I think the distinction between self and other is pretty fundamental — prothero
A direct link of causal efficacy is necessary, but that is a different proposition than direct naive realism. — prothero
Direct realism doesn't makes sense, but it's necessary. How do you deal with that? — frank
How can you speak of causal efficacy, a mysterious connective substance for sure, when you cannot see or touch a tree?
When the dog sees the rabbit, and gives chase, there is not a great deal of consideration of self, nor of causality going on. One does not say the dog's brain sees an image of a rabbit or that the dogs legs run after it — particularly, the dog or its legs cannot be running after a perception in its brain. No, the dog is running after the rabbit, that it has seen, not in its mind or its brain, but in the field, because that's where the rabbit is. — unenlightened
A direct link of causal efficacy is necessary, but that is a different proposition than direct naive realism. — prothero
There is no "naked world" if it's within our system of references. We can't get outside it.True, but the idea of such a naked world is itself a object within our system of references. — green flag
So is anything necessary regarding direct naive realism? If we’re already given that which is necessary, with respect to an answer to a question concerning some particular dilemma, what else do we need? — Mww
There is no "naked world" if it's within our system of references. We can't get outside it. — L'éléphant
We can talk wisely about the world, if you'd like. Indirect realism does not deny the reliability of our perception -- how else could we have come up with hypotheses that we relied on for thousand of years? We don't go walk off a cliff just to prove we're mistaken. We don't walk off a cliff because we know about gravity. And gravity does not disappoint.We can meaningfully talk about personal bias, but it's not clear that we can talk wisely about (as if we could be outside of ) human bias. — green flag
Okay.It's common to see attempts to break a unity that I think can't sensibly be broken. — green flag
That's not direct realism tho. — frank
We can't stand outside ourselves in order to answer it. — frank
Who said that there's such a thing as "direct realism"? — Alexander Hine
The question is: does indirect realism undermine itself? If you note in the image above, the indirect scenario has a guy seeing a faulty representation of the object. If this is his only access to the world, can he be an indirect realist without contradiction? In other words, if his view of the world is faulty (or at least possibly unreliable), why should he believe the impressions that led him to consider indirectness in the first place? — frank
Another oddity with indirect realism is that it implies that communication is always between me and someone I've constructed. — frank
How so? Do you think of a phone call as direct communication with someone? Or as communication with a person constructed by the phone's speakers? — Michael
In the case of indirect realism, the DA converter is your central nervous system. You have no way to assess how the construction of your own CNS compares to the source of the stimulus. That's a long standing problem with indirect realism — frank
Here's my incredible photoshopping skills at work. — Michael
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.