Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen
And thanks for the welcome.a single cookie is not a cookie, it's a period. — T Clark
Fundamental reality must be the particles, the cookies AND the letters, somehow. — Carlo Roosen
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! — Wayfarer
reality consists of collections of collections of collections — litewave
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
You will agree that our conceptual detection system is at work and recognizes this as a pattern forming the letter E. — Carlo Roosen
Fundamental reality provided all the input for that abstraction — Carlo Roosen
I will try to bring this topic back to something everyone can validate on his/her own. — Carlo Roosen
But if we would listen to Kant, he says we cannot understand fundamental reality. — Carlo Roosen
I don't need to know the "fundamental reality" that the traffic light is actually emitting a wavelength of 700nm — RussellA
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
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
In short:just accept that fundamental reality is (by definition) something we cannot understand, but we can prove it is there. — Carlo Roosen
He cannot speak of that which he speaks of ... yet he does — I like sushi
Also, how does this help you creating an AI algorithm? — I like sushi
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
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.
***
*
**
*
***
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many philosophers have been struggling with this, but this is really all there is to it, I believe. — Carlo Roosen
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.