The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyone can posit, postulate, assume anything as much as possible, but such assumptions cannot be taken as real at all.

In fact, one can do away with such assumptions of the noumenal in science, and science can still proceed to contribute to humanity based on is verification and justification of reality based solely on empirical evidences.

Newton, Mendel and other theistic scientists merely assumed God beyond the empirical and yet their scientific conclusions still acceptable. That is their personal assumptions, postulation, what-they-posited but it has nothing to do with the scientific FSK.

It is the same with the noumenal assumption in Science, it has no significance for scientific conclusions.

Again, modern science [Hawking] don't give a fuck re the noumenal independent noumenal beyond the empirical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

Why people are so dogmatic with the idea of the noumena [an evolutionary default] is a psychological issue as driven by painful cognitive dissonances emerging from an existential crisis.
It is a cognitive dissonance and painful to bear if there is no corresponding noumena to phenomena.

[Atla]

Anyone can posit, postulate, assume anything as much as possible, but such assumptions cannot be taken as real at all.

Anyone can pretend away the naturally posited external world, but such negative-assumptions cannot be taken seriously at all.

It is the same with the noumenal assumption in Science, it has no significance for scientific conclusions.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.

Modern science is of course perfectly consistent with the real noumenal external world. It's very difficult to make your stance consistent with it, however.

Again, modern science [Hawking] don't give a fuck re the noumenal independent noumenal beyond the empirical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.

Scientific instrumentalism isn't relevant to ontology.
Also, if your model includes a real noumenon (for example by saying that noumena and phenomena are the same world), then the noumenon is real, but that's just a useful model.
Saying that these are models of phenomena, isn't saying anything, because by definition it's not possible to investigate anything else but phenomena.

Why people are so dogmatic with the idea of the noumena [an evolutionary default] is a psychological issue as driven by painful cognitive dissonances emerging from an existential crisis.
It is a cognitive dissonance and painful to bear if there is no corresponding noumena to phenomena.

Why people are so dogmatic with clinging to solipsism, and pretending away the external world, seems to be a strange psychological issue.
I honestly don't understand what exactly this psychological issue is. Sure, Kant was insufferably full of himself (even though for such a great philosopher, he didn't even use the abstract/concrete dichotomy, and he completely failed to grasp nondual philosophy), and many others were bamboozled by him, but that alone isn't enough to explain this.

Did he want out, or did he maybe have a secret death wish, or maybe an owervhelming contempt for everyone else? Was he just coy in a weird way? Or something else? Puzzling to me..

[Skepdick]

If I think of a perfect circle or a perfect square, I'm having 'abstract' thoughts. It's true that 'abstract' thoughts don't refer to anything real in the noumenal external world.

The perfect circle or square Atla is thinking of is absolutely out there in the noumenal external world.

Not from your perspective, but certainly form everybody else's.

If the phrases "perfect circle" or "perfect square" you are using doesn't refer to anything in your head then it's going to make this conversation very awkward very quickly.

If I think of the Moon or the table in front of me, I'm having 'concrete' thoughts.

No you aren't. You are having abstract thoughts about concrete things.

The thoughts themselves are concrete when they become the object of your attention.

This silly game gets recursive very quickly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant did not consider the abstract/concrete dichotomy????

The abstract/concrete dichotomy is one of the central element of Kantian philosophy.

In modern philosophy, the distinction between abstract and concrete was explored by Immanuel Kant[10] and G. W. F. Hegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Kant went into depth with the theme of abstraction;

• Kant distinguishes between two senses of abstraction:
  (i) as an Inductive Account of the genesis of Concepts from Experience;
  (ii) as a Specification of the use of Concepts.
  Caygill

Logic's advantage is its limitation, i.e. based on abstraction of balded-concrete;

• The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.
  That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge [the concrete] and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form [the noumenon].
  Bix

Kant argued, the illusory noumenon is an abstraction from the concrete particular phenomena; in [] = mine

When we abstract from the way in which objects are intuited, there remains the notion of the “character that they have in themselves” (B306).
Since appearances are thought of as special kinds of objects, there is a temptation to think that there is a contrasting special kind of object, a being of the understanding [intelligible object] or noumenon. Such an object either would have the character of objects of the senses, considered in themselves, or might not be an object of the senses at all.
Link

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kantian Philosophy has nothing to do with solipsism.

• Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. WIKI

Solipsism is grounded upon Philosophical Realism which assumes there is a mind-independent reality.
As such, when anyone who disagrees with Philosophical Realism they are charged with solipsism.
However, philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion [not realistic], thus has no grounds to claim that anti-philosophical realists are unrealistic.

Anti-Philosophical-Realism [Kantian kind] accept other minds [gemut] exist as real minds and such minds are not of the Substance Dualism claims.

From the anti-philosophical realists' perspective, actually, it is the P-realists re mind-independence who are into solipsism while being ignorant they are.

P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.
But the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
So, other minds which are independent of one's mind are illusory.
As such, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.
Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic!

[Atla]

Kant did not consider the abstract/concrete dichotomy????

The abstract/concrete dichotomy is one of the central element of Kantian philosophy.

In modern philosophy, the distinction between abstract and concrete was explored by Immanuel Kant[10] and G. W. F. Hegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Kant went into depth with the theme of abstraction;

• Kant distinguishes between two senses of abstraction:
  (i) as an Inductive Account of the genesis of Concepts from Experience;
  (ii) as a Specification of the use of Concepts.
  Caygill

Logic's advantage is its limitation, i.e. based on abstraction of balded-concrete;

• The sphere of Logic is quite precisely delimited; its sole concern is to give an exhaustive exposition and a strict proof of the Formal Rules of all Thought, whether it be a priori or Empirical, whatever be its Origin or its Object, and whatever hindrances, accidental or natural, it may encounter in our Minds.
  That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge [the concrete] and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form [the noumenon].
  Bix

Kant argued, the illusory noumenon is an abstraction from the concrete particular phenomena; in [] = mine

When we abstract from the way in which objects are intuited, there remains the notion of the “character that they have in themselves” (B306).
Since appearances are thought of as special kinds of objects, there is a temptation to think that there is a contrasting special kind of object, a being of the understanding [intelligible object] or noumenon. Such an object either would have the character of objects of the senses, considered in themselves, or might not be an object of the senses at all.
Link

He uses the word abstraction, but here it only seems to mean something like: to describe, take away something's essence. Essence is of course always illusory. But that's not the main abstract/concrete issue.

I don't know what "Specification of the use of Concepts" means here.

The main abstract/concrete issue is about abstract thinking vs concrete thinking: by Occam's razor, abstract references have no referents in the (noumenal) external world, concrete references do.

[Atla]

Kantian Philosophy has nothing to do with solipsism.

• Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. WIKI

Solipsism is grounded upon Philosophical Realism which assumes there is a mind-independent reality.
As such, when anyone who disagrees with Philosophical Realism they are charged with solipsism.
However, philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion [not realistic], thus has no grounds to claim that anti-philosophical realists are unrealistic.

Anti-Philosophical-Realism [Kantian kind] accept other minds [gemut] exist as real minds and such minds are not of the Substance Dualism claims.

From the anti-philosophical realists' perspective, actually, it is the P-realists re mind-independence who are into solipsism while being ignorant they are.

P-realists claimed things are mind-independent, i.e. of one's mind.
As such, other minds are independent of one's mind.
But the idea of mind-independence is illusory.
So, other minds which are independent of one's mind are illusory.
As such, only one's mind is real, the other minds are illusory.
Therefore the P-Realists are solipsistic!

I say denying the noumenal external world automatically leads to solipsism, even if it wasn't intended.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In modern philosophy, the distinction between abstract and concrete was explored by Immanuel Kant[10] and G. W. F. Hegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Kant addressed all aspects of the abstract and concrete dichotomy within epistemology.
One need to read and understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR to get the point.

[Atla]

In modern philosophy, the distinction between abstract and concrete was explored by Immanuel Kant[10] and G. W. F. Hegel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Kant addressed all aspects of the abstract and concrete dichotomy within epistemology.
One need to read and understand [not necessary agree with] the whole of Kant's CPR to get the point.

We'll have to completely disagree on that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The whole of Kant's CPR argued the noumenal external world is an illusion alluding to that which is driven by an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonances.

Kant's focus is scientific and mathematical reality, i.e. what is real is that which is verifiable and justifiable by science based on as far as the empirical evidences can support.
What is beyond the empirical [i.e. noumenon aka thing-in-itself] is illusory.

It is very uneasy for the majority to merely accept the emergence and realization of phenomena as the only FSK real things, as if suspended in mid-air without grounds to stand on.

Here is where Kant alluded to the arising cognitive dissonances;

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves [aka noumena], we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.
  [Bxxvi]

So Kant allow provision of a tentative illusory noumenon for consideration.

The final conclusion of Kant's CPR is the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is illusory albeit a useful illusion for theistic salvation, relieve cognitive dissonance and even idealization [adopted as merely an assumption only] in science.

[Atla]

The whole of Kant's CPR argued the noumenal external world is an illusion alluding to that which is driven by an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonances.

Kant's focus is scientific and mathematical reality, i.e. what is real is that which is verifiable and justifiable by science based on as far as the empirical evidences can support.
What is beyond the empirical [i.e. noumenon aka thing-in-itself] is illusory.

It is very uneasy for the majority to merely accept the emergence and realization of phenomena as the only FSK real things, as if suspended in mid-air without grounds to stand on.

Here is where Kant alluded to the arising cognitive dissonances;

• But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves [aka noumena], we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
  otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears.
  [Bxxvi]

So Kant allow provision of a tentative illusory noumenon for consideration.

The final conclusion of Kant's CPR is the noumenon aka thing-in-itself is illusory albeit a useful illusion for theistic salvation, relieve cognitive dissonance and even idealization [adopted as merely an assumption only] in science.

I don't know why you keep bringing science into it, science views the external world as real.
Not just tentatively real, FSK-ed real etc., but real period.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At most science merely ASSUMED there is an external reality to be discovered.
Kant did agree with this assumption as a useful illusion.

Which credible non-theistic scientist in the world had claimed there is a really-real-world out there when they have not proven it scientifically yet within the scientific-FSK.

Again, as quoted and generally, modern scientists don't give a damn with any mind-independent reality out there, especially on the basis as a scientist which is a taboo for science.

Some [maybe many] scientists do cling to a mind-independent reality, but that is in their personal capacity from the philosophical perspective, NOT while wearing the scientist hat.

[Veritas Aequitas]

These are the main assumptions of science;
Link


The main Assumption of Science is this;

Science assumes that nature exists.
The existence of the external world is assumed by science – and by most of us as we live our daily lives – yet it is not possible to know with complete certainty whether or not our senses are deceiving us as to the true nature of reality.

Science assumes nature has an intelligible order that can be known. We have discovered chemical elements that fall into natural groupings which we arrange according to an atomic number. However, this assumes that we can know things in and of themselves.

Science assumes the existence and applicability of the laws of logic. Scientists borrow from philosophy and use the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, the law of excluded middle to discuss their own experimental observations, inferences, and conclusions about what is true of the world.

Science assumes the reliability of our senses to deliver truth about the world. Our senses aren’t reliable indicators of objective truth and it’s possible that our senses intentionally mislead us in order to help us survive.

The underlying assumption of science is that the universe has an independent, external reality accessible to human senses and amenable to human reason.
https://www.ibchem.com/IB16/syllabus/nos/1.01.htm

But note, modern science don't give a damn with the above assumption of a mind-independent reality but merely focus on the scientific method and empirical verification and justification.

[Atla]

At most science merely ASSUMED there is an external reality to be discovered.
Kant did agree with this assumption as a useful illusion.

Which credible non-theistic scientist in the world had claimed there is a really-real-world out there when they have not proven it scientifically yet within the scientific-FSK.

Again, as quoted and generally, modern scientists don't give a damn with any mind-independent reality out there, especially on the basis as a scientist which is a taboo for science.

Some [maybe many] scientists do cling to a mind-independent reality, but that is in their personal capacity from the philosophical perspective, NOT while wearing the scientist hat.

Ask 100 scientists, I think at least 99 will choose "nature is probably real" over "nature is impossible to be real".

[Veritas Aequitas]

When a person wears the scientist-hat, he will have to comply with the Constitution, rules, assumptions, limitation, processes, procedure of the Scientific Method within the scientific FSK.

The Classical Scientists will merely ASSUME there is an external reality beyond the phenomena awaiting discovery.

As I have stated, modern scientists don't give a damn with the assumption of an external world beyond the phenomena.
If they do that is their personal philosophical views based on the illusory philosophical realism as driven by cognitive dissonances.

Note;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

But on a personal basis, Professor Jim Al-Khalili still thinks a mind-independent reality is likely. If his cognitive dissonance gets stronger in time, he will soon reject the reality of Quantum Physics.

Scientists like Hawking don't give a fuck with the ASSUMPTION a mind-independent reality till he passed away.

Btw, it is argued, scientists can do away with ASSUMPTIONS and just do their work based on empirical evidences within the scientific method, peer reviews, etc.