BothAndBlog Forum

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/825367

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
Can it have a referent?
Kant states that the noumenon is objectless (and also subjectless) beyond space, time and causality,
so how can there be any referent for "noumenon"?
if it is a concept, is it not then an object of thought? but if the noumenon is not an object, then we have contradicted ourselves... — jancanc

Perhaps, the "noumenon", that Kant distinguishes from a material object, is merely a mental concept (an idealization of the physical object). In Charles Pinter's book, subtitled, How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . ., he discusses the human "sensorium" in great detail. He says that body & mind are engaged in a two-way dialog : the sensory organs transmit coded data (about an object) which the Mind (mental function of brain) interprets into self-relevant Meanings. As far as the idealistic Mind is concerned, the immaterial function (purpose ; meaning) of the object is more important than its material substance. Yet, the idea refers (points) back to the object, and the object reminds us of the idea.

The sensory Appearances represent the object in terms of feelings (sight, sound, touch). And that superficial portrayal is all we ever know for sure (empirically) about the "real" object. But the core meanings are like an X-ray : abstracting away the surface material, to reveal the logical Form within. That notional structure defines both its primary, and its possible, functions in the world. If the observer is astute enough, she will then know something about the essence of the object. It's that Ideal Soul of the thing that Kant refers to as the "noumenon", which is an immaterial belief about*2 the object in its perfect form.

When we talk about a thing (e.g. a ball point pen ; plastic & metal), we imagine its function relevant to the user. You can write an essay with it, or twirl it in your fingers. Those functional uses are not physical things, but possible processes that may be beneficial to the observer. Conceptually, they are the essence of penness, the noumenal referent of the word "pen".

Plato imagined a whole realm of perfect Ideal logical structures (ghosts of objects) separated from the messy mundane Real things of the phenomenal world of appearances. Ironically, all we flesh & blood humans ever know are those appearances (sensory impressions). But we can imagine a Platonic referent in an ideal noumenal world of essences.

PS__I apologize if this post is opaque. I just wanted to jot down some ideas for my own future reference.


*1. Noumenon :
(in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

*2. Aboutness refers to the central theme or conceptual logic of a referent object
Note -- Aboutness is a quality, it references an idea, not an object

It’s given as an example of a concept that is easy to grasp in principle, but is almost impossible to form or recognise an image of. In its context it was provided to illustrate the difference between concepts and mental images. But it also serves to illustrate the idea of ‘an object of mind’ i.e. you can understand it rationally even despite the difficulty of grasping its phenomenal depiction. — Quixodian

Your distinction between sensory Phenomena and mental Noumena, reminds me of a judicial distinction between observation and opinion : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"*1. That's similar to the difference between knowing an empirical fact, and feeling an emotional sentiment.

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. So there is no particular real-world referent for an amorphous ideal-world concept. As justice Potter pragmatically concluded, all we can do is point to several real world instances, from which the other person can construct her own hypothetical Noumenon from her personal experience.

PS__Empirical evidence is recognizable for anyone with a human sensorium. But to cognize a rational Principle requires a philosophical background. Principles are not real, but ideal.


*1. The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
Note -- A scene of two people behaving like rutting animals in polite company, may be literally porno-graphic, but "obscenity" is a generalization from many different instances in various circumstances, including personal mores of the observer & opinionator. It's the principle of the thing.

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. — Gnomon

Disagree. Going back to the pre-Kantian idea of noumena as ‘object of mind’, the noumenal might be understood as something nearer the original meaning of the idea, form or principle (bearing in mind that ‘form* *is nothing like* ‘shape’ ) The way that I interpret it (me, not Kant!) is in terms of principles that can only be grasped rationally, but which are independent of your or my particular mind. . . . . That’s why such principles are taken as subjective, or ‘in the mind’ - but they’re not in any individual mind. Bertrand Russell describes it exactly: ‘they are not thoughts, but when they are known they are objects of thought’. — Quixodian

Apparently you have a more nuanced definition of the terms "phenomena", noumena", "objective" and "subjective" than mine. As usual, you have a much greater mastery of philosophical literature than I do. My knowledge of Kant is superficial. So my usage of his terminology is more like common knowledge, and does not pretend to know the Mind of God. For me, "objective" is perceived Reality, while "subjective" is conceived Ideality.

So, when I classified Phenomena as objective, I merely meant that they are what we see (things or events out there) with our physical eyes : hence, Objective Percepts. But Noumena are what we know (in here) via our inner eye of reason (classification, categorization) : hence, Subjective Concepts. "Objective" is common knowledge ; "Subjective" is private knowledge.

Your interpretation of "noumenon" seems to be Platonic, in the sense of Eternal Transcendent Principles that are more real (ideal) than Temporal Physical Percepts (appearances). Mine was intended to be more down-to-earth and pragmatic.

Subjectively, I might think that my personal Ideas & Ideals are more perfect --- purged of the dross --- hence, closer to the true eternal essence (Form), than those of the common crowd. Others may disagree.


Percept : an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses
Concept : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

What is objective vs subjective? :
Here's a trick to help you remember the difference between subjective and objective. Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences. Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

Phenomenon synonyms : occurrence, event, happening, fact, experience, appearance, thing
Noumenon synonyms : concept, idea, essence, spirit, and substance. Other related terms include the metaphysical, the transcendent, and the ineffable.

Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

But Kant only introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to the world as it is independently of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. — Quixodian

I'm still reading Charles Pinter's book, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . .. In his chapter on Realism, he distinguishes between "direct realism" (naive realism) --- which equates the world with the appearances created by the mind to represent physical features --- and philosophical realism --- which is supposed to be more self-aware, taking into account the observer's contribution to reality. Presumably, Direct Realism & Materialism ignore the Me in the middle of the sensation/cognition equation.

That's the same conclusion quantum physicists came to when they discovered that the expectations & presumptions of the observer seemed to have some effect on the transformation of holistic entanglement into the particular objects of sub-atomic reality. John A. Wheeler called it the "observer effect"*1. Since such self-consciousness was not allowed in the objective/reductive scientific method, they turned to Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism) for ways to account for the meddling man-in-the-middle.

The Buddha advised his followers to seek true reality by ignoring the mis-interpreting Self. He referred to "pure" & "impure appearances". He seemed to presume that intro-spection was more pure than extro-spection. Quakers, sitting quietly in church, are also seeking the Inner Light, that presumably comes directly from God. We may get closer to "pure" Truth by quieting the constantly processing brain. But do we really commune with God, or with our naive (child-like) model of reality?

Pinter said Kant "claimed that what we experience is never the thing in itself, but always as it is represented in our mind". It's the observer's self-interest that muddles our "impure" view of things-as-they-are from God's unbiased "pure" perspective. He also says "Kant was perhaps the first philosopher to draw a real distinction between properties which things have in themselves, and the experiences they produce in us". Empirical material properties are innate, but abstract essential qualia are attributed.

Pinter goes on to note that "the animal mind . . . envisions a world of features, aspects, and appearances, but those things don't exist outside the mind". Also, "without a living subject looking at a thing, it has no specific features, nothing it 'looks like' " {my bold} That observer effect may be what Nagel meant by his challenge to the Mind-Body problem : "What is it like to be a bat?" All minds take-in sensory information from the environment, then process & code the data into "cognitive" mental representations, that are meaningful to the observing Self.

On this forum, we often contrast Realism/Materialism with Supernaturalism/Idealism. But that black vs white dichotomy also overlooks the flesh & blood man-in-the-middle : the cogitating Brain/Self. Likewise, the Phenomena/Noumena polarity may miss the real world conjunction of Brain/Mind, which translates Real sensations into Ideal experiences.


*1. Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon", which is a very radical position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%2 ... experiment

And without that observing self, which is never amongst the objects being observed, nothing whatsoever exists. — Quixodian

Berkeley's bold assertion, "esse est percipi", did not make sense, without some qualification. For example, as someone noted above : "the universe appears to have existed for 10 million years before the emergence of any perceiving creature". If so, in what sense can we say that anything --- say a 20 million year old rock on an uninhabited planet in a distant galaxy --- exists? Who or what is the percipient?

Is physical Existence*1 a necessary essence or a contingent attribution*1? If the latter, then Berkeley's observing God-in-the-quad*2 is a logically necessary inference, to explain the beingness of anything & everything in our world model. Hence, for anything contingent to exist in space-time Reality, something self-existent, perhaps in timeless Ideality, is obligatory. That mysterious absolute being is what insightful humans call "God". But how can we know that the named concept*3 exists, if we can't perceive anything existing without the limiting conditions of physics?

Physicists have inferred the existence of sub-sub-atomic particles called "quarks". They even envision families of invisible intangible Quarks, and assign necessary properties to those imaginary objects, that are not perceptible even by cutting-edge technology. We only know they exist fundamentally, because they must be there, to logically support all other aspects of our physical world-model. But, do they exist as percepts, or as concepts, or as metaphysical objects? In what sense does a Noumenon exist? Is conceptual existence real being?


*1. To Exist : have objective reality or being.
Note --- To Perceive is to attribute subjective being. Hence, objective existence must be inferred, not observed.


*2. Berkeley Limericks :

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully, God

If objects depend on our seeing
So that trees, unobserved, would cease tree-ing,
Then my question is: Who
Is the one who sees you
And assures your persistence in being?

Dear Sir,
You reason most oddly.
To be's to be seen for the bod'ly.
But for spirits like me,
To be is to see.
Sincerely,
The one who is godly.

http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/Ear ... brklim.htm

*3. The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
https://researchers.usask.ca/gordon-sar ... s/tao.html

In Berkeley's case, the only qualification required is that God sustains the Universe in existence, although personally I have no need of that hypothesis. — Quixodian

If you have no need for the God hypothesis, how do you explain the contingent existence of the space-time world, that appears to have a singular point of beginning into being? The cosmic clock seems to be ticking down to the ultimate Entropy of non-existence. Do you assume that the physical universe --- which we temporal humans perceive into conceptual being --- is actually self existent : requiring no external percipient (creator) to begin & sustain its beingness?

Apparently, Materialists assume that the world, or Multiverse, "just is", without any need for an external cause or perceiver. But, Charles Pinter, in his chapter on Reality, refers to it as the "mind-made firmament". Apparently, the mind is constrained by the organization of the brain to perceive the world in terms of Substance & Form. Yet, he goes on to say that "we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that every material object has substance and form . . . . Once again, we are misled by common sense".

From that perspective, Materialism is simply common sense. Likewise, I would infer that the Flat Earth notion is common sense. We see, with our normally reliable eyes, that the Earth stretches out horizontally in all directions. And its topological curvature is not apparent from a viewpoint near the surface. Hence, it's a disk, not a sphere.

On the other hand, Pinter seems to view Idealism as un-common intelligence. Our mind-made concepts allow us to see the logical structure underlying the superficial substance of objects, and to imagine an objective perspective different from that of our own earth-bound eyes. Even so, Pinter says "the material universe outside the purview of any observer has no such thing as form"*1. Then he notes, "we imagine the universe as if we were looking at it, and find it is very hard to picture a reality in which we are totally absent".

That may be why Berkeley had to imagine an as-if scenario, with a super-human observer who could see the Cosmos from the outside, in its totality ; perhaps as a sphere seen from a 4D perspective, from all sides simultaneously. Physically, it might look like a shining star radiating energy in all directions; or an invisible black hole sucking-up all available energy; or just a featureless gray sphere. Yet, the super-objective Observer is not just perceiving the world, but also conceiving it into existence ; complete, down to the last quark.

Did I mis-understand the implication of your assertion, that "I have no need of that hypothesis". Other than the traditional creation event, or self-existent Reality, the only alternative theory I can imagine is that each of us imaginative Idealists is a world creator --- forming a unique world as a "mind-made firmament"*3. Yet, like sociable deities, we like to share our art-works with other gods. Not directly mind-to-mind though, but over the internet.

PS___Perhaps, once begun on its trajectory through time, what "sustains" the world is simply Momentum. But what abstains the world is Entropy. So, we have no need for the religious word "sustains".


*1. Form : "an object's form is an aspect of the object as an undivided whole, viewed from outside the object" -----Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order

*2. To Conceive : form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind. ___Oxford

*3. How We Create Our Reality :
It’s not pseudo-science: you’re already doing it.
I create reality by taking an idea in my mind and bringing it into existence.
https://medium.com/an-idea/how-we-creat ... fc29fc899c

I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. But do consider the Buddhist approach, which doesn't begin with the origin of everything, but with the origin of suffering (dukkha). — Quixodian

I see. When I read your remark about not needing a genesis hypothesis, I was reminded of Laplace's well-known rejoinder that his mathematical Science intentionally avoided any supernatural theories*1. Hence, my questions about alternative theories of origins --- other than "it is what it is". In the year 1784, Laplace could reasonably assume that the logical structure of the material world just exists eternally, with no need for an origin story. But today, our sky-watching scientists have inadvertently reopened the original can of worms, with their mathematical evidence for a time with no time or space --- nothing to measure. Thus, raising philosophical "why?" questions, where Laplace only saw practical "how?" questions.

Although I respect your Buddhist avoidance of vexing ultimate metaphysical questions --- focusing instead on proximate reflective Psychology --- my own approach to philosophy is closer to Cosmology than to Theology. So, I wasn't thinking in terms of traditional pre-scientific magic myths to explain how we came to be sentient beings in a world of both suffering and flourishing. Instead, I'm intrigued by the failure of scientists to devise plausible explanations for the contingent existence of the world. Multiverse & Many Worlds & Inflation theories merely assume, as did Laplace, that the temporal material world just-is (Nontology?), needing no further elucidation.

But philosophy is all about such imponderables, taking nothing for granted. So, for me, it's just a question of impractical curiosity : "Why" questions are about Purpose & Causation & Reason. Any answer to such queries is not likely to end the suffering of sentient creatures*2, but it allows us to scratch the itch of observations without reasons ; just irksome never-ending ellipsis . . . . .

For example, why not accept sensory Phenomena as-is, without grasping for extra-sensory Noumena? The elusive butterfly of imagination. Pragmatic scientists may be satisfied with naming what meets the eye, but philosophers are tantalized by what is not apparent, but seems to be logically necessary. For example, an on-going physical world without an initial impetus to impart momentum. Is without ought.

I doubt that conjuring hypothetical explanations for the existence of the world is beyond your capacity. It's just a story to give meaning to the ellipsis. What's hard is actually conjuring a world from nothing. How could that happen? My un-scientific hypothesis begins with "let there be information (logic, form, causation)".



*1. Laplace's Mathematical World :
"a famous statement by the French mathematician Laplace is constantly misused to buttress atheism. On being asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical work, Laplace, quite correctly, replied: 'Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.' Of course God did not appear in Laplace's mathematical description of how things work, just as Mr. Ford would not appear in a scientific description of the laws of internal combustion. But what does that prove? That Henry Ford did not exist? Clearly not. Neither does such an argument prove that God does not exist. Austin Farrer comments on the Laplace incident as follows:'Since God is not a rule built into the action of forces, nor is he a block of force; no sentence about God can play a part in physics or astronomy ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Na ... place.html

*2. How do animals deal with suffering?
In simpler animals with small numbers of neurons, such signals activate behaviors through reflex actions that are tuned to escape or defend against harm. In larger-brained animals, things get considerably more complicated.
https://www.aaas.org/why-do-animals-exp ... -suffering
Note -- In humans, we often treat our suffering by thinking about something else. Psychogenic pain can be ameliorated by "going to your happy place". Meditation & Prayer may be means of avoiding conscious awareness of suffering, by distracting attention from bodily sensations to dis-embodied imagination. Temporarily insentient.

Subjectivity is meaningless apart from embodiment in an environment. — plaque flag

Yes. We humans reify our own subjective perspective with the noun label "Self". Since the Self exists invisibly & implicitly inside a vehicle of mud matter, we have no cause to worry about its substance or provenance : the Self is simply Me, and always has been. Moreover, my embodiment is known directly via internal perception (proprioception -- the sense of self-ownership).

What is cause for questioning though is other beings that behave as-if they know what they are doing (self-awareness). Yet, we don't know what is going on inside that other animal, so we cannot experience its self-sensation or self-concept first-hand. But, we can reason that, due to superficial similarities in flesh & behavior, the other body must also possess a motivating Self : a source of causal Will power, to move & guide the body toward its own self-interest within the non-self environment.

Acknowledgement of that other Self/Soul obligates us to treat its mud-made apparatus as-if it too represents an invisible Subjective experiencer of objective Reality. Thus the moral rule of "do unto other selves as-if they are your-own-self". Morally, the immaterial sensing Self is more important than the animated body, but since the essence is dependent upon the substance, we have no alternative to treating Body & Self as a unique composite entity : matter/life, brain/mind.

However, we learn from scientific experience that dissection of a frog results in cessation of froginess. So, we induct a general rule that body/self is an integrated system, with holistic qualities (Life & Mind) that don't exist, in any meaningful sense, in the isolated body parts. The matter is still there, but where did the mind, self, soul disappear to? The Body without the Self is simply meaningless meat. Yet, some imagine that the meat is the more important partner in the Game of Life.

PS___But important to whom : the Self, the Body, or the Other?

artwork-of-a-dissected-laboratory-frog-bo-veisland-miiscience-photo-library.jpg

But (to be fair), the timebinding cultural aspect of the self, largely its linguistic aspect, is a graveleaping ghost. Metaphorically speaking, this or that individual body is its temporary host. — plaque flag

Poetically expressed. But I'm not sure what you are implying. "Graveleaping ghost" sounds like reincarnation. I've seen that notion portrayed fictionally in movies : for example a man's soul gets transplanted into a woman's body, and has to learn to deal (comically) with the different physicality of its new host. But I'm not aware of any real-world souls escaping the flesh prison, and taking up residence in some other soul's body. Such ideas make amusing fiction & fantasy, but is there a factual basis? Is my soulful dog the new body of an expired blues musician? If so, how would I know?

Of course cultural immortality is a common way to speak of a writer's or artist's mind, as incarnated in objective forms, continuing to "live-on" in the minds of other embodied souls. But such an unexperienced "life" may be cold comfort to the dead or disembodied soul, with no sensory organs plugged into the non-self system.

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
― Woody Allen