Yeah see, this is, on it's face, a totally contradictory set of claims. It represents nothing, unless there is a real thing to which you are referring. In which case, it represents that. It can't really cut both ways. This is one of my personal gripes with the CRP that makes it come apart in some of its most important aspects. This reply would go to a couple of your further paras too.
I am saying that seeing a true disconnect
there is simply no reason whatsoever to assume the object which causes perceptions would be significantly different to the perception
I am not following the critique here: a thing-in-itself represents something real—it represent “that”. It doesn’t represent nothing. — Bob Ross
Ok, I was misunderstanding what you mean by “disconnect”. — Bob Ross
It would be, then, under my view that there is “connect” between the object which excited the senses and the phenomena of it insofar as the former is required for the latter but is not knowable, in terms of its properties, from the latter. — Bob Ross
You would have to experience the world as it were independently of your experience of it to verify how accurate your perceptions are — Bob Ross
All you can know, is that when you strip out the way your brain is pre-structured to experience, then there’s nothing intelligible left. — Bob Ross
what do you have left? — Bob Ross
If there is 'nothing out there' corresponding to your perception
The coffee. Quite blatantly.
So, something cannot correspond, from reality, to, one-to-one, your perception: that wouldn’t make sense. — Bob Ross
(1) there are a priori preconditions by which your brain cognizes and (2) your brain is cognizing multiple objects, from those sensations, into one coherent stream of consciousness. — Bob Ross
If by this you just meant that there must be something exciting your senses in order for your brain to have the material required to represent (i.e., the sensations), then you are absolutely right. — Bob Ross
How? The idea of a coffee is inherently spatiotemporal, logical, mathematical, conceptual, etc. All of that is a priori. — Bob Ross
there is no good reason to think that which excites our perceptions is significantly different from them
The idea of a priori concepts is a baffling one, if you're not going to invoke like genetic memory or whatever.
And perhaps why philosophies like Kant's don't make it further than universities... No one relates to this nonsense.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.