“nihil in intellectu nisi prius in sensu”(Nothing is the intellect unless first being in the senses.)
Knowledge is ordinary and has nothing to do with any metaphysical place or thing. Any implication that there is something beyond the senses needs to be questioned. Our knowledge of the world need not be given in any way. For the hunter-gatherer in the deepest of the most remote forest has knowledge that is beyond ours in the densest of of cities.
There is no vacuum from which knowledge comes from. There is no a-temporal a-spatial vacuum from which we begin to exist. We are the informed by from the time and place in which we come into being.
The question of “what happens after I die” really is a question of what is considered the “I”. If I identify with the mind then I must explain where I will remain or go. If I identify with the body then I remain as the corpse and no process of sentience or animation remains. If I identify with both body and mind I still have to explain what remains and what goes where. If identify with something else I must explain how I know this other substance.
For me, to identify with the body is to deal what is at least confirmable. All else are unanswerable questions.
Man is wholly a part of the natural world. The perceived artificiality of being apart is a part of this system as well. Nothing escapes reality. Man is not independent of nature (the natural world).
The observation of an object does not change anything of its existence. Observation neither makes something more nor less existent. Quantum mechanics may say something different but in pragmatic terms it does not change or affect how we face life and death. It is about experience and not about existence.
The more I dig the less evidence I find for essence of any sort. In short, all things have no essences. I am content with this.
I think therefore I seem to be.
An abandoned house has a fridge with food in it. It has been there for at least six months. And it has spoilt. Flies are having a good time feasting upon the rotting organic matter. What or who observes it? The flies? The fungi? God? Are we arguing that a perception-less universe cannot exist?
The subject is never necessary in my opinion. There are only objects. The subject is accidental.
Truths are a process of a subject (a thing), and not a thing-in-itself.
A clear understanding of what exists and what are processes of existent things is necessary. From observation we can judge this. While this judgement is not perfect or complete it is the only method with which we have to judge. To chase any other method would be to deny the fact of this impossibly and be inauthentic to the reality.