Atla: Prove & Demonstrate Your Noumenon is Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

@Atla
You have always insisted your positive noumena existing absolutely mind-independent is real.
Prove & Demonstrate Your Noumenon is Real.
You also claim the noumenon is an unknown but knowable, prove that.

Define what is real and objective in your context.
Since the dichotomy between Phenomena and Noumena is Kantian, provide appropriate reference from Kant's work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
I have confirmed with ChatGPT [with reservations] Kant was not absolutely agnostic with regard to the existence of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself;
viewtopic.php?p=666380#p666380

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

[Atla]

Notes:
I have confirmed with ChatGPT [with reservations] Kant was not absolutely agnostic with regard to the existence of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself;
viewtopic.php?p=666380#p666380

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

Yes that IS Kantian agnosticism.

Are you mentally retarded? You are asking me, an agnostic on X to prove for certain that X exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
I have confirmed with ChatGPT [with reservations] Kant was not absolutely agnostic with regard to the existence of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself;
viewtopic.php?p=666380#p666380

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

Yes that IS Kantian agnosticism.

Are you mentally retarded? You are asking me, an agnostic on X to prove for certain that X exists.

As I had confirmed with ChatGpt, Kant ultimately is not agnostic on the noumenon.

If you are agnostic with the noumenon, then you have a 50/50 belief that the noumenon could possibly be real as an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Now, on what basis is your 50% possibility that the noumenon could be real?

[Atla]

Notes:
I have confirmed with ChatGPT [with reservations] Kant was not absolutely agnostic with regard to the existence of the noumenon aka thing-in-itself;
viewtopic.php?p=666380#p666380

Yes that IS Kantian agnosticism.

Are you mentally retarded? You are asking me, an agnostic on X to prove for certain that X exists.

As I had confirmed with ChatGpt, Kant ultimately is not agnostic on the noumenon.

If you are agnostic with the noumenon, then you have a 50/50 belief that the noumenon could possibly be real as an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Now, on what basis is your 50% possibility that the noumenon could be real?

No philosophy-gnat, ChatGPT confirmed that Kant was agnostic, but a certain kind of agnostic.

And no philosophy-gnat, only someone who has no idea about real philosophy would go with 50/50.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes that IS Kantian agnosticism.

Are you mentally retarded? You are asking me, an agnostic on X to prove for certain that X exists.

As I had confirmed with ChatGpt, Kant ultimately is not agnostic on the noumenon.

If you are agnostic with the noumenon, then you have a 50/50 belief that the noumenon could possibly be real as an absolutely mind-independent reality.

Now, on what basis is your 50% possibility that the noumenon could be real?

No philosophy-gnat, ChatGPT confirmed that Kant was agnostic, but a certain kind of agnostic.

And no philosophy-gnat, only someone who has no idea about real philosophy would go with 50/50.

Did you read ChatGpt statement properly where it stated, Kant's view on the noumenon is beyond agnosticism.

No philosophy-gnat, I said OVER AND OVER that I argue that's the best available view. But ultimately it's just as unprovable with 100% certainty as your philosophy.

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

[Atla]

Did you read ChatGpt statement properly where it stated, Kant's view on the noumenon is beyond agnosticism.

Yes philosophy-gnat VA, and you misunderstood ChatGPT because it's important for you to misunderstand it. Beyond MERE agnosticism. And/or you simply fail to understand Kantian philosophy.

"Mere agnosticism" would be: "I'm agnostic on the noumenal world."

Kant goes beyond mere agnosticism and says: "we can't even in principle know if there's a noumenal world, but even if there is, it's unknowable." It's agnosticism with a restriction, this is Kantianism 101, which ChatGPT explained to you and you misunderstood.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

Then everything you say is also nonsense. And it's impossible to ever say something that isn't nonsense. Even the dog in your living room is a speculation due to being an empirical-rational noumenon. We perceive the noumenal dog indirectly, therefore there is no dog because it can't be proven with certainty.

Okay there is only nonsense, the end. You just ended all sane human thought. Excellent philosophy!

[Iwannaplato]

As I had confirmed with ChatGpt, Kant ultimately is not agnostic on the noumenon.

If you are agnostic with the noumenon, then you have a 50/50 belief that the noumenon could possibly be real as an absolutely mind-independent reality.

That is not correct. Agnosticism need not and generally does not include a position on the statistics related to the liklihood of a phenomenon or entity existing. This is simply incorrect.

There are a number of agnotic types positions: it can mean one thinks one cannot know for sure either way, which does not mean it is 50%? It can include positions where one doubts in the extreme that X exists, but one cannot be sure. It indicates uncertainty. Most people identifying as agnostics tend to think God is unlikely, but they cannot rule it out.

Unfortunately you are just making up something here. Give chatgpt or wikipedia or other sources a run on the issue.

The everyday sense is that one neither believes there is a God nor does one believe there is no God. No need or demand for weighing in on the chances of either position being correct.

The more technical definition is that one believes one cannot know whether there is a God or not.

It does pop up now and then that some people think the term means 50/50. So, there is a small subculture that uses the term that way. Not that they meet or hang out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had confirmed with ChatGpt, Kant ultimately is not agnostic on the noumenon.

If you are agnostic with the noumenon, then you have a 50/50 belief that the noumenon could possibly be real as an absolutely mind-independent reality.

That is not correct. Agnosticism need not and generally does not include a position on the statistics related to the liklihood of a phenomenon or entity existing. This is simply incorrect.

There are a number of agnotic types positions: it can mean one thinks one cannot know for sure either way, which does not mean it is 50%? It can include positions where one doubts in the extreme that X exists, but one cannot be sure. It indicates uncertainty. Most people identifying as agnostics tend to think God is unlikely, but they cannot rule it out.

Unfortunately you are just making up something here. Give chatgpt or wikipedia or other sources a run on the issue.

OK, I agree agnostic do not necessary mean 50/50, but nevertheless there is a continuum and combination of degrees between likely and not-likely.
However, surely those who are agnostic must have good reasons on the possibility of both positions.
In this case, even if it less than 50 I am asking the reason it is so?

Btw, there should be a limit where agnosticism has no weightage at all if it is 85/15.
E.g. Richard Dawkins is agnostic about the existence of God on a 7/8 basis which he conceded because his basing on science cannot claim certainty. However, his personal view is, it is 99.99% God does not exist.

In Kant case, based on his Critical-thinking-FSK, he was 100% certain the noumenon cannot exist as real in a mind-independent state.

[Iwannaplato]

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

And that is still agnosticism. So, Chatgpt's formulation here is confused. That's a typical agnostic stance, that one cannot determine if, for example, God exists or not.

Your position on noumena is 'atheistic' and the postive formulation of atheism, which is that there is no God or in this case noumena.

You are going beyond Kant's agnosticism

Atla is correct on this issue and Chatgpt has weighed in on his side of the issue even in that quote.

Kant according to Chatgpt disagrees with you.

we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence

And you clearly do the latter.

[Iwannaplato]

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

And that is still agnosticism. So, Chatgpt's formulation here is confused. That's a typical agnostic stance, that one cannot determine if, for example, God exists or not.

Your position on noumena is 'atheistic' and the postive formulation of atheism, which is that there is no God or in this case noumena.

You are going beyond Kant's agnosticism

Atla is correct on this issue and Chatgpt has weighed in on his side of the issue even in that quote.

Kant according to Chatgpt disagrees with you.

we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence

And you clearly do the latter.

It would be such a lovely thing if you could manage to concede something like this, something that does not mean realism is correct or that morals can't be objective or any other key point in your system.

But unfortunately one expects that you will continue to defend this point about a point without managing to concede something that is not central. You can of course disagree with Kant and yet be correct about the main points of your position. He need not be treated as the Bible is treated by some.

And you can also drop the, if you disagree with me you need to prove your position is correct. You both could have terrible arguments.

And I do suggest you drop all this talk about proving. Proving is for math and symbolic logic. For many things we rely on strong justification. You know, like in science, where proofs are generally not on the table.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ChatGpt wrote:
So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

And that is still agnosticism. So, Chatgpt's formulation here is confused. That's a typical agnostic stance, that one cannot determine if, for example, God exists or not.

Your position on noumena is 'atheistic' and the postive formulation of atheism, which is that there is no God or in this case noumena.

You are going beyond Kant's agnosticism

Atla is correct on this issue and Chatgpt has weighed in on his side of the issue even in that quote.

Kant according to Chatgpt disagrees with you.

we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence

And you clearly do the latter.

It would be such a lovely thing if you could manage to concede something like this, something that does not mean realism is correct or that morals can't be objective or any other key point in your system.

But unfortunately one expects that you will continue to defend this point about a point without managing to concede something that is not central. You can of course disagree with Kant and yet be correct about the main points of your position. He need not be treated as the Bible is treated by some.

And you can also drop the, if you disagree with me you need to prove your position is correct. You both could have terrible arguments.

And I do suggest you drop all this talk about proving. Proving is for math and symbolic logic. For many things we rely on strong justification. You know, like in science, where proofs are generally not on the table.

You need to read the whole of ChatGpt [with reservations] in context and of course in relation what is in Kant's CPR.

You are correct in pointing out that Kant's position on the noumenon, also known as the thing-in-itself, is more nuanced than just agnosticism. Kant indeed goes further in his Critique of Pure Reason to argue that the noumenon, in the positive sense as a mind-independent entity, is fundamentally unknowable to humans due to our cognitive limitations.

Kant's assertion that we would need a "special mode of intuition" or intellectual intuition to know the noumenon is crucial. However, Kant also argues that we do not possess such a mode of intuition; our cognitive faculties are limited to sensible intuition, which is the way we perceive and understand the phenomenal world.

Therefore, Kant's position is that while we can think and speculate about the noumenon as a concept, we can never have positive knowledge of it as it truly exists independently of our mental framework and sensory experiences. In this sense, he does not affirmatively assert the existence of the noumenon, nor does he claim that it definitely does not exist. Instead, he emphasizes the inherent epistemic limitations of human cognition when it comes to the noumenal realm.

So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism. He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

The last statement seem confusing, there is no need for ChatGpt to state ".. if it exists ..." because there is NO WAY and IMPOSSIBLE for the noumenon to exist in the ONLY human ways.

note this from the above;
"Kant's assertion that we would need a "special mode of intuition" or intellectual intuition to know the noumenon is crucial.
However, Kant also argues that we do not possess such a mode of intuition; our cognitive faculties are limited to sensible intuition, which is the way we perceive and understand the phenomenal world."

Since humans DO NOT possess an intellectual intuition necessary to realize the 'noumenon' as real, it is a non-starter to consider the noumenon as humanly real.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the noumenon to exist as real [empirical-rational] in human mode.

From the CPR context,
the existence or non-existence of the noumenon cannot be taken in the positive sense as something real, like an apple [or any matter of fact] is real.

You are too pedantic with the term 'prove' - such narrow thinking.
It is not limited to merely mathematics in its modern usage;

• Prove: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prove
  The experiment proved to be successful.
  His story proved false.
  

Other dictionaries:

• - demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
  demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument.
  "if they are proved guilty we won't trade with them"