• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, including GMAIL, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • BEFORE LOGGING IN: Destroy all cookies of this forum. Your passwords should be unaffected by this action, but if uncertain write down your password first.
  • Hi, please read https://www.intpforum.com/threads/incident-of-the-week-past.27135/ XenForo seems to have no force thread ability....

Immanuel Kant (CoPR) Modern Relevance to Science

Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
352
#1
The title pretty much says it all. I have only just started Critique of Pure Reason as part of a research project I'm working on, yet I'm wondering how much relevance Kant has to modern cognitive sciences, psychology and other fields that would be within the domain explored in his book.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,578
#2
He's an overrated crackpot whose writings come off as someone trying to sound smarter than they really are, an apologist that tries to rationalize his inherently irrational beliefs. He had some good points about morality but they've been made earlier (and more clearly) by other philosophers. He believed the mind exists prior/independently of objective reality, his writings have no relevance to modern science aside from being a subject of scorn and mockery.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
375
Location
Brazil
#3
He's an overrated crackpot whose writings come off as someone trying to sound smarter than they really are, an apologist that tries to rationalize his inherently irrational beliefs. He had some good points about morality but they've been made earlier (and more clearly) by other philosophers. He believed the mind exists prior/independently of objective reality, his writings have no relevance to modern science aside from being a subject of scorn and mockery.
Materialist vitriol at its best.

I disagree therefore I hate.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
352
#5
Cognisant,
How about the interplay of apprrception and interpretation being a product of itself as a sytem of the interaction between mind and world, and the categories in which it creates and draws from, surely his deductions of the elements and some other stuff have at least some level of relevance right? If not, what are some modern theories upon how this works?

Have you read the book?
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,578
#6
He wrote a number of books and in all honesty I haven’t read any of them entirely, instead I've read explanations/examinations of his work, mainly because Kant himself is a terrible writer.

How about the interplay of apprrception and interpretation being a product of itself as a sytem of the interaction between mind and world, and the categories in which it creates and draws from, surely his deductions of the elements and some other stuff have at least some level of relevance right?
Obtuse bullshit hiding the fact that he was an apologist that didn’t know what he was taking about. There is no thing in of itself, even concepts are aggregate groups of synaptic connections with no definite boundaries, his theories about the mind are based upon fundamentally flawed assumptions.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
352
#7
I am still new to his work, from my understanding, the flaw with the system I postulated above had no basis in fact, its premise was that all a priori, if not the definition itself, is conceptual. Horrible explanation, but it doesn't really matter.
The system is not what you likely conceived it to be, it's quite simple, how we interpret the world changes our interpretations, a cycle of apperception and perceiving.
I was going to use Kant for a significant amount of my research, so I'm glad you were so strong in your criticism. The area upon which I am exploring is computational cognitive science, would you happen to know any reliable resources with respect to the topics relevant to this discussion?
 

Animekitty

World A.I. transfomantion is Near
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,120
Location
4D Archaeology computer grid
#8
Obtuse bullshit hiding the fact that he was an apologist that didn’t know what he was taking about. There is no thing in of itself, even concepts are aggregate groups of synaptic connections with no definite boundaries, his theories about the mind are based upon fundamentally flawed assumptions.
Green rocks are only green in your head. Kant said that is all we can know. We cannot know what a rock is in itself but a rock does exist, we just have no access to it. Does a rock by itself feel green or is that only in our minds and not in the rock. The thing in itself is the rock as it is not as we perceive it. The rock in itself may not be green because to itself it may have a different ontology than our perceptions. Just because to us it may seem green does not to itself is green in itself. Rock existing may not be green to themselves. Objects are not our perceptions of them. This is his conception of the Noumena and phenomena.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,578
#9
The area upon which I am exploring is computational cognitive science, would you happen to know any reliable resources with respect to the topics relevant to this discussion?
BEAM robotics and Nv networks are a very tangible introduction, and/or you can read this:
http://natureofcode.com/book/introduction/
 

onesteptwostep

I'm smart and stuff.
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,680
#10
I'm not sure whether Kant had an affect on cognitive sciences like psychology. He's more of an ethics/political/epistemology guy. His a priori points to a type of ultimate consciousness though, if you want to read into it a bit more. If you want someone who really got us into psychology, you'd be better off looking into someone like William James, the father of psychology on the American continent.
 

gilliatt

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
286
Location
usa
#11
Kant, he is anti-reason, he is trying hard to save self-sacrifice, mysticism, altruism. His idea is to create doubt. He does not believe in human freedom, laissez faire capitalism. His whole system of epistemology is a "straw man" to create skepticism about man's ability to know anything-Kant's robot. Kant did not destroy reason, he undercut it. He is a Mystic, 'you cannot prove you exist nonsense.' It is a revolt against Identity, a revolt against existence, universal law, logic, rationality.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,578
#12
YES!
 

kalika

Redshirt
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
18
#14
The more I learn about the world, the more I believe in Kantian transcendental idealist philosophy. I promise you, one day the scientific paradigm will shift and espouse it.

Objective reality as conceptualised as "nuomenon" is fundamentally inaccessible to us. This is because the only reality we perceive arises epiphenomenally from the substrate of neurological activity. We perceive our reality. And perception is a form of creation. I really believe this is what Kant was getting at. We actively create reality by synthesising it. It's some motherfucking matrix shit.

The big question of The Critique of Pure Reason is this:

How are a priori synthetic judgements possible?

In other words: How can objective facts about the world exist? How can a truth be categorically true independent of experience? How can concepts have objective validity if they only exist in the subjective realm?

Take this category that Kant posited to be a priori & universally true: causality.

We know that if I kick a ball (cause), the ball would move a certain distance (effect) depending on the force of my kick. Given that no foul play is involved, we would certainly not expect it to stay still. Yet we cannot predict that the ball would move in the future – it might be the case that one day the ball would stay inert. It thus then seems like the phenomenon of causality is necessary and universal, and not purely derived from sense experience alone.

How can the phenomenon of causality be necessary and universal?? This was the problem that plagued Hume.

Kant presents the Transcendental Deduction as a solution, which gives an account of causality (and the other categories) in the context of transcendental idealism. We cannot understand Kant’s account of the self without first understanding the rest of the deduction.

It seems clear to me that the Transcendental Deduction unites the Transcendental Aesthetic with the Transcendental Logic. The crux of the Transcendental Aesthetic is that space and time are a priori forms of intuition . This is important because it means space and time “belongs to the subjective constitution of our mind”. The crux of the Transcendental Logic is that the categories, as the pure concepts of the understanding, are a priori abstractions of judgement , and are therefore fundamental for us to understand the objects given to us in experience. This is important because it states that categories precede experience in such a way that the concept must necessarily exist for one to perceive a possible experience. Yet how does Kant reconcile these two big ideas? How does he unify them to show that concepts can be objective? He does so through the idea of the self as an active synthesising subject.

The idea of the self and self-consciousness (apperception) forms the ground of the Transcendental Deduction. “The ‘I think’”, says Kant, “is the vehicle of all concepts”. According to Kant, there are two kinds of self-consciousness: empirical consciousness (which is a consciousness of oneself and one’s own inner sense) and transcendental apperception (which is consciousness of oneself through apperception). The unity of apperception is what combines the manifold of different constituents of the mind into a subject that is synthesising the objects of intuition. Through the act of the understanding on sensibility, figurative synthesis occurs by “drawing [a line] in thought”. My interpretation of this is that only when the active synthesising subject is self-conscious of the unity of the manifold, can the subject create the representations given to us in the intuition of space and time. This is what Kant terms the transcendental unity of self-consciousness – the manifold of representations given to us in intuition are “unified under a single consciousness”. He states, “The synthetic unity of consciousness is, therefore, an objective condition of all knowledge. It is not merely a condition that I myself require in knowing an object, but is a condition under which every intuition must stand in order to become an object for me”. The self, then, is a multiplex of unified parts. It is not merely a bundle of perceptions, but an active subject that synthesises and receives representations under a single subjectivity.

What the fuck does this mean then??

The greatest scientific curiosity is consciousness. This is because in science & philosophy both, there is an "explanatory gap" in which our models and conceptions of reality fails to account for how consciousness really arises. We have billions of neurons that fire to produce conscious experience.

Right now science is trying to explain consciousness. The general consensus is that consciousness is when external sensory signals interact with neurological electrical impulses. It's the synthesis of the two. Anil Seth says: "we don't just passively percieve the world, we actively generate it". Science is beginning to see perception is an active process, not a passive one. See how this seems congruent to Kant's idea of figurative synthesis?