So what does the indirect realist perceive? — NOS4A2
I suspect that he directly perceives all of the above, and everything else within his periphery. — NOS4A2
Then who or what perceives the tree? — NOS4A2
I just want to know what John is directly perceiving to the indirect realist. If John is not directly perceiving the tree, what is it that he directly perceives? — NOS4A2
For me, a thing only perceives modifications of itself. And as the self is self-identical, there is no intermediary. If a bomb goes off two feet away from you, but it doesn't alter your body in any way, you haven't perceived it. That's my suggestion anyway.
You’re right. I also challenge them to instantiate who and what are the objects of this relationship.
For me, a thing only perceives modifications of itself. And as the self is self-identical, there is no intermediary. If a bomb goes off two feet away from you, but it doesn't alter your body in any way, you haven't perceived it. That's my suggestion anyway.
That’s where I’m at too — NOS4A2
It was my understanding that for indirect realism there is a perceptual intermediary between perceiver and perceived. If there is none then the distinction between direct and indirect realism is redundant. — NOS4A2
I have no satisfying answer to the argument from illusion. But if perception is decidedly direct, it seems to me that any hallucination or illusion is the result of some act or reflex of the perceiver and not of the perceived. I don’t think any of this precludes direct realism. — NOS4A2
Perceptual psychologists tell us that most of what we see when we recognize objects is filled in from memory. What we actually take in though our sense receptors is very informationally impoverished. — Joshs
Yeah I assumed sense-data, ideas, representations, or whatever else is posited as a perceptual intermediary exists within the perceiver for the simple reason they cannot be found anywhere else. — NOS4A2
The more extreme indirect realist would want to say that the perceived object is entirely a dynamic and continually 'being formed' construct created as a collaboration between us and it (we interact with it, form ideas about it, impose those ideas on it etc).
In none of these cases (that I know of), is it claimed that the actual object about which the perception is the subject resides in the head. — Isaac
Whatever data is gathered from the external system is passed through several internal stages at each of which data other than from the (current) external state is allowed to modify the prediction of the external state used in, for example, speech about it, or interaction with it.
The process is not direct. — Isaac
The latter would be idealism, wouldn't it? — Tom Storm
It seems that the issue is where do we draw the line between indirect and the idea that 'materialism' is an illusion created by perception? — Tom Storm
In my mind the “internal stages” are a part of the perceiver and thus mediated by him. — NOS4A2
If we were to remove both those things from the man, both the perceiver and the perceived, place them on a table next to each other for observation, what would be there? — NOS4A2
In an optical illusion, a picture of a three-dimensional object is presented with gaps in it. The illusion is that viewers dont see the gaps. They fill them in. Where doesn’t this filling-in come from? It comes from memory. — Joshs
Such a model is predicated on there being actual external states, but not on them being of any fixed form. — Isaac
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.