The Transcendental-Idealism-FSRC is outdated

[Atla]

According to the Science-FSRC, transcendental idealism is dumb and outdated. It was a neat attempt, but today we can state with high confidence that indirect perception / indirect realism is a more robust view with more explanatory power. In fact it's consistent with all scientific and psychological knowledge, while transcendental idealism contradicts it in some key areas.

Time to move on (for those of us who haven't already).

Discuss??
Views??

[Atla]

Notes:

Note the most glaring difference: space and time.

Indirect realism can explain that while absolute space and time are indeed "a priori forms of intuition" that only exist in the mind, the mind is also embedded in a wider, objectively existing reality that actually behaves according to Einsteinian relativistic spacetime where space and time are even inseparable, and we indeed have no intuition for this kind of spacetime.

Transcendental idealism can't deal with Einsteinian spacetime: it has no way of making sense of it.

[Atla]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

Note [with reservations]:

Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism a response to Naive Realism?

Yes, Kant's Transcendental Idealism can be seen as a response to Naive Realism. Naive Realism posits that objects exist independently of the mind and that we perceive them directly as they are. Kant challenged this view by arguing that our perception is structured by the mind's inherent concepts and frameworks, shaping how we experience the world. Transcendental Idealism asserts that while we can't know things as they are in themselves, we can understand the way our minds construct our experience of reality.

Well who cares about naive realism today? We're long past that. Refuting it today is about as spectacular and groundbreaking as refuting the idea of the 4 elements. Kant refuted the naive realism, but since then we found a far better alternative to both naive realism and transcendental idealism.

[Peter Holmes]

Note [with reservations]:

Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism a response to Naive Realism?

Yes, Kant's Transcendental Idealism can be seen as a response to Naive Realism. Naive Realism posits that objects exist independently of the mind and that we perceive them directly as they are. Kant challenged this view by arguing that our perception is structured by the mind's inherent concepts and frameworks, shaping how we experience the world. Transcendental Idealism asserts that while we can't know things as they are in themselves, we can understand the way our minds construct our experience of reality.

Well who cares about naive realism today? We're long past that. Refuting it today is about as spectacular and groundbreaking as refuting the idea of the 4 elements. Kant refuted the naive realism, but since then we found a far better alternative view to both naive realism and transcendental idealism.

Just a thought. If we bin 'the mind', then direct realism is no longer a problem, and so indirect realism is an unnecessary solution.

[Atla]

Note [with reservations]:

Was Kant's Transcendental Idealism a response to Naive Realism?

Yes, Kant's Transcendental Idealism can be seen as a response to Naive Realism. Naive Realism posits that objects exist independently of the mind and that we perceive them directly as they are. Kant challenged this view by arguing that our perception is structured by the mind's inherent concepts and frameworks, shaping how we experience the world. Transcendental Idealism asserts that while we can't know things as they are in themselves, we can understand the way our minds construct our experience of reality.

Well who cares about naive realism today? We're long past that. Refuting it today is about as spectacular and groundbreaking as refuting the idea of the 4 elements. Kant refuted the naive realism, but since then we found a far better alternative view to both naive realism and transcendental idealism.

Just a thought. If we bin 'the mind', then realism is no longer a problem, and so indirect realism is an unnecessary solution.

Denying the mind is a strange form of insanity.

[Peter Holmes]

Note [with reservations]:





Well who cares about naive realism today? We're long past that. Refuting it today is about as spectacular and groundbreaking as refuting the idea of the 4 elements. Kant refuted the naive realism, but since then we found a far better alternative view to both naive realism and transcendental idealism.

Just a thought. If we bin 'the mind', then realism is no longer a problem, and so indirect realism is an unnecessary solution.

Denying the mind is a strange form of insanity.

Who thinks 'the mind' is a separate substance any more? We're long past that. But perhaps you have some evidence for its existence.

Absent that, of course, the so-called problem of the direct perception of objects evaporates.

And anyway, indirect realism isn't off the supposed hook that direct realism is supposed to be on.

[Atla]

Just a thought. If we bin 'the mind', then realism is no longer a problem, and so indirect realism is an unnecessary solution.

Denying the mind is a strange form of insanity.

Who thinks 'the mind' is a separate substance any more? We're long past that. But perhaps you have some evidence for its existence.

Absent that, of course, the so-called problem of the direct perception of objects evaporates.

And anyway, indirect realism isn't off the supposed hook that direct realism is supposed to be on.

Peter Holmes, you aren't as dense as VA but you come close. Why are you once again back to this "seperate substance" nonsense?

[Peter Holmes]

Denying the mind is a strange form of insanity.

Who thinks 'the mind' is a separate substance any more? We're long past that. But perhaps you have some evidence for its existence.

Absent that, of course, the so-called problem of the direct perception of objects evaporates.

And anyway, indirect realism isn't off the supposed hook that direct realism is supposed to be on.

Peter Holmes, you aren't as dense as VA but you come close. Why are you once again back to this "seperate substance" nonsense?

Atla, why are you stuck with the fictional problem of direct realism? If it's just brains in objects (bodies) perceiving objects, there's no problem. There are just physical processes. And indirect realism still can't account for how 'the mind' perceives anything. What's the causal mechanism?

[Atla]

Who thinks 'the mind' is a separate substance any more? We're long past that. But perhaps you have some evidence for its existence.

Absent that, of course, the so-called problem of the direct perception of objects evaporates.

And anyway, indirect realism isn't off the supposed hook that direct realism is supposed to be on.

Peter Holmes, you aren't as dense as VA but you come close. Why are you once again back to this "seperate substance" nonsense?

Atla, why are you stuck with the fictional problem of direct realism? If it's just brains in objects (bodies) perceiving objects, there's no problem. There are just physical processes. And indirect realism still can't account for how 'the mind' perceives anything? What's the causal mechanism?

Has it never occured to you that in the last 5 or so years in these debates, no one was implying substance dualism or some similar dualisms? That was never what the debate was about?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes, you aren't as dense as VA but you come close. Why are you once again back to this "seperate substance" nonsense?

Atla, why are you stuck with the fictional problem of direct realism? If it's just brains in objects (bodies) perceiving objects, there's no problem. There are just physical processes. And indirect realism still can't account for how 'the mind' perceives anything? What's the causal mechanism?

Has it never occured to you that in the last 5 or so years in these debates, no one was implying substance dualism or some similar dualisms? That was never what the debate was about?

Shall we leave abuse to VA and the dick-for-brains? There's no need.

Think about it. If there's no substantially separate mind - which we agree there isn't - then there's no problem to how we perceive objects. The mind/body problem is a giant fake issue.

[Atla]

Atla, why are you stuck with the fictional problem of direct realism? If it's just brains in objects (bodies) perceiving objects, there's no problem. There are just physical processes. And indirect realism still can't account for how 'the mind' perceives anything? What's the causal mechanism?

Has it never occured to you that in the last 5 or so years in these debates, no one was implying substance dualism or some similar dualisms? That was never what the debate was about?

Shall we leave abuse to VA and the dick-for-brains? There's no need.

Think about it. If there's no substantially separate mind - which we agree there isn't - then there's no problem to how we perceive objects. The mind/body problem is a giant fake issue.

Peter Holmes, you have no idea what you're talking about and never had. Of course there's a problem. A problem the size of a planet. Or rather, a universal problem. Why do you think VA has been hounding you all this time?

Look, when I wrote earlier that such total mind-denial seems like a strange kind of (malignant) escapism to me, I actually wrote that out of a principle of charity. There are alternatives but I find them worse.

[Peter Holmes]

Has it never occured to you that in the last 5 or so years in these debates, no one was implying substance dualism or some similar dualisms? That was never what the debate was about?

Shall we leave abuse to VA and the dick-for-brains? There's no need.

Think about it. If there's no substantially separate mind - which we agree there isn't - then there's no problem to how we perceive objects. The mind/body problem is a giant fake issue.

Peter Holmes, you have no idea what you're talking about and never had. Of course there's a problem. A problem the size of a planet. Or rather, a universal problem. Why do you think VA has been hounding you all this time?

Look, when I wrote earlier that such total mind-denial seems like a strange kind of (malignant) escapism to me, I actually wrote that out of a principle of charity. There are alternatives but I find them worse.

Do cut the posturing. Spell out this supposed planet-sized, universal problem to which indirect realism is the supposed solution. Then I'll spell out why you're wrong.

[Atla]

Shall we leave abuse to VA and the dick-for-brains? There's no need.

Think about it. If there's no substantially separate mind - which we agree there isn't - then there's no problem to how we perceive objects. The mind/body problem is a giant fake issue.

Peter Holmes, you have no idea what you're talking about and never had. Of course there's a problem. A problem the size of a planet. Or rather, a universal problem. Why do you think VA has been hounding you all this time?

Look, when I wrote earlier that such total mind-denial seems like a strange kind of (malignant) escapism to me, I actually wrote that out of a principle of charity. There are alternatives but I find them worse.

Do cut the posturing. Spell out this supposed planet-sized, universal problem to which indirect realism is the supposed solution. Then I'll spell out why you're wrong.

What posturing? Spell out the topic that VA has been talking about for 5 years? For the 100th time, it's this:

Everything you have ever experienced, everything you experience now, and everything you will ever experience, is your mind. You have never "actually" seen the outside world before. Haven't felt it, haven't heard it, haven't smelled it.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes, you have no idea what you're talking about and never had. Of course there's a problem. A problem the size of a planet. Or rather, a universal problem. Why do you think VA has been hounding you all this time?

Look, when I wrote earlier that such total mind-denial seems like a strange kind of (malignant) escapism to me, I actually wrote that out of a principle of charity. There are alternatives but I find them worse.

Do cut the posturing. Spell out this supposed planet-sized, universal problem to which indirect realism is the supposed solution. Then I'll spell out why you're wrong.

What posturing? Spell out the topic that VA has been talking about for 5 years? For the 100th time, it's this:

Everything you have ever experienced, everything you experience now, and everything you will ever experience, is your mind. You have never "actually" seen the outside world before. Haven't felt it, haven't heard it, haven't smelled it.

Mentalist codswallop. What is the I that has never seen, heard or smelled 'the outside world'? What is 'the outside world' outside? What is 'the inside world' if it isn't my body, including my brain? Why aren't my body and brain parts of 'the outside world'?

You aren't spelling out the problem. You're just being pretentiously mysterious: 'experience is the mind' - or something like that. I'll wait for something worth responding to.