I'm not at all sure what you said there. I don't know what a "physical reference" might be... — Banno
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetreThe metre was originally defined in 1791 by the French National Assembly as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's polar circumference is approximately 40000 km.
In 1799, the metre was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar, the bar used was changed in 1889, and in 1960 the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. The current definition was adopted in 1983 and modified slightly in 2002 to clarify that the metre is a measure of proper length. From 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units, this definition was rephrased to include the definition of a second in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs. This series of amendments did not alter the size of the metre significantly – today Earth's polar circumference measures 40007.863 km, a change of 0.022% from the original value of exactly 40000 km, which also includes improvements in the accuracy of measuring the circumference.
...nor an "actual metre". — Banno
Are you aware of the difference in opinion between Wittgenstein and Kripke?
A thread on its own. Or a career. — Banno
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. — Corvus
This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.True, the photons of light that enter my eye were caused by something that existed in the past, and just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it still doesn't exist in my present. — RussellA
This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. I used to think the distinctions were legitimate before, and was tending to take IDR side.Yet how can the Direct Realist be immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is when there is no guarantee that what they are seeing still exists? — RussellA
True, the photons of light that enter my eye were caused by something that existed in the past, and just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it still doesn't exist in my present.
Whilst the Indirect Realist is more of the position that I see the photons entering my eye which I can then reason to have been caused by something in the past, the Direct Realist is more of the position that they are immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is.
Yet how can the Direct Realist be immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is when there is no guarantee that what they are seeing still exists?
And yet that seems to be a feature of every definition of direct realism.And the qualifier “as it really is” doesn’t much pertain to direct realism — NOS4A2
So maybe wonderer1’s mention of a “connotation of animism” was quite relevant. — Jamal
I’d read that Barfield essay if I could find it. — Jamal
And yet that seems to be a feature of every definition of direct realism.
I guess we can say the indirect realist believes he perceives the world as it really isn’t. — NOS4A2
There is no such demand. To make it would be foolish as perception is inherently indirect, it necessarily involves construction of a representation. — hypericin
The conversation between direct realism and indirect realism isn't about "demands", I don't think the word "demand" is helping with clarity here. — flannel jesus
Indirect realists disagree and say that the construction of a representation is not only the act of seeing, but is also the object that we see. — Luke
I see my hand directly when I look down, indirectly when I see its reflection in a mirror. Here I have a clear enough understanding of what it means to see my hand directly and indirectly.
But if someone says that when I look down at my hand I am seeing it indirectly, I do not have a way to make sense of what they say.
If they say I am not seeing my hand, but a "mental image of my hand" or some such, my reply is that, the "mental image", so far as it makes any sense, is me seeing my hand. — Banno
The representation built by our brains to present to our conscious self is not just "reality as it really is", and so that's why I can't agree with direct realism. — flannel jesus
I would not put it this way. I don't think indirect realists abuse language the way you say they do. To them you see objects, but seeing is mediated by the indirection of representation. The only thing you directly experience (not "see") is perceptions/representations, which, while they map to objects, are themselves entirely not the objects they represent. — hypericin
Whereas, to the non-naive direct realist (as I understand them), perception is the organism directly rubbing against the world. It contacts the world, and responds to it. — hypericin
There is no such thing as perceiving an object as it is, the concept is incoherent, and so perceptual representations are as direct as you can get. — hypericin
Yep.
I see my hand directly when I look down, indirectly when I see its reflection in a mirror. Here I have a clear enough understanding of what it means to see my hand directly and indirectly.
But if someone says that when I look down at my hand I am seeing it indirectly, I do not have a way to make sense of what they say.
If they say I am not seeing my hand, but a "mental image of my hand" or some such, my reply is that, the "mental image", so far as it makes any sense, is me seeing my hand. — Banno — Banno
↪Luke
for me, the question is "is the representation -the world as it is- or does it have some big differences from the world as it is?" — 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.