Judgments presents problems of a serious nature to both psychology and metaphysics. - F. H. Bradley

To ask a living organism to conceive of death is like using a pen to draw a picture of itself, broken into pieces. Possible. — TheMadFool

Could you explain it? Does the pen suppose to have mind to perceive anything?

I think transcendental has different meanings depending on the context. There seem to be at least two different meanings:

Knowledge pertaining not to objects, but with the mode in which we perceive objects; as opposite of empirical, which pertains to objects of experience. Basically a "meta" discourse.
That which is independent of the conditions of human sensibility.

But in general, the term transcendental is connected to the conditions of human sensibility. The pure forms of human sensibility are transcendentally ideal, and the thing-in-itself is transcendentally real.

I don't know if I would describe transcendental as before or prior to experience. That would just be a priori, I think. The Transcendental Aesthetic is one part of the general question, "how are synthetic a priori judgements possible?", and it focuses on the conditions of sensibility, whereas the Transcendental Logic focuses on the conditions of thought. — darthbarracuda

I did some reading on the NKS commentary to the CPR for this points. NKS summaries 3 different definitions on transcendental of Kant in the CPR.

"1. Transcendental" is primarily employed by Kant as a name for a certain kind of knowledge. Transcendental is knowledge not of objects, but of the nature and condition of our a priori condition of them. In other words, a priori knowledge must not be asserted, simply because it is a priori, to be transcendental ; this title applies only to such knowledge as constitutes a theory or science of the a priori. Transcendental knowledge or transcendental philosophy must therefore be taken as coinciding ; and as thus coincident, they signify the science of possibility, nature and limits of a priori knowledge. The term similarly applies to the subdivisions of the Critique. The Aesthetic is transcendental in that it establishes the a priori character of the forms of sensibility ; the Analytic in that it determines the a priori principles of understanding, and the part which they play in the constitution of knowledge ....

But later in the critique Kant employs the term transcendental in the a second sense, namely, to denote a priori factors in knowledge. All representations which are a priori and yet are applicable to objects are transcendental. The term is then defined through its distinction from the empirical on the one hand, and from the transcendent on the other.

2. An intuition or conception is transcendental when it originates in pure reason, and yet at the same time goes to constitute an a priori knowledge of objects. The contrast between the transcendental and the transcendent, as similarly determined upon by Kant, is equally fundamental, but is quite of different character. That is transcendent which lies entirely beyond experience ; whereas the transcendental signifies those a priori elements which underlie experience as its necessary conditions. The transcendent is always unknowable. The transcendental is that which by conditioning experience renders all knowledge, whether a priori or empirical, possible. The direct opposite of the transcendent is the immanent, which as such includes both the transcendental and the empirical. ....

3. The third meaning of the term transcendental arises through its extension from the a priori intuitions and concepts to the processes and faculties to which they are supposed to be due. Thus Kant speaks of the transcendental syntheses of the apprehension, reproduction, and recognition, and of the transcendental faculties of imagination and undertaking. In this which render experience possible. And in as much as processes and faculties can hardly be entitled a priori, Kant has in this third application of the term departed still further from this first definition of it." - NKS Commentary to the CPR pp. 73-76 1922

I have based my interpretation of transcendental from the 2nd definition in NKS commentary to the CPR.

"The transcendental is that which by conditioning experience renders all knowledge, whether a priori or empirical, possible. The direct opposite of the transcendent is the immanent, which as such includes both the transcendental and the empirical."

That was a critical point, on which my understanding of transcendental in Transcendental Aesthetics was based.

The condition of experience must be prior / before to experience logically, otherwise it is not condition at all. If it is the same as experience then it would be experience itself, if after experience, then it would be the effect / result of experience.

Experience must always be the experience of something of someone. So it must have the subject of experience, and also the object of experience too. Experience in general before the real experience by the subject about something is a blank concept which has no meaning on its own, because there is no such an object which stands for experience in the real world. All experience is mental and has its subject and object to be meaningful.

Therefore the term a priori is also prior / before to experience to be meaningful, because on its own without matching real world experience of someone about something, it also is just a blank concept.

That was my understanding, but of course I imagine that it is subjective, and do expect possible criticisms.

Plato's Theory of Forms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1BGmuZ6PO8

Plato's Understanding of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzyo-X7NVLw

Plato's Theory of Forms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TissHzEG_JY

Plato's Form of the Good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNqevDrh1TM

Plato's Analogy of the Cave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d71tYwcpHNM

Gilson was a major dude. — Wayfarer

Seems had been a prolific writer too. A nobel prize for literature nominee. :up:

‘Philosophy buries its undertakers’ ~ Etienne Gilson. — Wayfarer

That's deep. :nerd:

Let it all flow!!! — Prishon

:nerd: :cheer:

Then why is this a topic so "heavily" discussed in philosophy? When does physics stop to make sense and the meta show up? — Prishon

Obviously the LPs were wrong in that regard, but it is still a remarkably significant school of philosophy in other respect. Metaphysics will never die.

What made them refuse? — Prishon

Metaphysics was dismissed as non-sense, not worthy of serious philosophical debate, because all metaphysical topics are not able to engage in meaningful arguments therefore unable to come to conclusions via detailed analysis of logic or verification.

The analytic and logical methods which were their main tool,  were good for checking out linguistic validities in texts, but were not up to the job for covering all the objects and their workings in the universe.

One of the LP's weakness was refusing to talk about Metaphysics, which made themselves look embracing intolerance and dogmatism.

Can deep sleeps be regarded as NDE? Is the brain supposed to be in total unconscious or semi-conscious state during deep sleep?

What are the medical criteria for being NDE? What brings the NDE-ers back to life from near death states?

If death means non-existence, then all living beings had been dead for billions years before birth. Life is brief and just a very strange weird absurd experience before going back to non-existence again sometime in the future.

only if you have a few billion years to run the trial... — Michael Zwingli

:roll: :chin:

well, first the dust formed inorganic compuonds, which in turn, and in the right environment, eventually formed organic compounds, out of which eventually (in the right environment...in this case the warm primordial sea) were formed the first uniellular organisms, and the rest is evolutionary biology.
2 minutes ago — Michael Zwingli

Can it be replicated in the lab experiments?

any type of "dust", or particulate matter of another name, has mass by the fact of it being matter... — Michael Zwingli

OK, how do you explain the dusts forming into human bodies?

It is because the Forms cannot be grasped by reason. They are not objects of reason. — Fooloso4

Sure, I think I said it too in one of the posts. It makes sense, and very much inline with Kant's epistemology.

gravity is a property of the matter it's elf, a function of the mass thereof, and more effective in the environment of space. — Michael Zwingli

Sure, I would have thought if the dusts formed into planets, then it would need some mass pulling the dusts prior to the formation of the planets. But ok, it seems a good theory.

We are considering the formation of large planetary and other space bodies from, essentially, space dust, no? — Michael Zwingli

Which sounds like needing even more powerful force of gravity, if it were gravity. But where did the gravity come from?

the force of gravity over a long time in the environment of space, which is of course, a function of the matter itself. — Michael Zwingli

But gravity would need some mass of matter before it can exert, no? According to your saying, the formation of the matter was done by force of gravity, but gravity needs the formed matter, no?

most of that dust has coalesced to form planets and other objects in the universe...including you and me. — Michael Zwingli

What caused that to happen?

:up:

:wink:

We're not talking about knowledge and ability. What we're concerned with is the reality of math. Is it discovered, in which case Platonism would be true, or is it invented, Platonism false? The reat of my argument follows from that. — TheMadFool

The knowledge and ability were mentioned, because you said that everything is mind. Just to say that, everything is not mind. Never said that we were talking about knowledge and ability.

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Mind (Brain) -> ?

Legend: The mind supervenes on biology, biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, physics on math.

The ? = Math if math is invented. That would close the loop as it were and we have on our hands a rather vexing circularity: Everything we know, including the mind as per physicalists, is math but math, if Platonism is false, is mind (it's in our head). So, everything is mind then or everything is math. It's quite confusing. — TheMadFool

No, we are not saying everything is mind. We are saying that the math knowledge and ability is in mind, and we apply it to the real world objects.

I don't see why anyone has to loop with the subjects. If you count 10 apples from one tree, and 20 apples from the other tree, then you come to total 30 apples. The mission completed.

No it does not but if math is invented, Platonic realm missing, then we have a major issue because of the circularity I mentioned earlier which I will reiterate for those interested: — TheMadFool

But who said math is invented? Why do you want invent math? Math is already there in your mind from your previous life and soul according to Plato. You just need to retrieve it.

Song of Philosophy of Life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H4wgcXh1u4

the way in which his mind organizes the world according to kinds. — Fooloso4

This sounds like Kant.

There is, however, no methodological transition from dialectic to knowledge of the Forms. (Republic 511b). — Fooloso4

Would it be because the mind cannot see itself? Reason cannot reason reason itself. :)

One problem is just when one is supposed to have gained such knowledge, in which past life, and how was it possible then?

The Forms are said to be what sensible things are images of, but they are themselves images, what Socrates imagines knowledge must be: — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

99.9% of my knowledge of the world is based on my indirect perceptions (internet media) and imagination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-tlZC7IUMQ

So, who is going to invent time machine, if ever?

Math is a unique subject in that it can be applied to all other subjects (sciences, music, arts even literature, yes, literature = you can count the words in a poem or novel).
But not vice versa. What does it indicate apart from its mindful process and acts of reason.

If math doesn't exist in some kind of Platonic realm and is all in the head as it were, we have a problem: — TheMadFool

But the whereabout of Platonic realm is not conclusive is it? It does not preclude possibility of its locus in the human mind, does it?

But that doesn’t do justice to the predictive ability of maths, to make discoveries about reality that could otherwise never be made. It sells it short. It’s a cop-out. — Wayfarer

You need to use intuition and imagination too. It is ample for any prediction.

They’re not objects, except in the metaphorical sense of being ‘objects of thought’. But they’re common to all who think. That’s the point. That’s what I mean by ‘structures in mind’ although I’ve only just come up with that expression, don’t know if it’s going to work. — Wayfarer

Some people seem to think the numbers, data, and information are objects in the universe. I think mathematics objects and all information are in the human mind. You just apply to the real world for practicality.

It is not about how you learnt to do mathematics. The point is that once you learned it, you apply it to do all further counting / maths by yourself without recourse to observation like the Science must do. In that respect mathematics is a priori.

But would you agree that it is the product of your mind, rather than some object in the world?

Morning (at least, here it is). I havent read that book. Is it relevant maybe for another discourse currently taking place on this forum? — Prishon

Morning to you. :) Yup sure, I haven't even read it yet.

I would have thought, if we know more about the nature of mind, then it would help understanding the ideas of mathematics and forms of Plato. And your claim about mind as general or universal being was interesting, if not mysterious :)

Correct. This is Plato's Theory of Recollection (anamnesis) — Apollodorus

Thanks for your confirmation.

Physics is nice but one wants a bit more! At least, if I''m that one. — Prishon

Physics is cool, but Metaphysics is even more cool. :grin:

strong disaggreement (talking of which!) with Popper. So... I have read that book of Popper you have on your shell. It's on my shell to, but to say I wipe the dust off...No. He should himself be falsified! — Prishon

I have a couple more Popper - Self and Brain(??), Open Society and Its enemies.

Anyhow, suppose I have a theory about the origin of the universe. What took place around the big bang (inflation) and before (and after). How long should I go on criticizing or trying to falsify it ( which would be a bit problematic...)?

Always nice writing with you! :smile: — Prishon

All theories with weakness deserved to be criticised and falsified.

:up: :smile:

That all of our individual minds also form part of a collective consciousness. Jung's idea of a collective unconscious. The Buddhist doctrine of ālāyavijñāna, the 'storehouse consciousness'. That there is a kind of 'species consciousness' - a form of consciousness common to h. sapiens, mediated by culture and history. Unity of mankind. That kind of thing. But it's very important not to reify it as 'the One Mind', as something objectively real. It's not something we can objectify. (There was a popular 1960's book about Tibetan Buddhism 'liberation through knowing the One Mind', but it was by a Californian theosophist who never set foot in Tibet. Such ideas are very easily misconstrued.) — Wayfarer

But wouldn't that view of mind is a mythology rather than philosophy or science?