Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on — Pop

Yeah, a TOE usually implies physical properties, whereas you stipulated a theory sufficient for explaining how one could be “truly self-aware”. I only responded as I did because my self-awareness is theoretically conceivable, but for me to imagine a sufficient a posteriori TOE, is not, under the same conditions.
——————

I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. — Pop

That’s fine. A physical theory predicated on observation with the same translation problem as extant metaphysical theory predicated on transcendental logic. The former starts at the top but cannot deduce the necessary mechanism for the human condition of “seemings”, while the latter begins at the bottom with “seemings” but cannot infer the internal mechanisms sufficient for creating them. Kant didn’t try to reconcile these, and neither does a DNA-based theory, with respect to a priori knowledge. Still, at this stage of the game, even a DNA-based theory of fundamental human nature remains metaphysical, insofar as repeatable empirical proofs are unavailable.
——————

Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. — Pop

As is mine; as is everybody’s. Nevertheless, knowledge derived from is very far from knowledge acquired of.

Self-organization is a good place to start. Metaphysics has already been there with consciousness, perhaps DNA will get there eventually.

Descartes’ proof took the form of truth insofar as its negation is impossible. Technically, he attained apodeictic certainty under very strict conditions, which is sufficient for proof for the validity of those conditions.

Generally speaking....correct, not a proof, for it lacks necessity while obtaining sufficiency. But a proof for the manifold of all instances of congruent conditions? Why not?

To be truly self aware, I think, one needs a theory of everything to compare oneself against. We don't have that — Pop

Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?

If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.

Keyword, of course....theory.

Good on ya!!!

You got awarded a “reasonably coherent”.

When we perceive the world, we perceive parts and the relationships between those parts. — RussellA

The standard human representational cognitive system. Some can’t live with it, nobody can’t kill it. Best then, to understand it, ne c’est pas?

I wonder what your definition of metaphysics is? — Pop

Not a definition, per se, more an understanding, found on page three.

I find presiding over all reason. — tim wood

As do I, the exceptions being accident or pure reflex.

I think you should at least do some reading. — FrancisRay

Yeah, but that presupposes an interest, and at my age....and my seriously ingrained predispositions....is solely lacking. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t dare deny others their own interests.

Prima facie, this is at odds with General Relativity. But that's not what is of import here... — Banno

No, it isn’t important at all:

“...If we confine the application of the theory to the case where the gravitational fields can be regarded as being weak, and in which all masses move with respect to the co-ordinate system with velocities which are small compared with the velocity of light, we then obtain as a first approximation the Newtonian theory. Thus the latter theory is obtained here without any particular assumption, whereas Newton had to introduce the hypothesis that the force of attraction between mutually attracting material points is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If we increase the accuracy of the calculation, deviations from the theory of Newton make their appearance, practically all of which must nevertheless escape the test of observation owing to their smallness...”
(Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Pt 2, Sec. 29, 1916)

It's just that our understanding of space has moved on considerably since Kant. — Banno

Yeah, no biggie. Calling space a gravitational field is merely another language game, innit? Proving gravitational fields are warped by massive bodies doesn’t prove space is a property of objects, which is sufficient reason to permit Kant’s exposition of space as a pure intuition “...by which the experience of objects is possible....” to stand unmolested. That the coordinate system for the location of objects must be relative to something, and that something being called space, is not refuted or even impinged upon, by GR. Notice as well, if you will, Kant made time, itself a “pure a priori intuition”, just as necessary for the experience, therefore the relation, of objects, as did Einstein, albeit not necessarily Euclidean, with his “spacetime continuum” (ibid, Sec. 27)

Not denigrating progress in science, mind you, just defending its metaphysical origins.

There are no excepions to the rule. negation are always required. — FrancisRay

YEA!!!! Glad you see things my way. Now....lets you and me knock some sense into the rest of the world.......
—————

The point is not that there is some way around this limit, but that we can know more than we can think. — FrancisRay

Annnnnddd......that shot our wonderful agreement all to hell. Dammit!!!

We can know more than we can think, but “...I can think whatever I want (provided only that I do not contradict myself)....”. If there’s no limit to what I can think, but I can know more than I can think......how in the HELL does that work????

Must be aggravating, talkin’ to folks who can’t see the other side, huh?

Consciousness is a convoluted thing indeed..... — Pop

Perhaps consciousness is only as convoluted as the myriad of metaphysical systems under which it is viewed. Favor a system, find consciousness in it, define its parameters or its logical relations......done deal.

.......This is why I prefer to call it self organization. — Pop

That’s fine, we all have our preferences. Self-organization carries the implication that consciousness is some sort of cognitive faculty susceptible to reason, but I rather think consciousness is the quality of the manifold of that which is reasoned about, which makes consciousness passive rather than the active self-organization implies.

Much as red-ness is the quality of the state of being red, fit-ness is the quality of the state of being fit, so too consciousness is the quality of the state of being conscious.

“....Consequently, only because I can connect a variety of given representations in one consciousness, is it possible that I can represent to myself the identity of consciousness in these representations; in other words, the thought, "These representations given in intuition belong all of them to me," is accordingly just the same as, "I unite them in one consciousness, or can at least so unite them"; and although this thought is not itself the consciousness of the synthesis of representations, it presupposes the possibility of it; that is to say, for the reason alone that I can comprehend the variety of my representations in one consciousness, do I call them my representations, for otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious....”

Given this (favored) rendition of what consciousness is, the rest of your comment can be seen as otherwise, re: we have no consciousness at birth, consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with perceived truth, consciousness doesn’t evolve over the course of a life time (although the aggregate of its contents certainly does), it does, on the other hand, remain faithful to the established self, because it is the established self.
—————

makes for some interesting psychology. — Pop

Ehhhh.....psychology: the pure metaphysician’s arch-enemy.

Metaphysician: I’ll tell you how I think.
Psychologist: I’ll tell you how you think.

In the immortal words of Darryl Hall.....I can’t go for that, oohhhhnooooo. (Grin)

involved in too many conversations to pursue it far. — FrancisRay

Understood.

A negation is always required for a thought or concept. — FrancisRay

Yep, seems that way.

But there would be a way out. — FrancisRay

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing.

Relevancy is a judgement, dependent solely on understanding. You find irrelevancy in the questions I ask, not from the understanding from which they arise, but from the understanding by which they are received.

Go find a sensei or guru and learn to meditate. — 180 Proof

Yeah.....no I’m not going to do that.

And there’s your sufficient reason for claiming “if you’ve never tried you’ll never know”, which is the most pathetically empty phraseology ever.

(Sigh)

Maybe meditation is clearer than "mystical exercise". — 180 Proof

Ok. I understand that clarity. Thanks.
—————

Relaxing the learned fixations on thinking / speaking / believing via dualities (i.e. binary opposites) by meditating on paying attention without using dualities to categorize our experiences (and, thereby, our expectations). — 180 Proof

Can I say that reduces to....Relaxing (...) fixations on thinking (...) by meditating on paying attention?

And at the risk of seemingly picking nits, can I say that reduces further to....relaxing by paying attention?

Pardon my predispositions, for in those alone, your proposition becomes a performative contradiction, insofar as I see no logical means for meditation that does not necessitate human thought. How is paying attention accomplished under the auspices of meditation, that is different than paying attention by mere cognitive faculties?

Pretty good synopsis, I must say. There are some fundamental contentions, but they don’t detract from the general picture, and certainly wouldn’t matter in the least, to someone rejecting the system itself.

Advaita "nondualism" is a mystical exercise..... — 180 Proof

My lack of experience causes me to ask....what is being exercised, and that exercised mystically?

My experience, on the other hand, mandates that if this is mystically exercised, than necessarily, that is not, creating a dualism of its own.

Do you agree with the validity of a unique metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism?

unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. — FrancisRay

So it must be possible that the intrinsic human complementary system......isn’t?

Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?

There very well may be a metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism, but I rather suspect it cannot arise from rejecting ALL dualisms. Or, on the other hand I suppose, there very well could be a metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism that rejects ALL dualisms, but such doctrine cannot stand in conjunction with the rational agency calling itself human.

Dunno.....maybe there are humans that conceive up but not down, good but not bad, yes but not no. Bet it would be pretty hard to talk to somebody like that, even so.

we can imagine the concept of empty space, but we cannot imagine the concept of there being no space. — RussellA

I have a clear idea of what dimensions are; and I understand what zero-dimensional space would be. like. Saying I can't imagine it - so what? — Banno

“...We never can imagine or make a representation to ourselves of the non-existence of space, though we may easily enough think that no objects are found in it. It must, therefore, be considered as the condition of the possibility of phenomena, and by no means as a determination dependent on them, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily supplies the basis for external phenomena....” (A24/B39)

Why bring up dimensions or zero-dimensional space, when those are mere euphemisms for the terms given in the text? Do you see that thinking objects in space (from the text) does not give you a coordinate system, which makes dimensions (from your statement) irrelevant? And space is itself zero-dimensional anyway, so amending space with that qualifier adds nothing whatsoever to the significance of the term.

Do you see there’s no congruency between your “I understand what zero-dimensional space would be like”, and, “we may easily enough think that no objects are found in it”? You will say they amount to the same thing, they have the same truth-value or some such nonsense, because you’re submerged in language games, but I shall nonetheless point out you’ve treated space as the subject in your statement, but space is in the predicate of the statement you’ve claimed, for all intents and purposes, to not understand. But that just sets the ground. In effect, you’ve merely stated you understand what space would be like, which is altogether quite impossible, while I...and even yourself...can imagine holding our hands out with no object resting in their respective palms. I mean....what is space like, really? Compared to.....what?

Finally, that which you can’t imagine, re: Russell’s “concept of there being no space”, is not the same as what the text says can’t be imagined, re: “the representation to ourselves of the non-existence of space”. But, herein in your defense, because I acknowledge your tacit rejection of Kantian epistemology as being left behind by those finding precious little value in anything a few years older than themselves, I grant you won’t accept the theoretical subtleties which sustain the difference.

Oh. And your “so what?”? It is answered, if I may poach from the illustrious Paul Harvey.....in the rrEESSSTTT of the story!!

Cheers(?)

Oh. Sorry. Good luck, then.

There is so much questioning around questions and answers. — Jack Cummins

True enough, but there doesn’t need to be, necessarily. Historical precedent makes explicit the human cognitive system is generally self-correcting, so if one was to restrict himself to that system in the investigation of his questions, odds favor him arriving at an answer consistent with it, iff he can so arrive at all.

Epistemically, to know presupposes that which is knowable, and ontologically, for something to be is for something to be possibly known about.

Classic metaphysics proper is the doctrine that attempts to unite them, Enlightenment metaphysics subsumes the latter under the former, and in post-Enlightenment metaphysics, of course, is found the reverse.

I believe the root of metaphysical investigations is the human capacity to punch above their weight. — BrianW

Pretty much, yep. It’s what we do, doncha know. Here’s what you just said, in super-fancy speechifyin’, which would have been great for getting university students of the time to get ready for a rough road, except his works were never classroom texts or even actually taught in his time:

“....Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic....”

Yes, and that’s the root of metaphysical investigations: the determination of our part in life, which is always and only, a judgement we make in response to it.

It isn’t the questions, it’s how they are asked and answered.

So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? — Jack Cummins

Simple. Ask yourself.....how much has a human qua individual rational agent, changed in 300 years? Not his environment, not his knowledge base, not his personal curriculum.....he himself with respect to himself alone.

If you concur a human hasn’t changed at all in so short an elapsed time, because natural evolution won’t allow it, then it is reasonable to suppose Kant’s writing regarding speculative epistemology, would still apply.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure..... — 3017amen

Shirley you don’t intend that consciousness equate to matter. Perhaps you meant consciousness can be conceptualized as composed of parts, as matter is conceptualized as composed of its parts, understood as atomic structure, and those ultimately reducible to mathematical elements.

Even if mathematical elements are synthetic a priori constructs, they can still be represented empirically. To say consciousness equates to matter with respect to its ultimate reduction to mathematical elements, implies consciousness can be represented empirically, just as numbers represent mathematical elements.

Good example of why people these days turn their noses up at metaphysics, when all it can say about consciousness....because it knows better than to say anything else.....is that it is nothing more than a transcendental object of pure reason. A logical explanatory stop-gap.

does knowledge/understanding have a point other than what we can make happen in our lives? — BrianW

Fair story, except there are occasions we didn’t make happen, but are rather foisted upon us. The weather, flat tires, your mother-in-law’s special dinner that tastes like the inside of an old shoe.....

It's not a contest. Philosophy, science, metaphysics, mysticism, etc, etc, are just attempts to delineate life/reality. — BrianW

This says more accurately the case, although you could have stopped with just philosophy and science, for metaphysics is philosophy and mysticism is merely some esoteric metaphysics.

Still, you’ve hinted here the ground of the continental Enlightenment shift in general philosophy, initiated 400–odd years ago, insofar as philosophy and science each derived from understanding and knowledge respectively, have no meaning outside the human life.

Are you suggesting, say in science, that there are forbidden questions one should never ask? — 3017amen

Not at all. There are never forbidden questions, only those that don’t have rational answers. Rational answers are those that do not contradict possible experience or the laws of logic.
————-

What is intriguing (in philosophy) is your "whatever we think of it". Right? — 3017amen

Dunno about intriguing, but it seems to have become neglected. Dismissed. Supervened by the Almighty Test Equipment.

Ya know......just because we can ask a question, doesn’t mean we should.

“....To know what questions we may reasonably propose is in itself a strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger—not to mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it—of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers...”

That being said, and admitting your questions aren’t exactly absurd, I don’t have any good answers for them. And why does everything have to have a “nature”? Nature of this, nature of that.....why can’t it be just whatever we think of it? Which is, when it comes right down to it, exactly what it is anyway.

Explain what it means to like something? — 3017amen

What it means: Find favor. Alleviates ill-will.

Technically, the inclination to an idea and the judgement made on that inclination, do not conflict with each other.

Good. Perhaps, as he says, the power of metaphysics rests in nothing more than.......”I like it”.

A noble attitude, for which I salute you.

A thesis cannot be true and false simultaneously was my response when I was reminded that the antinomies were a logical response — val p miranda

True enough, but that isn’t “a different point of view, not a logical one”. What you say here is still a logical point of view.

I suppose I didn't like Kant's reform and correction of metaphysics. — val p miranda

As is your prerogative.

I’d be interested in how you regard the antinomies from other than a logical point of view. Not sure I’d understand, but I’d at least gain familiarity.

Proof of a contention and then proof of the opposite — val p miranda

An antinomy isn’t a proof; it’s a logical argument, a “...dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason...”

“....This method of watching, or rather of originating, a conflict of assertions, not for the purpose of finally deciding in favour of either side, but to discover whether the object of the struggle is not a mere illusion, which each strives in vain to reach, but which would be no gain even when reached....”

Indeed. I don’t give a damn WHY there is a universe. That there is something I think of as it, is good enough.

if this innate sense of reason provides for an abstract objective reality, what is the nature of [this] our reality? — 3017amen

Why...or rather, how....would there be any difference between them, our reality or objective reality? Doesn’t matter what there is under any conditions whatsoever, reason is the one and only way a human is ever going to find out about it. Even accident or pure reflex as mere occasion for experience, still needs its possible understanding, which reverts right back to reason.

But what is mathematics itself? — 3017amen

Simply put, I guess, mathematics is the science developed by reason out of the category of “quantity”, in response to observations in the world. If the categories are part of our innate rational constitution, as transcendental philosophy stipulates, then the ground of mathematical structures resides in us naturally.

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe — 3017amen

We don’t know that they do; we only know they describe the universe in such a way the universe becomes comprehensible to us, strictly given the kind of intelligence we are.

for additional fodder:..... — 3017amen

.....all good.

is the concept of Noumenon (....) something that exists a priori like mathematical structures? — 3017amen

The concept of noumena....maybe, yes. Noumena themselves, iff there were such things.....not a chance. Mathematical structures, while a priori for their construction, lend themselves intuitively to phenomenal representation for their reality. Noumena, on the other hand, as products of the understanding, hence are only discursive constructs which eliminates them from intuition, hence can never be phenomena, hence can never be represented in the human world of objects.