Terror Management Theory

[Atla]

My point is, an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron and it cannot be conflated with QM.

I can now attempt to explain the perplexing mistery why you say "an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron" instead of the correct "a knowable noumenon is an oxymoron".

It could be because you can't process logic, and the word 'oxymoron' carries an inherent logical contradiction within it, which you can't process. So you can't understand the meaning of the word 'oxymoron'.

The correct expression is: "a knowable noumenon is an oxymoron."

In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon refers to the thing-in-itself, which is fundamentally unknowable to human cognition. We can only know phenomena, or the appearances of things as they are mediated by our senses and understanding. Thus, claiming the noumenon is "knowable" contradicts its very definition.

[seeds]

So, did you or did you not present that entire (untampered with) quote to ChatGPT?

I did not present the above full discussion to ChatGpt which is not practical.

Well then, what that means is that this...

"ChatGpt admitted itself that its replied to you [..I presented to ChatGpt] was wrong..."

...is a complete misrepresentation of what really occurred.

I did present the relevant parts:

Here is one example:

My interlocutor presented the following discussion with ChatGpt, which I think overlooked many points I have discussed with ChatGpt so far.

Yeah? So where is this "following discussion" you mentioned?

And what about this...

[..I presented your whole chat in this]

What do you mean you presented my "whole chat"?

How does "relevant parts" translate to being my "whole chat"?

And how in the world does your claiming that you "...presented my whole chat..." to ChatGPT correlate with this...

I did not present the above full discussion to ChatGpt which is not practical.

...???

VA, I can only respond to what you write in these posts, and it's becoming a real challenge trying to sort through your contradictory statements.

Later I presented the following:

In addition my interlocutor presented a counter to the earlier ChatGpt discussion:

[ChatGpt]"He [Kant] does not claim that noumena do not exist; rather, he emphasizes that if they do, they cannot be objects of human knowledge."

[Interlocutor response to ChatGpt]"To which I try to clarify with the argument that because Kant had absolutely no knowledge of the strangeness of reality that would be revealed via the discovery of quantum physics more than a century after his death,...

...more specifically, because he knew nothing of the "real existence" of the noumenal-like status of the ghostly objects (Heisenberg) that occupy what the physicists call "non-local" reality,...

...he therefore was in no position to make an informed judgement on whether or not humans could at least confidently infer that such noumenal-like objects* do indeed exist."

My comments to the above is:
It does not matter that Kant did not know of modern QM discovered 200 years after his death.
Kant's principle is: whatever is discovered by Science is always conditioned by a human-based framework and system [Copernican Revolution].
Therefore whatever science will discover in the future, will never be able to confirmed the existence of any speculation that is non-human-based, i.e. an absolutely mind-independent entity such as God.
To Kant, the idea of God is merely a thought only, if reified is an illusion and never be conflated with what is discoverable by science which is conditional the human conditions.

It is from the above that ChatGpt picked up your view re Noumenon and QM where ChatGpt asserted you cannot conflate Noumenon with QM.

No!!! It is from the above that ChatGPT picked up on your introducing "God" into the conversation, thus establishing your strawman argument.

...My point is, an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron and it cannot be conflated with QM.

As atla pointed out, by stating that an "unknowable noumenon" is an oxymoron, you have demonstrated (and not the first time) that you don't seem to understand what the word "oxymoron" actually means. Therefore, God only knows what other words you may have misunderstood in the vast corpus of Kant's writings.

You cannot use the concept of the noumenon to support your thesis God exists as real.

Good gawd almighty!!!

For the umpteenth time, I'm not using the concept of the noumenon to support my thesis that God exists as real. No, I'm applying the concept of the noumenon to the "non-local" (unknowable) status of a "superpositioned electron."

Don't take this personal, my dear Internet friend,...

...but only an "oxy-headed-moron" would be dumb enough to keep using the same strawman argument - over and over again - while thinking he can get away with it.

It is getting messy.
Perhaps you can do a summary of your position and we can take it from there.

Sure.

Here's my summary...

Other than perhaps the Cartesian "Cogito, Ergo Sum", none of us; not you, or me, or Kant, or atla, or Iwannaplato, etc., etc., can be absolutely (100%) certain of anything we have to say about the noumenon or any other philosophical issue.

(As a side note for everyone, I just came across a short, animated [cartoonish] discussion on the subject of Kant's Transcendental Idealism that seems to cover some of the things our little group has recently been talking about. See what you guys think: https://youtu.be/JZEhrABp2wQ)
_______

[Atla]

(As a side note for everyone, I just came across a short, animated [cartoonish] discussion on the subject of Kant's Transcendental Idealism that seems to cover some of the things our little group has recently been talking about. See what you guys think: https://youtu.be/JZEhrABp2wQ)

Hey that was a surprisingly good summary. I tried to discuss these points with VA and more, unfortunately most of it went over his head. Well the guy can't process logic, an IR vs TI debate is pretty much impossible for him.

One thing, I completely disagree that Einsteinian time-dilation supports Kant's dumb theory. On the contrary, it shows what Kant missed: that what we mentally perceive as space and time, is a reflection of the objectively existing Einsteinian spacetime.

[seeds]

(As a side note for everyone, I just came across a short, animated [cartoonish] discussion on the subject of Kant's Transcendental Idealism that seems to cover some of the things our little group has recently been talking about. See what you guys think: https://youtu.be/JZEhrABp2wQ)

Hey that was a surprisingly good summary. I tried to discuss these points with VA and more, unfortunately most of it went over his head. Well the guy can't process logic, an IR vs TI debate is pretty much impossible for him.

One thing, I completely disagree that Einsteinian time-dilation supports Kant's dumb theory. On the contrary, it shows what Kant missed: that what we mentally perceive as space and time, is a reflection of the objectively existing Einsteinian spacetime.

Yeah, they didn't make clear as to how time-dilation fit into the discussion, but the rest of the video seemed pretty well thought out.

However, I'm sure that VA (if he watches it) will find fault with it and accuse those ultracrepidarian gnats of not truly understanding Kant's theory anywhere near the level and degree to which he understands it.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what about this...

[..I presented your whole chat in this]

What do you mean you presented my "whole chat"?

How does "relevant parts" translate to being my "whole chat"?

And how in the world does your claiming that you "...presented my whole chat..." to ChatGPT correlate with this...

I did not present the above full discussion to ChatGpt which is not practical.

...???

Note there are two of your chats with ChatGpt.
In one, I presented the whole chart, while the other I only presented the partial with your response to ChatGpt.

The whole mess is from your side due to ignorance of the depth of Kantian philosophy in your discussion with ChatGpt.

Here's my summary...

Other than perhaps the Cartesian "Cogito, Ergo Sum", none of us; not you, or me, or Kant, or atla, or Iwannaplato, etc., etc., can be absolutely (100%) certain of anything we have to say about the noumenon or any other philosophical issue.

Then you should qualify [..i.e. "I am not 100% sure" ] that with your "burning bush" experience and your claim that God [that eye thingy] exists as real.
The noumenon is merely a thought and in beyond possible-experience as a real thing.
Therefore it is impossible to know the noumenon, thus an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron.

That we cannot be absolutely [100%] certain of the noumenon nor any other philosophical issue is Kant's point.
That is why he introduced his Copernican Revolution to ground whatever is certain to the human conditions, i.e. it is at best conditionally certain.

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given. (CPR Bxvi).

Objects in this case refer to objects or things that are absolutely mind-independent as in philosophical realism or theism, as in your claim that your God [eye-thingy] exists as absolutely real.
Your implication is that your belief is 100% certain, since you did not make any such qualification explicitly or implicitly.

Now you are admitting you do not know anything with 100% certain in contradiction to the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Conclusion
The video critiques Kant’s TI from a perspective that does not fully engage with Kant’s nuanced framework.
Your objections, emphasizing the regulative role of the noumenon and the distinction between phenomena and noumena, provide a clearer interpretation.
These points highlight how Kant avoids the pitfalls of both idealism and indirect realism." [ChatGpt]

(As a side note for everyone, I just came across a short, animated [cartoonish] discussion on the subject of Kant's Transcendental Idealism that seems to cover some of the things our little group has recently been talking about. See what you guys think: https://youtu.be/JZEhrABp2wQ)

Hey that was a surprisingly good summary. I tried to discuss these points with VA and more, unfortunately most of it went over his head. Well the guy can't process logic, an IR vs TI debate is pretty much impossible for him.
One thing, I completely disagree that Einsteinian time-dilation supports Kant's dumb theory. On the contrary, it shows what Kant missed: that what we mentally perceive as space and time, is a reflection of the objectively existing Einsteinian spacetime.

Yeah, they didn't make clear as to how time-dilation fit into the discussion, but the rest of the video seemed pretty well thought out.
However, I'm sure that VA (if he watches it) will find fault with it and accuse those ultracrepidarian gnats of not truly understanding Kant's theory anywhere near the level and degree to which he understands it.
_______

Yes, ultracrepidarian gnats.
As I had stated, the majority of those who discussed Kant has a shallow understanding of Kant's CPR and its very complex nuances.

I submitted the Youtube link and the rough transcripts to ChatGpt with my own comments:

Me:
My Comments and objections to the above:
The above did not take into account the following:
1. Kant never claimed there is a real noumenon or thing-in-itself existing out in an absolute mind-independent manner and sending data to the mind.
2. An unknowable noumenon beyond experience is an oxymoron; one cannot know and unknowable naturally.
3. The noumenon or thing-in-itself if reified as constitutively, then it is an illusion; it is merely an thought to be used regulative never constitutively.

Here's ChatGpt [wR]

ChatGPT said:
You raise thoughtful objections that align with nuanced interpretations of Kant’s Transcendental Idealism (TI).
Let me address the continuity problem and veil of perception issue raised in the video with consideration of your comments.

1. Continuity Problem
The objection claims that Kant’s TI cannot explain the persistence of objects and causation in space and time if space and time are merely subjective.

Response:
Kant's Framework of Space and Time: Kant argues that space and time are forms of intuition—subjective frameworks through which we organize sensory data into coherent experiences. They do not exist independently but are integral to how human cognition processes appearances (phenomena). This means that continuity, causation, and persistence apply within the phenomenal world, where these subjective conditions operate consistently. For Kant, the candle burning is intelligible only within the phenomenal realm, governed by these temporal and spatial frameworks.

Noumenal Reality's Role: The objection assumes the continuity of the candle burning would require space and time in the noumenal world. However, Kant explicitly denies that we can attribute temporal or spatial features to the noumenal world. What persists beyond human perception is not a spatial-temporal candle but the thing-in-itself, about which we cannot assert continuity in temporal or spatial terms. Hence, there is no contradiction because the continuity described is purely a feature of phenomena.

You Point Out Correctly: If the noumenal is mistakenly treated as a constitutive reality that "sends data" to the mind, this leads to incoherence. Kant explicitly warns against this reification, as the noumenon is not an object we can know but a limit-concept that regulates thought.

2. Veil of Perception Problem
The video’s objection asserts that Kant’s TI suffers from the same issue as Indirect Realism, positing a "veil of perception" that separates us from the real world, which we can never know.

Response:

Kant’s Distinction From Indirect Realism: Kant's TI avoids the "veil of perception" problem by denying that we perceive representations caused by an external world (a hallmark of Indirect Realism). Instead, phenomena are appearances structured by the mind, not distortions or intermediaries. The question of whether phenomena "accurately represent" noumena does not arise because phenomena are not representations of an external reality but our only access to reality as experienced.

Noumenon as Regulative: Your point is crucial here: the noumenon or thing-in-itself should not be reified. It functions as a regulative idea—a boundary concept that reminds us of the limits of our cognition, rather than a positive entity behind appearances. Kant explicitly denies that we can know or even theorize about noumenal reality because cognition requires the forms of space and time, which do not apply to the noumenal.

No Absolute Mind-Independent Reality Assumed: The video misrepresents Kant by implying that he posits a noumenal world existing in an absolute mind-independent manner. Kant’s notion is far subtler: the noumenal is a necessary thought-concept, not an entity we can describe or investigate.

3. Your Critique in Context
Kant Rejects Constitutive Noumenon: The video's assumption that Kant posits a causally efficacious noumenon aligns with a misreading of his philosophy. As you note, the noumenon is not constitutive but regulative, guiding our understanding of the limits of phenomena without hypostatizing an unknowable realm.

Continuity and Causation Apply Only to Phenomena: The continuity problem arises only if one conflates phenomenal causation with noumenal causation. Since causation and temporal continuity are categories of the understanding, they apply solely within the realm of appearances. To demand their application to the noumenal betrays a misunderstanding of Kant’s critical project.

Conclusion
The video critiques Kant’s TI from a perspective that does not fully engage with Kant’s nuanced framework. Your objections, emphasizing the regulative role of the noumenon and the distinction between phenomena and noumena, provide a clearer interpretation. These points highlight how Kant avoids the pitfalls of both idealism and indirect realism.

[Atla]

(As a side note for everyone, I just came across a short, animated [cartoonish] discussion on the subject of Kant's Transcendental Idealism that seems to cover some of the things our little group has recently been talking about. See what you guys think: https://youtu.be/JZEhrABp2wQ)

Hey that was a surprisingly good summary. I tried to discuss these points with VA and more, unfortunately most of it went over his head. Well the guy can't process logic, an IR vs TI debate is pretty much impossible for him.

One thing, I completely disagree that Einsteinian time-dilation supports Kant's dumb theory. On the contrary, it shows what Kant missed: that what we mentally perceive as space and time, is a reflection of the objectively existing Einsteinian spacetime.

Yeah, they didn't make clear as to how time-dilation fit into the discussion, but the rest of the video seemed pretty well thought out.

However, I'm sure that VA (if he watches it) will find fault with it and accuse those ultracrepidarian gnats of not truly understanding Kant's theory anywhere near the level and degree to which he understands it.
_______

Don't pay attention to him. The video does correctly go into the problem that Kant's noumenon is unknowable and not even necessarily there, and yet somehow still there and even continuous in time. To people who can notice contradictory irrational stuff, this is a problem.

[seeds]

Note there are two of your chats with ChatGpt.
In one, I presented the whole chart, while the other I only presented the partial with your response to ChatGpt.

Which "whole chat" are you talking about, and did you present it in its pure and unadulterated (untampered with) form?

If you expect me to believe you, then you need to show me exactly what you presented to ChatGPT.

Here's my summary...

Other than perhaps the Cartesian "Cogito, Ergo Sum", none of us; not you, or me, or Kant, or atla, or Iwannaplato, etc., etc., can be absolutely (100%) certain of anything we have to say about the noumenon or any other philosophical issue.

Then you should qualify [..i.e. "I am not 100% sure" ] that with your "burning bush" experience and your claim that God [that eye thingy] exists as real.

If you had actually read the entire OP of my "Burning Bush" thread,...

(viewtopic.php?t=41452)

...then you would know that I did indeed "qualify" my claim by admitting the possibility that what I stated in the OP could be "...the babblings of an extremely delusional person..." (me).

Indeed, here's the quote where I make that confession (bolded and resized so that you can't miss it this time [assuming you even read it all a "first" time])...

So, there you have it, Lacewing, my personal testimony regarding what I believe was a direct encounter with the living Creative Source of this universe.

Or, at the very least, it was an encounter with an incorporeal Entity who clearly demonstrated to me that it not only possessed direct and willful control over the material fabric of this universe,...

...but also wanted to compel me to associate all of my revelatory discoveries at that time (i.e., the "Ultimate Seed" concept) with Revelation chapter 10.

Now of course - OF COURSE - I don't expect that my little story will convince you (or anyone else) of anything other than the possibility that you are reading the babblings of an extremely delusional person.

Moreover, I would be demonstrating a lack of logic and a lack of self-awareness if I were to deny that possibility.

However, hopefully (if nothing else), people can at least now understand why I not only adamantly insist that there truly does exist a living (incorporeal) Creator of this universe,...

...but also why I use that "eye of the mind" icon ("eye-con") in all of my illustrations,...



...for it is a metaphorical representation of what I experienced in my alleged ("Burning Bush-like") encounter with God, 53 years ago.

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

How is it that one person (you) can be so wrong about so many different things?

The noumenon is merely a thought and in beyond possible-experience as a real thing.
Therefore it is impossible to know the noumenon, thus an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron.

Please, VA, please! please!!! do us (and especially yourself) a favor and ask ChatGPT if an "unknowable noumenon" is an example of an "oxymoron."

I'll even help you by typing the question for you so that all you have to do is copy and paste it into Chat's query window.

Here:

Do the two words "unknowable noumenon" strung together constitute or qualify as being an oxymoron?

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is waste of time to go through the messy lot.
What is relevant is this latest position;

Kant Transcendental Idealism & Objections
viewtopic.php?t=43115
Where all the issues are related to your misunderstanding of 'what is noumenon' from Kant's point of view, it is an illusion to be used regulatively and not constitutively.

If you had actually read the entire OP of my "Burning Bush" thread,...

(viewtopic.php?t=41452)

...then you would know that I did indeed "qualify" my claim by admitting the possibility that what I stated in the OP could be "...the babblings of an extremely delusional person..." (me).

Indeed, here's the quote where I make that confession (bolded and resized so that you can't miss it this time [assuming you even read it all a "first" time])...

So, there you have it, Lacewing, my personal testimony regarding what I believe was a direct encounter with the living Creative Source of this universe.

Or, at the very least, it was an encounter with an incorporeal Entity who clearly demonstrated to me that it not only possessed direct and willful control over the material fabric of this universe,...

...but also wanted to compel me to associate all of my revelatory discoveries at that time (i.e., the "Ultimate Seed" concept) with Revelation chapter 10.

Now of course - OF COURSE - I don't expect that my little story will convince you (or anyone else) of anything other than the possibility that you are reading the babblings of an extremely delusional person.

Moreover, I would be demonstrating a lack of logic and a lack of self-awareness if I were to deny that possibility.

However, hopefully (if nothing else), people can at least now understand why I not only adamantly insist that there truly does exist a living (incorporeal) Creator of this universe,...

This is the first time I read of your above.
You were not asserting that previously.
But you are not denying the possibility nor qualify you are not 100% certain.

The noumenon is merely a thought and in beyond possible-experience as a real thing.
Therefore it is impossible to know the noumenon, thus an unknowable noumenon is an oxymoron.

Please, VA, please! please!!! do us (and especially yourself) a favor and ask ChatGPT if an "unknowable noumenon" is an example of an "oxymoron."

I'll even help you by typing the question for you so that all you have to do is copy and paste it into Chat's query window.

Here:

Do the two words "unknowable noumenon" strung together constitute or qualify as being an oxymoron?

_______

We have discussed this before:
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon.
viewtopic.php?t=42651
with response from Co-pilot and ChatGpt.

[Atla]

Please, VA, please! please!!! do us (and especially yourself) a favor and ask ChatGPT if an "unknowable noumenon" is an example of an "oxymoron."

I'll even help you by typing the question for you so that all you have to do is copy and paste it into Chat's query window.

Here:

Do the two words "unknowable noumenon" strung together constitute or qualify as being an oxymoron?

_______

We have discussed this before:
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon.
viewtopic.php?t=42651
with response from Co-pilot and ChatGpt.

See, he's completely hopeless. I find that it's very difficult for us humans to completely give up on someone, to write him off as a genuine lost cause. We fight and fight this conclusion, refuse to accept it for so long. And yet here we are.

[seeds]

Please, VA, please! please!!! do us (and especially yourself) a favor and ask ChatGPT if an "unknowable noumenon" is an example of an "oxymoron."

I'll even help you by typing the question for you so that all you have to do is copy and paste it into Chat's query window.

Here:

Do the two words "unknowable noumenon" strung together constitute or qualify as being an oxymoron?
_______

We have discussed this before:
The Oxymoron of an Unknowable Noumenon.
viewtopic.php?t=42651
with response from Co-pilot and ChatGpt.

See, he's completely hopeless. I find that it's very difficult for us humans to completely give up on someone, to write him off as a genuine lost cause. We fight and fight this conclusion, refuse to accept it for so long. And yet here we are.

And what's equally amazing is how he thinks that by linking us to threads where his arguments have been thoroughly debunked (like the one he linked to above), it is somehow going to help his mission.
_______