Kant refuted in 1 step

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

That is all your blabbering.

Previously I have referred to ChatGpt [more refined view] to refute your finding from ChatGpt [crude view].

Science does not prove indirect realism or transcendental idealism is true or false.
The scientific FS is whatever it produced in accordance [qualified] to the rules and conditions within scientific FS.

Show me solid arguments references to support your point.

[Atla]

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.

That is all your blabbering.

Previously I have referred to ChatGpt [more refined view] to refute your finding from ChatGpt [crude view].

Science does not prove indirect realism or transcendental idealism is true or false.
The scientific FS is whatever it produced in accordance [qualified] to the rules and conditions within scientific FS.

Show me solid arguments references to support your point.

Word salad. ChatGPT has often refuted your claims, and you can't show a single one where it refuted mine.

Again, science has shown that indirect realism is rational and transcendental idealism is irrational. It is rational to think that science isn't just based on an "FS" but also objective reality.

[Atla]

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.

No, transcendental idealism is irrational. It is rational to think that humans experience more than just what their human nature induced them to experience. This is a fact.

[Atla]

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.

Word salad. The noumenon is 100% unknowable according to Kant, you aren't talking about TI, you don't know what TI is.
Word salad. The noumenon isn't non-existent according to Kant, you aren't talking about TI, you don't know what TI is.
Word salad. The noumenon isn't like a square-circle or a flying Santa Claus according to Kant, you aren't talking about TI, you don't know what TI is.
Word salad. You just said there is no noumenon, and now you say it is a soup of particles but there is no conscious experience of it. Contradiction.
Word salad. The noumenon is unknowable so we can't know that it's a soup of particles.
Word salad. First you claimed more than Kant, and now you claim less than Kant. Strawman. Contradiction. Error. Error.

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.

Word salad. Both indirect realism and TI are circular philosophies, on some level both are speculations.
Word salad. Ad hom. Objective reality is not a psychological shortcoming but the most rational view. Projection. What is driven by an existential crysis is your strict denial of objective reality.

[Atla]

Let's repeat the crucial point which VA has no chance of countering so he avoids it: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. The end.

[seeds]

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:

Once again, the "glaze" on the pottery accuses the "clay" of being too shallow.

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.

If a coin has two sides, what is reality of it as one side?

The "coin" in this metaphorical scenario is reality itself, with one side being knowable phenomena, and the other side being the unknowable noumena that functions as the supportive underpinning of phenomena.

For funsies, I ran that past Bing's oracle Copilot, and this is what she said...

Me:
So then, if the Kantian noumenal aspect of reality (the unknowable "thing-in-itself")...is in fact a deeper, underlying aspect of reality that, without which, the Kantian phenomenal aspect of reality (as in that which is knowable and perceivable) would not appear to us, then, getting back to my original claim, doesn't that suggest that the Kantian noumenon/phenomenon are two sides of the same proverbial coin, with the coin being reality itself?

Copilot:
Yes, your interpretation is quite insightful. By framing the noumenon and phenomenon as two sides of the same proverbial coin, with reality itself being the coin, you capture the essence of Kant’s philosophy in a compelling way.

Kant posits that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is the underlying reality that gives rise to the phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us). Without the noumenon, there would be no phenomenon for us to perceive. This interdependence suggests that they are indeed two aspects of the same reality, even if we can only directly access one of them.

So, in this sense, your analogy holds: the noumenon and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin, representing the deeper, unified reality that encompasses both the knowable and the unknowable aspects.

Now, of course. it goes without saying that your enormous ego is going to kick-in and force you to proclaim that your own personal interpretation of what Kant "really meant" supersedes anything these puny AIs have to offer.

However, that does not negate the fact that Kant himself said...

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."

I also ran that by Copilot...

Me:
What did Kant mean by this:
"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."?

Copilot:
Kant’s statement touches on his distinction between “things in themselves” (noumena) and “appearances” (phenomena). Here’s a breakdown:

Things in Themselves (Noumena): These are objects as they exist independently of our perception. According to Kant, we cannot have direct knowledge of these objects because our understanding is limited to how things appear to us.

Appearances (Phenomena): These are the objects as we perceive them, shaped by our senses and cognitive faculties.

Kant argues that while we cannot know the true nature of things in themselves, we must still be able to think of them as existing. If we didn’t, it would imply that appearances (what we perceive) exist without anything real behind them, which he considers absurd.

Essentially, for there to be an appearance, there must be something that appears.

So, there you go, little V., Uncle Kant would consider your denial of the possible existence of noumena to be "absurd."

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.

Maybe not directly, but you have certainly implied it.

Okay then, does that mean that, at the very least, you will concede that our minds exist independent of one another? And that they are "really-real," and not...

"...contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described..."

...?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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" = "unknowable"

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here. Next?

The fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

As stated there is big difference between "Erkenntnis" = Cognition and "Wissen" Knowledge [known or unknowability].

I wrote in the OP.
"In this case, if the noumenon cannot be cognized [Erkenntnis] how can it be subsequently known [literally]" thus unknowable is irrelevant, moot and a non-starter.

"but is also never asked after in Experience" that mean it is moot, the question of it is irrelevant and a non-starter.
Same as the question of whether a square-circle exists in never asked in experience.

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here.

You are an indirect realist which is a subset of philosophical realism [aka transcendental realism].

[Veritas Aequitas]

You think you can claim "Gotcha!"

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

Once again, the "glaze" on the pottery accuses the "clay" of being too shallow.

It show your understanding of the issue is too shallow.

The "coin" in this metaphorical scenario is reality itself, with one side being knowable phenomena, and the other side being the unknowable noumena that functions as the supportive underpinning of phenomena.

It show your understanding of the issue is too shallow.
Your knowledge of Kant is so kindergarten yet you want to claim as if you have a PhD on Kantian philosophy. You're an Ultracrepidarian.

Your "coin" is monism against its dualistic sides.
There are loads of criticism against monism.
The other point about your "coin" is Substance theory.
There are also loads of criticism against substance theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

For funsies, I ran that past Bing's oracle Copilot, and this is what she said...

Me:
So then, if the Kantian noumenal aspect of reality (the unknowable "thing-in-itself")...is in fact a deeper, underlying aspect of reality that, without which, the Kantian phenomenal aspect of reality (as in that which is knowable and perceivable) would not appear to us, then, getting back to my original claim, doesn't that suggest that the Kantian noumenon/phenomenon are two sides of the same proverbial coin, with the coin being reality itself?

Copilot:
Yes, your interpretation is quite insightful. By framing the noumenon and phenomenon as two sides of the same proverbial coin, with reality itself being the coin, you capture the essence of Kant’s philosophy in a compelling way.

Kant posits that the noumenon (the thing-in-itself) is the underlying reality that gives rise to the phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us). Without the noumenon, there would be no phenomenon for us to perceive. This interdependence suggests that they are indeed two aspects of the same reality, even if we can only directly access one of them.

So, in this sense, your analogy holds: the noumenon and phenomenon are two sides of the same coin, representing the deeper, unified reality that encompasses both the knowable and the unknowable aspects.

Now, of course. it goes without saying that your enormous ego is going to kick-in and force you to proclaim that your own personal interpretation of what Kant "really meant" supersedes anything these puny AIs have to offer.

However, that does not negate the fact that Kant himself said...

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."

I also ran that by Copilot...

Me:
What did Kant mean by this:
"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."?

Copilot:
Kant’s statement touches on his distinction between “things in themselves” (noumena) and “appearances” (phenomena). Here’s a breakdown:

Things in Themselves (Noumena): These are objects as they exist independently of our perception. According to Kant, we cannot have direct knowledge of these objects because our understanding is limited to how things appear to us.

Appearances (Phenomena): These are the objects as we perceive them, shaped by our senses and cognitive faculties.

Kant argues that while we cannot know the true nature of things in themselves, we must still be able to think of them as existing. If we didn’t, it would imply that appearances (what we perceive) exist without anything real behind them, which he considers absurd.

Essentially, for there to be an appearance, there must be something that appears.

So, there you go, little V., Uncle Kant would consider your denial of the possible existence of noumena to be "absurd."

Unfortunately Co-pilot reach is very limited.
It does not have access to Kant's CPR, thus it relies on the typical views from the internet [up to 2019?].
Because you have not read Kant's CPR thoroughly you are not able to ask AI the proper question.

I believe I have gone tru the above and presented a different view from Co-pilot when I provided it with direct quotes from the CPR.

I suggest you use ChatGpt on the same question and ask it to provide a deeper and also alternative and more-nuanced opposing interpretations and views.

Also see this thread:
Noumenon is Unknowable??
viewtopic.php?p=732458#p732458

Okay then, does that mean that, at the very least, you will concede that our minds exist independent of one another? And that they are "really-real," and not...

"...contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subject framework and system of emergence, realization and cognition of reality [FSERC] which is subsequently known and described..."

...?
_______

Our brains exist relatively independent of one another but not absolutely independent of one another.

There is the basic human mind and the mind of an individual.
For example there is the same fundamental emotional machinery in all humans but their expressions may differ in accordance to variable conditions.
Our basic minds cannot exist absolutely independent of one another because in the ultimate perspective all humans are part and parcel of the collective-of-human-minds.
The basic human mind manifests from the same DNA codes in all humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

You presented the same question to Co-pilot the last time and I discussed with Co-pilot on its response, but I asked for a nuanced view and provided quotations from the CPR.

[Copilot]
"While he [Kant] acknowledges the existence of noumena, he emphasizes that our knowledge is limited to phenomena."

Somehow, I believe the term 'existence' above could be misleading, where philosophical realists could claim 'exists as something substantial'.
At most Kant asserted the noumena existed only as a thought only or regulatively as a useful illusion.

Kant wrote this in the CPR in {mine}:

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions {transcendental Ideas, thing-in-itself, God, Soul & The World, } are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

The above implied if one were to reify the thing-in-itself as real, i.e. objective reality, then they are chasing an illusion.

Given the above, it is possible for you to rephrase the sentence below so that there is no ambiquity with reference to the term 'existence'

Co-Pilot Responded:

“This revision clarifies that Kant recognizes the existence of the noumenal realm as a conceptual construct within the human mind, rather than asserting its objective reality in the external world.”

[Atla]

"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" = "unknowable"

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here. Next?

The fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

As stated there is big difference between "Erkenntnis" = Cognition and "Wissen" Knowledge [known or unknowability].

I wrote in the OP.
"In this case, if the noumenon cannot be cognized [Erkenntnis] how can it be subsequently known [literally]" thus unknowable is irrelevant, moot and a non-starter.

"but is also never asked after in Experience" that mean it is moot, the question of it is irrelevant and a non-starter.
Same as the question of whether a square-circle exists in never asked in experience.

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here.

You are an indirect realist which is a subset of philosophical realism [aka transcendental realism].

Again, it's nothing new to me that it's about cognition, you don't have to say it twice. However there is no big difference, we just either can't even know if there is any thing-in-itself at all (Kant's position), or even go all-out solipsist like you and say there can't be a noumenon.

Word salad. Irrelevant or moot is not the like a square-circle. You don't understand this because you can't process logic.
Word salad. Philosophical realism isn't transcendental realism. This shows that you haven't read and understood the CPR and thus are handicapped.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"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" = "unknowable"

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here. Next?

The fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

As stated there is big difference between "Erkenntnis" = Cognition and "Wissen" Knowledge [known or unknowability].

I wrote in the OP.
"In this case, if the noumenon cannot be cognized [Erkenntnis] how can it be subsequently known [literally]" thus unknowable is irrelevant, moot and a non-starter.

"but is also never asked after in Experience" that mean it is moot, the question of it is irrelevant and a non-starter.
Same as the question of whether a square-circle exists in never asked in experience.

I'm no transcendental realist or direct realist, imo you said nothing new here.

You are an indirect realist which is a subset of philosophical realism [aka transcendental realism].

Again, it's nothing new to me that it's about cognition, you don't have to say it twice. However there is no big difference, we just either can't even know if there is any thing-in-itself at all (Kant's position), or even go all-out solipsist like you and say there can't be a noumenon.

Word salad. Irrelevant or moot is not the like a square-circle. You don't understand this because you can't process logic.
Word salad. Philosophical realism isn't transcendental realism. This shows that you haven't read and understood the CPR and thus are handicapped.

You have no credibility at all on the above issue because,
the fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

[Atla]

The fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

As stated there is big difference between "Erkenntnis" = Cognition and "Wissen" Knowledge [known or unknowability].

I wrote in the OP.
"In this case, if the noumenon cannot be cognized [Erkenntnis] how can it be subsequently known [literally]" thus unknowable is irrelevant, moot and a non-starter.

"but is also never asked after in Experience" that mean it is moot, the question of it is irrelevant and a non-starter.
Same as the question of whether a square-circle exists in never asked in experience.


You are an indirect realist which is a subset of philosophical realism [aka transcendental realism].

Again, it's nothing new to me that it's about cognition, you don't have to say it twice. However there is no big difference, we just either can't even know if there is any thing-in-itself at all (Kant's position), or even go all-out solipsist like you and say there can't be a noumenon.

Word salad. Irrelevant or moot is not the like a square-circle. You don't understand this because you can't process logic.
Word salad. Philosophical realism isn't transcendental realism. This shows that you haven't read and understood the CPR and thus are handicapped.

You have no credibility at all on the above issue because,
the fact is that you have not read Kant's CPR fully and thoroughly, thus the handicap.

No argument as usual. Let's repeat: if something is affecting you in any way, then it can't be 100% unknowable. Kant's main trick is exposed, Kant is refuted.

[seeds]

_______

Notes:

_______

[seeds]

_______

More notes:

_______

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV

_______