Noumenon and Phenomenon

[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.

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.

Actually Kant says that noumenon as a limit concept is problematic, because it is something we are bound to conceive as a correlate of phenomenona. Kant calls that a noumenon in the negative sense. In the positive sense noumenon is completely intellectual concept without any correlation to conceivable phenomena.

 

[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.

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

You are right, Kant had two definitions, "positive" and "negative". See my response (#21) to ontological_realist. But, even in the negative sense of noumenon, knowing the metaphysical definition of noumenon as a universal concept, doesn't imply knowing any particular noumenon.

 

[ontological_realist]

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

You are right, Kant had two definitions, "positive" and "negative". See my response (#21) to ontological_realist But, even in the negative sense of noumenon, knowing the metaphysical definition of noumenon as a universal concept, doesn't imply knowing any particular noumenon.

So you are saying that if I say, " I know that there are things existing in the universe that are unknowable to humans." that does not imply that I know which are those things. I think that this is correct. Did I understand you right?

 

[ontological_realist]

To DBT:-

You said, "The physical world appears to exist regardless of the existence of an observer."

I do not say that world does not exist. I say that the world as cognized by humans does not exist perhaps. Humans cognizing the world having tables, chairs, stars and moon etc. , or having molecules, atoms and sub atomic particles or strings or waves etc. Perhaps other conscious beings cognize the world differently. Perhaps post humans will cognize the world in a way which present day human scientists can not even imagine or conceive of.

When some one says the world is made of matter or is physical, it seems to be a huge claim as to the nature of reality or existence which seems to be extremely arrogant like the claim that the world has been created for humans or that the whole universe revolves around the
Earth ( Do not forget those claims seemed very reasonable at one time) . I make no claim of knowing as to the nature of all that exists whether it is physical or mental or some thing else.

 

[DBT]

To DBT:-

You said, "The physical world appears to exist regardless of the existence of an observer."

I do not say that world does not exist. I say that the world as cognized by humans does not exist perhaps.

I gathered that, I was saying that the world must exist in the way it is represented by the brain because it is the information states (objects, events, relationships) of the world that physically effects the neural networks of the brain (itself a part of the world), in very specifics ways in order to enable the organism to function effectively (Reliabilism). If the world did not exist in the way it is represented, our mental representation would be useless. Of course, our mental 'map' is indeed a simplified version of the world. We know the world is far grander and more complex than we perceive it to be, we know that objects are composed of ever finer structures that extend beyond our senses, but what we have within our limited range appears to correspond to the scale/space/time in which we exist.

Humans cognizing the world having tables, chairs, stars and moon etc. , or having molecules, atoms and sub atomic particles or strings or waves etc. Perhaps other conscious beings cognize the world differently. Perhaps post humans will cognize the world in a way which present day human scientists can not even imagine or conceive of.

No doubt they do, and shall, but surely still based on information gathered from the world itself and therefore a reasonable and reliable representation of that aspect of the world, however broad or limited?

 

[Rilx]

So you are saying that if I say, " I know that there are things existing in the universe that are unknowable to humans." that does not imply that I know which are those things. I think that this is correct. Did I understand you right?

Yes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Perhaps you are aware that philosophers have been debating for centuries whether knowledge is even possible.

You cannot possibly ask me to be aware of everything that philosophers say or have said. If you have a favourite, you are welcome to produce it and I'll try to comment.

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

Sure.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you are saying that if I say, " I know that there are things existing in the universe that are unknowable to humans." that does not imply that I know which are those things. I think that this is correct. Did I understand you right?

Yes.

Ok but do you actually know there are things you don't know?
EB

 

[ontological_realist]

So you are saying that if I say, " I know that there are things existing in the universe that are unknowable to humans." that does not imply that I know which are those things. I think that this is correct. Did I understand you right?

Yes.

Thanks.

By the way, I have a phrase which I use some times in my argumentation with people in philosophy discussions. That is:-

" You do not have to know what it is, to know that it is what it is. "

 

[ontological_realist]

I gathered that, I was saying that the world must exist in the way it is represented by the brain because it is the information states (objects, events, relationships) of the world that physically effects the neural networks of the brain (itself a part of the world), in very specifics ways in order to enable the organism to function effectively (Reliabilism). If the world did not exist in the way it is represented, our mental representation would be useless. Of course, our mental 'map' is indeed a simplified version of the world. We know the world is far grander and more complex than we perceive it to be, we know that objects are composed of ever finer structures that extend beyond our senses, but what we have within our limited range appears to correspond to the scale/space/time in which we exist.

Humans cognizing the world having tables, chairs, stars and moon etc. , or having molecules, atoms and sub atomic particles or strings or waves etc. Perhaps other conscious beings cognize the world differently. Perhaps post humans will cognize the world in a way which present day human scientists can not even imagine or conceive of.

No doubt they do, and shall, but surely still based on information gathered from the world itself and therefore a reasonable and reliable representation of that aspect of the world, however broad or limited?

You could be right, I really do not know. I know that most people and science agree with you. Yours is the common sense view. What I am saying (or rather trying to say) is closer to Eastern philosophy, mysticism and German idealist philosophy specially Kant and Schopenhauer. The great German physicist Erwin Schrodinger,one of the founders of Quantum physics and who received Nobel prize for his Schrodinger equations, was also of this view. Perhaps quantum physics now is bringing the observer back in to it's considerations also.

Any way I will try this way:-

If cosmos is what physics of a hundred years ago said it is then the cosmos can not be what the present day physics says it is because in some respects the two are contradictory to each other. And physics of a hundred years from now will probably contradict the physics of today in some respects. and so on and on and on. Then what is the truth about cosmos or total existence? Is it knowable to humans?

 

[ontological_realist]

.

.

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

Sure.
EB

You had said, " I know some things, therefore they exist."

Yes, if your knowledge of those things is infallible then of course the above statement would have be true, this is simple deductive logic.

But the question is that is your knowledge of some things infallible? Could you tell us what those things are?

 

[DBT]

.

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

Sure.
EB

You had said, " I know some things, therefore they exist."

Yes, if your knowledge of those things is infallible then of course the above statement would have be true, this is simple deductive logic.

But the question is that is your knowledge of some things infallible? Could you tell us what those things are?

Existence itself is an absolute. That I exist is an absolute certainty.

 

[Speakpigeon]

.

I guess that you are here using the word, "know" in the absolute sense. That is knowledge which is infallible. Are you using the word know in that sense?

Sure.
EB

You had said, " I know some things, therefore they exist."

Yes, if your knowledge of those things is infallible then of course the above statement would have be true, this is simple deductive logic.

But the question is that is your knowledge of some things infallible? Could you tell us what those things are?

First, let me say I don't think infallibility applies to knowledge. You know or you don't know but in either case it's something else than knowledge which would be fallible or not. It may be the processes in your brain for example or the superpowers that allow Superman to do what he does.

Also, given that we would be talking of the fallibility of the subject we would have to excuse ourselves from the debate because we precisely are the potentially knowing subjects in question.

That being said, my point is really not much different from that of Descartes in the Cogito. It just happens that thinking provides the thinking thing with the knowledge that it is thinking and that therefore it is a thinking thing. That's arguably not much, although it has to be the foundation of all our beliefs about the world, which may or may not be true but at least they open a larger vista. In any case, the consequence of the Cogito is that I know something and of course I exist as such so I know something which is a part of reality, which is therefore as much phenomenon as it is noumenon, i.e. a thing in itself.
EB