Why do you and I want to say, and why do some phenomenologists say, that the things we perceive present themselves to us? I feel I’m missing something obvious.
What even is that way of speaking? :chin: — Jamal
At least on the forum, productive discussions of direct vs indirect realism tend to require pinning down where the disagreement is between disputants. — fdrake
The direct realist would say "I see what appears to be a bent stick, but I know it's really pretty straight, because I took it out of the water". — Janus
I've made a point previously in the thread that indirect realists can (and in real life, not in this thread, usually do) use the word "see" in a completely intuitive, conventional way. — flannel jesus
I don't need anybody to jump through hoops to know what I'm saying when I say "I can see my house from here". — flannel jesus
Is there in fact any substantive difference between PDR and Indirect Realism? — RussellA
-From the same SEP articlesomething like whiteness is instantiated, but in the experience itself, not a presented thing.
I don't need anybody to jump through hoops to know what I'm saying when I say "I can see my house from here". — flannel jesus
I'm sure you don't, but do you mean that you can see your house as it is in itself, as (I believe) the indirect realist demands — Luke
I see it that indirect realism demands the literal exact opposite. An indirect realist would say your visual experience of your house is NOT just your house as it is. That's okay, that's not required for "seeing", it's just a fact — flannel jesus
I said that indirect realists demand that you see your house as it is in itself. I was referring to the thing-in-itself in the Kantian sense. See here, for example. Or, as I said earlier, a God's-eye view. — Luke
I said that indirect realists demand that you see your house as it is in itself. — Luke
Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists? — Corvus
“Sense data”, or “sense datum” in the singular, is a technical term in philosophy that means “what is given to sense”. Sense data constitute what we, as perceiving subjects, are directly aware of in perceptual experience, prior to cognitive acts such as inferring, judging, or affirming that such-and-such objects or properties are present. In vision, sense data are typically described as patches exhibiting colours and shapes.
How does the cat know photons of light is the mouse?Presumably, when a cat sees a mouse, photons of light have travelled from the mouse to the cat, and the cat sees photons of light. — RussellA
The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he?How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of these sense data. How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of any photons of light travelling from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA
How does cat know photons of light is the mouse? — Corvus
The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he? — Corvus
I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. The photons of light was contrived by you, not the cat. The cat doesn't know what photons of light means. The cat knows what mouse is.Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA
For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA, and it doesn't exist. All he cares about is the mouse he sees.Are you saying that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data? — RussellA
Yes, this was my point. You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. It is a bright dot, which has red colour. But when you learn about it, and the book tells you it is a star called Mars. You know what it is. It is the planet Mars. Next time when you see it, you see the same bright dot in the sky, and your reasoning tells you it is the planet Mars.When someone looks into the night sky and sees a bright dot, how do they know that the bright dot has been caused by Mars rather than Venus say. They can only know by applying their powers of reasoning to the bright dot. — RussellA
I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. — Corvus
For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA — Corvus
You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. — Corvus
There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. The mouse died biologically of course, but the dead body still exists. No problem for the cat to see the dead body of the mouse.There is a mouse and photons of light travel from it to a cat. It takes time for light to travel a distance.
By the time the cat sees the mouse, the mouse has unfortunately died, and yet the cat still sees the mouse.
How can the cat be seeing the external world as it really is, if in the external world there is no mouse? — RussellA
In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. In here you are totally ignoring the subjective perspective of the cat in his perception. You are describing the cat's perception only from your point of view. This is incomplete account of perception.The fact that the cat doesn't know about photons of light doesn't mean the cat could see things in the absence of photons of light. — RussellA
You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes.Yes, first "I see shapes and colours" and subsequently, after using my powers of reasoning, "I see Mars".
IE, I can only say "I see Mars" after saying "I see shapes and colours" — RussellA
There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. — Corvus
In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. — Corvus
You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes. — Corvus
Yes, but the cat is not seeing the external world "as it really is". What the cat is seeing is a representation of how the mouse used to. — RussellA
I am not sure if this is really the case. That's what you seem to think. But we don't know what the cat thinks about the actual situation. Your assertion has little ground explaining the reality of the case here. This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it.The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless. — RussellA
It still sounds the account has nothing to do with "Indirectness" in perception. If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is. You may have said, it is an UFO in the sky looking down at you. You wouldn't have said "I see Mars." when it was Mars you were seeing.Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars. — RussellA
This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it. — Corvus
If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is — Corvus
When you look into the night sky and see Mars, what you see no longer exists, as it takes time for the photons of light to travel through space. — RussellA
I would have thought one would be smart enough to infer the existence of Mars when seeing the bright red dot in the sky based on the inductive reason that things keep exist as it does even if it takes time for the light travel to the observer's eyes.Yes, I must perceive shapes and colours before being able to reason that they were caused by the planet Mars.
IE, I cannot reason that .I am seeing Mars before photons of light have entered my eye. — RussellA
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.