0

Is our reality nouminal or phenomenal? Do we perceive actual reality or a simulation of reality of which our brain is the simulator. This is not to be confused with the simulation hypothesis (which postulates that the universe and everything in it, including ourselves, exists only as a simulation) or solipsism (which postulates that nothing outside the mind exists). This refers to indirect realism as first put forward by Emmanuel Kant in 1781.

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/book/chap1.html

Zane Scheepers
  • 589
  • 4
  • 17
  • My apologies, Immanuel Kant. – Zane Scheepers Nov 21 '17 at 11:39
  • Clearly the answer is 42. – Daniel Goldman Nov 21 '17 at 12:29
  • 1
    I'm sure philosophy.stackexchange.com is a bit more open, but this question might be too broad to find a reasonable answer. Maybe try to ask it in a different way, such as what a specific philosopher proposes and why. – Daniel Goldman Nov 21 '17 at 12:31
  • @DanielGoldman is our reality a simulation or do we see the actual object? Seems pretty straightforward to me. – Zane Scheepers Nov 21 '17 at 13:32
  • It partially depends on what you mean by "actual" object. One could argue that we never see the actual object. We collect sensory information and compile it into concepts, forms, etc, this would be true even if we lived in a "real world." But I still think this is too broad and subjective to be a solid fit even in this SE. – Daniel Goldman Nov 21 '17 at 14:14
  • I'm not implying we don't live in the real world. Your answer indicates you believe the reality we perceive is a visual representation of actual reality. As such, we agree. – Zane Scheepers Nov 21 '17 at 14:28
  • The "actual object" is obviously different than the content of our perception. "See the object" doesn't mean putting the object into our head, just taking a representation of it. Our brain models (ok, simulates) reality. When you say "do we perceive... a simulation of reality", you are playing with words. Our perception is the simulation. We don't perceive a simulation from an additional perception of an object. – RodolfoAP Nov 22 '17 at 05:54
  • @RodolfoAP ok, perhaps simulates is the wrong word. Simulates implies that the phenomenal perception (simulated object) appears the same as the nouminal object (actual object), when it doesn't. This is the biggest misconception amongst the science community at present. Everyone accepts that the brain interprets what the eyes detect, but some people think this means that our eyes see things. For example, our eyes see an object with 4 black circles beneath it and our brain tells us it's a car. Or a orange coloured globe shaped object in a fruit bowl and our brain tells us it's an orange. This is – Zane Scheepers Nov 22 '17 at 07:15
  • This is incorrect. The nouminal world is unperceivable. When you look around you, you are seeing the phenomenal world inside your head. I'm not sure what you mean by playing with words or additional perspective. The model we perceive is our only perspective (visually). – Zane Scheepers Nov 22 '17 at 07:23
  • @ZaneScheepers I completely agree with you about the subjectivity in science. Think on temperature: we've created the 0th law of thermodynamics to give a physical meaning to a feeling, there are no "hot atoms". I'm precisely publishing a book about it -ongoing reviews-, hope in a couple of months, you will find it on the website in my profile. – RodolfoAP Nov 22 '17 at 07:23
  • @RodolfoAP I wish you well, but my gut tells me your book won't be well accepted. Science these days teaches the direct reality version of science, not the indirect version. I'm afraid the indirect version is just too complicated for some people. Imagine having to say, (The wavelength of light which our eyes detect, resulting in the sensation of red) every time you want to mention (red light). Science would grind to a halt, not to mention all the text books and dictionaries which need to be altered. Science wants to seperate physical prosesses from sensations, which are unquantifiable. – Zane Scheepers Nov 22 '17 at 07:45
  • 1
    The question seems to be a muddle of words. Why not give the words their usual meaning? I think there's a great question underneath the words but as stated I find it unanswerable. If forced I'd say that Reality is both phenomenal and noumenal, just as reason would suggest. –  Nov 23 '17 at 12:38
  • @PeterJ why not say objective reality is nouminal and subjective reality is phenomenal? – Zane Scheepers Nov 23 '17 at 12:48
  • @ZaneScheepers I wouldn't say this because It is not my view. For the true nature of Reality I believe we have to transcend the subject/object distinction. Our space-time world is phenomenal, thus not fundamental. but if we say Reality is noumenal then we end up with an infinite regress of noumenon. I prefer the view of Reality endorsed by nondualism. . –  Jun 08 '19 at 11:27

3 Answers3

1

Neurology seems to indicate that our (subjective) reality is phenomenal in nature. Whereas objective reality is nouminal in nature.

http://www.cycleback.com/eyephysiology.html

Zane Scheepers
  • 589
  • 4
  • 17
  • One does not have to be a neurologist to figure out that our perceptual world is phenomenal. The real one, however, cannot be merely phenomenal and neurology has nothing to say on this matter. . –  Nov 23 '17 at 12:34
  • The way the eye sends information to our visual cortex is digitized, not analogous. Each cone sends a piece of the information via it's own optic nerve. The brain only assembles a complete image in the visual cortex. This is how neurology proves that visual perception occurs in the brain, not the eyes. Objective reality is nouminal in nature, subjective reality is phenomenal. – Zane Scheepers Nov 23 '17 at 12:53
  • Again you are using 'noumenal' in an unusual way. The discussion cannot proceed while you do this and I cannot respond properly. The last sentence of your comment above is very wrong and if you do some googling you;ll soon notice this. . –  Nov 23 '17 at 12:59
  • @PeterJ a quick googling confirms that I'm using the word exactly as I intended. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumenon . Noumenal implies the actual, unperceivable object which exists in objective reality. Phenomenal implies the perceived, visual representation of said object, within the subjective reality we perceive. – Zane Scheepers Nov 23 '17 at 13:07
  • The noumenon is not a subject or an object. This is its definition. –  Nov 24 '17 at 10:07
  • @PeterJ exactly. It's a state of existence outside of our bodies and imperceptible to us, directly. – Zane Scheepers Nov 24 '17 at 10:10
1

The reality in human nature is 'I am". 'I am that I am' is the meaning of 'Yehowa' the term for God in the old testament. Only after 'I am' appears in mind as the known does and known object appears as name and form with meaning in the mind. What appears in mind as consciousness is what 'stands under' the knower and all the known in mind. 'Understanding' is like super-consciousness which understands mind creation with knower and known in the mind. Super-consciousness is the sole reality. One knowing that reality is the realised, the saved by the Lord, the salvation. Purpose of human birth is that realisation. So say the Masters.

Siva Vats
  • 65
  • 2
0

I think you meant noumenal. Which is the same meaning as phenomenal? I don't see the scope of choices to answer you. I can the only answer what your question provides. That is absolutely not. We do not live in a phenomenon based reality. We often eager to assign phenomenon to things we don't understand. I assure you everything in our reality is and will be explained without the use of phenomenon.

internet-entity
  • 21
  • 9