I agree, and tnx for the solid advice!

That is only because terms are confused. Kant sort of denies the conceptual reality. According to him the real thing we cannot understand, leaving us with a feeling of being lost. I propose different terms, but they mean the same. With these terms you can say a duck is real, but only in conceptual reality. The duck only exists in fundamental reality in the sense that it gives the confirmation when you know where to look.

why not both? If I understand these words correctly, they both agree with what I try to say. Plus it is a lot shorter. To me it seems there we must stop thinking, becuase words/concepts start to work against themselves. It is more about stopping to think in time...

yes that is what I mean to say too.

And yet, there is something there. Because when we know there is a duck there, we can do all kinds of experiments and involve other people to prove that, really, there is a duck. That is what I think 'the thing in itself' means. Even while the letter E cannot really be there in fundamental reality, we still can prove it is there. That is not a paradox, it is a simple fact.

I absolutely do not mean the word "duck" against the real duck. The problem is, the mind always and automatically applies one layer of abstraction. In the above sentence, what you actually read is ""duck"" against the real "duck" (both words get an extra pair of quotation marks). Because, there was never a real duck on your screen.

What I am referring to, and that is what I believe Kant is referring to as well, is that when we look at a duck and call it a "duck", we have never captured its reality. As the example with the cookies show, the letter E is only a way for the mind to point to a pattern it recognises. The same with the duck, although it is more difficult to capture the moment that the mind makes the translation. It is really something you have to try out, not something you can invent while writing. A field experiment, so to speak.

I will, but later. Or google "Babelspeak". There is not much there, but I'll update it.

Not a problem but I can't follow you. While I believe I do understand what Kant is saying, when I read it I say "yes, yes" every sentence. To me it feels you lost contact with reality and wandered off in concept land. Sorry maybe a bit harsh ..

(That is not true, I read abstracts ;))

I have difficulty understanding what you are saying. It seems to me you are addressing the problem solely through reasoning. You might say, that is what philosophy is! But I disagree, that is what other people have made of it.

Kant must have observed his own mind while looking at how he was perceiving the world. Just as I am tempting you to do with those cookies. Just a minute ago I did it myself again (with checker pieces, not cookies this time) to try the example of RussellA. It is really something you should do and then observe what happens.

all the stuff that's going on — fdrake

The difficulty only happens in the human mind. Paradox is a limitation of language, fundamental reality has no paradox. So be careful with adding more conceptsthan we can grasp.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I definitely mean more than this. What I am trying to do is to break the topic up in different chunks. If you like the overall topic and want to contribute - which it seems you are - then I'll invite you to also read my other post about fundamental reality. This will likely help to get the full scope of what I am working on.

How can AI have a concept of reality? If you can answer that then this might make more sense. — I like sushi

Maybe my above answer to MoK answers your question too?

We don't know how humans think. Does your AI have the ability to think? — MoK

You are absolutely right, we don't know how we think. We have two perspectives on the matter, one is our own experience of thinking, the other is our neurological knowledge. However, we do not understand the relation between those two. We call it "emergent" but that is another word for "too complex to understand".

Yet something crazy happens at the moment. Neural nets were proposed around 1960, if I am correct. By tinkering, 60 years later, we have ChatGPT. And even while we still don't understand how it works, there are similarities between ChatGPT and our brain processes. That is kind of magic.

What I plan to do is based on observing my own thought processes. I will try to build the architecture that will enable the processes that I am aware of. Language is a large part of that idea. So yes, I believe one day my AI has the ability to think. Hoping for another piece of magic.

This might raise the question of consciousness. But in order not to complicate the discussion, I would like to save that topic for a later post.

For me a proof of thinking would be, you give it a complicated question 'A' and it has no answer. Then some other day you give it a piece of seemingly unrelated information 'B'. Then a day after that, it says "He, do you remember you asked about 'A'? Now yesterday you talked about 'B', and maybe there is an answer here." Then it explains you in all detail a perfect answer.

That is what I am trying to achieve with Babelspeak, a method to store, retrieve and combine internalized abstractions.

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.

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.

Why are you so cynical? Take a cookie.

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...

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.

probably not as enlightened as you think they are — I like sushi

Could you please contribute to the topic instead of just venting your opinions about what you think I think of my ideas? If you are interested in more, search online for Babelspeak. Currently there is not much but I am working on it.

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?

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.

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)