I kind of can understand why Kant had to postulate Thing-in-Itself. — Corvus

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.

On the other hand, I grant you might be on to something, if Kant had premised his critical theorizing on things, in which case postulating a thing-in-itself might be merely comparative to the thing. But he didn’t begin with things; he started from Hume’s claim of “lack of philosophical rigor” for, and therefore the rejection of, a priori notions in general, and those with respect to causality in particular.

Whatever is given to creatures like us (...), must be of a nature that it can partly be apprehended by us in perception. — Manuel

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.

We assume that "downstream" something "stands in" for what we perceive, but that's a logical postulate, not an empirically verifiable claim. — Manuel

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.

I'm not as fluent as I would like to be. — Manuel

Makes two of us.

After posting the present comment, I found out that I have already responded to your topic!
Anyway, you can ignore this second response, but it's quite different from the first one and ypu might find some interesting things in it. :smile:

an observer is not external to reality. — Benj96

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.

For me, reality is generally what we agree it exists. More specifically, it is a "world" that we are constantly building throughout our whole life, based on everything that we can be aware of, directly (through our perceptions, experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc.) as well as indirectly (information we obtain from external sources), and which we accept as true, actually existing or facts.

So, not only the observer is not external to reality, but reality cannot exist without an observer.

is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed — Benj96

1) Observation is not a state but an action or process. It is also an ability.
2) What is "being observed"? If it is an object, e.g. a tree, we certainly there's no meaning in saying that it can be in a state of being observed, is there?
So, we cannot do any comparison here ...

To others I am a part of their objective observable universe — 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!
And then, their "objective observable universe"? Reality, which is formed by observation (among other things) is always subjective! We can both stand in front of a tree and observe two different things! Imagine how much difference exists in non-physical things --personalities, ideas, beliefs, views, etc.-- between two persons!

Indeed, I can see that that you have made quite a few assumptions that I believe need reconsidering ...

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's attempting to elucidate what is given descriptively, maybe it's a bad formulation. I'm assuming that when analyzing something given, what we capture through sense data and then proceed to conceptualize is only part of the totality of what is given.

What is given is the sense data, which, depending on the uses you have in mind for said object, we categorize it as something, in this instance, say, a "pen". For someone else, the same given can be thought of as a "weapon" or a "plastic stick".

Nevertheless, we simplify sense data into something intelligible, in effect taking away "noise" from our interpretation of things. We recognize specific objects such as as pens, but a "pen-desk" is not something we tend to isolate as an object, but it could be so thought as by a different species.

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

Correct. The objects are outside my head. We perceive what our experience picks out from the objects. We postulate that these effects come from the object, this needn't be the case. It could all be a brain in a vat. What's relevant is the sensory impressions we transform, more so than the object itself.

I don't think we reach the actual objects. We approximate them through scientific investigation.

Ehhh, I'm feeling kind of stupid today so, have a bit of mercy...

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

Yes.
No.
No.
Both.

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

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......
(Awwww, c’mon, Dad. You should be glad I was late, cuz, look!! We still own a lawnmower!!)
————-

we simplify sense data into something intelligible, in effect taking away "noise" from our interpretation of things. — Manuel

Could be, sure. On the other hand, perhaps we start out as simple as possible with our sense data, and add to the simple. That way, “noise” isn’t even there such that it needs to be filtered out. Perhaps we cognize bottom-up rather than top-down. Doesn’t seem very efficient of Mother Nature, to strap us with a system that assumes everything then removes the useless, rather than starting from a minimum then adding only as much as necessary. We do, after all, wish to know what a thing is moreso than what it isn’t.

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.

Respect? Ok, fine, sure. Why not. Mercy? Not a chance!!! (Grin)

:up:

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 is a trashcan, but a trashcan is a concept imposed on the thing, it's also a human concept "trashcan", not a natural kind, which exist mind independently.

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

Let's say, we order the given. But there are different ways this sense data can be ordered, it's not necessary that our way of constructing the world is the only way there is, in terms of our common sense understanding of it.

There's a bunch of stimulus "out there" for us, we form it into a certain picture. But not all the sense data is tended to.

I'm a bit better today. Then again, we are arguing over which version of "transcendental philosophy" we prefer version 1.1 or version 1.12. :grimace:

which version of "transcendental philosophy" we prefer version 1.1 or version 1.12. — Manuel

HA!!! Yeah....pretty hard to think of a trash can as a thing-in-itself, n’est ce pas? I mean, we built the damn thing from the ground up, so why would we say we can’t get to it as it is, re: your “I don't think we reach the actual objects.”? ‘Course, that’s not what is meant by invoking the idea.

Let's say, we order the given. — Manuel

Yes, I think that fits. The Book says we arrange the matter of the given, but, close enough.

Good post. I’d like to read you when you’re a lot better, rather than a bit. I’m sure I’ll learn something.

It's C.I. Lewis I have in mind, not Kant.

Good post. I’d like to read you when you’re a lot better, rather than a bit. I’m sure I’ll learn something. — Mww

Sounds fair. :up:

Reality doesn't require a spirit, it just is the state of affairs whence simulation becomes an experienced simulation. — Varde

So reality is an objective simulation we live in? That makes you are a simulation too. Fine with me, as long you don't consider me one too. Well, if you want to consider it like that... This is a simulation responding to your claim, another simulation.

It's C.I. Lewis I have in mind.... — Manuel

Oh. The qualia guy. Might be interesting.

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

:up: :up:

The standard albeit controversial definition of knowledge requires belief i.e. there has to be an intelligent being (read observer). Ergo, reality defined in terms of knowledge requires an observer. We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god?

The only way to know reality is cognitively, if we are talking about apparent reality. Apparent reality is a biological readout, thus requiring biology, a conscious subject, observation, experience. Ultimate reality is decerned, at least some aspects of it, through synthetic means, instrumentation, but even this must be interpreted through biology, a conscious subject. Knowledge is what biological experience tells us it is. Apparent reality is the limited experience of the totality of the whole of ultimate reality.

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

Not sure if thing-in-itself was from a logical cognitive system at all, because when you say "logical", it implies a system dealing with / related to truth and falsity.

It seems hard to imagine, Thing-in-Itself can have anything to do with truth or falsity at all. It is not a logical system, nor something fell out of logical cognitive system, but rather - something that is, mystical and unknowable in nature.

If something is unknowable, how could it fall out from logical system, and what significance representational cognitive system has for understanding what it is?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Philip K Dick (1978)

Tell this to those who refute its existence/ desire not to believe or be aware so much that they choose to be dead

We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool

I would argue that we create knowledge. Information, physical, chemical and biological processes all pre-date us. But knowledge is a construction of relationships. It’s not simply enough to observe water to “know it” - at most you have a superficial knowledge of “identification” of water by the senses and basic impulse to drink, use it to bathe etc.

However, without understanding it’s extended relationship with life, with ice and gas, with other chemistry, with the environment, ecosystem and landscape etc one doesn’t “know” water to any great length.

Knowledge is something that can only be possessed by a reasonable advanced cognitive agent. If knowledge pre-dates us then either a rock can obtain knowledge or knowledge without sentience is completely pointless

We discover knowledge i.e. knowledge pre-existed us - is there a god? — TheMadFool

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

Well I think our views of reality are similar. You cited that it is the “collective agreement” more or less. The totality of everything we can possibly be aware of. In a sense I agree with you.

But here comes an analogy. The U.S airforce decided to create a seat that would be most comfortable for all their pilots. They imagined that the average of the measurements of all their pilots buttcheeks would be the best fit. They soon found out that no single pilot fitted the seat and that all still had issues with it. No one fit the average ie there is no normal.

I like to think of reality as the same. The true reality - the one in which all our personal bias and prejudices and falsities in belief as well as our individual idiosyncracies in the five senses are removed from - doesn’t fit anyone’s explanation or experience exactly.

No single individual can know for sure the true reality only their own rendering of it. That’s not to say we don’t collective make a great effort to describe truths about it through scientific method.

A reality does need an observer as much as an observer needs that reality. Without each other they can't exist, they would be lost. It can be a very unhappy love affair, and they try to keep away from each other frequently. Nevertheless, they are in love, and make love. Holding themselves back from the brink of insanity, from the psychotic realms of madness.

how faceless of you.

Observer's are not required, as said, some worlds are barren - it wouldn't be reality if I observed. Reality is a composite within observers, where realities subserve. Doesn't require me, it happens together.

There are no un-realities out there waiting for reality-propagates, the process is the mind over matter.

I guess the issue I have is the demand for worlds to be populated for the means of supporting a reality, it's not that way, we populate worlds for life-quality scales.

A child is born - why - reality.
A child is born - why - it's quality of life would be good.

In any case you're original statement is faceless.

when you say "logical", it implies a system dealing with / related to truth and falsity. — Corvus

Not so much dealing with, or related to, but determination of.

It seems hard to imagine, Thing-in-Itself can have anything to do with truth or falsity at all. — Corvus

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.

If something is unknowable, how could it fall out from logical system — Corvus

That which is unknowable falls out of the system by which things are known, merely because it doesn’t meet the criteria mandated by the system.

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.

In the face of other realities I don't show mine. I let people live in their reality. I'm rather faceless about it. Who am I to judge their reality? It can be as mad a one as my own. I don't take all these realities too serious either. If showing a face it,'s a laughing one. Though I'm not sure what you mean by faceless. You want me to show my face?

A child is born - why - reality.
A child is born - why - it's quality of life would be good. — Varde

How can the reality of a child being born the cause of birth? How can quality of life be an answer to the why? Birth is a quality of life indeed, but is that the cause?

Alright.

No. Simple. You haven't refuted anything.

What should I refute? Is refuting showing my face? You wanna be refuted?

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

So, we create knowldege? :chin: Hmmmm...

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

I was under impression that the Neo Kantians and Phenomenologists had rejected TII (Thing-in-Itself) and the necessary ontological condition saying, we don't need all that abstract shells. When I see the monitor in front of me, it is a monitor itself, and that is all I need to know nothing more or less. Everything perceived is the reality itself. There is no need adding for TII or ontological condition etc in reality.

Easy question:
If you put it on a metaphysical context, there are as many answers as metaphysical definitions of "reality" and "observer". You can get a lot of demagogical fun but, net, you get nowhere beyond your personal satisfaction that will depend on your speech-skills. (Wittgenstein's pragmatics, etc, etc....)
If you put it in an analytical context, the answer is NO, reality doesn't need an observer.

Mind over matter.

Reality is a simulation as processed by qualitative and quantitative experience(-r)(though I'd prefer the term 'spirit', I will use this desc.; Consciousness is a facet of something more).

Simulations do not await qualitative and quantitative analysis. Dead simulations are dead simulations without life.