Noumena are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory

[Atla]

So once you can't do it. Okay then I'll claim to (probably, but not certainly) refute Kant's centrail claim in a few sentences:
Cats have unified representations in their little minds without the self-aware "thinking I". So humans do to.
I tried fully giving up the "I" for a short time btw. Why didn't I walk into walls in that time?

You, a philosophical gnat and Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] trying to outsmart Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times]?

Have you ever tried actually formulating a counter-argument?
You still don't get that Kant was GENERALLY right with his synthesis, but probably went to far with some assertions?

[Atla]

So once you can't do it. Okay then I'll claim to (probably, but not certainly) refute Kant's centrail claim in a few sentences:
Cats have unified representations in their little minds without the self-aware "thinking I". So humans do to.
I tried fully giving up the "I" for a short time btw. Why didn't I walk into walls in that time?

You, a philosophical gnat and Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] trying to outsmart Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times]?

I'll go further. You have both a Hinduism and Buddhism background so you should know this better than most. Maybe the most central theme of Eastern philosophy is the (partial or complete, temporary or permanent) dissolution of the "I", of the self-conscious ego.

If Kant is correct that this "I" (or at least a basic part of it) is needed to keep the mind together in unity and running, then tens or hundreds of millions of people following Eastern philosophies would keep walking into walls. Or maybe just fall to the floor and become permanently unresponsive. But we don't see this.

Looks like just some random nonsense he asserted because he felt like it. This is actually a rather interesting topic imo, too bad you can't put together an actual counterargument.

[Iwannaplato]

Potentials are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory

Heck, they're not even objects. And they sure aren't sensed.

They are hypothesized possibilities that one day may manifest. No antirealist or empirical realist worth his or her salt would consider them existant now. And someone who says the noumena do not exist...pfft, they nothing.

It's a statistical prediction about future events, a potential. It does not exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So once you can't do it. Okay then I'll claim to (probably, but not certainly) refute Kant's centrail claim in a few sentences:
Cats have unified representations in their little minds without the self-aware "thinking I". So humans do to.
I tried fully giving up the "I" for a short time btw. Why didn't I walk into walls in that time?

You, a philosophical gnat and Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] trying to outsmart Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times]?

I'll go further. You have both a Hinduism and Buddhism background so you should know this better than most. Maybe the most central theme of Eastern philosophy is the (partial or complete, temporary or permanent) dissolution of the "I", of the self-conscious ego.

If Kant is correct that this "I" (or at least a basic part of it) is needed to keep the mind together in unity and running, then tens or hundreds of millions of people following Eastern philosophies would keep walking into walls. Or maybe just fall to the floor and become permanently unresponsive. But we don't see this.

Looks like just some random nonsense he asserted because he felt like it. This is actually a rather interesting topic imo, too bad you can't put together an actual counterargument.

I have already stated before Kant's philosophy is in alignment with Buddhism, in this regard with the emptiness of the self.

I have already told you, Kant's "I" [apperception] is merely the 'thinking-I' which exists as long as the person is alive. What is wrong with that?
Kant do not believe with any substantial I-AM that is permanent and survive physical death.

This is the same with Buddhism [non-self, anatta] which do not believe in the Atman, the permanent self that survives death.

• anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

Buddhism-proper do not deny the empirical self and a unity [identity] for practical sake, but deny this practical self is permanent and eternal as a soul that survive physical death like the Abrahamic and other theists do.

[Atla]

You, a philosophical gnat and Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] trying to outsmart Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all times]?

I'll go further. You have both a Hinduism and Buddhism background so you should know this better than most. Maybe the most central theme of Eastern philosophy is the (partial or complete, temporary or permanent) dissolution of the "I", of the self-conscious ego.

If Kant is correct that this "I" (or at least a basic part of it) is needed to keep the mind together in unity and running, then tens or hundreds of millions of people following Eastern philosophies would keep walking into walls. Or maybe just fall to the floor and become permanently unresponsive. But we don't see this.

Looks like just some random nonsense he asserted because he felt like it. This is actually a rather interesting topic imo, too bad you can't put together an actual counterargument.

I have already stated before Kant's philosophy is in alignment with Buddhism, in this regard with the emptiness of the self.

I have already told you, Kant's "I" [apperception] is merely the 'thinking-I' which exists as long as the person is alive. What is wrong with that?
Kant do not believe with any substantial I-AM that is permanent and survive physical death.

This is the same with Buddhism [non-self, anatta] which do not believe in the Atman, the permanent self that survives death.

• anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

Buddhism-proper do not deny the empirical self and a unity [identity] for practical sake, but deny this practical self is permanent and eternal as a soul that survive physical death like the Abrahamic and other theists do.

Correct, but again: this is another topic
We have more proof that you never understood a word Kant said

Looks like you had to read the CPR 50 times because you misinterpreted it 50 times through Eastern philosophy, but that's not a good fit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Potentials are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory

Heck, they're not even objects. And they sure aren't sensed.

They are hypothesized possibilities that one day may manifest. No antirealist or empirical realist worth his or her salt would consider them existant now. And someone who says the noumena do not exist...pfft, they nothing.

It's a statistical prediction about future events, a potential. It does not exist.

You are conflating "potential" with "possibilities".
In the current context there is a significant difference between "potential" and "possibilities".

• Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

Here is ChatGpt view [with reservation]

The terms "potential" and "possible" are related but have slightly different meanings and connotations:

Potential:

Definition: Potential refers to the inherent capacity or ability for something to happen or develop in the future. It suggests that there is a latent quality or capability that can be realized under certain conditions or with effort.
Usage: Potential often implies that there is a specific quality or attribute that makes a particular outcome likely if certain factors or actions come into play. For example, a student may have the potential to excel in mathematics because of their aptitude for the subject.

Possible:

Definition: Possible simply means that something can happen or exist without implying any inherent capability or readiness for it. It denotes the absence of impossibility.
Usage: Possible is a broader term that doesn't necessarily suggest any specific qualities or attributes contributing to the likelihood of an event occurring. It just means that there are no known or obvious reasons why something cannot happen. For example, it's possible for it to rain tomorrow, but that doesn't imply any inherent readiness for rain.
In summary, the key difference lies in the implication of readiness or inherent capability:

"Potential" suggests that there is an inherent quality or capacity that can lead to a specific outcome with the right conditions or effort.
"Possible" simply means that there are no apparent obstacles or reasons why something cannot occur, without necessarily implying any inherent qualities or attributes contributing to its likelihood.

It's important to note that context plays a significant role in how these words are used, and their meanings can overlap in certain situations.

Note "potential energy" which in another perspective can be applied to the moral potential.

In physics, potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.[1][2] The term potential energy was introduced by the 19th-century Scottish engineer and physicist William Rankine,[3][4][5] although it has links to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle's concept of potentiality.

Common types of potential energy include the gravitational potential energy of an object, the elastic potential energy of an extended spring, and the electric potential energy of an electric charge in an electric field. The unit for energy in the International System of Units (SI) is the joule, which has the symbol J.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'll go further. You have both a Hinduism and Buddhism background so you should know this better than most. Maybe the most central theme of Eastern philosophy is the (partial or complete, temporary or permanent) dissolution of the "I", of the self-conscious ego.

If Kant is correct that this "I" (or at least a basic part of it) is needed to keep the mind together in unity and running, then tens or hundreds of millions of people following Eastern philosophies would keep walking into walls. Or maybe just fall to the floor and become permanently unresponsive. But we don't see this.

Looks like just some random nonsense he asserted because he felt like it. This is actually a rather interesting topic imo, too bad you can't put together an actual counterargument.

I have already stated before Kant's philosophy is in alignment with Buddhism, in this regard with the emptiness of the self.

I have already told you, Kant's "I" [apperception] is merely the 'thinking-I' which exists as long as the person is alive. What is wrong with that?
Kant do not believe with any substantial I-AM that is permanent and survive physical death.

This is the same with Buddhism [non-self, anatta] which do not believe in the Atman, the permanent self that survives death.

• anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

Buddhism-proper do not deny the empirical self and a unity [identity] for practical sake, but deny this practical self is permanent and eternal as a soul that survive physical death like the Abrahamic and other theists do.

Correct, but again: this is another topic
We have more proof that you never understood a word Kant said

Looks like you had to read the CPR 50 times because you misinterpreted it 50 times through Eastern philosophy, but that's not a good fit.

Handwaving as usual and exposing your ignorance and incompetence.
Show me your argument [with reference to the whole of Kant's CPR] how I had misinterpreted Kant?

You as an Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] just do not have the credibility to critique my position on Kant at all.

[Atla]

I have already stated before Kant's philosophy is in alignment with Buddhism, in this regard with the emptiness of the self.

I have already told you, Kant's "I" [apperception] is merely the 'thinking-I' which exists as long as the person is alive. What is wrong with that?
Kant do not believe with any substantial I-AM that is permanent and survive physical death.

This is the same with Buddhism [non-self, anatta] which do not believe in the Atman, the permanent self that survives death.

• anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman, in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

Buddhism-proper do not deny the empirical self and a unity [identity] for practical sake, but deny this practical self is permanent and eternal as a soul that survive physical death like the Abrahamic and other theists do.

Correct, but again: this is another topic
We have more proof that you never understood a word Kant said

Looks like you had to read the CPR 50 times because you misinterpreted it 50 times through Eastern philosophy, but that's not a good fit.

Handwaving as usual and exposing your ignorance and incompetence.
Show me your argument [with reference to the whole of Kant's CPR] how I had misinterpreted Kant?

You as an Ultracrepidarian [re Kant] just do not have the credibility to critique my position on Kant at all.

You have zero credibility to talk about Kant. What I quoted was not about the "permanent and eternal soul", you are too dumb and incompetent to read the words in front of you.

[Iwannaplato]

• Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

It's not realized. You see the root 'real' in there. Well, it's currently not real.

1) as usual you don't respond to the points I make. Nothing about the sensing of this moral potential. It is only intelligible. It is only experienced in the intellect.
2) I understand that the word potential is used in many areas in science. But in general those are realist theories. I don't think you understand how an anti-realist views the unobservables in scientific theories.

You didn't respond to the points I made earlier or here.

and this...

Note "potential energy" which in another perspective can be applied to the moral potential.

Is not justified

[Atla]

• Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

It's not realized. You see the root 'real' in there. Well, it's currently not real.

1) as usual you don't respond to the points I make. Nothing about the sensing of this moral potential. It is only intelligible. It is only experienced in the intellect.
2) I understand that the word potential is used in many areas in science. But in general those are realist theories. I don't think you understand how an anti-realist views the unobservables in scientific theories.

You didn't respond to the points I made earlier or here.

Is there even any concept from Western philosophy that he's using correctly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

• Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

It's not realized. You see the root 'real' in there. Well, it's currently not real.

1) as usual you don't respond to the points I make. Nothing about the sensing of this moral potential. It is only intelligible. It is only experienced in the intellect.
2) I understand that the word potential is used in many areas in science. But in general those are realist theories. I don't think you understand how an anti-realist views the unobservables in scientific theories.

You didn't respond to the points I made earlier or here.

As often, your points are off tangent without any solid arguments, else I would have addressed them.
Since I raised the OP, I am presented what is supposed to be on topic.

As I had stated many times,
all scientific facts [observables or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Since it is human-based [anti-realist] how can it be 'realist' which is non-human-based.
This is one of the reason why you are off-based here.

[Iwannaplato]

Is there even any concept from Western philosophy that he's using correctly?

That's a tricky question to answer. I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms. The problem comes in if we look at his consistancy of application of his arguments and ideas. It's like 'intelligible' means X and he uses it in an OK fashion. Then it's pointed out that some other idea or position of his is vulnerable to the same critique or negative labelling and the X meaning disappears. And in general, he won't directly respond. IOW he won't say potentials are not just in the intellect, you can sense them by........The word disappears.

I have given up pretending that he actually responds to points made. I think you wrote something similar to him.

In the past I might reexplain the points I made in a new way. Only to find myself with him, yes, writing a lot, but not addressing the points I made. I'm not saying he consciously decides to do this, but it is a rigid pattern.

Instead of responding to the points I make, he repeats his position.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he supports his position in ways that have nothing to do with what I write.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he gives links to where he already proved his position.

Often, I can't even tell, reading his responses, if he actually read my posts.
I can't tell from his posts what part of what I wrote he might think he is responding to in some way.

His way of (not) responding means that the discussion often just simply resets to the noll position. Or you could say his posts in the thread are paraphrasings of his OP.

It's not a discussion, but it is presented as if it is one.

[Atla]

Is there even any concept from Western philosophy that he's using correctly?

That's a tricky question to answer. I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms. The problem comes in if we look at his consistancy of application of his arguments and ideas. It's like 'intelligible' means X and he uses it in an OK fashion. Then it's pointed out that some other idea or position of his is vulnerable to the same critique or negative labelling and the X meaning disappears. And in general, he won't directly respond. IOW he won't say potentials are not just in the intellect, you can sense them by........The word disappears.

I have given up pretending that he actually responds to points made. I think you wrote something similar to him.

In the past I might reexplain the points I made in a new way. Only to find myself with him, yes, writing a lot, but not addressing the points I made. I'm not saying he consciously decides to do this, but it is a rigid pattern.

Instead of responding to the points I make, he repeats his position.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he supports his position in ways that have nothing to do with what I write.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he gives links to where he already proved his position.

Often, I can't even tell, reading his responses, if he actually read my posts.
I can't tell from his posts what part of what I wrote he might think he is responding to in some way.

His way of (not) responding means that the discussion often just simply resets to the noll position. Or you could say his posts in the thread are paraphrasings of his OP.

It's not a discussion, but it is presented as if it is one.

Agree, except for the "I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms." part. I have rather major doubts there.

[Iwannaplato]

Agree, except for the "I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms." part. I have rather major doubts there.

Well, I grant a lot. I think it works well to simply grant that position and then aim it at other positions he has.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is there even any concept from Western philosophy that he's using correctly?

That's a tricky question to answer. I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms. The problem comes in if we look at his consistancy of application of his arguments and ideas. It's like 'intelligible' means X and he uses it in an OK fashion. Then it's pointed out that some other idea or position of his is vulnerable to the same critique or negative labelling and the X meaning disappears. And in general, he won't directly respond. IOW he won't say potentials are not just in the intellect, you can sense them by........The word disappears.

I have given up pretending that he actually responds to points made. I think you wrote something similar to him.

In the past I might reexplain the points I made in a new way. Only to find myself with him, yes, writing a lot, but not addressing the points I made. I'm not saying he consciously decides to do this, but it is a rigid pattern.

Instead of responding to the points I make, he repeats his position.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he supports his position in ways that have nothing to do with what I write.
Instead of responding to the points I make, he gives links to where he already proved his position.

Often, I can't even tell, reading his responses, if he actually read my posts.
I can't tell from his posts what part of what I wrote he might think he is responding to in some way.

His way of (not) responding means that the discussion often just simply resets to the noll position. Or you could say his posts in the thread are paraphrasings of his OP.

It's not a discussion, but it is presented as if it is one.

Agree, except for the "I don't think the title of the thread is a misuse of the terms." part. I have rather major doubts there.

Don't embarrass yourself, I have given the links;

Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B310]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
Kant: Phenomena vs Noumena [B306-B315]

wherein Kant had stated noumena are intelligible objects and where humans do not have the intelligible intuition [if such a thing is even possible] to realize it as real.