Transcendental Knowledge?

[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