Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

One has to acknowledge therefore that if there is a creator [in that the universe was created] then all one needs to do is assume that one is said creator...difficult to do within the creation, but not impossible...

As explained, in order to dispel the notion of infinite regress, we simply understand the notion of "Ever was and ever will be"

To dispel the notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator, one need to understand why one's brain, mind or self is driving and generating that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator.

What drive that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator is an inherent neural 'program' in the brain.
Therefore if we need to reprogram that neural programs so that one do not have to bother with the idea of an infinite regression or an ultimate creator.

It is similar to one reprogramming one's brain to get rid of a phobia, say of snakes, spiders, height, etc.

One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.

If the concept of infinity is a result of a neural state then the concept of infinity is a result of evolution much in the same manner a phobia of snakes is the evolution of a survival instinct. The evolution of the brain necessitates the evolution of concepts.

Dually to be the source of reprogramming the brain is to take the role of the creator where humanity is the creator. This results in humanity as a thing in itself.

Note the difference between "concept" and "idea".

Whatever is a 'concept' is a thought [neural state] that grounded to the empirical.

Whatever is an 'idea' is a thought [neural state] that is not grounded to the empirical, i.e. impossible to be empirical, e.g. a square-circle can be thought but it is empirically impossible.

"Infinity" is an idea of pure reason via neural states which is impossible to be empirical.

The thing-in-itself is an idea, i.e. a thought [via neural state] that is empirically impossible.
Note the "in-itself" which I highlighted above.

[Eodnhoj7]

How do you verify and justify the universe as self-aware, i.e. self-awareness.


That is the point, those who claim the thing-in-itself exists, claim that the thing-in-itself is independent of human awareness.
There is no real thing-in-itself.
There is no universal-self-awareness-in-itself.

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.

The totality of observation is impossible to be observed by humans, thus it is a thing in itself. We know a thing in itself exists given human observation is limited. We do not observe fully the phenomenon therefore it is a thing in itself. A thing in itself is synonymous to what is unobservable thus we know what is unobservable exists given human awareness in itself is empty on it's own terms.

[Eodnhoj7]

To dispel the notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator, one need to understand why one's brain, mind or self is driving and generating that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator.

What drive that notion of infinite regress or an ultimate creator is an inherent neural 'program' in the brain.
Therefore if we need to reprogram that neural programs so that one do not have to bother with the idea of an infinite regression or an ultimate creator.

It is similar to one reprogramming one's brain to get rid of a phobia, say of snakes, spiders, height, etc.

One need to ask,
what are the net-positive benefits of believing there is or there is no infinite regression and there is an ultimate first cause or absolute creator.

If it is a net-negative to the individuals and humanity, then we need to reprogram to suppress such a belief in a first cause or absolute creator.

If the concept of infinity is a result of a neural state then the concept of infinity is a result of evolution much in the same manner a phobia of snakes is the evolution of a survival instinct. The evolution of the brain necessitates the evolution of concepts.

Dually to be the source of reprogramming the brain is to take the role of the creator where humanity is the creator. This results in humanity as a thing in itself.

Note the difference between "concept" and "idea".

Whatever is a 'concept' is a thought [neural state] that grounded to the empirical.

Whatever is an 'idea' is a thought [neural state] that is not grounded to the empirical, i.e. impossible to be empirical, e.g. a square-circle can be thought but it is empirically impossible.

"Infinity" is an idea of pure reason via neural states which is impossible to be empirical.

The thing-in-itself is an idea, i.e. a thought [via neural state] that is empirically impossible.
Note the "in-itself" which I highlighted above.

Empiricality is an idea given one cannot see sight or hear seeing.

Dually Infinity is not pure reason given we can observe continual change. This continuity of change, through the ever present now, is infinite.

Thirdly infinity can be observed in a line. The line consists of infinite further lines thus the line is infinite.

Fourth, a square circle can be observed in the square as a successive loop. The square is a loop thus is an approximation of a circle. As an approximation of a circle it exists as an extension of the circle.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the concept of infinity is a result of a neural state then the concept of infinity is a result of evolution much in the same manner a phobia of snakes is the evolution of a survival instinct. The evolution of the brain necessitates the evolution of concepts.

Dually to be the source of reprogramming the brain is to take the role of the creator where humanity is the creator. This results in humanity as a thing in itself.

Note the difference between "concept" and "idea".

Whatever is a 'concept' is a thought [neural state] that grounded to the empirical.

Whatever is an 'idea' is a thought [neural state] that is not grounded to the empirical, i.e. impossible to be empirical, e.g. a square-circle can be thought but it is empirically impossible.

"Infinity" is an idea of pure reason via neural states which is impossible to be empirical.

The thing-in-itself is an idea, i.e. a thought [via neural state] that is empirically impossible.
Note the "in-itself" which I highlighted above.

Empiricality is an idea given one cannot see sight or hear seeing.

Dually Infinity is not pure reason given we can observe continual change. This continuity of change, through the ever present now, is infinite.

Thirdly infinity can be observed in a line. The line consists of infinite further lines thus the line is infinite.

Fourth, a square circle can be observed in the square as a successive loop. The square is a loop thus is an approximation of a circle. As an approximation of a circle it exists as an extension of the circle.

As stated earlier you do not understand what 'thing-in-itself' as intended to mean in this case.
I tried but you still fail to grasp what 'thing-in-itself' mean.
I'll give it a pass.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note the difference between "concept" and "idea".

Whatever is a 'concept' is a thought [neural state] that grounded to the empirical.

Whatever is an 'idea' is a thought [neural state] that is not grounded to the empirical, i.e. impossible to be empirical, e.g. a square-circle can be thought but it is empirically impossible.

"Infinity" is an idea of pure reason via neural states which is impossible to be empirical.

The thing-in-itself is an idea, i.e. a thought [via neural state] that is empirically impossible.
Note the "in-itself" which I highlighted above.

Empiricality is an idea given one cannot see sight or hear seeing.

Dually Infinity is not pure reason given we can observe continual change. This continuity of change, through the ever present now, is infinite.

Thirdly infinity can be observed in a line. The line consists of infinite further lines thus the line is infinite.

Fourth, a square circle can be observed in the square as a successive loop. The square is a loop thus is an approximation of a circle. As an approximation of a circle it exists as an extension of the circle.

As stated earlier you do not understand what 'thing-in-itself' as intended to mean in this case.
I tried but you still fail to grasp what 'thing-in-itself' mean.
I'll give it a pass.

And where in the above am I talking about a thing in itself in the above? You are off topic and diverting the conversation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empiricality is an idea given one cannot see sight or hear seeing.

Dually Infinity is not pure reason given we can observe continual change. This continuity of change, through the ever present now, is infinite.

Thirdly infinity can be observed in a line. The line consists of infinite further lines thus the line is infinite.

Fourth, a square circle can be observed in the square as a successive loop. The square is a loop thus is an approximation of a circle. As an approximation of a circle it exists as an extension of the circle.

As stated earlier you do not understand what 'thing-in-itself' as intended to mean in this case.
I tried but you still fail to grasp what 'thing-in-itself' mean.
I'll give it a pass.

And where in the above am I talking about a thing in itself in the above? You are off topic and diverting the conversation.

Hey! I am the one who had raised the OP so I know what is intended.

[Eodnhoj7]

As stated earlier you do not understand what 'thing-in-itself' as intended to mean in this case.
I tried but you still fail to grasp what 'thing-in-itself' mean.
I'll give it a pass.

And where in the above am I talking about a thing in itself in the above? You are off topic and diverting the conversation.

Hey! I am the one who had raised the OP so I know what is intended.

You are just diverting from the four points I made above.

[Scott Mayers]

........
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.

[Terrapin Station]

How do you verify and justify the universe as self-aware, i.e. self-awareness.


That is the point, those who claim the thing-in-itself exists, claim that the thing-in-itself is independent of human awareness.
There is no real thing-in-itself.
There is no universal-self-awareness-in-itself.

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.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=501205 time=1615372416 user_id=12582]
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.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as things that exist independent of observation. A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions. Attributes and boundary conditions exist only in a mind. In Actuality, such as when not being observed, there is only just stuff doing stuff, explicitly undifferentiated. The differentiation is not out there, it's in here. <taps your noggin>

When a thing stops being observed, it stops existing For All Intents and Purposes. Until and unless it is observed again it is effectively non-existent forever. Observing the attributable effects of a thing is sufficient if those effects can be particularized in your mind; that is you can draw a casual conclusion to apparent effects.

[Skepdick]

When a thing stops being observed, it stops existing For All Intents and Purposes. Until and unless it is observed again it is effectively non-existent forever. Observing the attributable effects of a thing is sufficient if those effects can be particularized in your mind; that is you can draw a casual conclusion to apparent effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=501216 time=1615383858 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=501213 time=1615380643 user_id=15238]
When a thing stops being observed, it stops existing For All Intents and Purposes. Until and unless it is observed again it is effectively non-existent forever. Observing the attributable effects of a thing is sufficient if those effects can be particularized in your mind; that is you can draw a casual conclusion to apparent effects.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence
[/quote]

Object permanence is of the mind, not of ontology. If you look back and the thing is Not still there, that also has ontological implications but neither requires that the things still exist or ever existed in and of themselves.

[Atla]

Solipsism is a phenomenon in itself thus is circular.

As circular it depends upon a form beyond it (the circle) thus is not completely self dependent.
...

Looks like you haven't improved at all over the years. Still unable to understand the law of identity, still reifying abstractions, confusing a philosophical view with a phenomenon with a reified abstraction and seeing a made-up dependence there..

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

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

[Eodnhoj7]

Looks like you haven't improved at all over the years. Still unable to understand the law of identity, still reifying abstractions, confusing a philosophical view with a phenomenon with a reified abstraction and seeing a made-up dependence there..

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.

[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.

There is no such thing as things that exist independent of observation. A thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions. Attributes and boundary conditions exist only in a mind. In Actuality, such as when not being observed, there is only just stuff doing stuff, explicitly undifferentiated. The differentiation is not out there, it's in here. <taps your noggin>

When a thing stops being observed, it stops existing For All Intents and Purposes. Until and unless it is observed again it is effectively non-existent forever. Observing the attributable effects of a thing is sufficient if those effects can be particularized in your mind; that is you can draw a casual conclusion to apparent effects.

A form of observation (universal consciousness) as distinct from another form of observation (human observation) necessitates one form of observation (universal) as not observed through another (human).

The totality of observation is a thing in itself given it cannot be observed.