Questions to Answer?

[Fairy]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

[Gary Childress]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Good question, really. Do detached observers who don't feel the joy or sorrow of those s/he observes observe anything as it truly is?

[Age]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Since absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, the answer/s to your question, here, would all depend on 'the observer', "itself".

Now, since the 'Observer', 'Itself', is already observing thy 'Self', then this would imply, or mean, that as the 'Observer' is observing thy 'Self', then 'It' does want to be observed.

[Age]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Good question, really. Do detached observers who don't feel the joy or sorrow of those s/he observes observe anything as it truly is?

Every body 'observes', [smells, tastes, feels, hears, and sees], every thing as they Truly are, or as they are exactly. However, 'you', people, interpret and misinterpret what is observed, and sensed, because of previously experiences, which have left 'you' with pre-existing pre/assumptions and beliefs.

Now, once all presumptions, assumptions, and beliefs are gotten rid of and removed completely, then 'you', people, can and will start observing, and seeing and understanding, things for how they are, exactly, or, for how they Truly are, also exactly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

1. The default of an Observer is to observe whatever is observable, thus including its empirical self [there is no soul-in-itself].
Surely an observers can observe its own physical self and use a mirror or video to observe whatever is outside its perceptual range.

2. In general, Point 2 is moot in contra to the default in 1.

[Age]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

1. The default of an Observer is to observe whatever is observable, thus including its empirical self [there is no soul-in-itself].

There is no so-called 'empirical self. So, obviously what there is not, can not be observed.

Surely an observers can observe its own physical self and use a mirror or video to observe whatever is outside its perceptual range.

But, there is no 'physical self'.

There is, of course, 'physical matter'. But, does 'physical matter' observe, see, and understand, things?

If yes, then how, exactly?

2. In general, Point 2 is moot in contra to the default in 1.

But, there is no 'default' in 1.

you, once more, seem to presume that what you personally believe is true "veritas aequitas" is laughably what is actually true, and real. Which is absolutely hilarious to watch play out and occur, here.

[Fairy]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

1. The default of an Observer is to observe whatever is observable, thus including its empirical self [there is no soul-in-itself].
Surely an observers can observe its own physical self and use a mirror or video to observe whatever is outside its perceptual range.

But can the observer be located specifically to an actual location within it's visual field, except to say only as a temporal finite reflection, an appearance already within it?

Do you think using a mirror could point to the actual location of the observer? Can the observer be observed using a mirror? Or would using a mirror just reveal only a perceived image appearance already within the observer? The observer remaining hidden from view, as the reflection would be the only image seen, not the observer itself.

So can the observer observe itself. It could, but it wouldn't see anything, so I'm assuming it wouldn't care or want to focus on seeing nothing, rather, it would be more focused in on what is being reflected in the mirror. And yet, the looked upon image seen in the mirror, also sees nothing. Do you understand?

The observer then would hardly want to observe the observing simply because in doing so, this would cause the whole reflective imaged world to collapse the illusion of imageless images. The illusion would be seen through for what it is, which is nothing appearing as something.

When seeing it's image in a mirror, the human thinks it is the one looking at itself, and that the location of the seer is somewhere 'behind the eyes'. However, that's not what's actually happening, the human being is just a reflected image being 'looked upon', it is not the one looking.

These 'looked upon' appearances seem to be what creates the whole illusion of a Self that's real, and believable. So the want to wakeup from this dreamscape reality is to know recognise through the mirror reflection that the observer is nothing appearing to be something, the human only exists as an imageless image in a mirror, and that doesn't always feel comfortable for the human being, who believes it is the observer observing itself. An empirical self then, is simply recognised for what it actually is, that being a mentally constructed image made purely out of 'thought' and 'belief' and that there's nothing actually there existing as an empirical physical self. Yes, there's a physical body, but there's no empirical physical self animating the body from within it, or from outside of it. The body is simply an appearance within the observing, that cannot be located or observed as an empirical self.

2. In general, Point 2 is moot in contra to the default in 1.

[Fairy]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Since absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, the answer/s to your question, here, would all depend on 'the observer', "itself".

Now, since the 'Observer', 'Itself', is already observing thy 'Self', then this would imply, or mean, that as the 'Observer' is observing thy 'Self', then 'It' does want to be observed.

The observer is observing 'thoughts' that appear and disappear. And while these 'thoughts' appear as objects seen as they are being looked upon, the observer can know these objects looked upon are not the actual looker. So the idea of a self is simply an arising illusion of a self as a 'thought thing'

So what is observing a 'thought thing' ? The answer is no thing. No thing is being this imageless empty blank white canvas on which all colour contrasting images appear and disappear, either within it, upon it, or outside of it. It's all the same thing. The observer is identical to the observed simply because there's no division between the observer and the observed.

Thus, observing has no actual physical location within, or without it's visual field because it's everywhere at once, it's infinity itself projecting finite images, infinitely for eternity. All physical things are non physical, made of sensation, which is also non physical.

[Fairy]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Good question, really. Do detached observers who don't feel the joy or sorrow of those s/he observes observe anything as it truly is?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'detached observers' Gary, sorry.
For me here, the observer in infinity looking at itself as and through a finite object in space time reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

1. The default of an Observer is to observe whatever is observable, thus including its empirical self [there is no soul-in-itself].
Surely an observers can observe its own physical self and use a mirror or video to observe whatever is outside its perceptual range.

But can the observer be located specifically to an actual location within it's visual field, except to say only as a temporal finite reflection, an appearance already within it?

Do you think using a mirror could point to the actual location of the observer? Can the observer be observed using a mirror? Or would using a mirror just reveal only a perceived image appearance already within the observer? The observer remaining hidden from view, as the reflection would be the only image seen, not the observer itself.

So can the observer observe itself. It could, but it wouldn't see anything, so I'm assuming it wouldn't care or want to focus on seeing nothing, rather, it would be more focused in on what is being reflected in the mirror. And yet, the looked upon image seen in the mirror, also sees nothing. Do you understand?

The observer then would hardly want to observe the observing simply because in doing so, this would cause the whole reflective imaged world to collapse the illusion of imageless images. The illusion would be seen through for what it is, which is nothing appearing as something.

When seeing it's image in a mirror, the human thinks it is the one looking at itself, and that the location of the seer is somewhere 'behind the eyes'. However, that's not what's actually happening, the human being is just a reflected image being 'looked upon', it is not the one looking.

These 'looked upon' appearances seem to be what creates the whole illusion of a Self that's real, and believable. So the want to wakeup from this dreamscape reality is to know recognise through the mirror reflection that the observer is nothing appearing to be something, the human only exists as an imageless image in a mirror, and that doesn't always feel comfortable for the human being, who believes it is the observer observing itself. An empirical self then, is simply recognised for what it actually is, that being a mentally constructed image made purely out of 'thought' and 'belief' and that there's nothing actually there existing as an empirical physical self. Yes, there's a physical body, but there's no empirical physical self animating the body from within it, or from outside of it. The body is simply an appearance within the observing, that cannot be located or observed as an empirical self.

2. In general, Point 2 is moot in contra to the default in 1.

As qualified there is no permanent self, i.e. a self-in-itself or soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

• "In epistemology, he questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent “self” that continues over time."
  https://iep.utm.edu/hume/

Given the above, surely you can observe yourself as an empirical self, i.e. the complete 'yourself' i.e. physical and mental as one whole that is not permanent.
The observer will be like a hurricane, river and the like that emerged from a combination of conditions, in this case with self-awareness can verify its self exists as a whole and as observer can observed itself as it is.

[Fairy]

As qualified there is no permanent self, i.e. a self-in-itself or soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

• "In epistemology, he questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent “self” that continues over time."
  https://iep.utm.edu/hume/

This is only theory though, as observed, physicality being nothing other than appearances and disappearances observed, or perceived.
But is this observing 'permanent' or 'impermanent' though? Can 'permanence' be observed, if there's no permanence to observe?

Given the above, surely you can observe yourself as an empirical self, i.e. the complete 'yourself' i.e. physical and mental as one whole that is not permanent.
The observer will be like a hurricane, river and the like that emerged from a combination of conditions, in this case with self-awareness can verify its self exists as a whole and as observer can observed itself as it is.

You can observe yourself as a temporal appearance, which is actually constructed of sensation and thought.

There must be something that is not a 'thought' or a 'sensation' that is observing every thought and sensation, right?

That space between two thoughts, between sensation felt, and not felt, must exist. This space, or placeholder, is not nothing, it is the interface by which something, namely, thought or sensation is known to arise and fall, appear and disappear.

That space must be permanent, seamless, and necessary for appearances to arise and fall, to be known, and to exist.

[Age]

1: Does the Observer want to be Observed?

2: Does the Observer not want to be Observed?

Since absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, the answer/s to your question, here, would all depend on 'the observer', "itself".

Now, since the 'Observer', 'Itself', is already observing thy 'Self', then this would imply, or mean, that as the 'Observer' is observing thy 'Self', then 'It' does want to be observed.

The observer is observing 'thoughts' that appear and disappear.

But, the 'Observer' observes other things, as well.

Also, it is very, very, very rare for 'you', 'observers', to observe 'thoughts'.

And while these 'thoughts' appear as objects seen as they are being looked upon, the observer can know these objects looked upon are not the actual looker. So the idea of a self is simply an arising illusion of a self as a 'thought thing'

That may well be what 'you', individually, 'observe', and believe. But, 'that' is certainly not what the 'Observer' sees, nor believes.

So what is observing a 'thought thing' ? The answer is no thing. No thing is being this imageless empty blank white canvas on which all colour contrasting images appear and disappear, either within it, upon it, or outside of it.

Again, the thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions within that one human body are never necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, in Life.

Only when you produce a sound and valid argument for your claims, assumptions, or beliefs, here, is only when 'they' will be irrefutably True, and/or Right.

Until then 'you' are on 'your own', here.

It's all the same thing. The observer is identical to the observed simply because there's no division between the observer and the observed.

So, you observing human beings are identical to the cat, phone, whale, and mars that 'you' observe, because there is absolutely no division at all between 'you', an observing human being, and a cat, phone, whale, or Mars. Well according to the one human being known as "fairy", here, anyway.

Thus, observing has no actual physical location within, or without it's visual field because it's everywhere at once, it's infinity itself projecting finite images, infinitely for eternity. All physical things are non physical, made of sensation, which is also non physical.

So, every one 'must' agree with and accept that, 'All physical things are non physical', okay?

Why? Because the human being, known as "fairy", here, says and believes so.

[Fairy]

Since absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, the answer/s to your question, here, would all depend on 'the observer', "itself".

Now, since the 'Observer', 'Itself', is already observing thy 'Self', then this would imply, or mean, that as the 'Observer' is observing thy 'Self', then 'It' does want to be observed.

The observer is observing 'thoughts' that appear and disappear.

But, the 'Observer' observes other things, as well.

Also, it is very, very, very rare for 'you', 'observers', to observe 'thoughts'.

And while these 'thoughts' appear as objects seen as they are being looked upon, the observer can know these objects looked upon are not the actual looker. So the idea of a self is simply an arising illusion of a self as a 'thought thing'

That may well be what 'you', individually, 'observe', and believe. But, 'that' is certainly not what the 'Observer' sees, nor believes.

So what is observing a 'thought thing' ? The answer is no thing. No thing is being this imageless empty blank white canvas on which all colour contrasting images appear and disappear, either within it, upon it, or outside of it.

Again, the thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions within that one human body are never necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, in Life.

Only when you produce a sound and valid argument for your claims, assumptions, or beliefs, here, is only when 'they' will be irrefutably True, and/or Right.

Until then 'you' are on 'your own', here.

It's all the same thing. The observer is identical to the observed simply because there's no division between the observer and the observed.

So, you observing human beings are identical to the cat, phone, whale, and mars that 'you' observe, because there is absolutely no division at all between 'you', an observing human being, and a cat, phone, whale, or Mars. Well according to the one human being known as "fairy", here, anyway.

Thus, observing has no actual physical location within, or without it's visual field because it's everywhere at once, it's infinity itself projecting finite images, infinitely for eternity. All physical things are non physical, made of sensation, which is also non physical.

So, every one 'must' agree with and accept that, 'All physical things are non physical', okay?

Why? Because the human being, known as "fairy", here, says and believes so.

Think what you like. I have no business denying you of your dream. Dreams are infinitely finite within infinity, difference where there is none.

Enjoy your Sunday.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As qualified there is no permanent self, i.e. a self-in-itself or soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

• "In epistemology, he questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent “self” that continues over time."
  https://iep.utm.edu/hume/

This is only theory though, as observed, physicality being nothing other than appearances and disappearances observed, or perceived.
But is this observing 'permanent' or 'impermanent' though? Can 'permanence' be observed, if there's no permanence to observe?

Given the above, surely you can observe yourself as an empirical self, i.e. the complete 'yourself' i.e. physical and mental as one whole that is not permanent.
The observer will be like a hurricane, river and the like that emerged from a combination of conditions, in this case with self-awareness can verify its self exists as a whole and as observer can observed itself as it is.

You can observe yourself as a temporal appearance, which is actually constructed of sensation and thought.

There must be something that is not a 'thought' or a 'sensation' that is observing every thought and sensation, right?

That space between two thoughts, between sensation felt, and not felt, must exist. This space, or placeholder, is not nothing, it is the interface by which something, namely, thought or sensation is known to arise and fall, appear and disappear.

That space must be permanent, seamless, and necessary for appearances to arise and fall, to be known, and to exist.

A few lines will not explain the above issue sufficiently.

Here is a thorough counter to your points above from AI [points provided by me - comprehensive and save me time].

Refuting the “Permanent Self as the Space Between Thoughts” Claim
The poster is committing a classic error: reifying a structural condition for conscious representation into a metaphysical substance or permanent self. This error is exactly what Hume, Kant, Parfit, and Buddhist no-self (anattā) doctrine dismantle—each from different angles but converging on the same point:

There is no discoverable, necessary, or metaphysically permanent “self” behind thoughts. The ‘space’ between thoughts is not a substance but a conceptual abstraction.

Let’s analyze.

1. Hume’s Refutation: No Impression, No Idea

Hume’s principle:
Every legitimate idea must correspond to an impression.

When you introspect, you encounter:

• sensations
  thoughts
  moods
  perceptions
  interconnections among them

You never encounter:

• an observing entity
  an unchanging witness
  a metaphysical space
  a pure substratum

Hume famously writes that inner observation yields only a flux of perceptions, never the “self” the poster imagines.

Application:
The poster is mistaking the absence of a thought for the presence of a thing that observes thoughts.

But in Humean empiricism, absence is not evidence of an entity.
It is just the mind not presenting a perception at that moment.

No impression = no idea = no basis for a permanent self.


2. Kant’s Refutation: The Transcendental Apperception Is Not a Self-Thing

Kant dismantles the claim even more decisively.

The poster is conflating:
the transcendental condition for experience
with
a metaphysical object (a soul, witness, permanent self)

Kant’s key point:

• The “I think” that accompanies representations is a logical function, not an object or substance. It is not something you can experience. It is not a “space between thoughts.”

It is a unifying activity, not a self-subsisting entity.

Why this matters:

The “space” the poster imagines is actually:
a necessary structural form of inner intuition (time), not
a witness or metaphysical self

Time is the form in which inner states appear, but:

• it is not permanent in itself
  it is not an object
  it is not a soul
  it is not a consciousness-substance

Kant would say:
You are mistaking the form of inner sense for an inner thing.

And as you yourself emphasize, in Kant:
the thing-in-itself is a thought-only regulative idea, not a real object.

So Kant refutes the notion of a permanent self on two fronts:
The “observer” is only a logical function, not an entity.

The “space between thoughts” is the form of inner intuition (time), not a metaphysical substance.


3. Parfit’s Refutation: Identity Is Divisible, Non-Entity-Based

Parfit destroys the idea of a permanent observer by showing:

• personal identity is not a further fact
  consciousness can be split, fissioned, and divided conceptually
  survival does not require numerical identity

Thus a “permanent space” or “witness-substratum” is unnecessary and incoherent.

For Parfit:
Identity is not something over and above psychological continuity.

If no further-self is needed for identity over time, then:

• a metaphysical witness is redundant
  the “space between thoughts” is irrelevant to identity
  no permanent self is needed to bind experiences

Parfit ends up close to the Buddhist position:

We are not what we believe ourselves to be.


4. The Buddha’s Refutation: Anattā (No Fixed Entity)

The Buddha (and later Abhidharma analyses) reject the idea that:

• the observer is real
  there is a substratum
  there is a timeless consciousness behind thoughts
  there is a metaphysical gap to be reified

Buddhism identifies this error precisely as śūnyatā reification:
Taking a structural feature of experience (e.g., momentariness, gaps, transitions) and treating it as a metaphysical thing.

According to the Buddha:

The “gap between thoughts” is just another impermanent mental event.
It has no inherent existence, no permanence, no selfhood.


5. The Poster’s Logical Fallacies

Fallacy 1: Reification
He reifies a conceptual placeholder (“space,” “gap”) into an ontological object.

Fallacy 2: Category Error

Confusing:
structural necessity for representing experience
with
metaphysical necessity of a substance that exists

The gap is a feature of temporal cognition, not a thing.

Fallacy 3: Illicit Inference

He argues:
Thoughts appear and disappear.
Therefore something permanent must observe them.

This is identical to the argument for the soul in early Upanishadic thought—refuted by all four thinkers above.


6. Correct Interpretation (Consistent with Your FS-Concept)

From your Framework-System view:
Everything we describe about consciousness is framed within human cognitive conditions.
There is no absolute observer, only a framework-dependent representation of temporal succession.
The “space” is just a functional abstraction, not a mind-independent entity.

Your position aligns with Kant:
The structure of experience (forms, categories) does not imply metaphysical entities beyond experience.

The poster’s claim leaps from phenomenological structure → metaphysical self, which you correctly reject.

Final Summary
The “permanent self as the space between thoughts” is refuted because:

• Hume: no impression of such a self exists.
  Kant: the unity of consciousness is a function, not an entity; the “space” is just time.
  Parfit: identity does not require a metaphysical self.
  The Buddha: the self is a conceptual fiction; the gap is empty of substance.

What the poster thinks is a permanent witness is merely:

• a temporal form of cognition (Kant)
  a conceptual abstraction (Hume)
  not a further fact (Parfit)
  and empty of essence (Buddha)

Absolutely no philosophical tradition above supports the existence of a “permanent self.” or a self as space between two thoughts

[Age]

The observer is observing 'thoughts' that appear and disappear.

But, the 'Observer' observes other things, as well.

Also, it is very, very, very rare for 'you', 'observers', to observe 'thoughts'.

And while these 'thoughts' appear as objects seen as they are being looked upon, the observer can know these objects looked upon are not the actual looker. So the idea of a self is simply an arising illusion of a self as a 'thought thing'

That may well be what 'you', individually, 'observe', and believe. But, 'that' is certainly not what the 'Observer' sees, nor believes.

So what is observing a 'thought thing' ? The answer is no thing. No thing is being this imageless empty blank white canvas on which all colour contrasting images appear and disappear, either within it, upon it, or outside of it.

Again, the thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions within that one human body are never necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, in Life.

Only when you produce a sound and valid argument for your claims, assumptions, or beliefs, here, is only when 'they' will be irrefutably True, and/or Right.

Until then 'you' are on 'your own', here.

It's all the same thing. The observer is identical to the observed simply because there's no division between the observer and the observed.

So, you observing human beings are identical to the cat, phone, whale, and mars that 'you' observe, because there is absolutely no division at all between 'you', an observing human being, and a cat, phone, whale, or Mars. Well according to the one human being known as "fairy", here, anyway.

Thus, observing has no actual physical location within, or without it's visual field because it's everywhere at once, it's infinity itself projecting finite images, infinitely for eternity. All physical things are non physical, made of sensation, which is also non physical.

So, every one 'must' agree with and accept that, 'All physical things are non physical', okay?

Why? Because the human being, known as "fairy", here, says and believes so.

Think what you like. I have no business denying you of your dream. Dreams are infinitely finite within infinity, difference where there is none.

Think and dream whatever you like. you are also free to express those thoughts and dreams. But, if you can not back up and support those thoughts and dreams with irrefutable proof, then they will just remain only thoughts and dreams.

Now, as for what is actually True, and Real, and provably so, then 'this' is very different from your own personal dreams, and thoughts, here.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Only one day, only?