Kant refuted in 1 step

[Veritas Aequitas]

quick question...

there are perceptions
from these perceptions, we posit an underlying noumenal cause
these noumenal causes cannot be known as they are never directly perceived (we only have the perceptions)

yet some unknown noumena is treated as if it is known or knowable...

it is built into the language itself

-Imp

The problem as I higlighted in another thread is:

Kant differentiated in his CPR 'Erkenntnis' [cognition] which precede Wissen [Knowledge] to highlight they both have difference underlying process.
The problem was the NK Smith translated and conflated 'Erkenntnis' [cognition] as "knowledge" in English, thus its subs known, know and unknown in terms of 'knowledge'.
NK Smith's translation happened to be the most popular English translation at one period until the Guyer & Wood translation corrected it.

The correct translation from German thus should be 'the noumenon or thing-in-itself cannot be cognized'
Since Erkenntnis' [cognition] preceded Wissen [Knowledge],
and that the noumenon cannot be cognized
therefore the question of noumenon being known or unknown is moot and a non-starter.

The statement or translation by NK Smith, i.e.
the noumenon or thing-in-itself is unknown is false.

The true correlate of Sensibility, the Thing-in-Itself, is not Known, and cannot be Known, through these Representations; and in Experience no question is ever asked in regard to it. B45 NK Smith

The correct translation by Guyer & Wood is:

and that what we call outer objects are nothing other than mere representations of our Sensibility, whose Form is Space, but whose true correlate, i.e., the Thing-in-Itself, is not and cannot be cognized [Erkenntnis] through them, but is also never asked after in Experience. CPR B45 Guyer & Wood

See the difference and the mistake that misled the philosophical realists who only have hearsays of translations of Smith to la la land.

[Atla]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/incognizable/non-existent. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/uncognizable/non-existent. The end.

An appearance and perception is due to some effects that affected you in some way, but while it is cognized it may not be possible to be known as real at all.

Take for example hallucinations [drugs induced, mental illness, etc.], they are cognized and those who hallucinated them would take them for "real" in many cases,
except those who have been told what they hallucinated is not really real.
In this case, there is nothing really to be known, thus the question of it being unknown is moot and a non-starter.

What is real is the hallucination but not the thing that is hallucinated.

In the case of the noumenon or thing-in-itself it is merely a thought that is logically inferred from what is really real, i.e. the real cognition, perception and appearance that can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

The noumenon or thing-in-itself is merely a logical and transcendental object [a universal model or Form] not a specific particular empirical object which is empirically verifiable and justifiable.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is an object-in-general and abstract object and its not a particular specific object.

To reify the noumenon or thing-in-itself which is the abstract object as real is chasing after an illusion.

Nevertheless, according to Kant, it is critical to think and infer the noumenon as something-thought-only but only as a useful illusion for moral purposes.

I suggest you copy the above wholesale and get ChatGpt3 [not ChatGpt4] to critique it.

[Atla]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/uncognizable/non-existent. The end.

An appearance and perception is due to some effects that affected you in some way, but while it is cognized it may not be possible to be known as real at all.

Take for example hallucinations [drugs induced, mental illness, etc.], they are cognized and those who hallucinated them would take them for "real" in many cases,
except those who have been told what they hallucinated is not really real.
In this case, there is nothing really to be known, thus the question of it being unknown is moot and a non-starter.

What is real is the hallucination but not the thing that is hallucinated.

In the case of the noumenon or thing-in-itself it is merely a thought that is logically inferred from what is really real, i.e. the real cognition, perception and appearance that can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

The noumenon or thing-in-itself is merely a logical and transcendental object [a universal model or Form] not a specific particular empirical object which is empirically verifiable and justifiable.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is an object-in-general and abstract object and its not a particular specific object.

To reify the noumenon or thing-in-itself which is the abstract object as real is chasing after an illusion.

Nevertheless, according to Kant, it is critical to think and infer the noumenon as something-thought-only but only as a useful illusion for moral purposes.

I suggest you copy the above wholesale and get ChatGpt3 [not ChatGpt4] to critique it.

Why copy it? You do not understand what a philosophical debate is. I'm not doubting that this is what Kant said, I'm doubting that what he says is rational.

Unless you're ready to admit that the world only exists 'in your mind' and you're a solipsist, because that's the logical conclusion of your TI.

[seeds]

I am cutting off ChatGPT's response right there in order to ask you what it is in the enlarged sentence below...

...if you think you can trick ChatGPT into saying what you want to hear in regard to those same questions, then, by all means, have at it, and then present your findings in this thread. But please be honest enough to display the precise questions you posed to it.

...that you didn't understand?
 
You have no integrity, little V, and cannot be trusted to be honest in these debates.
_______

I presented your whole chat with ChatGpt and asked why the inconsistency.

Yeah, you say that, but you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy and may have peppered what you call my "...whole chat with ChatGPT..." with some of your {special interjections}.

Where relevant I posted this above

Is there anyway you could take note to make the point to my interlocutors that there are alternative views [..I believe are more aligned with the CPR texts] when they ask you their question, since me and my interlocutor are using the same ChatGpt.

The absolute only way that ChatGPT could know if the alternative views* that you believe are more aligned with the CPR texts, is if ChatGPT had direct access to the actual texts of the CPR, which it admitted that it didn't.

*(Which, of course, can only be in reference to your views. Who do you think you're fooling?)

I have no intention to deceive,...I have provided the quotes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason...

Yes, you provided quotes that you have contaminated with your {bracketed interjections} designed to coax it into favoring your personal interpretation.

...which ChatGpt I presume is able to triangulate its credibility from postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc.

Again, if ChatGPT does not have direct access to the actual text of the CPR, then it simply cannot determine the credibility of any secondhand sources, regardless of what you "presume."

You instead is merely relying on ChatGpt without prompting it to discuss the nuanced aspects, so ChatGpt will merely give you typical and crude information.

Do you mean the typical and crude information it derives from "...postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc..."?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/uncognizable/non-existent. The end.

An appearance and perception is due to some effects that affected you in some way, but while it is cognized it may not be possible to be known as real at all.

Take for example hallucinations [drugs induced, mental illness, etc.], they are cognized and those who hallucinated them would take them for "real" in many cases,
except those who have been told what they hallucinated is not really real.
In this case, there is nothing really to be known, thus the question of it being unknown is moot and a non-starter.

What is real is the hallucination but not the thing that is hallucinated.

In the case of the noumenon or thing-in-itself it is merely a thought that is logically inferred from what is really real, i.e. the real cognition, perception and appearance that can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

The noumenon or thing-in-itself is merely a logical and transcendental object [a universal model or Form] not a specific particular empirical object which is empirically verifiable and justifiable.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is an object-in-general and abstract object and its not a particular specific object.

To reify the noumenon or thing-in-itself which is the abstract object as real is chasing after an illusion.

Nevertheless, according to Kant, it is critical to think and infer the noumenon as something-thought-only but only as a useful illusion for moral purposes.

I suggest you copy the above wholesale and get ChatGpt3 [not ChatGpt4] to critique it.

Why copy it? You do not understand what a philosophical debate is. I'm not doubting that this is what Kant said, I'm doubting that what he says is rational.

Unless you're ready to admit that the world only exists 'in your mind' and you're a solipsist, because that's the logical conclusion of your TI.

Strawman.

Where did Kant on the basis of Transcendental Idealism assert the world only in the mind?

Those who are not philosophical competent [unable to grasp nor understand {not necessary}] are most likely to charge Kant with Solipsism in reading his TI.
This was the case after the 1st Edition of the CPR was published.
In the 2nd Edition, Kant added a large section i.e. Refutation of Idealism to absolve his TI from solipsism.

Here from AI [wR]:

Kant's Refutation Against Idealism and Solipsism
Kant's Refutation Against Idealism is a key component of his response to the charge of solipsism.
Solipsism, the philosophical position that only one's own mind and experiences exist, is a potential consequence of idealism, the view that reality is mentally constructed.

Kant's Argument
Kant argues against idealism by asserting the transcendental reality of objects. This means that while our perception of objects is subjective, the objects themselves exist independently of our perception. He supports this claim by pointing out that our experience is structured by a priori categories of understanding, such as causality and substance. These categories, which are innate to our minds, allow us to distinguish between our subjective perceptions and the objective world.

Key points of Kant's argument:
• Transcendental idealism: Our experience is subjective, but the objects of experience are real.
• A priori categories: Innate mental structures allow us to distinguish between subjective perception and objective reality.
• Refutation of idealism: The objective world exists independently of our perception.

Addressing Solipsism
By establishing the objective reality of objects, Kant directly addresses the solipsistic concern that only the mind exists. His argument suggests that while our experience is subjective, the objects of experience are real and independent of our minds. This counters the solipsistic claim that the external world is merely a mental construct.

Additional points to consider:
• Inter-subjectivity: Kant emphasizes the shared nature of our experiences. We can communicate and agree on the existence of objects, suggesting a common reality beyond individual minds.
• Practical reason: Kant's moral philosophy posits that we have duties to others, which implies the existence of other minds. This practical perspective strengthens his argument against solipsism.

In conclusion, Kant's Refutation Against Idealism effectively addresses the charge of solipsism by establishing the objective reality of objects and emphasizing the shared nature of our experiences.
His argument provides a philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between our subjective minds and the external world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am cutting off ChatGPT's response right there in order to ask you what it is in the enlarged sentence below...

...that you didn't understand?
 
You have no integrity, little V, and cannot be trusted to be honest in these debates.
_______

I presented your whole chat with ChatGpt and asked why the inconsistency.

Yeah, you say that, but you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy and may have peppered what you call my "...whole chat with ChatGPT..." with some of your {special interjections}.

Where relevant I posted this above

Is there anyway you could take note to make the point to my interlocutors that there are alternative views [..I believe are more aligned with the CPR texts] when they ask you their question, since me and my interlocutor are using the same ChatGpt.

The absolute only way that ChatGPT could know if the alternative views* that you believe are more aligned with the CPR texts, is if ChatGPT had direct access to the actual texts of the CPR, which it admitted that it didn't.

*(Which, of course, can only be in reference to your views. Who do you think you're fooling?)

I have no intention to deceive,...I have provided the quotes from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason...

Yes, you provided quotes that you have contaminated with your {bracketed interjections} designed to coax it into favoring your personal interpretation.

...which ChatGpt I presume is able to triangulate its credibility from postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc.

Again, if ChatGPT does not have direct access to the actual text of the CPR, then it simply cannot determine the credibility of any secondhand sources, regardless of what you "presume."

You instead is merely relying on ChatGpt without prompting it to discuss the nuanced aspects, so ChatGpt will merely give you typical and crude information.

Do you mean the typical and crude information it derives from "...postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc..."?
_______

It is possible that one could corrupt the text and ChatGpt3 has no basis to check it.
However, ChatGpt would have the ability of triangulate it as coherent from what is written in relation to the CPR.

I have added terms in [] and {} which are often from other parts of the CPR.
If you are suspicious you can challenge me and I can produce the evidence from the texts.

In any case, if it not the case, ChatGpt would have pointed it out or question it.

[Atla]

An appearance and perception is due to some effects that affected you in some way, but while it is cognized it may not be possible to be known as real at all.

Take for example hallucinations [drugs induced, mental illness, etc.], they are cognized and those who hallucinated them would take them for "real" in many cases,
except those who have been told what they hallucinated is not really real.
In this case, there is nothing really to be known, thus the question of it being unknown is moot and a non-starter.

What is real is the hallucination but not the thing that is hallucinated.

In the case of the noumenon or thing-in-itself it is merely a thought that is logically inferred from what is really real, i.e. the real cognition, perception and appearance that can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

The noumenon or thing-in-itself is merely a logical and transcendental object [a universal model or Form] not a specific particular empirical object which is empirically verifiable and justifiable.
The noumenon or thing-in-itself is an object-in-general and abstract object and its not a particular specific object.

To reify the noumenon or thing-in-itself which is the abstract object as real is chasing after an illusion.

Nevertheless, according to Kant, it is critical to think and infer the noumenon as something-thought-only but only as a useful illusion for moral purposes.

I suggest you copy the above wholesale and get ChatGpt3 [not ChatGpt4] to critique it.

Why copy it? You do not understand what a philosophical debate is. I'm not doubting that this is what Kant said, I'm doubting that what he says is rational.

Unless you're ready to admit that the world only exists 'in your mind' and you're a solipsist, because that's the logical conclusion of your TI.

Strawman.

Where did Kant on the basis of Transcendental Idealism assert the world only in the mind?

Those who are not philosophical competent [unable to grasp nor understand {not necessary}] are most likely to charge Kant with Solipsism in reading his TI.
This was the case after the 1st Edition of the CPR was published.
In the 2nd Edition, Kant added a large section i.e. Refutation of Idealism to absolve his TI from solipsism.

Here from AI [wR]:

Kant's Refutation Against Idealism and Solipsism
Kant's Refutation Against Idealism is a key component of his response to the charge of solipsism.
Solipsism, the philosophical position that only one's own mind and experiences exist, is a potential consequence of idealism, the view that reality is mentally constructed.

Kant's Argument
Kant argues against idealism by asserting the transcendental reality of objects. This means that while our perception of objects is subjective, the objects themselves exist independently of our perception. He supports this claim by pointing out that our experience is structured by a priori categories of understanding, such as causality and substance. These categories, which are innate to our minds, allow us to distinguish between our subjective perceptions and the objective world.

Key points of Kant's argument:
• Transcendental idealism: Our experience is subjective, but the objects of experience are real.
• A priori categories: Innate mental structures allow us to distinguish between subjective perception and objective reality.
• Refutation of idealism: The objective world exists independently of our perception.

Addressing Solipsism
By establishing the objective reality of objects, Kant directly addresses the solipsistic concern that only the mind exists. His argument suggests that while our experience is subjective, the objects of experience are real and independent of our minds. This counters the solipsistic claim that the external world is merely a mental construct.

Additional points to consider:
• Inter-subjectivity: Kant emphasizes the shared nature of our experiences. We can communicate and agree on the existence of objects, suggesting a common reality beyond individual minds.
• Practical reason: Kant's moral philosophy posits that we have duties to others, which implies the existence of other minds. This practical perspective strengthens his argument against solipsism.

In conclusion, Kant's Refutation Against Idealism effectively addresses the charge of solipsism by establishing the objective reality of objects and emphasizing the shared nature of our experiences.
His argument provides a philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between our subjective minds and the external world.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY. NO NOUMENON = NO OBJECTIVE REALITY OF OBJECTS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...which ChatGpt I presume is able to triangulate its credibility from postings and reliable sources from the internet, e.g. SEP, IEP, accessible published articles, etc.

Again, if ChatGPT does not have direct access to the actual text of the CPR, then it simply cannot determine the credibility of any secondhand sources, regardless of what you "presume."

I checked with ChatGpt how it could accept what I had added in {}:

The bracketed terms you inserted—“God, Soul, & The World”—are widely accepted as Kant’s reference to the three primary transcendental ideas. Kant himself does not refer to these exact terms in this particular sentence, but based on the broader context of Kant’s dialectic of pure reason (especially in the Antinomy of Pure Reason), these terms reasonably represent the content of the illusions Kant discusses. This can be verified by consulting secondary literature or Kant's own sections where he discusses transcendental ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why copy it? You do not understand what a philosophical debate is. I'm not doubting that this is what Kant said, I'm doubting that what he says is rational.

Unless you're ready to admit that the world only exists 'in your mind' and you're a solipsist, because that's the logical conclusion of your TI.

Strawman.

Where did Kant on the basis of Transcendental Idealism assert the world only in the mind?

Those who are not philosophical competent [unable to grasp nor understand {not necessary}] are most likely to charge Kant with Solipsism in reading his TI.
This was the case after the 1st Edition of the CPR was published.
In the 2nd Edition, Kant added a large section i.e. Refutation of Idealism to absolve his TI from solipsism.

Here from AI [wR]:

Kant's Refutation Against Idealism and Solipsism
Kant's Refutation Against Idealism is a key component of his response to the charge of solipsism.
Solipsism, the philosophical position that only one's own mind and experiences exist, is a potential consequence of idealism, the view that reality is mentally constructed.

Kant's Argument
Kant argues against idealism by asserting the transcendental reality of objects. This means that while our perception of objects is subjective, the objects themselves exist independently of our perception. He supports this claim by pointing out that our experience is structured by a priori categories of understanding, such as causality and substance. These categories, which are innate to our minds, allow us to distinguish between our subjective perceptions and the objective world.

Key points of Kant's argument:
• Transcendental idealism: Our experience is subjective, but the objects of experience are real.
• A priori categories: Innate mental structures allow us to distinguish between subjective perception and objective reality.
• Refutation of idealism: The objective world exists independently of our perception.

Addressing Solipsism
By establishing the objective reality of objects, Kant directly addresses the solipsistic concern that only the mind exists. His argument suggests that while our experience is subjective, the objects of experience are real and independent of our minds. This counters the solipsistic claim that the external world is merely a mental construct.

Additional points to consider:
• Inter-subjectivity: Kant emphasizes the shared nature of our experiences. We can communicate and agree on the existence of objects, suggesting a common reality beyond individual minds.
• Practical reason: Kant's moral philosophy posits that we have duties to others, which implies the existence of other minds. This practical perspective strengthens his argument against solipsism.

In conclusion, Kant's Refutation Against Idealism effectively addresses the charge of solipsism by establishing the objective reality of objects and emphasizing the shared nature of our experiences.
His argument provides a philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between our subjective minds and the external world.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY. NO NOUMENON = NO OBJECTIVE REALITY OF OBJECTS.

You are off topic here.
The above is merely your blabbering without argument and justification, driven by an existential crisis.

You accused Kant of being a solipsist.
AI explained why Kant is not a solipsist. QED

In the CPR, Kant has argued for the "objective reality" of object without the illusory noumenon.

[Atla]

Strawman.

Where did Kant on the basis of Transcendental Idealism assert the world only in the mind?

Those who are not philosophical competent [unable to grasp nor understand {not necessary}] are most likely to charge Kant with Solipsism in reading his TI.
This was the case after the 1st Edition of the CPR was published.
In the 2nd Edition, Kant added a large section i.e. Refutation of Idealism to absolve his TI from solipsism.

Here from AI [wR]:

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY. NO NOUMENON = NO OBJECTIVE REALITY OF OBJECTS.

You are off topic here.
The above is merely your blabbering without argument and justification, driven by an existential crisis.

You accused Kant of being a solipsist.
AI explained why Kant is not a solipsist. QED

In the CPR, Kant has argued for the "objective reality" of object without the illusory noumenon.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about do you. Now you're arguing for p-realism.

[bahman]

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.

It is unknowable in the sense that you cannot exactly tell what it is. You can be a brain in the vat or not for example and you cannot tell what the truth is. You can tell that there is something but you cannot tell what it exactly is.

[Age]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/incognizable/non-existent. The end.

Once again, 'you' can be affecting you in 'a way' that is deceiving you to believe that some 'other' thing is affecting you, when, really, there is no other thing at all affecting you, OBVIOUSLY.

So, it may well be the case that there is not some 'other' thing affecting you AT ALL, which means that 'that other perceived thing' is some thing that is, really, non existent AT ALL.

I am not sure how many times I will have to repeat this before it becomes fully comprehended and understood by some here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It is unknowable in the sense that you cannot exactly tell what it is. You can be a brain in the vat or not for example and you cannot tell what the truth is. You can tell that there is something but you cannot tell what it exactly is.

In the context of this discussion re Kant's "something that is unknowable", it is case of mistranslation and conflation of the German term "Erkenntnis" by NK Smith as "Knowledge" [Wissen].
Because the Smith's translation of the CPR is the most popular, the term 'knowledge' know, unknown, unknowable, knowability, and so on, was habituated by English readers of the Critique of Pure Reason.

The intended meaning of "Erkenntnis" by Kant in context should be "cognition" in English which has a significantly different meaning from "knowledge" [Justified True Belief -ex Gettier]

Point is if "something" is affecting you, there is cognition which can turned out of to be a thing that one can have knowledge of as a real thing.
However, when one is affected by "something", there is cognition which manifest as a hallucination or illusion which mean there is nothing objective to be known. Given the above, the question of it being known or unknowable is a moot and a non-starter.

However, for Kant 'that something' that is affecting you generate cognition, but it is not something of substance [Substance theory] that exists as absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

To Kant, 'that something' that is affecting you generate cognition, is some sort of emergence that generate cognition and our faculty of knowledge generate it as "knowledge that is known" [via science for e.g.] as relatively mind-independent.

[Atla]

Anyway, back to the topic: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable/incognizable/non-existent. The end.

Once again, 'you' can be affecting you in 'a way' that is deceiving you to believe that some 'other' thing is affecting you, when, really, there is no other thing at all affecting you, OBVIOUSLY.

So, it may well be the case that there is not some 'other' thing affecting you AT ALL, which means that 'that other perceived thing' is some thing that is, really, non existent AT ALL.

I am not sure how many times I will have to repeat this before it becomes fully comprehended and understood by some here.

Kant denies that 'you' are affecting you. And for this picture, the whole universe would have to packed into your mind. Now get lost Age