Bob Ross

Experience is not sensations. Sensations are the raw data which is intuited, judged, and cognized into a representation which, as a result, is your ex...

I guess I didn’t follow it: can you elaborate more on this? I am thinking that we use reason to determine that there must be a thing-in-itself which i...

There is a living human being that is created upon conception; so that is where it begins as a living being. After birth is not at all when it becomes...

This is helpful: I am also wondering if this is what @"Mww" is talking about. I am viewing the thing-in-itself as the thing as it really is. What is y...

No they are not. That's not how biology works: they are separate living beings of which one is dependent on the other.

I am still not understanding what you are claiming the thing-in-itself is: I am saying it is the thing which excites our senses. Can you put in simple...

That’s not how it works...at all. A ball doesn’t know what a ball is. My point was that just because neurons are firing in a brain, that does not nece...

??? . I can't tell if you are joking.

Do you know what personhood is? Just because a brain is firing neurons doesn’t mean that that being, which has that brain, is a person. E.g., a dog is...

But it clearly said it in the Prolegomena! Quite frankly, I am pretty sure it also says it outright in the CRP; but I don’t have time right now to ski...

Hmmm, I disagree with this inference here: an object which is not a possible object of experience is not thereby no object at all. We are not talking ...

I don’t think direct realism is per se incompatible with science: it depends on the view. Personally, I’ve never heard a good argument for direct real...

All else being equal, we would expect the doctors to do everything they can to rehabilitate them and keep them alive. Circumstances matter, though, as...

Banno, I know you are a very intelligent person. You cannot possibly think that a blastocyst is a cyst—is the word ‘cyst’ in blastocyst throwing you o...

A fetus is not a cyst: that is scientifically and blatantly false. To your point though, and of which I purposefully left out, my view does raise the ...

Let me give this a crack. First and foremost, in order for this argument to work, we must agree (at least as a mere stipulation) that the end(s) does ...

Sure thing. I don't have time right now to skim back over the whole thing to pull a quote, but the introduction seems to obviously allude to it: --- C...

something has to exist for me to question it. You must demonstrate why that something must be an 'I' which is me---a valid critique from Nietzsche.

I didn't follow that: there's no such thing as a "noumenal a priori concept".

Have you read the CPR? In modern times, the idea that we cannot know anything about the things-in-themselves has been largely left behind; and the vas...

I am going to condense our conversation into one, to keep track of it better. This part is where you lost me. How is “its representation” not the end ...

A thing-in-itself is the concept of an object which we cannot know anything about: so it necessarily is an object. You make it sound like it is purely...

No it would not. I was trying to entertain your analogy to help further the discussion, but it is technically a bad analogy: it is already littered wi...

How can you know that you exist at all? That you exist itself also requires inherent trust of one's experience: we experience in a way where there see...

Let's go down this path which you are describing: I think that will be beneficial. What about your perceptions do you think gives you accurate enough ...

Sorry for the belated response! The metaphysical underpinnings for “1 + 1 = 2” is that our brains construct our conscious experience according to math...

The problem is that you have hidden the paradox, but it is there in your example. Either you trust the evidence you are using to infer whether or not ...

Assuming by thing-in-itself we mean the object qua itself (independently of our experience of it), it sounds like you are denying that you cannot have...

Hmmm, I don’t buy it. The concept of an apple is knowledge of what an apple is—that’s part of the whole idea of having a concept of an apple. That’s f...

That’s fair, I use those terms to explain it because it is easier to convey to other people. Most people have never heard of transcendental approaches...

I apologize for the belated response! My schedule got hectic. Correct. But: Kant clearly denies the cogito ergo sum argument, and argues in the CPR th...

No worries! Just let me know if you decide to tap back in!

I just realized I forgot to note that the acceptance of the material world being identical to the subjective world (of conscious experience) does not ...

Without admitting that there are a priori means by which your brain cognizes objects, then you have no basis to claim that our observations are limite...

An a prior conception is a prior knowledge: that is knowledge which one has independently of any possible experience. So when you see a ball, you woul...

I am not following how you are avoiding the paradox described in the OP here. If one takes a realist or an idealist approach, they get the same proble...

Why don't you see any paradox, now that you understand the OP?

You just quoted the OP out of context, and made an argument that does not even remotely attempt to resolve the paradox described in it.

Nice to see you again, Philosophim! I see. Am I understanding you correctly to be denying the claim in the OP that we cannot know anything about thing...

With all due respect, you didn't even attempt to address the OP at all.

As you noted, this isn’t a critique of the OP. All philosophical positions are like this: so I am failing to see how you are resolving the paradox or ...

:wink: The paradox was outlined in the OP, and arises out of Kant correctly concluding (from the stipulations) that we have no knowledge of the things...

E.g., If you can trust the appearances of your experience to tell you that you exist with a brain which cognizes objects that are outside of it (and t...

If you can only know them as they appear to us then you cannot know them as they are in-themselves, but you have to claim certain things about things-...

I appreciate your response and quotations, but I don't think it addressed the OP whatsoever. I am not noting in the OP the implications of only knowin...

I don’t think you are fully understanding the OP’s proposed paradox yet, but I think we can get there. Scientific understanding is a posteriori (i.e.,...

By claiming we have conditional knowledge of the things-in-themselves, you are denying that representational experience cannot afford us knowledge of ...

Self-defense is usually defined in a way to include the defense of other innocents as well. Did you read the OP? The OP is exploring what justificatio...

The OP is not arguing that self-defense is impermissible: it is just exploring how a non-consequentalist who accepts the OP's stipulations would be ab...

My OP presupposes moral realism; so whether not an action is good, bad, or neutral is stance-independently true. It does not matter semantic differenc...