Transcendental Knowledge?

[Mudhammam]

I wouldn't know how to deny it - but how would I use it to establish that it is fundamental? That's after establishing that it exists, of course.

What about Descartes' famous "je pense, donc je suis"? You can deny the existence of the contents within conscious experience, but you cannot deny the very experience of consciousness itself without contradicting yourself. That being said, as far as the role that mind plays in translating sense data into an intelligible, interactive, objective world that I experience, my question pertains to what extent is it that mind shapes our perceptions (can it be less than all of them?) and where does this leave us in terms of knowledge of an object's nature, as it supposedly exists, independent of a perceiving subject? Or must we plead agnosticism?

[The Grand Nudger]

I know it's heresy in some circles, but "I"(lol) think that as a means of establishing the existence of consciousness, cogito is a dud.

I think -bzzt...just assumed your conclusion.
Therefore I am.

I'm of the opinion that we needn't make any assumptions about anything in and of themselves, but in order to do work(like thinking) we must make assumptions. As to your question, perhaps there is no mind, or perhaps perceptions shape mind - not the other way round.

[Mudhammam]

I know it's heresy in some circles, but "I"(lol) think that as a means of establishing the existence of consciousness, cogito is a dud.

I think -bzzt...just assumed your conclusion.

As I said, it's not deniable without collapsing into self-refutation. I wouldn't call it heretical, just nonsensical! :-)

Therefore I am.

I'm of the opinion that we needn't make any assumptions about anything in and of themselves, but in order to do work(like thinking) we must make assumptions. As to your question, perhaps there is no mind, or perhaps perceptions shape mind - not the other way round.

Perception would seem to imply an experiencer, or a CONSCIOUS mind. But if consciousness, say, shapes mind, wouldn't that fall closer to idealism or even--a genuine heresy--substance dualism?

[pocaracas]

Would we say that a bacteria senses the world around it?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I said, it's not deniable without collapsing into self-refutation. I wouldn't call it heretical, just nonsensical! :-)

Meh, I'm not interested in denying it. It's an assumption I'm comfortable making in order to do work (and as before, I wouldn't know how to do work without the assumption). Nevertheless, it doesn't establish existence at all - it assumes it. We don't really let that slide so much do we? That's the crux of my point against the author of the bit in the op as well. I don't deny the usefulness of his assumption. I;m snickering at how he seems to think that everyone else is doing it arbitrarily, whereas his branch is purer, closer to the original. Nah buddy, you made an assumption in order to do work - just like the rest - for the same reason as the rest. Eh?

Perception would seem to imply an experiencer, or a CONSCIOUS mind. But if consciousness, say, shapes mind, wouldn't that fall closer to idealism or even--a genuine heresy--substance dualism?

You and I probably have a different idea of perception. An "experiencer" sure...but "experiencer" and "conscious mind" aren't necessarily the same thing. I said perception may shape mind. Though, I imagine that consciousness, if it existed, would be able to do so as well. Brain, mind, consciousness...I think that these are all words for the same thing (though the last two I'd pick to death). Why would a brain being "shaped" by it's sense input approach idealism or substance dualism?
Somethings gotta set the defaults

[Surgenator]

In idealism, what is the cost function? If everything is representations, what price do I have to pay to change a representation?

[Exian]

What would count as a subject in a world without life? Say, 5 billion years ago?

Light and sound waves have shaped our evolution to perceive those things and in turn has shaped our brains. If the "objects" in our brains (minds, consciousness) are representations, wouldn't they just be representing something real that had shaped our brains over the millennia? I think of the old "tree falling in the woods" scenario. There was a time when no hearing senses existed to pick up the vibrations permeating through the air, but because sound does permeate through the air, a hearing sense was eventually formed to receive it.

Is the question being asked whether or not the objects being represented in our minds are an accurate model of the real thing?

[bearheart]

I think every consciousness, and for me consciousness in some basic way exists for a single cell as well, has some knowledge about its environment. The proof of this same lies in its ability to survive in its environment. This knowledge could be false, not the real truth but a close approximation of the real truth,which it can infer based on its biological and augmented sensory abilities. In "knowledge" here I exclude religious interpretations of our world.A superior intellect would perceive our world differently, same as a cat or dog would perceive the world we live in quite different from our perception. A computer algorithm could find patterns in huge volumes of data that no human can ever decipher. So transcendental knowledge exists and will always exist until intelligence and sensory capabilities advance enough to match the complexity of an environment.

[Mudhammam]

Like I said:

The trouble is, I'm not quite sure what to make of Idealism, of which I still have not seen a convincing rebuttal (or even attempt at rationalization) of Darwinian evolution, which in my mind seemed to put the mind in its proper place in the history of the physical world. That said, I do feel that Kant blew a wide hole in perhaps cruder or naive forms of realism.

I think this is definitely one of the questions that Idealism, and perhaps on a different level, existentialism, raises:

Is the question being asked whether or not the objects being represented in our minds are an accurate model of the real thing?

Moreover, at the risk of qouting Schopenhauer ad nauseam (though I think he makes the point well): "One must be forsaken by all the gods to imagine that the world of intuitive perception outside, filling space in it's three dimensions, moving on in the inexorably strict course of time, governed at each step by the law of causality that is without exception, but in all these respects merely observing laws that we are able to state prior to all experience thereof--that such a world outside had an entirely real and objective existence without our participation, but then found its way into our heads through mere sensation, where it now had a second existence like the one outside. For what a poor, wretched thing mere sensation is!" And "it is only when the understanding begins to act--a function not of single delicate nerve extremities but of that complex and mysterious structure the brain that weighs three pounds and even five in exceptional cases,--only when the understanding applies its sole form, the law of causality, that a powerful transformation takes place whereby subjective sensation becomes objective intuitive perception." And finally, "the understanding itself has first to create the objective world, for this cannot just step into our heads from without, already cut and dried, though the senses and the openings of their organs."

Apparently Nietzsche went in pretty hard on this view, and Schopenhauer specifically, in The Gay Science, which I just ordered a couple of days ago, so I'm looking forward to read his response.

Brain, mind, consciousness...I think that these are all words for the same thing

I have to disagree. From my understanding, brain typically refers only to the neurophysiology, mind is the psychical side of that functionality such as memory, linguistic capabilities, sensations and perceptions--unconscious and subconscious--etc., and consciousness is the explicit moment-to-moment experience that defines our present, such as me presently staring down at my phone screen, struggling to tap the right keys (with mind actively at work in a gazillion ways unbeknownst to me, as a result of physical changes in my brain; brain consisting of parts like any other organ, but the exclusive seat for the mind, and in turn, mind for consciousness). Obviously, that is in no way how an Idealist would convey brain, mind, and consciousness, but I think it's probably the best given the empirical data.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have to disagree. From my understanding, brain typically refers only to the neurophysiology, mind is the psychical side of that functionality such as memory, linguistic capabilities, sensations and perceptions--unconscious and subconscious--etc., and consciousness is the explicit moment-to-moment experience that defines our present, such as me presently staring down at my phone screen, struggling to tap the right keys (with mind actively at work in a gazillion ways unbeknownst to me, as a result of physical changes in my brain; brain consisting of parts like any other organ, but the exclusive seat for the mind, and in turn, mind for consciousness). Obviously, that is in no way how an Idealist would convey brain, mind, and consciousness, but I think it's probably the best given the empirical data.

I'd love to pick your brain...sometime, about why we have such a disagreement. Memory isn't brain? Do you keep it in your toes( )? What "psychical" side, and where should I be looking to find that? Considering that memory conceived of in anything else is a very physical function with an actual place, a weight, a mass, a charge - I find it strange that when we think of our own "mind" that we imagine that it is somehow different.