Morality: The Big Bang is not Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are talking nonsense.
Where did Kant state "Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent."

Kant presented phenomena as the reference-referent and the noumena as the supposed mind-independent referent as claimed by philosophical realists.

Kant asserted in the CPR, the noumenon can only be used as a limitation* in the negative sense; this mean the noumenon cannot be empirical-rationally real, but merely a rational ideal, e.g. a perfect square which is impossible to be empirical.
Such idealization of impossibility nevertheless facilitate science and other fields of knowledge to strive to improve toward the impossible ideals.

As a limitation, the noumenon is the empirical-rational barrier that prevent the reification of whatever it thought beyond the empirical-rational as really real.
This is where you jumped the barrier to la la land in reifying a positive noumenon; theists jumped the barrier to reify the thing-in-itself as a soul, God, & absolute freedom.

No handwaving please. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility. It may be so obvious to you that Kant was an imbecile who denied the possibility of the noumenon, but you'll have to show it to us first.

Here's a little help from ChatGPT to get you started:

Note the more nuanced view from ChatGPT above.

Are you mentally retarded? I'm never talking about non-empirical-rational noumena. We can never say anything about that, if such a thing even exists.

You stated,

Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.
viewtopic.php?p=665984#p665984

You claim that the noumenon [positive] is unknown but nevertheless knowable.

[Atla]

You are talking nonsense.
Where did Kant state "Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent."

Kant presented phenomena as the reference-referent and the noumena as the supposed mind-independent referent as claimed by philosophical realists.

Kant asserted in the CPR, the noumenon can only be used as a limitation* in the negative sense; this mean the noumenon cannot be empirical-rationally real, but merely a rational ideal, e.g. a perfect square which is impossible to be empirical.
Such idealization of impossibility nevertheless facilitate science and other fields of knowledge to strive to improve toward the impossible ideals.

As a limitation, the noumenon is the empirical-rational barrier that prevent the reification of whatever it thought beyond the empirical-rational as really real.
This is where you jumped the barrier to la la land in reifying a positive noumenon; theists jumped the barrier to reify the thing-in-itself as a soul, God, & absolute freedom.



Note the more nuanced view from ChatGPT above.

Are you mentally retarded? I'm never talking about non-empirical-rational noumena. We can never say anything about that, if such a thing even exists.

You stated,

Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.
viewtopic.php?p=665984#p665984

You claim that the noumenon [positive] is unknown but nevertheless knowable.

No philosophy-gnat, I said OVER AND OVER that I argue that's the best available view. But ultimately it's just as unprovable with 100% certainty as your philosophy.

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you mentally retarded? I'm never talking about non-empirical-rational noumena. We can never say anything about that, if such a thing even exists.

You stated,

Big Bang out there in (noumenal) space and time, as consistent with 100% of empirical evidence.
viewtopic.php?p=665984#p665984

You claim that the noumenon [positive] is unknown but nevertheless knowable.

No philosophy-gnat, I said OVER AND OVER that I argue that's the best available view. But ultimately it's just as unprovable with 100% certainty as your philosophy.

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

[Atla]

You stated,



You claim that the noumenon [positive] is unknown but nevertheless knowable.

No philosophy-gnat, I said OVER AND OVER that I argue that's the best available view. But ultimately it's just as unprovable with 100% certainty as your philosophy.

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

Then everything you say is also nonsense. And it's impossible to ever say something that isn't nonsense. Even the dog in your living room is a speculation due to being an empirical-rational noumenon. We perceive the noumenal dog indirectly, therefore there is no dog because it can't be proven with certainty.

Okay there is only nonsense, the end. You just ended all sane human thought. Excellent philosophy!

[Veritas Aequitas]

No philosophy-gnat, I said OVER AND OVER that I argue that's the best available view. But ultimately it's just as unprovable with 100% certainty as your philosophy.

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

Then everything you say is also nonsense. And it's impossible to ever say something that isn't nonsense. Even the dog in your living room is a speculation due to being an empirical-rational noumenon. We perceive the noumenal dog indirectly, therefore there is no dog because it can't be proven with certainty.

Okay there is only nonsense, the end. You just ended all sane human thought. Excellent philosophy!

You don't perceive a noumenal dog indirectly, rather you inferred [via thinking] a noumenal dog from your perception.

When a person perceived a dog, what-is-dog would have emerged and realized within his FSR and subsequently perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

A noumenal-dog is an inference after the whole of the above process.
This is why the noumenal-dog is merely an intelligible object and has no sensible-empirical-rational elements.
The noumenal-dog cannot be real because humans do not have an intellectual intuition to realize it as real; but humans can nevertheless think of and about it.

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

[Atla]

You don't perceive a noumenal dog indirectly, rather you inferred [via thinking] a noumenal dog from your perception.

When a person perceived a dog, what-is-dog would have emerged and realized within his FSR and subsequently perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

A noumenal-dog is an inference after the whole of the above process.
This is why the noumenal-dog is merely an intelligible object and has no sensible-empirical-rational elements.
The noumenal-dog cannot be real because humans do not have an intellectual intuition to realize it as real; but humans can nevertheless think of and about it.

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

Okay fine, have it your way. We have ended all sane human thought, so for example:

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

There is no such thing as inference. Inference is a process that humans have come up with in the past, but there are no humans (noumenal), there are no human activities (noumenal), there is no past (noumenal).
There is no such thing as psychology. Again there are no humans (noumenal).
There absolutely is no such thing as evolution. Noumenal ten times over. There's no such thing as evolutionary default.
There is no such thing as a concept of illusion because we need two things for that, X and what X appears to be, but there never are two things.
There is no pragmatism and there is no use. There is no external world and there are no humans, so there are no pragmatic human behaviours, and there are no uses.

We are left with a few words like "this", "of", "a", but these are also nonsense because there is no language at all. Langauge was something from the made-up humans in the made-up external world.

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

is essentialy sdfljghadsfhglaerhglaeruglkjearélgalfdhgkljfadhgkjfdhskgjlfadsg, to which my reply is hngwelghadflghlakfdshgajuglfdsgdfjghdrgfhdgh
Just keep in mind that letters and alphabets and computers and computer screens are noumenal things so they don't exist either, and there are no replies (noumenal) from other people (noumenal) either. Oh and there's also no mind if there's no non-mind (noumenal), so you can't keep something in mind either.

[Atla]

The point is, an "empirical-rational" anti-realism with no noumenon destroys itself, like above. I just see no way around it.

UNLESS we subscribe to an "empirical-rational" anti-realism, where everything appears to be as if the positive noumenon (realism) was the case, yet it's not the case, there is nothing actually behind the appearances.

Now that looks like a very strange and pointless kind of anti-realism. The duck looks and walks and quacks like a duck, and you can take it apart and even its insides are exactly the insides of a duck, it's like a duck in every possible way. Yet there's no duck there whatsoever, there's nothing there.

Why should we adopt such a philosophy?

[seeds]

You just don't understand Kantian philosophy it seems.

If it is unprovable, then it is just nonsense.

One can speculate on something that is unknown but it must be empirical-rationally possible.
I can speculate dogs [empirical-rational] exist in a planet one light year away, this is at present unknown but it is provable because it is fundamental empirical-rational which can be verified or proven if the proper evidence for them are available.

Where your speculation of the noumenon as unknown, non-empirical-rational and unprovable, this is an impossibility [non-starter] for it to be real.
You have been harping on nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, in a post in your thread titled: "Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent," you stated the following...

I had mentioned, the noumenon can only exists as an intelligible or an object of thought and NEVER as real [Knowledge -JTB].
As far as thought is concerned, any thing can be thought of, even the thought of a square-circle which is impossible to be real.
The noumenon when stretched to the extreme of the ultimate thing-in-itself is like a square-circle which is impossible to be real [empirical intuition].

It is utter nonsense of you to suggest that the "thought" of a "square circle" can be achieved in the mind.

However, if you actually believe it is possible, then I challenge you to draw a picture of the square circle that you insist is achievable via thought, and then figure out a way of posting it in this thread, for I'm sure that everyone would be interested in seeing what you come up with.

The point is that just as you fail to see the problem of the faulty logic implicit in some of your key syllogisms, likewise, you fail to see how illogical it is to compare a visualizable noumenon*...

*(such as that which I have already created in this very thread - see below)

...with the truly impossible existence of a "square circle."

Indeed, you might as well be offering up the impossibility of the existence of "married bachelors" or some other such tired examples of what one might encounter in a philosophy class in their freshman year of college.

Furthermore, in yet another new thread, you challenged Atla to "Prove & Demonstrate Your Noumenon is Real."

Well, as mentioned above, I have already done so (proven that a noumenon can be "real") in this very thread. Here it is again...

By the way, noumena truly do exist.

Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

So, go ahead, V, prove to us (or at least to me) that the "unknowable" (as in noumenal-like) processes taking place in the interim space of the Double Slit Experiment (as depicted above)...

("something" whose properties are alleged to be literally interfering with each other in accordance with the Schrödinger wave equation)

...aren't indicative of the existence of "something" that is actually "real" in some (albeit mysterious) way.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

[......]

And if you do somehow continue to insist that the noumenon I pointed out in the prior post cannot be real because it is nothing more than some sort of human contrived "FSK" or "FSR",...

...then that will take us back to an argument we once had a long time ago regarding your misunderstanding of what Kant meant when he stated the following...

"But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

To which my response was...

Let’s break it down:

"...that though we cannot know these Objects [of experience] as Things-in-Themselves,..."

Meaning: that even though we cannot know the noumenal aspect of the objects – (as they really are) - independent of our sensory experience of them...

"...we must yet be in position..."

Meaning: we must be willing...

"...at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves..."

Meaning: to reason them (presume them) as possessing some form of independent existence unto themselves in their noumenal context...

...Otherwise, why in the world do you think he added this last line...

"...otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears."

...

The fact that you have ignored - or simply do not understand - the implications of that last line has set you on the wrong path when it comes to formulating your silly syllogisms, such as this one, for example...

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...which is pure horse crap, because Kant never insisted that the "thing-in-itself" is impossible to be real.

Indeed, quite the contrary, for he obviously felt that it would be "...absurd..." to conclude that "appearances" (phenomena) do not possibly have some form of deeper existence...

(of which he referred to as "noumena")

...that abides independent of our minds and senses, and stands as the real (yet hidden/inaccessible) foundation of phenomenal reality...

(like the informationally-based quantum realm, for example)

...from which "appearances" emerge.

You do not dare accept the truth regarding your misunderstanding of Kant because it will no doubt trigger "cognitive dissonances" that will result in an "existential crisis" that will produce the same sort of "withdrawal shivers" that you once suggested would happen to me if I gave up my belief in a Berkeleyan form of Panentheism.
_______

[Atla]

VA's take of the double-slit experiment is a bit special in that he even has to deny the existence of the two classical slits, the existence of the whole experiment, and the the existence of the scientist performing the experiment.

It just seems like, appears like that there's a scientists performing an experiment, but only philosophy-gnats are deceived by such useful illusions. VA is wiser than that, VA is a very special philosopher

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is, for Kant,

• 1. The thing-in-itself is impossible to be real
  2. God is the thing-in-itself
  3. Therefore God is impossible to be real

...which is pure horse crap, because Kant never insisted that the "thing-in-itself" is impossible to be real.

Indeed, quite the contrary, for he obviously felt that it would be "...absurd..." to conclude that "appearances" (phenomena) do not possibly have some form of deeper existence...

(of which he referred to as "noumena")

...that abides independent of our minds and senses, and stands as the real (yet hidden/inaccessible) foundation of phenomenal reality...

(like the informationally-based quantum realm, for example)

...from which "appearances" emerge.

You do not dare accept the truth regarding your misunderstanding of Kant because it will no doubt trigger "cognitive dissonances" that will result in an "existential crisis" that will produce the same sort of "withdrawal shivers" that you once suggested would happen to me if I gave up my belief in a Berkeleyan form of Panentheism.
_______

Show me references from the CPR where Kant asserted the thing-in-itself is real in the empirical-rational sense?

Have you read Kant's CPR?
From you have posted, I believe you have not.
Even if yes, you need to read the full CPR at least 20 times to get a good grasp of its theme.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By the way, noumena truly do exist.

Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...


...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

Unfortunately, "ChatVA's" faulty self-programming has failed to include (encode) some essential fields of information and has thus severely limited the scope and range of his ability to assess the workings of reality.

Therefore, anything he says must be prefaced or pre-qualified with the term: "...with reservations...".

Oh, and one last thing, I strongly suggest that the existence of literally everything...

(be it us, the planet, the universe, morality, etc., etc.)

...is dependent upon mind in one way or another.
_______

If you are referring to the double-slit experiment, that is conditioned upon a human-based science-physics FSK.
Since it is human-based, it FOLLOWs, whatever the conclusion and its reality cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

As Kant stated, to realize the noumenal as real, an intelligible-intuition is needed, but humans do not possess such an intelligible-intuition; humans only possess a sensible-intuition.

Whatever you inferred [via thought] as "noumenal" above is inferred [extended] from the empirical-rational, thus it is an intelligible object which can NEVER be real because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual-intuition to realize that noumenal as real.

Your reification of the noumenal as real is the same psychological impulses that drive you to reify the illusory God as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't perceive a noumenal dog indirectly, rather you inferred [via thinking] a noumenal dog from your perception.

When a person perceived a dog, what-is-dog would have emerged and realized within his FSR and subsequently perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

A noumenal-dog is an inference after the whole of the above process.
This is why the noumenal-dog is merely an intelligible object and has no sensible-empirical-rational elements.
The noumenal-dog cannot be real because humans do not have an intellectual intuition to realize it as real; but humans can nevertheless think of and about it.

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

Okay fine, have it your way. We have ended all sane human thought, so for example:

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

There is no such thing as inference. Inference is a process that humans have come up with in the past, but there are no humans (noumenal), there are no human activities (noumenal), there is no past (noumenal).
There is no such thing as psychology. Again there are no humans (noumenal).
There absolutely is no such thing as evolution. Noumenal ten times over. There's no such thing as evolutionary default.
There is no such thing as a concept of illusion because we need two things for that, X and what X appears to be, but there never are two things.
There is no pragmatism and there is no use. There is no external world and there are no humans, so there are no pragmatic human behaviours, and there are no uses.

We are left with a few words like "this", "of", "a", but these are also nonsense because there is no language at all. Langauge was something from the made-up humans in the made-up external world.

This inference of a noumenal [not a matter of fact] is driven psychological via the evolutionary default as an illusory object, albeit has pragmatic uses.

is essentialy sdfljghadsfhglaerhglaeruglkjearélgalfdhgkljfadhgkjfdhskgjlfadsg, to which my reply is hngwelghadflghlakfdshgajuglfdsgdfjghdrgfhdgh
Just keep in mind that letters and alphabets and computers and computer screens are noumenal things so they don't exist either, and there are no replies (noumenal) from other people (noumenal) either. Oh and there's also no mind if there's no non-mind (noumenal), so you can't keep something in mind either.

What are you babbling about?

Suggest you reread the following to understand what is generally understood as 'noumenal' in the Kantian sense, i.e. the issue on hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

The Criticism by Schopenhauer is off topic to what is generally taken as noumenal by Kant, i.e. the issue on hand.

[Atla]

What are you babbling about?

Suggest you reread the following to understand what is generally understood as 'noumenal' in the Kantian sense, i.e. the issue on hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

The Criticism by Schopenhauer is off topic to what is generally taken as noumenal by Kant, i.e. the issue on hand.

What are you babbling about?

Suggest you reread the following to understand what is generally understood as 'noumenal' in the Kantian sense, i.e. the issue on hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

Suggest you reread the CPR 20 more times too, although in your case that may not help. You are the one claiming things like, there can't be a mind-independent table or Moon out there, so you are the one who started using noumena in an empirical-rational sense.

You are attempting to end all sane human thought, turn humans into plants. That won't succeed, but why do you hate humans so much?

[seeds]

_______



_______