Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There are no noumena, only phenomena
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
in Philosophy
And objects are just bundles of properties.
Discuss!
0
Comments
U 1st
I couldn't agree more.
You first.
I can run with the objects are properties bit... I saw a documentary about space once that compared the stars in the universe to the atoms in a human body. Apparently any physical thing you can touch/ sense in a "real" way is in "reality" just a lot of empty space. The amount of nothing in between our atoms is vastly more than the amount of something in the atoms themselves. Absolutely fascinating... I feel solid.... but... am i?
I mean, when it comes right down to it, we are all made out of the same "star stuff" as Carl Sagan used to say. It's all the same ingredients put together in different ways! So in that way, we really are only what our properties say we are.
Phenomena can be known as perceptions, Noumena are not knowable and are the "Thing in Itself" or as Kant called it the "Ding an sich".
Imho a good example is Time. We have a perception of Time but we do not know what it is "of itself".
OK, a simple example. An "apple" is round, hard and coloured ( say ) red. But there is no essence of "apple" behind these properties, there are only the properties. So an "apple" does not have these properties, an "apple" is those properties.
This is the meaning of sunyata.
Gawd, as if it ain't 'ard enufff comin' up wiv ideas for all these bleedin' freads, I've got to spoon feed the bleeders too. If in darbt you can always look it up on bleedin' google! Gawd!
That reminds me of Alan Watts...
Trees are not made of wood, trees are wood.
Plenty of objects could be made that are round, hard and red. They could even be made to smell and (perhaps) taste like apples. (Remember French Golden Delicious? Lol!!!). But they would not contain the essence (Noumena) of appleness. That is given by the DNA, of which mankind has been aware for only about 60 years.
Another example could be given by the Turing Test. A "black box" is asked questions, any question will do. It is up to the examiner to decide whether the box contains a man or a machine. The claim is that the machine can be made to have the same intelligence as a man. So let's say the examiner decides that the machine shows human intelligence, i.e. its Phenomena are human. So we now look at the Noumena and open the box. Do we find a decidedly erudite person enjoying a large glass of wine or do we find electronic components? This would reveal the Noumena.
I do agree that meditation on a subject can be something of a Gnostic path. Our knowledge of the subject increases and increases until we know the "suchness" of a thing, that it is "just so". So perhaps ultimately Phenomena and Noumena could become one. But my feeling is that the limitations of the human mind are such that some Noumena will always remain outside our perception.
So I wouldn't accept that a thing is the sum of its Phenomena at our present state of knowledge.
With that emaciated OP, makes me wonder if you're the one trying to learn what you don't know. Sneaky Pete.
Well, I suppose Buddhist philosophy of emptiness argues against a core essence for objects and science tells us the material world is made up of mostly empty space and physical forces, so maybe noumena are on the outs. But then again, I can't put cream cheese on my phone, call it a bagel, and have a relaxing breakfast while reading the paper, so it seems like there is some sort of world "out there" that is separate from our perceptions.
Instead of either or maybe we could say the world, as it appears to us, is dependently arisen upon both noumena and phenomena.
What comes and goes is not real. That’s at the heart of it, I think.
If a “thing” will pop into, and out of existence, depending on causes and circumstances, it really isn’t a “thing” but there is a process happening.
If the causes and the circumstances in turn are similarly dependent on causes and circumstances the whole thing is empty; infinitely a process in a process in a process. No bottom, no roof, no core of reality. Co-dependently arisen.
A fire will burn you. That’s real about it. But the sentence has only verbs, no nouns.
Consciousness is a process. My sense of identity came and will come to an end. “I” am not an exception to the rule of emptiness.
Take a bell for example. It owes its existence to the following properties-
1. Sound
2. Touch - hardness, smooth/rough
3. Temperature - coldness
4. Shape
Take more and more properties away and it is no longer a bell.
Bell is empty of inherent existence.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
The world "as it appears to us" is just phenomena. Shapes, colours, and so on. We can only know "our world", talking about "the world" rapidly becomes speculation.
Not at all. Another perspective is to consider that in Buddhism the elements of form are viewed as properties, rather than "stuff". So for example the air element represents movement, not the physical air that we breathe.
I'm not clear from your post why you think noumena exist. A closed box is just a closed box until we open it. That's the point of Schrödinger’s cat ( poor thing! ).
And "suchness" is really emptiness from a Buddhist POV.
Yes, there are no things, only processes.
So noumena cannot be known, but we still believe in them?
I must admit that my concept of Noumena is probably the same as Plato's theory of Forms.
The other idea that I am working on is that as man's knowledge increases so does his realisation of Phenomena connected with objects. So a few hundred years ago nobody knew why apples taste like they do. Then it was realised that they contain Malic acid. Nobody could explain the shape until DNA was added to our body of knowledge. Sometime, somebody will explain why apple DNA is exactly like it is. All these things are Phenomena of apples.
So ultimately perhaps Noumena are unrealised Phenomena.
When man's knowledge is absolute there will be only Phenomena left.
With that proviso, Norman will be right!
Gawd, we are sarndin' like a bunch of bleedin' hinterlectuals. My 'ead is 'urting wiv all this finking, I shall 'ave to lie darn in a dark room.
You have a dark room?
Sheer luxury!
Yeah, speculation seems right but if we say that noumena don't exist at all isn't that a form of idealism? I guess I've never been able to wrap my head around how idealists propose a functional, consistent world if its all in our head.
Or processes all the way down, it sounds right too but doesn't a process need something to process?
It's not saying everything is in our head, it's saying that objects can only be known by their properties. So an "apple" does not have the properties of hardness, roundness and colour, an "apple" is those properties from our point of view.
So its an epistemic (question of knowledge) problem rather than an ontological (question of what actually exists) problem? If so then we're saying that we can only infer and speculate that noumena exist we can't gain empirical knowledge that they do?
I hadn't really thought about this specific question so I'll continue to ponder but the thought that occurs to me at the moment is one of practicality, we have to act in the world. Do you think maybe understanding the ephemeral nature of noumena leads to enlightenment in the Buddhist sense?
Yes, that's it. It's a way of looking at the insubstantiality implied by sunyata. Objects don't have inherent or independent existence, they don't exist "from their own side". Or you could say it's all just changing conditions/phenomena.
So the question now is, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?
-Well, Plato's Theory of Forms holds that "appleness" would be a property of the Idea Apple. But as regards this question, I'll side with the phenomenologists...
It would make an inaudible sound?
I think a sound would fall into a property or a phenomenon. So in the context of the thread I think a tree falling and vibrations it causes would be classified as a noumena and therefore insubstantial.
That's still just going by what we know so far. Sound waves may still cause unknown effects besides making a sound when reverberating on an ear drum.
I admit I'm finding it difficult understanding what noumena is. It sounds like a way of saying the potential for a process before materialization or fruition.
I found this video helpful, about halfway through he gets on a political soapbox which isn't all that related to noumena/phenomena but the first half is on point.
My take is phenomena is the way things appear to us and noumena is the way they really are. So for example the way a human and a snake percieve at a hot rock on a cold floor is different. So the rock on the floor is the noumena and the phenomena is the way it appears to each. The noumena is the same but the phenomena are different. The problem comes as you dig down further into atomic structure or dependent arising, can you ever actually find a noumena that is separate from a phenomena?
I'm familiar with what phenomenology is, but not sure what position they may have around this topic. Do you think you could explain or at least point to the place I should look?
Right, so like the formation of the solar system. The formation of the sun and planets occurred while there was no one around to perceive it, but we can now see the effects.
On the other hand what about a solar system or whole universe that forms and fades away without any causal effect on any conscious being? Are we able to say it is any different from one that never existed at all?
I think the essential question here is can we ever know a thing (noumena) apart from our perceptions (phenomena) of it?
Amatha Gavesi - The World Is Your Six Sense Base
http://www.basicbuddhism.org/dharma-talks-download/
Without sounds, can the listener be found? Without thoughts?
"You" are the six sense base.
I think with that example there would just be two sets of phenomena, one for the human and one for the snake.
It's more like an assumed essence behind or beneath an object's properties.
That would seem not to exist. Surely this is the doctrine of no-self? King Milinda comes to mind with his question about souls or essences, and Nagasena answering, point me to the soul of this chariot, saying it had an axle, a body, ties and other components, but no inherent essence or soul.
That's a tough road to travel if we want to get to the end of it because we end up at an extreme.
If it is an absolute that we cannot know anything aside from our perceptions (which seems fine and logical at first) that necessarily implies that we cannot trust our senses. If we cannot trust our senses, we cannot trust that we cannot trust our senses. It seems to lead to more confusion instead of alieving it.
If it is an absolute that we could trust our perceptions then no trick of the light could make us unsure if that was a snake or a branch.
For myself it helps to remember that the brain is still evolving and our ability to perceive and grasp certain things will grow along with that.
I guess this is not the route @SpinyNorman is heading though considering his last few posts.
I'm still formulating.
Like Buddha-Nature or does it have to be perceived as an actual solid "thing" that doesn't change?
In my honest opinion, King Milinda would have done well to point to change and inter-being or D.O.
Anything that changes has at its root the potential of emptiness (not for emptiness but of emptiness).
My problem with understanding this is, on what basis do the two sets of phenomena arise? Why doesn't one see a rock and the other a pink elephant?
A "rock" has certain properties, but those properties can be perceived in different ways? Like for example a rock has the property of reflecting the EM spectrum in a particular way, but you could look at in visible light or infra-red?
I'm not sure, people seem to have different ideas about what Buddha Nature actually is. Some view it as a potential for awakening, others as some sort of eternal true self.
Yes, objects are just a collection of parts or properties, the name we give them is a convenient label.
I don't think we can trust our senses on a deep level, I can trust them enough to stop or go at a stoplight but not enough to think that the light that is visible to me eyes is the sum total of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I'm not sure that follows, at least I don't understand how it does. Extreme skepticism does have a certain logical basis to it that philosophy hasn't completely resolved, from my understanding.
It is my take, I'm not quite on the same page as Spiny atm.
I'm weird but I see it as both in a way.
I think there is the potential for Buddha-Nature or the Tao to awaken to itself over an infinite amount of changes and time.
In a way, I have a feeling we are products of that aspect of awareness.
Well for one thing we have to remember that it is only perception that tells us we cannot trust our perceptions.
There is a Middle Way through all this stuff I think.
Where does the property exist? In the perceiver's mind or the object?
I'm reminded of an argument against total skepticism. If we say we can't know anything for certain, making that claim is an assertion of knowledge.
I don't have a problem with saying there are properties "out there". The point here is about essences v. properties, not about solipsism.
To be exact, the summed set of all possible properties of an object exists in reality. An exact property is defined and exists as a concept in the mind, and it can be experimentally verified that an object has that property or not.
Idealism is the idea that only minds exists, solipsism is that only my mind exists.
I'm not an idealist, I'm just trying to clear up what @SpinyNorman means. I think its maybe an issue of semantics and definitions, when its said that no noumena exist I'm hearing that nothing exists "out there".