Do you believe there is a distinction between appearances and things-in-themselves, i.e.. objects as they appear to us and objects as they are in and of themselves?
>>8150343
are you fucking retarded
>>8150349
Is that a no or you are just trying to be edgy like a 12 year old?
>>8150343
I think the concept of "thing-in-itself" is bullshit.
>>8150343
The thing-in-itself, or noumena, can't be conceived by the human mind by definition. It's literally that which exists outside of human or any other interpretation.
>>8150676
What you visualize when you think of a proton is wrong. You can't think of a proton.
HOWEVER
>>8150693
We can take measurements that are true even outside of our own understanding of things. The standard is arbitrary but is standard none the less. A collection of numbers are the truest knowledge we can have about something.
>>8150343
there is a difference.
things must exist to produce a consciousness to observe them, but how the consciousness observes them is a filter that distorts their reality while ignoring most of it.
>>8150343
Cognitive science already acknowledges the notion when working under the assumption of indirect realism. Of course there are "things in themselves." Does anyone really believe that the world you perceive with your senses is actually what it looks like outside of perception?
>>8150805
>things must exist to produce a consciousness to observe them
In all seriousness, how could you distinguish between things that produce consciousness, and things consciousness produces? It seems the only way we identify hallucinations is by their inconsistency with our other observations. But can we actually categorically rule out long-term consistent hallucinations a priori? And if we can't, then how do we know phenomena and noumena actually even exist as categories in the first place? Maybe the phenomenon is all there is.
>>8151147
>what it looks like outside of perception
Did you type this with a straight face?
>>8151152
Take it however you want. There is a way the world is in itself outside of perception. Obviously nobody can "see" that. But if it's a certain way, then it looks that way
If there is a noumenal world we cant know anything about it.
>>8151147
We can't know what things are like outside of perception.
>>8151155
>There is a way the world is in itself outside of perception.
Can you give me a definition of existence in the absence of observation?
>>8150343
No, Kant is full of shit.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
And this probably belongs on the History And Humanities board.
>>8151170
>Ayn Rand
I am filled with dread
>>8151164
>Reality unfiltered by any kind of sense perception. I wouldn't imagine it to be substantively different from how it is when it is being observed.
That's not a definition at all.
>>8151170
Lmfao
>>8151170
Beautifully subtle troll
>>8151187
What would be an acceptable definition to you then? Because that's quite literally what it is, objective reality unfiltered by the subjective nature of experience, whatever contours such a reality may take. Are you trying to infer that there is no existence if there are no observers?
>>8151160
somewhere there is a place much colder than where you are currently sitting
maybe underneath a rock in siberia
you're not in siberia
you don't know which rock i'm talking about
and nobody will ever place a thermometer underneath that rock to measure the temperature
but it's fuckin cold bro
really cold
and the rock is real but you're never going to see it
I don't know why OP expected most of /sci/ to be familiar with this. Pic related is a relevant excerpt from The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
In regards to the question, I think there is certainly a true nature of reality, and there is potential for us to fail to correctly understand, as we are only able to perceive via our imperfect senses, and use our rational faculties to attempt to interpret them.
Kant's idea that because we understand ourselves to be free, that we are thus bound by moral law, is fucking nonsense though.
>>8150343
As soon as you define things in them self, and things as they appear to us, you will notice that the question is meaningless
>>8150343
If we think there can be a difference then it would make sense to try and build tools to see things in a way we yet aren't able to. If there was no difference, then trying to build such tools would be in vain.
dude what if, like, color wasn't even real
>>8151372
Yep maybe it's made up to make us spend money on color TVs. Smart bastards tricked us.
>>8150343
>Do you believe there is a distinction between appearances and things-in-themselves, i.e.. objects as they appear to us and objects as they are in and of themselves?
Pic related.
Yes.
/thread
>>8151151
you can't distinguish.
solipsism can't be refuted.
If Occam is correct and the simplest explanation is the likeliest then it would seem wise to trust the senses on these matters.
But ultimately a person must choose to trust in the reality of things because it's less boring than the alternative.
>>8151372
Is color qualia?
>>8151372
I know right. What's this nonsense about people of color?
