>>10946
>Our sensibility is the ability to sense things in the world.
That's called perception.
>Our understanding is the ability to think about thinks.
No, that's called intellect. Understanding is what you know about a system works and how things relate to each other.
>Space and time cannot be learned about through experience; they are intuitions of the mind.
Fucking what. First, those two descriptions are not mutually exclusive. Second, space and time can be learned about through experience because literally anything physically real at all can be learned about through experience and everything that is physical exists in and their behavior is in part a function of space and time.
>So a thing appears in space and time only insofar as it is sensed in our minds.
If this were true, a mind could never come into existence because there would be no mind to sense it. Reality is independent of our perception. We know this for certain because some discoveries have been made independently of each other. If reality didn't exist outside perception this could not happen because whatever there was to be discovered would not exist while it wasn't being sensed. The fact that reality doesn't change when we look away means that (although our sense of it is gone) it stays there. Fuck, most people learn this shit intuitively before they learn to speak.
>Concepts only apply to things insofar as they are sense by our minds
Holy shit, you got something right, if you phrased it far too specifically.
>A "thing-in-itself" (something considered exterior to our minds) may have nothing to do with space, time, or any of our concepts
This is just a consequence of the nonsense above. The only comment I can add is that the bullshit has piled up to the point now that without context, this statement is totally incoherent (and I can barely make out what it means even with context).
>"Things-in-themselves" are unknowable
If something is unknowable how can you know anything about it, including that it's unknowable and a "thing-in-itself".
>There are two worlds: the world of experience sensed by our bodies an the world as it is in itself.
This is also not wrong (except the experiential world is actually many worlds, one for each of us), but it doesn't follow from the above.
>It is uncertain if reality as perceived through our sensory organs(?) is true.
No it's not. We know that our perception is incomplete and we know that there are certain regular failures and more we don't know about.
>It is uncertain if logic (or: any coherent set of axioms), reason, and mathematics are true.
I need to break this down
>It is uncertain if logic is true
Assuming you mean valid (because otherwise the statement is incoherent), no it fucking isn't. Logic works by some inherent quality of reality, just like…
>It is uncertain if mathematics are true
Wrong. Math is logic applied to theoretical space.
>It is uncertain whether reason is true
Reason is just man's faculty for employing logic. Of course it's shit sometimes just like some people are cripples. Just because Hotwheels can't walk doesn't mean marathon runners aren't "true".
>logic (or: any coherent set of axioms)
Logic and axioms are two different things you fucking retard. You literally can not get any more basic than that when discussing logic. We are talking basic definitions here.