It depends what you mean by "external world". There is the external world that I perceive as Appearance, and there is the external world outside me that I cannot perceive that is causing these Appearances. — RussellA

How many external worlds do you have, and which one is the real world? Why do you need more than one world?

To my understanding of Kant, Appearances are affected by unknowable Things in Themselves that exist outside me. — RussellA

What is the unknowable Things in themselves that exist outside you exactly mean? What are they?

However, as we can also think in general terms about Things in Themselves using Transcendental Reasoning on Appearances, thoughts about Things in Themselves exist in the mind. — RussellA

So Things-in-themselves exist outside you, but it also exists in your mind? Are they the same Things-in-themselves? Or are they different entities? Are they visible or audible to you? Can you touch them? If they are not perceptible, then how do you know they actually even exist?

n B276 Kant refers to objects existing outside any human observer: "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me."

You say that you see only one world, it is empirical, it is physical, it is external, it is not internal and it is not Mind-Dependent. — RussellA

There seems to be some logical flaws in the refutation, but it is good to know that Kant believes in the existence of the external world outside him.

Now the question goes back to Thing-in-itself. Is the Thing-in-itself something in the mind or does it exist outside of the mind? If outside, then would it be in the external world, or some other world totally separate from the external world?

If inside of the mind, then in which part of mind does it exist? Or is it just an abstract concept or idea in the mind?

Are you:

An Indirect Realist who believes that the objects they see are only a representation of different objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world?

A Direct Realist who believes that the objects they see are the same objects that exist outside the observer in a non-mental world? — RussellA

I don't know what ism I am following. None actually. As you pointed out very well this time, I believe in one empirical (physical) world outside of me. I am not sure if it is a mind dependent or mind independent world. My perception says that without my mind, the world doesn't exist, but my inference says, without my mind, the world will keep existing. :(

Physically. — wonderer1

Please elaborate further?

If you want to consider the question seriously it will involve studying a lot of science. However, I suspect you just wanted to do philosophical performance art, by asking a non-serious question. Am I right? — wonderer1

I was just asking the most compelling question I used to have on mind problem, but had no answers.

Fair enough. So how does the physical brain generate consciousness or awareness?

The most compelling question on mind is still, is it a substance i.e. is it some existence of its own, be it physical or non-physical?. Or is mind just a totality of intelligent and sentient actions and responses on the environment without its own existence?

Although it supports the functions of mind, surely physical brain is not mind itself is it? Has any Science come to a concrete answer to the question?

I assume you know your own existence within time, yet you don't seem to believe in an external world. — RussellA

Please don't misunderstand again. I do believe in only one world i.e. the physical world. I was asking about the external world in the Refutation for the Idealist you quoted.

I'm sure they do. I know I have. — RussellA

It didn't appear to be quite the case.

As Kant's philosophy is extremely complex and notoriously difficult to understand, I think the sensible approach is first to read various commentaries and then look at the original material. — RussellA

CPR is not a bible. You don't accept the whole lot in CPR as if it is some religious text like some other folks do. One thing for sure is, it is a great classic with lots of great ideas in it, but also there are some contentious, inconsistent parts and contradictions too.

You must try to clarify the contentious or obscure parts before accepting them. As I said, just relying on only one commentary source, and believing in all it says is not helpful and even might be futile. But also the most important part is your own interpretations on it backed by the logical argument, the original work and the various academic commentaries.

Interpretation based solely on one's own mind sounds more obscure than Kant, and the points based on mainly the popular media sounds too obvious. Mix them all up, and come up with the best points you think correct seems the best way to go for it.

In B276, Kant starts his proof with "I am conscious of my existence as determined in time."

He doesn't start his proof with "I am conscious of my existence". — RussellA

"as determined in time" sounds like it needs awareness of time, which can only be achieved by the outer sense perception such as perceiving the movement of the sun around the earth. How does one know one's own existence "determined in time" without yet being sure of the external world?

Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Refutation of Idealism B276 make sense to an Indirect Realist but perhaps not to a Direct Realist. — RussellA

Should the indirect realist not check the argument of the Refutation for the Idealism for any logical obscurity before accepting it?

For posts on the Forum, the SEP as source information is more than adequate. — RussellA

It would be likely to be a biased opinion. It is better to look at the original work first, and then various other commentaries rather than just relying on one 3rd party commentary source.

:cool: :ok:

I understand this. And i understand it to be an emotive defense of a patently incorrect assertion, based on an irrational response to a perceived slight.

Which is why I am not amendable to taking it too seriously. — AmadeusD

In a thread, I would never say someone is wrong blatantly (without having gone through much mutual arguments exchanges), because the arguments and logic will speak for themselves. I would only say something similar or same level of tones, it if the other party said first. If it were the case then the philosophical discussion would be derailing into an ordinary discussion from that point.

It was nothing serious event for me. Just explaining the situation and the logic that operates. :)

As noted, in light of this complete meltdown, I don't care.
The majority of my posts are seeking correction, and accepting correction. So the patent falseness of your ad hominem is just not a good way to comport yourself. — AmadeusD

You sounded blatantly irrational just demanding me to accept I am wrong. You had no arguments for your points, and also appeared to be not knowing exactly what has been discussed as well. God was only mentioned to add clarification to Thing-in-Itself.

Kant's Theology is a huge area itself, and it is another topic of its own. It would only possible to discuss a concept or two out of Kant's theology in CPR thread as a passing point in conjunction with some other main CPR topics, which was the case here.

But you claimed that Kant's view on God is unknowable ...etc went on with God blah blah, and accused me of being wrong. I thought that is not a proper way to oppose someone philosophically.

I felt that your point of telling me wrong was based solely on your blind trust of the other people (authority, or someone you respect etc) or source of the info (the internet), rather than the arguments or the truth itself, and for some reason having strong emotional urge to put my points down for no particular reason. Not fair was it?

You don't seem to be aware the way you behave towards others. I just let you know about it.

I told you exactly what you are, and have done. Nothing less or more.

It sounds like the whole purpose of your presence is to tell people they are wrong. I don't care who they are, if their points don't make sense, I would raise questions for the points to clarify.

You? Just butt in, and tell people they are wrong, and demand to accept whatever you say? Who do you think you are?

It is my point, and I am trying to prove it with my argument. Whereas you blatantly jump in with no arguments, demonstration or proofs, but shouting "Your claim is wrong." Why should anyone take your claim seriously?

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Mww — AmadeusD

It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus

Just a word "God" doesn't mean that we are discussing Kant's Theology.

No, they are not. One is so-called, the others are merely transcendental ideas, the conception of an object adequate for representing it, is impossible. — Mww

Aren't they all transcendentally deduced objects? Please elaborate.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building logical path and residence for the transcendental objects
— Corvus

He did that, it was significant, but hardly his main interest. — Mww

My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point.

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that we have been discussing God here, but God is not really a main topic in reading CPR. It was only mentioned in conjunction with clarification process of the concept Thing-in-Itself.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God and his Theology in this thread as far as I am aware.

Pretty much what I thought as well. There is no relation. The reference shows what god, freedom and immortality are, and from that, it is clear the thing-in-itself doesn’t relate to them. That’s the connection you missed. Which is sufficient refutation that the thing-in-itself was never used, as you claimed, “to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality”. — Mww

What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims.
If you think about it, what is thing-in-itself, and God, Soul and Freedom in Kant? They are all transcendental objects.

My guess was Kant wouldn't have been simple and naive enough to introduce Thing-in-itself to bung all your daily physical objects into it, and tell the world, you don't know anything about your books, cups and trees ... etc.

Kant's main interest in writing CPR was building a logical path and residence for the transcendental objects viz. God, Souls and Freedom, and it was named "Thing-in-itself".

Dunno what to tell ya, bud. If you can’t find the connection, or you think there isn’t one, that’s all on you. But I’m not doing your thinking for you. — Mww

I never asked you do thinking for me. I was trying to find out how on earth you came to the claim. The reference you provided didn't have the obvious, evident parts or information related to Thing-in-itself and God, Souls and Freedom, and the relation between them.

If you actually read the reference, you’d know. Which begs an obvious question…..why are you asking? — Mww

I actually did read the reference, but couldn't find the part backing your claim, hence asked you which part and also your argument for your point.

The Empirical World inside us we know through our sensibilities. The Mind-Independent World outside us we know through Transcendental Reasoning about the Empirical World inside us. — RussellA

Do you have the CPR reference for backing that points up? No Wiki or SEP, but CPR.

In his Refutation of Idealism is his Theorem "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me" B276. — RussellA

You cannot prove the existence of the objects in space outside of you by simply saying you are conscious of your own existence. You could be conscious of your existence in your dream or hallucination. Does that prove any existence of the objects in space outside of you?

These are not contradictory positions. — RussellA

Not contradictory, but not making sense either.

My statement that your claim is not the case is proved in the reference. The only thing that has to do with me, is I know where to look for the refutation of your claim. — Mww

I was asking which part of the reference backs up your claim, but you refused to provide the evidence.

I’m not making a claim; I’m merely citing a source-specific refutation of yours. — Mww

I was meaning, your claim " ….which just is not the case.
— Mww"

Why is it not the case?

This is why a single photograph cannot show a Mind-Independent World, as knowledge about a Mind-Independent World requires Transcendental Reason, and reason in order to have content requires a complete logical form. — RussellA

1. You didn't need to take a photo of the whole MI World. Just a part of it would have done. No one can take a photo of the whole world in a single shot anyway.

2. You seem to think a world is some logically reasoned object. A world is a totality of the domain in which you specify all the attributes about it. But since you haven't done so, I was assuming that you were meaning the world in which we live in.

Therefore I can only conclude that your claim was groundless and unfounded.
— Corvus

Suit yourself. Hell, you might even be correct. — Mww

For your claim to be correct, you need the argument and valid conclusion backed by the original source. But you failed to produce that, and when re-asked for it, you refused to do so. Hence the conclusion. :wink:

Nope, not gonna do that. You asked for a reference, you got it, do with it as you will. — Mww

I have read the pages in CPR, but couldn't find any part which back your claim that my proposition (regarding to Thing-in-itself and the concepts i.e. God, Souls and Freedom) is not the case. Therefore I can only conclude that your claim was groundless and unfounded.
I didn't just asked for the reference. I asked for your reasons for your claims (preferably with the reference). You only forwarded the reference, which appear to be unrelated, and you refuse to clarify on the relation of the reference and your claims. Your postings seem to be lacking consistency and truths from the facts. :chin: :wink:

Kant refers to Berkelian Idealism in B275, which is part of his purpose in the Refutation of Idealism. — RussellA

In that case, would it be the case that you have been mistaken Kant's refutation of Idealism as Kant's TI?

Because a "mountain" as a representation in the Empirical World within the mind is different in kind to a "mountain" weighing one billion tonnes in a Mind-Independent World outside the mind. — RussellA

In that case, should it not be a representation of the empirical world in your mind, rather than an internal world inside you? It sounds too far-fetched for you to carry an internal world weighing one billion tonnes in your head.

More later~

as a single photograph can only show the form of reason and not its content — RussellA

A photograph is to show visual image, not the form of reason. It is nonsense to say that a photo can only show the form of reason. It doesn't make sense.

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Corvus

….which just is not the case.
— Mww
Your reason for the claim is?
— Corvus

See A333-338/B390-396, plus the footnote in B. — Mww

Could you please specify and explain which sentences in the CPR pages warrant or relate to your claim? Thanks.

But this exchanges the concept for an object. Now it is the case the thing-in-itself can neither be thought as an real object nor knowable as a real object. But it still can be thought as having a real existence. — Mww

According to Kant, it requires your faith, not reasoning.

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.
— Corvus

….which just is not the case. — Mww

Your reason for the claim is? (preferably with the CPR source)

In summary, there is an "Empirical World" inside the mind, within Phenomena, within Appearances, within the Sensibilities and within the Senses and there is also a "Mind-independent World" outside the mind. — RussellA

In summary how did you manage to cram in the whole universe into inside your mind? :chin:

Meaning of "Empirical World"

Does the Empirical World exist within Appearances or does it exist the other side of these Appearances, whatever is causing these Appearances?

There are different "Worlds". One exists within the mind and the other exists outside the mind, independent of the mind. — RussellA

There is only one world called the empirical world, and it is outside the mind. Appearance is from the empirical world, and it is only in visual form i.e. the lights which are reflected from the objects in the empirical world.

So, we can see the books, trees and mountains, roads, houses, cars and hills. They are only the lights when we say appearance or phenomena.

But some appearances and phenomena are only images such as the objects you see in your dreams, imaginations and illusions. They are not in the form of lights in structure, hence the image quality are dim and less vivid than the images coming in the lights from the appearance and phenomena of the objects in the empirical world.

When I see a book in front of me, it is via the appearance or phenomenon from the object (the book) in the empirical world (outside of the mind). But when I pick up the book, open it, and read it, it is in the empirical world. The objects in the empirical world allow me to not just perceive, but also interact, such as picking it up, opening it, and reading it. The physical objects in the empirical world also continue to exist through time. The book I read yesterday, is still here to be read today, and will be there tomorrow to be read again even after years. The book you saw in your dream or imagination cannot be read, and you cannot interact with it in real life. It doesn't exist through extended time either. You might have seen it last night, but today it is very likely you cannot see it again.

The book you see in the bookcase is presented to you as an appearance or phenomenon until you walk into it, pick it out and read it. If you are in the empirical world, you can do this. If you are not in the empirical world, you cannot do that.

There is no such thing as an internal world. In your mind, there are only perceptions. You seem to confuse with the perceptions thinking them as an internal world. There is only one world, and it is outside of the mind as the empirical world. What we see are appearance and phenomena which are the lights reflected from the objects in the empirical world.

A CPR reference substantiating your claim would be nice, to determine if we’re on the same page. — Mww

CPR B xx, A30 / b45, B xxvi, B 325, B327

While the thing-in-itself may have nothing to do with our knowledge of representations of physical objects in the empirical world, they very much have to do with those objects. Unless, once again, you have a CPR reference substantiating your claim. — Mww

It just sounds meaningless to say Thing-in-itself is a concept, but it is totally unknowable, and even unthinkable. It just exists outside of mind, but no one knows what it is, and it covers all the physical objects outside the mind. Therefore for example, we don't know what the books in front of us are like. Even if we see the books in front for us, but we don't know what they are??? That just sounds like a needless scepticism.

Thing-in-itselft must be the existences for us to think about, but not knowable. The concepts such as God, Souls, Freedom and Immortality fit in there, We can think about them, but we have no physical objects matching the concepts. That sounds more reasonable to me.

From what I know it's typical of the programs in that school. Heavily financed by pharma. It's an example of neurology that leans heavily toward physicalism and because of financing, alternatives are discouraged.

A lot of their studies get discredited. Twins study for example. — Mark Nyquist

Thanks for the Youtube info. Yes, it looks like they are very active in promoting their Dept.

Scientific theories will often have internal and external contradictions arising from different theories and previous experimental and observational data, which require philosophical investigations and logical enquiries clarifying and concluding for the best principles. Without Philosophy of Mind, it would be daunting and impossible task to carry out such academic and critical processes for A.I. or Neuroscience subjects.

Again what is the point even talking about something which is unknowable?
— Corvus

To show that Berkelian Idealism is incorrect. — RussellA

This thread is for reading Kant's CPR. Why try to show Berkeley's Idealism is incorrect?

In fact, for the day to day survival of humans, there is no necessity to know more than what is perceived in our Empirical World of Phenomena. Any transcendental thought about a Mind-Independent World is out of philosophical interest only. — RussellA

I am not sure if a philosophical topic which is totally severed from the Empirical world has a meaning. Are you?

Not here, no, but there are objections, which was what I actually implied. And it is true, if one doesn’t hold with transcendental philosophy and all its conditions, he has no need of things-in-themselves. — Mww

Transcendental philosophy is the core of CPR. Without it, CPR has little meaning. But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality. Thing-in-itself has nothing to do with the physical objects in the empirical world.

Even if I uploaded a photo of a Mind-Independent World, the Solipsist wouldn't believe it. — RussellA

Seeing is believing. Upload it first. Will see it, and tell you what world you were looking at. :D

Without solid philosophical foundation and definitions backed by logical system, all sciences are likely to degenerate into some sort of trivial techniques, common-sense know-hows and device manufacturing skills. Some historical philosophers such as Bacon, Descartes and Kant were seeking to establish a single Science which unites all the knowledge in the universe. Maybe that was too ambitious try, but there must have been reason for the pursuits.

But the spirit of the unification of different subjects into one has not fully dead even today. We see some recent contemporary academics publishing the articles and books under the title and scope looking at the Mind from Philosophy, Neuroscience, Clinical Psychology, Metaphysics and Linguistic studies looking at them from the integrated perspectives. They are all interconnected to the topic, and none of them are regarded as irrational, or out of scope subjects. Philosophy of Mind is not dead.