Not only was this ungrammatical, but it makes no sense. Kant never argued this at all—not even remotely. — Bob Ross

I was just giving an inferencial scenario of a case from real life, if Kant were alive here today, so that you could come to better understanding of the concept of TII. Obviously you seem to have misunderstood it as if it were from a real life story from CPR.

If you don't expect today to be sunny, then it is same meaning as you expect today to be not sunny.
They are same meaning. Just the sentence is in different form. They are both negating.
~A = ~A

It is not saying, A=~A or A ->~A, which is a contradiction. If it was that, then yes of course you should commit it the flames under the basis of not accepting a contradiction in any philosophical argument. There is no point going any further trying to find out whether an argument was valid, invalid, true or false from a contradictory premise or statement.

It has all the editions in it, as far as I understand, and it is translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn. — Bob Ross

You should make note which version of CPR you are quoting i.e. 1st or 2nd. They have many different contents on what they are saying.

The former is a thing-in-itself, which is just to say they are synonyms in this sense, but the latter is not a thing-in-itself at all. — Bob Ross

It depends on what context he was talking about. As I said, you must make notes which version of CPR you are quoting and for your points.

Kant is painfully clear in the CPR that a thing-in-itself is the thing which excited your senses as it were independently of how it excited those senses and what got sensed—viz., something excited my senses such that, as an end result, I perceived a cup: whatever that is, is the thing as it were in-itself. — Bob Ross

Kant is never clear in CPR, because he says totally opposite things in the other parts of CPR, and 1st and 2nd edition of CPR sounds totally different. You should read some of the academic commentaries on CPR too. Not just CPR, because anyone just reading and quoting CPR only would be usually in total confusion and contradictions on what he talks about.

No, you are demarcating an invalidly stricter set of real things as things-in-themselves; which are really just supersensible things—which would be noumena in the positive sense (at best).

Whatever excited your senses such that you see here a cup, is a thing in reality which exists in-itself in some way—that’s a thing-in-itself. A thing-in-itself could also, in principle, if you want, include noumena in the positive sense; if by this you carefully note, in your schema, that a thing-in-itself is just a real thing as it were in-itself and a noumena a thing-in-itself which cannot be sensed—but, then, most notably, you are still incorrect to say that things-in-themselves are not that which excite our senses but, instead, right to say that some things-in-themselves cannot excite our senses. — Bob Ross

If all the daily objects you perceive in the external world had their Thing-in-itself, then the world would be much more complicated place unnecessarily and incorrectly. For instance, when you had a cup of coffee in a cafe, the cafe maid will demand payment for 2 cups of coffee. Why do you charge me 2 cups of coffees when I had only 1 cup? You may complain, and she will retort you, "well you had 1 cup of coffee alright, but remember every cup of coffee comes with a cup of coffee in Thing-in-itself, which must also be paid for. Therefore you must pay for 2 cups of coffee although you may think you had only 1 cup." You wouldn't be pleased with that, neither would had Kant been at the barmy situation

No. You are misunderstanding. The objects which excite your senses in the external world has nothing to do with Thing-in-itself.

The negation "don't expect" means that we don't have the expectation. Yet you say that I "expect God to be not real". You omit the negation and thus misrepresent my claim. — jkop

If you don't expect God to be real, then is it not same meaning as you expect God to be not real?
Are they different meaning?

I'd say my visual experience is real to me when I have it while it's not real to you, obviously, when you don't have it. But like now when we both see this dark coloured text, then we both have the same visual experience, i.e. the object that we see is the same. — jkop

This sounds absurd. Because, I don't see jkop, but I only see what jkop wrote in text on the computer screen. Just because I don't see jkop, if I claim that jkop is not real, but the text is real because I see the text in front of me, then I must be silly.

I claim that jkop is real even if I don't see him, because I infer that jkop is sitting somewhere in this world, reading, thinking and typing and sending the texts to the forum.

That’s the whole point of a thing-in-itself: it is whatever was sensed—and that is the limit of what we can talk about it. Viz.,: — Bob Ross

Thing-in-itself is not available to your senses, ergo there is no sensation of it. If you have sensation of Thing-in-itself, then you would perceive it like you would see chairs, tables and cups. But you cannot have sensation of Thing-in-Itself.

Because some thing excited your senses; otherwise, you are hallucinating, which is absurd. That thing which excited your senses, was a thing, whatever it may be, as it were in-itself. — Bob Ross

There are things that is unavailable to your senses, so there is no excitation from the things. But your reason can infer the things which exists outside of the boundary of your senses such as God, spirits and souls.

Because the way your senses sense is a priori. — Bob Ross

Some of the concepts are A priori. Senses are not A priori.

It's a fact that there are different types of real objects in the world. — jkop

We agree that there are different type of "being real", and each objects are real in different ways.

All the questions were asked to you because you said,

If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop

ergo you claim that God is not real to you because you don't expect God to be real.

But this sounds empty and groundless because you claim that God is not real because you don't expect God to be real. You didn't explain why you expect God to be not real. You just claim that you don't expect God to be real.

When you say X is not real, you must explain in what ground and reasons X is not real, because there are different "real"s in this world. OK, you said you don't expect God to be real, but why your expectation God is not real is unknown, hence it cannot be accepted as a meaningful claim.

You seem to suggest that there are different type of "real" objects in the world. Why Casper, the friendly ghost is real while the other ghosts are not?

You just say somethings are real, while others are not. But you need to give reasons for what makes something real. For instance, you say money is real, but ghosts are fiction. But who is to say the ghosts in fiction don't exist or is not real?

In ancient times before the civilisation, the cavemen didn't have money. They went out and hunted for their food, and there was no shops or money. At the time, was money real? What are the properties / qualities which makes something real? What is the real real? If something is real to me, then is it real to you too?

No they are not at all. The word “noumena” is used in a double-sense in the CPR, and Kant is very explicit about that. E.g.,: — Bob Ross

Which version of CPR are you reading? There are different accounts for the concept in different versions of CPR. Is it 1sr or 2nd edition? Who was the translator?

You should also bear in mind that Kant has written his summary on CPR and explanation on the concepts in Prolegomena to any future Metaphysics too. There are several passages where Kant uses noumena and Thing-in-itself synonymously.

Phenomenon, in the Kantian tradition, are sensations of things-in-themselves; which are thusly not the thing-in-itself but, rather, conditioned sensations of them. — Bob Ross

If thing-in-itself is unknowable and unperceivable, how could you talk about sensations of thing-in-themselves? When you have sensation of something, does it not mean that you can perceive and know them?

That would be a noumena, in the strict sense that Kant talks about it sometimes. A noumena is an object of thought which cannot be sensed. — Bob Ross

Numena and Thing-in-Itself are described as the same thing in CPR.

A thing-in-itself is sensed insofar as it is what excited the sensibility in the first place but necessarily is not migrated over into the sensations. — Bob Ross

That sounds like a tautology. How does it get sensed? Why isn't it migrated over into the sensations?

Imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual things such as ghosts are not real in the sense that molecules are real, nor in the sense that colours are real. Ghosts are fiction. — jkop

When you say ghosts are not real, does it mean that there are the real ghosts? If there is no real ghosts, then how do you know ghosts are not real? To know "not real", you must know "real". Would you agree?

Are each of us numerically identical to an animal? — NOS4A2

We are undeniably animals in bodily nature having the biological functions, desires and system.
However, we are also different from the other animals in respect of having sophisticated language and reasoning capacity .

Intelligence is not same as being rational. I was in deep shock finding out that some folks think those are the same in the other thread here. A dog can be intelligent in doing some tasks and chores and tricks when trained. But no other animals than humans can be rational. And even some humans aren't rational.

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

Being aware of one's own inevitable death sometime in the future.

entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Desiring to be morally Good.

Hmmm, you don’t perceive a thing-in-itself: it is, logically, the thing which your senses produced sensations of; and your understanding cognizes those sensations—not the thing-in-itself. — Bob Ross

You got it upside down here. Your senses don't produce sensations, but sensations are caused by the external objects, which are phenomenon. Thing-in-itself is not sensible entity, but cognisible entity via reasoning. It is the entity from the reasoning point of view, which must exist, but is unavailable to your senses, hence unknowable via normal perception. It is the entity that must be reasoned, and postulated. It is a different type of perception you need to perceive Thing-in-itself.

You CHOSE words and COMBINED them together to make sentences. — night912

Yes, I did. But I chose the words consciously reflecting the contents of my thoughts. In dreams, I have no consciousness of real world, hence things appear without my choice, and I have no control of the dreams.

Happy? — night912

Philosophical discussions are not about being happy. It is about trying to come to the agreed conclusion via good arguments.

They experience days and nights following previous days and nights, not the time in which they follow each other. — jkop

If they say, we are going to meet in the cafe in 1 hour, how do they know when to meet, if they don't perceive time?

They see the Eiffel tower, its extension and relations to other buildings, not the space that its extension and relations occupy. — jkop

Every part and corner of the space is mapped with the co-ordinates, so drones can pin-point the objects in them, and airplanes can reach the location. If space is not perceivable, how can it happen?

If they are real, then we can experience them systematically, also by those of us who don't expect them to be real. But since we don't, there's little reason to assume that they're real. — jkop

When you say "they are real", what do you mean by that? What do you mean by "we can experience systematically"?

Thanks, but no thanks.
Thanks.
No thanks.

Kant begins with the presupposition that our experience is representational and proceeds to correctly conclude that knowledge of the things-in-themselves is thusly impossible. — Bob Ross

Isn't Thing-in-itself a postulated existence, rather than perceived existence? Hence you need faith to perceive it, rather than knowledge?

You think in a democracy you get decent, good people in charge?!? You get thugs. Sophisticated thugs. You get in charge those who want to be. Good people don't want to be in charge. — Clearbury

:up:

What exists for us to experience of God, souls, spirits etc. are our own and other people's descriptions, pictures, sculptures, plays performed by actors, movies with special effects, churches or art museums designed specifically with an ambience that tends to evoke sacred or otherworldly experiences. — jkop

But how do we experience the real God, souls and spirits? Not other people's descriptions, pictures, sculptures, plays performed by actors, movies with special effects.

Time and space may not be objects of perception, but we can use our knowledge of descriptions and theories of them in order to evoke relevant experiences of duration, extension etc. — jkop

If time is not an object of perception, how do they know today is a Saturday night? If space is not an object of perception, how do they know where the Eiffel tower is located?

And from a contradiction, anything and everything follows. This is the principle of explosion.

That is to say, "1. A -> not-A" is impossible; when the impossible can happen, anything can happen. — unenlightened

Impossible cannot happen, therefore nothing can happen?

Our empathic ability. It's the ability to mentally construct, visualize, and actually feel things that we are not directly exposed to. So if you know what it feels like to see things, then you probably have the ability to evoke the same or similar feeling when you don't see anything. The same areas in the brain are activated when you see something and when you imagine seeing it. — jkop

Does it mean that we could mentally construct, visualize and actually feel the image and existence of God, souls, spirits too? What about time and space? How do we perceive them?

Otherwise you're going to get stuck and never evolve intellectually. — Christoffer

Not all science is nonsense.  But saying that images  in our seeing are formed by prediction sounds illogical and nonsense.   You see a cup of coffee in front of you. You are seeing it vividly and solidly. But you also predict how it will look? Why? Prediction is a conscious act of telling the future of events which are uncertain or unknown.

Also you saw an image in your dream which you claim from your past memory, but you don't recall what the image was about, and the image you saw in your dream is the result of your hallucination sounds not making sense.  If you saw an image in your dream for the first time in your life, then how could it be from your past memory? If something is from your memory, then why do you have to hallucinate about it?

Moreover, insisting that those points are from the scientific research, therefore we must accept them no matter how absurd they are, sounds blind and nonthinking. 

I think you are severely misunderstanding how this works. I suggest that you engage with the scientific material surrounding predictive coding theory. — Christoffer

That is a peculiar way to use the concept of prediction.  From my idea, prediction is always for the unknown future.  You don't predict how a cup of coffee will look like, when you are seeing a cup of coffee.   The cup of coffee is sending you a vivid and forceful image to your eyes.   You are perceiving it with certainty and realistic assurance for its existence.  Why do you have to predict it?   It is just a logical flaw and nonsense.
OK you say, you are using the concept of prediction differently to describe how you structure the images in your perception, and it is Scientific research.  But why would you do that?  Why do you have to change the meaning of the concept prediction in order to describe the perceptual process in that context?  

Here you are also looking at the concept of "hallucination" in the textbook description of it, not as what it means as a mental process. Our entire experience is a hallucination that our brain is constructing, it is perception itself. The hallucination of dreams and psychedelics is only the version of that hallucination that isn't grounded by our real time sensory data grounding it through correlation. — Christoffer

Again, it is a simple basic logic of remembering something. If you are seeing a cup of coffee from your memory, then logically you cannot fail to recall the factual past content of your memory when you are seeing it. If you are seeing an image from your memory, it wouldn't be just the object of the image, you would also see the background, material detail of the cup, the type of the coffee and where it was lying on etc etc.

You don't have to hallucinate the image to see it, and insist it was from your past memory, because the images you see in your memory are conscious and intentional and factual. If you are hallucinating images in your perception, that cannot be from your memory. If you read "The doors of perception" by A. Huxley, you will find more about Hallucination. Again your writings have the basic logical flaw in the argument insisting it is hallucination from your memory, which is not acceptable.

You are looking for an answer to a faulty question and the only thing anyone can do is to answer the real question; how these imagined concepts form within us, which I have answered to the best of my ability out of the entire scientific field that researches this very question. — Christoffer

As I said, the OP is not about how we form and see images from some scientific research. It is about how we see non existing images sometimes, and what is the nature of non existing objects. I have asked a few questions on the nature of non existing objects and perceiving non existing objects in my previous posts, but you have not answered any of them, but just kept going on about the prediction and hallucination.

You must be aware of the fact that scientific research explanations and theories are not all eternal and infallible truths. When new research and experiments prove otherwise, the present scientific theories and principles are destined to collapse. That is the way scientific explanations work, and you have to be always open minded on the scientific explanations and answers on the abstract topics.

Philosophy is not about accepting and adopting the scientific explanations into their inquiries without analysis, logical and critical reflections.

I'm not sure what else you're asking for, because with this field of science in mind, the answers are somewhat clear or at least rationally explained enough by the current understanding of our consciousness and how we function. — Christoffer

You say, that your explanations are from the scientific research on the topic, but it seems to have basic logical flaws in the arguments. Blindly reading up the popular scientific explanations on the topics, and accepting them without basic logical reflections on their validity appears to be unwise and unhelpful for finding out more logical explanations and coming to better understanding on the subject.

The prediction function is not a detached function of our brain like the visual cortex, it is the fundamental function of the entire brain. It fundamentally is our brain. — Christoffer

Predictions are overtly conscious and intentional on the events, movements of objects or functional processes which are uncertain in their results. It sounds illogical and unsound to suggest that our brain keeps making predictions on everything it sees, just because it is their nature to do so.

I don't see how this isn't answered? How we perceive non-existing objects has already been answered. It's a hallucinatory flow of predictions detached from sensory inputs and composed by a collage of previous experiences and concepts of objects that we have stored in memory. The nature of them is that they are hallucinations detached from sensory information or minorly influenced by it while imagining or hallucinating in an awaken state. Internally they differentiate to existing objects in that they are pure memory information formed into prediction calculations by the brain that detaches from sensory grounding, transforming memory representations of real objects into a malleable conceptualized mental model that can be reshaped internally. During dreaming, this process happens without our ability to control it, since the flow of this collage of memories flowing together is influenced by the brain's process of fusing long term memory with the new short term memories. — Christoffer

Prior to your seeing something from your memory, you must be conscious of the content of your memory, or know what you are remembering about. You cannot see something from your memory, if you cannot remember what they were.

Seeing hallucinatory images from one's past memories is what is happening in one's dreams doesn't quite assuredly explain the nonexistent objects appearing in dreams, if the dreamer has never seen, encountered or experienced the object in his / her life ever.

And the third part is the prediction function which they don't even include. — Christoffer

Predictions usually happen when the result of some events, movements of objects or processes are unknown to the predictor. But in visual perception of a cup of coffee, result of the perception is irrelevant with the unknown-ness or uncertainty. This tells us prediction is not relevant in most daily visual perceptions. It looks more so, in seeing the objects in dreams.

The OP is also about "non-existing objects" and existing objects. How do we perceive non-existing objects, and what are the nature of non-existing objects? Do non-existing objects exist? If they do, how can they be non-existing? If they don't, how could we see them? Are seeing a reliable evidence for existence of objects? If not, what are the evidence of something to exist?

How are they different from existing objects?

In essence, when you see a cup of coffee, it forms a constant stream of information that holds in place and time that shape and form while your memory has categorized what a cup of coffee from past experiences and the interplay between them forms a hallucinatory state of predictions about the next step in time we experience. — Christoffer

Do you mean that we never see a real cup of coffee, but images of constant steam of information from your memory, which is a hallucinatory state of predictions?

I recall debating on this topic before. The direct realists would say, you are seeing a cup of coffee in front of you, and indirect realist would say, you are seeing a sense data of a cup of coffee which seems sounding similar to your suggestion.

You say it is a scientific facts, but is it tested, and proven fact? Or would it be just another hypotheses how seeing works?

A very interesting and detailed post on the topic. Thank you. I will read it over, and get back to you, when I have some ideas about your points. The images in the posts are very interesting too. Later~

If Hegel and Kant used the term, "see" when talking about dreams they are misusing terms too. You seem to be making a plea to authority here, when it is just as likely that Hegel and Kant could be wrong, especially when they did not have access to the scientific knowledge we have now. — Harry Hindu

I didn't say Hegel's idea was absolute truth. I found Hegel's term "inner impressions" for seeing images in dreams interesting. In Hume impressions come from the external world objects. When the impressions come into your mind, it becomes ideas. There is no such a thing as "inner impressions".

You did not see a tiger. You dreamed a tiger. This is how you are misusing terms. — Harry Hindu

When I was in sleep, I was seeing a tiger. When I was awake, I recalled the dream of a tiger. They are both images, not words or sounds.

But then, I just don't understand what you mean by these comments. Reason and truth are not the same thing. But they are connected. You seem to recognize that, but then deny it. I must be missing something. — Ludwig V

I think I have tried to clarify the points enough from my side. There is nothing much more for me to add here. You seem to keep going around circle of deviation. I will leave you to it.
I am bowing out from this thread. All the best.

Ok. Yah. Splice that sentence from our entire exchange, and you and I agree generally on what Mind is and how it's different from Body, though it emerges therefrom. — ENOAH

:up: :cool:

I think the consistency of normal experience and our ability to compare to perceptive fabrications (e.g., hallucinations, dreams, etc.) are evidence that something normally is exciting your senses; but what that thing is in-itself is impossible to know. It very well could be a mere idea (like ontological idealists say) or a concrete object (like materialists will say) or an object (like physicalists will say) or something unimaginable. — Bob Ross

Yes, this is it. The thing in-itself which is impossible to know or something unimaginable is what we hope to find out.

I'm not sure where you're going with the OP question, what you are aiming for, but there's not much more to it than what I described. Our experience is an hallucination bound by a flow of sensory data. Cutting that flow makes us hallucinate freely and our memorized concepts start to merge into new forms, shapes and concepts. The combinations of concepts stored in our memory has an almost infinite amount of combinations. A white tiger included. — Christoffer

Yet again, isn't Hallucination totally different way of seeing non existent objects? You see images of the objects which are existent or non-existent in the external world, but the cause of the seeing is the abnormal state of your brain due to the chemically induced condition? I am not too sure on the details of technicality of hallucination on why and how it occurs. But that is my idea on it. Anyway, it is not the OPs interest here.

Asking and discussing on seeing non-existence images in dreams and also daily life could tell us more on our perception how it works, which could allow us to explore on the way mind works.

If you think it has no more scope of discussion than talking about hallucination and making predictions, then maybe you are not interested in the topic of the workings of mind and perception.

It is true that one can believe something on rational grounds, and be wrong. But if you are wrong, you didn't know it. Knowledge cannot be wrong. If someone believes that it will rain on Tuesday, and it doesn't, they didn't know that it will rain on Tuesday. — Ludwig V

Checking out you knew or not, that is the work of reason. Reason itself is not truth.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I didn't modify your post at all. I simply presented to you my own definition of intelligence, which is different from yours. — Ludwig V

It is a very peculiar way of putting down your own definition on someone else's writing, making out as if it was written by someone else.

If reason cannot deliver truth, then it cannot verity my belief or knowledge. — Ludwig V

Does reason deliver truth? It sounds not making sense. The sentence "Reason delivers truth." sounds not correct. Reason brings truth to you at your door step? Like a Amazon delivery van delivers what you have ordered from Amazon? I am not sure if that was what you meant. Hope not. You find out truth or falsity on something using reason.

Clearly, we have different concepts of rationality. If rationality has nothing to do with truth, what is the point of it? How does it differ from reading tea leaves of consulting an astrologer? — Ludwig V

Rationality is a method to finding truth, but rationality itself is not truth. We do have different ideas not just on rationality, but also truth. All the best.

Which is a good explanation for our cognitive biases becoming more rigid the more we focus on just information that aligns with what we already know. And why broadening our knowledge is key to becoming truly wise. — Christoffer

A detailed and good post on the topic. Thank you. However, the OP was more interested in discussing and find out the nature of the visual images we see in our dreams, rather than how dreams work, and why we dream.

Clearly what we see in our dreams are images of the objects in the external world. But some of the images are the ones that we never came across in daily lives, or have anything to do with our experience and memories. The white tiger I have seen my dream for example, was a clear vivid image of a tiger, but I have never seen it in my entire life in real world.

So where does it come from? How is it different from the images we see in daily life from the real objects? Are they same type of images? Then how it does not have its real existence of the object?

It was more the epistemological angle the OP was trying to orient the discussions.

Imagine imagining something when you don't have the world imposing itself on your senses and mind. The imagining would seem real, like your dream does. The dream would take the place of the world precisely because the world is absent when you are asleep. — Harry Hindu

I saw a tiger in my dream. I do vividly remember the image of the tiger, so that I can even draw it on a piece of paper how it looked. It is a visual experience, which is similar to the visual perception you have in your daily life.

It has nothing to do with making predictions or imagining something for the reasons I have put down on my previous post. Please read it again, if you haven't.

You're not seeing anything when you dream. Seeing is the process of using your eyes to take in light. The existence of light is a necessary component of seeing. Can you see anything when the lights are out? You are simply misusing terms. — Harry Hindu

Hegel and Kant have written about the images we see in our dreams as "inner impressions" which are different type of impressions coming from the external world.

I have not used any vague terms or fancy words in my posts, but just said seeing images in dreams are different type of images we see when we are awake in daily life.

You seem to be misusing the word "misuse" without knowing what the word "misuse" actually means.

Doesn't "verify" mean something like to demonstrate the truth or accuracy of something, as by the presentation of evidence? In that case, we must be talking about truth. Though you are right that it is possible to believe something on rational grounds and be wrong. — Ludwig V

Truth emerges when your belief or knowledge is examined and verified by reason. Reason itself cannot deliver truth as you claim.

You should trace back what you said in this thread. You said that your belief and knowledge are rational because you believe and know something. I said, no it cannot be rational or irrational until they are verified. Then you deviated from the point, claiming that rationality delivers truth. I am not sure what that means. You need to give more elaboration on that point what it means.

We were not talking about truth, and truth as a property of belief or knowledge has nothing to do with rational thinking. Your knowledge on something can be rational, but still be wrong.

Intelligence means knowing something, or being able to do something in coherent way. It is not same as The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledgesomething, which are what rational thinking does. — Corvus

I thought it was something like the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge. That would make it something different from knowledge but more about how to acquire knowledge. — Ludwig V

You have modified the content of my post with your own writing. That is not what I wrote in my post on what intelligence means. It would help clarifying the points if you could go over what intelligence means, and what reasoning means in general terms, and think about the difference between the two.