Kant refuted in 1 step

[Atla]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.

Does Kant claim that our sensory experience is affected by the noumenal realm, while also claiming that the noumenon is 100% unknowable?

Yes, Immanuel Kant argues that our sensory experience is ultimately affected by the noumenal realm, but it remains completely unknowable to us.

...

Kant’s Position:

Our Experience is "Affected" by the Noumenal Realm: Kant does maintain that our experiences are affected by something beyond our cognitive grasp—by the noumenal realm. When he speaks of the noumenon, he is not saying it is completely irrelevant; rather, it is the source of what we perceive. Our sensory experience is the result of our sensory faculties being affected by noumenal reality, but we cannot know what that noumenal reality is in itself. We only know its effects on us.

The Noumenon is Unknowable: Kant asserts that we can never have knowledge of the noumenal realm because our knowledge is always mediated by the structures of our mind (space, time, and the categories of understanding). The noumenon, or the "thing-in-itself," is thus unknowable because it lies outside the bounds of possible experience. We cannot perceive or conceptualize it directly, since all knowledge is shaped by the limits of human cognition.

How Can Something Affect Us if It is Unknowable?

This tension is one of the most debated aspects of Kant's philosophy. The problem arises because Kant claims that our experiences must be caused or "affected" by the noumenal reality (since phenomena must have some source), but at the same time, this reality is completely beyond our understanding. However, Kant uses the term "affection" in a very specific way:

The noumenal world affects our sensibility, meaning it is the unknown cause of why we have sensory data at all. But since we can never step outside our cognitive framework, we can only describe what is given to us after it has been filtered through our categories of understanding. The term "affection" here does not mean a direct causal knowledge of the noumenon but refers to the fact that sensory data (which then becomes phenomena) must originate from somewhere.

Summary

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience. However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself. We can only ever experience the phenomenal world—the world as structured by our minds. This distinction between the phenomenal (what we can know) and the noumenal (what we cannot know) is central to Kant's critical philosophy.

If something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. The end.

[Atla]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.

The term "affection" here does not mean a direct causal knowledge of the noumenon but refers to the fact that sensory data (which then becomes phenomena) must originate from somewhere.

Summary

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience. However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself. We can only ever experience the phenomenal world—the world as structured by our minds. This distinction between the phenomenal (what we can know) and the noumenal (what we cannot know) is central to Kant's critical philosophy.

If something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. The end.

The "wR" is most critical.
There is a lot of R to be had in this case.
AI in this case did not deal with the nuances in the above.

ChatGpt already stated:

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience.
However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself.

There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

As far as the noumenon is concern it is merely a thought of an object-in-general [theoretical object] which can never an actual real object.

As far as Kant is concern, he did not deliberate on any actual object to cause the phenomena.
He just left the matter of 'ultimate origin' as an open ended issue.
Whatever that is, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, else it would contradict Kant's Copernican Revolution.

If I were to present the above to ChatGpt with proper references from the CPR, ChatGpt will change its view to the above and agree with my views which is often the case.

[Atla]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.

The term "affection" here does not mean a direct causal knowledge of the noumenon but refers to the fact that sensory data (which then becomes phenomena) must originate from somewhere.

Summary

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience. However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself. We can only ever experience the phenomenal world—the world as structured by our minds. This distinction between the phenomenal (what we can know) and the noumenal (what we cannot know) is central to Kant's critical philosophy.

If something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. The end.

The "wR" is most critical.
There is a lot of R to be had in this case.
AI in this case did not deal with the nuances in the above.

ChatGpt already stated:

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience.
However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself.

There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

As far as the noumenon is concern it is merely a thought of an object-in-general [theoretical object] which can never an actual real object.

As far as Kant is concern, he did not deliberate on any actual object to cause the phenomena.
He just left the matter of 'ultimate origin' as an open ended issue.
Whatever that is, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, else it would contradict Kant's Copernican Revolution.

If I were to present the above to ChatGpt with proper references from the CPR, ChatGpt will change its view to the above and agree with my views which is often the case.

There is no way around it: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. You can deduce something about it from the affect on you. Otherwise the content of our experience should just be completely random or non-existent. The end. Kant has always been wrong and now we could zero on the fallacy nicely.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.


If something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. The end.

The "wR" is most critical.
There is a lot of R to be had in this case.
AI in this case did not deal with the nuances in the above.

ChatGpt already stated:

So, Kant does claim that the noumenal realm affects our sensory experience.
However, this realm is 100% unknowable in itself.

There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

As far as the noumenon is concern it is merely a thought of an object-in-general [theoretical object] which can never an actual real object.

As far as Kant is concern, he did not deliberate on any actual object to cause the phenomena.
He just left the matter of 'ultimate origin' as an open ended issue.
Whatever that is, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, else it would contradict Kant's Copernican Revolution.

If I were to present the above to ChatGpt with proper references from the CPR, ChatGpt will change its view to the above and agree with my views which is often the case.

There is no way around it: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. You can deduce something about it from the affect on you. The end.

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'affect' within the CPR?

[Atla]

The "wR" is most critical.
There is a lot of R to be had in this case.
AI in this case did not deal with the nuances in the above.

ChatGpt already stated:


There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

As far as the noumenon is concern it is merely a thought of an object-in-general [theoretical object] which can never an actual real object.

As far as Kant is concern, he did not deliberate on any actual object to cause the phenomena.
He just left the matter of 'ultimate origin' as an open ended issue.
Whatever that is, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, else it would contradict Kant's Copernican Revolution.

If I were to present the above to ChatGpt with proper references from the CPR, ChatGpt will change its view to the above and agree with my views which is often the case.

There is no way around it: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. You can deduce something about it from the affect on you. The end.

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'affect' within the CPR?

Yes I am familiar with hallucinations and illusions and you are not. Hallucinations and illusions prove that what what we experience in the representation, can drastically deviate from the external world-in-itself, while normally they are highly correlated. Hallucinations and illusions are strong evidence against Kant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no way around it: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. You can deduce something about it from the affect on you. The end.

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'affect' within the CPR?

Yes I am familiar with hallucinations and illusions and you are not. Hallucinations and illusions prove that what what we experience in the representation, can drastically deviate from the external world-in-itself, while normally they are highly correlated. Hallucinations and illusions are strong evidence against Kant.

In another finer perspective;

Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination? - with Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM

Hallucinations and Illusions support Kant's Philosophy.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

[Atla]

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'affect' within the CPR?

Yes I am familiar with hallucinations and illusions and you are not. Hallucinations and illusions prove that what what we experience in the representation, can drastically deviate from the external world-in-itself, while normally they are highly correlated. Hallucinations and illusions are strong evidence against Kant.

In another finer perspective;

Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination? - with Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM

Hallucinations and Illusions support Kant's Philosophy.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

They don't, they support indirect realism, you didn't watch the videos. Also, Anil Seth is a sensationalist fuckwit when it comes to philosophy, you call that a finer perspective because you have no idea about philosophy.

Science has proven that there is an apple out there, as much as it is possible to prove something. Case closed.

[Age]

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

Do you understand what is the meaning of 'affect' within the CPR?

Yes I am familiar with hallucinations and illusions and you are not. Hallucinations and illusions prove that what what we experience in the representation, can drastically deviate from the external world-in-itself, while normally they are highly correlated. Hallucinations and illusions are strong evidence against Kant.

In another finer perspective;

Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination? - with Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM

Hallucinations and Illusions support Kant's Philosophy.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

Very simple, and very easy.

The 'thing', on the other 'thing', which can be touched, felt, smelt, tasted, and seen by the human body, which the first thing when called 'apple' and the other 'thing' is called tree, then the 'apple-on-the-tree, 'out there', beyond the human body, is, obviously, an absolutely real independent of thoughts and thinking 'thing', and, obviously, in and of itself, as its species were obviously 'around' before human bodies came-into-being.

[seeds]

_______

VA wrote to Atla the following:

Are you familiar with hallucinations and illusions?
It is only the mentally ill who infer there is something very real to what is apparently real appearances to them.
Those who understand they are hallucinating or seeing a natural illusion understand [can rationalize] there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated no matter how real the "thing" to appear to be.

You and I are both fans of optical illusions.

Well, here's one I think you will like (assuming you haven't seen it already). It's called a Fraser Spiral Illusion...



The amazing thing about it is that those are all concentric circles and not a singular spiraling line.

Anyway, the point is that contrary to what you stated above,...

"...there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated..."

...the illusion would not manifest were it not for the underlying existence of the "real" and cleverly drawn graphics that make the illusion possible.

There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

You never cease to be a source of misinformation, for it can be said that the noumenon's relationship to a "sensible element" (to a phenomenon) can be loosely likened to the relationship that the quantum wave has to the quantum particle.

In other words, they (the noumenon/phenomenon) are two sides of the same coin.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

I suggest that all material phenomena are dependent on mind in one way or another (including the apple-on-the-tree out there).

However, the same cannot be said of minds themselves.

In which case, I challenge you to prove that the existence of my mind is literally dependent on the existence of your mind.
_______

[Atla]

Again: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. It doesn't matter if it is only affecting you indirectly. It doesn't matter if you squint really hard, until you've convinced yourself that it's not causation and it's not an effect and there is no connection whatsoever, because it is affecting you so there is a connection.

If the noumenon was 100% unknowable, then this is what we would ALWAYS experience, from the moment we are born till the moment we die:



Is that what we are experiencing now? No. Then Kant is refuted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes I am familiar with hallucinations and illusions and you are not. Hallucinations and illusions prove that what what we experience in the representation, can drastically deviate from the external world-in-itself, while normally they are highly correlated. Hallucinations and illusions are strong evidence against Kant.

In another finer perspective;

Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination? - with Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcH26M7PQM

Hallucinations and Illusions support Kant's Philosophy.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

They don't, they support indirect realism, you didn't watch the videos. Also, Anil Seth is a sensationalist fuckwit when it comes to philosophy, you call that a finer perspective because you have no idea about philosophy.

Here is a point from Anil Seth:

RAZ: I love this idea of a controlled hallucination. Is that what we experience? Is that how we experience the world - that it's a controlled hallucination? We're just, essentially, hallucinating all the time?

SETH: I love this phrase. I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. But I love the phrase because it points out that everything that we perceive - consciously or unconsciously, but let's talk about consciousness for now - is a construction of the brain. I mean, it's easy to think that we open our eyes and objective reality is revealed to us through the windows of our eyes.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/654730916

The above imply there is no absolutely mind-independent reality pre-existing awaiting to be discovered or perceived by humans; indirect realist is not tenable.

It is not only Anil Seth [I can't take credit for it], there are loads of others who make the same claim at present, way back to Kant [>200 years], Greeks [>2000], the Buddhists [>2500 years] and others [>3000 years].

Science has proven that there is an apple out there, as much as it is possible to prove something. Case closed.

There is scientific realism [illusory & false] and scientific antirealism [realistic].

As a matter of convenience and a guide, Science realism [or scientific indirect realism ] merely assumes there is something -absolutely mind-independent] out there awaiting discovery.
Note the critical point here is "ASSUMES" [if insisted to be real, is making an ASS of U & ME].

What science can be certain is that which is based on observations [empirical evidences] and complied with all the conditions of the human-based scientific framework and system [scientific method, etc.].
Whatever are the resultant facts of science, they are inevitably conditioned within a collective of subjects [peers of scientists].
There is no way, science [realism] can prove anything certain [noumenal] beyond the empirical evidences that is available to it.

This is why Popper claim scientific knowledge, truths or facts are at their best, merely polished conjectures.

Therefore scientific realism based on indirect realism or direct realism which claim there is the noumenal beyond empirical evidences [observations] cannot be tenable nor realistic.

On the other hand, scientific antirealism does not claim there is a mind-independent noumenal beyond empirical evidences or accessible to empirical observations.
Rather, scientific antirealism claim whatever are scientific facts, they are somehow part and parcel related to the human conditions [collective-of-subjects].
When scientific antirealist conclude there is an apple, it is cognized as real as conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects.

[Atla]

The above imply there is no absolutely mind-independent reality pre-existing awaiting to be discovered or perceived by humans; indirect realist is not tenable.

It is not only Anil Seth [I can't take credit for it], there are loads of others who make the same claim at present, way back to Kant [>200 years], Greeks [>2000], the Buddhists [>2500 years] and others [>3000 years].

No, the above doesn't imply it, you didn't read your own quote.

There is scientific realism [illusory & false] and scientific antirealism [realistic].

As a matter of convenience and a guide, Science realism [or scientific indirect realism ] merely assumes there is something -absolutely mind-independent] out there awaiting discovery.
Note the critical point here is "ASSUMES" [if insisted to be real, is making an ASS of U & ME].

What science can be certain is that which is based on observations [empirical evidences] and complied with all the conditions of the human-based scientific framework and system [scientific method, etc.].
Whatever are the resultant facts of science, they are inevitably conditioned within a collective of subjects [peers of scientists].
There is no way, science [realism] can prove anything certain [noumenal] beyond the empirical evidences that is available to it.

This is why Popper claim scientific knowledge, truths or facts are at their best, merely polished conjectures.

Therefore scientific realism based on indirect realism or direct realism which claim there is the noumenal beyond empirical evidences [observations] cannot be tenable nor realistic.

On the other hand, scientific antirealism does not claim there is a mind-independent noumenal beyond empirical evidences or accessible to empirical observations.
Rather, scientific antirealism claim whatever are scientific facts, they are somehow part and parcel related to the human conditions [collective-of-subjects].
When scientific antirealist conclude there is an apple, it is cognized as real as conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects.

Word salad. That's not what empirical evidence means in science. Fact is, science has proven that there is an apple out there, as much as it is possible to prove something, the apple is just not how we imagine it. Science has proven that indirect realism is rational and treanscendental idealism is irrational.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, here's one I think you will like (assuming you haven't seen it already). It's called a Fraser Spiral Illusion...



The amazing thing about it is that those are all concentric circles and not a singular spiraling line.

Anyway, the point is that contrary to what you stated above,...

"...there is nothing real underlying whatever is hallucinated..."

...the illusion would not manifest were it not for the underlying existence of the "real" and cleverly drawn graphics that make the illusion possible.

You think you can claim "Gotcha!"

Not so fast. Problem is your thinking is too shallow:

According to Locke, secondary qualities are not the inherent properties of the object, they are product of the mind.

The supposedly 'real' concentric circles are objectified based on colors, i.e. black and white.
Thus what you had claimed as "the underlying existence of the "real"" concentric circles are not absolutely mind-independent real.
Gotha!!

Locke claim what is really real as absolutely mind-independent are the primary qualities of an object,

Primary qualities are thought to be properties of objects that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number and figure. These characteristics convey facts. They exist in the thing itself, can be determined with certainty, and do not rely on subjective judgments. Ibid

However, Locke's mind-independent primary qualities has been refuted by Berkeley.

There is also a lot of reservations and nuances with the term 'affect' which does not mean direct causal link with the noumenon.
Kant did not link any actual object [supposedly noumenon] which affects the sensible elements.

You never cease to be a source of misinformation, for it can be said that the noumenon's relationship to a "sensible element" (to a phenomenon) can be loosely likened to the relationship that the quantum wave has to the quantum particle.

In other words, they (the noumenon/phenomenon) are two sides of the same coin.

Whatever is the "coin" is an illusion.
If a coin has two sides, what is reality of it as one side?

Anyway, Kant has demonstrated there is no absolutely real mind-independent noumenon in his Critique of Pure Reason.

As a challenge,
prove that the apple-on-the-tree out there is an absolutely real mind-independent thing as an apple-in-itself?

I suggest that all material phenomena are dependent on mind in one way or another (including the apple-on-the-tree out there).

However, the same cannot be said of minds themselves.

In which case, I challenge you to prove that the existence of my mind is literally dependent on the existence of your mind.
_______

Strawman.
I did not claim the existence of your mind is literally dependent on the existence of my mind.

What is Mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills. The totality of mental phenomena, it includes both conscious processes, through which an individual is aware of external and internal circumstances, and unconscious processes, which can influence an individual without intention or awareness.

Generally the concept of mind is confirm via common sense [which is crude] but nevertheless the concept of still useful for ordinary use.
Thus I can rely on common sense that my mind and your mind exists as within all humans relative to non-humans.

To be more refined, what is mind is verified and justified via the science-psychology Framework and System [FS & FSERC], i.e. no professional psychologists with the APA and other psychological organization will deny the mind exists.
Because science-psychology FS is science-based it has a high degree of credibility and objective since the scientific FS is the gold standard.

As such, to prove the existence of your mind, we can refer to the authority of any science-psychology association FS.

If one [such as PH] deny the human mind exist, they are not highly scientific minded thus irrational, shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinkers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. It doesn't matter if it is only affecting you indirectly. It doesn't matter if you squint really hard, until you've convinced yourself that it's not causation and it's not an effect and there is no connection whatsoever, because it is affecting you so there is a connection.

Nope, all humans are experiencing what their human nature induced them to experience.
If a human see an apple, he realized it is real in its proper circumstances, and he can just eat it.
This is the empirical apple, i.e. contingent within a human-based framework and system, be it common sense, science or others.

There is no need to speculate there is a noumenal apple that exists absolutely independent of the mind or the empirical world.

If the noumenon was 100% unknowable, then this is what we would ALWAYS experience, from the moment we are born till the moment we die:

Is that what we are experiencing now? No. Then Kant is refuted.

The noumenon is not 100% unknowable, it is just does not exist and has no possibility of empirical existence, like a square-circle or a flying Santa Claus.
The question of whether it can be knowable or unknowable is moot and a non-starter.

It is true, humans are interacting within that soup of particles but there is no conscious experience of it.
What is experienced is only that can be felt and is perceptible via the conscious self.

There is no need to speculate there is a noumenal reality that exists absolutely independent of the mind or the empirical world.
Why the majority do that is they are driven by an evolutionary default to soothe the cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
This is [should be] a psychological issue, not an epistemology, ontological nor metaphysical issue.