Me and Kant

[otakurocklee]

Schopenhauer was more explicit and said, since differentiation is an act done by the mind on sense-data... it doesn't apply to noumena... which exist independent of the senses... so he deduced that if there is any noumena, it has to be a single undifferentiated, noumenon which he called Will.

[SpiritualAtheist]

otakurocklee - First I owe you an apology. As I tried to reply to your other comment i mistakenly hit "remove". Let me assure you and anyone else who might be reading this that that was totally unintentional. Anyway, you had mentioned that my views sound similar to those of Schopenhauer. I am no expert on Schopenhauer but from what I do know I agree with you. I had watched a conversation with Frederick Copleston about Schopenhauer and found myself nodding in agreement with much of it.

[otakurocklee]

Hi SpiritualAtheist. No problem. :) Same type of thing has happened to me many times.

I just watched that video also (I've been watching the entire series, really great stuff). Copleston did mention that Kant would say there was a table in itself... I could definitely have been wrong in my understanding.

I wish I had more time to read all the philosophy I want to.

[Anarch0tec]

Perhaps your just using it figuratively, but there is no "out there" for the noumenal realm in Kant's epistemology, as there can be no spatial-dimension what would be 'out there.' Also:

4:52 - I think your confusing it with Plato's idealism, as there is no table out there. I think that idea would be incomprehensible for Kant.

What do you mean by 'composite' entity?

Are you getting at a phenomenological critique of traditional idealism? which is great. I hope to see more vid's.

[emblemOFbeing]

First, seems a bit strange to say there are only 1s (plural) in objective reality (outside of human experience). Second, 1s are not to be found in human experience outside of perceptual gestalts. Third, what about the experiences of other life forms? Fourth, anticipating your response: what about the experience of an infant, then? Just when do 'ones' and 'twos' appear for the infant? Prior to learning to count, to be sure. Fifth, for ants exp. no 'ones' only 'general' particulars, perhaps.

[SpiritualAtheist]

It was an analogy. You seem to be taking it literally.

[emblemOFbeing]

Have you read Schopenhauer? You should, he reformulated Kant's view in an ingenious and very readable way.

Either you were making a metaphysical point, or there is no analogy to be had.

[meinonghitdatbong]

yeah youre definitely a legit idealist.

[danbit5]

hi there,im quite new to all this maths thing and prime numbers,i hope someone uploads bbc horizon program featuring alan davies and maths,there was a sound test they done witha ball bearing that made a sound showed on graph, correspond to a german maths teacher pattern on prime numbers(years before). certain things,that was to chancy to be coincident or luck,thats why i want to view it again:) (near the end there eyes were focused on the sky looking for a planet like ares:))?

[Censeo]

SpiritualAtheist: Is the mind an exception from non composite entities?

[SpiritualAtheist]

Hey Censeo: I think of the mind/experience/subjectivity as a subset(s) of the larger objective reality. It is within these subsets, and only within these subsets, that composite entities occur. I know this doesn't explain how these subjective subsets 'emerge' within the larger objective reality/universe, but it does set boundaries as to where composite entities occur. And let me add that composite entities do not exist objectively. They are experienced subjectively.

[SpiritualAtheist]

And so, to answer your question, our minds/experiences are not prime/non-composite entities. Also, we are identical with our experiences, be they mental, emotional, or physical. And these bundles of experiences (which are subjective) are, to reiterate, subsets of the larger objective reality. The challenge is to explain how subsets of the objective can become subjective. I think an essential step in solving that mystery is to overcome the illusion that our physical experiences are objective.

[Censeo]

I think there is no ones (that is an illusion) and only compositions of parts. I think the smallest parts are not ones but a composition of exterior parts as well, and could not be without them. What a part does is part of what a part is. And what it does is part of what environment it is in. Thus all is nested and nothing stands on its own. This also makes a table an illusion as it doesn't exist independently.

[vikkipollard5]

At the end of the day Spiritual Atheist, do you think we even have the tools to figure out the mechanism that creates our realities? I think you're doing a good job of trying, (whereas my brain has just melted). Perhaps it's like a 3D object trying to figure out a 4D reality.

[SpiritualAtheist]

vikki - Yes, i do think we have the tools. I know that many thinkers today believe we do not. That our brains evolved to survive on the savanna, not to figure out the nature of subjective experience. This attitude makes no sense to me. It's like searching for treasure without believing there is any treasure. I think when things begin to seem impossible, then perhaps it's time to question one of our assumptions. I think that is the case here. Btw, good luck with that melted brain.

[vikkipollard5]

I will take your answer with good intentions. But, heres an analogy that often crosses my mind. There's an anthill in my garden. Ants have highly complex 'social systems' and communication, but they do not understand how radio waves work, nor even that they exist. Nor do we try to explain anything to them for obvious reasons.  Sometimes I feel like we are ants.

[vikkipollard5]

ps  My brain has been irrepairably damaged and I enjoyed every second of it!!!!

[2bsirius]

I said long ago that you seemed like an advocate of Kantian idealism...I'm glad you've explained here why I might be wrong. Very interesting video, as usual!

[b4skin]

I guess I'm still confused as to how (such as in your comparison to math prime #'s) your distinction differs from Kant. For him to use composite instead of prime, seems to me to express how that things are still compositions reflective of experience whether it be us or a squirrel in relation to a nut. The proposed 'reality' both the squirrel and I may use in our subjective experience may not qualify/constitute what the 'real' nut is, but then how can you 'know' prime, you Kant. (sorry, had to)

[Sherwulff]

So if you get hit in the head by a lead balloon, this is actually just a composite illusion which cloaks a multiplicity of prime entities which are actually horses? I like it!

[SpiritualAtheist]

Actually, the horse would be more like the lead balloon. Both the horse and the lead balloon represent content. The horse is the content of a painting. Getting hit with a lead balloon is the content of a physical experience.

[Sherwulff]

well, whether horse or lead balloon, i wouldn't be too content no matter how it played out.

in all seriousness, SA, i think you do an exemplary job of decoding a lot of these philosophical conundrums. it's nice to have access to those who are adept at draping the poltergeist in order to gain an understanding of its appearance via the sheet itself which is perhaps the best we can achieve.

[MaBu888]

Nice. You've got some form of what I can call vowel harmony: you sound like an Italian or ancient Roman in that you have a perfect command of the English language and a sort of a pseudohexamterical rythm.

[Beardedyoungman]

Relation gives rise to experience makes lots of sense:) Human being: from humus of the earth. Not of or pretending to be higher.

Brings to mind that everything is equal in the universe and our experience is a balance of what we're aware of.

[Joczy]

I enjoy watching your videos. Sometimes they take a while for them to soak in to me, but you have a way of explaining things & breaking them down into a much simpler manner, I always look forward to watching the next one.

[cozmikzen]

wow. kant was like the 1st philosopher i just really got into. and i have been experiencing the phenominal vs neuminal universe for a while. thats what really got me into how u see things. reducing the universe to ones...thats...just freaking awesome.

at 1st thought, the arguement against seems that it takes billions of atoms just to make the brain itself. there must be a point of brain cell reduction, atom by atom until there are different points of consciousness lost.

[LordImmolation]

Great vid! I think I understand your position alot better now. I agree with much of what you say, but to SOME degree I think Kant's distinction between "phenomena" and "noumena" is useful (but I don't quite see things this way!)

And wow, your hard problem certainly seems HARD!

[jogayot]

"of course" and where does it leave groups, fields, etc. of math (as far as "realness" aka non-idealness goes)? you know, natural numbers is such a "primitive" way of talking about numbers. now, quaternions, geometric algebras... etc... everything is made up of empty sets, zeros, complements, however you care to call it. "primes" are an aberration we call not-nothing. i'd say "composite prime numbers" (a la 3, 5, 7... etc) exist a priori only we still need to sharpern our idea of primeness.

[laffer35]

Damn, I'm dense when it comes to stuff like this. I still don't get what you think everything is actually made of.

If everything is made out of 1s, in your analogy.. then, the combination of 1s must be what gives rise to our perception of various physical objects? The way these 1s are connected?

[ContraWagner]

Wonderful stuff. I wish that more people present their views as clearly as you do. Some people on YouTube intentionally obscure the language in order to make their claim sound more profound and to make up for their lack of content.