet Hawkins

Happiness is a psychological term, and is a subjective mental state. If you say, happiness is the foundation of morality, and some theft are moral, then that view is an extreme moral subjectivist. What makes you happy can make the others unhappy. There is no such thing as universal happiness. Moral good emerges from the good conducts of an agent, and have little to do with personal happiness.

Is a happy thief morally good, because he is happy?

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Isn't Good the foundation of morality, rather than happiness? Maybe happiness is linked to Good. If so, how so?

Is happiness always good? Therefore being happy is morally good? Not sure if it is the case. Please elaborate on the points.

The idea of despair has been developed further within existentialism, especially by Camus, — Jack Cummins

What is the arguments for Camus' idea of despair in his existentialism? i.e. why does he think it is the case?

People like me, and even more complacent individuals still. I wont lie, I'm in a cozy spot in my life, for once, and yet, it's like that feeling of being fulfilled has resided and now I seek new drives to fulfill. — Vaskane

Everyone is unique in their experience, background, content of life, thoughts and perception, and also in value judgements too. In that respect, I am wondering, if there is a man called "average man" or "common man". From the description about you in the post, you appear to be an unique man rather than average or common man.

Nietzsche is a man who talks to himself, in doing so, he looks up to his archetype of the "old wise man," which to him, has always been Zarathustra. — Vaskane

I have a book called C. G. Jung's Seminar on "Thus Spake Zarathustra", and in it, they talk about Zarathustra having much similarity with Jesus - for example, they both had disappeared for some time from the profane world, Jesus wondered in the desert field, and Z. lived in the no man's mountain cave. After the disappearance, they returned to the profane world to preach to people etc.

But then I was under impression that Nietzsche was an anti christian, and atheist declaring "God is dead." Why would he make a religious human God as the preaching main character of his book?

C G Jung Seminar on "TS Zarathustra" also says the book has many religious and psychological symbolism, and they talk about various symbolism, and possible underlying philosophical, religious and psychological meanings related to the symbolism in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Interesting, but it looks like "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is not for reading with the analytic philosophical approach.

Zarathustra declares he will not seek to gather his sheep but let those who have the eyes and ears for his (Nietzsche's) words come to him! — Vaskane

Who is supposed to be Zarathustra? Here in your statement above, it sounds like you are implying Z. was N. Would he be Nietzsche himself? Or some other bloke?

the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man. — ChatteringMonkey

that Nietzsche's intended audience WAS the common man, but the common man, seems to miss the points Zarathustra makes, blinking thereby ... — Vaskane

Who are the average man and common man?

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.

The IEP article Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics differentiates between an "empirical world" in the mind and a "mind-independent world" outside the mind — RussellA

What do you mean by "mind-independent world"? Did Kant say anything about it?
What significance does "mind-independent world" have with CPR?

IEP seems another site with the run-of-the-mill infos. It is handy at times for getting quick info about simple terms, but not sure if they are accurate enough and offering you the depth in knowledge.
I don't quite agree with the Online info mostly (because for one, any Tom Dick and Harry on the street can go into the online add and edit the contents - why should anyone trust the accuracy of the info???), and also don't see the point of word searching in CPR, and giving out the obscure interpretations making the original text in question more confusing either.

The point of reading CPR is to interpret the original text in logical way, but also in clear and meaningful way, so it is easy to understand for everyone. If any CPR commentary appears sounding more obscure than CPR itself, then it should be committed to flames. :D

With your comment on my misusage of "empirical world", please prove why my usage was a misusage. From my point of view, "empirical world" was not even a main concept Kant delves into deep in CPR. He mentions a few times here and there to denote the external world we live in and interact with.

And please explain what is your "mind-independent world" is, and where is it coming from.

There are several things in your posts that I don't agree with, but as I am off on holiday, I won't be able to tackle them. — RussellA

You are free to disagree as long as you back up with your arguments and evidence for your disagreement. At the end of the day, no one is wrong or right in philosophical discussions, but the points they are making could be.

Enjoy your holiday. Take time. No rush.

We perceive appearances, phenomena, in our senses. We may see the colour red, feel a sharp pain, taste something sweet, smell something acrid or hear a grating noise.

We have the fundamental belief that something caused these phenomena. But we don't perceive what caused these phenomena, we only perceive the phenomena. — RussellA

This is a completely different interpretation from what I think, and I am afraid to say that it doesn't make sense. In Kant, our daily perception is via appearance and phenomena from the empirical world. And we know the contents in phenomena very well. The whole science is based on the appearance from the empirical world. Denying that would be denying the whole scientific knowledge, then you are degrading yourself to the Pyrrhonian scepticism, and must stop all your judgement on the world.

But obviously there are objects which we can think of, but don't have the matching physical objects in the empirical world such as God, Souls and Freedom. They must exist somewhere, otherwise we are just dreaming or fantasising about them. Kant didn't want that. They are the important metaphysical objects. Where do they belong? They belong to Thing-in-themselves = Noumena.

If you think about daily physical objects in transcendental idealistic way, then of course, you wouldn't know about them. Because you are not using your sensibility then. You would be just thinking about them. You are thinking about books that you have never read, trees that you have never seen ...etc, then of course you don't know what books and trees you are talking about. This makes sense. You can only know what you have experienced. But you can still think about them in concept without knowing.

With all your arguments and points so far which sound totally off the main ideas of CPR, I am wondering if you have been actually reading CPR, or just been reading the run-of-the-mill Wiki and SEP articles trying to jigsaw puzzle the Kant with some unfounded perceptual theories.

There are many uses for the word "world". There is the world of dance, the world of science, the world of literature, the world inside our minds, the world outside our minds, etc.

One word having several uses is in the nature of language.

What is real? Is the thought of a mountain any less real than the mountain itself? — RussellA

I am not going to say you are wrong, because you can interpret Kant as you think right for you. But some arguments are more valid or invalid, more plausible or less plausible from the objective perspective.

In Kant, the world is one of the antinomy of pure reason, if you read CPR. Kant says, the world is a totality of all the objects and events in the universe, hence it cannot be conceived.

But he is not denying the outside empirical world where you see all the daily objects and interact with them. One point to bear in mind with CPR is that it is a Treatise for building a transcendental system for Metaphysics. What Kant is mainly interested in is how to build a metaphysical foundation for the transcendental objects such as God, Souls and Freedom. CPR is not a theory of perception or epistemology, but it is a treatise for metaphysical foundation of transcendental objects.

For that, he was trying to demonstrate how it all happens in transcendental way, not empirical way.
He was not interested in Direct Realist or Indirect Realist or Idealist.

Here is a clue. Why did Kant have two concepts on space and time? In CPR, he mostly talks about space and time as internal A priori condition for experience. But he also talks about space as a physical existence in empirical world. Can you think of the explanation for that?

The other points later~