I point at a green one say, and that you also see me pointing at a green one shows that there must be something independent of both of us that explains that, provided we accept that our perceptual organs and minds are in no hidden way connected. — Janus
By ‘creating reality’, I’m referring to the way the brain receives, organises and integrates cognitive data, along with memory and expectation, so as to generate the unified world–picture within which we situate and orient ourselves. And although the unified nature of our experience of this ‘world-picture’ seems simple and even self-evident, neuroscience has yet to understand or explain how the disparate elements of experience , memory, expectation and judgement, all come together to form a unified whole — even though this is plainly what we experience.
By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it. We designate it as truly existent, irrespective of and outside any knowledge of it. This gives rise to a kind of cognitive disorientation which underlies many current philosophical conundrums. — Mind-Created World
But I'm not denying that there is an external world. What I'm denying is that knowledge of that world is purely objective, that we can see it as it is or as it would be absent any observer. — Wayfarer
We designate it as truly existent, irrespective of and outside any knowledge of it. This gives rise to a kind of cognitive disorientation which underlies many current philosophical conundrums. — Wayfarer
…..that within which the sensations can alone be ordered and placed in a certain form…. — B34-A20
The dog and I both see something we call a wallaby. — Janus
To say that what exists must be subject to a perspective is not to deny its existence; it’s to say that “existence” is only ever intelligible to us under the conditions of possible experience. — Wayfarer
Wouldn’t you agree it’s possible for a human and some other kind of intelligence to have a common perception? — Mww
Your second paragraph is missing a crucial, unavoidable and clearly required aspect. That is the objects which engage our perception. — AmadeusD
Otherwise, we are perceiving nothing. — AmadeusD
That's clear. — AmadeusD
Have bene over this several times with several people and it is, to me, obviously and somewhat incredibly, wrong. — AmadeusD
He refers to Kant's transcendental hylomorphism, by which he means that Kant transposes Aristotle's form and matter relation to the register of cognition itself (where form is supplied by the a priori structures of sensibility and understanding, and matter by the manifold of intuition). — Wayfarer
I don't see wallabies as to be eaten but as to be preserved, but I have hit and killed one with my car ( on the road, not on the property I dwell on), which I subsequently ate (not my car, the wallaby, just in case I've been obscure again). — Janus
So what?I agree, and for me this means that gravity is a definite part of our experience whereas a universal mind is not―the latter is purely speculative.
The title of the thread is* (in a nutshell), to tease out a blindness in the view that, supported by science etc. the physical world**is what exists and anything else is mere speculation. A view which is held by the majority of the population. That the overwhelming truth of this orthodoxy cannot in all seriousness be challenged, and that this (orthodoxy) results in a blinkered view.The I have no idea what we have been disagreeing about, because it is true by mere definition that we cannot see the world as it would be absent any observer.
I would say that a perception is unique to the being that perceives it. — Metaphysician Undercover
He brings the potential of matter (by Aristotle's principles) right into the conscious mind as "the a priori structures of sensibility" — Metaphysician Undercover
….since "matter" refers to the unintelligible aspect of reality…. — Metaphysician Undercover
Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to
the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori
through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this pre
supposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not
get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the ob-
jects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the
requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to estab-
lish something about objects before they are given to us. — CPR B16
What Kant inherits from the Cartesian 'way of ideas' is the central role that the concept of consciousness, as the "mere subjective form of all our concepts," plays in metaphysical matters. This entails that objectivity becomes a crucial normative problem for his critical philosophy. But rather than inquiring into the objective reality of ideas, the vital question for Kant is: What are, and how can we arrive at, the fundamental norm of the objective validity of our judgements? — Pollock, Theory of Normativity
What I am saying is that the idea that there is "a thing" which is perceived is a faulty idea. — Metaphysician Undercover
Modeling reality as consisting of things which are perceived by us is not an accurate representation, and very misleading to anyone who wants a true understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you assume that there is an object which engagers a person's perception. Like I said, the perception is a creation of the perceiver. Therefore the perceiver creates the object. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is an unjustified conclusion. A person can be wrong in what they believe they are perceiving, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are perceiving nothing. So, a person can wrongly believe that they are perceiving objects, when in fact they are not perceiving objects, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are producing nothing. They might simply be perceiving something other than objects, and falsely believe that what is perceived is objects. — Metaphysician Undercover
As explained above, what appears to be clear to you is completely illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover
it's incredibly wrong to you, because you have an illogical thinking process. — Metaphysician Undercover
Kant's COPR is fairly complex.
If you think noumena is physical though you are completely and utterly wrong. — I like sushi
If you are still convinced your view is right then the onus is very much on you to reference and explain why, using his actual words; as the scholarly concensus on this is pretty much stacked completely against you. Note: When I say 'scholarly' I mean reputable scholarly work not amateur interpretations (which are rife with misrepresentation of Kant, due to his multifacted approach). — I like sushi
The fact is, if noumena do not represent, in an abstract phrasing, actual physical objects the system falls apart. That much is sound. — AmadeusD
What I am saying is that the idea that there is "a thing" which is perceived is a faulty idea. So, I'm saying that all these supposed "things", forest fires, balls, and clouds, could be better understood if we simply accept that the perception of them as things is mistaken and misleading. — Metaphysician Undercover
The title of the thread is* (in a nutshell), to tease out a blindness in the view that, supported by science etc. the physical world**is what exists and anything else is mere speculation. A view which is held by the majority of the population. That the overwhelming truth of this orthodoxy cannot in all seriousness be challenged, and that this (orthodoxy) results in a blinkered view. — Punshhh
Tell that to my thumb, after getting whacked by a mis-directed hammer. — Mww
Doesn’t have to be an accurate representation; it is only necessary such representation not contradict either Mother Nature, at the same level, and not contradict antecedent experience on any level. — Mww
Your reasoning is exemplary; it just exceeds the criteria for empirical knowledge of things on a common everyday scale. I mean….when was the last time you approached the SOL in anything with which you were consciously engaged? We’ve all perceived the alignment of susceptible particles into the shape of a field, but none of us have perceived the field of which the particles assume the shape. — Mww
I'm unsure how best to to get this across, but you cannot have a shadow without a physical object physically blocking light, even if we can never access that object. — AmadeusD
This doesn't make much sense. A person is not perceiving if they are imagining, which seems to be what you're talking about. — AmadeusD
Fascinating line of thought. — Wayfarer
it's really very interesting. — Wayfarer
The idea that there is a thing which emits the noise, and a thing which receives the noise is very misleading because it does not allow the proper understanding, which requires that the supposed 'things' must be understood as really the activity of something else. The true understanding is that the supposed 'thing' is not a thing at all, but some other activity of something else, which appears to us as if it were a thing
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.