By the way, I was going to ask you, what do time and space have got to do with consciousness in Kant? — Corvus

To be able to communicate in English about Kant's philosophy, I started reading the Critique in an English translation. As my mother tongue is German it was interesting that this translation, even if it was more than one hundred years old, seemed to me much easier to grasp than the original. Maybe it is due to the practical attitude prevailing in English-speaking countries.

Anyway. The foundation of Kant's system of ideas lies in the distinction between two entirely different faculties of human knowledge: intellect and intuition. Thinking, logic and concepts arise from the intellect. Usually intuition is regarded as inferior and by no means connected to knowledge. Quite different here. Time and space are our fundamental intuitions. Interesting is Kant's argument, why time and space are no concepts. Concepts always refer to a variety of things. Time and space, though, are single data for knowledge. Different times (spaces) are always parts of this one time (space).

Thus time and space are essentially different from the intellect but nevertheless in consciousness just the same. Please refer to Sections one and two of Transcendental Aesthetic.

Thus time and space are essentially different from the intellect but nevertheless in consciousness just the same. Please refer to Sections one and two of Transcendental Aesthetic. — Pez

Interesting.  German speakers would definitely be more advantageous for reading all the German philosophical textbooks in German.  Once I tried to read CPR in German, but my German was too basic.  I was able to translate the texts ok, but the progress was far too slow, which was the reason for abandoning the reading, and went back to the English translated CPR.

Reading in English is not bad at all, because there are so many translations and commentaries for almost every non-English textbooks available, but sometimes you might feel that some important meanings could be lost from the original texts in translations.  It is especially the case with the difficult original texts such as CPR.  I ended up getting 3 copies of different translated copies of CPR. English is not my main language, but much better than my elementary German in readings.  

But for your point on Kant's time and space is not intelligence, but intuition,  is interesting.  I agree with the point.  Because Time and Space can never be clearly understood or perceived by mind as distinct and concrete entities.  They are definitely the internal perceptions in that Time and Space can be guessed and felt in thoughts, but they can never be accurately and precisely understood by reason.  Hence, it makes sense to say that Time and Space are types of intuition, and they can only be intuited in mind. I wonder if it would make sense to say that Time and Space is the foundation or precondition of consciousness.

I was reading Kant intensely a few months ago, but recently I got so busy in daily life, I have not read anything for a while.  I will be getting back to reading either Kant or Hegel for a change, so some Philosophical logic or even Mathematics, when things get quieter here.

that's right, explaining it in "logical terms" from you didn't work, because your only definitions of "everyone" were either (a) not normal at all and completely arbitrary, or (b) left the claim untrue — flannel jesus

∀xKp = Everyone knows P (has no existential instance)
∀x∃(X1 .... Xn)Kp = Everyone in the class, group, I know, I met, ...Xn knows P (has existential instance)

Therefore the universal quantifier pronoun "Everyone" has no existential instance on its own in a sentence. Existential instance only emerges with further limiting quantifier connected to the universal quantifier. You have been barking at the wrong tree in all your posts.

I have no idea what point you're tryinig to make with this.

For me, it's quite simple: You and I both, at this point in time, know that not everyone agrees / knows that consciousness emerges from the brain. Including a lot of people who presumably have qualified opinions on the matter, like expert philosophers and even many scientists believe in souls (many scientists are religious).

That's all there is to it.

"Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain" is an untrue statement for any standard or colloquial use of 'everyone'.

"Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain" is an untrue statement for any standard or colloquial use of 'everyone'. — flannel jesus

When someone says "Everyone turned up this morning." You can't say he was wrong because Elvis Presley, Immanuel Kant, Joe Biden, Vladmir Putin and Xie Jinping also didn't turn up.

From Everyone knows P, you can't induce some particular group of people or individual also knows P.

so do you agree or disagree with that text from me that you quoted?

If you disagree, then what standard definition of "everyone" makes true the statement "Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain"?

so do you agree or disagree with that text from me that you quoted?

If you disagree, then what standard definition of "everyone" makes true the statement "Everyone knows consciousness emerges from the brain"? — flannel jesus

I was just pointing out and making clear that your insistence that "Everyone knows mind emerges from brain is wrong." I believe that your claim was wrong.

For the other folks you claim to exist who don't believe that mind emerges from brain, I am not sure. I have not met any of them in my whole life. So I am taking that claim as a groundless rumour or opinion.

Ah, the good ol' head in the sand approach. The existence of Christians is groundless rumour or opinion.


There are people on this forum who don't believe mind comes exclusively from the brain. Take your head out of the sand and look around.

Ah, the good ol' head in the sand approach. The existence of Christians is groundless rumour or opinion.


There are people on this forum who don't believe mind comes exclusively from the brain. Take your head out of the sand and look around. — flannel jesus

The religious folks believe in the existence of souls, not the minds with intelligence reasoning and intuitions. You are conflating the two. They are totally different things in nature.

Most Christians (definitely not all, but most) would disagree with the statement you think everyone knows.

Soul is supposed to be a separate entity from body, and acclaim to survive after death of body, I understand. But mind has no physical entity. It just operates in the form of mental activities demonstrating reasoning, imagining, believing, using languages etc.

Mind dies when the body dies. It doesn't survive bodily death at all. Hence the two are different. They cannot be the same. Existence of soul is mostly believed by the religious people, which I am not. But then belief and faith issues are subject to change in during the course of one's life.

You seem all over the place now.

Whatever. OK I will not try any more clarification with you. I hope you will understand the points, and learn about it.