COPYRIGHT 2013 M.L.



An Introduction for the Refutation of Immanuel Kant's Philosophy



Introductory Note:

Remember, the following paper is just an introduction to give helpful knowledge for a true pundit to write a more serious work on the subject.

My basic argument throughout the text:

If only the mind categorizes (or filters) the outside world brought to it by the senses (and the senses do not categorize, or filter, the outside world), then the senses bring pure (unfiltered) information to the mind. This is impossible since that would mean the senses are more highly evolved (and more advanced) than the brain. My belief is the opposite. Or I believe that the senses filter (or categorize) the outside world and that the mind (or brain) deals with introspection (of the outside world) alone.

[For according to Kant, the mind admits experiences on a more limited basis than all of the true experiences of complete reality. Therefore, this admission process of the mind is like a filter. And it would be ridiculous if the mind filters out experiences but the senses do not. For that would mean the senses are more highly evolved or advanced than the brain.]

Prologue Summary :

#1. Immanuel Kant believes that objects (of nature) agree (or accord) to the cognitive mind.

I.e. objects (of nature) need certain qualifications to be conceived inside the cognitive mind. This means not every property of an object (of nature) can be known.

These qualifications of their properties makes those objects (of nature) not real in their entirety.

Therefore the metaphysical science of the reality concerning those objects (of nature) is false.

But we can be confident that such false knowledge makes logical sense within its sphere of false knowledge. These different spheres of false knowledge fall under what Kant calls his 12 'a priori' categories.

#2. Pre-Kant philosophers believed that the cognitive mind agrees (or accords) to objects (of nature).

I.e. objects (of nature) don't need qualifications to be conceived inside the cognitive mind. Meaning, we sense reality as it is.

So objects (of nature) are real. However, our mental activity is finite.

How real one object is compared to another object is also unknown. Comparing and contrasting two or more objects gets us no where. We have no measuring stick to judge the truth about reality. What is more real or less real is impossible to figure out. Plato tried to answer this debate in his philosophy with the measuring stick of his higher Platonic Forms.

[The Platonic Forms embrace Kant's philosophy, though, and support his idea of noumena.]

In Summary

It is my belief that Immanuel Kant's philosophy (or #1 above) is true only for the senses but not for the mind. While Pre-Kant philosophy (or #2 above) is true for the mind but not for the senses. Meaning, objects (of nature) are truthfully discoverable (through higher probability, but not infinitely) through the advantages of both experiences of the senses and the mind's thoughts compared and contrasted--just as you cannot know that something is a medium without knowing both of its opposite extremes. Therefore, limited and unlimited (filtered and unfiltered) thoughts are compared and contrasted for the mind to get to the truth about reality. Hopefully, the following paper will explain this in better detail.

[Note: I believe even as ghosts, our experiences are finite--and whatever takes the places of our senses and mind are both finite. The universe in totality is finite: both in life and in death. Only God has an infinite capability because only he has an infinite mind.]

A Summary of the thought of mankind:

1. The senses bring in the 4 dimensions of space and time to the 'sensory cortex' in the form of 12 filtered, generalized 'a priori' categories.

2. The 'association cortex' then receives the filtered, generalized 12 categories from the 'sensory cortex'.

3. The 'association cortex' then specifically investigates each filtered, generalized category by the will of the 'association cortex'.

Main Logic Against Kant :

1) If objects accord themselves to the mind, through the sense of sight, objects would accord themselves to our body twice: first through the eyes and then to the mind--making a larger mess of things. We wouldn't be able to understand objects if both our eyes and mind were filters and our mind didn't compare and contrast objects. That is the reason why the mind and the senses are separate.

2) As sentient beings, we must look at something first before we can get a general idea of it; then our mind goes into specifics. Therefore, it makes more logical sense that the mind accords itself to objects. However, it is still possible for objects to accord to the eyes, and after for the mind to accord to those same objects that get past the eyes. [See Previous Miscellaneous Notes below.] It is the reverse that is not possible; meaning, for objects to accord themselves only to the mind but not first through the eyes. For the eyes, like the other senses, are like a filter. However, for objects to accord themselves to both eyes and mind would be ridiculous since, again, the eyes are like a filter. Meaning there would be a huge mess of two filters of both eyes and mind. And just as two minds would be ridiculous for a single person, it would be just as ridiculous for there to be two filters made up of both eyes and mind. For there exists just five senses (or more) and only one mind for every human being.

3) We look at an object first and then we try to understand it. And sometimes we try to use our eyes to get a better picture of what we are seeing so we can better understand it with our reasoning later on.

Conclusion:
For if the mind did not accord itself to objects, we would not be able to re-focus our eyes or re-investigate with the mind concerning an object. Meaning, we would not be able to learn (or investigate) by visual experiences: comparing and contrasting objects specifically.


Previous Miscellaneous Notes based on Other Ways to Refute Immanuel Kant :


Axioms (or principles) for the following paper:

The tongue tells us what is (generally) sweet or bitter, salty or bland in four dimensions of space and time. Touch tells us if something is (generally) smooth or rough in four dimensions of space and time. The eyes tell us what distance or color a thing is (generally) in four dimensions of space and time. Smell tells us what odor is (generally) fresh or noxious in four dimensions of space and time. The ears tell us what sounds (generally) are being made in our environment in four dimensions of space and time. Meaning, all of our senses are (generally) 4 dimensional because they were constructed in 4 dimensions of space and time and have no thinking in them--by way of the senses division/filtering of space and time into the generalized 12 'a priori' categories. [See #23 and summary below] But whether something is specifically: sweet or bitter, salty or bland, smooth or rough, far or near, colorful or not, fresh or noxious, loud or quiet, only the thinking part of our consciousness will tell us; or what is called the reasoning center of the mind. [I.e. the 'association cortex' part of the mind.] This reasoning center of the mind (or 'association cortex') is independent of all of the senses, but it works with the senses in a specific way. And so this reasoning center transcends Immanuel Kant's 12 'a priori' sense categories which are generalized. For the 4 dimensions of space and time filter through the senses by way of the senses division of the 'generalized' 12 ‘a priori' categories of: unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation, limitation, substance, cause, community, possibility, existence and necessity.

[Some may wonder how can the 12 categories be generalized if they are filtered? The 12 categories are really filtered 4th dimensional space and time of the senses. However, the filtered 12 categories are generalized. It is only the 'association cortex' that ‘specifically’ investigates the 12 generalized categories through examination.]

1. On Immanuel Kant's 12 'a priori' categories. It would not make sense if some categories (out of the 12 'a priori' categories) are infinite and that some would be finite—especially, since I believe Kant made them all equal in limitation. However, they all have to be finite for falling under the axioms (or principles) of finite time. For it is the senses that divide the outside world into 12 'a priori' categories, and it is not the mind that does this. The mind accords to the sense data that the senses bring to it in 12 'a priori' categories.

2. But is Kant’s logic false?

3. I hate to break this to Kant, but there are as many methods of argumentation as there are people: and all of their methods must be based on common sense to make sense. So when he throws away 'common sense' for his only other way of argumentation in his philosophy: 'a more subjective biased reasoning that uses limited logic', he is introducing a corrupt language suited to his arguments. There is no such thing as leaving any microcosm or macrocosm of common sense behind in the reasoning process, since both pervade all areas of philosophy and eristics, or else, the reasoning process could be secretly illogical or faulty.

4. It is my belief that objects accord themselves to our senses, but that our mind’s awareness (or reasoning center) accords itself to the objects that the senses bring to it. So even though our senses may not be able to go beyond the 12 categories alone, the individual mind that we finite beings each possess truly can go beyond the 12 categories and reach the truth of things through mental processes, especially through reasoning. Although, our minds only do this in a finite way. So my belief is that the Universe we live in is totally finite, and not one of appearances (except through the senses alone), and that truth in the Universe (that goes beyond mere appearances) can be known by a finite being, through a combination of their senses and their mind.

5. For example: If some man is nearsighted and wears glasses that give him 20/20 vision, and he took off those glasses, that same man would be able to understand that the surreal vision he was viewing was not as accurate as the 20/20 vision of the glasses he was wearing previously. Then when that man put his glasses back on his face, his mind would tell him that he was seeing better vision than the blurry vision he saw before. So the eyes (or other senses) themselves will not tell us which reality was clearer—but the mind can since it is independent from the senses. I mean if objects accorded themselves to the mind, the mind would think that: glasses or no glasses, both visions would be totally confusing. In another way of saying it: the mind would have no introspection at all if objects accorded themselves to the mind and not just to the senses alone.

6. The following is probably how Kant got to his wrong conclusions. He most likely falsely believed (if objects accorded themselves to the mind) that a human being, which was given a superior mind, by some great power that existed inside the Universe, could see the true reality that goes beyond the supposed 12 categories. But this is false since all human beings already see the truth through their combined mind and senses.

7. Kant made the mistake in not understanding that there really is a great divide between the mind and the senses. For objects accord themselves to the senses, but the mind (or reasoning center) accords itself to the objects when those objects get past the senses.

8. What does all of the above prove? Answer: That the mind can exist without the senses.

9. Kant’s 12 categories fall under the axioms of finite time. However, the only time that would not be an appearance (or that would go beyond our mind’s time, as Kant supposed) would be what is known as infinite time. And this is true since our logic (and senses) tell us that we already know that finite time exists in our mind's awareness through our senses. And since our minds go beyond the 12 categories (and only operate in a finite manner) only infinite omniscience has true objective understanding.

10. But it would be ridiculous if true (or non-appearance) time would be infinite time—or that the true Universe (not seen through appearances) would have infinite time, since you would have infinite time according itself to our minds that only understand finite time.

11. So there is probably nothing more ridiculous or illogical than the above assumption. I mean how can any finite awareness organize infinite reality into finite patterns of cognition?

12. Now some people may assume that they can see a fallacy in the above reasoning, if they could only think up a certain analogy. For example, the eyesight of a nearsighted person (or a person with worse than 20/20 vision) subtracts from the amount of light beams that, ‘correctly’ and ‘normally’, focus on the back of the eye’s inner wall (or the retina) than it does for a person with normal 20/20 vision; and that like this analogy, the finite can likewise subtract from the infinite. I would respond by saying that, that type of analogy is an incorrect one. For, the finite can subtract from the finite, but the finite does not have the capability (or power of economy) to subtract from the infinite in any way shape or form.

[The Bible is in league with this type of reasoning since it teaches that we can see God's finite image in heaven, but we cannot see God's infinite mind.]

For another example, a person may use a large portion of their time counting to the number one million, but to count to one googolplex is basically impossible to do in one’s mortal lifetime. And the number the infinite, is greater than any number, including the number: one googolplex. And to count to the number: the infinite, one needs an infinite mind, which is omniscient and therefore omnipotent. So it is also impossible (for the finite) to subtract from the infinite any amount of numbers to begin with, especially through counting, even if one were immortal forever. For the only person that can really complete counting to (or subtracting from) the number the infinite is God himself.

13. To further explain, for a person to subtract from the infinite that person would have to hold the entire number in their head. And that is only possible for God. For when we say one more than the infinite, or one less than the infinite, we are in error (if we think we are actually adding or subtracting from the infinite) because all we have is the label of the infinite in our mind but not that number in its entirety.

14. And it is my belief that the last number, the infinite, is such a large number (and the largest number) that the laws of mathematics do change the closer one gets to it; so that only an infinite God is capable of finishing (and to actually finish) counting to the number: the infinite. For, it is my belief, that God must go beyond finite time, while counting to the infinite, to reach the number the infinite in his mind. Therefore only God, or the infinite, can subtract from the infinite. And it takes just the same amount of time for God to count from the number ten to the number the infinite: just as it takes for him to count to the number the infinite from the number one googolplex; however, what is truly needed is God's infinite mind to count to the number the infinite—which is why it is confusing for finite minds to think about such an idea, and is also why only God (the only infinite being) can count to the number the infinite.

15. I mean, if infinite time existed in our Universe, how could our finite minds be able to limit by any sort of economy or deduction infinite time, and turn it into finite time? If you think about it, wouldn't our minds need to know what infinite time is before doing this type of limit imposing calculation? It is therefore not possible to experience infinite time in a finite manner. And if there was no infinite time in God's thoughts, finite time would be finite time in all three situations: objectively, subjectively and when our mind’s go beyond the 12 categories of the senses—and such assumptions are truly absurd because all three versions of time would be the same. Infinite time, therefore, must be objective and must only exist in God's infinite mind.

16. Therefore, the true universe is made up only of finite time and is not made up of infinite time. So Kant's 12 categories fall under the axioms of finite time—and they are all passed up by human beings through the power of our minds according themselves to objects (of the universe) only after those objects accord themselves to our senses. And our universe that is made up of finite time also needs a First Cause: and that First Cause is what we know to be God.

[Note: The brain’s cerebral cortex is made up of the ‘sensory cortex’ (that deals with the senses), the ‘motor cortex’ (that deals with skeletal muscles), and the ‘association cortex’ (that deals with thinking, awareness and higher mental activities). For objects (or things) do accord themselves to the senses, then pass through the 'sensory cortex', and then the ‘association cortex’ accords itself to those objects (or things) that get past the senses (and 'sensory cortex'). For the 'sensory cortex' is not a filter like the senses but rather a partition. It orders which of the senses has priority in going to the 'association cortex' first. The 'sensory cortex' may also decode the information (or signals) brought to it by the senses, so that that information can be sent to the 'association cortex' to be pondered over.]

Further Notes:

1) All of Immanuel Kant’s 12 'a priori' categories fall under the axioms of finite time.

2) All time in existence (or in the universe) is finite.

3) Therefore, time once did not exist, so there must be a First Cause of all time.

4) That First Cause of all time is what we know to be God, since only an infinite God can create time from no time.

5) Therefore, the only objective reality is God’s infinite reality.

6) And the only other realities (including human reality) are finite (but truthful) realities.

7) Therefore, objects do not accord themselves to the human mind, since the 12 categories (as thought up by Kant, as conditions to mental experience) are false in this sense, and may just be conditions to our basic sense perceptions.

8) And therefore, Immanuel Kant was fooled by his 'quasi-Copernican Revolution', since the mind still accords itself to objects (and the mind can still be transcendent in regard to objects) after those objects first accord themselves to the senses. For although mankind's thoughts are finite, the universe is finite as well.

9) Our experiences are finite. Just as I could not doubt that I think, I could not doubt that my thinking is finite. But what is the true reality of the universe? Surely it must be finite. It could not be infinite! For my thinking is finite. How could my finite mind (or senses) subtract from an infinite universe? It could not! I would need an infinite mind to do so. Therefore, the universe is finite and my thinking is finite. The workings of the senses (or filters) bring in information from the outside world in 12 categories (which are called the realm of appearances), while the 'association cortex' makes light (or sense) of such information to discover the truths about reality--which truths are also finite, and are not far removed from those so called finite appearances (of the senses) because reality is finite as well.

[For the 12 'a priori' categories are really filtered 4th dimensional time and space that the senses bring to the mind (from the outside world) which the mind can then transcend through the 'association cortex'.]

10) What does Kant imply when he says that our minds limit our experiences? Does he not suggest that our mind imposed experiences are limited and inferior to true reality? Does he mean that there exists a superior reality that we experience only a portion of? Are our experiences finite then? Is time and space and the environment we experience finite? They must be. So wouldn't the most highest and most superior reality be infinite? For even if the universe consisted of higher realities, such higher realities could only be finite higher realities. The ultimate reality would have to be omniscient and infinite in power--and only this thing could be singular. If it were plural it would not be all knowing and all powerful. And this singular, all powerful, and all wise thing is what we know to be God (or God's mind). For if God didn't exist all realities would be relative one to another. There would not be more superiority in one reality than in another--they would all have their own relative perfection. Therefore, Kant is refuted because he doesn't believe in God and because he also believes that there is a more superior reality in nature than the one we are aware of now.

11) The sequence of 4th dimensional objects (of nature) is to first pass through the 'senses' (as the 12 categories); second, to pass through the 'sensory cortex'; and finally to enter the 'association cortex'. But for objects to accord to the mind, where would that process begin? In the 'association cortex'? If that's true then objects pass through the 'senses' and the 'sensory cortex' without according to those parts of the body. Meaning, true reality is detected by the 'senses' and 'sensory cortex' but not the 'association cortex' which is a more advanced organ of the human body! That would be very illogical. Does the process begin with the 'sensory cortex' then? If that's true why would there need to be further pondering of objects by the 'association cortex'? And why would the 'senses' be superior to the 'sensory cortex' in understanding true reality when the 'sensory cortex' figures out what the 'senses' bring to it? That would be illogical too. The obvious answer is that objects accord themselves to the 'senses', which signals are deciphered by the 'sensory cortex', and finally are compared and contrasted in the 'association cortex' to bring about an awareness of true reality--by via the mind that accords to objects in the 'association cortex'.

12) Are not our noses, eyes and ears: three dimensional organs, that operate in four dimensional space and time? And objects (of nature) do indeed pass through our senses first, so they can get to our minds later on. Are not our noses, eyes and ears: filters, unlike the human mind, which is not a filter? Does not our mind judge the things of the outside world and ponder over them? Therefore objects accord to our senses, but not to our minds.

13) I am philosophically a transcendent believer in the sense that I believe man can experience ultimate reality, and I am also philosophically a non-transcendent believer because I believe that ultimate reality is something God (but only he) experiences in his infinite mind. However, since ultimate reality can only be found in God's infinite mind, our finite universe has its own ultimate reality that we can discover ourselves. So I am truly, when all is said and done, a transcendental believer.

[Please do not confuse my mentioning of "transcendent and non-transcendent" with the American movement ("transcendentalism")that began in the 19th century. I am in no way a transcendentalist in that sense. [And Emerson's 'Nature' is a read full of false doctrines. For he believes the 'infinite' exists in nature (or the universe), when the fact is that, I believe, the infinite can only exist in God or God's mind.] I side, instead, against "transcendentalism" as Herman Melville did. Melville believed, like I do, that Emerson's philosophy was false and unreal.]

14) Kant believed some deductions are necessary just as Aristotle believed some signs are necessary. (Aristotle called these facts tekmerions.) E.g. the deduction/sign that someone is ill because they have a fever seems to be a truth one does not need to know outside of pure reason. But finite beings can only judge by probability and higher probability, so there is nothing 100% (or necessarily) known by a human being. Only a Creator with an infinite mind has 100% knowledge of anything. Therefore Kant's 'analytic foundation' truly rests on dust and ashes since it is based on the human mind which is finite. E.g. it is possible that someone that just finished 'working out' has a high temperature (or quasi-fever) and is perfectly healthy. You could also say the 'analytical statement' that all bachelors are unmarried. However, a bachelor could be secretly married, or another could suffer from amnesia about his true identity masking the census fact that he is truly married. [See Appendix 4]

[If I say the universal truth that: there is an exception to every rule, someone might say that if there is an exception to every rule that there is an exception to every exception to every rule. However, such logic would turn backwards on itself. E.g. if there is an exception to a rule that rule might be 97% probable and 3% exception to our finite minds. When you say there is an exception to every exception to every rule than the exception is 3% exception but the exception to that exception is the 97% probability. So the argument turns back on itself. And if you say there is an exception to every exception to every exception to every rule than this goes back to the 3% exception. This will continue to go back and forth no matter how many times you say the pattern.]

15) The major difference between my belief and Kant's is that Kant believes the 12 ‘a priori' categories are how the mind filters information of the outside world; whereas I, on the other hand, believe the 12 'a priori' categories are all filters of the senses and not that of the mind. I believe the mind itself, or the 'association cortex', can transcend the 12 'a priori' categories with a higher vantage point.

16) Kant believes that ‘time and space’ comes through the senses, while the 12 'a priori' categories do not. I believe time and space and the 12 'a priori' categories both come through the senses. For the 12 'a priori' categories are subject to time and space. E.g. unity, plurality and totality cannot exist without space. And cause (and effect) cannot exist without time. Also, possibility, existence and necessity need both time and space to exist. What this means is that the 12 'a priori' categories are a part of 4 dimensional time and space that make up the universe--and that our senses were created around both time and space and the 12 'a priori' categories that are a part of them. This is why the senses filter out time and space into the 12 'a priori' categories: the 12 'a priori' categories are the filtered subdivisions of the genus of 4 dimensional space and time.

17) Kant's peers believed time and space have no divisions. This is a anachronistic belief started by Isaac Newton called absolute time and space. [Based on Einstein's Relativity, all time and space have plurality.] Kant believed this in advance too. All the dimensions of space and time, still, can be divided into the 12 categories of the senses. The reason this is is that all finite dimensions may not be 4 dimensional space and time (e.g. a 5th or 6th dimension) but they are all finite. They cannot be infinite. If Kant tries to explain that his idea of a manifold universe precludes the idea that the universe is completely finite in dimensions than he is wrong.

[Instead of they being the 12 'a priori' categories of the mind, they are really the 12 categories (or filters) of the senses. What are the senses filtering? Only the sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch (divided into 12 finite categories) located in present, individual 4th dimensional space and time. If there were no filters, it would be almost impossible to exist. The only other alternative is for nothing to enter the senses, which makes it almost impossible for a finite being to exist by. However, the mind itself can still exist without the senses--just not as part of a fully functioning person. For there exist two different beliefs of Plato and the Egyptians. The Egyptians believe that a human being can be split in two by separating the living Ka from the body. Plato on the other hand believes that the mind can be totally separated from the body after death--and that the mind can learn and gain knowledge in a more efficient process. However, according to my belief, for a out of body experience to occur, something like the Egyptian belief in the Ka has to occur. For the Egyptian Ka is like the other part of the body: which is akin to the Roman version of 'fade' (or mortal) and the 'shade' (or immortal) human being. Plato's theory supports Kant's philosophy, while the idea of the Ka supports my philosophy. For a human being, or for its ghost (or other part) to work--according to my philosophy--there needs to be a working of bodily functions between the senses and the mind. So I retract my previous statement that the mind can exist without the senses, because I believe the mind needs senses (or something akin to senses) for a body to function normally.]

18) To solve the problem of either the dominance (or dependence) of 4 dimensional space and time (compared with the 12 categories), one can just use the analogy of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? The egg. The chicken needs the egg to exist, but the egg does not need the chicken to exist; just a lizard/bird hybrid would do. Cause (and effect), which is one of the 12 categories, needs time to exist; time does not need cause (and effect) to exist. If you recall in Part 1, infinite time may just be one static, complete infinite sphere. Plus, God (as the First Mover) made the decision to create finite time outside of cause (and effect). And even if we could not prove the existence of God, time in our universe is finite, so the primal universe would have had an impulse to create time from no time before the very beginning. Meaning, the origins of that impulse needed neither cause nor effect. Concerning the other 12 categories, 4 dimensional time or space (or both) are needed for them to exist, but 4 dimensional time and space do not need any of the 12 categories to exist. Therefore, 4 dimensional time and space are dominant, while the 12 categories are dependent on 4 dimensional time and space because the 12 categories are filters of the senses that filter out 4 dimensional time and space and the objects of 4 dimensional time and space.

19) If Immanuel Kant is correct, then the senses take in more information than the brain can process. (For Kant believes the 12 categories are physically inside the brain and not the senses.) But the senses cannot possibly be more highly evolved (or advanced) than the brain. And the senses would have to be more advanced than the brain to bring information to the brain in a pure and unadulterated manner. But this is illogical. Therefore, the 12 categories must be physically inside the senses and not the brain. For as I hinted before, the 12 categories cannot possibly be inside both the senses and the brain: for I believe this would clutter and ruin the brain's cognitive powers. The 12 categories must either be inside the senses or inside the brain. And it makes more logical sense for the 12 categories to be a physical function of the senses and not the brain.

[A parallel example would be a t.v. camera and the t.v. monitor. The environment being filmed is our 4 dimensional environment of space and time. The camera is the 12 categories of the senses. And the t.v. monitor (or screen) is our mind's 'sensory cortex'. The camera is like a filter, and the t.v. screen (or 'sensory cortex') is how our mind sees the environment after the filters do their work. The t.v. screen has no need of filters or the 12 categories, since what is up on the t.v. screen is used to show the brain (or our 'association cortex') enough information for us to make a decision on what to watch. For the camera and monitor screen each perform their very own functions and so do the senses and the mind's 'sensory cortex'.]

20) In the same way that the mind reexamines the colors, smells, noises, and physical textures of the universe around us (brought to us by the senses), the mind (or more specifically the 'association cortex') reexamines outside objects and their divisions (or 12 categories) brought to it. However, the 'association cortex' cannot be both filter and reexaminer at the same time--and the filtering process must happen before any reexamination. Therefore, the 12 categories must be a function of our senses. In fact, it makes more sense for all of the outside information that is filtered through our bodies to begin and end with our senses.

21) Another reason it is ridiculous for the 12 categories to originate in the mind, is that: if the 12 categories originate in the mind, then the senses are not filters. Meaning, 4th dimensional space and time enter and get past the senses as pure experience. If space and time were pure experience for everyone and not filtered by the senses, everyone would have the same capacity for experience. No one would need glasses, hearing aids, various perfumes, or even a choice of flavor enhancers for their dinner. A pure experience cannot be different from another pure experience but filters can be different from one another.

22) Lastly, let us refute Kant on his own philosophical ground. Now I make the assumption that Kant believes there exists a higher dimensional state (or states) in our environment that our minds cannot detect and therefore our senses and minds are clueless about such a higher reality. However, Kant might just mean that there is no higher dimension but that true reality and our false reality are in the same dimension. If this were true then there exists no environment more complex than the 4 dimensions of space and time that we live in. But if that were the case then where would the illusion be in our brain if reality and false reality were practically the same thing? And if there existed higher dimensions then they are really not part of our reality but rather other universes: e.g. like between earth and space and heaven and hell. So there would be no illusion since there would be physical boundaries between such environments. However, it is also quite clear that if our false reality is finite and true reality is infinite that this would be impossible, since we already made clear before that the finite cannot subtract from the infinite and the only thing capable of being infinite is God's mind.

23) Here is an example on how all of this works. One of the 12 'a priori' sense categories is 'plurality'. E.g. our eyes see a jumble of books on the floor. That is the sense category 'plurality' in action. However, when we begin to count the books on the floor then we are using our 'association cortex' to do the counting. If this is true, then the senses deal with generalizations (or the 12 sensory 'a priori' categories), while the mind (or 'association cortex') deals with 'specifics' of those very same generalizations. So our perceptions are void in thought, and the 'association cortex' is the only thinking part of our experiences. We sense 'plurality' and the other categories without thinking. That is why the 12 sense categories are 'a priori'. But we must apply thinking (by via the 'association cortex') to understand the 'specifics' about the objects of our environment. So thinking is really just comparing and contrasting between the generalizations (of the 12 'a priori' categories of the senses) and the 'specific' investigations of the 'association cortex'.

24) If objects accorded themselves to the mind and not to the senses only, then:

a) Pure experience and pure reality would enter the senses but not the mind.

b) The mind would have to decode (or filter out) five distinct senses at a time. And since the senses are very different from one another, some of the senses would have more reality than others. Meaning, the mental condition of time and space would have to be applied, not one time together for the five (or more) senses, but basically, at the very least, five or more times for every single sense process entering the mind. So if you see, hear and feel an object then 15x as many processes will occur in the mind (at the least) because of the three experiences of that one object that, according to Kant, must accord to the mind.

c) For the five senses there would have to be five different internal clocks for time plus the main internal clock that would synchronize and set them correctly.

d) For example, time and space would have to be applied to five or more senses causing problems for synchronization of time and space. E.g. between hearing and sight. And since we know there is only one internal clock in every human being this process is impossible.

e) Now if objects accord themselves to the senses, then the generality of the mind’s experiences could be processed at the same time. When we want specifics about some object, our ‘association cortex’ concentrates (or focuses) in that specific direction.

[Multitasking is just concentrating rapidly between different specifics of one or more objects. The multitasking feel is also caused by the generalities of objects experienced in the background of thought that the senses bring to the mind.]

In Summary:

The senses filter out 4th dimensional space and time into 12 categories; the 'sensory cortex' orders the senses filtered information to the 'association cortex'; and, the 'association cortex' analyses the filtered information that the 'sensory cortex' brings to it. But any kind of introspection is not just a one way process. Like Nikola Tesla's AC, or alternating current, the electric impulses can go back and forth between: the senses, the 'sensory cortex' and the 'association cortex'--all commanded by the 'association cortex'. And even though the senses bring in the outside world to the brain in only one way, it is the introspection of the 'association cortex' that works the opposite way. So it is really more like DC, or direct current. The senses do bring objects to the mind like direct current. The mind then tries to understand it through the 'association cortex'. Then if need be, the 'association cortex' refocuses on that object or some other object through the sense organs. Then the senses bring to the 'association cortex' new information about the object or objects. And this process is repeated over and over again.


main website:

michael.www2.50megs.com

All texts are copyrighted by Michael Llenos 2014-2016