Kant

[Sculptor]

Did you read Kant's CPR thoroughly and has understood it correctly and fully?
I don't think have from what you are insisting.

Note I quoted this [fact of the CPR] where the 'noumenon' is not something positive,

• The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
  
  At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
  CPR - B311
  viewtopic.php?p=424744#p424744

If the noumenon is merely a limiting concept, how can it be a thing as it-is-truly-is?

You misunderstand the quote. When is is limiting. It is limiting as a concept, . Since humans are not fully able to access the noumenal world, we are limited in our understanding of it.

In your above view you are merely analyzing the meaning of each word in relation to humans understanding but not interpreting the noumenon in the context of the related chapter and the whole CPR which is one long argument.

If you read the quote carefully, it stated the noumenon has a function as a limiting concept.
The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.

To put the noumenon in perspective, the whole of the CPR is represented by the following complete CPR in terms of main sections.

• A. Doctrine of Element
  ..1. Transcendental Aesthetic
  ..2. Transcendental logic
  .......2i. Transcendental Analytic
  ..............Book II Chapter III
  ..............Phenomena versus Noumenon
  .......2ii. Transcendental Dialectic
  
  B. Doctrine of Method

It is only after Kant has completed explaining and proving what is essentially "empirically real [phenomena] via the combination of Sensibility and Understanding that he introduced the concept of the noumenon to differentiate from the phenomena in Book II Chapter III of the Transcendental Analytic of the CPR.

The noumenon as a limiting concept has a limiting function to curb the pretensions of Sensibility from extending into the Transcendental Dialectic; and it is therefore only of negative employment as far as sensibility is concern.

Note Kant stated,

• We have already entitled Dialectic-in-General a Logic of Illusion. B349

The reason for the noumenon is thus to prevent the equivocation of sensibility with the illusion of dialectic. But there is still the question 'is there an ultimate reality within a phenomenon'.

The reason for the limiting concept is actually to limit the Philosophical Realists' view that there is an ultimate reality, i.e. the thing-in-itself within phenomena.

• In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -Wiki

Kant's position at this point is,
Hold on, yes there is an empirical basis but let's not jump too fast in concluding there is an ultimate substance/reality of the said object. Since there is an empirical basis, let's label this supposedly reality the noumenon [this is an assumption or hypothetical] and then investigate further whether there is an ultimate thing, the thing-in-itself.

Kant then proceeded to 2ii. Transcendental Dialectic [logic of illusion - B349] to prove how the so called ultimate reality, i.e. the noumenon of sensibility as thing-in-itself is ultimately a transcendental illusion.
Kant proved the Philosophical Realists' view is not tenable in reality.

For Kant, the fundamental basis of reality is;

• Sensibility + Categories + Understanding + philosophy-proper = reality

In the case of the Philosophical Realists what they are not aware is their conclusion is based on;

• [missing ground] + Categories + Understanding [crude] + philosophy-ordinary = reality

The philosophical realists' views [yours presumably] of the noumenon and thing-in-itself as something real is ungrounded.

This was what Kant critiqued Plato;

• It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding. B9

In support of the above Kant stated;

• There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premises, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality. B397

This is what happened when the Philosophical Realists jumped from the assumed noumenon to the thing-in-itself - the ultimate reality of an object. They rely on their Understanding [crude pure reason] alone without Sensibility to jump to the conclusion of an Objective Reality.

If you had understood Kant, can you give an alternative interpretation to B397?

Where are your "facts"?
Show me where in the CPR did Kant state the noumenon is 'stuff' [positive thing] and
and the things "Ding an sich" [thing-in-itself], is something positive.

What do you mean "positive". I never used the word!
.

You stated the noumenon is 'stuff' which mean something positive, i.e. a real object.
Kant stated the noumenon is merely a limiting concept which has the quality in limiting, the noumenon is a confirmed thing-in-itself.

You are suggesting I reat the context in the passage only??
Note I suggested you read the noumenon in the context of the passage, the chapter, the main sections and the whole book.
I have put the noumenon in the whole perspective of the CPR above.

Btw, I suggest you provide quotes from the book in its full context to justify your points rather than giving your own personal interpretations without support from the CPR.

You have the most quirky and inaccurate idea about Kant.
You reduce him to a parlour game and have no historical context, nor clear understanding of him.

[Sculptor]

How dare you quote Feynman, you scurrilous scobberlotcher.

Ooooh! If you bow at Feynman's altar and you feel that I am tarnishing his honour, then how dare you ignore Feynman on the issue of categories?

He was not talking about categories, but sub disciplines of science you moron.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have the most quirky and inaccurate idea about Kant.
You reduce him to a parlour game and have no historical context, nor clear understanding of him.

Is the above, the best you can do?
As usual the above are merely opinions.
Show me references from Kant to justify your points?

I have already laid down 100% of the contents of the CPR above, thus ready to deal with every point therein, including any historical element.

Btw, there is no question raised on the historical context.
Kant's personal philosophical history was, he was a dogmatic rationalist until he was woken from his dogmatic slumber by Hume's empiricism [also dogmatic]. He went on to take the Middle road which was his Copernican Revolution, i.e.

• Hitherto [philosophical realism up to Kant] it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
  But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
  
  We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
  This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
  
  We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
  Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. (B xvi)
  
  A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
  (B xvii)

The above Copernican Revolution can be traced back to Protagoras, Heraclitus et al versus Parmides et. al.

Since you think you are so smart, what have you to show?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception.

However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept;

2. the noumenon is the basis of phenomenon.

Subsequently this assumption will expose the impulse to reify the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is due to one's psychology.

Kant explained here why we need to THINK of the noumenon or thing-in-itself;

• We may not say that this Idea is a Concept of the Object, but only of the Thoroughgoing Unity of such Concepts, in so far as that Unity serves as a Rule for the Understanding.
  
  By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  -B674

As Kant stated, PURE, the IDEAL, the absolute independence of the empirical are never real!
But we require [thus THINK] a concept of them [noumenon - the pure empirical] to gather more knowledge of Appearances [empirical] and subsequent issues of reality.

So that is the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. there is no such things a PURE, ideal empirical thing, but we need a concept of the noumenon to have a greater understanding of the empirical.
In the non-conceptual situation, i.e. re thoughts only we have the IDEA of the thing-in-itself which again is to gain a greater understand to reality.

Get it?

Point is if you read the whole of the CPR you will get a better picture as the principles of the above are repeated often.

What made you think that anyone here is talking about pure idea(l)s? Pure idea(l)s are obvious nonsense.
The topic is about how or whether Kant's categories are relevant to today's understanding of reality.

It's common/basic even today in both Western philosophy and science to divide the 'real world' into the phenomenal and the noumenal, and Kant is usually seen as the main figure to whom we have our understanding to thank.

Note your own OP,
viewtopic.php?p=424541#p424541
What I have been posting is what Kant actually meant with the term 'phenomenon' against the term 'noumenon' in contrast to how the noumenon is commonly misunderstood as an ultimate reality.

As anticipated you did not understand Kant's quote re B674.
In B674 above, Kant mentioned the ideals "Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found."
These are the pure empirical things.
The noumenon in contrast to the phenomena as appearance is also the ideal pure empirical thing.

As I had stated it is not easy for you to grasp and understand unless you have read Kant's work thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree] his principles.

Categories??
The categories are one set [among others] the a priori elements [fundamental] that support the phenomena and the noumenon.
However due to the limit of knowledge then 1700s, Kant's categories are the deepest he could dig and they are crude.
Nevertheless the 'categories' open up for modern knowledge especially the neurosciences, evolutionary psychology/biology, and others to dig deeper. Such new knowledge would only further vindicate and reinforce Kant's theories rather than refute them.

Generally, Science made the basic assumption there is a real world "out there" independent of the human conditions. However modern Science with the Observer's Effect, Einstein Relativity Theory, and Quantum Physics do not rely on such an assumption completely.

But the above is an error of epic proportions, if his categories were merely used to dismiss some Platonic or whatever tradition of Pure Reason (which tradition is obviously batshit).

This has no relevance to Kantian philosophy.
Kant never used his 'categories' specifically to dismiss Plato ideas.

If you do not read Kant's work thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree] his principles, what you spew out will be batshit.

Kant CPR is one long argument.
Note Kant's objective and condition;

• In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  
  Pure Reason is, indeed, so perfect a Unity
  that if its Principle were insufficient for the solution of even a single one of all the questions to which it itself gives birth
  we should have no alternative but to reject the Principle,
  since we should then no longer be able to place implicit reliance upon it in dealing with any one of the other questions.
  Axiii

Kant emphasized why the Complete Picture and "mastering the whole" is critical in his works in the CPR;

• A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
  Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.
  
  If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light;
  but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
  -B xliv

The above is critical and must be taken very seriously.
It is not effective if one merely focus on one premise or if one missed out one premise, then the argument is ineffective.
It is also inefficient if we rely too much on secondary sources [tons of them].

Thus whenever any point is raised and related to Kant's CPR, the first thing to bring up is the picture of the whole and then note wherein the point is within the whole.
This is what I always do with anything related to Kant's CPR.
I paid full attention to Kant's CPR and other works more than 5 years ago but I can easily bring up the full map from the overall flowchart I have done.

[Atla]

Yes, in reality 1. noumena are not the basis of human sense/perception.

However for the purpose to understand the full knowledge of appearances and empirical object and the question of the ultimate essence of an object, we assume [or think] it as a limiting concept;

2. the noumenon is the basis of phenomenon.

Subsequently this assumption will expose the impulse to reify the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is due to one's psychology.

Kant explained here why we need to THINK of the noumenon or thing-in-itself;

• We may not say that this Idea is a Concept of the Object, but only of the Thoroughgoing Unity of such Concepts, in so far as that Unity serves as a Rule for the Understanding.
  
  By general admission, Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found.
  We require, however, the Concepts of them (though, in so far as their complete purity is concerned, they have their Origin solely in Reason) in order properly to determine the share which each of these natural Causes has in producing Appearances.
  -B674

As Kant stated, PURE, the IDEAL, the absolute independence of the empirical are never real!
But we require [thus THINK] a concept of them [noumenon - the pure empirical] to gather more knowledge of Appearances [empirical] and subsequent issues of reality.

So that is the purpose of the noumenon, i.e. there is no such things a PURE, ideal empirical thing, but we need a concept of the noumenon to have a greater understanding of the empirical.
In the non-conceptual situation, i.e. re thoughts only we have the IDEA of the thing-in-itself which again is to gain a greater understand to reality.

Get it?

Point is if you read the whole of the CPR you will get a better picture as the principles of the above are repeated often.

What made you think that anyone here is talking about pure idea(l)s? Pure idea(l)s are obvious nonsense.
The topic is about how or whether Kant's categories are relevant to today's understanding of reality.

It's common/basic even today in both Western philosophy and science to divide the 'real world' into the phenomenal and the noumenal, and Kant is usually seen as the main figure to whom we have our understanding to thank.

Note your own OP,
viewtopic.php?p=424541#p424541
What I have been posting is what Kant actually meant with the term 'phenomenon' against the term 'noumenon' in contrast to how the noumenon is commonly misunderstood as an ultimate reality.

As anticipated you did not understand Kant's quote re B674.
In B674 above, Kant mentioned the ideals "Pure earth, Pure water, Pure air, etc., are not to be found."
These are the pure empirical things.
The noumenon in contrast to the phenomena as appearance is also the ideal pure empirical thing.

As I had stated it is not easy for you to grasp and understand unless you have read Kant's work thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree] his principles.

Categories??
The categories are one set [among others] the a priori elements [fundamental] that support the phenomena and the noumenon.
However due to the limit of knowledge then 1700s, Kant's categories are the deepest he could dig and they are crude.
Nevertheless the 'categories' open up for modern knowledge especially the neurosciences, evolutionary psychology/biology, and others to dig deeper. Such new knowledge would only further vindicate and reinforce Kant's theories rather than refute them.

Generally, Science made the basic assumption there is a real world "out there" independent of the human conditions. However modern Science with the Observer's Effect, Einstein Relativity Theory, and Quantum Physics do not rely on such an assumption completely.

But the above is an error of epic proportions, if his categories were merely used to dismiss some Platonic or whatever tradition of Pure Reason (which tradition is obviously batshit).

This has no relevance to Kantian philosophy.
Kant never used his 'categories' specifically to dismiss Plato ideas.

If you do not read Kant's work thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree] his principles, what you spew out will be batshit.

Kant CPR is one long argument.
Note Kant's objective and condition;

• In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.
  
  Pure Reason is, indeed, so perfect a Unity
  that if its Principle were insufficient for the solution of even a single one of all the questions to which it itself gives birth
  we should have no alternative but to reject the Principle,
  since we should then no longer be able to place implicit reliance upon it in dealing with any one of the other questions.
  Axiii

Kant emphasized why the Complete Picture and "mastering the whole" is critical in his works in the CPR;

• A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
  Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.
  
  If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light;
  but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
  -B xliv

The above is critical and must be taken very seriously.
It is not effective if one merely focus on one premise or if one missed out one premise, then the argument is ineffective.
It is also inefficient if we rely too much on secondary sources [tons of them].

Thus whenever any point is raised and related to Kant's CPR, the first thing to bring up is the picture of the whole and then note wherein the point is within the whole.
This is what I always do with anything related to Kant's CPR.
I paid full attention to Kant's CPR and other works more than 5 years ago but I can easily bring up the full map from the overall flowchart I have done.

Science has confirmed that there is no world of pure ideals.

But when talking about the 'real world' only, Kant's categories of noumena and phenomena can't really be used again, don't make much sense. Yes fundamentally we aren't separate from the rest of the world, but it's just nonsensical to say that there is no real world "out there" independent of the human conditions, in a psychological sense.
What is even more irrational than assuming the 'real world thing-in-itself' is assuming that the 'human conditions' have such an important status.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science has confirmed that there is no world of pure ideals.

But when talking about the 'real world' only, Kant's categories of noumena and phenomena can't really be used again, don't make much sense. Yes fundamentally we aren't separate from the rest of the world, but it's just nonsensical to say that there is no real world "out there" independent of the human conditions, in a psychological sense.
What is even more irrational than assuming the 'real world thing-in-itself' is assuming that the 'human conditions' have such an important status.

Yes, it is very uncomfortable for the ordinary lay person to accept there is no real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.

Most philosophers and the lay-person will insist on one position only, i.e.
there is a real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.

Kant, however is not insisting on that position on a one sided basis;
Kant accept both positions as with most Eastern philosophers;

• 1. There is no real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.
  2. There is a real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.
  3. Point 2 is within [subsumed] by 1.

Point 1 will infer;

• A. 'Nothing' pre-existed before the emergence of human beings
  B. Natural laws are man-made laws imposed on 'Nature'.

The above contradict common sense, but Kant in the CPR demonstrated and argued how his above conclusions are justified while at the same time accepting 2 above.
Kant is both an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist.

Kant argued his opponents [you and the likes] are empirical idealists and a transcendental realist, i.e. clinging to an illusion as reality.
An empirical idealist is person like you who is separated from reality and is only in touch with an unknown parallel reality via waves from unknowable things.

Just reflect on this;

• When you see a table 10 feet away, you are not seeing a 'real' table [if there is even one].
  What you are seeing are merely your brain's interpretation of the waves received and telling you it is a table.
  And that is because it is based on majority consensus due to the universal basis DNA all human has.
  So, is there a 'real' table out there or as Russell doubted in one of his reflection, 'Perhaps there is no table at all out there'.
  It is likely your brain [as with all humans] and mind are deceiving you to construct a 'table' in consensus with others?
  Think about it philosophically, not with common sense.

Kant critiqued the philosophical realists [you and the likes] in detail in A370, here is a tidbit of it;

• The Transcendental Realist thus interprets Outer Appearances (their Reality being taken as granted) as Things-in-Themselves, which exist independently of us and of our Sensibility, and which are therefore Outside us the phrase 'outside us' being interpreted in conformity with Pure Concepts of Understanding.
  It is, in fact, this Transcendental Realist who afterwards plays the part of Empirical Idealist.
  After wrongly supposing that Objects of the Senses, if they are to be External, must have an Existence-by-themselves, and independently of the Senses, he finds that, judged from this point of view, all our sensuous Representations are inadequate to establish their Reality.
  A370

[Atla]

Yes, it is very uncomfortable for the ordinary lay person to accept there is no real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.

Most philosophers and the lay-person will insist on one position only, i.e.
there is a real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.

Kant, however is not insisting on that position on a one sided basis;
Kant accept both positions as with most Eastern philosophers;

• 1. There is no real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.
  2. There is a real world 'out there' independent of the human conditions.
  3. Point 2 is within [subsumed] by 1.

Point 1 will infer;

• A. 'Nothing' pre-existed before the emergence of human beings
  B. Natural laws are man-made laws imposed on 'Nature'.

The above contradict common sense, but Kant in the CPR demonstrated and argued how his above conclusions are justified while at the same time accepting 2 above.
Kant is both an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist.

Kant argued his opponents [you and the likes] are empirical idealists and a transcendental realist, i.e. clinging to an illusion as reality.
An empirical idealist is person like you who is separated from reality and is only in touch with an unknown parallel reality via waves from unknowable things.

Just reflect on this;

• When you see a table 10 feet away, you are not seeing a 'real' table [if there is even one].
  What you are seeing are merely your brain's interpretation of the waves received and telling you it is a table.
  And that is because it is based on majority consensus due to the universal basis DNA all human has.
  So, is there a 'real' table out there or as Russell doubted in one of his reflection, 'Perhaps there is no table at all out there'.
  It is likely your brain [as with all humans] and mind are deceiving you to construct a 'table' in consensus with others?
  Think about it philosophically, not with common sense.

Kant critiqued the philosophical realists [you and the likes] in detail in A370, here is a tidbit of it;

• The Transcendental Realist thus interprets Outer Appearances (their Reality being taken as granted) as Things-in-Themselves, which exist independently of us and of our Sensibility, and which are therefore Outside us the phrase 'outside us' being interpreted in conformity with Pure Concepts of Understanding.
  It is, in fact, this Transcendental Realist who afterwards plays the part of Empirical Idealist.
  After wrongly supposing that Objects of the Senses, if they are to be External, must have an Existence-by-themselves, and independently of the Senses, he finds that, judged from this point of view, all our sensuous Representations are inadequate to establish their Reality.
  A370

You seem to be insane. Perhaps Kant was insane too?

Of course the 'real world' pre-existed human beings. And we don't impose laws on nature, nature behaves in ways which we make laws about.

Just reflect on this;
When you see a table 10 feet away, you are not seeing a 'real' table [if there is even one].
What you are seeing are merely your brain's interpretation of the waves received and telling you it is a table.
And that is because it is based on majority consensus due to the universal basis DNA all human has.
So, is there a 'real' table out there or as Russell doubted in one of his reflection, 'Perhaps there is no table at all out there'.
It is likely your brain [as with all humans] and mind are deceiving you to construct a 'table' in consensus with others?
Think about it philosophically, not with common sense.

Of course it's not likely. 100% of scientific evidence so far shows that the real-thing-itself-table is indeed out there. And now we even know more and more about how the image of the table is constructed in the head.

[Skepdick]

He was not talking about categories, but sub disciplines of science you moron.

Was he now? I've heard of no scientific discipline that concerns itself with breaking down glasses of wine.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts

So instead of admitting your error you doubled-down on it. Precisely what I need you to do so I can make an even bigger fool of you.

Even if we interpret Feynman the way you insist he ought to be interpreted, "discipline" and "category" mean exactly the same thing! So much so that the two words can be used interchangeably without altering the meaning of a sentence.

Cosmology is a category of science.
Cosmology is a discipline of science.

Synonyms. Have you heard of them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem to be insane. Perhaps Kant was insane too?

Of course the 'real world' pre-existed human beings. And we don't impose laws on nature, nature behaves in ways which we make laws about.

It is not insane but philosophy-proper as justified with arguments.
Point here the CPR is an open book for you to critique and justify Kant is insane or not.
If Kant is insane, he would not have polled regularly as one or THE greatest philosopher of all times.

Note Kant re the Laws from the regular patterns Nature;

• Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
  We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
  A125

On the surface it seem insane, but when one read the justification and understand, it would be an epiphany!

Just reflect on this;
When you see a table 10 feet away, you are not seeing a 'real' table [if there is even one].
What you are seeing are merely your brain's interpretation of the waves received and telling you it is a table.
And that is because it is based on majority consensus due to the universal basis DNA all human has.
So, is there a 'real' table out there or as Russell doubted in one of his reflection, 'Perhaps there is no table at all out there'.
It is likely your brain [as with all humans] and mind are deceiving you to construct a 'table' in consensus with others?
Think about it philosophically, not with common sense.

Of course it's not likely. 100% of scientific evidence so far shows that the real-thing-itself-table is indeed out there. And now we even know more and more about how the image of the table is constructed in the head.

Nope Science only ASSumed there is a table-in-itself which Science is not really interested except for the evidences that are justified empirically in a consistent manner upon subjects consensus. Note the many "scientific theories" that had been discarded after there were no more subjects' consensus.
Thus what is objective in Science is merely intersubjective consensus.
Note I mentioned Popper many times, who argued that scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

Precisely we now know more and more how the image of the table is constructed in the head but admit we can never know what is the real table out there.
So what-is-table is dependent on what is in our head, i.e. human conditions, this is an empirical fact.

You don't seem to understand and grasp what reality is because you are not thinking deep enough philosophically.

Here is one example, hopefully it will trigger you to think more deeply;

• Say you see piece of ice cube out there on the table during an icy winter.
  So what is the 'real' ice cube?
  You can describe that 'real' ice cube in term of its size measurement and icy qualities.
  But that is not precise enough.
  It would be more precise, if we describe that particular ice-cube in terms of H20 molecules.
  Say there are 1 billion H20 molecules within that ice-cube representing the 'real' ice-cube out there.
  Thus that specific real ice-cube X = 1 billion H2O molecules.
  
  What is more real is that ice-cube X at t1 changes all the time with H20 evaporating and adding to the ice-cube depending on wind, rain and temperature changes.
  
  Thus if one molecule of H20 evaporate from ice-cube X, it is no more ice-cube X but it is ice-cube Y i.e. with minus one molecule of H2O than ice-cube X.
  In reality the number of H20 molecules changes every nano-second, so which is the real ice-cube.
  Reality has to be precise, thus there is no way one can nail a real ice-cube because it changes all the time.
  
  What is the real ice-cube is only in your mind, i.e. an estimated ice-cube but not the real one as represented by the actual number of H2O molecules.
  
  It is the same with the table-in-itself or the thing-in-itself which is supposed to be made of different atoms and their numbers within a thing changes all the time. In this sense, there is no-thing-itself that is absolute.

Another good example are 'real' stars shining in the sky above.
They are not real in the real sense, but are merely light waves which had traveled light years from outer space reaching the retina of our eyes now. The really real Sun in reality could have already imploded long long ago.
But these false stars however are useful for sailor and astronomers.

It is very obvious with stars because the gap between the real sun and the wave we perceived as stars are obvious due to the long distance.
However the principle is the same even if the gap is of micro-distance.
Even if we can feel something solid, there is still a micro-gap which do not enable us to know what is supposedly real.
Now what is supposedly real may not even exist at all as what we think it should be.

Not sure you will grasp my point. It is not easy to think deep.

The point is there is no real thing-in-itself out there.
The thing-in-itself is just a convenience invented by the brain and mind for good reasons.

[Atla]

It is not insane but philosophy-proper as justified with arguments.
Point here the CPR is an open book for you to critique and justify Kant is insane or not.
If Kant is insane, he would not have polled regularly as one or THE greatest philosopher of all times.

Note Kant re the Laws from the regular patterns Nature;
Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
A125
On the surface it seem insane, but when one read the justification and understand, it would be an epiphany!

Polls mean nothing.
I wasn't talking about order/regularity in appearances but in the 'thing-in-itself'.

Nope Science only ASSumed there is a table-in-itself which Science is not really interested except for the evidences that are justified empirically in a consistent manner upon subjects consensus. Note the many "scientific theories" that had been discarded after there were no more subjects' consensus.
Thus what is objective in Science is merely intersubjective consensus.
Note I mentioned Popper many times, who argued that scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

Precisely we now know more and more how the image of the table is constructed in the head but admit we can never know what is the real table out there.
So what-is-table is dependent on what is in our head, i.e. human conditions, this is an empirical fact.

You don't seem to understand and grasp what reality is because you are not thinking deep enough philosophically.
...

I didn't read further.
No one is talking about 'what the real-thing-in-itself-table-is-actually-LIKE' because that can indeed not be known!

But we CAN know that it is THERE (and is orderly/regular, so far)! But the shallow thinker handles both 'what's-it-like-to-be-the-table' and 'is-it-there' the same way like it was the same question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not insane but philosophy-proper as justified with arguments.
Point here the CPR is an open book for you to critique and justify Kant is insane or not.
If Kant is insane, he would not have polled regularly as one or THE greatest philosopher of all times.

Note Kant re the Laws from the regular patterns Nature;
Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.
We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.
A125
On the surface it seem insane, but when one read the justification and understand, it would be an epiphany!

Polls mean nothing.
I wasn't talking about order/regularity in appearances but in the 'thing-in-itself'.

Yes, poll do not necessary mean anything as we can see with Trump winning in 2016 which is an exception.
Generally polls do not indicate some truths albeit we cannot take them as certainty.

The difference in this case, as I stated, Kant CPR is an open book for anyone to read and assess the rationality of his philosophy. I have not heard of anyone associating Kant's philosophy as insane.

Do you take 'gravity' as gravity-in-itself?
Do you accept the law of nature as law_of_nature-in-itself?
imply all the above are independent of the human conditions?

If yes, Kant refer these as order/regularity in appearances and they are interdependent with the human conditions.

Nope Science only ASSumed there is a table-in-itself which Science is not really interested except for the evidences that are justified empirically in a consistent manner upon subjects consensus. Note the many "scientific theories" that had been discarded after there were no more subjects' consensus.
Thus what is objective in Science is merely intersubjective consensus.
Note I mentioned Popper many times, who argued that scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.

Precisely we now know more and more how the image of the table is constructed in the head but admit we can never know what is the real table out there.
So what-is-table is dependent on what is in our head, i.e. human conditions, this is an empirical fact.

You don't seem to understand and grasp what reality is because you are not thinking deep enough philosophically.
...

I didn't read further.
No one is talking about 'what the real-thing-in-itself-table-is-actually-LIKE' because that can indeed not be known!

But we CAN know that it is THERE (and is orderly/regular, so far)! But the shallow thinker handles both 'what's-it-like-to-be-the-table' and 'is-it-there' the same way like it was the same question.

I am aware you did not claim to know the table-in-itself that is out-there.

But what you are doing is your are inferring the table-in-itself out there is the SAME as the one you perceived in appearance in your mind.

Thus if you can count the number of H20 molecules of an observed ice-cube as 100 million,
then
the ice_cube-in-itself which cannot be known must also have 100 million molecules of H20.
Logically in principle they must be precisely the same.

Note the Correspondence Theory of Truth;

• In epistemology, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.[1]
  
  Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.
  -wiki

The problem is the Correspondence Theory of Truth cannot work with precision.

Therefore what is known of reality [things are they are] are merely approximation of things-in-themselves which is real and cannot be known.

But note Wittgenstein,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
This mean if we cannot speak of thing, e.g. which cannot be known, we should remain silent, i.e. just don't talk about it as reality.

As Kant had stated, one can think of it but one cannot regard it within the perspective of reality as a thing-in-itself as real.

So the point is what is claimed to be out there as independent is ultimately not absolutely independent but rather it is ultimately conditioned by the human conditions.

An example and analogy;
Say two bamboo plants 3 feet apart.
If say, they have consciousness they would insist they are independent and apart.
But the truth is they are one of the same plant connect by rhizome below ground.
see pic below
http://irrecenvhort.ifas.ufl.edu/plant- ... image1.png

[Atla]

Yes, poll do not necessary mean anything as we can see with Trump winning in 2016 which is an exception.
Generally polls do not indicate some truths albeit we cannot take them as certainty.

The difference in this case, as I stated, Kant CPR is an open book for anyone to read and assess the rationality of his philosophy. I have not heard of anyone associating Kant's philosophy as insane.

Do you take 'gravity' as gravity-in-itself?
Do you accept the law of nature as law_of_nature-in-itself?
imply all the above are independent of the human conditions?

If yes, Kant refer these as order/regularity in appearances and they are interdependent with the human conditions.

So far I think Kant largely went in the right direction but made some critical mistake somewhere, and Western philosophy adopted that mistake for centuries.

And of course there would still be gravity etc. in this universe if there were no humans around. That's the reasonable assumption and has nothing to do with appearances in the human head. (There would just be no concept of gravity.)

I am aware you did not claim to know the table-in-itself that is out-there.

But what you are doing is your are inferring the table-in-itself out there is the SAME as the one you perceived in appearance in your mind.
...

Of course they are not the same. If that's what you thought then further discussion is no longer necessary, calling me a theist was strange enough but this time you've proven yourself to be a complete idiot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am aware you did not claim to know the table-in-itself that is out-there.

But what you are doing is your are inferring the table-in-itself out there is the SAME as the one you perceived in appearance in your mind.
...

Of course they are not the same. If that's what you thought then further discussion is no longer necessary, calling me a theist was strange enough but this time you've proven yourself to be a complete idiot.

It would be idiotic to claim they are not the same.
They are not the same empirically [phenomenon] and as thing-in-itself [noumenon] but their supposed constitution and qualities has to be the same.
Obviously you cannot claim the observed table has 4 legs but the table-in-itself has 3 legs.
Just the same the observed ice-cube has 100 million H2O molecules while the ice-cube-in-itself has 99 million H2O molecules.

[Atla]

It would be idiotic to claim they are not the same.
They are not the same empirically [phenomenon] and as thing-in-itself [noumenon]

So they are basically not the same.

but their supposed constitution and qualities has to be the same.

If your brain is working properly, you can make the same abstractions about both, in the right context. But it's also possible to observe a 4-legged-table-appearance, even though the real-thing-in-itself-table has 3 legs (or is actually cat, or maybe there is nothing at all).

And obviously the human eye can't directly see individual H2O molecules, so there is no way to individually represent them in the head. We need the aid of instruments for that.

[Skepdick]

It would be idiotic to claim they are not the same.

it would be idiotic to pretend that "sameness" is objectively decidable!

It's even more idiotic to ask the question whether TWO THINGS are "the same". Ontologically - the answer is always "NO!"

Sameness is a judgment. Judgments are subjective.

They are not the same empirically [phenomenon] and as thing-in-itself [noumenon] but their supposed constitution and qualities has to be the same.
Obviously you cannot claim the observed table has 4 legs but the table-in-itself has 3 legs.
Just the same the observed ice-cube has 100 million H2O molecules while the ice-cube-in-itself has 99 million H2O molecules.

Are any two Oxygen atoms "the same"? You can't answer "Yes" without ignoring all the isotopes of Oxygen!

You cannot unpack the notion of "sameness" without ending up in the domain of Platonic forms, without ending up appealing to the essence of a "table", or an oxygen atom. Without admitting that the concept of a table is an abstraction of some noumenon. At some point you actually have to concede that ontology is a pipe dream.

And as soon as you end up there - you may as well use the language of physical information

• The phrase instance of information refers to the specific instantiation of information (identity, form, essence) that is associated with the being of a particular example of a thing. (This allows for the reference to separate instances of information that happen to share identical patterns.)

• A holder of information is a variable or mutable instance that can have different forms at different times (or in different situations).

• A piece of information is a particular fact about a thing's identity or properties, i.e., a portion of its instance.

• A pattern of information (or form) is the pattern or content of an instance or piece of information. Many separate pieces of information may share the same form. We can say that those pieces are perfectly correlated or say that they are copies of each other, as in copies of a book.

• An embodiment of information is the thing whose essence is a given instance of information.

• A representation of information is an encoding of some pattern of information within some other pattern or instance.

• An interpretation of information is a decoding of a pattern of information as being a representation of another specific pattern or fact.

• A subject of information is the thing that is identified or described by a given instance or piece of information. (Most generally, a thing that is a subject of information could be either abstract or concrete; either mathematical or physical.)

• An amount of information is a quantification of how large a given instance, piece, or pattern of information is, or how much of a given system's information content (its instance) has a given attribute, such as being known or unknown. Amounts of information are most naturally characterized in logarithmic units.