Corvus

How many external worlds do you have, and which one is the real world? Why do you need more than one world? What is the unknowable Things in themselve...

There seems to be some logical flaws in the refutation, but it is good to know that Kant believes in the existence of the external world outside him. ...

Please elaborate further?

I was just asking the most compelling question I used to have on mind problem, but had no answers.

Fair enough. So how does the physical brain generate consciousness or awareness?

The most compelling question on mind is still, is it a substance i.e. is it some existence of its own, be it physical or non-physical?. Or is mind jus...

Please don't misunderstand again. I do believe in only one world i.e. the physical world. I was asking about the external world in the Refutation for ...

"as determined in time" sounds like it needs awareness of time, which can only be achieved by the outer sense perception such as perceiving the moveme...

:cool: :ok:

In a thread, I would never say someone is wrong blatantly (without having gone through much mutual arguments exchanges), because the arguments and log...

You sounded blatantly irrational just demanding me to accept I am wrong. You had no arguments for your points, and also appeared to be not knowing exa...

You don't seem to be aware the way you behave towards others. I just let you know about it.

I told you exactly what you are, and have done. Nothing less or more.

It sounds like the whole purpose of your presence is to tell people they are wrong. I don't care who they are, if their points don't make sense, I wou...

It is my point, and I am trying to prove it with my argument. Whereas you blatantly jump in with no arguments, demonstration or proofs, but shouting "...

Just a word "God" doesn't mean that we are discussing Kant's Theology.

Aren't they all transcendentally deduced objects? Please elaborate. My point was from a German Kant commentator, and I agreed with his point.

I am not quite sure where you got the idea that we have been discussing God here, but God is not really a main topic in reading CPR. It was only menti...

What I meant was your CPR reference had no relevance backing up your claims. If you think about it, what is thing-in-itself, and God, Soul and Freedom...

I never asked you do thinking for me. I was trying to find out how on earth you came to the claim. The reference you provided didn't have the obvious,...

I actually did read the reference, but couldn't find the part backing your claim, hence asked you which part and also your argument for your point.

Do you have the CPR reference for backing that points up? No Wiki or SEP, but CPR.

You cannot prove the existence of the objects in space outside of you by simply saying you are conscious of your own existence. You could be conscious...

I was asking which part of the reference backs up your claim, but you refused to provide the evidence.

I was meaning, your claim " ….which just is not the case. — Mww" Why is it not the case?

1. You didn't need to take a photo of the whole MI World. Just a part of it would have done. No one can take a photo of the whole world in a single sh...

For your claim to be correct, you need the argument and valid conclusion backed by the original source. But you failed to produce that, and when re-as...

I have read the pages in CPR, but couldn't find any part which back your claim that my proposition (regarding to Thing-in-itself and the concepts i.e....

In that case, would it be the case that you have been mistaken Kant's refutation of Idealism as Kant's TI? In that case, should it not be a representa...

A photograph is to show visual image, not the form of reason. It is nonsense to say that a photo can only show the form of reason. It doesn't make sen...

Could you please specify and explain which sentences in the CPR pages warrant or relate to your claim? Thanks.

According to Kant, it requires your faith, not reasoning. Your reason for the claim is? (preferably with the CPR source)

In summary how did you manage to cram in the whole universe into inside your mind? :chin:

There is only one world called the empirical world, and it is outside the mind. Appearance is from the empirical world, and it is only in visual form ...

CPR B xx, A30 / b45, B xxvi, B 325, B327 It just sounds meaningless to say Thing-in-itself is a concept, but it is totally unknowable, and even unthin...

Thanks for the Youtube info. Yes, it looks like they are very active in promoting their Dept. Scientific theories will often have internal and externa...

This thread is for reading Kant's CPR. Why try to show Berkeley's Idealism is incorrect? I am not sure if a philosophical topic which is totally sever...

Transcendental philosophy is the core of CPR. Without it, CPR has little meaning. But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existe...

Seeing is believing. Upload it first. Will see it, and tell you what world you were looking at. :D

Without solid philosophical foundation and definitions backed by logical system, all sciences are likely to degenerate into some sort of trivial techn...

I don't see it anywhere. Even with binoculars, telescope and magnifying glasses and microscopes, there is no such a thing as a Mind-independent world....

No one was denying the concept of Thing-in-themselves. But the point was that thing-in-itself is unknowable but thinkable. It is not both unknowable a...

But what is the point even bringing up a concept that you cannot even think about? Kant's point is that Thing-in-itself is not in the category of sens...

Maybe from your previous quoted below, you were denying any knowledge of the external world due to the fact the perception happens via perceptual aggr...

Deleted.

deleted

Did you not say that you cannot conceive or access the empirical world because they are Thing-in-itself? Your post below was clearly saying it. I read...

Thing-in-itself is something that you can think about. You can have concepts on the objects that comes up in your mind as the contents of your intuiti...

The OP's arguments seems to be based on a typical anachronism and misunderstanding what Philosophy of Mind is about. The OP clearly seems to think tha...

Things-in-itself is something that you can think of, not knowable. There is a difference, and you seem to think they are the same. No one was claiming...