So what do "is red" mean? What is the physical state of being red? — Michael
Then you don't appear to be a realist of any sort, let alone a direct realist. — Michael
There's one real world that we live in and talk about. I find it funny that that's not supposed to be realism. — plaque flag
According to metaphysical realism, the world is as it is independent of how humans or other inquiring agents take it to be. The objects the world contains, together with their properties and the relations they enter into, fix the world’s nature and these objects [together with the properties they have and the relations they enter into] exist independently of our ability to discover they do. Unless this is so, metaphysical realists argue, none of our beliefs about our world could be objectively true since true beliefs tell us how things are and beliefs are objective when true or false independently of what anyone might think.
At least that description pretends that promises and divorces aren't real. — plaque flag
I've said this many times before: antirealism isn't unrealism. Being a realist about something doesn't just mean that you believe that thing is real. You need to get past the use of the word "real" in the label. — Michael
We talk about the world we care about --- the world we all live in together. — plaque flag
Two people in the same room see the world through different pairs of eyes. But it's the same world. — plaque flag
Our talk has always been directed toward others and about the one and only world, so it's pretty strange to invent internal images of the world just to explain the fact that people can be mistaken sometimes. — plaque flag
How are you talking about it then ? It's a product of language, an empty negation. — plaque flag
There's nothing strictly wrong about indirect realism talk. It's just clumsy.............My view is that linguistic sociality is absolutely fundamental. — plaque flag
I've been trying to defend direct realism from a position that takes the philosophical situation itself as the only meaningful center of reality. — plaque flag
In perception, external objects such as rocks and cats causally affect our sense organs. The sense organs in turn affect the (probably, non-material) mind, and their effect is to produce a certain type of entity in the mind, an 'idea.' These ideas, and not external objects, are what we immediately perceive when we look out at the world. The ideas may or may not resemble the objects that caused them in us, but their causal relation to the objects makes it the case that we can immediately perceive the objects by perceiving the ideas. — RussellA
Those initial terms we all understood are now in doubt, the external objects may or may not resemble the ideas. So, all the indirect realist can say is “some object caused an idea of rock” and “some object caused an idea of cat.” — Richard B
But you're not defending direct realism — Michael
So, all the indirect realist can say is “some object caused an idea of rock” and “some object caused an idea of cat.” Which then reduces to “some object caused an idea of some object.” We are left with some trivial generality that does not say much.
Welcome to metaphysics! — Richard B
There's just a mass of fundamental wave-particles, bouncing around, interacting with each another, and when the right stuff interacts in the right way, there's the conscious experience of seeing a red apple. — Michael
The key point is that one sees the apple and not an image of the apple. Hence 'direct.' — plaque flag
Your position doesn't seem to say anything about perception at all. — Michael
That's an impoverished account of what it means for perception to be direct. — Michael
That's its virtue. — plaque flag
What does it mean to see an apple? What does it mean so see an image of an apple? What does it mean for the schizophrenic to hear voices? — Michael
A mentally ill person might mistakenly think they heard voices. — plaque flag
No, that's why it fails to address the philosophical disagreement between direct and indirect realism. I've already shown you the SEP articles. There is simply far more to the argument than the overly simplistic grammatical argument that you are asserting. — Michael
They do hear voices. They mistakenly believe that the voices originate outside their head. You confuse experience itself with our interpretation of experience. There is a difference between sensations and an inner monologue. — Michael
Consider that you saying they hear voices is just you joining them in their madness. I see why it's tempting, but I think it's cleaner the other way. — plaque flag
There is a difference between seeing and thinking, between perception and cognition. — Michael
It's not me joining them in their madness. In the case of schizophrenics who hear voices, the primary auditory cortex really does activate. It's just that it activates without being stimulated by signals sent from the de. — Michael
You have no way to assess how the construction of your own CNS compares to the source of the stimulus. — frank
So, all the indirect realist can say is “some object caused an idea of rock” and “some object caused an idea of cat.” Which then reduces to “some object caused an idea of some object.” We are left with some trivial generality that does not say much. — Richard B
People can be fooled (by their own nervous systems) into making incorrect judgments about the world. — plaque flag
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.