Here we go.

[kahljorn]

"Simply because I began experiencing with assumptions of causuality and the self does not mean that they are necessary to perpetuate experience. "

Uh, actually they are. You see, if you somehow went back in time to change how you experienced your experiences, you would probably be a completely different person and possibly not exist! Remember back to the future? MARTY!
Besides, none of this has to do with what you assume or how you perceive. Sometimes things that seem that way are really meant to be applied to everything, as some sort of prerequisite to it. Which means you often have to use your brain to discover that! The idea that you can simply think the opposite of kant to prove what he says wrong is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Two quick things that may not be true, but just for the fuck of it:
BEFORE EXPERIENCE CAN EVEN BEGIN. Did your experience begin without it? No. We've already covered that.
Maybe that's all he meant? Maybe he meant later in life you 'could' remove yourself from the direct effects of casuality(i don't think any decent philosopher would say you couldn't, otherwise human society would likely be much different-- or maybe it would be exactly the same :O ). Regardless of if you remove your perception from the equation, or your "Assumptions" though, your basic mode of being is still going to be heavily dependant on them-- and so will the people around you. Not only because of your past actions and past occurances but also because that's how things work.
What Kant was saying was such a broad statement you can't really deny it's validity.

"but one does not need to infer it for perceptions to take place"

Right and you don't need eyes to see or anything right, or any kind of body parts to perceive? You don't think cause and effect even plays into your perception of the outside universe or your ability to experience it in the first place?
"we never needed the big bang. I mean look, I'm not using the big bang right now. We don't need it at all!"

"Everything that exists could be an extension of my subjective will, for all that I know. "

What a great philosophical debater, brought down to "if's" and "Coulds". You could seriously debate any topic in the world using ifs and coulds, cause you know, you could just go on forever and you could even be right you know that you could really be a woman and just not know it?
In your mode of existence, essentially existence is an extension of your subjective will. However, the universe likely existed/exists without your help.

"I am thoroughly aware that I cannot provide evidence as to my experience."

Okay? Here I thought you were pouring out your observations of the universe, not just pouring out bullshit you've pretund into existance-- Extensions of subjective will. You see, you're pretty much creating this little philosophical wonder you 'believe'. You don't really even know if it's true, you haven't removed assumptions at all. You're still heavily operating on them, including the assumption that kant even meant what you think he meant and that the universe functions the way you think it does... i don't know, that's a little obvious so maybe it's not good enough for this discussion...
If removing assumptions means you remove yourself from the ability to observe yourself, happy new years.