It is hard question. even any change between logos and phenomenon, you would have unchanged or slightly changed perception in which you feel blue is still blue, hot is still hot etc.

The question, I mean, is the relationship between logos and phenomenon in the sense that logos has to do with "universal" and phenomenon with "individual". In kantian perspective should be the time the mean by which logos can be in contact with phenomenon, i. e. universal with individual. So that this particular blue can be understand through the ideal or conceptual blue.

Daniele,

"Time is the way from ideas to the things"

I do not see it that way. Here is my way of seeing:

1. ideas are expressed by words in language. Those expression do not embody ideas but only allow us to enact them

2. core language competence is build upon sense-acting systems of the body

3, only the category of things which are already in the sense-acting systems of the body can be perceive

4. when you perceive a particular thing , you instantiated this built-in perceptual category

5. Time is the instantiation structure of the built-in perceptual category

If we accept Kant's assumptions, I do not think we can go beyond his schema.

But there are several philosophers/philosophies that simply begin elsewhere and so Kantian issues never arise. eg. Wittgensteing's latter works, some pragmatists etc.

Kate Lindemann seems right if our goal is to "go beyond" Kant's notion of schemata. But don't we want some such notion to explain the application of concepts to objects? At least if we believe still in the notion of conscious experience? Better perhaps to give a contemporary gloss on the notion of a rule of temporal (and spatial) interpretation of our concepts rather than go beyond it. Cf. e.g. Peacocke's *A Study of Concepts*, Chap. 3 and his notion of scenarios.

I am certainly not an expert on Kant's philosophy. However, I have worked for some time on a theory of mind/brain in which there emerges a particular significance with respect to the concepts of space and time.

The theory suggests the possibility that consciousness correlates with a macroscopic quantum coherent soliton. This emerged as the most likely 'solution' of the attempt to establish the particular bio-metric that is implicated in determining the apparent rate at which time is experienced(see the attached paper below).

The metaphysical implications of the theory are interesting. The theory suggests that the 'intuitive' universe of 'existing' things and phenomena are only implicit in the way in which information and matter behaves and interacts. Upon close examination the events that provide stimulus are associated with discontinuities (or cracks) - collapses of the wave function. Space and time are not accorded any ontological status at all - they are structures that are only implicit.

I believe that this position raises a sort of chicken and egg situation with respect of the uncertainty quantities associated with the wave function. However, this may be resolved if we accord these quantities ontological status. If this move is valid then we seem to accord both space and time the status of 'stuff' - 'stuff' that the Fractal Catalytic Model would suggest is consciousness.

This position is not so strange as it might at first appear. Wave functions are relational entities, cognition is also relational. There is no 'impilicit' dualism to deal with as a consequence of matter being deconstructed - there is only consciousness - and discontinuities.

The point is, within the context of the theory, consciousness correlates with a phenomenon with both 'space' and 'time' as explicit 'ontological components' - consciousness IS 'space' and 'consciousness' IS time. However, it now seems that both space and time are not what we thought they were at all.

So, perhaps the hidden question here is why does (consciousness) substance become dimensional in a fractured universe?

I have no idea what all this means - and yet - it feels right!

Vimal, R and Davia, C.J. How Long is a Piece of Time – Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence – Toward a Solution (2008). Quantum Biosystems. Editor in Chief – Pregnolato, Massimo

Christopher, I am very much intrigued and waiting to find a quiet moment to read your paper. Your post suggests that the results of your view has affinities with Kant's own. Kant locates his view on the nature of space against Newton's (space is an objective thing) and Liebniz's (space is merely a relational property of things). In the Transcendental Aesthetic of the Critique of Pure Reason he asks what conditions must be meet for a finite intellect to distinguish something from itself and from other things. (This is sort of THE primitive cognitive task.) In the context of thinking about reception (what one receives from the thing), he argues one must represent what one receives within a coordinating representation, otherwise no distinguishing can take place. We must have a mode of outer sense which, a priori, represents what is received in a coordinating representation. (Importantly, he further argues that this representation cannot be conceptual.) This constitutes his argument that space is a apriori sensible intuition (which is a nonconceptual representation that is a condition imposed by the subject of experience). So it is neither absolute space as Newton held, nor merely a relational property of things as Liebniz held, but a "transcendentally ideal" form of intuition which WE require as a condition of the task of cognition.

Ian,

You know, although I am still struggling, Kant makes a lot more sense as you explain it. When I did my degree, I am pretty sure my Kant tutor was going through some kind of breakdown and I ended up understanding very little - it was a long time ago. I remember another friend suggesting that there was a connection between my approach and that of Kant's work - I should pay more attention.

When I was writing the above I was sure that I would be thought of as a nutcase. I find these ideas compelling and very exciting - but also weird.

I very much look forward to you reading my paper(s) - a good introduction that captures the central ideas in a straightforward and clear way is the website that I set up at CMU (below). The main paper - "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media........." can be downloaded from RG.

Please bear in mind that the published stuff does not really venture into the metaphysics. I have attempted to provide a thesis based upon clear analysis supported by empirical evidence - I didn't want to frighten people away by appearing a bit flaky.

I think you will enjoy the time paper (also on RG)

Cheers

Chris

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~davia/mbc/index.html