Is the basic premise of transcendental idealism still valid?

That question is irrelevant as materialism is something I don't find fundamental to debate about...its obscure modern lingo for the world we know...I honestly don't have a freaking clue what "materialism" boils down into...none of it prevents me from talking brains rather then minds for preferred style...the fallacy resides in understanding we don't need to distinguish brains from minds to understand there is a fundamental problem with materialism.

Again you can look into a piece of film and both state everything is process and everything is still...Noumena or entangled phenomena ? Both !

How do you stop re iteration ? Read my signature...(it is mine no quoting anyone but me)

Metaphysics is a powerful animal.
Scientists hit a wall full strength and now they have an headache...we have to put up with it as headache tantrums spit over our computers everyday...
...the irony of what is "dead" Science or Philosophy is nothing to laugh at...these guys are in a do or die problem...they can be dangerous.

"we don't need to distinguish brains from minds to understand there is a fundamental problem with materialism."

I've found the distinction to be important in the way I see things, but I wouldn't impose that importance on anyone else.

"there is a fundamental problem with materialism."

No objection there. Hume's Problem of Induction, at the very least, with regards to the material reductionism of the scientific approach.

"Read my signature"

I've been here for years now, and I still don't know where people's signatures are.

Well just read the signature forget "people" and "property"...

But...what I'm saying is that I don't even know where your signature is. How could I read it?

Its everywhere !

But where the hell is it? I click on your avatar, go to your private area, but nowhere do I see any sort of signature. Not just you, but anyone else, either. Where/what is a signature on A2K????

Signature is below every post just like yours, "This space intentionally left blank !"
By the way where is the space intentionally left blank ? I can't see it...
...either something is wrong with your user options or you come off as trolling me...I rather believe some odd thing is at work in your user options.

Got it:

Go to the bottom of the page in the blue area.

Check "my profile" to see yours or change it. Check "preferences" also and click yes in show signatures.
(Never mind previous sarcasm comments)

"also and click yes in show signatures."

Damn. That's what I needed to know. Gracias. Off to make it so...

No worries. Sorted !

Holy ****! Signatures everywhere!!

Kant agreed with Berkeley that we can only experience the world through our senses. But that leads to a problem: how can things persist if we no longer sense them? In other words, why don't things blink in and out of existence, depending on whether they are perceived or not? For Berkeley, the answer was that god is omnivoyant, so nothing is unperceived. For Kant, the answer was that there was a noumenal foundation for all phenomena, and that noumena are real (i.e. persistent), albeit unknowable through sensation.

Thread thumbs up everybody !

The OP specifically asks about "contemporary philosophy" which post Kant requires the development of (a) the phenomenological theme which abandoned noumena(Nietzsche, Heidegger) and (b) the focus on language which abandoned representationalism (Quine, Wittgenstein, Rorty) of both noumena and phenomena and (c) constructivist views of perception as active rather than passive (Vico, Piaget) which related to Kant's concept of a priori.

My own overview of these developments (expressed many times on A2K) is that "persistence of things" is based on the abststract "persistence of words" and that words denote expectancy relationships within dynamic social contexts.

What does constructivism has to say about time or space Fresco ? Not inner subjective time perception or spatial awareness mind you...how does constructivism thinks time and space in the social sphere ? Are they social constructs ? Does time goes faster in New York then in South Africa ? Worse, is there a social place where time is yet to be invented ?

...on language you have yet to read on information theory and then track back to representationalism before you jump the gun...you see while language is not perfectly representational, not passive, is still far from being a pure construct about nothing on which you just build upon like magic.

...information is independent of meaning or truth values. Any change in states represents one bit of information. Language carries information regarding perceived changes in states of affairs...how do states of affairs go invalidated and still you have information going on around ?

...always confusing epistemic problems with ontological ones aren't you ?

...yeah I thought so...you better suck it up because as usual you have zilch for an answer...now go back to the abyss of emptiness and nothingness from where you came.

...its interesting...its not where we are in the spinning circle that can be asserted with absolute certainty...its the spinning itself that does not change and cannot be denied. The problem of knowledge its only valid once you admit there is something to be known...deny that and if there is nothing to be known, then you have no problem, nor objects, nor subjects, nor constructs, nor anything to deny or assert. You kill the all thing you are fussing about and mute period.

Are you suggesting that there is a consensus among contemporary philosophers, or are you suggesting that the philosophers that you've cited are right?

As in almost any other area that deals with complex issues 90% of the community is clueless...that is like asking how many guys in the world fully understand string theory and if I reply just 6 then get down voted because the majority are assholes and grasp at straws...that doesn't mean string theory is dead or that there isn't anything worth saying about string theory or string theoreticians...