Can you see an analogy with the idea of the conservation of energy? — Janus

I'm not seeing any very good analogy.

:up:

Ok, back to Chess metaphysics then. The Bishop moves diagonally.

This would be an interesting road than the well traveled indirect/direct debate, the standard metre

One mistake I see people making is that philosophical theories don't change the semantic meaning of everyday language. They change the underlying models we use to frame our understanding of things.

Suppose you are an indirect realist conversing with a child who is a naive realist (all of our natural starting points, I think). The child says "I see a tree", and you understand immediately, there is no confusion. You don't mentally mistake him for a indirect realist, nor do you have to mentally translate what he says into indirect realist terms. That is because the semantic content of the sentence "I see a tree" remains constant no matter what philosophy of perception you hold.

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

I think this idea of objects "presenting" is primordial. Aristotle systematized it with his ideas of act and potency, but in a less reified form it could be construed as a kind of fundamental attraction, resonance, or eros. For Aristotle a central theme of science and philosophy was movement or change. For example, what moves a plant? Sunshine, rain, soil, etc. What moves an animal? Primarily hunger and the sexual drive (both of which are forms of desire), and any objects which present themselves as that which will satisfy these desires. What moves a human being beyond these vegetative and animal forms of motion? Forms of reason, including inference, suspicion, suggestion, etc.

For instance, when a female peacock encounters a "peacocking" male, is it more apparent that the male is exerting an attracting force on the female, or that the female is exercising agency in moving towards the male? I think the more obvious phenomenon is the magnetism of the male, and, generalizing, the magnetism of objects. We might say that this is the primacy of the "being acted upon," as opposed to the "acting upon." Movement never occurs except for that which beckons.

So Aristotle simply took this scheme of passivity and incorporated humans: if a thing is defined by the manner in which it moves/changes, and an animal moves in an animal way, then a human moves in this same animal way, but with the additional infusion of reason (i.e. a human is defined as a rational animal, one whose movements require the additional explanatory element which we call 'reason'). This is not implausible, for just as the eye does not move itself but is rather moved by what attracts or "catches" it, such as the male peacock, so too does the mind not move itself but is rather moved by what attracts it qua rationality (e.g. coherence, cogency, utility, explanatory value, etc.).

Now of course there is an antinomy when it comes to humans, but our age is so suffused in notions of agency that we fail to see the obviousness of the "presenting" idea. If we must choose between the agency of the subject's choosing and the agency of the object's attracting, which is more apparent? Contemporary man says, "Why hold to the primacy of the object's attracting or presenting?" Ancient man says, "Why hold to the primacy of the subject's choosing?" In the modern world we have refashioned our situation such that the prima facie answer shifts, and yet the older and more primordial view is always glimmering in the background.

A great essay on this topic is Owen Barfield's, "The Harp and the Camera," where he contrasts these two different ways of human being.

Yes, you've claimed that, but every example of skepticism you've provided applies equally well to direct realism.

Excellent, thanks. So maybe @wonderer1’s mention of a “connotation of animism” was quite relevant.

I’d read that Barfield essay if I could find it.

At least on the forum, productive discussions of direct vs indirect realism tend to require pinning down where the disagreement is between disputants. — fdrake

As I understand it (which is not very much), direct realists use the words "see" or "perceive" in a conventional manner, taking into account the filter that is the human perceptory apparatus in the act of "seeing" an object. On the other hand, indirect realists, who are unsatisfied with our human all too human perceptory filter, use the word "see" or "perceive" in an unconventional manner that eschews our human filter, demanding a God's-eye-view or view from nowhere in their use of the word "see" or "perceive", all the while pointing out that we have a human filter that colours the real objects of our perceptions.

Not to prejudge the issue, but indirect realists are misusing the language.

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. 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".

I've explicitly disagreed with some of the indirect realists in this thread who insist "see" must mean something complex or metaphorical.

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 would have thought that an Indirect Realist would also have said "I see what appears to be a bent stick".

The Merriam Webster Dictionary lists 23 different meanings of the word "see", including "to perceive by the eye" and "to imagine as a possibility". The expression "I see what appears to be" is quite complex. On the one hand it shows the poetic beauty of language but on the other hand it can be open to misinterpretation.

It depends on the meaning of "Direct Realism". Is there an authoritative definition of Direct Realism?

As a start, there is the SEP article The Problem of Perception

In 3.2.6, the article distinguishes between a causal form of direct realism and a phenomenological form of direct realism (PDR), something the Intentionalists are sympathetic to.

There is also Semantic Direct Realism (SDR).

Is there in fact any substantive difference between PDR and Indirect Realism?

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 had a quick look but couldn't find this reply. Could you direct me to it?

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, or just that you can see your house, as an average person might say it?

Is there in fact any substantive difference between PDR and Indirect Realism? — RussellA

Yes, the adverbialist avoids the use of sense-datum theories.

For example, when you see white...

something like whiteness is instantiated, but in the experience itself, not a presented thing.

-From the same SEP article

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

The Indirect Realist is in part pointing out that language is more figurative than literal.

If one was being literal, the speaker would have said: "I can see the front wall of a house that I know for several reasons is mine, such as there is a pine tree in the front garden, not in the sense that I own the freehold of the house but rather rent out a room from the landlord, and when I say I see my house I don't mean that I can see the back of the house, or any of the rooms inside the house, but only that part of the front wall not obscured by the pine tree."

This would obviously make language unworkable, so the speaker reduces the literal sentence to the figurative sentence "I can see my house".

The average person knows what this means, because the average person knows about the figurative use of language.

The Indirect Realist is in part pointing out that language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA

Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists?

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

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.

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

There is no such demand. To make it would be foolish as perception is inherently indirect, it necessarily involves construction of a representation. God presumably would see some sort of syntheses of every representation possible of the house, Us mere mortals can only see it as we are built to. As @flannel jesus says, this is not a problem, its just how perception works.

None of this touches on the semantics of the word "see", which remains the same in any case.

I said that indirect realists demand that you see your house as it is in itself. — Luke

Yes, you did say that, and I don't know why. If I asked 100 indirect realists if they demand that, I don't think a single one would say yes.

The conversation between direct realism and indirect realism isn't about "demands", I don't think the word "demand" is helping with clarity here.

Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists? — Corvus

According to the SEP article on Sense Data:

“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.

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.

The photons of light are sense data, in that "what is given to sense".

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?

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

How does the cat know photons of light is the mouse?

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

The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he?

How does cat know photons of light is the mouse? — Corvus

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.

When a cat sees colours and shapes, how does the cat know that these colours and shapes have been caused by a mouse rather than a bird say. The cat can only know by applying its powers of reasoning to the colours and shapes.
===============================================================================

The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he? — Corvus

Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat?

“Sense data”, or “sense datum” in the singular, is a technical term in philosophy that means “what is given to sense” (SEP – Sense Data)

Are you saying that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data?

Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA

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 that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data? — 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.

I am saying it on behalf of the cat, because he can't speak the human language.

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

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.

If you then analyse how you end up getting the perception of the bright dot in the sky, and explain photons of light travelling into your eyes, then it is the low level explanation using the concept of light travel. You are using the scientific reasoning to the way how the perception works.

It is just different level of the explanations on the perception. It is not different mechanisms of the perception.

Metaphorically one could even say, Mars was whispering to me tonight.

Saying Mars is photon of lights, and the mouse is also photon of light sounds meaningless and confused.

Bottom line is that sense data is not transmitted by the objects. Sense data is the product of reasoning on the existence and nature of the object by the mind.

I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. — Corvus

Try a thought experiment

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?
===============================================================================

For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA — Corvus

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.
===============================================================================

You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. — Corvus

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"

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

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.

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

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.

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

You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes.

There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. — 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.
===============================================================================

In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. — Corvus

The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless.
===============================================================================

You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes. — Corvus

Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars.

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

The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless. — 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.

Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars. — 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.

Again bottom line is that, Mars has far more property than photon of light. It is a physical object in the sky with the mass and weight, weather and rocks and soils etc etc. It is not just a patch of photons of light.

This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it. — 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.

And yet when you say "I see Mars", how can you be seeing the external world as it really is, when in fact what you are seeing no longer exists.

But you are definitely seeing something, and if you are not seeing the external world as it really is, all you can be seeing are the photons of light entering your eye, which you can then reason to have been caused by the Planet Mars.
===============================================================================

If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is — Corvus

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.

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

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

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.

It would be unreasonable to conclude that Mars doesn't exist just because it takes time for the photons of light to arrive at one's eyes.