Does a dog see a tree? That's an interesting question, isn't it?
Because there's no doubt that, by the way, just speaking personally,
I have no doubt that the Stasi trace and even that they leave a record of their perception behind them very well.
But to see a trade, that's quite difficult. See, but three and then given this open chicken, I'll just say something else,
which is to subsume a particular under general category that role, particular trees come in a great variety of sizes, shapes, colours.
And so in order to see a tree, as in seeing a tree, it seems that what is needed in addition to some capacity for sensation,
also capacity for subsuming sensed objects under categories in such a way as to have a concept.
And during the course of this lecture,
I want to emphasise how the self emphasises the need for the perceived object to be incorporated into a conceptual framework option,
which there is no understanding of what the object is.
It really isn't an experience either.
That's going to be an important distinction between a perception, no question, and the goal that the dogs and lots of other creatures perceive trees.
And the experience of seeing true conscious going to argue about a necessary ingredient and
experience is just this sort of assumption of persons under general categories falling,
forming a task. Now this is one of many problems that we can't recognise empiricism, at least at its simplest.
We'll always have trouble. Hence, if you take the position that all that is required to form concepts is to be a
passive observer of events taking place in the external world and put on hold.
How there is an external world together with an external world.
Again, if you take the position that all that's required to form complex ideas is to parlay simple ideas,
and all it takes to get simple ideas is to associate the number of sensations you take that that lockean refers to as lots of change of physiology,
the process. And it's not entirely clear that a creature would live long enough to be able to put it under the same category.
Gigantic trees and a redwood forest and little saplings for six inches off the ground.
Or that any child would understand, ever come to understand what means.
And most of us are cats more generally,
that any set particulars can enter into a conceptual framework such that one actually understand what one is looking at.
And one is not merely looking at. More than this is required.
And in first lecture, I talked about this shower of stimulation, this incessant barrage of physical events impinging on a sense of more,
out of which we have to create some orderly world, some love for the world, which we create in constant nature.
And so. Imagine everyone in the room had a different world.
But if somebody could put all of the words on all the cards together, you would have the same, let's say, a menu with the so.
How do these how do these words get put together? How do we put together this this storm of sensations in such a way as to make this?
After all, the manifold of stimulus constitutive of this is diverse.
It's changing. It changes as I change its direction and its orientation, it changes as you look sideways.
It's constantly change and it has many, many different properties.
Somehow each have to be pulled together in the right way, just as the notes would have to be pulled together in the right way.
Carte blanche to argue that there's nothing in empiricism that tells us how this happens, you see.
So we're getting into the project now where he's actually going to attempt to explain the ways that he is satisfied.
Empiricism cannot explain,
which is to say the ordered nature of experience and our capacity to recognise things and place them in a conceptual framework that surprise,
surprise is object. It promises, promises.
So the critique is divided into this quite uneven division,
into a very long section which he titles the transcendental doctrine elements of the
relatively short but quite decisive section on the transcendental doctrine of method,
which we will get to in like lectures. It's under that heading that we meet up with a parallel presence of pure reason all of the place.
The reason gets in trouble when it tries to range the on the ambit of its proper mission and its powers.
Well, what elements just can't hold on? He refers to the transcendental doctrine of all of the elements.
The elements are the elements of cognition, one might say.
The elements that mind us such brings to bear on reality.
And this is further divided into three sections.
The transcendental aesthetic by which Hart attempts to establish the conditions necessary for sensibility is itself the operating conditions,
absent which experience itself be impossible,
which is to say for there to be a visual experience,
something other than a retina with receptor cells and photo pigments and a little decline
of retinal ganglion cell tail moving an optic nerve something or the nervousness itself.
Something must be in place for any of that, finally, to amount to a perception.
And what is it a priori that must be in place?
And then the transcendental analytic which establishes the all and necessary and universal conditions for there to be understanding itself,
and then reflections of the rules that govern the deployment of our rational resources in such a way.
As to render the outcome objective and not subjective, necessary and universal and not relative defeat and induce scepticism.
Capital choke by simple would think.
Now. How is counting on the term transcendental to be understood first with calm?
It is something of a neologism and he's using it quite deliberately to distinguish what he has in mind from the transcendent.
The transcendent refers to that which transcends experience.
It's beyond the ambit of our perceptual resources.
It's what traditional rationalism says is available to us as non sensory motor familiar concepts.
That's all limits. We don't do that because we can't forget looking for the transcendent as an element of knowledge.
The transcendent can be reached by faith or belief, by imagination, by hope, by coin flipping, delightful but not as an element of knowledge.
Because for there to be knowledge, there must be a sensory basis, there must be an experiential basis on which any knowledge is based.
So establish something that transcends the realm of experience.
And you have established that whatever it is you achieve, it is not knowledge.
So he wants to make a distinction now between this realm of the transcendent,
which is off limits to a large degree, and what he refers to as transcendental conditions.
Oh, it's a joke. a708b 736.
Where he tells us what he has in mind for the doctrine of the methods which we will get to.
And he says it's the determination of all the formal conditions of a complete system.
Pure reason. So. So he is going to develop a I hate the word a methodology.
He's going to develop a mode of argument and analysis that establishes one reason goes beyond it's legitimate.
It's legitimate grounds. It's legitimate terrain.
So with respect to the transcendental, he's helpful again in giving us a definition.
I am totally transcendental. This is a 11 B 25,
my entire transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with
the mode of knowledge of objects in so far as this mode of knowledge is to being possible.
Offering or transcendental refers to the enabling conditions, the conditions that render something impossible.
So a transcendental analysis is is an analysis of some achievement to pass on the achievement as established.
We see traits and then the question is what must be in place offering all and necessary for us to have the concept of tree,
for us to be able to subsume a particular tree under that general concept.
That would be a transcendental analysis, and the conditions necessary for that would be transcendent conditions.
So the term refers to the conditions or powers that render something impossible, the arbitrary hoary conditions that are enabled.
They don't come about as a result of experience, but are understood to be necessary for them to be experienced by people from last week.
That very restless concern in particular.
When we go today to the second analogy, that's full time, but off to the few months, a venue table in trouble.
And then if he wants balls moving, that is to say, if he wants events separated in time and understood to be somewhere out of there,
he's got to reconcile those claims to the fact that there are no essential elements for out of that and there is no sense organ for the last time.
So where does this spatial temporal domain come from?
And it's going to be commerce argument and the transcendental aesthetic that it comes from us that in fact,
our very mode of engaging the external world is spatial, temporal, and that's what a transcendental aesthetic is.
It's about the necessary conditions for there to be involved there.
Now. Why was this being the case?
You know what you're tempted to do?
You're tempted to take the position of the ordinary person and maybe in a huff with characteristic youthful impatience.
One of those old Greek saying rhetoric. Young men have strong passions, which they tend to gratify indiscriminately.
They love too much and hate too much. And then little things do things to excess.
Well, in that useful impetuosity, you might be inclined to say it out there for goodness sake,
and use some sort of an ad to dismiss the metaphysical question of how anything comes to be out there.
Well into the Cartesian realm from.
Suppose you want to accept the proposition that the only way you have direct
access to all your own experience is the contents of your own consciousness.
How on earth could you ever reach the conclusion?
From events to which you have direct access now and consciousness that there's something out there bringing those events about.
That is what would be the sensory cue by which you understood that some things with which you are conscious are out there and other things aren't.
Here's the edge of the county and that's just the place. You couldn't do it.
This is why he tells us at the outset that one of the embarrassments of metaphysics
is that philosophy still kind of staggers the reality of an external world.
Do you see, if you accept as an argument, an empiricist thesis, according to which all of your knowledge is mediated by sensory perceptual resources,
so that the only way to which you have access are the contents of your own mind,
then how could you ever have a warrant concluded that in addition to the contents of your own mind, there's an external world bringing.
Hello. Solipsism. And there are various counters to a sort of calmness.
Quite a patience. The impatient, common sense alternative that says, Oh, for goodness sake, we just not get off with it.
Of. The one that comes out does get off.
So so against the empiricist concrete Jensen theory that without our understanding of the external world constructed out of elementary sensations
and that somehow time and space go can get guess what imported into our consciousness by way of these external events can be the case.
This just isn't the case. Of.
So. So we have to break a spatial temporal framework.
We carry a spatial temporal framework operating as the in-place conditions of sensibility.
We have a capacity, he says, which most fundamentally can be called the capacity receptivity.
We've got an apparatus that at least is capable of being stimulated that isn't going to go too far.
Somehow that pattern of stimulation has to become confused.
It has to be packaged. And the packaging is special to.
Not by way of experience, but the necessary precondition for experience, therefore not imperative, therefore pure.
The pure intuitions of time and space of pure intuitions.
Why on earth we chose to translate.
On intuition to the eternal frustration.
Students first encounter a conference. German.
Well, let me not become a philologist.
If you're a native German speaker and you're talking to another native German speaker about about some cosmic issue,
you want to know that person's world view. You see how they considered.
You might say on the fourth cup of coffee in a smoke filled room.
After starting about. What is work with people that are.
Our show just to show. Unsure of intuitions, but loading nothing understand cultural intuition as a mode of apprehension.
A mode of. A vote of B holding.
The external world. Just. And the older term I'm shallow on the curve is to be old.
When I ivy those up on a nice dog face in German it will be, I'm sure no one would say.
And when I intuit the lights start to face huge clouds and symbols of my romance.
You imagine, I think, of saying and whether I can turn on the lights.
Of course, it's still too much for us.
So. So the pure intuitions of time and space.
Become the non empirical, necessary universal framework that goes with everything holding half of the sensible world.
Every every inch of something out there.
And in fact, space. Is that pure intuition.
That is the necessary condition for. Our sense.
It is in virtue of it that I can distinguish I can distinguish myself from the objects in the external world.
There can be an order of our relationship or an eye edge relationship in virtual or pure Jewish space.
And it is the pure intuition of time that is the framework for innocence.
My thoughts succeed each other.
That is to say, they are ordered in time. My feelings are ordered in time.
That's something I can now project on in the external world, thereby paying off succession.
You say. So now she owns billiard balls and move in sequence.
First one then. They are successful in experience, in virtue of the fact that the pure intuition on temporally organises my inner states.
Of course, much more than this is required if there's to be a bona fide election.
Can't identify as two fundamental powers from which knowledge itself arises.
I could count a 50 being 74.
The first is the capacity of receiving representations.
The second is the power of no object through these representations.
So again, this distinction between a capacity of receptivity and a quite different capacity for giving, we received this knowledge.
As I say, experience is not merely they are sensation knowledge.
It arises from an experience of a pure conception of the understanding of properly nourished, you see.
That is to say that the experience, the experience has had to be subsumed properly under the under the Rice Award categories.
This second power is the one constant spontaneity.
The power of spontaneity. It is the freedom with which this power operates that permits conceiving of that which is even impossible,
or extending concepts beyond the range of possible experience.
For example, his example at age 96.
The Concept of God. Carl summarises the process this way.
This is a worthy one. What is clear can be quite clear.
This is at age 97.
If each representation were completely foreign to every other, standing apart and in isolation, that's so shallow that's not coherently related.
If each representation were completely foreign to every other, standing apart and in isolation, no such thing as knowledge.
Whatever was for knowledge is essentially a holes in which representation stemmed, compared and connected.
Receptivity can make knowledge possible only when combined with spontaneity.
So these things have to be put together in the right way.
Alright now. Shazaam if you get this.
What is the source of the spontaneity? If you don't hear the echo, that squeak.
The News of the Daily Scotsman attacks.
The source of Halley's Comet is mother.
Which. Although this if that isn't a principle of common sense, I don't know what his mother would wish.
This is the most intractable, the most bizarre, contained treatise metaphysics in the entire philosophical canon.
And on this key and a necessary power by which representations are pulled together in just the right way.
The power of spontaneity from the source of it is one which quotes.
Yes. Well, yes.
Where else? Not from experience.
Do you know how long it would take? I was kidding with you last week.
It's kind of the radical empiricist who believes the series of positive integers was discovered one at a time.
Suppose you use you try to construct a coherent, ordered, natural world with no resource other than repeated exposure to things,
repeated exposure to things, and the formation of certain associative bombs.
Oh, please. First of all, how would you associate?
Your first encounter with this? If your second encounter is this.
Or this. Well, this every one of these things would be another disconnected.
And I shall give you a neurological that you won't live for Oak Cliff or.
Maybe 97 to say. It's a glass set of glass.
It's a question that I say to you as a private.
What? What's. The account develops a defence of the intuitive,
a priority of time and space by way of what he refers to as a metaphysical exposition and a transcendental exposition.
You might remember from the first week that Khan's understanding of metaphysics is that it's the arena in which competing theories have it.
It's the incessant argument. It's the yes part.
It's the sickness, it's life and sometimes unruly.
And it and that's why you end up with indifferent ism on the part of the scientific community.
Scepticism on the part of the philosophical community. Because these metaphysical disputes never seem to come to an end.
So the prize competition, etc., etc. Obama's going to engage in a metaphysical exposition, as I've done so far,
to show that there really aren't and there aren't experiential sources for time and space.
But the Empiricist project just won't do. So that's a metaphysical exposition.
A metaphysical exposition as to the fact that you cannot get here from there.
The Transcendental Exposition,
as in transcendental now and a constructive policy document showing the necessary and universal conditions such that you will get from here to there.
So you do get succession, you do get access, you do get a valid and objective representation of the external world, etc.
The difference between metaphysical exposition transcendental.
Now what about 5 minutes of the Russian tradition?
After all, the debasement was the a showstopper, actually, for the laughing.
The early decades of the 18th century was the new from violence controversy, which shows up in the clock violence correspondence.
And central to that whole issue was space.
As I noted in the first lecture, in the second lecture,
briefly with Newton's theory require absolute space as what as that cosmic container which are of material objects are located.
And it's really there there really is cosmic container into which everything really has been
poured and like this position by way of the law of sufficient reason that the idea of space
as an empty thing into which you like for other things requires that space be that space
as another space as empty somehow comes about as a result of a reason for having nothing.
And that's contradictory. So that debate is going back and forth and can't what's going to take he's he's going to take
sides on the science thing because he is is is going to be Newtonian in his natural science.
But he does understand that space is a problem and that you cannot get it by having Newton, simply put it.
Well, he does have to make clear is that no device within the rationalist tradition can deduce answers to the questions about the source of space.
And he does this in a number of ways. But one of the very is has to do with tile what today we call chiral objects.
One is a kind of. Yes, I have.
So. Yes, yes, that's right. Look, if you look at your right hand in a mirror, remember now it's a mirror image.
All of the internal relations that constitute this, that are fully preserved in the mirror image.
But you cannot put a left glove on your right hand.
There's no contortion of a left handed glove that will map them correctly after your right hand.
These are called Cairo objects. That's good evidence.
But the concept of innocence. Suppose you thought you had some means of contacting life in another galaxy.
Let's say intelligent life, which there is all sorts of consciousness doesn't.
And here's the question, which sent you send them this message.
How do you develop something to communicate with? We here in a place called Earth.
Have hearts. There are slightly displaced to the left.
Are your thoughts just place to the left. You realise they have no.
No way of answering that question. How do you get left to write?
Though on the conscious scale since. The mode of apprehension is itself spatial.
It is in virtual the fact that our experiences are spatially ordered.
And that gives us the means by which to, let's say, establish that if my palm is up and I'm facing, you know,
if my thumb is facing East, etc., because I've already got the necessary spatial structure and built it.
But you realise in a universe that contained only one hand and let's say some intelligent beings,
there's no way an intelligent being could determine whether that path is left or right.
The last time I stood that way. I wish we had more time. Let us talk that way.
Until I think it was 1958, thanks to Dr. Wu when she, in the process of winning the Nobel Prize, some elaborate experiments in physics.
Establishing that God. Those are some beautiful enjoying theology shows.
God is weakly left. As regards the asymmetry of the cosmos.
1958 was the year I wrote my bachelor's degree life lifelong lieutenant.
Doing battle with a right hand world. I discovered that the government is at least legally left.
Yes. Sorry, I said yes.
So the car was among the first to employ this concept of.
Incongruity ports control to do so in furtherance of the proposition, but actually pure tuition space.
We couldn't even make sense of things like that.
The point being, no rational deductive procedure would tell any fellows if all you gave a likeness was this hand.
And the log mentioned was required by way of some sort of rational analysis, principle of sufficient reason, law of contradiction,
to know that you can fill the left hand load on this stand, or that the mirror image of this head nonetheless constitutes an incongruity of some sort.
There isn't anything within the ambit of reason's powers that would get you to do, you see.
So the empiricist cannot come forward at all. And the rationalist by very well, just.
Go running down the street to Edvard Munch's Scream of.
The Centennial Exposition is designed to show not only that space is pure intuition, but that it must.
And for his principal example, he chooses geometry, which he takes to be, as he says, the forte,
a science which determines the properties of space synthetic and yet offering an aura.
He has this in his introduction. He has this praised fellows.
He said so whoever it was. But tradition gives us theories.
As of the first we know about who I hope constructed the isosceles trial of Take them separately.
You don't honestly think Protagoras ran around measuring right out of trials and came to the happy conclusion that
there was a formula that you might use that turned out to be a version of a square plus piece where he sees it.
Even if you were lucky enough, and with the first right out of the triangle, but it be a three, four or five right out of the trial.
The sheer back of of doing it. Four triangles that are.
What would be the artists responses?
The geometry we have is something mathematicians construct families makes us.
He develops, geologist will develop the actions of theories that provide a science of geology,
which then in fact can be passed on to the objective world.
The way they do this is by having the capacity for spatial representations.
It's not something about the external world that they go out and discover is Euclidean.
It's that their own spatial mode of representation is itself a double necessity.
Euclidean. And that's what they bring to bear in the construction of the science of geometry.
And that's what turns out to be of a happy day.
Something that aligns up with the objective world.
With the world as understood by science.
So these are these are arguments adduced in support of the not only the fact of the pure intuitions of time and space,
but their necessity and in fact, their ability to match up with the objective world.
It's not an accident that they match up with an objective world,
because our engagement of the objective world becomes possible by virtue of these very resources.
It's what we bring to the situation.
So no surprise when we recover, when we recover our own aesthetic and and cognitive resources and our knowledge and our knowledge base.
Now, finally, there are the three analogies of experience that central to Cowen's critique of traditional empiricism.
He says that 8180 B to 23 an analogy of experience will therefore be only a rule in accordance
with which unity of experience is to arise from perceptions and not as perception.
So these are going to be rules.
These are rules that determine how perceptual outcomes actually rise to the level of experience in a manner that is not that is not subjective,
not relevant, but necessitated by the third, by the very nature of the rules themselves.
I don't want to take too much time on this. I think Couch chooses the terminology.
Perhaps after the loss, you might want to consult on this essay for chapter 16, Section 12,
where law says this concerning the manner of operation in most parts of the works of nature,
where even though we see the sensible effects, yet their causes are unknown and we perceive not the ways and manner of how they are proceed.
Protest analogy in these matters is the only hope we have, and it is from these analogies alone that we draw all five rounds of probability.
So, for example, the Newtonian world at the level of observation becomes explicable by way of something called a gravitational force.
That itself is not observed, but that idea of a force as something that pushes and pulls and its analogised to things that we do know about,
and as a way of establishing causal things where we cannot stay the course itself.
My dream, though, never claimed fully claims once and then corrected himself that gravity was the cause of things.
He said the gravitation laws are the rules by which the cause operates.
We do not have access to the cause. Why? Anything released goes down something so sweet.
We cannot explain that it goes down. We know what concepts of the the analogy is this way.
The first analogy is that in all change of appearances, substance is permanent.
Its quantum in nature is neither increased nor diminished.
Now you understand that absent that, there would be no means by which to establish that as something is undergoing alteration.
All we would conclude is that it disappeared, replaced by a different thing.
So the first analogy of experience is that we experienced.
Certain entities are substances in that we recognise alterations in them as alterations in something that is itself permanent versus another change.
It's an another metamorphosis. The second technology,
which is a key part of the ads which show everything that happens that is begins to be presupposed as something upon which it follows.
According to or as expressed in the second edition, quote, All interactions take place in accordance with the law of connection of cause and effect.
Again, of. What's your theory about causality?
What's his account of the concept of causality? Constant conjunction.
When whenever two events are constantly conjoined and experience,
it is in virtue of a habit of the mind that one comes to be regarded as the cost of the others constant which.
Rita Field. Reid says this is a quote from Reid.
No to events that is constantly conjoined to human experience as a day i.
And he had known that a couple of years ago on stage was the cause of tonight for night, the cause of death.
Put another way, one doesn't have to keep shooting to act before reaching the conclusion that you indeed,
of course, of this time, generally one shot will do it.
It just turns out that there is a fundamental.
What did you learn in school? You learned in school that correlation does not imply causality.
So constant conjunction simply misses the essential feature of all causal attributions.
Not that A and B have them together, but that give them a you must get B.
Now that necessary relation is not something the cop wants to argue is in some way empirically observable.
It is in the nature of experience that that rule guides our perception of temporally associated events.
You see, it's a feature because if you didn't have that, there really would be no grounds on which to establish.
So, of course, the third analogy is the, quote,
All substances in so far as they can be perceived to coexist in space are the thoroughgoing Russian prostate cancer proof of this stance?
I can go first at the moon and then the earth,
or conversely first on the earth and the moon's perceptions and most of all perceptions that must follow each other separately.
It's on this basis that they're said to be coexisted. Such coexistence is the existence of the manifold, but one on the same time.
Now, unless you have that as an entree or a mode of experience,
there'd be no way of distinguishing between sequences that are causal and sequences that are merely coexisted.
I'd be saying something like, Well, now I look out the window now.
Now I'm going to look at you. And I'm looking out the window now and got a quick look at you.
And I've reached the conclusion that my looking out the window calls as view,
unless they are more than half recording means by which to establish coexistence all round against cost losses of relationships.
But again, as I said before, you establish the conditions necessary for X to be the case.
Already having grounds is that X is the case what's necessary for it to be?
I want to wrap this up with a remark that can't make you pull it off.
This is a pro gunman. 259.
Concretise this entire project to take us to the state of the fields.
Problem for shelf says can't vote.
The question is not whether the concept of cause was right, useful and even indispensable for a knowledgeable nation.
For this has never done. But whether that concept could be solved by Reeves offering more evidence,
and consequently whether it possessed an inner truth independent of all experience.
Now. I think they are serious human scholars that might contest the claim that HUME actually was not sceptical about the causes of little its worth.
My view was that he was not at all sceptical about the causes and nor was he trying to provide an account of causality.
I believe he quite clearly was attempting to account for the concept of sanity
and he accounts for that concept by way of a kind of mental associative shape.
Can't say what [INAUDIBLE] throw his hands up. Also, the inability of pure rationalists to establish cosmic laws.
Well, the second analogy is a natural question.
The human experience is possible only through the representation of the necessary connection,
the sections absent the necessary connection among ourselves.
Experience is simply not pushed. Thus, to the extent that empiricism would restrict the knowledge to experience,
it can succeed only by accepting the very ground of that experience for self, which is the ground it can't provide.
And the second analogy.