Impossible for the mind to describe a mind-independent world. — RussellA

There seem to be two options.
1) Mind-independent world doesn't exist. It is a figment of our imagination like flying horse or golden mountain or mermaid.

2) It could be the countries or places which are known to exist, but we have never been in it such as Australia (for me, I have never been in the country). I read about it, watched youtube videos about it, and heard about it, so I imagine it is a vast land with great weather, and lots of wild bush land and many kangurus jumping around all over the place.

I believe it exists, but I have no idea who are living in there, and what is happening in there. I have no direct perception on the country at all. In that sense, it is a mind-independent world for me.

Our only knowledge about any mind-independent world, any objective reality, starts with our subjective mental states. — RussellA

Could you describe what mind-independent world could be?

But if X was originally a statue of X, then a statue of X is X. No?
— Corvus
No. The Trojan Horse was arguably a mythological statue. Pegasus was never a mythological statue. — noAxioms

X is a free variable. It can take any value in it. X could have been a statue of Pegasus for its original value. Your inability to understand even what a variable has been the cause of muddle and confusion

, if I wanted to refer to the concept of 14, I would have explicitly said something like 'the concept of 14' or 'the perception of X' — noAxioms

It is not matter of if you wanted. We have had this discussion many times before, and it had been concluded that number is concept. Your ignorance on the fact has been contributing to beating around the bush in circles instead of seeing any progress in the discussion.

In exactly the same way, any pain a person experiences cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible. — RussellA

Seeing a colour and feeling a pain are both subjective experiences that are unknowable to any one other than a mind reader. — RussellA

They are subjective mental states, nothing to do with knowledge. If you have knowledge of something, then you must be able to verify, demonstrate and prove on what you know objectively to other minds in linguistic forms, when asked.

If you knew something about a mind-independent world then it couldn't be a mind-independent world.

That would be like knowing something that is unknown. — RussellA

The world or reality means that you live in it, interact with other minds and objects in the world. If you cannot do that, then it is not a world, and it is not the world either. In that sense mind-independent world is a fiction.

But persons A and B are interchangeable,

Therefore, it is possible that a person may see a colour that in fact doesn't exist in reality in the world — RussellA

When there are discrepancies in the claims of knowledge on the same situation or object between different folks, you always have chance to carry out testimonies on the knowledge via repeated observations, experiments, or testing on the claims, and update your false beliefs, or correct the other folks false claim on his knowledge. You also have option of mutual agreements on knowledge with the other folks who had different account of the knowledge from you via clarification process.

Therefore Direct Realism is not a valid philosophy. The reality of a mind-independent world is inaccessible to the mind. — RussellA

What we see is the only world there is. There is no other world. Mind-independent world is meaningless if you cannot see or know what it is.

But we know the world as we perceive and reason on it. Where reason cannot stretch further due to its own limits, inference can begin. This is what ideal realism saying, and I think it makes sense.

It's a statue of X, not X. There's a difference, kind of the same difference between the concept of 14 and 14. — noAxioms

But if X was originally a statue of X, then a statue of X is X. No?
The concept of 14 is 14.

Your seeing the colour red is knowledge about what is in the mind, but is not knowledge about what is in the world. — RussellA

You need to check and find out what the red coloured object is you are seeing. Just claiming you are seeing red coloured object doesn't mean much and not very useful to you as knowledge.

You must find out, if it is a traffic red light shining at you, or an apple hanging on the apple tree, or fire burning in your garden, so you must be able to stop the car, or go and get the apple for your supper if it were in your own garden, or get a bucket of water, and pour over the fire in the garden, for your perception worthwhile serving you as knowledge for your survival.

Just saying you are seeing something red, but it might be green is not knowledge, and it doesn't mean much at all. Even a bird can tell it is red object she is seeing, and she wouldn't do anything or care what the red object is about. That's no knowledge. We don't say birds have knowledge, even if they can see objects like we do.

You could look at the green object from all directions and all times of the day and will always see this green object as red. — RussellA

You need to check if you were wearing red coloured eye glasses, or perhaps you might have developed problems with your sights? Or indeed there is an object which is green, but appears red. The important thing here is that, you are thinking and reasoning that you are seeing red, but it could be green.
You are not just seeing the object like antique CCTV camera.

How is it possible for the human mind to analyse the fact that they always see a red object to discover the truth of reality that the object in the world is actually green? — RussellA

Because human mind thinks, imagines, reasons and infers on what they perceive.

As regards the world, you may believe the colour of the object is red. You may be able to justify that the colour of the object is red. But if the object is in reality actually green, then you have no knowledge about the truth of reality. — RussellA

That sounds an extreme scepticism. We do have knowledge about the truth of reality, because we have perception and reasoning and inferring on the perception. Not just perception.

What was his view on it?

Is that desk there an idea. A large, wooden idea and if i push it over, am i pushing an idea? Is my soul an idea? — Gregory

If you think, imagine, remember or believe in the existence of the large desk, then it is idea of the desk in your mind. If you stand in front of the desk, touch it, push it or work on it, then it is a matter, or a physical desk you are dealing with.

How does my sole know matter as matter? Is there something that connects all philosophical ideas within my soul? — Gregory

Soul is a tricky concept. Does your soul exist? Where is it? In what form does your soul exist?

I knew what you meant. No misunderstanding there at all.
At the point where experience is limited, inference takes place.

You seem to have misunderstood the inference as a declaration, hence pointed it out.

No. It is not a declaration.

It is only an inference from what we see from the dead, and we also reason and infer the same situation to the ultimate fate of the living including us.

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.