I'm a little short on time at the present moment. However, Kant's Metaphysics, IMO, revolves around (discovery of) the synthetic a priori. This notion of causation that is innate to consciousness and conscious thought (processes). And this innate sense of awareness (intuition) just is, and is a part of logic, yet can't be described as such. The most important question there, is to ask: What makes synthetic a priori knowledge possible.

The first possible answer has to do with self-aware conscious Beings v. Darwinian instinctual impulses. It seems that a higher level of self-awareness (consciousness) is, at the very least, required to ask synthetic a priori questions/propositions/judgements. The next question could be how does consciousness draw exclusively from sense data, and intuition, all at the same time. For example, the infamous, 'all events have a cause' metaphysical thought process, involves something more than formal logic in determining its truth value. It requires empirical analysis for its truth value, but its purpose is to satisfy an intrinsic need (Being/ontology) that is outside normal logical processes (a priori/a posteriori). This need to know, wonder about causes and effects, etc. are the basis of many novel discoveries, which are required for any thought process at all.

The next important metaphysical question could be, why do we care about asking questions about causes. If we didn't care to ask, what would our ontological existence look like? What would science look like, and what would our quality of life look like?

Oddly enough (now I'm being a bit opinionated here) I agreed with Dennett in the interview on the importance of Metaphysics in Philosophy and the part of Dualism that is alive and well, however, I don't think his book Consciousness Explained for example, really explained anything (seemed like a lot of gibberish).

To that end, the title is very misleading, because at the end of the book he basically said it's (consciousness) still a mystery. Maybe there's some theistic axe to grind there (he's an Atheist) that's kind of going on with him not sure, but he tends to politically advocate for materialism/atheism. But I find him contradicting himself. Ironically, I see him pop-up from time to time on YouTube and believe it or not, he's now using words like 'design' more often than not... .

The danger I see is trying to dichotomize the explanation of consciousness thru the exclusive use of materialism thus precluding the obvious metaphysic's. Consciousness has not been found to be logical, nor its complete explanation (its nature) understood from pure reason. That's where Kant was groundbreaking....

I am familiar with Dennett, but not that fellow from MIT who I'm referring to.... . In any case, some of his bullet-point comments, which were general in nature and more 101-ish (nevertheless useful in getting clear on the distinctions of so-called metaphysical reality) were as follows:

1. He feels philosophy and science should work together.
2. Both are concerned with the fundamental nature of things.
3. He made the distinction between the nature of a thing, and the ontological nature of a thing (are there immaterial things or is everything material).
4. Science is not in the business of exploring ontological entities or things, but they are concerned with the essences of things. (Seems to me, theoretical physics is open to exploring metaphysical things.)
5. The challenge from physical science and the said distinctions lie in parsing the nature of reality (consciousness) and the nature of things-in-themselves.
6.If physical science fails to tell us about the nature of consciousness, we will have reason to believe the Dualist ontology.
7. Science has been unable to explain consciousness.
8. Any Philosophy that interfaces with science is better served.... .

If you scroll over to the second to last philosophical interview (starting at about 20:20), I'm sure you would agree that consciousness is indeed our last frontier. If we could replicate/design consciousness either ex nihilo or otherwise, game over. But the physical sciences of course have yet to discover/uncover such methodologies or theories….which is reiterated in that interview segment.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity. — 3017amen
The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either. — Xtrix

Other than the regressive nature of same, it seems to come back to mathematical structures, which in themselves, appear to us as abstract entities or things. As a manifestation of that, we know a pyramid or a structural component has a mathematical formula behind its appearance; compressive and tensile strength, axial and torsional resistance/loads etc. etc. commonly referred to as the things properties. And the design of such structure is mathematical.

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material.

The question of my comparison/analogy to abstractness existing behind things like the features/qualities of consciousness, speaks to other abstract metaphysical features of intellect/sentience which I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, we are not able to replicate a brain using similar mathematical means/methods as briefly described.

Mr.Wood,

....under life science.

What is life science? — tim wood

Mr. Wood,

Thanks again for your question(s). I would suggest you, at the very least, start here (that way you might find you'll have to reformulate most of your questions): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

hard questions. I'll end my mad ramblings here. :) — Manuel

No worries, your thoughts are welcomed and much appreciated...

Mr. Wood,

Thank you for the question. Religion is a part of life science which is a branch of natural science and natural phenomena (Christianity--->Jesus--->human consciousness).

Would you consider infinitesimals metaphysical? — jgill

Jgill!

Absolutely!!

what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about. — Xtrix

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity.

Then consider the law of thermodynamics where energy that exists can never be created nor destroyed.

Then go back to the essence of mathematical structures and you get a sense of timeless eternal truth's (what that truth is, we really don't know other than it's abstract much like other features of consciousness like; the will, love, intentionality , wonder, and other qualities associated with the intellect and sentience).

So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence?

But then again, I'm not clear on what the term even mea — jgill

You mean Metaphysics?

It would seem to go beyond reasoning. — jgill

As alluded to earlier metaphysics in this context means the study of topics about physics. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..

Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher.

However we can say that ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.

) What is your round for supposing that your experiences are made of anything? — tim wood

Hello Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. If my experiences are made of nothing (as you seem to be implying), are you suggesting some sort of metaphysical reality instead?

Some say experience and feelings are the clearest way to truth, but I need rational analysis.’
He thus equates metaphysics with ‘rational analysis.’ — Joshs

Joshs!

Thank you for that. You must have at least viewed some of the video (if not all).

Couple thoughts:

I also find it intriguing that 'feelings' and 'experience' are path's to truth. Feelings themselves do not appear to be exclusively physical absolutes.

Secondly, the irony is that we are trapped in our logical/'rational analysis' in order to discover truth's, which go beyond (transcend) the physical. It's kind of like saying in 11:20 of the video, that by virtue of taking a position on the question of universals, implies one has complete understanding or understands in this case, the nature of reality.

So we use logic to arrive at an illogical sense of reality (metaphysics). Which in turn, is not so illogical at all (abstract mathematics, love, the will, intentionality, redness, ad nauseum). Or is it?

Time is essentially the experience of change within our experiences/memory. In essence, Mind is Time. — MondoR

MondoR!

If time consists of past-present-future, then how big a slice of time does the present represent? In other words, how do we apportion the past present future(?)

Ya know......just because we can ask a question, doesn’t mean we should. — Mww

Mww!

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Are you suggesting, say in science, that there are forbidden questions one should never ask? If so, what would that look like (advancement/discoveries would not occur, no)?

And why does everything have to have a “nature”? Nature of this, nature of that.....why can’t it be just whatever we think of it? Which is, when it comes right down to it, exactly what it is anyway. — Mww

What is intriguing (in philosophy) is your "whatever we think of it". Right?

Why do? — MondoR

Nice!

Because, if philosophy lives in words, and words have meaning, then just by mere definition of Human Being, conveys or implies an action (verb). However, existentially, we cannot escape doing. We are trapped in an ordinary life of doing or Being. Yet being and becoming are seemingly two contradictory things. Imagine that(?).

Maybe time is just an illusion. Or, as you suggest, the metaphysics of Tao is an optical delusion of consciousness:

https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Taoism-Tao.htm

Thanks Mww!

Well, does that tell us about the nature of said; will, favor, judgement and inclination?

For instance, if one 'likes' a some-thing, at least two questions must be asked:

1. [How] can I describe 'likeness' as a abstract universal?
2. What really is that thing that I like, and why does it matter (no pun intended) ?

Otherwise, you mentioned one's will. Why does will matter when instinct can easily take its place? In other words, what is the existential purpose of the Will?

...also, scroll over to 21:00 for additional fodder relative to physics v. metaphysics vis-à-vis consciousness.

Thank you Jack!

Great question/post. If you get time, scroll over to about 17:44 where Dennett discusses Dualism. From my interpretation, he seemingly/unknowingly advocates for it. Because he says that by virtue of the ability to ask ourselves questions (self-awareness/consciousness), that we... "are not as unified as we think we are". And so I interpret that literally, as another form of Dualism. We are, in fact, not unified. This process of self-awareness implies a third-person... .

.......”I like it”. — Mww

Mww!

Explain what it means to like some-thing?

Hmm. Question: do you need that? — tim wood

Since the OP is largely about metaphysics, I believe, to answer your question, the metaphysician does LOL:

Sorry Mr. Wood, didn't mean to ignore you. Try this refresher:

Simply put, I guess, mathematics is the science developed by reason out of the category of “quantity”, in response to observations in the world. If the categories are part of our innate rational constitution, as transcendental philosophy stipulates, then the ground of mathematical structures resides in us naturally. — Mww

Okay, but if this innate sense of reason provides for an abstract objective reality, what is the nature of [this] our reality?

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe — 3017amen
We don’t know that they do; we only know they describe the universe in such a way the universe becomes comprehensible to us, strictly given the kind of intelligence we are. — Mww

But what is mathematics itself? Is it an abstract construct, like other things from our consciousness?

Mathematical structures, while a priori for their construction, lend themselves intuitively to phenomenal representation for their reality. — Mww

If electrons are described through mathematics, does that become our reality? As Gregory alluded, is that some sort of Platonic existence?

Noumena, on the other hand, as products of the understanding, hence are only discursive constructs, can never be intuitive, hence never phenomena, hence never represented in the human world of objects. — Mww

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe, how would that square with your description/quote?

Noumena is beyond (transcends) the phenomenon of observation (observing a thing), but tells us nothing about the nature of the thing. The nature of existence that is beyond logic and reason (cosmological/mystery, etc.).

That is the main 'regressive' takeaway about the physical world viz self-aware conscious beings: existence ---->logic--->phenomena--->transcendence---> noumena.

Not sure Kant used those terms together, but I guess a truth derived under transcendental conditions would be a transcendental truth. — Mww

I don't think he did either. Nonetheless, for additional fodder:

Transcendent truths are those unaffected by time or space. They define the world, but are not defined by the world. An example of a transcendent truth is "God is good", or "there is no God". Either way, how one looks at things contained by time and space is a result of the transcendent truth... .
World views are made up of transcendent truths, things we believe are true before we question whether or not anything else is true.

A school of philosophy is a collection of answers to fundamental questions of the universe, based around common concepts, normally grounded in reason, and often arising from the teachings of an influential thinker.[12][13] The term "philosophy" originates with the Greek, but all world civilizations have been found to have philosophical worldviews within them... .
A religion is a system of behaviors and practices, that relate to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements,[16] but the precise definition is debated.

Transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws.

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of various religious traditions affirm that a god is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

In layman's terms, consider that transcendent truth's, are those metaphysical truths (conscious phenomena) like our sense of wonderment we've been discussing; the feelings about the color red, Love, abstract mathematical truth's, etc., all of course associated with human self-awareness/the human condition...then consider timeless truth's some of which are phenomena from the aforementioned features of consciousness. Accordingly, we then have a sort of Kantian innate awareness or quality that seems to transcend our typical notion of logic. (Albeit, we do know that a priori mathematical truth's seem to be timeless, eternal truth's which are considered transcendental.)

And so that's where I thought maybe you would take the previous post/question. I suppose one point would be (as I believe Kant might argue) that there is more to life other than pure reason (a priori/a posteriori).

But back to the OP, is the concept of Noumenon (part of Kant's transcendental idealism), something that exists a priori like mathematical structures? If one believes math (a timeless eternal truth), which defines the universe so well, exists independently (a priori) and is discovered from time to time (versus human invention), how does that fit into Kant's idea of Noumenon, I wonder?

the very concept of “event” immediately invokes an ordering of time, insofar as any perceived event follows from some antecedent event related to it, then the a priori synthetical principle of cause and effect, relative to any perception, is established as universally necessary, hence true because its negation contradicts experience, re: it is impossible to perceive the same thing for all time, therefore every perception is conditioned by successions in time, that condition being an antecedent event that is necessarily its cause. — Mww

Mww!

Thank you for expanding on that thought. Much like I must have a brain to have feelings, it must be then, that a synthetic a priori judgement must be necessary for any thought experiment to move forward. In turn, it still leaves us with the question (one of many) as to why we should have this sense of wonderment about causation.

But getting back to the nature of a thing, or things-in-themselves, I believe Kant thought it "Transcendental” for both the limit of all knowledge of objects, and the universal properties that all objects must have. Using a somewhat novel term, is there such thing as a transcendental truth?

(Is consciousness, self-awareness, reason, and life in general, considered a good, objective existence?)

But in that the effect is nothing without the cause, the effect as effect is lost. All that remains is undifferentiated wetness — Gregory

Gregory!

In a kind of lighthearted way, that reminds me of the differences between science and engineering. Meaning, medical science/the human mind, body and spirit, as well as trying to forecast the weather, is not like engineering. In engineering of course you apply the appropriate formula to the problem and the problem is solved.

It is a truth, insofar as its negation is a contradiction. — Mww

Mww!

Can you speak to that quote in a bit more detail? It seems very intriguing to me. The sixth sense, intuition, innate or intrinsic sense, that there is some sort of causational agent is important. We wonder about causation but we don't understand why (or how) we wonder about it.

category (relation, schema: causality/dependence), and second, it is transcendental because it relates to concepts in general and from which other a priori cognitions become possible. — Mww

I agree to the extent that it is a synthesis of logical concepts from sensory experiences, but the transcendental part relates to the a priori conditions supplied by the mind. It just is. We seemingly were born with this need. This need to know (in this case about causation and/or causational forces). That is a seque to your other quote:

consciousness, they are not; it is reason alone from which such judgements arise. — Mww

You would have to explain, using logic, why we use synthetic propositions to discover novel things... . You could attack it several ways you could explain how the Will creates this need... .

From this, it follows such judgements are not learned; they are given — Mww

Agreed.

Ok...the proposition does not derive from pure reason, any proposition being merely an expression derived from antecedent cognitions. That all events have a cause is a principle of pure reason, nonetheless. Can we say that much is true? — Mww

Mww!

Well, not really. And here's why I'm drawing the distinction:

All events must have a cause = a synthetic a priori proposition.

As a reference: physical theories always involve synthetic propositions because they make statements about the facts of nature that can be tested - Paul Davies.

In that context, what is a priori, is this judgement that we believe all events must have a cause. Meaning, it is intrinsic or innate, from human consciousness and self-awareness. I think of it more like an existential component of human nature. We can't escape this need to wonder, to be curious, in many ways to listen to our innate forms of intuition telling us there is something more.

In other words, in consciousness, how are synthetic a priori judgments possible (?). Kant's argument is that it's not learned. And I agree. And of course if it is some sort of instinct, what biological advantages are there to asking such questions (?). I submit that there are none.

To me, this is one of his claims to fame...

but rather, it is us that sometimes may not know what to ask science to tell us and, possibly, it is us that doesn’t accept what science has to say. — Mww

That is the distinction of not only, do we not know the nature of the thing-in-itself, but just as important (if not more important), is the distinction between asking metaphysical questions (all events must have a cause?).

The proposition all events must have a cause is not formulated from pure reason. Yet science, using reason, asks that same question to discover a something about a something.

So, in CPR, he discovered/uncovered that distinction where we have other forms of intellect (intuition, etc.) which is metaphysical/self-awareness (not instinctual), and does not consist of the usual standard reasoning/formal logic (a priori/a posteriori) as found in normal reasoning/the intellect. In a nutshell, that's basically Kant's metaphysics.

If we were not able to ask that question/said proposition, virtually no scientific discoveries would be made. In that case, theoretically, we would not care. We would have no self-awareness.

You know, from a Kantian point of view, science only tells of a thing, what a human asks. If we don’t know a thing as it is in itself, but only as our sensibility presents it to us, what could we direct science toward, other than the representations sensibility gives us? In effect, we are asking science to justify our interpretation of the world, rather than inform us with direct evidence of the world as it is in itself. — Mww

Yep! :up:

In that same light, though Kant, through logic, felt like all metaphysical inquiries were fruitless, he at least did acknowledge that humans have that same (metaphysical) intuition that causes us to wonder in the first place...which is intrinsic a priori to the intellect.

1. Is it true that, for Kant, the assertion of the existence of things-in-themselves is made according to a purely analytic judgment?
2. Do, for Kant, appearances and things-in-themselves constitute two separate kinds/levels of existence? In other words, is it true that an object must exist as appearance along with things-in-themselves, or, rather, an object-as-appearance can exist only as the thing-in-itself? — Sentience

One distinction I think worth noting, is that things-in-themselves is tantamount to the nature of our existence, the true nature of a thing or things observed, an (any) object perceived by our senses.

There was an admitted irony to Kant's uncovering of how humans go about analyzing things from our senses, and whether our a posteriori abilities in using experience in makeing judgements about things, are the only means/methods of obtaining understanding/knowledge about our world and the stuff in it, including our own cognition.

The irony rears its head when we somehow, someway, are curious (about a thing or things) yet this same sense of wonderment a priori/a posteriori, doesn't reveal any answers to the thing-in-itself (the nature of its existence). The metaphysical statement 'all events must have a cause' is at the root of this notion that things we see and experience in the world, have an existence that cannot be explained using ordinary logic. Hence things-in-themselves being tantamount to the nature of existence, which in turn is beyond human understanding.

So we have this so-called 5th dimension or sixth sense that seems intrinsic to our way of Being, (an exciting desire of curiosity about causation), yet in itself, doesn't really explain anything at all. The thing-in-itself/nature of existence remains enigmatic. That's the a priori aspect of the phenomenon.

In contrast, if we knew how to make something out of nothing, then arguably we would not encounter this problem...

It is likely that wondering and the sense of mysteries led to most of the developments in civilisation, not just philosophy and religion, but the emergence of the arts and sciences. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. said in another way, if we didn't wonder, there would be no will to critique anything, or anyone. Quite simply, it seems no progress would be made.

I am inclined to think it acts as a general motivational factor in leading people to unique and creative solutions to all kinds of problems. — Jack Cummins

Sure. As a typical example, the infamous 'all events must have a cause' axiom (metaphysical axiom) propels science into new discoveries everyday. It drives or moves a theory forward, sometimes into reality.

And so this mystery associated with consciousness (wonder) seems to be the source of much development. Wonder itself, in the context of a free society, must continue to be encouraged, and at least be guided by such virtuous ideals that it would foster or enhance the human condition that we seek to improve... .

The mystery though, as to why we wonder, is still a mystery. Yet without it, we are just...?
We embrace mystery without even knowing it.

All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it? — Anand-Haqq

Hagg!

No pun intended, but that could not be farther from the truth. How is "thinking about the truth an impossibility" ?

Considering much of philosophy lives in the logic of words, is it not your sense of wonderment that causes you to think about the truth that you currently do not have? It's really a two part question:

1. Why do we care to wonder? (Or what causes us to care & wonder?)
2. If we didn't wonder, what would our quality of life look like?

Thirdly, by you saying " If you don't know it, then how can you think about it" are you not reducing all thought or cognition to some sort of a priori logic?

Bonus question: in the spirit of the OP, is there mystery associated with our own sense of wonderment from our conscious existence? In other words, is wonderment an instinct, and if so, what Darwinian advantages does it have for surviving in the jungle, when instinct is all you really need?

Sorry for all the questions....maybe pick one or two and we'll parse from there... .
Thanks for your post!

Yes Jack just to be clear I take no exception and am in agreement with you. I've seen many of folk as it were who are very well educated but because of their ego it clouds their abilities in other intrinsic ways. Similarly in that same way within the human condition exists certain intrinsic fears.

In the postmodern spirit, it is certainly worth exploring these fears vis a vis the mysteries surrounding the thesis in your OP. In other words there are those who fear the unknown and/or even fear the exploration of same.

Perhaps that is where subjectivism and objectivism meet...

I think that too many people have inflated egos, and this probably extends to people with a whole variety of beliefs and ideas — Jack Cummins

Quite remarkable, universal, and problematic... . Your forgoing can significantly increase one's own sense of existential angst.

Often times, one reaps what one sows. Nothing new under the sun there!

However, unfortunately some people can be just as dogmatic in philosophical argument as the ones who are dogmatic in fundamentalist religion. — Jack Cummins

Once again, well said. I think in large part, it's called the 'sin of pride' (AKA ego). Which is, exaggerated self worth.

Anyway, I think we solved that problem....NOT!