Indirect realists are saying that we're only aware of the paintings, we're not aware of the processes leading up to the paintings, which are at least a couple processes removed from the source information. Direct realists say that we're aware of a photographic image which is a direct result of the source information. So it's still perception in direct realism's case. It's just a direct process. — Terrapin Station
I thought it was about perception? So indirect realists are saying that we're only seeing the paining, not whatever processes lead up to the painting. We might be aware (via inference) of those preceding processes, but such things aren't being perceived. — Michael
Which then means that direct realists are saying that we also see the processes leading up to the paintings. — Michael
With direct realism, we're saying that it's NOT like painting, it's like photography. I explained that in the post you responded to. I explained why it's direct versus indirect, etc. — Terrapin Station
So you're saying that if I see a photo of Hitler then I am directly seeing Hitler, not indirectly seeing him via a photo? — Michael
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.