Under any ordinary reading, the flower is not "directly presented in" or "a constituent of" the photo. The photo is just a photosensitive surface that has chemically reacted to light. — Michael
And by the same token, the flower is not "directly presented in" or "a constituent of" phenomenal experience. Phenomenal experience is just a mental phenomenon elicited in response to signals sent by the body's sense receptors. — Michael
many of its properties, and its downstream physical effects, are indeed directly presented in and constitutive of the photo — bongo fury
What is the word “directly” doing here? — Michael
Direct and indirect then both apply, in different senses: direct because connecting in an unbroken chain; indirect because involving links and transformations. — bongo fury
I guess, the same work as "actually"? — bongo fury
Direct and indirect then both apply, in different senses: direct because connecting in an unbroken chain; indirect because involving links and transformations. — bongo fury
Direct and indirect then both apply, in different senses: direct because connecting in an unbroken chain; indirect because involving links and transformations. — bongo fury
I guess, the same work as "actually"? — bongo fury
Isn't this kind of side-stepping the debate and saying "You have your truth, I have mine" — AmadeusD
What would a "broken" chain be? — Michael
Is seeing my face in a mirror an "unbroken" chain and so "direct" perception of my face? — Michael
Is watching football on TV an "unbroken" chain and so "direct" perception of a football match? — Michael
I'm not even sure which properties you're claiming to be "presented in and constitutive of the photo". — Michael
As he says, and I admitted in the first place, I may not be addressing the usual problem, and certainly not in the usual terms. — bongo fury
Surely this is the rub? Most direct and indirect realists alike would assume that a photo is epistemically better grounded than an artist's impression? Even if the artist is an eye-witness at the scene?
Under any ordinary reading, the flower is not "directly presented in" or "a constituent of" the photo. The photo is just a photosensitive surface that has chemically reacted to light.
— Michael
Photography has almost no reality; it is almost a hundred per cent picture. And painting always has reality: you can touch the paint; it has presence; — perhaps
I once took small photographs and then smeared them with paint. That partly resolved the problem, — perhaps
Anatomical diagrams are a good example here, — Count Timothy von Icarus
a thing's properties, "what it is." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Things are phenomenologicaly present in pictures. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The photo is hung up on my wall. The flower is 1,000 miles away. There is a very literal spatial separation between the photo and the flower. The flower and its properties do not exist in two locations at once.
I'm inclined to say than that a thing's effects are signs of it. Directness then should probably be looked at from a phenomenological perspective. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.