Re: Kant on things in themselves

Scott H wrote:

>First of all, I consider three lines to be objects,
> not concepts.


But what is there to engage in such existential judgements outside of
minds? Would Jesus be "out-there" being cognitive of the ontological
realm in a human manner if all humans were destroyed? Or is the cosmos
itself an anthropomorphic computer abstracting features from the whole
and classifying them as objects and actions? Is this "God's Eye view"
observing or conceiving the Earth from all possible POVs or only
certain POVs (as a globe hanging in space, a flat circular landscape,
a mass of atoms, a member of the solar system and galaxy, etc)?

Consciousness involves the categorization of information. "Regions"
would not magically assert "what they are" even in the phenomenal
background presented to the intentionality of the subject. There are
opaque, brain processes doing that in addition to the the direct or
more transparent one of thinking about what one is experiencing (with
language and feelings). Or that's just my opinion, anyway. I guess
what we call a "table" could be waving its hands, jumping up-and-down,
and screaming "I'm a table!" in either a mental or a extra-mental
situation, to assert its status from the whole. But that's Santa Claus
and Tooth Fairy territory for me. Tables seem pretty stupid and need
help from cognitive systems that organize and conceptualize that input
of information as "table" in their representational domains.