[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Micah]

Case,

Perceptions are the organization of sensory data, they are not separate. You
cannot have perceptions without your senses. Kant is perceiving without
sensory data...this is impossible. He is not pointing out what things are,
he is pointing out that they are not. That is a denial of reality and
therefore mystical. TITS are not knowable, can that be any more mystical?

Kant's stated objective was to defend religion from the onslaught of
science. Since the mystical (religion) cannot be rational; he has attempted
to make the rational into the mystical.

Red is a quality of red apples, they reflect that color spectrum - my senses
don't. My classification or perception of the color reflected by apples does
not affect the fact that red apples have the quality of reflecting the color
red. I suppose you could say the apple is every color except red because
that is the color not absorbed. But our senses don't see the absorbed
spectrum, so therefore we perceive red. This is how senses and perceptions
work together; we cannot perceive something without sensing it. Kant is
perceiving without senses when he says we cannot know TITS. His senses
deliver data the  he perceives as red and he proclaims "this apple is not
really red, and further we cannot even know that it is an apple, because the
TITS of the "Noumenal" world can't be known. This is an outright denial of
sensory data in favor of a "mystical" perception. Nothing is real -
mystical.

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:07 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle


Micah,

No.

Kant is not denying the senses. He is pointing out what they are. I can see
an apple. I can taste it, smell it, touch it. I can thump it and hear its
vibration. I can biochemically analyze it. But the apple is still not my
sensations of it. Kant is getting at the process we use to sense and turn
sensation into perception. He is talking about how we classify the apple as
an object in space and time. How we relate the apple to other objects we
encounter. This organizational process is perception. Sense data are not
being denied they are being examined. TITs are distinct from our senses. Our
senses are distinct from our perceptions. Just to be clear here: lights
waves of a particular frequency hit our retinas we call them "red". Redness
is not a quality of sensation or of apples. It is a quality of our
classification of sensation.

Are you in the camp that denies the existence of apple TITs? You think that
our perceptual classification of apples is all there is?

Kant's theology is not at issue here but he does not strike me as a mystic.
In any event he is not denying the senses on the contrary he is examining
the senses to determine their role in perception and the creation of
knowledge.

Case

----------------------------------------------------

Case,

The "Noumenal" is an unknowable reality according to Kant. Yet he knows of
it, how is that? The obvious point is that he is using his senses to deny
his senses. Kant's stance is the mystical. A mystic creates an unknowable
alternative reality in order to deny reality, it's usually called religion.
Kant was trying to rationalize mysticism.

How can we know TITS exist, if they're unknowable?

You seem to think Kant was is some middle ground, when he was merely trying
to make rationality mystical.

A rock isn't really a rock, that's just our perception, it is really
unknowable! That's cute! It's TITS! More cute!

A rock is a rock, A is A. Existence exists. Reality is reality.

Kant says reality is not reality.

I understand senses, perceptions and Kant...and so do you.

Micah



moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/