Direct and indirect realists agree as to the physics and physiology. Their disagreement is not about the science.They're the ones actually studying how the world and perception works. — Michael
...human participants and ChatGPT were given descriptions of different scenarios and asked to write short, compassionate answers. When other participants rated the various responses, they scored the AI responses as highest for empathy.
Concerns over the danger of machines that can “read” us but don’t care about us are more than theoretical. In March 2023, a Belgian man reportedly died by suicide after six weeks of discussions with an AI chatbot. Media outlets reported that he had been sharing his fears about the climate crisis. The chatbot seemed to feed his worries and to express its own emotions – including encouraging him to kill himself so that they would “live together in paradise”. Pretending at empathy to too great a degree without the common-sense guard rails that a human is likely to offer can, it appears, be lethal.
relates toSo is salt water soluble in-itself or does water construct the solubility of salt? — Count Timothy von Icarus
...the whole 'things known "in-themselves"' issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"Perception sometimes distorts reality. We know this to be so because mostly, it doesn't". — Janus
Moving the negation. This has a different sense to @Michael'sThe science of perception is correct and does not suggest that perception distorts reality
bringing out yourThe science of perception is correct and suggests that perception does not distort reality
Perception sometimes distorts reality. We know this to be so because sometimes, it doesn't. Importantly, and you might agree that folk seem to keep missing this, we can only know that perception distorts reality if we know what is real.The unacknowledged assumption is that perception, being that upon which the science of perception is necessarily based, gives us an accurate picture of what is the case. — Janus
Not so much. If the smell is only a thing constructed by the mind, then there is no reasons that lemons might not on occasion smell like mint. The reason lemons smell like lemons is, put simply, that that is how lemons smell.That lemons smell like lemons is a vacuous claim — Michael
Done, here: Austin: Sense and Sensibilia and in a post back on page one of this thread.Then you're welcome to present Austin's arguments. — Michael
Plainly, for you, it isn't. Not my problem.I don't see how saying irrelevant things like "lemons smell like lemons" is helpful at all. — Michael
Sure, you can make up a story in which you talk like this.It's not the immediate object of their rational consideration. — Michael
Well, no. They both see the same thing - the world. They both see the snake coming to have one of them for dinner. They both see the competing males.The way the males see the world is very different to the way the females see the world (with respect to its orientation). — Michael
Again, no; the "object of their rational consideration" is the snake and the competing males. If they get caught up considering their sense impressions and justifying to themselves the inference from sense impression to world, they are going to end up as virgin dinner.The appearance of the world is a mental phenomenon, and it is the appearance of the world that is the immediate object of their rational consideration. — Michael
Good. As Austin showed, the framing of the argument in those terms is muddled....this does not address the arguments made by either direct or indirect realists. — Michael
Again, that lemons smell like lemons, and not like (say) mint.I'm also still trying to understand what you mean by saying that we smell things as they are. — Michael
Now if it makes you feel better, you can take out the "as it is", if that is too much for you, so:We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world as it is, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
That still suits my purposes.We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
:roll:The quote above from the SEP article The Problem of Perception refers to the debate within Direct Realism, not to the debate between Direct and Indirect Realism. — RussellA
The question, now, is not so much whether to be a direct realist, but how to be one.
...under any reasonable reading... — Michael
How did you get to that?So things have a smell even if nothing has a nose? — Michael
So it's not that you think we can never be certain; it's just that you think we can only be certain about some issues, not others. Good.Why are you so certain of this?
— Banno
Because logically these are the only possibilities. — hypericin
Well, yes, in that it cuts right across our discussion; we want to get it right. It does not matter if you know of an enemy attack directly or indirectly, if you know that it is truly occurring: provided you get it right.Knowing the truth, getting things right, is completely orthogonal to the discussion. — hypericin
Again, it is of little consequence whether your certainty is "absolute" or not, so long as you act as if....I only doubt it to the extent that I am not absolutely certain of their existence. If I somehow had direct access to their inner lives, I could be absolutely certain. — hypericin
There's just two possibilities: absolute certainty, or the possibility of doubt. — hypericin
Indeed. So, don't.The point is not to seriously entertain these possibilities... — hypericin
All we know directly is perception, reality itself could potentially be anything. — hypericin
I don't see him claiming we have *no* access to the world, just no direct access. Indirection still allows access to empirical facts, just not absolute certainly about those facts: everything could always be a simulation, or whatnot. But absolute certainty is overrated. — hypericin
The question, now, is not so much whether to be a direct realist, but how to be one. — SEP
we know because we know that image isn't animated. — flannel jesus
I'd say that the science of perception supports the converse assumption that we do see the world as itreallyis, including optical illusions under various conditions. — jkop
I agree.To trust it and base arguments on it, would on that assumption, be a performative contradiction. — Janus
Nope. This is factually not the case. We 'feel' electrical impulses. That is the case. No idea how you're supporting a pretense that this isn't the case, and i've been asking for your(and others) account of that for pages and pages and yet nothing but obfuscation. The only reasonable response to this is to outline how it is the case that you feel ANYTHING without those electrical impulses. And you don't. So, maybe just adjust your position instead of having a short-circuit on a forum :) — AmadeusD
. You feel electrical impulses taking on a certain character when decoded into conscious experience — AmadeusD