I see the apple as distinct from my seeing already. Sometimes, when I peep round the back of what seemed to be a red apple, it turns out to be green on the other side. I still see it out there, not in my head. — unenlightened

Okay so you conceive of your "seeing of an apple" as different from the real apple. That's all there is to it. That's what the debate is about.

When people say it is "in your head" they don't mean it literally. They mean it's in your mind.

Like when they propose a cup of tea? I've learnt by experience that you're not supposed to keep or eat that cup.

My problem with it is the implicit assumption that the apple is red the way it looks red to the perceiver. In my view, the awareness of red is added by the perceiver. — Marchesk

While I subscribe to that condition as well, it may be worth remarking that the schematic doesn’t qualify the real object perceived as having any color at all. There is a real object, we are aware....wordlessly in fact....of that real object. Doesn’t look to me like the implicit assumption of color is given, so I don’t see a conflict with our view.

The problem would arise if the schematic specified red apple instead of real apple, followed by awareness of red apple instead of awareness of real apple, in which case of course, red is certainly not added by the perceiver but is antecedently specified as a property of the apple, a contradiction to our philosophical d’ruthers.

Did I miss something? I hate it when that happens........

My problem with it is the implicit assumption that the apple is red the way it looks red to the perceiver. In my view, the awareness of red is added by the perceiver.
— Marchesk

While I subscribe to that condition as well, it may be worth remarking that the schematic doesn’t qualify the real object perceived as having any color at all. — Mww

I just noticed the weasel: "the implicit assumption that the apple is red the way it looks red to the perceiver."

In what way does does a red apple look red to the perceiver? Only in the way it stands out from the yellow, green, brown, black, and purple apples. About how red looks to the perceiver, nothing can be said because it is a figment of a private inner world that cannot be made consistent or inconsistent with anyone else's private world. We cannot talk about it, and so we never do except by way of weaselling. (See private language argument.)

I just noticed the weasel: "...the awareness of red is added by the perceiver."

I concede. The apple is unaware of its redness. but it is unaware of anything much.

This is how we talk: we say that some apples are red, and that some light is red. And we are fairly consistent about it and in agreement most of the time about it, and this consistency and agreement is the mark of what we like to call the real. Stuff that I see or voices that I hear that no one else does are rightly regarded as suspect. But ask a five year old to show you the red toy, and they can usually do it consistently. Ask them to show you a visual cortex or a perception,, and they might be in difficulty.

All this clever optics and neuro-science is an explanation of reality, not a substitute for it. Photons and wavelengths and neurones explain how we see the world, not how we don't see it.

I see the apple as distinct from my seeing already. [...]
— unenlightened

Okay so you conceive of your "seeing of an apple" as different from the real apple. That's all there is to it. That's what the debate is about. — Olivier5

Noooooo! ... "my seeing" nooooht a mental image (internal picture etc.). Just a person-sees-apple event.

I hope...

But we are off topic. It's the darkness - how do we see the darkness? Only in the darkness of the mind can the darkness be seen. Those of us who do not live in the mind can go deep into the darkness of a cave and find that we cannot see anything at all; our eyes are useless there, and we might as well be blind.

"my seeing" nooooht a mental image — bongo fury

Spooky, huh?

Those of us who do not live in the mind — unenlightened

You guys live literally "out of your mind"?

I don’t understand this noticing a weasel.

I don’t understand this noticing a weasel. — Mww

Google is your friend.

You guys live literally "out of your mind"? — Olivier5

I literally live in the world.

I literally live in the world. — unenlightened

The world is a vast place. You could be a little more specific. I bet you live quite close to a certain human body of flesh, bones and nerves, that you can somehow control, and that people call "you".

The world is a vast place. — Olivier5

How do you know? Have you seen it?

How do you know? Have you seen it? — unenlightened

Of course.

I literally live in the world — unenlightened

What’s that like?

Then you have no argument with me.

I literally live in the world
— unenlightened

What’s that like? — Marchesk

It's like the perception of red.

Then you have no argument with me. — unenlightened

No argument from me, just curious about your kind. I've met zombies before, as well as automaton wannabees, but it's the first time I meet with an out-of-minder.

And then what? does the representation of the eye examine the representation of the apple and feed the information to the representation of the brain? Where the representation of the representation of the eye in the representation of brain in the brain examines... — unenlightened

Its either representations in our brains, or the real objects in our brains. Do we have real apples in our brains or representations of them in our brains? How does the representation differ from the real thing yet inform you of the state of the real thing, as in the apple is ripe? Isnt the knowing that the apple is ripe more useful than knowing the apple is red?

Do we have real apples in our brains or representations of them in our brains? — Harry Hindu

Or is it neither?

It's like the perception of red. — unenlightened

What about when the color perceived is the result of the brain adjusting for lighting conditions, which differs from the color normally perceived from the wavelength being reflected? Is this not evidence the brain is coloring in the resulting image?

Its either representations in our brains, or the real objects in our brains. Do we have real apples in our brains or representations of them in our brains? — Harry Hindu

Is it? I'm fairly sure I don't have apples in my brain, though I confess I've never looked. And for the same reason, I've never noticed any representations of apples there either. I assume your argument would something along the lines of needing some kind of representation in the brain in order to recognise an apple in the world? I don't think brains work like that, but even if they did, such representations would be used to recognise apples out there in the world, and not more representations in the brain. I mean what would be the point of that?

My point though is that 'brain' substitutes in the language game for 'I' .

Thus "I see a red apple" equates roughly to "Brain recognises sense data as red apple."

There is no possibility of "I watch my brain receiving sense data and comparing it to representation in the brain."

There is no possibility of perceptions being perceived.

And this is what the indirect realist is continually pretending to do. like this

What about when the color perceived is the result of the brain adjusting for lighting conditions, which differs from the color normally perceived from the wavelength being reflected? — Marchesk

Yes, what about it? Eyes adjust according to ambient light, and brains compensate as best they can for ambient light conditions. Nevertheless, sight is imperfect and errors occur. "I t'ought I saw a puddy cat", but perhaps I didn't after all. What I didn't think I saw, and nobody ever did think they saw was a perception.

There is no possibility of "I watch my brain receiving sense data and comparing it to representation in the brain."

There is no possibility of perceptions being perceived.

And this is what the indirect realist is continually pretending to do. like this — unenlightened

What makes you so certain? This is an ongoing philosophical debate, not a settled one. And even one where some neuroscientists and psychologists come down on the side of indirect perception. Why are you being dogmatic? Maybe direct perception ends up being right, but what makes you so sure it is? It's not like there aren't reasons motivating the indirect side of the debate. I just read a paper defending direct realism that lists eight challenges presented by indirect realists. The author defends direct realism against all eight, but has to make a few concessions to do so. I'm not so sure the concessions amount to direct perception.

What makes you so certain? — Marchesk

I have never seen my brain, let alone seen it doing anything. Have you seen your brain? Do you know anyone who has seen their brain? Have you read any reports of people seeing their brain? My certainty combines never having heard of such a thing, with very good practical reasons why it is an impossibility that I will repeat since you seem to have a difficulty. People's eyes almost always point the opposite way, away from their brains, and it is usually pitch black inside the skull I believe, and if there is light getting in anywhere, it is almost always a serious medical emergency.

There are some few reports of out of body experiences under surgery, and if you like we can discuss that, but I assumed you had already rejected the spiritual realm as a serious consideration.

Why are you being dogmatic? Maybe direct perception is right, but what makes you so sure it is? It's not like there aren't reasons motivating the indirect side of the debate. — Marchesk

If there are reasons, you haven't made them understandable to me. I become more dogmatic as the linguistic confusion multiplies. Suppose we make this thing entirely impersonal and mechanical:
_____________________________________________________

Bodies have brains and brains connect to eyes, and eyes sample the ambient light and differentiate as to wavelength and direction. Brains analyse the data and resolve it into a meaningful landscape. This process is called 'seeing'. The function of seeing is to detect food, danger, and obstacles at a distance and thus aid the organism to navigate the world.

Is any of this in dispute?

it's the first time I meet with an out-of-minder — Olivier5

Did you meet him on this forum, or in your mind?

Did you meet him on this forum, or in your mind? — jamalrob

If he can live out of his mind, maybe he can meet me in mine. That would be a literal meeting of minds...

If there are reasons, you haven't made them understandable to me — unenlightened

The eight main arguments against Direct Realism are the Causal Argument, the TimeLag Argument, the Partial Character of Perception Argument, the Perceptual Relativity
Argument, the Argument from Perceptual Illusion, the Argument from Hallucination, the
Dubitability Argument, and the Objective Feature Argument. In what follows below,
each argument will first be exposited and then subjected to a Direct Realist rebuttal.

https://owd.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/DR_web.pdf — Pierre Le Morvan

You can read the details of each argument in that paper, but I'm confident you're already acquainted with most of them. Instead you want to caricature indirect realism with statements like "perceptions being perceived", which is not what is being claimed. The claim is about the nature of the perception, and why there are reasons to doubt it is direct. It's not a linguistic confusion.

Did you meet him on this forum, or in your mind? — jamalrob

Did the perception of meeting him in this forum occur in the mind, or on this forum?

Bodies have brains and brains connect to eyes, and eyes sample the ambient light and differentiate as to wavelength and direction. Brains analyse the data and resolve it into a meaningful landscape. This process is called 'seeing'. The function of seeing is to detect food, danger, and obstacles at a distance and thus aid the organism to navigate the world.

Is any of this in dispute? — unenlightened

I believe the bold part is precisely what is in dispute in this thread, and agree broadly with your characterisation of it.

I can't make sense of the question.

I can't make sense of the question. — jamalrob

Where is the perception formed? On the forum, at your eyeballs, or in the brain?

Brains analyse the data and resolve it into a meaningful landscape. — unenlightened

I'm gong to second Olivier5 here and say this is where the dispute takes place. That meaningful landsacpe the brain resolves, what does it mean for it to be direct?