Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen

Welcome to the forum. To start, a single cookie is not a cookie, it's a period.

Down to business. I think you've oversimplified what Kant had to say and have missed the important point. Kant is not the only one who recognizes that the world at its most basic level is unspeakable. It cannot be put into words. When you put things into words, conceptualize them, you create something different from the thing itself. "Moon" is not the moon. As I see it, this is the fundamental fact in understanding our relationship to reality.

Too funny:

a single cookie is not a cookie, it's a period. — T Clark

And thanks for the welcome.

As for the business, I don't see the difference in what I say and what you say. With the cookies in a certain configuration, that "E" or "F" is a label we give to the form. Fundamental reality provides everything that is needed for these letters to appear, so in that sense they really do exist. But when we call it "E" or "F", we create something in our conceptual reality that is not there in fundamental reality.

I rephrase it a little by making it two realities.

There are many philosophers who add a lot of reasoning to that (eg: two objects interpretation and two aspects interpretation)

Fundamental reality must be the particles, the cookies AND the letters, somehow. — Carlo Roosen

In other words, reality consists of collections of collections of collections... Welcome to set theory, the instantiation of abstract mathematics in concrete forms. Every set (collection) is an object in its own right, not identical to any of its elements but something in addition to them.

Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen

Philosophy Forum Contributor Proves Kant Wrong In Single Post!

Well, isn't it good to have all that finished with, then?

Now we can move on to more fundamental things, such as why 'mercans say "cookie" when they mean biscuit.

I might, but I’m carefully drafting an essay on the philosophical implications of the double-slit experiment and it’s very time consuming.

So you have been reading quantum again. No good will come of such foolishness.

No good will come of such foolishness. — Banno

:up: *Quantum-woo* is @Wayfarer's catnip (& @Gnomon's too).

:up: :up:

Go back to baiting theists, mate. That about exhausts your repertoire.

:snicker:

Philosophy Forum Contributor Proves Kant Wrong In Single Post! — Wayfarer

I like the humor, but actually, I fully agree with Kant. I only commented on the other philosophers who make it more difficult than it is.

reality consists of collections of collections of collections — litewave

True, but that is still conceptual reality. It makes it more apparent that fundamental reality is of a different make and cannot be understood. One cookie that first was part of the letter E, suddenly becomes part of the letter F. (And later becomes a period according to T Clark). It is clear that that only happens in our mind. So, if it only happens in our mind, what is the nature of reality out there that provides these collections of categories?

The presumptousness of the inexpert.

One cookie that first was part of the letter E, suddenly becomes part of the letter F. (And later becomes a period according to T Clark). It is clear that that only happens in our mind. — Carlo Roosen

Why would it only happen in our mind? The cookie is out there, it is a part of collection E, then a part of collection F. Collections E and F are out there too.

You will agree that our conceptual detection system is at work and recognizes this as a pattern forming the letter E. — Carlo Roosen

We perceive the letter E because we perceive a relation between the "cookies" (the "atoms"). In other words, we see a relation between the parts of the whole.

One aspect is the ontological nature of relations. Where do "relations" exist"? EG, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Relations

If relations don't ontologically exist in "fundamental reality", then the letter E can only exist in our mind as a "conceptual reality". This also means that other objects, such as "chairs" and "tables", don't exist in "fundamental reality".

If relations do ontologically exist in "fundamental reality", then the letter E exists both in "fundamental reality" and our "conceptual reality". But from this a number of philosophical problems arise.

Using Kant's terminology, if relations don't exist in "fundamental reality", then neither can "noumena" nor "things-in-themselves" exist in "fundamental reality" (the difference between "noumena" and "things-in-themselves" is argued over).

Fundamental reality provided all the input for that abstraction — Carlo Roosen

Without humans inventing the letters E and F, how can there be these letters in fundamental reality? Only when you know what you are looking for, you can verify that, hey, fundamental reality confirms our conceptual view on the matter. So it is one-directional in some sense. You can only recognise something "out there" if you already have a concept available "inside". And since our concepts are limited by our brain capacity, the question remains, what is actually out there?

And yes, what applies to these letters also applies to chairs and tables. O, I should say "chairs" and "tables"

For me the important thing is to stay close to what you can perceive directly. Kant did not invent this theory out of thin air, he observed his mind while it was operating.

But if we would listen to Kant, he says we cannot understand fundamental reality. Our conceptual thinking is unable to go there. Nobody listens. Instead everybody goes on trying to squeeze fundamental reality's secrets in our conceptual minds. Of course you end up in contradictions then. In short, listen to Kant and leave it there...

I will try to bring this topic back to something everyone can validate on his/her own. — Carlo Roosen

Regrettably there’s no ‘dummies guide’ to transcendental idealism.

Why are you so cynical? Take a cookie.

I wish :love:

But if we would listen to Kant, he says we cannot understand fundamental reality. — Carlo Roosen

Kant is a proponent of Realism. in that his belief is that there is a "fundamental reality" that exists independently of our "conceptual reality". This "fundamental reality" contains "things-in-themselves", although we can never know what these "things-in-themselves" are.

There is the paradox within Kant's CPR that Kant doesn't properly answer, though gives an attempt in B276, of how we can know that there are things-in-themselves if we can never know what they are.

To say "transcendentally" is not an answer, in that "transcendentally" is just a name, not a description. In the same way that my saying that it is possible to travel through time using a "wormhole" in space is meaningless.

However, in practice, living in a "conceptual reality" is sufficient. We don't need to understand "fundamental reality" in order to understand "conceptual reality". For example, if I perceive the traffic light to be on red, I can react accordingly. I don't need to know the "fundamental reality" that the traffic light is actually emitting a wavelength of 700nm.

Nice. I want to add one thing. I think this paradox you mention is partly solved by the "one way system" I mentioned. When you know what you are looking for, fundamental reality gives all the evidence. I can set up any test I want, involving many different people, camera's, infrared, AI, etc. All information I get back is consistent with the fact that, yes, there is the letter E. In that way only, you can say the letter E exists in fundamental reality.

I don't need to know the "fundamental reality" that the traffic light is actually emitting a wavelength of 700nm — RussellA

But that is also conceptual reality! As soon we have words, it is a concept.

You can only recognise something "out there" if you already have a concept available "inside"...When you know what you are looking for, fundamental reality gives all the evidence. — Carlo Roosen

I look at the world and perceive many parts in the world.

I have the concept of the letter F in my mind, look at the world, and see the letter F.

The letter F is a unified single whole composed of several parts.

The parts exist in the world.

The question is, does the whole exist in the world or only in my mind?

If the whole does exist in the world, for example the letter F, then what is the ontological nature of the relations between the parts of the letter F in the world?

If the whole does exist in the world, for example the letter F, then what is the ontological nature of the relations between the parts of the letter F in the world? — RussellA

First, that picture is genius! I see the letter F and E !

To answer your question: that is something we simply have to accept that our mind is incapable of capturing. Language is a tool, like a bucket is. Don't try to put a river in a bucket.

One limitation of conceptual understanding is that it is sequential, just like language is sequential. Maybe we get an overall sense of understanding, but this is after re-assembling the concepts in an overall kind of impression.

In short: just accept that fundamental reality is (by definition) something we cannot understand, but we can prove it is there.

In short:just accept that fundamental reality is (by definition) something we cannot understand, but we can prove it is there. — Carlo Roosen

Why?

because that is how Kant defines it. If we can understand it, we give it a name, and then it is part of conceptual reality. Yet we find that every time reality is more than we think it is. That part we call fundamental reality.

I must say I like your questions, they force me to really think it through.

But surely you see that if that is how Kant defines it by defining it it becomes fundamental reality. He cannot speak of that which he speaks of ... yet he does. Explain.

Also, how does this help you creating an AI algorithm?

He cannot speak of that which he speaks of ... yet he does — I like sushi

It is quite possible to speak of things that you don't know. Language doesn't have a problem. The "unknown" you can speak of, just as "future", "surprise".

Also there is a few things that we can say about fundamental reality, that is, if we query it for some concept "is that 'E' really there?" we get an answer.

Also, how does this help you creating an AI algorithm? — I like sushi

Interesting question and I really don't know. This curiousity is what led me into this project. So that is how my mind works it seems. Also, maybe it doesn't help me but at least I can understand if this is a smart thing to build or not... I am quite confident it is, but I cannot fully explain why.

Emanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism is the view that we can never know reality directly (the noumenon), we only know how it appears to us (the phenomenon). Kant made this distinction based on observation, I believe. You cannot invent such a theory out of thin air. Yet many people have wandered off in imagination, offering all kinds of abstract ideas to explain this theory. — Carlo Roosen

It's Immanuel.

I will try to bring this topic back to something everyone can validate on his/her own. I will use the terms fundamental reality and conceptual reality, simply because I get confused by Kant's terms.

I appreciate the attempt to make Kant's terms clearer. Though I think you're dealing with the more general dichotomy between representation (conceptual reality) and represented (fundamental reality). Rather than the one between phenomenon (conceptual reality, representation) and thing-in-itself or noumenon. The distinction in Kant, or pair of distinctions - between phenomenon and noumenon, or phenomenon and things-in-themselves, doesn't neatly map onto the concept of representation and represented. The things-in-themselves are alien to any conceptual apparatus or system of perception, whereas the represented can be more or less adequately grasped by a representation.

***
*
**
*
***

You will agree that our conceptual detection system is at work and recognizes this as a pattern forming the letter E. Eat two cookies and now it looks like this:

***
*
**
*
*

Our conceptual detection system does not wonder where the E has gone. It is now simply the letter F. Next you eat all cookies except the last one. All the letters are gone, only a single cookie is left. No big deal.

*

You will likely agree that the E and F were created in your mind, as a part of your conceptual reality. Fundamental reality provided all the input for that abstraction, no misunderstanding about that. But it is the mind that recognizes the input as patterns and gives it these labels E and F.

The driving force of this paragraph is the phrase "created in your mind", which you could read substantially or relationally. Substantially, insofar as a representation (item of conceptual reality) is part of your mind while perciving the cookie configurations, or relationally insofar as the perception of the configuration results in classifying the configuration as a given letter. NB that someone who had no concept of the letters E or F would be able to see the relative positions and numbers of cookies, and you were also able to bring about a change in the represented (cookie placement) in order to elicit an expected change in our aggregate representations (letter classification). The significance of this is that you've used a representation to elicit an expected change in the un-represented by using a concept - which would be very odd if the represented is somehow beyond relation to conceptualisation as a process.

Also notice that during the time you were looking at the E and F, the concept “cookies” was most likely at the background of your mind, although you did perceive them perfectly well. Another sign that perception and concept are not the same thing.

"background of your mind" is also allegorical. You seem to be equating that with a degree of cognitive awareness of the label of the percept - being cognisant of the fact that if I see that configuration, I may assert "that configuration is E". Whereas the latter step of assertion is potentiated but not required by the classification. That matter since you would need to establish that concepts did not saturate both steps. As far as I know concepts do saturate both steps, and they do for Kant as well as contemporary accounts of perception.

Now take the remaining cookie and look at it. In the hierarchy of concepts we go one level deeper, so to speak. Look at the single cookie. For some reason it is more difficult to say that the cookie is a pattern detected in your mind by your conceptual detection system. It is a cookie, that is how it feels.

The level of description that you applied to the cookie configurations is not the level of description you would apply to the single cookie - since the cookie configuration concept requires relations between distinct cookies, and there is one. You can take a different concept - say "marks on page", "distribution of pixels" - and describe the cookie in those terms. Those concepts do not have a hierarchical dependence, since both letter cookie configurations and single cookie configurations can be described in terms of the properties of marks on a page - when one judges markings on a page, one does not need to judge letters and vice versa.

I believe there is actually no difference between the patterns E and F and a cookie. Just like the two letters, the cookie is something our brain recognizes as a separate object, searches the appropriate label for and finds the word “cookie”. All the information is out there, the recognition and labeling is only in our minds.

One type of information is out there - the spatial properties of the page marks. Whatever goes into recognising the marks as E or as F, or indeed as a letter, is a relationship between the marks and the perceiver's learning. It need not be in the page or the perceiver's mind, it can be interpreted as an element of the relation between them.

Everything that can be said about this cookie, its taste and its color, finds its origin in the reality outside, the fundamental reality. It is inside the mind where the recognition and the labeling happens, which is the conceptual reality.


You can go down more and more levels, until you are at the particle level. Do all the particles in the universe then form this "fundamental reality"? I don't think so. Observe what happens in your mind. Just like "Letters E and F" and "cookies", you now have a label "all the particles in the universe", defined by your current perspective of reality. Still just a concept in your mind, no different than the letters or the cookies.

This hasn't distinguished the fundamental reality from the lower levels of the conceptual hierarchy you stipulated - is fundamental reality at the bottom? If it's like the thing in itself, that fundamental level is unconceptualisable, so how could some concept be closer to it?

Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen

One reason philosophers struggle with this is that it's incredibly hard to make an account of it, given all the stuff that's going on, the biases involved in introspection, and pinning down the meaning of concepts. To be frank, the imprecisions in your key terms and relations "created in your mind", "object", "hierarchy", "conceptual", "fundamental" are what's doing the work in appearing to solve the problem. Your account is evocative but its imprecisions leave fatal gaps that ensnare it in the problems you've sought to escape.

Which isn't a bad thing, you're just among the bad company of fellow travellers.