Things-in-Themselves Exist as Real?

[VVilliam]

Your statement is only true as a statement but never in reality.

In this reality or every reality?

The usual counter is how can there be any appearance without that-which-appear.
This statement is merely a statement when one assumes dualism.
There is no way that-which-appear can be realized as really real by itself.

That appears to be a statement of duality. You are arguing that one cannot be self aware of being [existing], without something to bounce off. That has to be dualism.

What I meant by dualism is when you view the subject as independent of the object.

On the contrary I view the subject and object as one, which is monism in this sense.

All objects are of the one subject?

[Terrapin Station]

In this case, I am relying on faith to believe 'whatever is a brain' as concluded from the scientific FSK is justified true knowledge because it is the most credible FSK we have.

Look at it this way: how are you even getting to "this is what the scientific 'FSK' says"? Is that something your mind is fantasizing?

[Terrapin Station]

If the object is claimed to exist a thing-in-itself, then,
"Realized as really real by itself" meant the perceiver is able to realize a 100% representation of the exactness of the pre-existing object, i.e. the above 'candle'.

You'd have to explain what a "100% representation" refers to. That's not a standard term.

But the above is impossible because,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
If this is the case

It only is insofar as, and in the sense that, we're talking about human actions, artifacts and the like. It's not the case in general.

By the way, the video(s) you linked to in that thread is inaccessible now.

[bahman]

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?

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

[bahman]

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?

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

Definitely an illusion can affect a person.
A person seeing a snake in the shade will likely react to the illusion [a piece of rope perceived as a snake].

However in this case, I am referring to transcendental illusion, i.e. insisting a thing exists as a thing-in-itself as really real and independent of all human conditions.
For example, to insist the table you see out there is really real and independent of any human conditions [minds, etc.] is an illusion.

Note Russell raised the following question, which is true from the Kantian perspective;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

The above allude to the point there is no table-in-itself.
Kant had a credible argument to support the conclusion, there is no table-in-itself.

Perhaps it is all a Demon playing with my mind!

[VVilliam]

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

Ah but there is one thing to be conscious of - the mind itself...from there 'the sky is the limit' and if ones mind is that of a gods, then what is imagined is also 'real' in the sense that one can imagine oneself within the creations of the mind...

[bahman]

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

Ah but there is one thing to be conscious of - the mind itself...from there 'the sky is the limit' and if ones mind is that of a gods, then what is imagined is also 'real' in the sense that one can imagine oneself within the creations of the mind...

I agree. But such a state that there is a mind and nothing else is static. You need a tiny amount of information to move away from this static situation and create everything possible.

[VVilliam]

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this reality or every reality?



That appears to be a statement of duality. You are arguing that one cannot be self aware of being [existing], without something to bounce off. That has to be dualism.

What I meant by dualism is when you view the subject as independent of the object.

On the contrary I view the subject and object as one, which is monism in this sense.

All objects are of the one subject?

Not 'of' but all things are just emergent, without the consideration of 'emergent from'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case, I am relying on faith to believe 'whatever is a brain' as concluded from the scientific FSK is justified true knowledge because it is the most credible FSK we have.

Look at it this way: how are you even getting to "this is what the scientific 'FSK' says"? Is that something your mind is fantasizing?

How come you coming up which such a low standard question?
I have already stated whatever are scientific facts, truths or knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific FSK and its sub-FSKs.

The scientific, biological, physiological and neuroscience-neuro-anatomy FSK "say" [determined] the human brain is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Note can the economic, legal, political FSK says [determine] what is a brain?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the object is claimed to exist a thing-in-itself, then,
"Realized as really real by itself" meant the perceiver is able to realize a 100% representation of the exactness of the pre-existing object, i.e. the above 'candle'.

You'd have to explain what a "100% representation" refers to. That's not a standard term.

Example:
Say you saw a large crowd of people.
100% means you saw everyone-in-full within the crowd of say 50, 1000, 10,000 or >50,000.
It is impossible to realize the really real crowd-by-itself, what is crowd is merely a crude image processed by your brain/mind.

When you look at the candle, do you cognize all [100%] the molecules that made up what represent the candle?
It is an impossibility, even if you can cognize 100% of the molecules making up the candle you 'saw' it is not likely you would be able to cognize the more realistic atoms of electrons and protons that make up the candle.
The point is to make the candle real to you, you as a human being has to contribute whatever is preconditioned in you by nature and nurture to realize that it is a candle.

There is no way a sonar-only bat or virus will perceive the candle as you perceive it.
As such there is no candle-in-itself and thereby things-in-themselves independent of the human, sonar-only-bat, virus and other living entities.

One point is a state-of-affair at 100% should be the state-of-affairs at time t1 and space s1.
But change is constant, so at every micro nano-second there is a new state-of-affair, so that is no way you can nail the real state-of-affair by itself.
In addition time and space are conditioned by human being, so whatever is the state-of-affair even if you can pin to its trillion-th nano-second, it cannot be independent of the human conditions.

Challenge:
Demonstrate to you how you would argue a thing-in-itself exists as real totally unconditioned by the human conditions?

But the above is impossible because,

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180
If this is the case

It only is insofar as, and in the sense that, we're talking about human actions, artifacts and the like. It's not the case in general.

By the way, the video(s) you linked to in that thread is inaccessible now.

The new link [edited the post].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

It is not "about human actions, artifacts and the like" it refers to the whole of reality.

The ultimate argument would be,
the 'moon' 'sun' and 'stars' would not exists of there are no human beings.
I will not stray to the above at present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can illusion affect you? How could it affect you if it didn't exist, namely nothing?

If one was all there was and there was no thing else existing, probable one would create stuff with/in ones mind in which to interact with. Thus "Creation" {let there be and there was}

How a mind could possibly do anything when there is nothing to be conscious of?

You are too presumptuous in this case and begging the question that there is already a mind in existence, then trying to prove it in a ridiculous manner.

The most effective sense of reality is to observe the fact of the actions done and track how such actions emerged.

• Let say you are eating an apple.
  What is not debatable is the fact you are eating the apple.
  What enable you or any person to eat an apple is the existence a normal human brain and all the other necessary physical features.
  How your brain is capable to move you to eat an apple is due to certain specific set of neuronal activities.
  As a matter of convenience for communication purpose this specific set of neuronal activities and other sets of mental activities are categorized as the "mind".

From the above, there is no pre-existing 'a mind' in the brain.
What is mind is a matter of convenience for communication purposes.
There is no pre-existing mind-in-itself.

Note the common saying, the swarm of locust or any large group is moving as if it has a mind of its own. There is no mind-in-itself in this case.

Why you jump to the conclusion there is a mind-in-itself in the brain and body is due to a psychological drive to relieve cognitive dissonance, effects can be without cause.

[VVilliam]

What I meant by dualism is when you view the subject as independent of the object.

On the contrary I view the subject and object as one, which is monism in this sense.

All objects are of the one subject?

Not 'of' but all things are just emergent, without the consideration of 'emergent from'.

Mindlessly you mean?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All objects are of the one subject?

Not 'of' but all things are just emergent, without the consideration of 'emergent from'.

Mindlessly you mean?

See my post to Bahman above,
viewtopic.php?p=499090#p499090

Not mindlessly in the general sense like a drunkard and the likes.

It is 'mindless' in the sense there is no physical or mental mind-in-itself.

[Terrapin Station]

In this case, I am relying on faith to believe 'whatever is a brain' as concluded from the scientific FSK is justified true knowledge because it is the most credible FSK we have.

Look at it this way: how are you even getting to "this is what the scientific 'FSK' says"? Is that something your mind is fantasizing?

How come you coming up which such a low standard question?

Such a "low standard" question should be easy to address rather than just completely ignore, no?

You're doing the latter.

Given the topic and your comments on it, we probably shouldn't just ignore the "low standard" question.