The question: — Arthur Rupel

I see no question. But I miss a lot things. The point is not that it works (i.e., Kant's account). He's not about saying what is or isn't. What he is about is giving an account for how it can be. If you read Kant, you will see that the questions he deals with are substantial. And he deals with them. And you've got it by the tail, although maybe you don't know it. I do not know if "perceive" as you use it above is the correct term. It implies you take in something that is outside of you, and the exteriority itself is the source of your knowledge.

But Kant sees the problems with this. Or, rather, a lot of people saw the problems with this model - Kant resolved them. He gives an account as to how you can know that what you know, is so. And it is so because your brain makes it so. I suppose that if your brain didn't, then there'd be nothing to question. And it is, per Kant, necessarily so, because that's how it works.

My crude run-through is the merest and slightest sketch, but it has the virtue of being short. I refer you to to his Critique of Pure Reason for the thing itself. Actually a good read if you can pay attention to it.

In sum you take in things that at first are sensations (e.g., various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation). As such there's no sense to be made of them. But a part of your mind does exactly that. It constructs your reality.

Are time and duration "out there"? In a practical sense, sure. In this Kantian pure reason sense, no. But it's a distinction without value until and unless you have a handle on what Kant is saying and is about. And if you do not, then any claims you make about it are themselves without substance, because without understanding.

In sum you take in things that at first are sensations (e.g., various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation). As such there's no sense to be made of them. But a part of your mind does exactly that. It constructs your reality. — tim wood

Minds don't construct realities or worlds. They construct models, or representations. Reality is the sum of all mental models (yours and mine and everyone else) and what they model (the world which includes everyone else). If my mind constructed reality, then what does that say about your existence? Does that not mean that you exist only when you appear in my mind?

Even if solipsism were the case, a mind would not construct reality. Mind would BE reality. There would be no such thing as mind - only reality.

Time is a slideshow.
Our sense of time is our view of the slideshow.
If we move it moves, if we stop it stops.

Is this the distinction you're looking for?

The thought is that this "waiting" period, which varies, implies something that is represented in our minds based on something outside our minds.

The thought is that "time" is not completely a mental creation but it is also representative of something outside of phenomena, an existent in noumena. In a sense, time is "real." — Arthur Rupel

Time is change and change does exist in more than just the mind. The mind perceives change relative its own frequency of change which is why change can appear nonexistent in processes that are very slow (stable solid objects) compared to change that is so fast as to be just a blur or nonexistent to us.

Time/change is relative. We each experience change differently depending on the state of our minds. For lethargic minds, the world seems to change faster while alert minds experience slower change in the world (The Flash).

In this Kantian pure reason sense, no. — tim wood

Reason may not construct reality per se, but it can be said reason constructs our sense of reality, or, constructs reality for us.

“...(...) all our intuition is nothing but the representation of phenomena; that the things which we intuite, are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cognize a priori, that is, antecedent to all actual perception; and for this reason such cognition is called pure intuition. The latter is that in our cognition which is called cognition a posteriori, that is, empirical intuition. The former appertain absolutely and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations may be; the latter may be of very diversified character....”

Good read indeed. Tough as it may be.

Minds don't construct realities or worlds. They construct models, or representations. — Harry Hindu

Thank you for the correction; points to you! This being TPF, however, I will not resist the impulse to quibble. The mind creates for you what you regard as reality. In that sense it is your reality, but not the reality. Point?

Even if solipsism were the case, a mind would not construct reality. Mind would BE reality. There would be no such thing as mind - only reality. — Harry Hindu

Maybe everybody but me already knew this, but for me it's a new way of looking at it - and I really appreciate that!

but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, — Mww

What a monster of labor it must have been for Kant to write his Critiques. The "as phenomena" makes all the difference, yet in what classroom or discussion did anyone (but you) ever get it right? Such qualifications, seemingly of little consequence, turn out to be lynch pins of understandings. Original sources! That way a person needs worry only about his or her own misreadings and not those that infest the secondary literature, and lectures given by those who didn't understand.

Thank you for the correction; points to you! This being TPF, however, I will not resist the impulse to quibble. The mind creates for you what you regard as reality. In that sense it is your reality, but not the reality. Point? — tim wood

It would be a category error to call it your reality. You can call it your version of reality if "model" or "representation" isn't to your liking, but to call it "reality" would be incorrect.

If you realize that your mind doesn't exhaust reality (realism) - that there are things your senses can't reach, or that you are wrong sometimes - reality is how things actually are and then our minds are how we interpret the version our senses provide in order to facilitate goal-oriented behavior.

If you realize that your mind exhausts reality (solipsism) then "mind" becomes incoherent and "reality" is the only term that applies to the situation.

It would be a category error to call it your reality. You can call it your version of reality if "model" or "representation" isn't to your liking, but to call it "reality" would be incorrect.

If you realize that your mind doesn't exhaust reality (realism) - that there are things your senses can't reach, or that you are wrong sometimes - reality is how things actually are and then our minds are how we interpret the version our senses provide in order to facilitate goal-oriented behavior.

If you realize that your mind exhausts reality (solipsism) then "mind" becomes incoherent and "reality" is the only term that applies to the situation. — Harry Hindu

You're right again. And it's the kind of correction that improves - thank you for that! No more quibbles from me. I could wish TPF had a category for posts like yours for use as a reference.