The way that I interpreted Kant’s belief about observing known and unknown objects is that, known objects will cause one to subconsciously recognize it, requiring no new cognition. However, unknown objects need forms of cognition to perceive and understand the uses and identity of an object. Yet, I think that even if one is able to subconsciously recognize the object, one can still not know the identity and purpose of the object.
The way that we differentiate between objects and store them into our minds is through the objects characteristics. We look at a television and see that it is rectangular, the more modern one are flat, chords are running from the back of it, and it provides images. Hypothetically, if I were to look at a rectangle with chords running from the back of it that also provides images, I would assume that it was a T.V. But, these qualities are shared by a desktop monitor. Which is similar in all of these ways, as well as size. In this case, the two objects are not differentiable, if they were provided in an environment that does not appeal to one of the object’s inherent stigmas, as a desktop would normally be seen in an office setting, and a TV would be seen in a living room. Therefore, I do not think that one can subconsciously identify all objects known to him. There must be some subconscious decisions that require some cognitive input to achieve the identification of an object. If one were in a office building, they would initially think that I am in an office building, and, from that, if they were to see an object that has the similar characteristics of a television, they would not assume that it were a television, but a computer monitor. But this is achieved through the initial input that they are in an office.