Yes, we’re not viewing a representation of the tree. We need not include the “thing in itself”, which considers the tree independent of any perception of it. I refer you back to my previous posts. — NOS4A2
Which tree do we perceive? And who is perceiving that tree? — NOS4A2
I still don’t know why we’d add the qualifier “exactly as it is”. Do you believe we are viewing the trees exactly as they are not? — NOS4A2
Right, so what is NOS4A2 getting at? Can you see how I am confused as to what he is saying?
He doesn't like terms like "actually out there". He only cares what we perceive, but it is exactly the fact that direct realism posits that what we perceive is "actually out there" that is the question at hand. But then he keeps not wanting that to be the case! — schopenhauer1
Ha, perhaps so! — schopenhauer1
Again, I think an empirical question. We know for example, that the brain has various ways of integrating information from sensory information. Humans develop over time from fetuses, and all that pretty standard stuff. — schopenhauer1
I want to know the answer to the question “Who perceives what? For the indirect realist. I want to see if we can examine these objects and their natures. — NOS4A2
I know how the biology works. The question can be answered in the form X perceives Y. — NOS4A2
Right, that’s how naive realism would say it. How would an indirect realist say it? — NOS4A2
just gave you the fact that the brain is doing stuff (that is the interpretation), so it is indirectly accessing the tree, as it filters through that process.. which by the way, if I haven't stated it, is a human process. — schopenhauer1
All that is objective, extended, active—that is to say, all that is material—is regarded by materialism as affording so solid a basis for its explanation, that a reduction of everything to this can leave nothing to be desired (especially if in ultimate analysis this reduction should resolve itself into action and reaction). But we have shown that all this is given indirectly and in the highest degree determined, and is therefore merely a relatively present object, for it has passed through the machinery and manufactory of the brain, and has thus come under the forms of space, time and causality, by means of which it is first presented to us as extended in space and ever active in time. From such an indirectly given object, materialism seeks to explain what is immediately given, the idea (in which alone the object that materialism starts with exists), and finally even the will from which all those fundamental forces, that manifest themselves, under the guidance of causes, and therefore according to law, are in truth to be explained. To the assertion that thought is a modification of matter we may always, with equal right, oppose the contrary assertion that all matter is merely the modification of the knowing subject, as its idea. — Schopenhauer0
But I just gave you the fact that the brain is doing stuff (that is the interpretation), so it is indirectly accessing the tree, as it filters through that process.. which by the way, if I haven't stated it, is a human process. — schopenhauer1
Before I had studied Ch’an [Zen] for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers. — Qingyuan Weixin
You are playing around with definitions. A naive realist would say that what the person is perceiving is "really" the tree as it is, without any interpretation... But I just gave you the fact that the brain is doing stuff (that is the interpretation), so it is indirectly accessing the tree, as it filters through that process.. which by the way, if I haven't stated it, is a human process
Before I had studied Ch’an [Zen] for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers.
— Qingyuan Weixin
(I assume as a matter of course that all here are at the 'before' stage, myself included of course.) — Wayfarer
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.