Anti-Prolegomena: An Introduction for the Refutation of Immanuel Kant's Philosophy



[Remember: The following paper is just a starting point (and introduction) for a true pundit to demolish Immanuel Kant's main philosophical system at a futuristic point of time. And please no one compare my basic discourse of a person with a bachelor's degree, in history, with a true pundit with a PhD. For a professor of the liberal arts has a great deal more wisdom than myself, and especially on the subject of Kant if they are a professor of philosophy. And, sadly, I lack the knowhow and technical skills of a philosopher like Arthur Schopenhauer. My approach, instead, is that of a philosophical layman.]

It is my intention, in the following text, to defeat the individual parts that compose the main arguments of Kant. Just as the Athenian Euthyphro could not satisfactorily describe the whole of piety to Socrates, so I can only attack the problem of Kant's philosophy in segments.

[I think, according to "Darwinism", it is harder for a person to adapt and thrive inside of a false mental reality state than inside of a mental reality of truthful, sound reasoning. Plus, many obstacles of life must be overcome by the committed than those persons never committed throughout their entire natural lifespan. If this is the case, then those subject to a false reality experience an "anti-Darwinist" skill set that cannot help but lower their chances of survival--especially if a whole animal race, or species of men, falls within such a jurisdiction. Therefore, Kant's philosophy of the mind's mental dominance by categories (based on appearances) is not a practical theory of the brain's thought patterns.]

A Summary of Immanuel Kant's Folly by Process of Elimination

1. The 12 Categories either: (1) originated in the mind (as Kant believed), (2) originated in the senses, or (3) originated in the Universe--meaning the 12 categories are part of the physical structure of the Universe. Kant, of course, refused to believe in (2) and (3).

2. I believe (3) is true but not (1) and (2).

3. For if (1) were true (or that objects conform themselves to the mind, and that the 12 categories originate from the mind), then the mind would take the place of the senses, by doing double duty as another sense filter, and the senses would all be open gateways to the true Universe, that would do no filtering and would have no important function. Plus, the senses would take in pure reality without filtering it. So that would mean the senses are more perfect, or more highly evolved, or more complex than the brain. This would be ridiculous, so the 12 categories do not originate from the mind.

4. If (2) were true (or that the 12 categories originate from the senses, but not from the Universe), then the senses would be intellectual filters of the Universe. This time it would be the senses doing double duty, by being its own intellectual categorizer despite the brain. So the senses would be doing an action more proper to the mind than the senses. And the brain would also be tricked by the senses into thinking about the Universe in a more limited way--which is also ridiculous.

(For if the 12 categories originate in either the mind or the senses, they would have to have a non-physical and rather intellectually abstract structure. However, the 12 categories cannot have a physical structure if they don't originate from the Universe. Meaning, the 12 categories can only have a physical structure if they originate from the physical Universe to begin with.)

5. So if the 12 categories originate in the physical Universe, or (3) is true, how does it all fit together, meaning my own, Hume's, and Kant's philosophies? I believe the latter two got some things right and some things wrong. If Hume's strict empiricism is believed, then we can be certain of nothing our senses take in that is related to cause and effect. Kant solved this riddle while using Aristotle's categories. Meaning, Kant's 12 categories proved there was a way to reach some amount of truth in the Universe through the Universe of appearances. So you would not have universal truth but only some truth in your corner of appearances in the Universe. That is because, he believed, the Universe conformed itself to the human mind.

6. The problem with Kant's philosophy is that the mind acts like the senses and the mind has no real need of the senses. And the problem with Hume's philosophy is that we cannot know the truth about reality because the Universe's substructure (and true properties) cannot be known truthfully through the senses lack of perceiving the connective structure between every cause and its effect. To solve Hume's dilemma, Kant made a halfway compromise, or that we humans can know the truths of human experience but only through the relative lens of the human mind. Now I believe Kant was correct in bringing substructure to the Universe through the use of Aristotle's categories. (But Kant only went halfway in solving the problem.) My philosophy goes all the way, firstly, in keeping the 12 categories (but additionally putting them within the physical makeup of the Universe); and, secondly, by keeping the functions of the senses as the key filters of physical reality in the Universe before they enter the mind. Objects do conform themselves to the senses, but they do so truthfully and within the bounds of the Universe's substructure. And because the 12 categories are part of the physical make up of the Universe, they have their own abstract concepts in the senses and in the mind. However, Kant believed the 12 categories only exist and originate from inside the mind.

So read on for further explanation of my philosophy that goes all the way to defeating Hume while Kant only went half the way...

Intro.

The 4th dimensional universe is structured by Kant's 12 categories. Objects of the universe enter the body through the five senses. Categorized objects conform to the senses of: sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. These sense operations act as a generalized standard (and measurement) of the universe and its 12 categories. These measured 4th dimensional objects of the universe are sent to the 'sensory cortex' and then to the thinking 'association cortex'. The 'association cortex' then conforms itself to the categorized sense data that comes to it.

[Note: Some may think that I am confusing experience with sensation. But I believe all concepts (including the 12 categories) come to the senses first. I mean which is more ridiculous? (1) That the mind is the source of the 12 categories, and the senses bring forth to the mind superior and unfiltered information of the Universe? Or, that, (2) when objects accord themselves to the senses, they bring along with themselves certain categorical substructures of the Universe's 4th dimensional properties of space-time? (The more ridiculous is obviously #1.)
--And, remember, objects do not accord themselves to the 12 categories. They are already part of the 12 categories of the 4th dimensional space-time of reality. When objects accord to the five senses, they enter the body in the form of sight, sound, smell, touch, etc. Some may say that because the 12 categories are a part of reality that the illusion is the same as that stated by Kant. But one must realize, in my version, the 12 categories are reality, and that they are not an illusion. So we are not lost in a world of appearances. 4th dimensional space-time that is substructured into 12 categories is the true reality of existence.]

In the history of both man and science, for the most part, discovery has always trumped categorization and has come first in the sequence of events. One would think that if objects conformed themselves to the human mind, as a natural make up of the human mind, that human beings would be automatically perfect at categorization: regardless of age level or level of education. E.g. as infants we would, on first seeing an apple, realize that it is a type of fruit, and a fruit is a type of food. (Or that a beached seal is a type of sea creature.) E.g. no infant thinks even a more generalized question, like: what category (or group) does this apple belong to? Isn't learning and inquiry and gravely, mistaken identities only thought out because our minds conform to objects and must do so from scratch? If categorization (and especially the 12 categories), were natural to human beings, then it would make some sense that we all would be natural scientists from the beginning of our journey through life.

What is the main purpose of the senses? To be a standard for measurement. For a finite being to have no standard of measuring things it would be too confusing to know where to begin. Since everything is relative throughout the universe (if we believe Albert Einstein) then any standard of measurement can be used. However, some standards of measurement are more expedient and efficient than others. That depends on what relative position one has in the universe. So the English King's foot is just as good a measurement as any other. But for global trade the metric system is more practical. This is why animals have different and similar types of senses. Different types of senses are more suitable than others. Therefore, everything is relative in the universe.

[A comparison of Plato's cave illustration in The Republic... For by the differences and complexities of the various animal senses, the brain can understand the 12 categories (of 4th dimensional space-time) in their corporeal, natural, sensory states--which can eventually be written down and figured out abstractly by mankind through the mediums of philosophy and science. And because these physical substructures of the Universe are mistaken for abstract states, such misguiding logic confused Kant into thinking they are the limits of the brain's cognitive powers and an origination of the mind. For the mind can understand the physical 12 categories like an abstract shadow over the powers of mental thought. E.g. the outside world houses the 12 physical categories in the sunlight. The sunlight's physical 12 categories shines on the eyes, casting a shadow over the 'association cortex' in the form an 'abstract' mental thought pattern of the 12 categories. For Kant's philosophy it is the reverse. He believes the mind's 12 categories are the true source of the 12 categories and that they cast a shadow over everyone's eyes and over all of the physical world. But Kant is mistaken in this. For our bodies do not produce sunlight (in the form of the 12 categories) but rather takes it in.]

Note: In Plato's cave illustration, the observable shadows, dancing on the back of the cave wall, and mistakenly believed to be true, are of a likeness to Kant's mistaken belief in the mental origination of the 12 categories. My counter belief, which I believe to be true, of the 12 'physical' categories (and I believe all 12 categories must be physically originating), can be likened, illustratively, to when a prisoner is released from his bonds and makes his way out of the cave's interior, observing with his eyes: the first rays of sunlight, that are filling up the entrance to the cave; and brilliantly illuminating: the rest of the outside world.

[Kant is basically saying that our mind's are too pathetic or too stupid to grasp reality but are lost in a realm of appearances. But what is the realm of reality? Is it a higher dimension to the realm of appearances? Is it a greater layered onion composed of space-time that envelopes the realm of appearances? Is it an infinite version of a finite realm of appearances? No matter what 'beyond the brain's imagination' realm reality is a part of, it is connected in someway with the realm of appearances. Now if Kant agrees to this connection then we have found the Achilles-heel of his philosophy. For since all space-time is relative (if we believe Einstein again) it would make perfect sense that there are no realms of appearances, but rather different realms of reality in each universe in the total collection as a whole.]

For there exists three processes of reality. (1) the universe as a whole is physically categorized into the 12 categories of finite space-time. (2) the senses, as a 'standard of universal measurement', bring to the mind the 12 categories in the form of limited, measured space-time. And (3) the 'association cortex', through the mind's introspection, and using the senses as a ruler, scale, and measurement: can pierce into the universal realm of true reality through experience and the scientific method. For categories confuse us and not scientific introspection. We are confused by generalities and not by specifics. We hunt for the scientific specific first and not the overall category of anything first. The 12 categories come from outside our minds, and they do not originate from within our minds. Our 'association cortex' searches for specifics first while initially ignoring the generalized categorization of the universe that comes to us from the outside world and that are filtered through our senses.

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. 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 the 12 physical categories which are generalized. For the 4 dimensions of space and time are the universe's 'generalized' 12 categories of: unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation, limitation, substance, cause, community, possibility, existence and necessity. For the eyes, nose, mouth, ears and skin are all 4th dimensional. It is within the nature of organs in 4th dimensional time and space to experience the 12 categories and to have structure. For the 12 categories are how the universe is structured in 4th dimensional space and time. The sights, smells, tastes, touches, and noises of the universe come to the senses inside this 4th dimensional structure. The 12 categories filter through the senses to the brain in their own unique way. So the 'association cortex' gets knowledge of the 12 categories of the outside universe through the various patterns of sense. For the senses serve two primary functions. (1) They are the ruler or scale (or yard stick) of what gets seen by the mind of the outside universe. Meaning, the mind needs a finite starting point of the finite 4th dimensional universe that we live in. This can only be done through the five senses. And (2) Because they are the by products of 12 categorized 4th dimensional space-time, they are greater at being filters, e.g. yard sticks (or scales), for the outside world than any other process of consciousness for the mind.

[For the universe itself is categorized into 12 categories of 4th dimensional space and time. The human mind only gets knowledge of the 12 categories through what the senses discover about the outside world. (So one, perhaps, can have his cake and eat it too.) For objects of the universe conform themselves to the senses. The senses bring the 12 categorized smells, sights, tastes, sounds, and touches to the brain. Then the brain conforms itself to that sense information.]

1. On Immanuel Kant's 12 categories.

It would be inconceivable if some categories (out of the 12 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 axiom of finite time. For even Arthur Schopenhauer's support of the category of causality, as the only true category, is faulty. He made a point to say all of the other 11 categories were rubbish. But I believe all of the 12 categories fall under the axiom of finite time. Not even the category of causality can escape being categorized under the axiom of finite time. For without finite time, nothing can exist in this universe--the only exception being, of course, God's infinite mind, which created both causality and finite time.

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.

[So where did Kant go wrong? Kant's new way of thinking was to combine the two opposite ways of philosophy into a new pattern of thought processes. The only problem was that he got rid of the senses' functions. In Kant's version, the mind had two functions which made it not need the senses. He ignored and subtracted from the senses and doubled up on the functions of the mind. Kant's double mind had no use or need of the senses. To him the senses were like open gateways to the mind intead of categorical sense filters. My method is a clearer pattern of thought. I include the senses as filters to experience, of the universe's 12 categories, and the mind now is free to rationalize what the senses bring to it categorically. Kant believed his 12 categories are made up of the mind only, whereas I believe Kant's 12 categories are part of the make up of the universe's 4th dimensional structure. For Kant did not know about the separation of mind from the senses because he knew nothing of the 'sensory cortex' and the 'association cortex' and their functions in the brain. However, by incorporating both empiricism (of the senses) and pure reason (at the same time), Kant was doing something prudent in his philosophical method. For modern science, itself, incorporates both reason's cause and effect and the collecting of empirical data through the human senses. But what Kant failed to realize was that (as filters) the senses have their own independent operations that work with the brain to discover truth. So like I said, Kant doubled the processes of the mind at the expence of the independent processes of the senses. My belief, instead, renews the livelihood of the senses and makes the brain have its own independent operations that works in combination with the senses own independent operations as well.]

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 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.

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, 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.

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'; 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.

[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 categories are how the mind filters information of the outside world; whereas I, on the other hand, believe the 12 categories are the structure of 4th dimensional space and time. I believe the mind itself, or the 'association cortex', can transcend the 12 categories with a higher vantage point.

16) Kant believes that ‘time and space’ comes through the senses, while the 12 categories do not. I believe time and space and the 12 categories both come through the senses. For the 12 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 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 categories that are a part of them.

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 categories of the mind, they are really the 12 categories of the universe. What are the senses filtering? Only the sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch (which are housed inside the 12 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. 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.

[Someone might make the comment that it is possible for the mind to also be a filter and not just the eyes alone, since night vision technology acts also as a double filter to the eyes. But you have to remember that night vision technology acts like an 'enhancer' and not like 'filter' as well. For night vision technology needs the eyes to complete its normal tasks, while the eyes do not need the night vision technology to complete their normal tasks. So the eyes are a true sensory filter and night vision technology is an 'enhancer' to that filter. For the brain to see it needs the eyes as a true filter. But for the mind to have the ability to understand what it sees: the mind needs the 'association cortex', which is not a filter, but the eyes are a filter. Therefore, the 'association cortex' has its own fully independent function (as a thinker) and the eyes have their own fully independent function (as a visual filter). The eyes and the 'association cortex' are, therefore, not 'enhancers' to one another. So the eyes filter out 4th dimensional space and time, while the 'association cortex' thinks and processes what the eyes will eventually bring to it through the 'sensory cortex'.]

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 accompanied by 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.

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. In fact, it makes more sense for all of the outside information that is filtered through our bodies to begin 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 categories is 'plurality'. E.g. our eyes see a jumble of books on the floor. 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 filtered generalizations, 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. 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 categories) 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 4th dimensional space and time and the 12 categories into 5 senses; 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.

[There exists a proof (through the workings of cause and effect) that the mind conforms itself to objects but objects do not conform themselves to the mind. (1) A causal connection cannot be seen, and we do not know if anything is a cause until we are made aware of its effect. This process should really be known as effect and cause instead. Time's flow only moves from the future to the past. Therefore, cause and effect only moves backwards through time. So our understanding of cause and effect is really like putting the cart before the horse. Hence, previously the real cause and effect was mistaken as the connecting patterns of Association. The truth is that cause and effect is knowing the effect first and the original cause only known afterwards. (2) So cause and effect is really a process of anti-time. Since we live through forward linear time is it any wonder why we cannot detect any causal connection with its effect? For a causal connection will always be gone in the past every time we are aware of a effect of a cause. And the effect is the first in the process of awareness of a cause and effect. (3) If understanding patterns of connecting thought, through the process of Association, never existed, and if it were possible to see a causal connection with the human eye, then the mind wouldn't need to adapt to anti-time through the process of Association. This hints at the fact that the mind conforms itself to objects that get past the senses.]

Note: Major difference between Kant's philosophy and My philosophy

Kant's end process of knowledge is when the objects of the universe accord themselves to the mind. My own end process of knowledge is when the mind accords itself to the objects of the universe. With my philosophy, reality is discoverable. But with Kant's philosophy, reality is never discoverable. In Kant's world, the mind is constantly imprisoned. In my world, there is the possibility of obtaining freedom of the mind.

What Hume did not conceive about the mystery of cause and effect...

Because we can only sense every cause and effect but not what comes between them, we can only perceive our lives governed by Einstein's relativity (and Lady Luck's chance). Therefore, we finite human beings also cannot fully understand Newtonian absolute time and space. Such limitations truly defines our finitude.

Furthermore...

Only God's infinite perception perceives the connecting powers between all causes and their effects. Therefore, as an infinite being, only God can fully understand fate and determinism and Newtonian absolute time and space. As Einstein hints at: we may play dice, but God doesn't.



main website:

michael.www2.50megs.com

All texts are copyrighted by Michael Llenos 2014-2018