You're doing lots of mental gymnastics to make up for the fact that your argument holds no water.... First there's a logical fallacy in your argument. Your statement basically says: If I see a green apple then all ravens are black. So, while it is certain that a green apple can be seen and it is certain that all ravens are black, to conclude that all ravens are black because you saw a green apple is simply illogical. Second, I could refute your argument by saying: It is simply your perception that the dog perceived the event. And as you said this could go on infinitely. So it could end in something like: It is simply your perception that the dog perceived that a swallow perceived that a monkey perceived that a... perceived the event. But in the end, it still states no event outside of perception. Here's an exercise for you: think a thought which is not thought.
The mind doesn't create, perception dictates appearance - but it does not create the thing-in-itself. As the double slit experiment shows, electrons CHANGE their course of action when subject to observation, but, when there is no observation it acts like waves - So, this is the world of essence, the realm of the thing-in-itself - independent of all perception.
It all boils down to this question, and this IS why u refuse to answer it. Are things in the mind, or before the mind?
Once again, that doesnt prove what you seem to think it does... And yes the brain does create, thats what perception is...taking one thing and making it something else, thats how protein synthesis is and i dont think this is any different.. A great philsopher as yourself must be familiar with occam's razor, i think its about time you follow it and stop grasping at straws to try to prove a very difficult point without any evidence
I CHOOSE DOOR NUMBER 3: underneath the mind! Prepositions are fun aren't they? Nah but really, why should I choose? It doesn't change anything. Life is the way it is, whether it is a perception of my mind or a reality of its own accord. I'd rather just live my life than make a decision based on inconclusive evidence.
If u weren't being sarcastic, I appreciate the complement. But, I want to ask you the same question... Are things in the mind, or before the mind?
If everything was in the mind, then dreams would be real, and i would be dead. And everything that paranoid scizophrenics saw and heard would be real to everyone else. Plus would that make you the only real being and everyone else just a figment of your imagination? In short, before the mind. Edit: It was a little sarcastic. But you do seem to enjoy thinking philosophical things, I do too....usually when im baked
Yes, the same as I answered... so, since we judge things to be before the mind, and not inside, would it not be safe, to conclude that, the thing-in-itself, ultimately, preceds minds and perception?
not sure you can say it precedes perception, i consider the fact that it reflects the waves that creates blue, makes it blue
Yea, the tone and cadence of ur post made it hard to detect the sarcasm. But, Im usually very good at detecting sarcasm. I guess Im slipping.
lots of times people dont catch on to my sarcasm, i guess im just that good...kinda awkward when that happens though lol.
yes, but you can believe what oyu will because i doubt i, or anyone else her, will change your mind on the subject and vice versa.. not worth the time lol
I pride myself on being a reasonable person - never obstinate; I will always yield to superior reasoning... So, my mind, pertaining to this topic, CAN, with coherent analysis, be transmuted. My reasoning tells me, the thing-in-itself is independent of the mind - regarding this idea, you've already granted ur assent. Now, can we not, "reasonably" conclude, from here, after asserting the thing-in-itself as independent of the mind, that, due to the fact of its independence, the thing-in-itself is rendered a thing preceding perception(mind)? Please point out my paralogism, if it's present...
I see no such proof to conclude such a point. If you would like to continue your argument on the basis that the thing-in-itself is independent of the mind, then so be it. But to conclude it as fact is quite rude to the contrary point of view which contains just as much merit.
In the context of human existence, "reality" is, to be cognizant of your own perception(the mind). So, yes, I will never know the ultimate reality, only the world of appearance... for the ultimate reality lies in the world of essence - a realm I can never truly come into "contact"(perception) with.
In response, let me quote, GDMC420 - "If everything was in the mind, then dreams would be real, and i would be dead. And everything that paranoid scizophrenics saw and heard would be real to everyone else. Plus would that make you the only real being and everyone else just a figment of your imagination? In short, before the mind."