/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22285720]

Guys, I finally did it. I found an inarguable error in Kant.

You can’t abstract color from space. You can only imagine space as black, which though in reality is caused by the privation of light, still manifests itself as a positive property. So space always has color. And the space you perceive when you locate sounds, if you imagine it you see it in black still, and if you don’t imagine it, then it is just empirically learned which way you point your head based on the relative volumes.

This means INDISPUTABLY that if space is a condition of sensibility, SO IS COLOR. That means not only space and time, but ALL PARTICULAR QUALITIES are conditions of sensibility, thus space and time are not “prior” to sense, and the only condition of sensibility is the faculty of the brain that produces sensible qualities from the peripheral nervous system impulses, which means ONLY SENSE ITSELF IS THE CONDITION OF THOUGHT/CONSCIOUSNESS TO RECEIVE SENSE. KANT IS AT LAST IRREFUTABLY REFUTED.

[Anonymous No.22285730]

>2023
>Cunt
Is this /int/?

[Anonymous No.22285735]

Black is not a colour .

[Anonymous No.22285741]

>>22285735
Yes it is. A color is a quality/attribute that covers an extended body. So is black.

[Anonymous No.22285751]

>>22285720
weak argument
also of course space and time are a priori, wtf are you on about
people born with no eyesight understand 3d space
they don't get the concept of black because they don't see
gotcha

[Anonymous No.22285753]

>>22285741
Can't find it in the colour wheel though

[Anonymous No.22285791]

>>22285751
>people born with no eyesight understand 3d space
because they receive it through touch. A blindtard wouldn’t be able to abstract the concept of touch from space.

[Anonymous No.22285794]

>>22285720
oh sweet! More unfalsifiable nonsense

[Anonymous No.22285801]

>>22285791
>they receive it through touch
Nope. Read Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root, chapter on the first class of objects. Specifically all the talk about perception

[Anonymous No.22285842]

>>22285801
How does he refute my claim? He isn’t blind.

[Anonymous No.22285849]

>>22285794
Majority of Mathematics is unfalsifiable too. That’s not a real criticism.

[Anonymous No.22286557]

>>22285720
you can't imagine space as it is, its simply not possible, to imagine space is to have it be limited to a place (be in a box or a house) or have some thing in space (be it a sphere of a cube). In other words you cant imagine space without an object. And attributing color to space is a condition stemming from subjects, its not conditioned a priori to space, to have a color. To imagine space without an object is impossible, as space can only be grasped through some form of finitude or limit. Thus by attributing a color, you're attributing a finitude to the abstract concept of space to make it more digestible and understandable.

[Anonymous No.22286588]

>>22286557
So why argue that “space as it is” even exists? “Space” is clearly just a way the sensory faculty organizes the data it gets from the peripheral nervous system, so there is no point in separating space from the rest of the data that gets sent to thought/consciousness from the place where the brain constructs sense perception.

[Anonymous No.22286590]

>>22285720
>You can only imagine space as black
That's the problem, you can't imagine a pure idea, since imagination includes the form of sensibility. It's like asking you to imagine the number 3, you could imagine 3 apples, 3 books or 3 chairs, but neither of them could be the 3 in itself, because the idea of 3 is not sensible. Thus, if you imagine a 3, then you would only get a particular instantiation. In the same way, imagining space would only get you a particular form where space can be given. If you wanted to think of a ''pure space'' in its universal form, it definitely wouldn't through imagination. But anyways, according to Cunt, pure space can't be an object to understanding, since it is the ground that makes possible the intuition of objects, and not itself an object. Trying to make an object out of it would result in the antinomies of pure reason.

[Anonymous No.22286599]

>>22286590
So how does this refute my argument that since we can only imagine space as connected to some sense quality, the particular qualities of sense must also be conditions of sensibility if space is?

[Anonymous No.22286623]

>>22285849
Actual math is falsifiable. I reject unfalsifiable math as well.

[Anonymous No.22286693]

>>22286599
You can't imagine space, you can only imagine an object in space, but not the space itself. What I'm saying is that when you try to imagine an object, you are already presupposing the object is not purely ideal. Any imagination you have of an idea is a particularization of that idea. You're basically conflating the number 3 with 3 apples.

[Anonymous No.22286708]

>>22286693
There is no “number 3”. 3 is just a process of counting. It’s mediated in time so of course you cant imagine it itself. But space is supposed to be immediately present since all qualia you experience immediately are in space besides time ones like smell and sound.

[Anonymous No.22286717]

>>22286708
>all qualia you experience immediately are in space
Yes. In other words, space (and time) are the conditions of possibility of an object. That is to be, an intuition of an object requires the object to be located in a particular space. This applies to imagination too, it must be imagined in some space. Thus, if I imagine space, space would need to be located within a space, which is completely absurd.

[Anonymous No.22286735]

>>22286708
NTA but it seems you are taking Space as a represented object as any other appearance, when it is the condition for any object represented as appearance.

[Anonymous No.22286913]

>>22286717
Yes I know, I’m arguing thatMs not the case
>>22286735
I’m arguing that if it’s true space is the condition for representation, then so must all other particular sensible qualities be as well lol.

[Anonymous No.22286961]

>>22286913
But your argument is implying equivalence between space (a condition) and properties of objects (conditioned experience), when they belong to different orders of Kant's theory of cognition. One is a priori, the other is a posteriori.

[Anonymous No.22286971]

>>22286961
Yes, so I’ve been asking why it is that “space” even exists under that logic if you can’t perceive it. I gave a reason how 3 exists without being able to be perceived and why space can’t be the same way but then it just reverted to you assuming i didn’t understand it.

[Anonymous No.22286980]

>>22286971
What I’m saying is, space only exists when its perceived.

[Anonymous No.22286986]

>>22286623
Isn't your unfalisifiability criterion itself unfalsifiable?

[Anonymous No.22287076]

>>22286971
I'm not the same anon you argued about the concept of 3. But yeah, that's the point. Space does not exist in the same way objects of perception do. If one takes appearances to reference unknowable things in themselves and ground their existence thus, then space will be something that does not exist. The thing is that positing this reference of objects to their respective noumenal reference is problematic, and if you really want to criticize and surpass Kant somehow, here is what you should focus on.

[Anonymous No.22287602]

>>22286986
I view falsifiability as a useful metric that allows me to test competing theories for practicality. Beliefs should be subject to evolutionary pressures, becoming more accurate over time, just as organisms become more tuned to their environment over time. You can have infinite unfalsifiable claims all competing against each other and have no idea which is true. Everything becomes simplified when you only allow yourself to take falsifiable claims seriously. Most of philosophy and math is quite useless and only leads to unnecessary confusion.

[Anonymous No.22287614]

>>22285720
the 5'3 Kantlets be seething.

[Anonymous No.22287616]

intensity is a priori

[Anonymous No.22287678]

>>22285720
I don't think the 'nothing' you apprehend in your mind is even a description of the thing in itself. True nothingness is a Lovecraftian horror.

[Anonymous No.22287707]

>>22287678
this. OP did not read the final part of the Remark to the amphiboly of the concepts of reflection. tsk tsk tsk OP you dissapointing our boi Kant.

[Anonymous No.22287712]

>>22285720
Space is translucent you moron, it being black is only our relation to it as subjects.
A colour being added to space is completely arbitrary to its function as a concept.

Changing the observer could change the colour (colour is a quality that cannot be proven to be consistent between observers) of space. But change the observer as the laws of space still hold as a concept, this is something that is provably the same between observers. It has a priori laws that define it.

[Anonymous No.22287730]

>>22285720
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.22288213]

Color kind of falls under the category of content of phenomena, not form. Would you say that a house can be black in the same way that it is spacious?

[Anonymous No.22288728]

>>22287602
Yikes

[Anonymous No.22288742]

>>22285720
>but ALL PARTICULAR QUALITIES
That's a bit too far. I think it would just be quality in general, not all particular qualities.

[Anonymous No.22288749]

>>22287602
>You can have infinite unfalsifiable claims all competing against each other
Like that "falsifiability is a useful metric"? I have no idea if that's true. So I'll pick one that seems more correct, like transcendental idealism.

[Anonymous No.22288750]

>>22285720
THERE ARE NO BLACK PHOTONS

[Anonymous No.22288763]

>>22285794
Atoms and quarks were both initially rejected on the grounds that they were unfalsifiable. The same claim has been applied against most work in quantum foundations and eternal cosmic inflation, multiverses, etc.

The fact is the science doesn't actually use verificationalism at all and it's a disservice to the discipline to pretend Popper wasn't torn to shreds years ago. Being proud of ignorance of scientific foundations is actually its own philosophy born of logical positivists nuking philosophy of science after they realized their project was doomed.

BTW Russell was a retard who denied that time passes and they change exists and who totally fucked up an interpretation of the Twin Paradox by misunderstanding what proper time is and the principle of retarded action, such that he convinced many people to go along with him. That and he convinced them by fucking up arguments about time from Cantor's work on the continuum.

As a result, most physicists who work in cosmology and QM write that it is essentially a FACT that eternalism is true in their books. This is true of Paul Davies, Seth Lloyd, Tegmark, Deutsch, etc. etc.

The idea that time doesn't move forward is.... NOT FUCKING FALSIFIABLE. But more than that, it's fucking retarded. We have never seen radioactivity run backwards and emissions converge on some particle, we have never seen concentric ripples begin converging in the surface of a liquid before a droplet shoots up into the sky, we have never seen pool balls jump from their pockets and spontaneously arrange themselves for a break, we have never seen a Maxwell's Demon. The claim that physics is time reversible actually is falsifiable and no one pays attention to the criteria when it conflicts with the dominant paradigm. Hell, at the same time the Higgs Boson was verified quantum scale reversibility was falsified and the result was just to say "huh, must be wrong, because my feels say it must go both ways because I've bought into ontic structural realism, aka Platonist nonsense."

[Anonymous No.22288779]

>>22287602
You should keep digging on philosophy. The "A Very Short Introduction to..." series is very good. I would recommend the one on philosophy of science and the one on objectivity. The Great Courses series on philosophy of science is good too and can be had for free with an Audible trial (the books are on LibGen).

I used to think like this too but it's a naive view that, IMO, shouldn't be taught anymore without introducing the problems. I was given the falsifiability line by my professors, who seemed unaware that it had been eviscerated half a century ago.

The problem is that no hypothesis stands alone and that one can always rescue a hypothesis by changing ancillary beliefs or through ad hoc posits. This is the problem of holism.

Also, we don't actually drop theories when they are falsified. Newton's theory was falsified almost immediately by observations but we didn't get rid of it; instead we decided to posit new, unseen planets that were changing the orbits of outer planets, and thus turned out to be right. Also, Newton's laws fall apart with more than two bodies, so that's another falsification.

But we don't actually abandon paradigms due to falsification nor do we refuse to accept all unfalsifiable positions. What we do is swap out paradigms when one has too many problems explaining observations, but only when a better paradigm is proposed. And this is a largely social phenomena that takes times and usually involves lots of political battling and foot dragging.

[Anonymous No.22288782]

>>22286588
To think that subjects are higher in understanding the true nature of what is, than what is beyond mere sense perception or cognition is overestimating the role a subject plays in realizing the greatness of the cosmos. We are nothing when it comes to realizing the true nature of what is, and we overestimate the capabilities of mere reason alone. To think we have cognitive dominion over what is, is to think we know the existence of God de facto. Due to that fact that we don't, it isn't wrong to assert the existence of the noumena. Because if we could trust only in our sense perception and reason alone to desipher the true nature of what is, we could easily assert the existence of divine beings (whether they truly are or not). Due to the very existence of this uncertainty to what is, it's clear that there is no way of removing the noumena out of that which could or could not exist. That's why it is wrong to assert the pointlessness of contemplating over the existence the noumena.
And just like it's impossible to assert the noumena, so it is impossible to 100% assert that we are heading towards perpetual historical realization of being, as that is also an assertion of the noumena or what is.

[Anonymous No.22288784]

>>22288782
oops there's a typo, I meant to say "it's wrong to assert the inexistence of the noumena"

[Anonymous No.22288788]

>>22288763
> The idea that time doesn't move forward is.... NOT FUCKING FALSIFIABLE
There are experiments you could run that would disprove eternalism though. Eternalism doesn’t imply that we don’t experience the flow of time, so this point does not matter.

[Anonymous No.22288801]

>>22288749
> Like that "falsifiability is a useful metric"? I have no idea if that's true
All of western scientific advancement has hinged on this idea though. Your transcendental idealism will get you nowhere. It won’t even help you get laid.
>>22288763
Atomic theory was claimed thousands of years ago. And until it was falsifiable, it was a pretty useless theory. It’s obvious that some theories become more falsifiable over time, so obviously we shouldn’t reject seemingly unfalsifiable theories FOREVER. But focusing on them when they’re not relevant wastes time, energy, and intelligence when we could be focusing on more pertinent issues.

[Anonymous No.22288808]

>>22288788
What experiments?

The proof of eternalism would be that we can experience a time other than the time we are experiencing...

There is no experiment people will accept as falsifying eternalism. Arguably the quantum eraser experiments falsify eternalism and the block universe and support something like Wheeler's Many Fingered Time or the crystalizing block, but eternalist always have a way to say that ANY evidence of local becoming is actually just an illusion.

Another example, the claim that the universe is computable (and thus discrete) is incredibly widespread. This is perhaps falsifiable (Davies has some 10,000 beam splitter example) but is, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable.

Bohemian mechanics? Unfalsifiable. Everett's MWI? Unfalsifiable. Tegmark's MUH? Unfalsifiable (and dumb because it predicts way more Boltzmann Brains than normal observers). Etc.

[Anonymous No.22288827]

>>22288801
Ancient atomic theory ≠ atomic theory.

Atoms were being called unfalsifiable by Mach decades before going mainstream. Same with quarks.

If people didn't keep working on them anyway, no way to make them falsifiable would have been discovered.

Plus, the Standard Model has become as classic example of something that is so patched up with ad hoc solutions that it's basically unfalsifiable, because some Ptolemaic epicycle type fix will always come to the rescue.

Nevermind also that SR/GR has this little problem with quantum tunneling and Bell's inequalities showing cause moving faster than light. This is fixed by saying "oh, no, well information can't move faster than light, maybe cause and cesium gas can, but..." which isn't much of a fix when you consider that no one can agree on what information is supposed to mean here or if it is conserved, or if it emerges from mass energy, or is itself ontologically basic ("It From Bit").

Speaking of eternalism BTW, you know what else empirically only goes in one direction? Wave function collapse and decoherence! Every time.

[Anonymous No.22288828]

>>22288808
If an experiment proved that pic related is wrong and you do in fact have absolute simultaneity, and all observers witness the same order of events, then you will have falsified eternalism, or least contributed to its falsification.

[Anonymous No.22288844]

>>22288827
>If people didn't keep working on them anyway, no way to make them falsifiable would have been discovered.
Yes, but atomic theory has been around a long time. Philosophizing about it for thousands of years without equipment to run experiments would have only slowed scientific progress. You should reasonably discern when progress is unlikely, figure out why that is, and either solve the problem or work on more important problems, or problems that may help you study the original problem (for example, by genetically engineering humans to be more intelligent and therefore more capable of advancing).

[Anonymous No.22288876]

>>22288828
Absolute simultaneity neither disproved eternalism or supports it.

It is simply bad interpretation of SR/GR, largely advanced by Russell, that claims that a lack of absolute simultaneity implies eternalism. It doesn't. It implies that becoming is local, that is all.
Gödel got this, Robb got this, etc.

Anyhow, originally GR/SR was taken by many Kantians as being a good thing for Kant. That it hurts Kantianism has more to do with the deflationary version of Kant that Anglo-American analytic autism decided WAS Kant.

Or, per Hegel, time is simply abstraction anyhow, which he gets at from the nature of consciousness itself.

Funny enough, both Husserl and Frege had the same teachers and at the core of their thought is the idea that thoughts have objective content. It was only late autismal evolutions of what Frege was doing that got us into braindead Popperism.

But now a days they all want to say theories are just mathematical objects and mathematical structure IS reality. Literally looking for the keys under the street light because that's where you can see. You have this weird move to posit that all reality MUST be describable with finite mathematics simply because "how else could we know it?" Bleh.

[Anonymous No.22288877]

>>22285801
>>22285842
He doesn’t. Just assume anybody who says “read this text” as a refutation to some niche argument has no idea what they’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.22288885]

>>22286590
Can’t imagine love, fear, knowledge, or confusion through the imagination either. I guess all of those must be conditions for sensibility too!

[Anonymous No.22288895]

>>22286913
There might be a difference between the representation of objects and the relations between objects, e.g. space versus number. But I get what you’re saying. We’re dealing with similarly intangible objects here, and I don’t think we’ve discovered the best angle of untangling the problem.

[Anonymous No.22288898]

>>22288876
The whole point of having theories and studying science is to be able to manipulate our environment for our benefit. Either the theory misleads us and causes us to misuse our environment (falsified), or there is no way to be benefited or hurt from following such a theory (unfalsifiable). Some theories are potentially falsifiable, and become more important as technology and our scientific understanding progresses. But many theories in math and science are quite useless for very long periods of time. The cool thing is that even if we ignored old theories like atomic theory, we would inevitably be forced to study them again because their relevance would either become obvious or we would discover their truths by accident due to our better technology. So it’s not as if placing less focus on unfalsifiable (at the moment) theories will greatly hinder us. It allows us to study more important things. Also check ‘em>>22288844

[Anonymous No.22288899]

>>22288213
Some content is a form of its own. Space and time is just the form of form of content.

[Anonymous No.22288904]

>>22288763
> BTW Russell was a retard who denied that time passes and they change exists and who totally fucked up an interpretation of the Twin Paradox by misunderstanding what proper time is and the principle of retarded action, such that he convinced many people to go along with him. That and he convinced them by fucking up arguments about time from Cantor's work on the continuum.
How is that retarded? The Eleatic position is valid and respectable. Most proposed solutions turn out to be embarrassingly sophomoric.

[Anonymous No.22288905]

>>22288801
>All of western scientific advancement has hinged on this idea though
Even if that were true... So what?

[Anonymous No.22288932]

>>22288905
I prefer scientific advancement. I prefer domination of our environment. Aliens are on their way right now and I can assure you they have are more concerned with technology than transcendental idealism. They have long given up these language games. You won’t be able to play them any more after they kill us all.

[Anonymous No.22288942]

>>22285720
>You need eyes to see colour
>You don't need eyes to perceive space
Space wins.

[Anonymous No.22289023]

>>22288904
How is Aristotle's position sophomoric? The Paradox of the Arrow is a fallacy of composition. Of course the arrow isn't moving in any one frozen moment. Time is the dimension over which change occurs. Without change there is no observable time dimension, which is as true in Minkowski Space-Time as in classical mechanics.

Also, for all his "I am le based physicalist, we must dispell the evils of mysticism," Russell primarily is motivated to deny the reality of change and that cause exists to save his precious propositions from problems with temporal and modal logic. This was a fool's errand anyhow because later problems with logic and the death of logicalism in mathematics fucked his project anyhow.

But what is Mr. Realist's theory of meaning. Ah right, we understand language by "grasping," eternal abstract objects, propositions, that exist outside space-time with our minds. Great physicalism bruh.

It's funny because there is a logic but subject to incompleteness and undefinability, and Russel rejected it because he got filtered by The Science of Logic. Objective Logic was the all along. The Greater and Lesser Logics will be considered masterworks for centuries while the Principia is already not but a historical curiosity.

[Anonymous No.22289107]

If you want a serious answer: first of all, color falls under the category of reality, which is a positive determination of space.
Secondly, Kant claims in the Metaphysical Principles of Natural Science that we do not have an experience of absolute space, but only of real space. Real space is necessarily non-empty, which means that it must already be positive determined in all it's part through the category of quality. So, basically what you're saying is not something Kant would have objected to, rather it is something trivial he already accepted.
You could make the same argument wrt to finite shapes. Space as a pure form of intuition (as in, as space that is not yet determined in any way), is completely empty, and as such it does not directly entail any determinate geometrical shape (which is why, even in thought, you must construct them, rather than deduce them).
But what Kant says wrt the pure intuition of space still stands. While it is true that experiential space is inconceivable without colors and shapes, it is still the case that colors and shapes are inconceivable without a reference to the pure form of space (you can imagine an empty space, devoid of colors and shapes, but you cannot imagine a color or shape devoid of space).
Basically your mistake is assuming that Kant confused pure space and experiential space, but he didnt. In our empirical and schematic experience we have access only to experiential space: but the pure intuition of space is still the transcendental condition of possibility of experiential space (since without that pure intuition we would not be able to conceive of experiential space, let alone intuit it or construct it).

[Anonymous No.22289192]

>>22289107
>you can imagine an empty space, devoid of colors and shapes, but you cannot imagine a color or shape devoid of space
/thread

[Anonymous No.22289239]

>>22289107
Pure space doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous No.22289249]

>>22289192
He literally said space always appears as real and that Kant agreed with me at the beginning of his post, so that statement is a contradiction of himself.

[Anonymous No.22289309]

Space isn't black, it's transparent

[Anonymous No.22289375]

>>22289249
I don't care much about the rest of his post, honestly. But the part I quoted plus >>22288942 proves without a doubt that:
Colour(s) < Space

[Anonymous No.22289573]

>>22289375
see>>22285791. just stating the contrary is not an argument and doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.22289579]

>>22289309
you can't imagine transparency without imagining something appearing on the other side of it, so this is even worse than imagining it as black

[Anonymous No.22289707]

>>22289573
>They receive it through touch
So? Even if that were true (which it isn't), the concept of echolocalisation would disprove it.

[Anonymous No.22289985]

>>22289707
I already addressed echolocation.

[Anonymous No.22290006]

>>22289985
Touch, hearing, and sight are not what make space possible, but are all made possible by it. Do you still not get it? Space > Colour(s).

[Anonymous No.22290111]

Here is a good video which destroys the falsification anons
https://www.youtube.com/live/kcKPqccVoXk?feature=share

[Anonymous No.22290146]

>>22290111
>2 hours
I ain’t watching that nigga

[Anonymous No.22290250]

BUMP

[Anonymous No.22290297]

>>22285720
>You can only imagine space as black,

Wtf is this nonsense

[Anonymous No.22290303]

>>22289249
I have said that we only have experience of real space. If we had experience of pure space it would not be a pure form of intuition, but simply an empyrical representation (rather than an a priori one).
I thpught this was made clear when I said that pure space is the transcendental condition of possibility of real space.

[Anonymous No.22290480]

>>22285720
The black you witness is a byproduct of past empirical observation. If you've never been gifted sight at birth, you'd have no concept of black; much like a person born with damage to their fusiform gyrus would have no concept of human faces as we do. Nonetheless, it is still to be considered a priori because the abstraction process occurs *prior* to entertaining our conscience, reasoning mind. If I cast you in a dark void, removed all exteroception and interoception, then formatted your brain, for all intensive purpose, you'd be unaware of your own existence; But, your mind and a priori process would still function all the same -- albeit, in true solipsism stasis.

The point of contention is whether space is an abstraction of the-thing-in-itself, or a pure manifestation of the mind, as Kant seems to suggest.

[Anonymous No.22290610]

>>22287707
this. nobody ever reads the Remark to the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection. #ONLYTRUEKANTIANSREADIT

[Anonymous No.22290643]

>>22288750
WHY ARE YOU RACIST?

[Anonymous No.22290908]

bump

[Anonymous No.22291745]

>>22290610
Why is that chapter relevant to the discussion? Ive read it and I have no idea why you keep mentioning it

[Anonymous No.22291756]

>>22285753
btfo

[Anonymous No.22292157]

kant pwned western phil

[Anonymous No.22292270]

>>22288895
only good post in this thread and nobody even bothered to engage with it

half the posts are dealing with muh falsifiability instead of it

fucking insane

[Anonymous No.22292274]

>>22289023
>How is Aristotle's position sophomoric?
It's not. I thought you were possibly going to throw out a "what if we used le calculus or le geometric sum" (and thus beg the question regarding the nature of the universe and how it maps to a certain mathematical model). Thankfully, you didn't.

Anyway, why did Russell reject change? I never knew he was an Eleatic.

ANYWAYS

[Anonymous No.22292322]

>>22285720
Sameness and/or difference strike me as "more prior" than space and time. If space and time are the a priori conditions for sensibility of objects, then sameness/difference and analyticity/syntheticity are the a priori conditions for the development of the concepts of space and time. Only through these new conditions do conceptions like "inner and outer", "here's an image of these things with these qualities", "look at the continuity of these things and those things as things appear to happen", etc., actually begin to make sense.

That's how you have to conceive of the problem, through pure logic and analycity itself, because trying to come up with a thought experiment like:
>well you can't imagine color without space!
is silly because you're using your already-developed imagination to prove that you're developed. To use an analogy, when your thought experiment fails, all it's showing is that you have no capacity to see it any other way, even though you have no access to the "source code" through its runtime except to make all kinds of postulates. It's begging the question since it doesn't prove how the imagination has developed developed, only that you can no longer see it any other way.

To restate the problem one more time: you can't distinguish between an intuition and a concept from the mind's eye. What's the difference between a pure intuition and an empirical concept? With experience, they all happen more or less at once, so you can't tell the difference. Instead, you have to delve into the logic of what it means for something to BE in space, which means you have to figure out what it means for something to BE and for you to recognize the difference between BEING and NOT-BEING. And I suppose logic needs to be presupposed in here too, a universe that is built on logic and is more logical than it is not.

Now, to make this work in Kant's system, IIRC I think this means that some of the categories have to be "shuffled around" so that:
>"Concepts without intuitions are empty; Intuitions without concepts are blind"
still works. There would still be pure intuitions, but they would be something other than space and time. Instead, these intuitions would instead be empirical concepts, developed by experience until they reach maturity and begin to filter new experiences alongside the rest of the categories.

[Anonymous No.22293244]

>>22292322
bad take and you should feel bad

[Anonymous No.22293410]

>>22291745
>Why is that chapter relevant to the discussion?
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22293415]

>>22285751
Space and time are not necessarily a prior. Einstein showed that one can obtain space and time from causality. It follows, throught the lens of relativity at least, that causality, not space and time, is a priori.

[Anonymous No.22293437]

>>22293415
Causality is a separate matter entirely, as it's baked into the categories. Sensible intuitions get filtered by the categories before they become representations.

[Anonymous No.22294387]

bump

[Anonymous No.22294412]

What does a priori mean? I got filtered on page 3 of Groundworks.

[Anonymous No.22294944]

>>22293410
Dude just elaborate ffs, stop being such an asshole

[Anonymous No.22295822]

>>22294944
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22295826]

>>22293415
>It follows, throught the lens of relativity at least, that causality, not space and time, is a priori.
According to Kant, all three of these are a priori.

[Anonymous No.22295829]

>>22290111
>expecting self-affirmed troglodytes to think about anything, let alone watch a lecture that lasts longer than 10 minutes

[Anonymous No.22296432]

>>22295822
You havent read it, otherwise you could have easily explained your point

[Anonymous No.22296446]

>>22294412
Basically something that you cannot even conceive as being false. E.g., 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.22296454]

>>22296446
Not true, that's necessity. A priori is a knowledge that does not require empirical corroboration to be confirmed. Not all a priori knowledge is necessary. For example according to Kant it is necessary that bodies are extended, but bodies themselves have no ontological necessity.

[Anonymous No.22296558]

>>22296454
>Not all a priori knowledge is necessary.

Kant literally in the intro to CPR:
>Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.

[Anonymous No.22296575]

>>22285720
What's the color of glass?

[Anonymous No.22296591]

>>22285720
>You can’t abstract color from space.
Already wrong, that was quick.

[Anonymous No.22296599]

>>22293415
thats were you are wrong kiddo

[Anonymous No.22296655]

>>22288827
Are you aware of the Fark Incident or the public-facing research related to it? Zeldovich, Lijun Wang, etc?
I'm extremely interested in hearing the interpretation of a possible "FTL" drive by someone with your background.

[Anonymous No.22296739]

>>22296558
A priori knowledge is not necessarily pure, as the example ive made shows (since the concept of body, which presupposes space, is not a pure concept, even tho it can give rise to a priori knowledge). I dont have a copy of the first critique with me rn so I cannot give you a quote, but Kant makes this distinction in the introduction iirc

[Anonymous No.22297977]

>>22296575
see>>22289579

[Anonymous No.22298903]

Bump