a billiard ball's path contains information about the cue ball that struck it — Count Timothy von Icarus

Information flow is directional.

I hit a billiard ball on a billiard table and can calculate more or less where it will come to rest.

I see a billiard ball at rest on a billiard table, yet cannot determine its prior start position, which are innumerable.

The Direct Realist argues that just from knowing an effect it is possible to know its cause. Whether seeing a billiard ball at rest on a billiard table and directly knowing its prior state, or experiencing the colour yellow and directly knowing an object in the outside world that caused it.

I agree that from knowing a prior state it may be possible to unequivocally determine its later state, but the Direct Realist is in effect arguing that just from knowing a later state it is possible to unequivocally know its prior state.

I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal

That's also my understanding. As the SEP article on The Problem of Perception notes:

This is why many naive realists describe the relation at the heart of their view as a non-representational relation.

How is representation a core part of what is defined as "Direct Realism"?

A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world. — Corvus

That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. Kant said it isn't possible.
===============================================================================

Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction — Corvus

I agree. All language is more figurative than literal.
===============================================================================

The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. — Corvus

Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination.
===============================================================================

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. — Corvus

Isn't everyone.

I really don't care to argue what someone means, or should mean, by "I see x". — flannel jesus

But it is impossible to look into someone else's mind. We can only know their beliefs from their words, and if they have defined words differently to us, it makes conversation problematic.
===============================================================================

I'm concerned primarily with the experience of it all - if a direct realist says "I see things as they really are", I don't see that as some opportunity for a semantic argument, to me it looks like an unambiguous statement about their visual experience — flannel jesus

However, I do agree that there does seem to be a substantive difference between Direct Realism and Indirect Realism.

An apple is illuminated by white light, and reflects the wavelengths from about 495nm to 570nm (which we call green) as it has absorbed the other wavelengths.

For example, as an Indirect Realist, I can say "I see a green apple", using the word "green" in a figurative rather than literal sense.

However, the Direct Realist seems to believe that the apple is literally green.

The Direct Realist wouldn't say that a mirror is literally a person because the mirror has reflected the image of a person, so why would the Direct Realist say that the apple is literally green, even though the apple has only reflected green light.

Am I right in thinking that the Direct Realist believes that the apple is literally green, and if they do, how do they justify such a belief?

Your distinction seems to me to be one without a difference because photons are of the external world, and if so, one is immediately and directly perceiving the external world — NOS4A2

This is more a question for the Direct Realist. Would they agree that perceiving photons of light entering the eye is what they mean by perceiving the external world?

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here. — Corvus

Perhaps, but still making a factual statement.
===============================================================================

This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. — Corvus

I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game.

No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple".

The Indirect Realist within their language game says "I see a representation of an apple", and the Direct Realist within their language game says "I see the apple"

However, it could well be the case that both the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist mean exactly the same thing, but are using words defined in different ways.

For example, the Indirect Realist in their language game would say "I indirectly see my hand" and the Direct Realist in their language game would say "I directly see my hand", even though the underlying meaning is the same. IE, the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are defining the words they use differently.

A conversation between the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist becomes difficult if each is defining the words they use differently.

It would be unreasonable to conclude that Mars doesn't exist just because it takes time for the photons of light to arrive at one's eyes. — Corvus

True, the photons of light that enter my eye were caused by something that existed in the past, and just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it still doesn't exist in my present.

Whilst the Indirect Realist is more of the position that I see the photons entering my eye which I can then reason to have been caused by something in the past, the Direct Realist is more of the position that they are immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is.

Yet how can the Direct Realist be immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is when there is no guarantee that what they are seeing still exists?

This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it. — Corvus

When you look into the night sky and see Mars, what you see no longer exists, as it takes time for the photons of light to travel through space.

And yet when you say "I see Mars", how can you be seeing the external world as it really is, when in fact what you are seeing no longer exists.

But you are definitely seeing something, and if you are not seeing the external world as it really is, all you can be seeing are the photons of light entering your eye, which you can then reason to have been caused by the Planet Mars.
===============================================================================

If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is — Corvus

Yes, I must perceive shapes and colours before being able to reason that they were caused by the planet Mars.

IE, I cannot reason that .I am seeing Mars before photons of light have entered my eye.

There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. — Corvus

Yes, but the cat is not seeing the external world "as it really is". What the cat is seeing is a representation of how the mouse used to.
===============================================================================

In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. — Corvus

The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless.
===============================================================================

You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes. — Corvus

Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars.

I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. — Corvus

Try a thought experiment

There is a mouse and photons of light travel from it to a cat. It takes time for light to travel a distance.

By the time the cat sees the mouse, the mouse has unfortunately died, and yet the cat still sees the mouse.

How can the cat be seeing the external world as it really is, if in the external world there is no mouse?
===============================================================================

For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA — Corvus

The fact that the cat doesn't know about photons of light doesn't mean the cat could see things in the absence of photons of light.
===============================================================================

You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. — Corvus

Yes, first "I see shapes and colours" and subsequently, after using my powers of reasoning, "I see Mars".

IE, I can only say "I see Mars" after saying "I see shapes and colours"

How does cat know photons of light is the mouse? — Corvus

When someone looks into the night sky and sees a bright dot, how do they know that the bright dot has been caused by Mars rather than Venus say. They can only know by applying their powers of reasoning to the bright dot.

When a cat sees colours and shapes, how does the cat know that these colours and shapes have been caused by a mouse rather than a bird say. The cat can only know by applying its powers of reasoning to the colours and shapes.
===============================================================================

The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he? — Corvus

Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat?

“Sense data”, or “sense datum” in the singular, is a technical term in philosophy that means “what is given to sense” (SEP – Sense Data)

Are you saying that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data?

Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists? — Corvus

According to the SEP article on Sense Data:

“Sense data”, or “sense datum” in the singular, is a technical term in philosophy that means “what is given to sense”. Sense data constitute what we, as perceiving subjects, are directly aware of in perceptual experience, prior to cognitive acts such as inferring, judging, or affirming that such-and-such objects or properties are present. In vision, sense data are typically described as patches exhibiting colours and shapes.

Presumably, when a cat sees a mouse, photons of light have travelled from the mouse to the cat, and the cat sees photons of light.

The photons of light are sense data, in that "what is given to sense".

How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of these sense data. How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of any photons of light travelling from the mouse to the cat?

I don't need anybody to jump through hoops to know what I'm saying when I say "I can see my house from here". — flannel jesus

The Indirect Realist is in part pointing out that language is more figurative than literal.

If one was being literal, the speaker would have said: "I can see the front wall of a house that I know for several reasons is mine, such as there is a pine tree in the front garden, not in the sense that I own the freehold of the house but rather rent out a room from the landlord, and when I say I see my house I don't mean that I can see the back of the house, or any of the rooms inside the house, but only that part of the front wall not obscured by the pine tree."

This would obviously make language unworkable, so the speaker reduces the literal sentence to the figurative sentence "I can see my house".

The average person knows what this means, because the average person knows about the figurative use of language.

The direct realist would say "I see what appears to be a bent stick, but I know it's really pretty straight, because I took it out of the water". — Janus

I would have thought that an Indirect Realist would also have said "I see what appears to be a bent stick".

The Merriam Webster Dictionary lists 23 different meanings of the word "see", including "to perceive by the eye" and "to imagine as a possibility". The expression "I see what appears to be" is quite complex. On the one hand it shows the poetic beauty of language but on the other hand it can be open to misinterpretation.

It depends on the meaning of "Direct Realism". Is there an authoritative definition of Direct Realism?

As a start, there is the SEP article The Problem of Perception

In 3.2.6, the article distinguishes between a causal form of direct realism and a phenomenological form of direct realism (PDR), something the Intentionalists are sympathetic to.

There is also Semantic Direct Realism (SDR).

Is there in fact any substantive difference between PDR and Indirect Realism?

At least on the forum, productive discussions of direct vs indirect realism tend to require pinning down where the disagreement is between disputants. — fdrake

Suppose in the world is the object "apple" and I perceive an "apple". In my mind, I am conscious of an "apple", and there is an intentionality within my mind about an "apple".

But I cannot perceive an object separate to its properties, in that I cannot perceive an "apple" separate to its properties, such as the colour green and a circular shape. If the object had no properties, then I wouldn't be able to perceive it in the first place.

This means that in fact I am not perceiving an object but rather a set of properties.

The Indirect Realist says that the object emitted a wavelength of 550nm which we perceive as the colour green.

In order for the Direct Realist to see the world as it really is, if they perceive a green object then the actual object must be green.

The question is, does the object emit a wavelength that the Indirect Realist perceives as green, or is the object green?

It depends on definition.

As the Direct Realists define an object that emits a wavelength of 550nm as a green object, by their own definition they are correct

As the Indirect Realists don't define an object that emits a wavelength of 550nm as a green object, by their own definition they are correct.

Even though they are playing different language games to each other, within their own language games they are both correct.

We have been dealing with the visual sense of the word, and I don't think it is going to help to bring in other senses of 'see'. — Janus

Perhaps this is the distinction between the Indirect Realist and the Direct Realist.

The Indirect Realist says that in the sentence "I see a straight stick that appears bent", the word "see" is being used as a figure of speech and not literally, as in "I can clearly see your future".

The Direct Realist says that there is no difference between a word being used as a figure of speech or literally.

Something like "the rock transfers more energy to the ground than a grain of sand upon collision" doesn't involve an agent. — fdrake

A rock falls and hits the ground, which increases in temperature of the ground by x deg. A grain of sand falls and hits the ground, which increases the temperature of the ground by y deg.

It is true that x and y don't require a human agent. The sticking point is "more than", in that "x is more than y".

How is the human concept "more than" expressed in a world absent of any human agent?

How objects present themselves is a hobby horse of mine.................Like I discover how heavy my dumbbell is by lifting it. — fdrake

We know that a rose is heavier than a mosquito and lighter than a pebble, because a human can discover this by lifting them.

Heavier and lighter can only exist as relations between objects.

If there were never humans, would a rose be heavier than a mosquito and lighter than a pebble? If yes, what would be the ontological nature of relations?

I note the recursion. If “I see mars” is a figure of speech “I am seeing mars” can’t be what it symbolises without an endless circle of self-referential justification. — AmadeusD

In the Present Simple tense I can say "I see Mars every evening in the night sky". In the Present Continuous tense I can then ask the question "how do I know that I am seeing Mars rather than Venus?"

I don't think that this is where the infinite regress is.

The homunculus problem arises because of a confusion about the relationship between "I" and "the image".

An object in the world such as an apple is not a Platonic Form floating around separate to its properties, such as is green, is circular and is sweet. If there were no properties then there would be no object.

Similarly, "I" is not a Platonic Form floating around the world separate to its properties, of which "image" would be one.

Internal to "I" must be "the image", otherwise "I" couldn't be conscious of it. If "the image" was external to "I", then "I" couldn't know about it in the first place.

"The image" is not separate to "I", and as circular is a property of the object apple, the image is a property of "I". The "image" is part of what makes "I".

IE, if "I see a red dot", where a red dot is an image, part of what gives "I" an identity is the image, in this case the image of a red dot.

There is no infinite regression.

Direct or indirect realism isn't epistemology, recall, they're philosophies of perception. — jkop

Disagree. Indirect and Direct Realism are part of epistemology.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind’s relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of knowledge? Do we know things? And if we do, how and when do we know things?

(www.sheffield.ac.uk/)

While not without critics, direct realism forms a substantial part of epistemological theories, and it is important to understand both the arguments for and against this perspective.

(https: //studyrocket.co.uk)
===============================================================================

As long as the assumption is that you never see things directly, then skepticism follows. Not so for the direct realist. — jkop

I think everyone should be sceptical, whether the Indirect or Direct Realist. Who wants to unquestionably believe everything they are told.

As the Merriam Webster Dictionary writes:
Scepticism = 1) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2a) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain 2b) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3) doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).

Philosophers in particular should practice scepticism, including the Direct Realists.

Saying "I see Mars" is in effect saying that the photons which cause me to recognize that I am seeing Mars were reflected by Mars. — wonderer1

Yes, "I see Mars" is a figure of speech meaning "the photons which cause me to recognize that I am seeing Mars were reflected by Mars, travelling an average distance of 225 million km through space and taking between 3 and 22 minutes dependent upon the positions of the planets, meaning that I am not directly seeing photons from Mars as it is now but as it was in the past"

A figure of speech may be thought of as "is in effect saying".

I don't agree that they are equivalent. Naive realism is pre-scientific realism, — Janus

I agree the terms aren't equivalent, though they do have strong similarities. As the article Recent Work on Naive Realism by James Genone points out:

Naïve Realism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with ‘direct realism’ or ‘common sense realism’.................Nevertheless, this terminological ambiguity can be a source of
confusion.

===============================================================================

As organism we are part of the world, each organism sees the world directly via its perceptual apparatus—there is no question of distortion, no need to invoke indirectness — Janus

Suppose that there is a straight stick in a glass of water. We may perceive a bent stick sitting in a glass of water, yet can reason in our minds that the stick is in fact straight.

You say "each organism sees the world directly" It depends what you mean by "see". The word "see" can have several meanings. It could be literal as in "I see in my visual field a bright light", or it could be a figure of speech as in "I see your future, and it looks promising"

In a literal sense, "I see in my visual field a bent stick". As a figure of speech "I see in my mind a straight stick".

On the one hand "I see a bent stick" and on the other hand "I see a straight stick".

Both sentences are truth apt, but whether true or false depends on the meaning of the words used.

Stars, planets, moons etc. Indirect realists sees dots that represent stars, planets. The direct realist sees the stars and planets that may appear as dots, discs, or spheres etc depending on distance, available light etc. — jkop

When the Direct Realist looks up at the night sky, how can they say "I am looking at a star" if they don't know whether the dot they are looking at has been caused by a star or planet?

It cannot be the case that every Direct Realist knows what each and every dot in the night sky has been caused by.

It could be that a Direct Realist could say "I am looking at Mars", because they are knowledgeable about astronomy.

But what "I am looking at Mars" actually means is "I am looking at a dot in the night sky that I know has been caused by the planet Mars because of my prior knowledge about astronomy".

If the Direct Realist suggests that the dot "is" Mars, this reintroduces the problem of identity, in that how can a 1mm diameter dot in a person's visual field "be" a 6,794km diameter planet?

The direct realist doesn't see a dot in the visual field. — jkop

When looking up at the night sky, if the Direct Realist doesn't literally see dots in their visual field, what do they see?

I think it is less confusing to say that the little light you are seeing is Mars presenting itself, appearing, to you. Language may be representative, but seeing is not, and the analogy you present above is inapt. — Janus

Direct Realism is aka Naïve Realism. Indirect Realism is aka Representational Realism,.
(Wikipedia Direct and Indirect Realism)



The red dot represents Mars in the same way that a symbol of a house represents a house and the word "tree" represents a tree.
===============================================================================

I agree it is more parsimonious to simply say we see Mars — Janus

Both the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist can look into the night sky and say "I see Mars"

The Indirect Realist means "I directly see a bright dot in the night sky through my eyes which I know to be the planet Mars". But who is going to say all that. It is far easier and perfectly acceptable just to say "I see Mars".

The Direct Realist means "I directly see a bright dot in the night sky through my eyes which is the planet Mars". In the same way, no-one is going to say all that. It is far easier and perfectly acceptable just to say "I see Mars".

Therefore, although both the Indirect and Direct Realist can say "I see Mars", what they mean by it is different.

The word "see" can be used in different ways in language. Metaphorically such as "I see your pain", meaning within the mind, and literally such as "I see a bright dot", meaning through the eyes.

Similarly, the word "is" can be used in different ways in language, including metaphorically "cheese is heavenly", as a definition "a unicorn is a mythical animal", ironically "spinach is delicious", as a description "the Eiffel Tower is a wrought-iron structure", etc.

When the Indirect Realist says "I see a bright dot", they are using "see" literally, but when they say "I see Mars" they are using the word "see" as a figure of speech, in that the bright dot is a representation of the planet Mars.

When the Direct Realist says "I see a bright dot", they are using "see" literally, and when they say "I see Mars" they are also using the word "see" literally, in that they they argue that they are seeing the external world as it really is.

The problem with Direct Realism is that it assumes an identity between what is seen and the cause of what is seen. It assumes an identity between the bright dot and the planet Mars, such that the bright dot "is" Mars, otherwise the Direct Realist could not see the external world as it really is.

And if this is the case, in that the bright dot "is" the planet Mars, how can a bright dot in the visual field have a mass of ${6.4 * 10^{23}kg}$?

I guess we just mean different things when we say 'looking at'. That's ok by me. — flannel jesus

:grin:

I suppose my confusion lies in whether the “representation” is a product of the perceiver or the percieved. — NOS4A2

Someone sees a dot in the sky and doesn't know what it is.

Later, from various observations over a period of time using the eye and scientific instruments the human reasons that the dot they see in the sky is in fact the Planet Mars.

The next time they see the dot in the sky, they know that the dot has been caused by the planet Mars. The dot isn't the planet Mars, but the dot in their visual field has been caused by the planet Mars. In a sense, the dot represents the planet Mars.

I don't see why it needs to be metaphorical. What else would "looking at" mean if not what I said? What I said was not metaphorical at all. — flannel jesus

Suppose there is a stick in a glass of water. If I said "I'm looking at a bent stick", there are two possible meanings to this statement. It could mean "I am perceiving a bent stick although the stick is in fact straight", or it could mean "I am perceiving a bent stick and in fact the stick is bent".

Similarly, if I said "I'm looking at Mars", to the Indirect Realist this means "I'm looking at a dot that I reason to be Mars" and to the Direct Realist this means "I'm looking at a dot that is Mars".

The Indirect Realist could ask of the Direct Realist, how can a dot be the planet Mars?

I’ve always understood the indirect realist to say they directly perceive sense-data, representations, perceptions and the like. — NOS4A2

The indirect Realist directly perceives something in their field of vision, which they can reason to be the planet Mars. The word "sense data" should be taken as a figure of speech, not literally, in that no-one has ever found sense data in the brain. As the word "house" is a representation of an object in the world, the dot is a representation of the planet Mars.

I don't think there's any problem with an indirect realist saying "I'm looking at mars". — flannel jesus

Yes, the Indirect Realist can say "I am looking at Mars" as they can say "responsibility is a heavy burden", "Sally is as bright as the sun", "the whole world is a stage" or "the wind whispered in my ears".

The “directness” of perception refers to the relationship between the perceiver and the perceived — NOS4A2

The Indirect Realist says that they directly perceive a dot in the sky. The Direct Realist says that what they directly perceive is the cause of the dot.

But that is like saying that if I was stung, I would know just from the sting the cause of the sting, whether a thorn or a wasp.

the Indirect Realist would say that they are looking at mars — Ashriel

The Indirect Realist would say that they are directly looking at a dot which they reason to be the planet Mars.

I agree that in language, rather than say "I am directly looking at a dot which I reason to be the planet Mars" in practice this is shortened to the more convenient "I am looking at Mars"

But the statement "I am looking at Mars" should be taken as a figure of speech, not literally.

I assume that cognition means conscious awareness of. In that case, my view would be very similar to semantic direct realism. — Ashriel

Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that they have conscious awareness of perception of things in their five senses, such as the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, a painful sting or a grating noise

As both believe in Realism rather than Idealism, both would agree that there is something in the world that has caused such perceptions in their five senses.

We look into the night sky and see a dot that we know to be Mars.

The Indirect Realist would say that they are directly looking at a dot. The Direct Realist would say that they are directly looking at Mars.

The Indirect Realist could ask of the Direct Realist, in what sense of the word "direct" is the Direct Realist "directly" looking at a mass of ${6.4 * 10^{23}kg}$ when all they can see is a dot?

"Transcendence" is inherently a debatable term — Gnomon

Definitions

What is Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" about, taking the term "Transcendental Idealism" more as a name than a description, as even Kant considered finding a better term.

Based on the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Transcendence" in Kantian philosophy means the state of being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge. "Transcendental" in Kantian Philosophy means going beyond the limits of all possible experience but not going beyond the limits of human reason.

Note that it is ""Transcendental Idealism" not "Transcendent Idealism". The CPR is not about "Transcendent Idealism", as this would lie beyond what the human can cognitively grasp and would move into the realm of the unknowable. Not only beyond human experience but also beyond human reason, because beyond the scope of empirical investigation. Included would be such concepts as God and the soul.

The CPR is about "Transcendental Idealism", which is about our prior intuitions of time and space and a priori concepts of the Categories. Necessary conditions for the possibility of experiencing and understanding the world, and which predetermine our understanding of the world.

The CPR is not about religion or the spiritual realism, but is about what we can practically know about the world using reason and observation. Kant wrote:

A 369 I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not as things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves.

The Transcendental Argument

Among Immanuel Kant’s most influential contributions to philosophy is his development of the transcendental argument, which he uses to show that we would not be able to understand our sensory experience if we were not able to impose a priori intuitions an a priori concepts on them. Thereby enabling the "conditions of the possibility of experience".

A Transcendental Argument begins with a strong premise, and then reasons to a conclusion that is a necessary condition for the premise. In a sense circular, but justifies its own truth through its own logical coherence.

Kant requires a transcendental argument because of his belief that it is not possible to abstract intuitions and concepts just from empirical experience, but transcendentally deduce them empirical experiences

Kant uses such a Transcendental Argument in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 against the Idealism of Berkeley in order not to prove that things exist independently of the mind, but only the possibility that things exist independently of the mind.

Kant chose a middle ground between Rationalism and Empiricism

Kant wanted to avoid the excesses of both the Rationalist and Empiricists by establishing a middle ground.

The Rationalist, such as Descartes and Plato, argued that humans can use Pure Reason to discover knowledge about the world without having first observed the world. They argued that Pure Reason can transcend experience and discover things like God and the soul.

The Empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, argued that humans can discover knowledge about the world just by observing the world.

Kant in the CPR made the case that on the one hand Pure Reason cannot answer metaphysical problems such as the existence of God or the soul but on the other hand can go beyond sensory experience in order to discover necessary truths about the world.

Summary
"Transcendental Idealism" uses the Transcendental Argument to make sense of the world given our sensory experiences.

(SEP - Kant’s Transcendental Idealism)

It might be considered weird, that someone describing his philosophy as “transcendental idealism” writes a paragraph called “Refutation of Idealism”. — Pez

The word "idealism" has more than one meaning (Merriam Webster - Idealism)

The term "transcendental idealism" should be thought of as a name rather than a description, as the Champs-Élysées is a name and not a description.

In fact, he proposed renaming his transcendental idealism with the more informative name of "formal" or "critical idealism," (Introduction to Critique of Pure Reason)
===============================================================================

The sole point of interest here hinges around the notion “outside” — Pez

In B275, Kant wrote "I am conscious of things outside me".

In the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason is the paragraph:

In the second edition, however, Kant inserted a new argument, the "Refutation of Idealism" (B 2 74-9), which attempts to show that the very possibility of our consciousness of ourselves presupposes the existence of an external world of objects that are not only represented as spatially outside us but are also conceived to exist independently of our subjective representations of them.

I may have the concept of an apple sitting on a table, and it may well be the thing outside me bears no relation to my concept of it.

Kant attempts to prove in the Refutation of Idealism that I can be conscious of things outside me.

Even if the thing outside me bears no relation to my concept of an apple sitting on a table, this doesn't detract from the fact that I am conscious of a thing outside me.

I suppose my thought is that "perception" can't separate us from the real in the manner I perceive indirect realists to say. — Moliere

We perceive a stick bent in water. Is the stick in water really bent?

I'm not tempted to define realism in opposition to idealism, for instance. — Moliere

There is realism and idealism as concepts and there is Realism and Idealism as proper nouns. As concepts they overlap, but as proper nouns are distinct. For example, the SEP articles on Realism and Idealism.
===============================================================================

I think a realist is open to non-causal relations, as long as they are real. — Moliere

Yes, the Eiffel Tower and Empires States Building are related, but non-causally.

My perception of an object and the object causing my perception are related, and causally.

What are the underlying beliefs you think are the same? — Moliere

Both the Indirect and Direct Realist believe in i) Realism rather than Idealism, ii) that there is a long and complex causal chain of events between the object in the world and our eventual perception of it and iii) there is a causal indirectness and a cognitive directness between our perception of an object and the object itself.

However, whilst both the Indirect and Direct Realist agree that there is a cognitive directness, they differ in what that actually means.

feedback — Ashriel

Some Direct Realists are Phenomenological Direct Realists believing in causal directness, and other Direct Realists are Semantic Direct Realists believing in cognitive directness.

However, it seems that the vast majority of Direct Realists are Semantic Direct Realists.

But there does not seem to be much difference between Semantic Direct Realism and Indirect Realism, meaning that it is only the labels "direct" and "indirect" that people are disagreeing with, not their underlying beliefs, which are probably the same.

But philosophy might be considered as an attempt to understand why we can know what will happen (if at all). — Pez

The most that philosopher Kant claimed about our knowledge of what exists outside us is in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 of the Critique of Pure Reason. He concludes "I am conscious of things outside me". IE, he can neither know what these things are or even why these things are as they are.