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.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
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
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 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
Those of us who do not live in the mind — unenlightened
You guys live literally "out of your mind"? — Olivier5
I literally live in the world. — unenlightened
I literally live in the world
— unenlightened
What’s that like? — Marchesk
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.Then you have no argument with me. — 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?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
Do we have real apples in our brains or representations of them in our brains? — Harry Hindu
It's like the perception of red. — 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? — Harry Hindu
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
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? — 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: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 — 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
I believe the bold part is precisely what is in dispute in this thread, and agree broadly with your characterisation of it.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
Brains analyse the data and resolve it into a meaningful landscape. — unenlightened
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.