Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[Atla]

I see you still cannot back up your own points ...

Immediately lying I see. Looks like you haven't improved there either.

Still not backing up your points, I provided argument over your several points and you still have not responded. Resorting to ad hominums is what you seem to do best.

Word salad. Backing up points, and restating a series of random nonsense views like you have, are two different things. You also don't know what an ad hominem is. You can't judge what others do best. Also, we already covered your nonsense views way back. You don't improve and that's a simple fact.

[Eodnhoj7]

Immediately lying I see. Looks like you haven't improved there either.

Still not backing up your points, I provided argument over your several points and you still have not responded. Resorting to ad hominums is what you seem to do best.

Word salad. Backing up points, and restating a series of random nonsense views like you have, are two different things. You also don't know what an ad hominem is. You can't judge what others do best. Also, we already covered your nonsense views way back. You don't improve and that's a simple fact.

Ad hominem, your points are directed towards the arguer and not the argument.

All arguments are the restatement of things in a new form.

Last time I checked skepdick, nick and dontaskme agreed with some of my viewpoints so who is this "we" you are referring too?

[Veritas Aequitas]

........
It's the same stupidity as denying the existence of things-in-themselves.

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

If oneself is 'something', is it not a "thing-in-itself"? Or are you meaning the things one 'senses' about what one cannot directly BE themselves.

I may not be able to BE a rock that supposedly lies a few feet in front of me. But IF the 'thing-in-itself' is just the perception of it, the 'rock' means something about my sensation.

'Transcends' by Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" means one INFERS the existence of something OUT there by the perception. So he too would not agree with you given he is interpreting the 'observer' is what qualifies this INDUCTIVELY. He was against apriori arguments about such objects only apart from one's apriori assumption they are themselves sensing something.

I don't have apriori means to determine that you are a real person. But, given context of the ability to communicate LIKE what I've experienced about the meaning of 'person', I INDUCE that you likely exist as a real person by TRANSCENDING my experience of what I define a 'person' to be from my collective sensations (and memory) of similar concepts.

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. The universe can be justified as self aware given it is the replication of forms. This replication of forms is self reflection.

2. In determining where human awareness falls short we understand there is a thing beyond human awareness as the limit to human awareness. Given human awareness is not a thing in itself we understand there is a being beyond it. A thing in itself exists as the limit of human awareness and we can observe the limits of human awareness. A thing in itself exists.

3. The nature of observation is independent in itself given it is self reflective. One form of observation (universe as self aware) exists beyond another form of observation (human self awareness) given observation cannot be observed in its totality through human self awareness. This lack of totality in observation necessitates one form of observation existing beyond and independent of another form of observation.

Point is, if there is a limit to human awareness, then it is limited in cognizing what is beyond human awareness.

Therefore whatever [thing-in-itself] is beyond human awareness is merely a speculation and you are reifying whatever is speculated which is an illusion.
It [thing-in-itself] is an illusion because it is an impossibility to be empirical as proven since it is beyond human awareness.

Note the term 'thing-in-itself' i.e. the "in-itself" means it is absolutely independent and can never, i.e. impossible to be observed by humans.
I believe you never fully grasp what "in-itself" meant.

If "thing-in-itself" is defined as "objects as they are independent of observation," as is often the case, then obviously we can't know (by acquaintance) things-in-themselves, but this just amounts to noting that we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it.

We can't conclude from this Captain Obvious fact that there can be no things independent of observation.

TS: " we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it [the thing]."

But you are not aware of the nuances.

The consideration is whether the things not observed;
1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.

1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet one light years away. These are empirically possible things because they has empirical features. It is a matter of observing the empirical evidence to confirm their existence.

2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
A thought-thing like a square-circle can be thought of but it is empirically impossible to verify and justify. Same with the idea of an absolutely absolute God, the soul that survives physical death, and others.

3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.
What is a phenomenon is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
But the noumenon that is supposed to be the foundation of the phenomenon is not empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.

Note Kant's - noumenon is nothing beyond sensibility;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
B311

Point 2 and 3 are the things-in-themselves and they are merely illusions of the mind driven by pure reason.

[Terrapin Station]

Point is, if there is a limit to human awareness, then it is limited in cognizing what is beyond human awareness.

Therefore whatever [thing-in-itself] is beyond human awareness is merely a speculation and you are reifying whatever is speculated which is an illusion.
It [thing-in-itself] is an illusion because it is an impossibility to be empirical as proven since it is beyond human awareness.

Note the term 'thing-in-itself' i.e. the "in-itself" means it is absolutely independent and can never, i.e. impossible to be observed by humans.
I believe you never fully grasp what "in-itself" meant.

If "thing-in-itself" is defined as "objects as they are independent of observation," as is often the case, then obviously we can't know (by acquaintance) things-in-themselves, but this just amounts to noting that we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it.

We can't conclude from this Captain Obvious fact that there can be no things independent of observation.

TS: " we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it [the thing]."

But you are not aware of the nuances.

The consideration is whether the things not observed;
1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.

1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet one light years away. These are empirically possible things because they has empirical features. It is a matter of observing the empirical evidence to confirm their existence.

2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
A thought-thing like a square-circle can be thought of but it is empirically impossible to verify and justify. Same with the idea of an absolutely absolute God, the soul that survives physical death, and others.

3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.
What is a phenomenon is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
But the noumenon that is supposed to be the foundation of the phenomenon is not empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.

Note Kant's - noumenon is nothing beyond sensibility;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
B311

Point 2 and 3 are the things-in-themselves and they are merely illusions of the mind driven by pure reason.

Nothing exists that is empirically or philosophically impossible. So it's a bit daft to talk about observing such things.

[Eodnhoj7]

If "thing-in-itself" is defined as "objects as they are independent of observation," as is often the case, then obviously we can't know (by acquaintance) things-in-themselves, but this just amounts to noting that we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it.

We can't conclude from this Captain Obvious fact that there can be no things independent of observation.

TS: " we can't observe or interact with something without observing or interacting with it [the thing]."

But you are not aware of the nuances.

The consideration is whether the things not observed;
1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.

1. has the potential to be observed - empirically possible thing
I can speculate there are human-liked aliens in a planet one light years away. These are empirically possible things because they has empirical features. It is a matter of observing the empirical evidence to confirm their existence.

2. has no potential to be observed - empirically impossible -thing-in-itself.
A thought-thing like a square-circle can be thought of but it is empirically impossible to verify and justify. Same with the idea of an absolutely absolute God, the soul that survives physical death, and others.

3. has no potential to be observed - philosophically impossible - noumenon.
What is a phenomenon is empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.
But the noumenon that is supposed to be the foundation of the phenomenon is not empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable.

Note Kant's - noumenon is nothing beyond sensibility;

The Concept of a Noumenon is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility.
B311

Point 2 and 3 are the things-in-themselves and they are merely illusions of the mind driven by pure reason.

Nothing exists that is empirically or philosophically impossible. So it's a bit daft to talk about observing such things.

To talk about impossible things in fact makes them possible.

[Eodnhoj7]

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

If oneself is 'something', is it not a "thing-in-itself"? Or are you meaning the things one 'senses' about what one cannot directly BE themselves.

I may not be able to BE a rock that supposedly lies a few feet in front of me. But IF the 'thing-in-itself' is just the perception of it, the 'rock' means something about my sensation.

'Transcends' by Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" means one INFERS the existence of something OUT there by the perception. So he too would not agree with you given he is interpreting the 'observer' is what qualifies this INDUCTIVELY. He was against apriori arguments about such objects only apart from one's apriori assumption they are themselves sensing something.

I don't have apriori means to determine that you are a real person. But, given context of the ability to communicate LIKE what I've experienced about the meaning of 'person', I INDUCE that you likely exist as a real person by TRANSCENDING my experience of what I define a 'person' to be from my collective sensations (and memory) of similar concepts.

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

If nothing is inseperable from human observation and one human observation is seperate from another, then things exist as separable from some human observation.

Dually if the universe is self aware and the totality of observation is not observable from a human perspective then some observations, that of the universe, are seperate from another, human, thus a thing in themselves.

The universe is self aware given the replication of patterns. In observation patterns are repeated, I observe "x" and "x" is repeated as a thought. One dimension of being repeats in another. Simulataneously in observing "x" we recreate "x" in a new form thus repeating it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If oneself is 'something', is it not a "thing-in-itself"? Or are you meaning the things one 'senses' about what one cannot directly BE themselves.

I may not be able to BE a rock that supposedly lies a few feet in front of me. But IF the 'thing-in-itself' is just the perception of it, the 'rock' means something about my sensation.

'Transcends' by Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" means one INFERS the existence of something OUT there by the perception. So he too would not agree with you given he is interpreting the 'observer' is what qualifies this INDUCTIVELY. He was against apriori arguments about such objects only apart from one's apriori assumption they are themselves sensing something.

I don't have apriori means to determine that you are a real person. But, given context of the ability to communicate LIKE what I've experienced about the meaning of 'person', I INDUCE that you likely exist as a real person by TRANSCENDING my experience of what I define a 'person' to be from my collective sensations (and memory) of similar concepts.

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

If nothing is inseperable from human observation and one human observation is seperate from another, then things exist as separable from some human observation.
...

Point is;
1. At the ultimate level -U, nothing is separable from human existences [ not observation].
2. At the sub-level of U,- common and conventional perspectives, things are separable from human observations.
3. Since level-U overrides all, there is no thing existing as separable from human existence.

Note the analogy [dualism and monism] of the Pando Tree.

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as the trembling giant,[1] is a clonal colony of an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[2] and assumed to have one massive underground root system.

The clonal colony encompasses 43.6 hectares (108 acres), weighs nearly 6,000 metric tons (6,600 short tons), and has over 40,000 stems (trunks), which die individually and are replaced by new stems growing from its roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Here one will obvious see 40,000+ individual trees but actually they are all tree trunks from one root system.

In this case there is no tree-in-itself but trees-by-same-root-system.

The above analogy is similar to reality and its varied things.
The dualism and monism of reality is not as obvious as the analogy of the pando tree but the principles are the same.

What is reality is held by human consciousness on the collective basis and there is no thing-in-itself that is independent of that collective human consciousness.
Btw, that collective human consciousness is not a consciousness-in-itself.
Like the collective consciousness of a symphony orchestra, where if no collection humans organized as an orchestra, then there is no orchestra, if there are no humans there is no collective human consciousness in itself.

[Belinda]

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

If nothing is inseperable from human observation and one human observation is seperate from another, then things exist as separable from some human observation.
...

Point is;
1. At the ultimate level -U, nothing is separable from human existences [ not observation].
2. At the sub-level of U,- common and conventional perspectives, things are separable from human observations.
3. Since level-U overrides all, there is no thing existing as separable from human existence.

Note the analogy [dualism and monism] of the Pando Tree.

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as the trembling giant,[1] is a clonal colony of an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[2] and assumed to have one massive underground root system.

The clonal colony encompasses 43.6 hectares (108 acres), weighs nearly 6,000 metric tons (6,600 short tons), and has over 40,000 stems (trunks), which die individually and are replaced by new stems growing from its roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Here one will obvious see 40,000+ individual trees but actually they are all tree trunks from one root system.

In this case there is no tree-in-itself but trees-by-same-root-system.

The above analogy is similar to reality and its varied things.
The dualism and monism of reality is not as obvious as the analogy of the pando tree but the principles are the same.

What is reality is held by human consciousness on the collective basis and there is no thing-in-itself that is independent of that collective human consciousness.
Btw, that collective human consciousness is not a consciousness-in-itself.
Like the collective consciousness of a symphony orchestra, where if no collection humans organized as an orchestra, then there is no orchestra, if there are no humans there is no collective human consciousness in itself.

The pando tree is a super illustration of the variety of ways to define an entity or rather how to decide what is to constitute the entity.

The pando tree example illustrates how left wing politicians would define people as members of a collective where men cooperate with each other. The right wind politician defines men as competing with each other so the best men win. If the pando tree is a tree trunk and its crown it is politically right. This is why right wing politicians are accused of being simplistic.

[Eodnhoj7]

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

If nothing is inseperable from human observation and one human observation is seperate from another, then things exist as separable from some human observation.
...

Point is;
1. At the ultimate level -U, nothing is separable from human existences [ not observation].
2. At the sub-level of U,- common and conventional perspectives, things are separable from human observations.
3. Since level-U overrides all, there is no thing existing as separable from human existence.

Note the analogy [dualism and monism] of the Pando Tree.

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as the trembling giant,[1] is a clonal colony of an individual male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[2] and assumed to have one massive underground root system.

The clonal colony encompasses 43.6 hectares (108 acres), weighs nearly 6,000 metric tons (6,600 short tons), and has over 40,000 stems (trunks), which die individually and are replaced by new stems growing from its roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

Here one will obvious see 40,000+ individual trees but actually they are all tree trunks from one root system.

In this case there is no tree-in-itself but trees-by-same-root-system.

The above analogy is similar to reality and its varied things.
The dualism and monism of reality is not as obvious as the analogy of the pando tree but the principles are the same.

What is reality is held by human consciousness on the collective basis and there is no thing-in-itself that is independent of that collective human consciousness.
Btw, that collective human consciousness is not a consciousness-in-itself.
Like the collective consciousness of a symphony orchestra, where if no collection humans organized as an orchestra, then there is no orchestra, if there are no humans there is no collective human consciousness in itself.

Existence is independent of human awareness through degrees. It is these degrees of awareness, where one human consciousness is seperate from another, which necessitates that being is independent of human awareness through degrees.

Dually collective human consciousness is empty in itself, and I am repeating this, thus necessitating some being observed beyond it as self aware. In simpler terms the totality of being as observing itself is independent of human awareness given the totality of being cannot be observed through human awareness. Things may not exist except through observation but this observation is not limited to human awareness. The relation between humans and collective human consciousness is a consciousness in itself thus a contradiction occurs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The pando tree is a super illustration of the variety of ways to define an entity or rather how to decide what is to constitute the entity.

The pando tree example illustrates how left wing politicians would define people as members of a collective where men cooperate with each other. The right wind politician defines men as competing with each other so the best men win. If the pando tree is a tree trunk and its crown it is politically right. This is why right wing politicians are accused of being simplistic.

I am with humanity [the complementarity of Yin and Yang] not rigidly with either left or right.
I understand the right-wing promote individuality but they also promote nationality, e.g. 'Make America Great Again' is communal for the interests of a community of individuals.

[Belinda]

The pando tree is a super illustration of the variety of ways to define an entity or rather how to decide what is to constitute the entity.

The pando tree example illustrates how left wing politicians would define people as members of a collective where men cooperate with each other. The right wind politician defines men as competing with each other so the best men win. If the pando tree is a tree trunk and its crown it is politically right. This is why right wing politicians are accused of being simplistic.

I am with humanity [the complementarity of Yin and Yang] not rigidly with either left or right.
I understand the right-wing promote individuality but they also promote nationality, e.g. 'Make America Great Again' is communal for the interests of a community of individuals.

MAGA is an imprecise slogan that is intended to cause, and has the effect of causing , people to react. Reacting to a slogan is non-cognitive. Reactive decisions are not in the interest of civilised communities. True, reactions are good for vegetation , but let us not carry too far the metaphor of the pando tree.

[Scott Mayers]

Contrarily wise, I believe it is stupid to insist the things-in-themselves exist as real, where
according to Kant things-in-themselves are illusions, thus cannot be real.

Can Peter Holmes and those who agree with him prove things-in-themselves exist as real?

If oneself is 'something', is it not a "thing-in-itself"? Or are you meaning the things one 'senses' about what one cannot directly BE themselves.

I may not be able to BE a rock that supposedly lies a few feet in front of me. But IF the 'thing-in-itself' is just the perception of it, the 'rock' means something about my sensation.

'Transcends' by Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" means one INFERS the existence of something OUT there by the perception. So he too would not agree with you given he is interpreting the 'observer' is what qualifies this INDUCTIVELY. He was against apriori arguments about such objects only apart from one's apriori assumption they are themselves sensing something.

I don't have apriori means to determine that you are a real person. But, given context of the ability to communicate LIKE what I've experienced about the meaning of 'person', I INDUCE that you likely exist as a real person by TRANSCENDING my experience of what I define a 'person' to be from my collective sensations (and memory) of similar concepts.

In the most basic, what Kant implied with things-in-themselves is things do not exist by themselves if there are no humans around to interact and actualize things.
To Kant whatever things exists, they exists as things-by-human_selves NEVER by "themselves" pre-existing.

Thus what Kant meant is whatever are things existing as real, we cannot extricate the human elements from their existence.

This interpretation is a form of the anthropic principle. But nor necessarily like it, it tends to imply that no worlds exist WITHOUT us to observe it.

For example you exists only as an empirical self and physically but not as person-in-itself as in an independent non-empirical soul that survives physical death.

I don't understand this language as your example. "X-in-itself" lacks meaning other than reference to general objects that are at question beyond our conscious state of perception. Kant would have had no language to express that what we PERCEIVE is idependent from the actual objects in a word. So, "person-in-itself" is odd without considering OTHER people beyond one's self.

Also, I don't know what you mean by 'empirical'. (?) What "empirical" refers to is to the convention of ideally all people from anywhere to at least be able to agree in principle that some conclusion is sharable with respect to processes involving experiment and reproducibility of them. The subjective individual is not empirically relevant unless you think that you need a consensus of others to assure you that you exist.

[Skepdick]

This interpretation is a form of the anthropic principle. But nor necessarily like it, it tends to imply that no worlds exist WITHOUT us to observe it.

The anthropic principle doesn't imply or claim anything about the existence or non-existence of anything.

It implies that all observations depend on conditions favourable for the existence of observers.
At best it implies that if the universe was any other way we wouldn't be here to observe it being that way.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=502813 time=1615967279 user_id=12709]
MAGA is an imprecise slogan that is intended to cause, and has the effect of causing , people to react. Reacting to a slogan is non-cognitive. Reactive decisions are not in the interest of civilised communities. True, reactions are good for vegetation , but let us not carry too far the metaphor of the pando tree.
[/quote]

Leaving side whether America was great before, anyone who disagrees with making it great now is a fool. And unless your primary disagreement with MAGA is "again", you should support anyone who wears that hat, until you find they don't know what they're talking about with regard to Great.