If making a distinction is foolish, and you're making a distinction, then are you doing something foolish? — flannel jesus
So what more can be added to this experiment so that it supports indirect realism? — Banno
We can't see a single photon because it's too small. Similarly we can't see the star Alpha Centauri because its projected diameter on our retina is too small. — Quk
Per above, on my account, there is still going to be this obstacle to establishing a direct link between the experience and the object, in any given case denoted to be 'direct' in a half/half system. So, my issue isn't so much 'what hypothesis is the most workable' and which one gets off the ground. — AmadeusD
For those who are relatively new to the forums, there is a thread on this topic about every three or four months, and they generally go for two or three dozen pages. They consist in the main in some folk expressing pop accounts of indirect realism while others with a background in Philosophy point out the many flaws in those pop arguments, only to be informed repeatedly that they "have not understood the argument". — Banno
Under your criterial demand the only "direct link" would be if the object was the experience. If the object is separate from the experience of it, then you would presumably say there is a gulf between them, and that this gulf justifies saying we do not experience objects directly. As others point out it all comes down to what is meant by "direct". I have long thought that experience can be thought about as direct or indirect, depending on the definitions and framing. So, the whole argument is undecidable in any absolute sense and is thus really a non-starter, another confusing artefact of thinking dualistically. — Janus
Do you believe most philosophers are direct realists? — flannel jesus
So, the whole argument is undecidable in any absolute sense and is thus really a non-starter, another confusing artefact of thinking dualistically. — Janus
...bumper sticker... — AmadeusD
...the dictum "We never actually see the world as it is, but only ever see the..." and then suggest variously "sense data", or "qualia", or some variation of "mental model". — Banno
And in those terms my reply might be something like that this is mis-phrased, and that seeing a thing consists in constructing a representation of that thing. In this phrasing one does not see the representation, one sees the thing. — Banno
No one else has done better. *shrug* I guess people think that perception, which is physically indirect, is direct in discussion. Seems like this may be a dead end on TPF. — AmadeusD
Indirect Realism is not any more skeptical realism than Direct Realism is. I address this in the OP itself.
And Indirect Realism is a form of Representationism. I hold that what we see corresponds to the external world. Just that what we see is not the external world. — Ashriel
Why do you think a "dream" cannot be a perception of the real thing? — Quk
Can you describe the properties of such a distinction? Are there different colors, smells, sounds? If so, which ones belong to the real thing? — Quk
I think it's really interesting that Representationalism is claimed by both direct and indirect realists in various contexts. — flannel jesus
Link to source.If I believe that it is raining I can separate my belief from the fact that it is raining, but when I see the tree I cannot separate the visual experience from an awareness of the presence of the tree. This is true even if it is a hallucination and even if I know that it is a hallucination.
Searle defends direct realism.Does that place representationalism among direct-realist ideas or indirect? — flannel jesus
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.