They agree that the eyes move about their sockets and in response to stimulation by electromagnetic radiation send electrical signals to the brain, which in turn sends signals to the muscles.

But, like many direct realists (and unlike you), they also believe in first-person experience and consciousness, and perception is related to this rather than just the body's unconscious response to stimulation.

I suppose you're right. The problem for me, as mentioned, is first-person experience of what is actually occurring behind the eyes is wholly limited. Much of what is occurring in there cannot be sensed, and it is this lack of sense that informs indirect realism, perhaps even feeling and subjectivity entirely, so the label "naive" is more appropriately applied to this view, I think.

Then I don't know what you mean by "direct".

If both "direct" and indirect realists agree that distal objects and their properties are not actual constituents of the experience then what are they disagreeing over?

By direct I mean only not indirect. There is no mediating factor prohibiting me from sensing the world.

So let's just examining the raw physics. There is a ball of plasma 150,000,000 km away. It emits electromagnetic radiation. This radiation stimulates the sense receptors in some organism's eyes (or, feasibly, some other sense organ). These sense receptors send electrical signals to the brain and clusters of neurotransmitters activate, sending signals to the muscles causing the organism to move.

What do direct realists believe is happening here that indirect realists don't believe, and vice versa?

I can only speak for myself. The eyes aren't just stimulated as if they passively await light to hit them. The body isn't a Rube Goldberg device. The eyes are active; they seek out and use the light, transducing it, converting it to signals for use by the rest of the body, in a similar way you mention. My guess is indirect realists do not consider such an act as an act of perception because it doesn't involve a mediating factor.

It's a leap to call a court-imposed restriction on what someone can say at the penalty of fine or jail censorship?

The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is the right of the defendant, not the judge and his daughter. The gag orders here, as in Chutkin's court, is to protect people from supposed threats, not to protect their's or anyone else's right to a fair trial. That's my legal contention.

My moral contention is that it is wrong to censor someone on specious grounds, such as prior restraint, the assumption that his speaking will lead to this or that ill effect in the future. They do not know the future. They do not know what will happen. They cannot connect Trump's speech to any of the threats, nor do they know the motives of anyone who threatens them, and until they find someone who confesses that Trump's words forced him against his will to threaten someone, the conspiracy theory is absurd.

That's the point. Indirect realists believe that there is an epistemological problem precisely because the only information given to rational thought is the body's reaction to stimulation.

Direct realists believed that there isn't an epistemological problem because distal objects and their properties are actual constituents of the experience (and not just causes), and so entails things like the naive realist theory of colour. That's what it means for perception to be direct. But this view of the world was proven wrong by modern science.

The fallacy of ambiguity always factors high in these discussions. I wager the activity described as "information given to rational thought" is something that does not occur. I apologize but I have to remain sceptical of what I can only describe as imaginary things and processes. It is unclear what any of these words refer to, if anything. I'd much prefer a look at what is actually going on there and use that as a basis. Only then can we speak of things and activities involved in perception.

I am a direct realist and do not believe distal objects and their properties are actual constituents of the experience. Again, in order to wade through the fallacy of ambiguity, I try my best to make sense of the argument, but so far "experience" appears to be a roundabout way of describing the body, at least metaphorically. So I'll have to dismiss it as just that. But scientists are also not immune to ambiguity. Searle takes up the argument from science quite well if you'd like to read an opposing argument.

The only reason why experience wouldn’t extend beyond the body is because experience is bodily, of the body, and in fact identical with it. So it’s like saying the body does not extend beyond the body.

But there are epistemological problems with indirect realism, and they are insurmountable. If one is privy only to his experience, or representation, whatever the case may be, how can he know whether they represent the real world? that they do so indirectly?

While it is true that distal objects are not constituents of the body, luckily the sense are, and the body is equipped to sense its surroundings. Unfortunately the senses do not point inward, and he cannot use them to discern what is going on inside. The subjective disconnect between states of feelings and states of affairs will forever perplex indirect realism. A being who cannot watch his own brain supposes to tell us what is occurring inside. Should evidence concern us, one ought to remain skeptical of these phenomenological claims.

Lastly, the causal relationship as proposed by indirect realism (as far as I can tell) is largely backwards. It does not account for the activity of perception, for instance focussing, grasping, tasting a distal object, all of which occur prior.

Anti-Trumpism is a propaganda-driven moral panic. In order to stop the authoritarianism, racism, and fascism that never seems to arrive, anti-Trumpism employs all of the above to save us from the existential threat of a Trump presidency. Even though their conspiracy theories have revealed themselves as hoaxes, and their fear-mongering as lies, they double down, creating for themselves the conditions that justify the panic.

The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint. So in this case the idea that gag-orders insure a fair trial is false. Yes he was harmed; his rights were violated by the same institution that is tasked with protecting them.

You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. That’s all you’ve offered. The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust. You yourself argued prior restraint, echoing the court, as far as I can tell not applying a single thought of your own.

If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship, there are thousands of years of argument and history you can peruse if you’re interested, but I call you a censor because you defend censorship, not because I disagree with you.

Reading through, the play for indirect realism seems to be to pick two supposedly distinct aspects of a perceiver and to have one mediate perception for the other. This gives the impression that there are 3 parties, a relationship that is necessary for mediation, and for indirect realism.

But the distinction is abstract and has no empirical grounds. All one has to do is observe a perceiver and note that only two parties are involved in the perceptual relationship, and all the indirect realist has really done is implied that the perceiver mediates his own perception, which isn’t mediation at all.

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. If there is no punishment for their malfeasance I would hope people let them know how they feel.

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

He’s done nothing wrong. The alleged crimes are made up out of thin air, and used as they are to influence the election in Biden’s favor. Have you explored the evidence that attests to this?

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Standing down isn’t a in any way nefarious, I’m afraid. Invoking his name during a criminal act is no evidence that his rhetoric leads to criminal acts.

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

His rights were violated on the basis of prior restraint. I’ve mentioned this a few times now.

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

And you’re a censor, so it’s no wonder you’ll defend censorship. But it isn’t just my judgement. It’s also the judgement of the Supreme Court. Censorship on the basis of prior restraint is the most pernicious of all forms of censorship.

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. I’m not cherry picking any cases here. I’m saying it of all of them. But typical of anti-Trumpism is the misrepresentation of an opponents views in a base effort of propaganda.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect, like the undermining of the justice system, or the proliferation of threats against public servants, all because he makes comments on social media. There is no evidence for it.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored.

But it’s also the cause of the backlash in the first place. No one, especially Trump, is ordering people to threaten the court or to lose faith in the justice system. The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. When people see that the judge’s daughter is a big-time consultant for the Biden/Harris campaign and Adam Schiff, they think that’s ridiculous and unjust. Why, of all judges, is it this one? Is there no judge without kids who work for Biden/Harris campaign? Is there no judge who has not assumed Trump’s guilt in earlier cases? This is why even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate.

The questionable decision is the gag order, the violation of a human right, which I’ve already mentioned is using prior restraint, and the refusal to recuse himself. Not only that but the mere appearance of bias, and the fact that the daughter and her clients stand to benefit from a conviction, demands recusal according to state statute. The fact he hasn’t recused himself yet and has refused to do so is judicial misconduct on its face. And it only makes him appear more biased, or ignorant of the law, or both, forever tarnishing the integrity of the justice system.

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it.

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections.

Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. Perhaps worse, the more and more this corruption and the weaponization of the court continues the more threats people will get. People can only observe so much injustice before they start to pop off. So if judge wants to protect people he should stop being unjust and corrupt, because doubling down clearly isn’t helping.

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial?

The judge used prior restraint to censor the defendant in order to shield his daughter from being exposed for being a DNC apparatchik. Meanwhile Stormy Daniels can make documentaries and Michael Cohen can write books, which according to your logic almost certainly leads to threats.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. Besides, prior restraint is forbidden in the United States. If the judge wishes to avoid threats he ought to just recuse himself and quit being corrupt.

Earlier this week internet sleuths, doing the job of the media class, discovered that the daughter of the judge in the Stormy Daniels sham trial was a digital marketing consultant, whose company raked in millions from the campaigns of Biden/Harris, Adam Schiff, and other anti-Trump demagogues.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/06/politics/trump-judge-daughter-attacks-explainer

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism, which risks exposing the incestuous relationship between anti-Trump politicians, election opponents, and the prosecution to the court.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-gag-order-expanded-after-attacks-on-new-york-judges-daughter

The judge, his daughter, and the DNC clients who line their pockets, all gain from Trump’s conviction. The likelihood of a fair trial has been tossed in the garbage along with the US constitution. Despite’s Trump’s censorship more and more of this fascism is being exposed.

I like your objection. It’s a nice thrust at the inverted spectrum argument, but it would be easier to say the argument itself is conceptually inconceivable, like p-zombies.

Yes agree, we're not evolved enough and are behind tech, the paper however says that it's politics that's behind tech and suggests that improvements in politics should be improved, suggesting world government and policing which is a political matter.

Government is a kind of technology, except it’s an immoral one. It’s premised on monopoly, plunder, and coercion. Not only that but it’s entirely inefficient. Besides, Government has been the greatest progenitor of the threat of mass-extinction since the meteor.

A world government, which would become the largest monopoly ever seen, would be grossly inefficient. The bureaucratic stupidity would be immense, leading to a failure of communication like found at Chernobyl. The people employed in it are just job-holders, including the politicians, each of them possessing the inherent tendency to satisfy their wants through the easiest means available. I think a political solution is ridiculous one, quite frankly.

The study of natural and physical phenomena was once the domain of philosophy, but so was the study of politics and ethics. Over time the one diverged from the other according to modern usage of either terms, especially as the sciences became more specialized. Nonetheless, PhD still stands for Doctor of Philosophy.

Tech has evolved at an astronomical pace while the species itself hasn't. Given this disparity it is quite possible we could destroy ourselves with it. But it is for this same reason that a world government is out of the question.

It might be comforting to distill the terms into some little formula, this word equals that word, but in my mind it’s better to find out what these terms are meant to describe. When it comes to self-reporting, each of them seem to refer to some degree of bodily feeling, like certainty, so in that sense they are radically similar.

I don't think a strict religious adherence could be considered "spiritual", at least insofar as that word means anything. The conscience is often latent. Everyone has a conscience but not all of them are active to the extent that they could be, or they have ossified around this or that practice or teaching or ideology. In my mind the more religious one is, the less spiritual he has become.

The concept of moral development suggests the conscience, that unseen witness to all an individual does, is the individual. It grows, develops, and ages along with him and expresses itself according to what has been learned by his corporeal form as he makes his way through the world and being with others. This includes living and acting through moral dilemmas, or considering morality as our fellows have understood and articulated them.

If one assumes the concept of moral development, I would argue that the lack of progress towards an active moral conscience correlates to the lack of variation in one’s exposure to morality and ethics as practices and principles. In other words, it is the lack of variation in one’s life experience (ie. the trial and error of a moral dilemma, like whether it was right or wrong to lie to your parents), and a lack of variety in the consideration of other moral principles and practices as found in the record of moral literature, that inhibits the growth of the conscience. As a parable, how might the Buddha have come to suggest the middle way or reach enlightenment if he himself hadn't lived through a variety of extremes?

In my mind the development of the conscience requires one to consider all ethical systems, to survey every extreme, maybe even to dabble in practicing them: to sin, to make mistakes, to fail morally, and also to succeed and to do right. It requires one to consider both good and evil, to expose oneself to them, if not to read and learn about them, then to pit them against the armor of one's own conscience.

This sort of trial and error is requisite to spirituality, in my mind, so I consider your own spiritual practice to be superior to that of the religious man. At any rate, if you cannot be wholly good, at the very least be interesting.

It’s a good start to a good argument. My only quibble is the brain/body dualism.

It’s common to situate consciousness in the brain, but because we’re not brains nor are we disembodied, consciousness cannot be reduced to states of the brain. Consciousness would be fundamentally different without bones, for instance, and the phenomena available to those who are standing is markedly different than those who are laying down. Most of the body is required in order to live, let alone be conscious, so all of it needs to be included in a materialist conception of consciousness lest he falls victim to the same dualism he accuses of dualists.

The Republican state in particular has had a profound effect on political divisions. The introduction of a representative government, a constitution, universal suffrage, has given factions an inroad to political power, the monopoly on violence, and the means of exploitation, whatever their ideology. It was no strange wonder that a party, whether liberal, fascist, socialist, or whatever their variants, opt for republican organization, and in that sense are hardly different.

So long as the political apparatus divides a population into two classes, exploiters and exploited, universalism of the kind you described is impossible. The one forever has the power over the other and participating in their project only serves to ossify those divisions.

Personally I wouldn’t imagine such a being. The best way to go about such monitoring is to utilize the senses of others, and maybe some invasive technologies, should they ever become safe enough.

“Mind” is the limited and naive theory of one’s own body from the perspective of someone who is unable to observe what is actually occurring. The hypothesis represents the subjective disconnect between states of feelings and states of affairs.

I am certain that if our senses pointed inwards our so-called inner lives would be less of a mystery. In there is a multiplicity of parts and movements we just aren’t privy to in the present arraignment. All one can do is try to make sense of the odd feeling here and there, maybe the discomfort emanating from an illness or pain, insofar as whatever causes them is able to reach the sensual aspects of the body and make itself known—a niggling fever could be the only evidence of a much greater malady, for example

Since we are unable to observe what is occurring in a majority of the body, the nature of our subjective lives is always one of grasping, the result of trying to understand inward while forever looking out.

I genuinely, given the above making little sense to me, don't know which aspect of the discussion you're referring to. If you're trying to say that I cannot point to an intervening element in the process of perception, the transition of light rays to electrical impulses is one. If you mean I can't point to "a perceiver", then again, you've already done my work for me by noting that 'you' or 'me' fits there- or, more accurately, made it clear that I'm doing nothing wrong by referring 'a perceiver' as you can easily note that this must be a human, in our discussion. It refers to anyone who could be perceiving. This is not ambiguous. and is not hard to determine, as you rightly did so while objecting.

Perhaps I misunderstood. If we can agree that human beings are perceivers then I have no objection and I apologize for making that assumption.

Nothing in this passage has anything to do with any of my claims, besides you pretending that our sensory system is not mediated, heavily, between object and experience. Which it is. Plainly. So, if that's not your claim, you'll need to do a bit better than state something I haven't claimed, and laughing it off.

It is an empirical fact that our sight is mediated by parts of our body. You are not being serious if you rthink the body perceives. A dead body cannot perceive. End of discussion, as far as that goes. So I hope that's not your claim. I would further hope that you've noticed your version of a perceiver flies in the face of the majority of conceptions of identity or personhood. I would also hope you'd have noticed that I've addressed that unfortunate fact about the sum human knowledge - we do not know in what a 'person' or 'perceiver' consists. We simply do not. You don't. No one does. We do our best with what we have, and you seem to be rejecting that attempt on the basis that you have some secret, fool-proof conception of what a perceiver is. Given that you do not, i fail to see how these incredulous objections could go through.

Never mind. At least we’re getting to the root of it.

I do know, actually. I can ask any living human organism if he perceives and the answer is invariably “yes”. I can ask if they are a person and the answer is invariably “yes”. We can put any number of them under empirical investigation and verify all of it. It is no strange coincidence they are embodied, are anatomical, and possess a variety of biological mechanisms, honed through millions of years of evolution, to aid in their perceptual abilities.

I’m willing to hear your arguments and evidence that say otherwise, but to me this is more evidence of an attempt to smuggle dualism and idealism past the customs.

Trump’s Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World’s 500 Richest People

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people

And here I thought he was going to be broke today. This timeline is just too good.

It takes account of the many, empirically factual, mediations which cause a mental construction of a representation presented to 'the perceiver'. :)

Note that none of the nouns used in this sentence refer to any person, place, or thing, so it isn’t clear what you are speaking about, if anything. Given your empirical facts you ought to be able to at least point to one of them. But we have examined the biology of animals and human beings and have found no such entities, nothing that any of those nouns refer to.

I’m not evoking any homunculus when I say the word “perceiver” because I can point to beings with which the word “perceiver” applies to, such as you or me, neither of which are homunculi. Last I check we are a little more than brains, or some other organ, so I need not pretend the perceiver exists somewhere on the inside. And if your claim is that perception is mediated by our own body, which amounts to saying the perceiver is his own intermediary, I’ll just have to laugh it off. Sorry.

The question of "what perceives" absolutely relates to the discussion because If we don’t know who or what perceives we cannot say whether perception is indirect, direct, or otherwise. If we don’t know, or refuse to say what it is that perceives, then it is impossible to distinguish between the perceiver, the intermediary, and the objects of perception. If we do not know where the perceiver begins and ends we cannot say where it ought to appear on the causal chain. If the perceiver and the intermediary are one and the same, then the proposed causal chain is incoherent.

I'm fine with saying that through the direct perception of light we indirectly perceive the object, just as I am fine with saying that by perceiving an apple in a mirror, I am indirectly perceiving an apple (or directly perceiving a mirror, the light, or what have you). That is still direct perception because it describes a direct relationship between a perceiver and his environment, the perceived. Indirect perception proposes the perception of a host of cognitive mediators, mental constructions, representations, and so on.

I’m a perceiver. You’re a perceiver. Are we not?

Light is of the world. Light is distal. We perceive light. Isn’t that so?

Do perceivers have eyes? Human perceivers do. Light comes into direct contact with the eyes. So how is the perception of light indirect?

What is your "end receiver"? Or is it just another noun without a referent?

In my opinion we just need to recognize our lot in life, stop thinking in their terms, like we did with the crown and the church, and everything will slowly change in a more or less painless way.

We all accept that vision is, literally, an indirect process from object to experience.

Not me. I think the use of the term "experience" is the limited and ignorant explanation of a being who cannot even observe his own ears, let alone the totality of what occurs inside his own body. From this highly-limited viewpoint, which is one of grasping, the result is a product of the fallacy of reification, the use of nouns without any coherent referent, and thus terms which tell of nothing in particular.

The fact is, the process, the connection, the very contact between the perceiver and the rest of the world is direct, and we can use any experiment, observation, and system of measurement to prove this.

In my mind their vote only justifies such an imbalance, and each time they do so they give away their power, delegate those responsibilities, signing on the dotted line. Their dutiful participation in the scheme is what absolves them of their duties to their children, and all of us to each other. But, like you said, doing otherwise is nearly impossible by now. In most places state instruction and training is compulsory. If it wasn't, I wager the imbalance of power might change.

Some parents have the leisure to home-school their children - usually in order to indoctrinate them into a religion of fear, prejudice and punishment. But most people have to make a living, and they are not given the choice of working hours, during which the children would be unsupervised. Most people can't afford a nanny or private tutors; those who can send their children to private schools to make the necessary social contacts and the way into 'good' universities.

In some communities, it would be feasible to set up a learning program conducted by whichever adults have specific knowledge and time to devote. There are initiatives in that general direction

Very true. It’s a vicious cycle many cannot escape from. It’s why most people will absolve themselves of the responsibility of rearing their own children, leave it to the agents of the state, and continue to provide the state with a vector of exploitation, handing over the wealth and means to maintain their level of serfdom at the expense of their own family and livelihood.

All power to them. What concerns me is what type of individual do these conditions create?

No doubt utilitarianism is superficially convincing and comforting, but when it justifies immoral and unjust behavior I want no part of it

But you absolve parents from the responsibility of rearing their own children, institutionalizing them, leading to the very conditions you fear. Not to mention it is immoral to take and raise another’s child without their permission.

I would simply change the nomenclature from education to something like training or instruction as it better characterizes the institution and its product. Finally, I would make it completely voluntary.

The goal of state education is to embed the prevailing ideology, statism, which includes instruction on how to operate and survive in the midsts of their institutions and power—how to find a modicum of satisfaction with our feudal lot in life as it exploits our thought and industry. It is a vested interest. It seeks both to educate the uneducable while hindering the educable, or least keeping everyone within the appropriate boundaries of state ideology.

It looks like the corrupt Tish “Peekaboo” James and Bitch Tits Judge Androgen won’t be stealing anyone’s private property today. Trump still has to pay an unjust bond of $175 million in 10 days in order to appeal the corrupt ruling but the 8th amendment of the constitution is going nowhere, and one can only hope justice will soon prevail.

Recall that fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions from customers and defrauded investors and his bond was only $250 million, which was the largest such bond ever set in an American criminal proceeding. Trump stole no money and investors were paid in full. Not to mention that the corrupt James’ sense of justice is like a wind-sock, going in the direction of wherever her friends are.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/17/opinion/an-irish-society-an-unpaid-loan-and-the-hypocrisy-of-letitia-james/amp/