Greetings, I came here after reading and being intrigued by Russell Standish's book. I just thought I'd share one bit of fun before I go into lurker mode. It's a little ditty about Kant's philosophy. I remembered it after reading the book because it sounds very similar to some of the anthropic ideas and "White Rabbit" problem solutions.
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kant.htm THE TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION of the Pure Concepts of Understanding by Immanuel Kant Translation by Roderick T. Long Music and vocals by Paul L. Fine Let us first divide cognition into rational analysis and sensory perception (which Descartes considered valueless). Now reason gives us concepts which are true but tautological; sensation gives us images whose content is phenomenal. Whatever greets our senses must exist in space and time for else it would be nowhere and nowhen and therefore slime; the space and time we presuppose before we sense reality must have innate subjective transcendental ideality. Thus space and time are forms of our perception whereby sensation’s synthesized in orderly array; the same must hold for rational conception: in everything we think, the laws of logic must hold sway. But a problem here arises with respect to natural science: while empirical in method, on pure thought it lays reliance. Although for Newton’s findings we to Newton give the glory Newton never could have found them if they weren’t known a priori. We know that nature governed is by principles immutable but how we come to know this is inherently inscrutable; that thought requires logic is a standpoint unassailable but for objects of our senses explanations aren’t available. So let's attempt to vivisect cognition by critical analysis in hope that we may find the link between pure thought and intuition: a deduction transcendental will shed light upon the mind. You may recall that space and time are forms of apprehension and therefore what we sense has spatiotemporal extension; whatever is extended is composed of a plurality but through an act of synthesis we form a commonality. If we are to be conscious of a single concrete entity each part of its extension must be given independently combining in a transcendental apperceptive unity to which I may ascribe the term “self-conscious” with impunity. The order of our various sensations arises from connections not beheld in sense alone; our self creates the rules of their relations and of this combination it is conscious as its own. While these rules correspond to scientific causal laws the question of their constancy remains to give us pause; but once we recollect the source of our self-conscious mind, to this perverse dilemma a solution we may find. The self is nothing but its act of synthesis sublime; this act must be the same to be self-conscious over time. The rules for combination of its selfhood form the ground so what we perceive tomorrow by today’s laws must be bound. These constant laws whereby we shape experience are simply those which regulate our reason: that is plain. So don’t ask why the stars display invariance -- the Cosmos is produced by your disoriented brain! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.