That is the kind of oblivion that I fear. — Paine

There is no such thing as eternal oblivion. Even when you fall asleep at night, you don't notice time while you were sleeping. You close and open the eyes, momentarily it is next morning.

If you were spending a whole night without sleeping and fully being awake, a night would be very a long time till next morning. Without mind, there is no time i.e. no past, no present, no future and definitely no eternity.

And when one dies, the mind will be totally cut off from the rest of the world, and other minds too in any relation it has made with them due to nonexistence of the mind.

Why should our perceptions necessarily give us knowledge about the world? — RussellA

For empirical cases like seeing colour red, you must go out and investigate further and verify for the truth, if needed. Seeing the colour red is just like CCTV monitoring a street, and recording the scene. There is no intelligence or coherence in the images. Human mind must analyse, and tell the image what it is by matching the images to his intelligence for true knowledge.

AI implemented cameras can tell the what the object of the colour red is, when detecting the object. But it needs the image recognition programming in the implementation.

But in order to reason about my perceptions, I must first know that I am perceiving the colour red, for example. I don't think that I am seeing the colour red. I don't believe that I am seeing the colour red. I don't need to reason that I am seeing the colour red. I know that I am seeing the colour red. — RussellA

Your seeing colour red is not knowledge. You are just making a statement on your seeing colour red, and that is all. That colour red could be anything. You must further reason or infer whether the colour red is an apple or a red lamp, if the shape was not clear to you.

Knowledge is verified belief or fact which carries truth. If something is not truth, or unclear, it is not knowledge.

So IRists were confused seeing the colour red as having knowledge on the ultimate reality, it seems.

The Indirect Realist
Not entirely. The Indirect Realist has knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red. But they argue that we can only have beliefs about what exists in the world that may be causing these perceptions in the mind. — RussellA

However, as I see it, Direct Realist is an invalid philosophy. IE, they are wrong. — RussellA

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong.

Indirect knowledge signifies a belief.

I believe that the Space Needle in Seattle was originally sketched on a napkin, but I don't know it for a fact as I wasn't there at the time. — RussellA

Does it mean that Indirect Realist can only have beliefs? No knowledge at all?
And likewise, Direct Relists can only have knowledge? No beliefs at all?

In relation to something in the world. The relation between what exists in the mind and what exists in the world. — RussellA

That seems to imply that they are back to the dualism.

the Indirect Realist argues that their reasoning can only give them indirect knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception. — RussellA

1) What is the significance of direct and indirect knowledge?
2) Indirect or direct on relation to what?
3) What are the differences in direct and indirect knowledge compared to knowledge?

As I wrote on page 2 — RussellA

Thanks for the clarification.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

That sounds confusing. Is it not the other way around? Are you sure you haven't put them wrong way around in the definition? What significance the word "indirect" have in the name? Why indirect?

I am trying to show that this is a misrepresentation of Indirect Realism. For Indirect Realism, there is only "1x copy of every object in your perception." — RussellA

You seem to be confusing the point that I was trying to point out the fact that transcendental idealism has problem of having dualistic view of the world i.e. phenomenon and noumenon. I was trying to clarify that ideal realism is not transcendental realism. Banno seems to be confusing himself on this point in his post above, which I tried to correct his confusion.

There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

I only mentioned on indirect realism, because you brought it up. I don't actually know what it is claiming officially, because just by reading your posts about it, it sounded like a tautological statement as I mentioned before.

So what is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? From what you are saying, they sound exactly the same claims.

What is an object, for you? — Banno

An object can be both mental and physical. If you imagined a winged horse, that winged horse is your mental object. If you saw one made of physical matter in Disney, it is a physical object of a winged horse. It is not the real Pegasus, but it is still a winged horse, and one can name it as Pegasus. No?

This again is the problem of confounding what you believe with what is true. That you will not know that you are oblivious does not mean you are not oblivious... Rather the opposite. — Banno

Does it mean you are oblivious, even if you will not know you are oblivious?

So Pegasus is a word without its object? Are there objects without their words / names?

Therefore, I see no reason to commit to eternal oblivion, although it would seem likely from the material point of view. — Zebeden

When there is no mind to perceive, is eternal oblivion possible?

Think of how many times a book has given you an idea, or the words of another person, a painting, etc. This means that ideas are contextualized in and by an extramental world. — JuanZu

Yes, I agree that our ideas can be passed onto other minds in forms of materialised media, books, words, music, arts etc. And when those materialised ideas are passed onto other minds, they can form new ideas and creativities in forms of other materials, so forth and so fifth ad infinitum. Could this be similar idea with Hegel's absolute idea or spirit? I am not sure, but just inferring here.

Nice. Like Ross Ryan. — Banno

:up:

But he is not Pegasus. Pegasus is mythical, so any real creature claiming to be Pegasus is a con. — Banno

How can a mythical creature be real? Mythical already implies not real.

What you are describing appears to be a novice version of transcendental idealism. — Banno

It was not transcendental idealism I was trying to describe. It was ideal realism I was trying to describe.
So what is your account of non-novice version of transcendental idealism?

is right to ask you how it can explain both the consistency of your perceptions, and how it is that we overwhelmingly agree as to how things are. — Banno

Mok doesn't seem to understand that perception just presents to us the world as it is. Perception doesn't give us coherence of reality. It just perceives the objects and world as they are, and feeds us with the information in most raw form of data i.e. images. motions, shapes, sounds and words. That is where perception ends.

He has been keep asking how perception can tell coherence of reality, which doesn't make sense.

From ideal realism, perception don't give us coherence of reality. Coherence of reality can be known via our analytic thinking and reasoning on the perceived contents via the principle of cause and effect and necessity.

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception. — MoK

Coherence comes from your reasoning, not from perception. You must ask yourself why your reasoning cannot understand your own perception.

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception. — MoK

Idealism is the way you see the world. It is simply saying that what you perceive is ideas, and what you believe, think, remember, see and imagine in your mind are real.

Coherence comes from your reasoning on your perception. You seem to be not able to tell the difference between your perception and your reasoning on perception.

Presumably the same as for the idealists and the materialists. — RussellA

You haven't answered the key point question.

What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point? — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? — MoK

Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception?

If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality! — MoK

Why do you think it is the case?

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is not a tautological statement. — RussellA

It sounds an empty statement as well as tautology too. What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point?

A bold statement that neither Indirect nor Direct Realism are interested in the nature of ultimate reality. — RussellA

It is a fair statement, not a bold one.

Indirect Realism is about the limits of knowledge of ultimate reality. Direct Realists do believe that they know ultimate reality. — RussellA

What are the ultimate reality for these folks in detail?

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.
— Corvus
Reasoning is an analysis of ideas. — MoK

The world just present to you as it appears. It doesn't tell you reality is true or false. You perceive what is given and presented to you. You must gather up the ideas you perceived, and organise your thoughts, and come to your own judgement on its coherence or absurdity.

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. They are different category of existences.

I doubt that the cause of a medical condition is always known. — RussellA

There would be always possible causes when the cause is uncertain. But there is no absolute unknown causes.

When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause. — RussellA

It sounds like a tautological statement, which doesn't convey any knowledge.

You may not deny Indirect and Representational Realism, but you infer there is no point in them. — RussellA

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. But IR and DR seem to just make vague statements on how they perceive via unknown causes or directly. They just end there. So what is the ultimate reality? They don't seem to be interested in it. Hence no point.

I am a great believer in synchronicity. I also see parallels between inner and outer reality rather than dreams as being simply about the personal. We are all aspects of the cosmic web and are interconnected as systems within systems, the macrocosm and the microcosm. — Jack Cummins

Could it be in line with C G Jung's thoughts? Sychronicity, world soul and oneness in consciousness.

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone in pain with a broken leg until they knew the cause of the break. — RussellA

There would be no cases such that the cause of break is unknown in medical incidents.

It is a brave statement that there is no point in Indirect or Representational Realism, and philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were mistaken. — RussellA

Not really. Their systems are not denied here. Rather, the OP is based on their systems, but seeing the world in a different way like Husserl and Merlou Ponty have done.

Normally, we have no difficulty distinguishing the real thing from the copy.

But, sometimes, when we don't have the original for comparison, we may mistake the ideal copy for the real original. — Gnomon

In Kant's transcendental idealism, what we are seeing is appearance, and the reality is hidden in noumena. In Hume, what we see is impressions of the external world, not the world itself. In Schopenhauer, the world is representation and will of us. Hence we are not experiencing the reality as is at all. :)

For example if you think of an idea that another person gave you, that idea is present in your mind but it is no longer present in the mind of the other person. — JuanZu

It sounds like one aspect of idea. What I was meaning with idea was a way of seeing the world. It is all in our mind. What we see, notice, think, reflect, imagine, draw, and remember in our mind i.e. the whole contents in the mind are ideas, and they are real.

Why should I believe in the existence of an object in the world that I have never observed existing? — RussellA

You don't need to. You are free to believe what you want to believe, and that is what belief is about.
But if you believe that Australia exists even you have never been there, it is likely your belief must be based on what you read, were told and saw on the media.

What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure. — RussellA

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is.

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism? — MoK

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. It is a way of seeing the world. Idealism says your mind, the representation in your mind is real. The coherent thinking comes from the principle of logic, reasoning, inference and observation on the things happening in space and time which are your intuition.

When I say that ideas are material, I do not mean that they are physical, but a third option between the mental and the physical that respects the identity of each one. — JuanZu

Idea can be different types i.e. ideas as mental representations, images of the physical objects, meanings of the words, and ideas as resolutions or answers to the problems, and indeed ideas as words themselves and symbols and signs. But here we are manly talking about mental representations i.e. images and concepts in our minds.

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them. — RussellA

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist.

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism) — RussellA

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. Sense data is ambiguous in terms of its legitimacy of the meaning, implication, origin, uses, and existence. It is a muddled and confused claim.

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine. — RussellA

But what does Direct Realism say about the existence of unperceived objects? In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived.

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. Bodily sense organs in human body are not just physical perceptive organs, but they are supported by rational ideas with inferring capacities.

When we are looking at a cup with drink in it, we are not only simply seeing it (like Direct Realism, which ends there), but also looking for evidence and qualities which are the premeditated or inferred drink i.e. coffee or tea. Coffee will look darker in colour than tea, and when drank, it will have the taste of coffee, not tea. All perception is accompanied by the rich mental states and operations backed by experienced and reasoned ideas.

Therefore Ideal Realism is not simple naive Direct Realism.

I didn't say that. — MoK

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.

How is the thought process possible in idealism? — MoK

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality.

Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas. — MoK

If X is based on Y, then X is not Y. Reasoning is not ideas. Reasoning is a thought process. Ideas are images and concepts.

I already argued against idealism. — MoK

You seem to be confused in the difference between idea and reasoning.

What do you mean by this? — MoK

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. To know the idea is correct or not, you must check if it has all the correct qualities for a tree. The checking process is from your reasoning, not a work from the idea.

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality. — MoK

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. Idealism is a way to view to the world. It is your reasoning to tell if the idea you have is correct or not. Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world.

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. The world doesn't tell you if it is correct or not. It is your thought which does that.

A raw idea doesn't have coherence attached to it. You need to analyse the idea with your reasoning process to come to the judgement on coherence or not.

This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

Ideas manifest when we materialize our ideas into physical entities.  But ideas themselves are not matter.

This morning I was thinking about whether to drink coffee or tea.  The coffee or tea was ideas in my mind.  When I decided to have coffee, and made coffee, the idea of coffee manifested into matter.   When I drank the coffee, it was a real experience of coffee in a form of matter.

Likewise matter can be idealised when perceived.  Before perception, there is no matter, and no existence.  When we perceive an object, it is perceived as matter.  When we remember it, or think about it in our mind, it is an idea of the matter.

Matter is not ideas, and ideas are not matter.   Between the two states of existence, experience and perception are needed for the transformation. Idea is not just a copy of matter, and matter is not just physical existence on its own.

For that process, we need our perception and the body with working brain to carry out the perceptual process or experience. Could it be a phenomenological view? I need to read some Husserl, Heidegger and Merlou Ponty, if their ideas were in line with the OP.

This explanation can only be carried out if the idea and its representation are part of the same system of signs. This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

I think this is a very interesting point. Here we are not just simply talking about idealism and materialism, but the nature and scope of ideas and realities too. I will read over your post a few times, and let it sink in me before returning with my points. Later~

Explained in the OP The Mind Created World. Not that I'm wanting to hijack your thread, but I also don't want to try and explain it all again here. — Wayfarer

I recall your OP you mentioned above. The OP could be written in 3 sentences, and perhaps needed 2-3 pages of postings. Instead the OP read like a novel, and it was filled with the over 2k irrelevant postings for ages. What was the conclusion in the end?

You seem to be trying hard to make things unnecessarily complicated. Talking about the existence of the world when observer is not present is not relevant to the point as well.

Fair enough. A thing and the idea of a thing are separate, in that sense. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, but we know which one is real. To perceive the real Lady Gaga, you must go to her live concert. What you listen to, and watch on youtube is virtual real, not the real.