To reiterate, in one version of the argument the indirect realist claims what we see is a model of the tree, while the direct realist says what we do in seeing the tree is to construct a set of neural paths that model the tree. The direct realist would not say that what we see is the model of the tree, but that what we see is the tree, and we see it in modelling it.In fact I think this is a prime example of the problem. The indirect realist will agree with this, and say that this model is a representation of the tree, and that it is this model that (directly) informs our understanding. You appear to be describing indirect realism, but calling it direct realism. — Michael
Yep.Arguing over the semantics of whether this should be called "seeing a tree" or "seeing a model of a tree" is a red herring. — Michael
Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations may be used to give insights into Indirect Realism, including his strong case against the possibility of a private language and his arguing that nobody knows another person's private sensations. — RussellA
As I innately believe in the law of causation, in that every effect has a cause, I therefore believe that there is something that has caused me to perceive a "tree". I don't know what this something is, but I do believe it exists. — RussellA
To reiterate, in one version of the argument the indirect realist claims what we see is a model of the tree — Banno
Try talking instead about the apple "appearing" smooth. — Banno
Well, since the unobserved tree is "unknowable" and all that, and given that we can still talk about it when our backs are turned to it, why not just keep talking of the "tree"?
Not for pragmatic reasons, but because there is no reason to talk otherwise.
(I'm not reaching for pragmatism here, so much as for parsimony). — Banno
I hope and trust we are actually talking about the world and not our individual 'images' of the world. — green flag
Why not? — frank
"The world" is nothing more than the idea of what our individual images and ideas of a world seem to have in common; it is a collective representation. — Janus
He is not arguing that no one knows antoehr;s private sensations, so much as that if there are any private sensations then by that very fact they cannot be discussed. — Banno
One can never be mistaken about what one sees. — RussellA
There's more to experience than just rational thought. Seeing and feeling and tasting aren't just cases of thinking. — Michael
But what does it mean to think that apples are red? — Michael
You suggested before that to be red is to have a surface that reflects light with a wavelength of 700nm, so to think that apples are red is to think that apples have a surface that reflects light with a wavelength of 700nm? — Michael
How does that make sense given that people saw, and thought, that apples were red long before they even had the concept of electromagnetic radiation? — Michael
You "reaching" for the word "red" to describe apples isn't just something that happens in a vacuum. — Michael
And presumably you're not a p-zombie that just mindlessly responds to stimulation by spouting out words. — Michael
You can build furniture out of the something in the world that has caused me to perceive a tree — RussellA
It means that I'll reach for the word "red" if asked to describe the colour.
...
I didn't say it happened in a vacuum. there are all sorts of other cognitive activities resultant from seeing an apple, but none of them have anything to do with 'red'. 'Red' is a word, so it is resultant of activity in my language centres. — Isaac
The meanings of words change. Before there was a scientific test for what we should call "red" it would have been more a community decision - to be 'red' was simply to be a member of that group of things decreed to be 'red', but nowadays, I suspect people will defer to the scientific measurement. — Isaac
If this is true, it's not a discovery about seeing but only about the grammar of 'see.' — green flag
If this is true, it's not a discovery about seeing but only about the grammar of 'see.' — green flag
What could we call that thing...? If only there was a word for the thing in the world which I can make furniture out of, climb, get fruit from, paint the image of, sit under the shade of........ We really need a word for thing.......I suggest "tree(a)", what with the word "tree" already having been taken and all. — Isaac
This is the slightly mad bit.......That 'something that has caused me to perceive a "tree'?...........It's a tree........That's what a tree is. — Banno
However, in the absence of any English speaker, the word "tree" would not exist, and "trees" would not exist in the world. — RussellA
In the absence of any English speaker the word "tree" wouldn't exist, but the object currently referred to by the word "tree" would exist. — Michael
There's a very peculiar obsession with language in this discussion — Michael
Exactly, that is what an Indirect Realist would say. — RussellA
As I believe in the ontology of Neutral Monism, where reality consists of elementary particles and elementary forces in space-time, the meaning of the word tree is fundamental to my philosophical understanding. — RussellA
This is a misreading of the private language argument. — Banno
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.