Actions, as they say, speak louder than words. — Ludwig V

If you were in the bathroom where John and Jane were feeling the temperature of the water in the tub, yes their behavior could be part of the interpretation. But how likely is that? :)

Plus, folks don't always show their minds via behavior or actions. They tend to use words. And of course, philosophy deals with words, semantics and logic mostly. Behavior and actions would be more of psychological topic.

I believe neither of your two options. Why do you think we see images, take images into the head, or create images/representations, when neither of the above have been found in any skull in the history of mankind? — NOS4A2

This is to misunderstand, entirely, even the fundamental basis for what we're talking. You seem to think you do not have any images of any kind available to you. That's fine. But it means the rest of this conversation is utterly pointless.

I see the point, but I don't think so, no. There is a semantic idealization - and even then, I think you're overstating. The vast majority of uses of "thermometer" or "check the thermometer" are to assess temperature. We then reach for our internal library of potential sensations to assess which that temperature is likely (well, we think, certain) to excite.

Plus, folks don't always show their minds via behavior or actions. — Corvus

... and they don't always show their minds via what they say. Feeling the water and reporting feedback is one thing. Putting on (or taking off) clothes is another. Shivering, sweating. All sorts of clues.

Behavior and actions would be more of psychological topic. — Corvus

What we say is also behaviour. I don't understand why you regard non-verbal behaviour as outside the scope of philosophy.

and they don't always show their minds via what they say. Feeling the water and reporting feedback is one thing. Putting on (or taking off) clothes is another. Shivering, sweating. All sorts of clues. — Ludwig V

Whether they say their minds or not, a statement has clear meanings. Behaviors can have many different interpretations. And even if you interpreted with mos likely reasonable way, they could say, I didn't mean that at all, or how could you possibly imagined that?

What we say is also behaviour. I don't understand why you regard non-verbal behaviour as outside the scope of philosophy. — Ludwig V

Too broad claim to be meaningful I am afraid. I am not denying philosophy of action. But just saying it doesn't seem to go well with this thread. :)

Neither theory runs against reality. That's why it's such a tense question. I understand the temptation to say what you're saying, but it just doens't touch anything. You're talking about standards and method. The thing Michael and I are, at the least trying to get you guys to deal with properly, is the fact accepted by both camps that there is no possible way for the apple on my desk to be in my head, and it snot possible that my mind is included in the objects it perceives. So there's gap - simple as. — AmadeusD

Let me provide another example, this one from the biological world. I have read that certain species of snake can detect heat signatures from animals. Biologist have identified a “pit organ” around the eyes that senses infrared radiation. The heat the snake is interested in and detects is the heat emanated from warm bloodied mammals. This is not a private sensations the snake is detecting, it is a property of the mammal. No mental images need to explain what is going on here. So, is the snake a direct or indirect realist when it comes to infrared energy? Do we really need to use either expression?

If neither, cant we do the same with colors and homo sapiens?

Whether they say their minds or not, a statement has clear meanings. Behaviors can have many different interpretations. And even if you interpreted with mos likely reasonable way, they could say, I didn't mean that at all, or how could you possibly imagined that? — Corvus

Statements do not always have clear meanings and sometime people deliberately mislead us and sometimes we just get it wrong. But not always. The fact that it is possible to get it wrong does not mean that we never get it right, nor does it mean that we cannot correct our mistakes. You are a victim of philosophical scepticism.

Too broad claim to be meaningful I am afraid. I am not denying philosophy of action. But just saying it doesn't seem to go well with this thread. :) — Corvus

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I agree that it's a bit on the fringe of this topic.

Let me provide another example, this one from the biological world. — Richard B

I like that example. I'm also fond of the case of our balance perception. Sometimes we are aware of sensations from it, but most of the time it works without our perceiving any sensations at all.

Thanks, just a steady diet of many examples.

Statements do not always have clear meanings and sometime people deliberately mislead us and sometimes we just get it wrong. But not always. The fact that it is possible to get it wrong does not mean that we never get it right, nor does it mean that we cannot correct our mistakes. — Ludwig V

Statements have explicit meanings, and in most cases it carries truth or falsity value too. Actions don't have these characters I am afraid. All you can do about actions are inferring and imagining what it could have meant. Plus, folks from different cultures and age groups and different backgrounds tend to have different behaviors on the situations. You cannot bring behaviors into analytical discussions because it just won't work.

You are a victim of philosophical scepticism. — Ludwig V

No one is a victim of anything. We are just discussing on these topics speculating and reasoning.

This is to misunderstand, entirely, even the fundamental basis for what we're talking. You seem to think you do not have any images of any kind available to you. That's fine. But it means the rest of this conversation is utterly pointless.

You have all the facts so it should be easy to explain, but you cannot even describe where this images are located, what these images look like, or describe any of their properties. That’s fine. I already knew the answer.

Collapsing cold₁ and cold₂ renders "cold" impotent. — Banno

Strictly speaking I didn't do this. I said that a) the word "cold" in "the 37°C water feels cold" refers to a sensation and that b) if "the 37°C water is cold" means anything it means "the 37°C water feels cold".

You haven't offered any compelling reason to believe that either (a) or (b) are false.

I don't know why any of this would make the word "cold" impotent. Is the word "painful" impotent?

This deflates the traditional claims of indirect realism to the point of triviality. — Esse Quam Videri

It's not trivial in the sense of being obvious. The naive view that ordinary objects are "phenomenally present" and are (usually) exactly as they appear to us (even when unperceived) is how everyday people think of the world, especially children and the uneducated. As Simon Blackburn says, it's the view of "philosophers when they are off-duty".

That our modern understanding of physics, physiology, neuroscience, and psychology so thoroughly refutes naive realism isn't proof that indirect realism must mean something else — it's just proof that indirect realism is right, hence indirect realism being "the scientific view of perception".

As I've suggested before, it's not clear how your non-naive direct realism is incompatible with indirect realism; all I see is that you mean something else by "direct perception" and "object of perception".

The heat the snake is interested in and detects is the heat emanated from warm bloodied mammals. This is not a private sensations the snake is detecting, it is a property of the mammal. No mental images need to explain what is going on here. So, is the snake a direct or indirect realist when it comes to infrared energy? Do we really need to use either expression? — Richard B

It's extremely likely (I will look into it while replying and see if I can glean a good determination) that the "heat" here is not a idealisation. And, as it goes, even your description betrays this: infrared radiation is not what is called 'heat' in every day use. The photons the pit detects slightly warm a membrane within the organ - that is a private sensation which other animals (say., mammals) do not enjoy. It is a private, at least semi-subjective sensation.

A better exampel from biology, which I think runs counter to this, is that my wife and I have very, very different ideas of what 15 degrees celsius means. For me, it's barmy - perhaps even crisp.
For her, it's slightly warm.

We are not detecting anything inherent in the air around us, clearly.

They exist in your experience. What this consists in is the bloody question mate. I have actually explicitly stated this. Give me your answer. For the love of God.

You refuse to give any account whatsoever of how it's possible to see anything. I think perhaps you need to reflect on your way of going about these things. You literally haven't answered a single thing.

In my experience? I don’t see any images, mate. Perhaps I have aphantasia, or whatever it’s called, but I am absolutely ignorant to what you’re talking about. I can see, but my periphery consists only of what lies outside my skull, not inside. For instance I can see my own nose. My nose isn’t in a place called “experience”; it’s on my face. Things and places have locations in space and time, properties, and so on, but you can’t give me a single account of something you confidently assert is there. How is that possible?

In my experience? I don’t see any images, mate. — NOS4A2

So, you keep making claims like this.

What do you call the images (there is literally no better word) of objects you perceive?

This is why I held you to the fire earlier - you only have two options if you do not consider the apply you 'see' as an image: It is either in your mind, or your mind is attached to the object. Appearance cannot occur other ways, askance a mediated perception (which we factually have, so its a tough road, i'll give you that).

You are simply dodging the questions here and its getting tedious. I've asked you directly to answer and you have refused. That is a very loud silence. And its loud because you are entirely ignoring, leapfrogging and pretending you've answered a question you havent even demonstrated an understanding of. Read some of Banno's posts.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I agree that it's a bit on the fringe of this topic. — Ludwig V

OK, That's cool mate, as long as you are not a blind internet info worshiper, or a clueless apostle of guys with the white gown (doctors & medical folks) or someone who calls everyone stupid just because his own life is going bad. I have no time for folks like these, sorry.

If you thought the point with your own reasoning, and came up with your own logical conclusion to disagree with the others points never relying on ad hominem, then you are good to go. :)

I perceive the objects themselves. I don’t perceive images. I don’t know how else I can answer your loaded question.

Everything seems to be the exact opposite of what you claim. I can walk to an object and touch it, confirming its location and distance from my body. I can see and feel that a coffee cup, for instance, isn’t an image. It has a position in space and time, weight, shape, and absolutely zero properties of what you claim is an “image”, something you’re unable or unwilling to describe in the first place.

The images you claim exist and are facts have zero such properties. You cannot make your claims any truer by sheer force of repetition, and all you have left is the most blatant fallacy. You can huff and puff about how all tedious this is but that doesn’t change the fact that you have no argument or evidence.

The images you claim exist and are facts have zero such properties. — NOS4A2

I'll repeat a thought experiment from earlier in the discussion.

Let's assume that we live in a world in which the air is thick and light has mass and travels at a slow 1m/s. An apple is placed 10m in front of you. After 5 seconds it is disintegrated. After a further 5 seconds the light reaches your eyes and you see an intact apple for 5 seconds.

In those 5 seconds in which you see an intact apple do you have direct perception of the now disintegrated apple? If the apple is now disintegrated then what is the intact apple you see if not an image?

You do not need to hypotheticalise this: The Sun is not what we see when we look at the sun. It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago.

There's simply no way NOS4A2 thinks he's seeing the sun directly without making such an egregious error in almost every relevant domain as to perhaps think he's trolling. I wouldn't be surprised.

You just ignore the question. That's why it's repeated. If you continue to refuse to answer, you will either be pushed to answer, or you will be dismissed. There is some incredible ignorant in these responses, if we're not going to assume you're trolling. So dismissal seems most reasonable to save me time.

The Sun is not what we see when we look at the sun. — AmadeusD

:meh:

It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago. — AmadeusD

This part matters, Banno. When you cast your eyes to the Sun, you literally are not seeing the Sun. You're seeing light from the sun which is eight minutes old. Nothing interesting about this, except trying to get around it to say you're directly aware of hte Sun in any given moment. Just stupid.

Don't look at the sun directly, kids. It's bad for you. Use a pinhole camera, or a properly filtered telescope.

:meh:

You never taste oysters as they are in themselves; your only taste of them is mediated by your tongue...

:meh:

I'll repeat a thought experiment from earlier in the discussion.

Let's assume that we live in a world in which the air is thick and light has mass and travels at a slow 1m/s. An apple is placed 10m in front of you. After 5 seconds it is disintegrated. After a further 5 seconds the light reaches your eyes and you see an intact apple for 5 seconds.

In those 5 seconds in which you see an intact apple do you have direct perception of the now disintegrated apple? If the apple is now disintegrated then what is the intact apple you see if not an image?

I would be seeing the light reflected from the intact apple before I see the light reflected from the disintegrated apple.

In any case we don’t need to believe that a copy, image, or facsimile of the apple exists in the light, because light isn’t a copy of anything. It is its own thing.

We also don’t need to believe that an image of an apple stands between me and the actual apple because there is already plenty of verifiable things and substances that do. It is these things, not images, that mediate our perception of the apple and everything else in our periphery. It is why you have to alter the light and air in your thought experiments. They have properties we can discuss and alter in our imaginations. You can also do it with visors, mirrors, weird glasses, or any other mind-independent thing or substance.

I would much rather know what mind-dependent thing or substance the light or thick air or any other environmental mediator is supposed to represent in these analogies, because that is what the indirect realist proposes he is directly perceiving. What are their properties, their mass, their speed. Give us a thought-experiment about those things, if you wouldn’t mind.

I would be seeing the light reflected from the intact apple before I see the light reflected from the disintegrated apple. — NOS4A2

Then let's extend the thought experiment. The apple is disintegrated after 20 seconds.

P1. The direct object of perception cannot be something that doesn’t exist
P2. During the second 10 seconds there is not an intact apple 10m in front of me
C1. Therefore, the direct object of perception during the second 10 seconds is not an intact apple 10m in front of me
P3. The direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds is the direct object of perception during the second 10 seconds
C2. Therefore, the direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds is not an intact apple 10m in front of me
P4. The direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds when the light travels at 1m/s is the direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds when the light travels at 5m/s, 10m/s, 100m/s, or 299,792,458m/s
C3. Therefore, the direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds when the light travels at 299,792,458m/s is not an intact apple 10m in front of me

So of these three distinct claims we must rule of (1):

1. The direct objects of perception are distal objects
2. The direct objects of perception are proximal stimuli
3. The direct objects of perception are mental phenomena

Your response to my thought experiment is that (2) is true, yet elsewhere you argue that (1) is true. Are you now willing to admit that (1) is false? (2) at least is prima facie consistent with the eliminative materialism you seem to favour.

This part matters, Banno. When you cast your eyes to the Sun, you literally are not seeing the Sun. You're seeing light from the sun which is eight minutes old. Nothing interesting about this, except trying to get around it to say you're directly aware of hte Sun in any given moment. Just stupid. — AmadeusD

It's certainly stupid if "direct awareness" is defined as "by introspection" - perceptions that are guaranteed correct, even if they are wrong. But, if all perception is by introspection, how do we ever know that it is wrong?
I have another problem with this. I don't think I see light as such. Surely, light is what enables me to see whatever it is that I see. Compare the role of air when we hear sounds. We don't hear the air; it is what enables us to hear.
Why can't I just say that I see the sun as it was eight minutes ago?
I'm sure you are aware that a similar argument applies to everything that we see (or hear).

The Sun is not what we see when we look at the sun. — AmadeusD

I expect you mean that what we see is an image of the sun. But an image of the sun is not an entity that exists independently of the sun. It is defined by its relationship to the sun. So I can only know that I'm seeing an image of the sun if I know what the sun looks like. Scrutinizing images will never tell me that.

I would much rather know what mind-dependent thing or substance the light or thick air or any other environmental mediator is supposed to represent in these analogies, because that is what the indirect realist proposes he is directly perceiving. What are their properties, their mass, their speed. Give us a thought-experiment about those things, if you wouldn’t mind. — NOS4A2

I expect you know that there is no answer to that. These objects go by many names, which have in common that they are not reality, but are defined by their relationship to reality. To get anywhere with this debate, we have to look more closely at these various objects (concepts) and understand how they work, what jobs they do.

Therefore, the direct object of perception during the first 10 seconds when the light travels at 299,792,458m/s is not an intact apple 10m in front of me — Michael

I agree that the exact time it takes for the light to travel to my eye is not really relevant. But this looks to me like a fancy way of saying that I do not see the apple in front me instantly. It does not follow that I don't see the apple, but something else. Compare how we deal with the time it takes for sound to travel to my ears.

1. The direct objects of perception are distal objects
2. The direct objects of perception are proximal stimuli
3. The direct objects of perception are mental phenomena — Michael

Any of these might be acceptable, depending on how "direct" (and "indirect") are defined. Perception is a complicated process, which can be be analyzed in many different ways. A major difficulty is that there is no physical entity - a perception - that is the product of the process.

I agree that the exact time it takes for the light to travel to my eye is not really relevant. But this looks to me like a fancy way of saying that I do not see the apple in front me instantly. It does not follow that I don't see the apple, but something else. Compare how we deal with the time it takes for sound to travel to my ears. — Ludwig V

Do you disagree with C1?

Surely if I see an intact apple 10m in front of me but there is not an intact apple 10m in front of me then the direct object of perception is not an intact apple 10m in front of me?

Any of these might be acceptable, depending on how "direct" (and "indirect") are defined. — Ludwig V

Yes, a point I've argued at length with Esse Quam Videri. I think indirect realism is best understand in contrast to the naive realism it disputes. Whereas "semantic" direct realists might mean something else by "direct" I think both naive and indirect realists mean the same thing, and our perception of distal objects is not direct in the way that naive realism says it is.

A major difficulty is that there is no physical entity - a perception - that is the product of the process. — Ludwig V

I think there is a perception; it's what exists/occurs when the visual cortex is active in the right kind of way. Although whether this thing is physical or a non-physical emergent phenomenon is the biggest question in the philosophy (and science) of mind.

Your response to my thought experiment is that (2) is true, yet elsewhere you argue that (1) is true. Are you now willing to admit that (1) is false? (2) at least is prima facie consistent with the eliminative materialism you seem to favour.

I have never argued that we can directly perceive an object unless there is contact with the object, for instance touching it or eating it. And I don’t think anyone is disputing that the light reflecting off an apple has to travel to the eye, and so our sight is at the mercy of its speed. This is also true of odor molecules and sound waves, as well. Nonetheless, the light, odor molecules, and soundwaves travel from a specific and unique location in space and time, occupied by a certain object, your apple.

Can any of this be said about the image of the apple? Where is its location? With what sense are we perceiving it? What is its weight? Smell? Taste?

We’ve also shown that these analogies are false because they use mind-independent mediators to represent mind-dependent ones—one can be shown to exist while the other cannot. Are we to believe that some sort of similar process with light and distance and reflection occurs in the mind?

I expect you know that there is no answer to that. These objects go by many names, which have in common that they are not reality, but are defined by their relationship to reality. To get anywhere with this debate, we have to look more closely at these various objects (concepts) and understand how they work, what jobs they do.

I’d be interested in understanding what ulterior motive lies behind their promotion. What do we stand to lose if we lose these concepts? I suspect it’s something like losing Zeus when we came to better understand the skies.