Definition of Reality

How about: Nothing can be known without the mind.

By Kant's account, when we employ a concept of some type to describe or categorize noumena (the objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis of the workings of the world), we are in fact merely employing a way of describing or categorizing phenomena (the observable manifestations of those objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis). Kant posited a number of methods by which human beings make sense out of the interrelationships among phenomena: the concepts of the transcendental aesthetic, as well as that of the transcendental analytic, transcendental logic and transcendental deduction.[4][5][6] Taken together, these "categories of understanding" are Kant's description of the sum of human reasoning that can be brought to bear in attempting to understand the world in which we exist (that is, to understand, or attempt to understand, "things in themselves"). In each instance the word "transcendental" refers to the process that the human mind uses to increasingly understand or grasp the form of, and order among, phenomena. Kant was asserting that to "transcend" a direct observation or experience is to use reason and classifications to strive to correlate with the phenomena that are observed. By Kant's view, humans can make sense out of phenomena in these various ways, but can never directly know the noumena, the "things-in-themselves", the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world. In other words, by Kant's Critique, our minds may attempt to correlate in useful ways, perhaps even closely accurate ways, with the structure and order of the various aspects of the universe, but cannot know these "things-in-themselves" (noumena) directly. Rather, we must infer the extent to which thoughts correspond with things-in-themselves by our observations of the manifestations of those things that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled and/or tasted, that is, of phenomena.[7][8]

How about it? What has that to do with it? That we need a mind to know that objects have existed without a mind is no reason to think that we do not know that there are objects that existed without a mind. In fact it would be contradictory to say that since we know that objects exist without a mind, objects do not exist without a mind.

Is it your argument that because we need a mind to know that objects have existed without a mind, it follows that objects cannot exist without a mind? That argument is obviously invalid. Why would the conclusion follow from the premise?

A little logic goes a long way. Try it.

Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept [22], Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words:[INDENT] "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge".[23]
[/INDENT][INDENT] "What our understanding acquires through this concept of a noumenon, is a negative extension; that is to say, understanding is not limited through sensibility; on the contrary, it itself limits sensibility by applying the term noumena to things in themselves (things not regarded as appearances). But in so doing it at the same time sets limits to itself, recognising that it cannot know these noumena through any of the categories, and that it must therefore think them only under the title of an unknown something".[24]
[/INDENT]Furthermore, for Kant, the existence of a noumenal world limits reason to what he perceives to be its proper bounds, making many questions of traditional metaphysics, such as the existence of God, the soul, and free will unanswerable by reason. Kant derives this from his definition of knowledge as "the determination of given representations to an object."[25] As there are no appearances of these entities in the phenomenal, Kant is able to make the claim that they cannot be known to a mind that works upon "such knowledge that has to do only with appearances."[26] These questions are ultimately the "proper object of faith, but not of reason."[27]

It certainly does not follow that objects cannot exist without a mind,

I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it. It certainly does not follow that objects cannot exist without a mind, but I wanted to point to our dependancy on the mind to say that. I'm toying with different thoughts, not trying too hard to make an argument at the moment.

Noumena/noumenon (we can't apply Quantity here) are/is a tricky concept. Indeed. But it's a tricky issue.



---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 05:55 PM ----------



I agree, although the comment was not aimed at me. We just don't know what mind-independent "reality" might be. The phrase "mind independent" is more than a clue.

"Mind-independent reality" means exactly what it says.

Sincerely, K. There are difficulties with a phrase like this. It's OK if you don't want to address, as they are difficult to address, but to repeat this possible paradox as a mantra is not to make a cogent argument.

What paradox? .............And, of course, what difficulties?

A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition.

I already addressed this.

Holy nonsense, Batman!

the question that challenges the idealist is simple. Is everything you see constructed from data in the brain? Everything including space and time. eg is the room you are sitting in now, and the hands that you feel and see, entirely simulcra? ie not the room or hands in themselves but representations of them.

If your answer is no, then this is a recognition that idealism is not complete. ie the room is not inside your head and therefore not entirely constructed from brain data. Not entirely constructed from brain data means that idealism is incomplete.

That does not mean that data is not real. It remains real data, as compared to the real room in itself. A dream of a room is also real data.

But science through general relativity also points out that there is a necessary delay in the construction of a representation of a room due to the finite speed of light. Thus a delayed construction is not the thing in itself. It arises from delayed incomplete data from the thing in itself. Thus the room is an incomplete delayed simulcra in the head.

Idealism is not the same as info realism. But general relativity is not yet compatible with info realism. Info realism posits simultaneity within entangled connections, and claims to be universal. Simultaneity cannot be universal within general relativity as it stands. eg our naive conception of the universal 'now' is incompatible with GR.

the question that challenges the idealist is simple. Is everything you see constructed from data in the brain?

But I should have thought that the answer to that is obvious. No. The table I see in front of me is constructed of wood and other materials. I have never in my life seen data in my brain, and neither have you. Philosophers do say the strangest things.

To get it I would personally recommend that you try some virtual reality equipment...(glasses and gloves) and you will see how data can seam real...

...if you have never seen data in your brain then I posit that your memory's are elsewhere...

Of course, I might be mistaken about the construction of the table. I am fallible. But I know that whatever it is made of, it is not made of data in my brain. My brain is in my head, and not in front of me. (I certainly hope that people outside of philosophy are not reading this. They might think that for me to say such a thing indicated how crazy philosophers can be. Can you imagine? I just actually had to assure you that my brain is in my head, and not in front of me! Who but a madman would say such a bizarre thing?

Is this what Russell meant when he wrote that if you are to be a philosopher, you must learn not to be shocked by what people say?

lol ...... yes madness. whereas a delayed table is the real table!

lol ...... yes madness. whereas a delayed table is the real table!