Noumenon and Phenomenon

[ontological_realist]

Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.

Do you agree or disagree and why?

 

[Rilx]

Yes, I agree.

Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.

If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.

It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.

 

[aeebee50]

I like Ayn Rand's explanation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html I tend to sit back and listen.

 

[4321lynx]

I like Ayn Rand's explanation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html I tend to sit back and listen.

From that link, (and out of context) -

Kant is the most evil man in mankind’s history.

A little hyperbole, I would say, but maybe true for philosophers and other Witch Doctors who take his conclusions seriously. But his ideas are excusable as he not only had no idea of Ads/CFT ---

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence)

, --- but also lived in an era when such a concept was impossible as the necessary tools for it did not exist. Modern philosophers have no such excuse.

Philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, linguistics etc etc etc are all respectable, difficult disciplines, excellent in their place, but have no business investigating "reality" unless their users are fluent in the language and conclusions of science. Science is just now reaching AdS/CFT which maybe will "describe reality" for a few or a few thousand years, or maybe not, maybe that/those concept/concepts will last until next week: things and investigations and ideas are moving fast.

EDIT-- Oh, and I have personally known several men, and even one woman, more evil than Kant.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.
Do you agree or disagree and why?

I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.

That being said, I agree that I don't know the noumenon behind most of the phenomena I know. But I also don't know if there's any, which would also be a noumenon and therefore unlnowable. So how did Kant knew there was any noumenon to begin with if they were to be all unknowable?

Either you define a noumenon as what is unknowable behing the phenomena that we know and then of course it's trivially true that all noumena are unknowable, or you say that a noumenon is something else but then you couldn't possibly say it's unknowable since you've already said you know it to be this particular something else.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence)

Whatever I understand about this AdS/CFT correspondence thing seems to be very, very little.

However, I can at least say that something's wrong here:

Although a hologram is two-dimensional, it encodes information about all three dimensions of the object it represents.

Because,

• 1. No actual hologram is two-dimensional.

• 2. No two-dimensional space could possibly encode the totality of a three-dimensional space.

EB

 

[Bomb#20]

• 2. No two-dimensional space could possibly encode the totality of a three-dimensional space.

A counterexample.

 

[ontological_realist]

Immanuel Kant said that noumenon is unknowable.
Do you agree or disagree and why?

I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.

That being said, I agree that I don't know the noumenon behind most of the phenomena I know. But I also don't know if there's any, which would also be a noumenon and therefore unlnowable. So how did Kant knew there was any noumenon to begin with if they were to be all unknowable?

Either you define a noumenon as what is unknowable behing the phenomena that we know and then of course it's trivially true that all noumena are unknowable, or you say that a noumenon is something else but then you couldn't possibly say it's unknowable since you've already said you know it to be this particular something else.
EB

I think of it like this:-

Noumenon is that which actually exists.

Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.

So then the the question becomes:-

" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

 

[aeebee50]

I had not thought Kant as evil or anyone being more evil. Interesting idea of evil. I suppose evil is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[ontological_realist]

Yes, I agree.

Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.

If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.

It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.

Yes, and the view points need not be only human view points. View points can be of any conscious being whether human or not. Also you really can not know from the view point of any body else except your own, you can try to think empathecally and imaginatively from somebody else's point of view but it is finally your own mind which is thinking this and the limitations of your own mind still apply.

 

[DBT]

I think of it like this:-

Noumenon is that which actually exists.

Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.

So then the the question becomes:-

" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

The Brain and its activity is inseparable from that which actually exists, the Brain and its activity exists, that includes its own 'mental' rearrangement/interpretation of physical information. Information processing that is tested against the objects and events of the World on a daily basis. Therefore, at least to some degree, that which exists is indeed knowable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

• 2. No two-dimensional space could possibly encode the totality of a three-dimensional space.

A counterexample.

And how is that a counterexample?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I disagree because the unknowability of noumenon would have to be a noumenon itself and therefore unknowable, which contradicts what you say Kant said that noumenon is unknowable since we would know at least this one noumenon.

That being said, I agree that I don't know the noumenon behind most of the phenomena I know. But I also don't know if there's any, which would also be a noumenon and therefore unlnowable. So how did Kant knew there was any noumenon to begin with if they were to be all unknowable?

Either you define a noumenon as what is unknowable behing the phenomena that we know and then of course it's trivially true that all noumena are unknowable, or you say that a noumenon is something else but then you couldn't possibly say it's unknowable since you've already said you know it to be this particular something else.
EB

I think of it like this:-

Noumenon is that which actually exists.

Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.

So then the the question becomes:-

" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, I agree.

Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.

If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.

It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.

But that which you are saying is the case surely is a noumenon. And, either you know it or you don't. If you do, then you know a noumenon, which contradicts Kant's alleged claim. If you don't know it, then you are claiming something to be the case even though you actually don't know that it is the case.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, I agree.

Noumenon is a limit concept, that's why it's unknowable.

If we begin from a perceived thing (a phenomenon), we see first its appearance from some viewpoint. Later we can see it from other viewpoints like overall form, surface materials, function(s), etc. We can also learn about its internal, non-apparent properties by measurement (weight, spatial dimensions, ...), by scientific research, etc. Gradually we can conceive it from multiple viewpoints, but never from all possible, potentially infinite amount of viewpoints. That would be noumenon, but we cannot have criteria to decide that we know all possible viewpoints.

It's like the concept atom as the smallest undividable entity. It's a metaphysical limit concept; how small entity we ever find, we don't have criteria to decide that it cannot be divided further.

Yes, and the view points need not be only human view points. View points can be of any conscious being whether human or not. Also you really can not know from the view point of any body else except your own, you can try to think empathecally and imaginatively from somebody else's point of view but it is finally your own mind which is thinking this and the limitations of your own mind still apply.

This definitely seems true yet how would you know it is true since it is a noumenon?

Another way to think about it is that while knowing is a performing act of a subject, the conditions under which a subject has to perform any act surely would determine whether the act is possible or not. So, knowledge of reality has to be a subject's knowledge of reality, yet, whether a subject can possibly know some part of reality surely depends on what reality actually is, or even on the kind of reality it is. Since you accept you don't know what exists, you couldn't possibly know whether reality as a whole is or isn't the kind of reality that allows subjects to know some part of it. You can't claim to know that any part of reality is unknowable.
EB

 

[ontological_realist]

I think of it like this:-

Noumenon is that which actually exists.

Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.

So then the the question becomes:-

" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.
EB

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. Perhaps you are aware that philosophers have been debating for centuries whether knowledge is even possible. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

 

[Bomb#20]

A counterexample.

And how is that a counterexample?
EB

Time is the third dimension. Given an initial state, which is a two dimensional infinite matrix of ones and zeros, the setting of each cell at every future time is determined by the initial state and a small finite set of rules. So the totality of the three dimensional matrix is encoded by a two dimensional boundary condition. Down at the bottom of the wikipedia page they show the 6,366,548,773,467,669,985,195,496,000th layer of such a three dimensional matrix, computed from the first layer.

 

[Bomb#20]

I disagree because it is factually wrong: I know some things, therefore they exist.
EB

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. Perhaps you are aware that philosophers have been debating for centuries whether knowledge is even possible. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

But Speakpigeon is right. Sure, philosophers have been debating this for centuries; and the ones who said knowledge is impossible were wrong. Sure, you really cannot know from the viewpoint of anybody else; but you don't have to see something from every viewpoint to know that it exists. Sometimes one viewpoint is enough. Sure, the limitations of your own mind still apply; but that only means you can't know everything; it doesn't mean you can't know anything. Knowledge isn't all or nothing. There are some things we can know and other things we can't know.

Obvious example of something we can know: I think, therefore I am. Descartes' deceiving genius, and brain-in-a-vat scenarios, are a good way to identify knowable things. When you imagine these scenarios in order to try to doubt everything, periodically you come across statements that turn out to still be true even if you really are a disembodied brain in a vat.

 

[ontological_realist]

I think of it like this:-

Noumenon is that which actually exists.

Phenomenon is that which some one cognizes as existing.

So then the the question becomes:-

" What actually exists is unkowable." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

The Brain and its activity is inseparable from that which actually exists, the Brain and its activity exists, that includes its own 'mental' rearrangement/interpretation of physical information. Information processing that is tested against the objects and events of the World on a daily basis. Therefore, at least to some degree, that which exists is indeed knowable.

I am inclined to think that all physical objects are subject ( cognizer ) dependent. Brain is a physical object. What you write here is right in observer dependent phenomenal reality but not in noumenal reality.

This is what I wrote in another thread:-

What is a physical object?

Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it?
If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.


If a man from some jungle tribe who has never come out from there, is brought in to this room, what objects he will make in his mind from from this room? Right now the objects you are making from this room are also in your mind perhaps? I mean all what ever is there is there but dividing the totality in to separate objects is done by the cognizer or the subject.

All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not imagine or even conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required.

 

[DBT]

The Brain and its activity is inseparable from that which actually exists, the Brain and its activity exists, that includes its own 'mental' rearrangement/interpretation of physical information. Information processing that is tested against the objects and events of the World on a daily basis. Therefore, at least to some degree, that which exists is indeed knowable.

I am inclined to think that all physical objects are subject ( cognizer ) dependent. Brain is a physical object. What you write here is right in observer dependent phenomenal reality but not in noumenal reality.

The physical world appears to exist regardless of the existence of an observer. Evidence from the physical sciences, Geology, Astronomy, etc, supports the proposition that objects, events and relationships predate the emergence of observers (complex life forms).

What is a physical object?

Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it?
If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.

A brain interprets the world according to its neural architecture (evolved) on the basis of events and challenges of the external world, which of course shape and form the organism, and interaction of genes and environment. So if a table is perceived to be a single object it's because the mental representation is related to the physical structure/form of the object. The legs being perceived as attached and inseparable from the top (unless they are detachable) because the physical form of the table has a set of attributes and it has physical boundaries, edges, that define its status as single object . Which also tells us that the object is indeed composed of ever smaller components, ever smaller parts, paint, grain, roughness, etc, extending to scales that cannot be perceived without instruments that augment the senses. We know that on a quantum scale (wave function/particle), the world as we perceive it, is imperceptible. We learn from the world itself that our perception of it is limited to a narrow band of the spectrum, but nevertheless a band that has proven itself to be valid, which enables us to function within an ever changing environment.

More to the point, an environment that does not cater to a flawed perception. An environment that destroys the flawed observer.

So it's not that the existence of the world that is observer dependent, but the existence of observer it/her/himself that is world dependent (functional cognition).

If a man from some jungle tribe who has never come out from there, is brought in to this room, what objects he will make in his mind from from this room? Right now the objects you are making from this room are also in your mind perhaps? I mean all what ever is there is there but dividing the totality in to separate objects is done by the cognizer or the subject.

That's the limitations of knowledge, the tribesman perceives a room full of objects but does not recognize their purpose or function. He also carries his own prejudices and fears, which shapes his experience but does not alter the structure and relationship of the objects themselves...an electrical current shocks him regardless of his [flawed] perception, the inherit nature of these objects (and his lack of knowledge) being the source of his downfall.

All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not imagine or even conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required.

I think that what you saying here is reasonable, but not in contraction to what I said. The world is far more complex than we perceive it to be, or understand it.

In terms of the world at large, we are in a sense like the tribesman in a room full of unfamiliar objects, but we recognize and understand just enough in order to negotiate our way within the small room in which we abide.