And here's the reason this topic is recalcitrant. Both sides describe the situation in almost the same terms, but mean slightly different things in each case, talking past each other using much the same language. — Banno
The direct realist says that seeing is constructing a model of the tree. The process of construction is part of the "self" doing the seeing. — Banno
We are not little homunculi driving robots and looking at screens. We are members of a community who live embedded in a shared world within and with which we collectively interact. — Banno
I do see that they're both flawed. Do you mean that this leads to idealism? — frank
it would be really helpful if people would state what definition of "direct realism" and "indirect realism" they are using when they are posting. — prothero
it would be really helpful if people would state what definition of "direct realism" and "indirect realism" they are using when they are posting. — prothero
In the context of the Problem of Perception, these cases are usually distinguished as follows: a veridical experience is an experience in which an ordinary object is perceived, and where the object appears as it is; an illusory experience is an experience in which an ordinary object is perceived, and where the object appears other than it is; a hallucination is an experience which seems to the subject exactly like a veridical perception of an ordinary object but where there is no such perceived or presented object.
Where else are you going to turn to get principles for understanding the reasons for these flaws? — Metaphysician Undercover
But for indirect realism, what everyone sees is some private mental image, and hence what you see and what the other person sees are quite different. — Banno
If indirect realism were taken at face value, two people cannot both look at the same thing — Banno
The indirect realist says what one sees is the model of the tree — Banno
As an Indirect Realist, I am not saying that I see a model of a tree, I am saying that I directly see a tree, though the tree I see is an indirect representation, — RussellA
So, for you, the eyes are not involved in seeing. A blind man can see? — Isaac
Surely things must appear to the scientists to be the way they now report them to be; otherwise why are they reporting them to be that way?
Things are not as they once appeared. — Isaac
a blind man can see. — RussellA
I see trees in my dreams... I see trees in my hallucinations. — RussellA
Can an apple not be both red and 'reflective of 400nm wavelengths'? — Isaac
What about the tree that you climb? Is that a representation? — unenlightened
Why is it a mistake? If an object can have the property 'reflects light with a wavelength of 700nm' why can't we call that property "red"? — Isaac
But can they see trees? — Isaac
You don't think that apples appear to be red? — Michael
What about the tree that you climb? Is that a representation? — unenlightened
Apples appearing red, just means that I think apples are red. — Isaac
There's no separate thing 'the appearance of red' with which we might mistake the property of the apple. — Isaac
I can build furniture out of fallen trees. Can I build furniture out of what you see in your dreams and hallucinations? — Isaac
How could one ever be mistaken about what one sees? — 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.