Transcendental Knowledge?

[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.