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.
14
-
My apologies, Immanuel Kant.– Zane ScheepersCommented Nov 21, 2017 at 11:39
-
Clearly the answer is 42.– Daniel GoldmanCommented Nov 21, 2017 at 12:29
-
1I'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 GoldmanCommented Nov 21, 2017 at 12:31
-
@DanielGoldman is our reality a simulation or do we see the actual object? Seems pretty straightforward to me.– Zane ScheepersCommented Nov 21, 2017 at 13:32
-
1The 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.– user20253Commented Nov 23, 2017 at 12:38
|
Show 9 more comments
3 Answers
Neurology seems to indicate that our (subjective) reality is phenomenal in nature. Whereas objective reality is nouminal in nature.
-
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. .– user20253Commented Nov 23, 2017 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. Commented Nov 23, 2017 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. .– user20253Commented Nov 23, 2017 at 12:59
-
@PeterJ a quick googling confirms that I'm using the word exactly as I intended. 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. Commented Nov 23, 2017 at 13:07
-
The noumenon is not a subject or an object. This is its definition.– user20253Commented Nov 24, 2017 at 10:07
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.
-
And then what? Once super consciousness is achieved, what other purpose is there? Spreading the WORD I assume? Commented Nov 26, 2017 at 9:58
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.
-
I beg to differ. Read my discussion with Quentin. philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/47514/19375 Commented Nov 29, 2017 at 13:08