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

I know from experience that I have phenomenological experiences. I can’t speak for you; perhaps you’re a p-zombie. Which again shows why me seeing someone else eat an apple isn’t evidence that they have a direct realist experience.

But I can watch you directly eat an apple. There is literally nothing between the experienced and the experiencer prohibiting one from directly experiencing the other.

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

Then there’s no evidence for direct realism, because as the SEP article says, and as you yourself referenced, direct realism is the position that ordinary, mind-independent objects are directly presented in experience.

But I can watch you directly eat an apple. — NOS4A2

And as I said before, direct bodily interaction isn’t direct phenomenological experience. So again, read the SEP article so that you can actually understood what direct (and indirect) realism is actually saying.

At the moment you’re just misappropriating the phrase “direct perception” to mean something completely different, and arguably irrelevant.

I have read the article, and if you want to quibble about definitions be my guest. The thread is about phenomenalism. I’m speaking of “Perceptual Directness”, section 2.1.3 in your article. We either directly perceive the world or we do not.

We either directly perceive the world or we do not. — NOS4A2

And seeing that someone’s hands are in contact with an apple isn’t evidence that we directly perceive the world. It isn’t evidence for Direct Realist Presentation as is defined in the article.

Yes it is and for the same reasons I already stated. There is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer, so the experience is not indirect.

There is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer, so the experience is not indirect. — 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?

Does air prohibit us from directly experiencing air? — NOS4A2

No, but it clearly prevents us from directly perceiving the apple. The light from the apple is affected by the air before it reaches our eyes.

There is literally nothing between the experienced and the experiencer prohibiting one from directly experiencing the other. — NOS4A2

There literally is.

Air, dust, microbes, water, oils...

This is a very difficult debate when one does not understand what someone means by saying “direct”.

From what I can tell, if it has to do with the five senses, it is not direct. If link to scientific theory, not direct. If you ask, well then what will meet the definition of direct. The answer you get will be something that does not have an intermediary. And if you ask that, there is no answer other than I believe it when I see it. Wait that is already excluded.

Not a hypothesis, but a logically provable axiomatic principle. — Mww

So you claim; but where is the proof?

Set out that transcendental argument for us again, so we can se how it (doesn't) work.

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?

“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.

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

I'm getting the impression now that I misunderstood you before when you said perception is inferential; I had thought that you were talking about the bare sensory fact of what is immediately perceived, but now it seems you were talking about the whole process of learning to perceive the world as this and that. Now it seems you meant 'inferential' to signify the exploratory nature of that process of learning, and that makes sense to me; it's a somewhat difference usage of "inferential" than I am used to, but it makes sense now in the context.

“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

Then explain to me how someone else picking up and eating an apple shows that no medium is involved when they see an apple.

Set out that transcendental argument for us again.... — Banno

“....we are not entitled to maintain that sensibility is the only possible mode of intuition....”

Now that’s only a premise in the transcendental argument, but you know how it is, that....

The arguments are detailed, and get lost in the noise of the forums. — Banno

...you know how it is, that....

The arguments are detailed, and get lost in the noise of the forums....
— Banno — Mww

...and other argument are ever putative, never presented.

Then explain to me how someone else picking up and eating an apple shows that no medium is involved when they see an apple.

No medium appears at any point in the scenario. The evidence for a medium is zero.

No medium appears at any point in the scenario. The evidence for a medium is zero. — NOS4A2

There's air, light, and in some cases glasses or contact lenses.

But this just shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of direct and indirect realism. Indirect realism claims that the "medium" is the sense-data that occurs "in the head". You and I look at the same photo of a dress and yet you see a black and blue dress and I see a white and gold dress. We have different sense-data, and this sense-data is the immediate object of perception.

You may disagree with this claim, but saying that you can see someone pick up and eat an apple says nothing that addresses it. It's a non sequitur.

Again, viewing things in the world such as air, glasses, light, and so on is direct realism.

The mediums I speak of are the ones that are assumed, made up without evidence. Sense-data is another such medium.

Again, viewing things in the world such as air, glasses, light, and so on is direct realism. — 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.

Sense-data is another such medium. — NOS4A2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

But do we see the apple directly?

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

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.

But do we see the apple directly?

In terms of direct realism, yes.

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.

Does it have a physical structure or chemical make-up? Can we put some of it under a microscope?

In terms of direct realism, yes. — 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?

Does it have a physical structure or chemical make-up? Can we put some of it under a microscope? — NOS4A2

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. These colours are sense-data.

And, again, you seeing someone pick up and eat an apple isn't evidence that such sense-data doesn't exist and so isn't evidence against indirect realism.

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?

You’re confusing a actual medium in the world with the mediums made up by indirect realists.

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.

It only proves that we see it differently, not that something called sense-data is an emergent phenomenon from the brain.

You’re confusing a actual medium in the world with the mediums made up by indirect realists. — NOS4A2

Air, light, glasses, and contact lenses aren't made up mediums.

It only proves that we see it differently, not that something called sense-data is an emergent phenomenon from the brain. — NOS4A2

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.

Exactly. Sense-data is.

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.

You experience the image your way, I experience it my way. Our bodies are different and occupy different positions in space and time. 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.

Air, light, glasses, and contact lenses aren't made up mediums. — Michael

Exactly. — 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.

You experience the image your way, I experience it my way. — NOS4A2

Yes, which is to say that our sensory systems elicit different sense-data.

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

Given that the hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved, clearly this is false.

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.

I’m not sure that is the case. We directly perceive apples through light. I don’t think we’re viewing sense-data, representations, or images of apples in the light.

Yes, which is to say that our sensory systems elicit different sense-data.

What sense-data? It’s better to say the biology is different. Then you can point to actual differences.

I’m not sure that is the case. We directly perceive apples through light. — NOS4A2

Now you're changing what you mean by perception being direct. First you said that perception being direct means that "there is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer" and yet in the case of seeing an apple the air, the light, and glasses or contact lenses are a mediating factor between what is experienced (the apple) and the experiencer.

What do you mean now? Just throwing in the word "direct" but admitting of a mediator is no answer at all. You might as well say that we directly perceive things that happened in the past and in another location through a CCTV recording. Saying that such a perception here is "direct" just makes the word "direct" meaningless and doesn't address the metaphysical question of perception at all.