Kant refuted in 1 step

[Atla]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.




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.

And above you've argued for Smith's translation. Not that it matters.

[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.

[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.

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

Once again, these people here BELIEVE that 'they' can speak 'for others'.

In fact, 'this one' is so sure of "itself" it BELIEVES that it KNOWS what "immanuel kant" even DENIES.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a thing that is called or even is 'your mind'. And, to BELIEVE there is, is just another prime example of 'one' being absolutely FOOLED and DECEIVED by "its" own 'self'.

Again, 'you', the one here known as "atla", have fooled "yourself", absolutely, into BELIEVING, absolutely, that 'you' cannot deceive "yourself".

[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.

AGAIN, back to the Truth, 'you' can affect you, so much, that you end up BELIEVING, absolutely, that there are things affecting you, which in ALL absolute Reality 'those things' do not even exist. And, OBVIOUSLY, this is proved True by DELUSIONAL THINKING, itself.

So, "atla's" claim that if some thing is affecting you, in any way, then it cannot be 100% non-existent could be False, in 'the way' I have described and explained here.

For example, one could claim that what 'another' is thinking is affecting me. But, in ALL Reality 'the other' might not be 'thinking that', which is presumed or believed to be 'thought', by 'another'. Therefore, what is affecting 'that one' is, in ACTUALITY, non-existent, at all. And, what was, in fact, actually affecting 'that one' was, really, "itself", only.

[bahman]

Long discussion with AI [wR] etc. etc.




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.

OK: It is not recognizable 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.

[Atla]

...

Just letting you know that I found 10 notifications that you've replied to my comments, and I didn't read a single one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

OK: It is not recognizable 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.

You got is wrong.
With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all; it is merely a thought there is something but actually it is an empty thought, like thinking there is a square-circle or Santa Claus that exist as real which is an impossibility.

In the case of brain-in-a-vat, what you are interacting with are merely like things in a movie, but instead of 2D on a movies screen, it is 3D like a hallucination.
There is no something-that-is-real to it, it is just a projection from the brain and mind.

[bahman]

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.

OK: It is not recognizable 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.

You got is wrong.
With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all; it is merely a thought there is something but actually it is an empty thought, like thinking there is a square-circle or Santa Claus that exist as real which is an impossibility.

In the case of brain-in-a-vat, what you are interacting with are merely like things in a movie, but instead of 2D on a movies screen, it is 3D like a hallucination.
There is no something-that-is-real to it, it is just a projection from the brain and mind.

Well, if there is no reality then we are an example of the brain in the vat.

[Peter Holmes]

Is there a real brain in a real vat? Or are they illusions produced by...a brain in a vat? And so on.

[bahman]

Is there a real brain in a real vat? Or are they illusions produced by...a brain in a vat? And so on.

It depends on what entity experiences. To me, it is the mind that experiences. So to tell it correctly, it is the mind in the vat.

[Age]

...

Just letting you know that I found 10 notifications that you've replied to my comments, and I didn't read a single one.

Okay.

And, just letting the readers know that this was just because "atla" is, literally, to STUPID to.

Which I can prove, irrefutably. Again, that is if anyone is Truly interested in learning, here.

LOL This one starts a thread, but does not even have the ability to back up and support what it starts, and what it believes, absolutely, is true.

[Age]

Is there a real brain in a real vat? Or are they illusions produced by...a brain in a vat? And so on.

Once again, these people thought or believed that 'the brain' was at the forefront of all of this.

The very reason WHY the ONLY thing that can be KNOWN, for sure, are thoughts alone is NOT because of 'the brain', itself.

But, these people, when this was being written, were quite some way of learning and/or discovering WHY.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OK: It is not recognizable 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.

You got is wrong.
With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all; it is merely a thought there is something but actually it is an empty thought, like thinking there is a square-circle or Santa Claus that exist as real which is an impossibility.

In the case of brain-in-a-vat, what you are interacting with are merely like things in a movie, but instead of 2D on a movies screen, it is 3D like a hallucination.
There is no something-that-is-real to it, it is just a projection from the brain and mind.

Well, if there is no reality then we are an example of the brain in the vat.

That is a strawman.

I did not say there is no reality.

What is reality [ultimate] is not something that is not recognizable, and that there is something [absolutely] mind independent and you cannot tell exactly what it is.

Whatever is reality is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects, human-based framework and system [FS], which range from common sense to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.
One can know exactly what is reality but must be qualified to a specific human-based FS.

So, we are not a brain-in-a-vat. We have and know we are in reality [as defined above] and that is verifiable and justifiable from the common sense FS to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.

[Age]

You got is wrong.
With reference to Kant's noumenon or thing-in-itself, there is no-something of substance at all; it is merely a thought there is something but actually it is an empty thought, like thinking there is a square-circle or Santa Claus that exist as real which is an impossibility.

In the case of brain-in-a-vat, what you are interacting with are merely like things in a movie, but instead of 2D on a movies screen, it is 3D like a hallucination.
There is no something-that-is-real to it, it is just a projection from the brain and mind.

Well, if there is no reality then we are an example of the brain in the vat.

That is a strawman.

I did not say there is no reality.

What is reality [ultimate] is not something that is not recognizable, and that there is something [absolutely] mind independent and you cannot tell exactly what it is.

BUT, what the 'thing' is, exactly, what the 'reality' word, some times, refers to, is;

1. Some thing that is recognizable.

2. Some 'thing' absolutely independent of human beings and/or of what human beings imagine or think.

3. Some thing that can actually be known what 'it' is, and which can be told, and/or expressed, to you human beings.

Whatever is reality is contingent upon a specific collective-of-subjects, human-based framework and system [FS], which range from common sense to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.
One can know exactly what is reality but must be qualified to a specific human-based FS.

So, we are not a brain-in-a-vat. We have and know we are in reality [as defined above] and that is verifiable and justifiable from the common sense FS to the most credible and objective, i.e. the scientific FS.

Or, in other words, F(or)FS how many times do 'we' have to be 'told' this, without absolutely any thing that backs up and supports this FS, or what some would call BS?

[Atla]

..

Come on VA, clear up the big mystery for us gnat-folk:

In this sense, Kant did not claim external reality is DEPENDENT of humans but rather he claim humans are SOMEHOW contributing to "what is reality" relatively, i.e. external reality cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

If external reality is shaped by the human conditions, then HOW is it not dependent on humans? The human conditions are part of humans..