I am afraid you yourself have given the answer to your question…
First you say “the realisation of this does not end the sunset or the stars”, to end by saying “but rather enhances perception to its acme”.
Do you see why “this realization does not end the sunset or the stars as [supposedly] it does with contents of thought”?
Je ne sais pas. You tell me.
I assume that there is a distinction between the contents of consciousness, which are maintained solely through thinking them into existence; and the physical world of nature which exists independently of my thinking, and so does not dissolve when my thinking dissolves.
But by all means tell me what you think.
I have to go to sleep because it’s already late here, so I don’t have time now to calmly answer your question (which I will gladly answer tomorrow). Anyway, let me leave you with something before I go: what makes you think that the sunset exists independently of your thinking?
What makes you think your thinking exists independently of the sunset?
I did NOT read 104 previous posts. Psychologically, the observer is the observed. As simple and obvious as it is, it’s impossible to understand unless it is ‘your’ manifest reality. If you actually look at the space you refer to as ‘my mind’, you are that. That’s the first and only step.
I find that the neurological model of experience (ie. how neurologists explain experience) is very helpful.
Simply put, it states that our conscious experience is a projection produced by the brain (rather than a direct perception of the world)
Our sensors are in direct contact with the world and each brain of every organism translates the info from its sensors into an image of what’s out there? A necessarily limited image? So our image of things is accurate in so far as our senses or brain is not damaged. How we feel about what we sense depends on memory?
Yes - sensors translate vibrations into electrical data - the brain then interprets that data based on past experience and produces an image that we can recognise and interact with.
It may be helpful to define what you mean by “accurate”? (or it may just be confusing, in which case we shall stop 
)
PS. Actually here’s my definition of “accurate” : normal human experience (normal as in typical, common or shared)
Accurate in the sense that the sensor is functioning in the way it was designed to. Which vibrations. What part of the ‘scale’ it is set up to detect. Which ‘frequencies’…
But our brains are damaged by our conditioning. Our consciousness is our content and our content is incoherent, unresolved, and moving constantly to achieve resolution that is impossible without insight, which requires energy that is wasted in constant movement.
The conditioned brain doesn’t have the intelligence to see that it can’t solve its problem without the insight it can’t have without intelligence. It’s a machine that does one thing continuously until it wears out, or until it stops altogether and gathers enough energy to awaken to what it’s doing.
Again, I think what trips us is the wording and language. Perhaps illustration and imagery could be more instrumental. With syntax, it is easy to get tangled up and arrive at seeming contradictions. I think this is where K lost a lot of his audience.
I will give it a try the way I understand it. I would appreciate discussion and feedback.
Imagine a universe that exists beyond the confines of time. That universe is everything at any time. It is you in the past, it is me in the future, it is a tree, it is an ant, it is a quasar, a subatomic particle, light, a car, a fruit. It is everything anytime.
Now we extract ourselves from this universe so we can be present in our physical reality. We are just one collection of cells, atoms, brain, other organs, etc. At one discrete time. We are separated from our environment, other organisms, and all celestial bodies. We travel through this universe as a discrete package, a bundle of nerves, a unique consciousness.
This is necessary for life to exist. If we were not separated, we would not be able to function. We would not be able to hunt and fend for our food, organize ourselves socially, or defend ourselves from a predator (I know that is a bit of a circle concept - the other side of the food-gathering coin. Nevertheless).
When we travel through this universe as individuals however we do so primarily through the means of separating ourselves from our experiences, thus the observer and the observed. But ultimately we still are part of the universe as a whole.
The only way for us to transcend this physical separation and experience the universe as a whole. Is by bypassing the ‘observer’. By ignoring our individual context for the observation. Instead observing it without a filter, or without a context grounded in being unique individuals, separated from the universe.
This context is built by us through time. We process our observations and fit them into the context of our separate identity and existence. This is why K says the Observer is time. It’s confusing. The observer is NOT time. It is a product that comes into existence through time, as we seek to anchor an experience to our unique individual interpretation of the universe. It is however dependent on time.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Its tricky - theres a lot going on in your conceptual model - it might be helpful if we started by defining “time” - what do you mean by time? and is there maybe more than one meaning which is being used interchangeably in an indeterminate manner?
For example there is the Time of spacetime that physicists are trying to grapple with.
There is chronological time or entropy measured by clocks
And there is this thing called psychological time - which is surely what we must deal with here as it relates to our experience and action in the world.
Ok, that’s a great point!
Yes, the word time is rather amorphous especially because we don’t fully understand the mechanism behind it and are basically trying to describe it based on our experietial perspective (psychological, physical, etc.)
What I meant is that we tend to approach time as an actual fundemental phenomenon. In reality it may be just a projection of other things. There are scientific models of the physical universe that don’t even involve time in the formulations! So we might as well just think of time as imaginary. It may be the wrong way to disect our reality into discrete sections.
When I mention looking at the universe at all times, or any time, I meant ignore the discretness we associate with time. Perhaps this just confuses things, but I wanted to make my description more general.
There is not just spatial seperation between me and you and a rock, there is also a time seperation. When you act as the observer, you seperate yourself into a discrete instance at a distinct time.
Does this make sense? It is hard to articulate these things. The language is a barrier, case in point.
What you have articulated (in this highly selective quote that I have posted here 
) seems to be a clear and simple statement of fact.
As we continue our exploration together may I suggest we try to remain as simple and factual as possible? For clarity’s sake - what do you reckon? Hopefully that doesn’t sound too boring?
Regarding making sense and the difficulty in articulating our ideas - instead of putting the blame solely on language (“its not my fault its language!”
) - please consider the following : that which is clear can be clearly stated.
Is it not possibble that familiar ideas, ideas that we identify with, appear to make sense merely because of their familiarity ? - the fact that when stated, the confusion and contradictions between those ideas become apparent, may be revelatory in itself.
Yes but consider that there actually is no ‘you’. That that is the ‘thinker’ that thinking has created. The “trick” as K has called it….there is a ‘you’, but not that ‘you’.
“You are the world”…that is what seems to be important to refute or discover? It would mean a psychological shift from the ‘normal’ belief as to who I am, to a vaster perception of what I am, ie., the world.
Why did K say “the observer is time” if, as you say, “the observer is NOT time”?
Did K misinform us? Was he confused?