You’re assuming that the apple is being presented in something called experience. But there is no evidence of such a place, let alone that apples appear in them. — NOS4A2
You’re assuming that the apple is being presented in something called experience. But there is no evidence of such a place, let alone that apples appear in them. — NOS4A2
But I can watch you directly eat an apple. — NOS4A2
There is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer, so the experience is not indirect. — NOS4A2
Does air prohibit us from directly experiencing air? — NOS4A2
There is literally nothing between the experienced and the experiencer prohibiting one from directly experiencing the other. — NOS4A2
What do you mean by this? If you’re saying that apples directly stimulate our sense receptors then except in the case of touch this is false; apples don’t directly stimulate the rods and cones in our eyes, so visual perception under your account isn’t direct.
Or do you mean something else?
These are absolutely spot on. It's how the problem is solved in active inference, it's the active part.
Inference (perception in this case) is an active process. We do not passively receive data from the external world, we actively sample it. From saccades in perception, all the way up to the construction of a skyscraper (which matches our image of the skyscraper we intended to be there). There's no active inference without interaction. If you can't sample your image, can't move you eyes around it, reach out to it, give part of it to someone else, drink from the cup in it and feel that in your stomach... then you're not perceiving it, you're hallucinating it, or dreaming it. — Isaac
“Direct” in the sense that we directly perceive the environment, including the lights, smells, touch, taste, of apples. “Indirect” in the sense that we perceive the environment through some kind of medium. — NOS4A2
Set out that transcendental argument for us again.... — Banno
The arguments are detailed, and get lost in the noise of the forums. — Banno
No medium appears at any point in the scenario. The evidence for a medium is zero. — NOS4A2
Again, viewing things in the world such as air, glasses, light, and so on is direct realism. — NOS4A2
Sense-data is another such medium. — NOS4A2
The air, light, glasses, and contact lenses are the medium between the apple and one's eyes. Hence why, according to your account, seeing an apple isn't direct.
You can't dismiss the medium of sense data by saying that you can see someone pick up and and eat an apple. As I have repeatedly said, your claim here is irrelevant to the discussion.
Of course I’m not speaking of sight only. But you keep limiting it to sight. Nonetheless, we see everything in our periphery, including light, air, glasses, etc. directly. — NOS4A2
Point to me the sense-data. No sense-data appears between observer and observed. Sense-data is irrelevant if it cannot be shown to exist. — NOS4A2
But do we see the apple directly?
Sense data is an emergent phenomenon, brought about by brain activity. If you're asking me to point to something that is physically situated between the apple and someone's eyes then your request is misguided.
In terms of direct realism, yes. — NOS4A2
Does it have a physical structure or chemical make-up? Can we put some of it under a microscope? — NOS4A2
But there's a number of mediums between the apple and the sense receptors in our eyes (air, light, sometimes glasses or contact lenses), so by your own account it isn't direct. You now seem to mean something else by "direct". What is it?
We don't know yet, the hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved. Regardless, there is something which is sense-data, whether physical or not, as proved by the fact that you and I can look at the same photo of a dress and yet see different colours.
You’re confusing a actual medium in the world with the mediums made up by indirect realists. — NOS4A2
It only proves that we see it differently, not that something called sense-data is an emergent phenomenon from the brain. — NOS4A2
Air, light, glasses, and contact lenses aren't made up mediums.
And what does it mean to "see something differently"? It means that we experience different sense-data. I experience white and gold, you experience black and blue. The colours we experience are the medium by which we indirectly see the photo of a dress.
Air, light, glasses, and contact lenses aren't made up mediums. — Michael
Exactly. — NOS4A2
You experience the image your way, I experience it my way. — NOS4A2
There is no need to evoke “sense-data” or some other medium to explain it when there are actual things that can account for these differences. — NOS4A2
Then you admit that our visual perception of an apple is mediated by air, light, and sometimes glasses or contact lenses. Therefore, by your own account, we don't directly see apples.
Yes, which is to say that our sensory systems elicit different sense-data.
I’m not sure that is the case. We directly perceive apples through light. — NOS4A2
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.