On Aug 13, 2:45 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:49 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Kantians believe that
> > "representations" of the external world are not the
> > external world.
>
> I know the Kantian FAITH inside out - back to front.
>
> Faith because they, the Kantians are accepting a dumb, totally stupid,
> idea without any sensory evidence offered or even considered for
> accepting that idea.
>
> They, the Kantians, are only regurgitating a dopey contradicting idea
> of Kant's which originated inside Kant's dopey head i.e. yes INVENTED,
> based on a dopey invented idea Kant had, that he, Kant, obviously
> didn't believe that his own body could be a representation in or of
> the external world to other people.
>
You really should learn some science and brain science. The current
theories are related to some of Kants ideas about representationalism.
Actually Berkely was the main contributor to the popularization of
representationalism. Its as simple as memory when your eyes are
closed, you manipulate re-representations of past sensory stimulation;
What is Representationalism?
Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we
see in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal
representation. Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as
Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or
Epistemological Dualism.
Why Representationalism?
As incredible as it might seem intuitively, representationalism is the
only alternative that is consistent with the facts of perception.
The Epistemological Fact (strongest theory): It is impossible to have
experience beyond the sensory surface.
Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the
world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.
The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate
that the world of experience is not the same as the external world
that it represents.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html
Representationalism (or indirect realism) with respect to perception
is the view that "we are never aware of physical objects, [but rather]
we are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue of a direct awareness
of an intermediary [mental] object. (Dancy, 145) Because there are
both direct and indirect objects of awareness in representationalism,
a correspondence relation arises between the mental entities directly
perceived and external objects which those mental entities represent.
And thus perceptual error occurs when the two objects of awareness do
not correspond sufficiently well. In opposition to
representationalism, both (direct) realism and idealism agree that
perception is direct and unmediated, despite their disagreements about
what the object of perception is. (Dancy, 145) In any form of direct
perception, no correspondence relation****p is possible, since there is
only one object of perception. Thus only representationalism will give
rise to the view that perceptual errors exist and must be part of a
theory of perception. Nevertheless, both idealism and realism must
still account for the facts that are referred to as "perceptual
errors" by the representationalist.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html
....representation is central to psychology as well, for the mind too
is a system that represents the world and possible worlds in various
ways. Our hopes, fears, beliefs, memories, perceptions, intentions,
and desires all involve our ideas about (our mental models of) the
world and other worlds. This is what humanist philosophers and
psychologists have always said, of course, but until recently they had
no sup****t from science...
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0162.html?
> The mystics god came and comes to man through his mind and his mind
> alone too.
>
> Apply that statement to itself Mortal, a Kantian is saying, that,
> Kantians believe that their own minds and bodies can not be the
> representation of an entity in, or of, the outside world to other
> people, its just idiotic bloody nonsense, stupid.
>
Wrong, Kant meant that a representation of a part of the world, inside
the brain, is not identical to the world, presented to the brain via
the senses. Again its like your saying a picture of something is the
actual thing.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant'main goal was to find out what is
certain and what is empirical. Your reading much more into it than his
intent.
> Michael Gordge
|
