Even if they don't have words to describe the colours, they nonetheless see them, just as I can distinguish between a variety of different smells despite not having words for each individual kind of smell. — Michael
On what grounds can we possibly say that the dress must either be Blue/Black or White/Gold as an external data point. Why cannot it be both? What fact do we know about the data points of the external world which we can use to say with certainty that they cannot be two colours at once? — Isaac
I'm not so sure. It's not the sort of thing we can check, right? — Moliere
Even if they don't have words to describe the colours, they nonetheless see them, just as I can distinguish between a variety of different smells despite not having words for each individual kind of smell. — Michael
If I have a color detecting machine where when I place a colored object in front of it, it will report the color in its display. However, one day it stops reporting the color on the display. We checking the display and is functioning fine. What sense is there in saying “Nevertheless the machine is still detecting the color even when we place it in front of the machine”
The same goes for a person looking at the colored balls. — Richard B
I can tell you for a fact that I can see the colour of my carpet even though I'm not describing the colour of my carpet. — Michael
It would make sense that the brain evolved to make us believe we are directly interacting with the world even if it is really a virtual world — lorenzo sleakes
If saying "what ever I believe is a fact is a fact" is not ridiculous
— Richard B
I haven't said that, so not sure the relevance of this. — Michael
No, I'm saying so because I believe it to be a fact. And because it is a fact, what I say is true. — Michael
No, I'm saying so because I believe it to be a fact. And because it is a fact, what I say is true.
— Michael
Why do you say it is a fact and it is true? — Richard B
Why do you say it is a fact and it is true?
— Richard B
Because I believe it to be so. — Michael
This resource offers what I am talking about (or close enough).
Direct realism, also known as naïve realism or common sense realism, is a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast to this direct awareness, indirect realism and representationalism claim that we are directly aware only of internal representations of the external world.
...
Direct realists might claim that indirect realists are confused about conventional idioms that may refer to perception. Perception exemplifies unmediated contact with the external world; examples of indirect perception might be seeing a photograph, or hearing a recorded voice. Against representationalists, direct realists often argue that the complex neurophysical processes by which we perceive objects do not entail indirect perception. These processes merely establish the complex route by which direct awareness of the world arrives. The inference from such a route to indirectness may be an instance of the genetic fallacy. — plaque flag
The direct realist tries to do without this internal image, but not without sense organs. The direct realist is not so much focused on how the eyes see the tree and not the image of the tree, even if they will put the event this way. What really matters are linguistic norms. The 'I' that sees the tree exists within the space of reasons. The 'I' is like a character on a stage among others egos. Direct realists aren't worried about the internal structure of this 'I.' That's not the point. Language is fundamentally social, world-directed, and self-transcending. To see the tree is more usefully understand as to claim 'I see a tree.' We now think of this claim as a move in a social game. — plaque flag
There is really no reason to fracture the body in any abstract way, or include some sort of intermediary, in order to better understand the body's mysteries, especially when all conscious humans are by-and-large whole. — NOS4A2
f I refuse to answer your question then I'm blind? Or I'm not blind but the carpet is transparent? Or the carpet isn't transparent but also not coloured (and so not white or black either)?
This is clearly ridiculous. Me seeing something has nothing to do with you and nothing to do with speech.
I really don't think you're being honest with me at all. You can't actually believe these things you're saying. — Michael
There’s a difference between me asserting “X is a fact” because I believe it to be so and me asserting “X is a fact because I believe it to be so”. — Michael
can tell you for a fact that I can see the colour of my carpet even though I'm not describing the colour of my carpet. — Michael
Does not sound like a belief in this quote. — Richard B
Why say that what really matters are linguistic norms, when linguistic norms are not part of what distinguishes Indirect from Direct Realism, according to your resource. — RussellA
So why keep introducing references to language, linguistics and language games.
Why say that what really matters are linguistic norms, when linguistic norms are not part of what distinguishes Indirect from Direct Realism, according to your resource. — RussellA
What does "directly" mean? — Michael
To repeat again what I said earlier, this is the “illusion” of experience (and in particular sight), and is I believe the driving force behind direct realism. — Michael
And to repeat something I said earlier: consciousness, whatever it is, doesn't extend beyond the brain, and so it's physically impossible for an apple and its properties to be constituents of my conscious experience. It might be causally responsible for conscious experience, but that's all it can physically be. — Michael
Well yeah, there’s an irreducible subject-object dualism for sure. I am not the apple. — Jamal
We talk about those distant stars — plaque flag
I suggest that consciousness isn't doing much work here. Wouldn't awareness be better ? We are aware of distant stars, apples just out of reach. — plaque flag
I’m aware of the cat hiding under the covers. Doesn’t mean I directly see it. — Michael
But again, direct and indirect realism are positions about the nature of perception, not about what we talk about. — 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.