Is the basic premise of transcendental idealism still valid?

A negotiation between people...yes. A negotiating between the realness of physical nature...a human will never win that negotiation, no matter how much "mind power" one tries using. I really wish my phone was a beer but it never will be. We can try believing that REALITY (no word games there) is something other than the evidence that we experience each day we are alive, but it still doesn't stop us from living life as though physical absolutes aren't real, even without language. If every person I see tomorrow told me that the sun didn't exist, that huge bright hot thing in the sky that keeps us alive, would not disappear forever (or until everyone told me that the sun was actually real). Your social constructs only describe human wish fulfillment, not the nature of Reality. I think that's pretty evident.

Sorry you misunderstand me. Following Kant we cannot have access to noumena (Reality with a capital R). And following the pragmatists it is futile to assume that such "Reality" actually exists unless we are postulating a quasi-religious belief in an "absolute" perhaps for palliative salvation purposes. As Nietzsche put it... the "nature" of such a hypothetical "Reality" would be as much use to us as knowledge of the molecular composition of water would be to a drowning man.

So your example of discussing "the reality of the sun" is irrelevant. Such a discussion never happens because common physiology underpins common perceptual experience. If we examine where we actually use the word "reality" in everyday communications (outside of metaphysical speculation) it is only of value in situations seeking social consensus such as...."In reality all politicians are self-serving".

Such an examination of ordinary language was urged by Wittgenstein who argued that philosophy should be "a fight against our bewitchment by language". In that sense he was iconoclastic, because this activity reduced much of analytical philosophy hitherto as concern with pseudo-problems which dissolved under linguistic scrutiny.

If the "philosophers" of the world would only accept that human understanding of REALITY may not be one=zillionth as important as they seem to think it is...perhaps we could move on in the discussion of REALITY.

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

No need to hold your breath. "Philosophers" no longer discuss it because "understanding of reality" is philosophically meaningless. Only laymen who cannot see why they have moved on, want to discuss it.

...you just displayed the typical confusion that dreams are not real things...that perception implies no reality...
Phenomena are real...the purpose of life and philosophers, people at large, is to get the most of it, by understanding the factual "circumstances" of their "environment" as perceived personally or in group within its functional parameters...who come first the egg or the chicken is a futile debate specially when seen from a timeless pov. First or second degree order is irrelevant in regards to "realness". Acknowledging that more then one order, each more or less transcendental, exists it is not. That's History on the march !

...the stupid alternative is full denial.

Not being able to do the full computing doesn't mean that computing is futile. Life is proof of it. The marsh of History furthers bigger computations and bigger knowledge. For a cave men a TV would certainly be a transcendental object...

...am I implying that we can get to the bottom of it ? No !
Getting into a final computation would require us to size up to reality at large throughout the whole history and time up to the last bit.
That's why we have second third and fourth degree order of representations that (from our pov) evolve dynamically and interchange. While we can show a pattern and point to a final transcendental set of first degree order we cannot be it. Such set doesn't compute knowledge. It is a done timeless final thing that does not move. Rather what it is instead it is the resting basis upon which second and so fourth degree order knowledge is build within time.

The case being made is that I can point further without grabbing...

Moreover this explains the all charade of incompleteness...please note that a final set does not compute and still is the basis for computing...it lacks active operation and it doesn't as it comprehends it frozen within itself. Like a film it doesn't move but captures motion within.

in common sense lingo is both "alive" and "dead"...

My "God" is both powerless and the potency of all things.

Hands up anybody who knows what the hell Fil is talking about !

I thrown in the word indeed and as expected you jump at it...aren't you hungry from some tidbit of approval eh ?

...had you any vague comprehension of what spacetime is and you just shut up...that goes for your pissed of friends to.
Frustration is showing up !

It suffices to say I don't believe in dualism between information and consciousness...understanding my pov is just go one step further...layers upon layers of systems. They all are digital.

WORLD SCIENCE FESTIVAL


...now the good thing is that if I dig my posts in the forum long enough I can prove I though of this in detail long before it became mainstream...and I did it independently of the studies going on in the area in the early 90s. Although I cannot prove that last bit because I arrive here relatively recently.

No doubt computer/informational analogies have the same attraction as clockwork did in the 17th century. Besides Maturana, read Dreyfus for demolition.

The only conclusion I want to make on this subject is that reality is not a big giant computer as the Science Festival brought it up. Rather Reality is just the computation, order in information. Its not running..."running" is inside spacetime figure of speech as we perceive the computation unfolding so to conclude there is a computer running it. This distinction is important.

PS - Also good to retain something I have been opposing for a long time. Remember pseudo random.

...yeah I know you dislike Logic...we all know it by now...unfortunately you have to use it just to make a statement in a sentence to disagree with it.

...down voting this one assertion is pretty awesome as it attests on the quality standard of whom was down voting...I couldn't honestly be more entertained. Frustrated people are terrific ! (get out of the closet n lets have a chat)

You fancy yourself a philosopher, Fresco...and here you are...discussing it.



The REALITY IS...whatever IS, Fresco.

Your attempts to make it meaningless by calling it meaningless...just does not work. Even you, devoted as you are to this belief system of yours, should be able to see that.

Acknowledge it. You'll almost certainly feel better for it if you do.





And you, apparently.

Yeaah, but Frank . . .
You yourself seem to aver that one cannot 'know' the true nature of reality.
And, I have always pretty much generally kind of agreed.
Yet, here we all are pontificating over this unknown
Weird, huh?

"Apparently".
Apparently you thought getting tattooed as a senior was a good idea !

If you are pontificating over it...you are on your own, Neo.

I am not.

All I am saying is...whatever it IS...it IS.

I am offering a tautology...not pontificating.