I kind of can understand why Kant had to postulate Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus
Whatever is given to creatures like us (...), must be of a nature that it can partly be apprehended by us in perception. — Manuel
We assume that "downstream" something "stands in" for what we perceive, but that's a logical postulate, not an empirically verifiable claim. — Manuel
I'm not as fluent as I would like to be. — Manuel
It would be good if you defined "reality" so that I (we) can fit your description of the topic, as well as your concepts and views, in the right perspective. For example, I agree that the observer is not external to reality, but I don't know if "reality" means the same thing to both of us.an observer is not external to reality. — Benj96
1) Observation is not a state but an action or process. It is also an ability.is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed — Benj96
Do you mean that the others see you as an object, as matter, as body? Does this also apply to me who are "talking" to you remotely, w/o have ever seen your body? Of course not. You are much more than a body!To others I am a part of their objective observable universe — Benj96
Not sure what you mean by apprehended here. That something can even be perceived requires that thing to be of such a nature we can perceive it, sure, but that’s bordering on the tautological, isn’t it? But that something is of such a nature to facilitate its perception says absolutely nothing whatsoever with respect to understanding what that thing is. — Mww
It is not an assumption: there are no empirical objects of perception in my head. How that downstream something relates to that which it stands in for, is a logical postulate. — Mww
I guess what I’m really asking is is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed. Are they entirely interchangeable. Is the rest of the universe simultaneously observing us just as we observe it?
Is “living” an actual unique state of the universe or is it simply fancy chemistry that we like to believe - from the inherent bias of being alive - as something special and different? — Benj96
What's relevant is the sensory impressions we transform, more so than the object itself. I don't think we reach the actual objects. — Manuel
we simplify sense data into something intelligible, in effect taking away "noise" from our interpretation of things. — Manuel
Philosophically relevant, but try telling Mr. or Mrs. Suburbia that thing just put on the curb isn’t actually a trash can. Even his media-crazed Gen Z offspring isn’t likely to put out the lawnmower when coerced into the minor chore of putting the trash can on the curb. ‘Course, he’d probably put it out too late for pickup, but still..... — Mww
It sounds like you’re saying we reduce sensations, but I don’t think we actually do that. Whatever the sensation is, is what we use in determining an object, so it would seem we need the entire sensation, and I’m not even sure how our physiology, that upon which impressions are made, would simplify sensation anyway. Our eyes don’t tell us we didn’t see green when perceiving the blue sky. — Mww
which version of "transcendental philosophy" we prefer version 1.1 or version 1.12. — Manuel
Let's say, we order the given. — Manuel
Reality doesn't require a spirit, it just is the state of affairs whence simulation becomes an experienced simulation. — Varde
One aspect which may be relevant to your debate is the role of participant observation in the social sciences, with the idea being that one had to become part of some social structure in order to enter into the understanding of it from an outside, distanced point of view. — Jack Cummins
I wouldn’t agree he had to postulate it; it falls out necessarily from a logical/representational cognitive system, under the assumption, of course, that the human system is that. — Mww
We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool
We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool
when you say "logical", it implies a system dealing with / related to truth and falsity. — Corvus
It seems hard to imagine, Thing-in-Itself can have anything to do with truth or falsity at all. — Corvus
If something is unknowable, how could it fall out from logical system — Corvus
A child is born - why - reality.
A child is born - why - it's quality of life would be good. — Varde
Don’t let the language mislead; “discover” can also apply to a state/ condition or substance that we have “created”. Ie. I “discovered how to manifest” discovered and invented are very similar — Benj96
It doesn’t, truth being nothing but a human epistemological cognition a priori, whereas the thing as it is in itself, is merely a necessary ontological condition of that thing, a posteriori. — Mww
Not that difficult, really: for any representation of a thing met with in experience, there is that very same thing-in-itself that isn’t. If not, then representation itself is sufficient empirical causality for things, which is catastrophically absurd. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.