Limits to pure reason and nature of reality

dpa

Hi all,
I have a little out of track
question and I was forced to
consider this after reading FQXI
Essay competition title Is
Reality Digital or Analogue and
Kant's Critique of Pure reason
simultaneously.
If I am not wrong, according to
Kant, there are limits of pure
reason. Is not the ultimate
nature of reality always
elusive? Something like a
mirage of pond for a deer. The
deer always chases the pond
but never reaches one. Is not
that what we can discover is
merely sense data? Can we say
definitely, now or at any point
in future, whether nature is
analogous or digital? Does not
emperical finding (sense data)
always have possibility of going
further? Like first they came up
with the idea of atoms, then
nuclear particles, then quarks
then what not?
Thank You

Aidyan

I didn't read Kant but 'realists' can tell me what they want: it is quite clear to me that whatever we perceive and describe with our so called 'exact' sciences is ultimately a human mind-sense data construct. The idea of a 'pure' science which abstracts from sensory experience, human mind and consciousness is an illusion. We might say that the sensory world we live in is not much different than the digital world of the film Matrix. This doesn't mean there is no reality 'out there', but that the 'reality' we perceive has nothing to do with the 'real reality'. Science is not an ultimate and absolutely objective view of the world but a representation, a fiction, at bottom it is based on subjective mental entities of the homo sapiens mind. And reason and rationality itself are only a way of cognition, not the ultimate tools to know the truth. The idea that reason is the only way to 'know' is an anthropocentric conception that science itself dismisses.

Goethe

The reality we perceive may not be the real reality, but saying that they are completely unconnected is a much stronger claim.

Given your arguments to the contrary, why do you believe that there is a real world 'out there'?

Aidyan

What do you mean by "completely unconnected"? I don't know if there is a 'real world out there', because also the meaning of 'real' is a matter of convention. What I mean is that science is much less 'objective' than it wants us to believe. The only thing I can say is 'real' is that at least one subject in the universe exists that has perceptual experiences, i.e. me. The conscious experience is the only thing that I can be sure of. As Goethe told us....