As @hypericin notes, and I agree, I think the concept of perceiving the world as it is (in itself) is an incoherent one.
↪Luke

yeah, I fully agree, and that's the part of direct realism that doesn't sit with me. — flannel jesus

I don't see it as being a part of direct realism, but as a part of indirect realism. The indirect realist desires a perception of the world as it is in itself, not the direct realist.

The indirect realist desires a perception of the world as it is in itself, not the direct realist. — Luke

Where are you reading this stuff?

I haven’t read about this stuff for many years; it’s mostly my own thoughts on the subject.

The indirect realist says that what we see is not a real object; only a mere representation. They therefore desire a perception untainted by representation. Doesn’t that make sense?

They therefore desire a perception untainted by representation. Doesn’t that make sense? — Luke

No, you are tacking on that last bit yourself with seemingly no reason, is how it looks to me.

An indirect realist distinguishes themselves from a direct realist not because of what they want perception to be like, or how they demand perception works, but instead because of how they think perception actually works. What they want and what they demand seem entirely beside the point to me, it just seems like pure speculation from you about their psychological state.

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here. — Corvus

Perhaps, but still making a factual statement.
===============================================================================

This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. — Corvus

I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game.

No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple".

The Indirect Realist within their language game says "I see a representation of an apple", and the Direct Realist within their language game says "I see the apple"

However, it could well be the case that both the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist mean exactly the same thing, but are using words defined in different ways.

For example, the Indirect Realist in their language game would say "I indirectly see my hand" and the Direct Realist in their language game would say "I directly see my hand", even though the underlying meaning is the same. IE, the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are defining the words they use differently.

A conversation between the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist becomes difficult if each is defining the words they use differently.

I try to avoid that argument altogether. I really don't care to argue what someone means, or should mean, by "I see x". My position in this thread is unconcerned with arguing the meaning of seeing, arguing what you're "really seeing" when you say you see something.

I'm concerned primarily with the experience of it all - if a direct realist says "I see things as they really are", I don't see that as some opportunity for a semantic argument, to me it looks like an unambiguous statement about their visual experience - my visual experience matches reality as it really is. And, for entirely non-semantic reasons, I think it's false. I don't think I'm saying it's false because I mean some obscure thing by the word "see", I think it's false because I think our visual experience is simply not reality as it really is. It's something else. It's a construct. It's a construct that's causally connected to reality, but it's not just reality-as-it-is.

Your distinction seems to me to be one without a difference because photons are of the external world, and if so, one is immediately and directly perceiving the external world — NOS4A2

This is more a question for the Direct Realist. Would they agree that perceiving photons of light entering the eye is what they mean by perceiving the external world?

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.
— Corvus

Perhaps, but still making a factual statement. — RussellA

A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world.

No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple". — RussellA

Sure. No one is denying how it works in scientific terms IE photon of lights whatever. Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction and conjecture of the workings of visual perception by the physicists and chemists. It is not an absolute proven fact. There are lots of abstractions and hypotheses even in science, which people take for granted as if it is a word from God.

But the point is that, it is not more meaningful or interesting than saying you cannot see Mars without your eyes. The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. It is undeniable truths, but not really interesting or important statements.

I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game. — RussellA

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. Part of the aim of philosophical discussions would be rescuing the folks swimming and drowning by confusion in the pool of the linguistic games, and letting them see, there is Mars, and there is a cat. You are just seeing Mars, and you are just seeing a cat. You didn't need indirect or directness to see them. :)

I really don't care to argue what someone means, or should mean, by "I see x". — flannel jesus

But it is impossible to look into someone else's mind. We can only know their beliefs from their words, and if they have defined words differently to us, it makes conversation problematic.
===============================================================================

I'm concerned primarily with the experience of it all - if a direct realist says "I see things as they really are", I don't see that as some opportunity for a semantic argument, to me it looks like an unambiguous statement about their visual experience — flannel jesus

However, I do agree that there does seem to be a substantive difference between Direct Realism and Indirect Realism.

An apple is illuminated by white light, and reflects the wavelengths from about 495nm to 570nm (which we call green) as it has absorbed the other wavelengths.

For example, as an Indirect Realist, I can say "I see a green apple", using the word "green" in a figurative rather than literal sense.

However, the Direct Realist seems to believe that the apple is literally green.

The Direct Realist wouldn't say that a mirror is literally a person because the mirror has reflected the image of a person, so why would the Direct Realist say that the apple is literally green, even though the apple has only reflected green light.

Am I right in thinking that the Direct Realist believes that the apple is literally green, and if they do, how do they justify such a belief?

Am I right in thinking that the Direct Realist believes that the apple is literally green, and if they do, how do they justify such a belief? — RussellA

If by "literally green" you mean "literally the qualia green" then I can't say, you'd have to ask a direct realist. If they just mean "the outer shell of this object reflects photons at a certain wavelength on average", then I would say most direct and indirect realists would agree with that sort of thing.

No, you are tacking on that last bit yourself with seemingly no reason, is how it looks to me — flannel jesus

I take @Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct.

More generally it seems that many of them think directness would require there to be no perceptual process at all. It’s a bit odd, but maybe just shows that indirect realism on the forum is often not thought through (not all of them think this way).

It’s also a species of the fallacy of judging our contact with the world as somehow inferior, distorted, filtered, etc., on the basis that we have a specific and finite way of contacting the world, which is to sneak in the view from nowhere as the model of perfect perception. Thus Luke is right on the mark in accusing some indirect realists of a failure to let go of the mythical view from nowhere.

A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world. — Corvus

That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. Kant said it isn't possible.
===============================================================================

Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction — Corvus

I agree. All language is more figurative than literal.
===============================================================================

The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. — Corvus

Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination.
===============================================================================

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. — Corvus

Isn't everyone.

I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal

I don't know why he's assuming indirect realists want or demand direct realism to be true. I think this framing of the conversation has so far only served to confuse and is therefore probably not a good one. We can focus less on what direct and indirect realists want or demand, and focus more on that they think.

The proper response is “Oh! I get it now, thanks for clearing that up.”

I don't assume you're correct, I'm not assuming you have in fact cleared up what he's saying.

Fair enough. We shall see.

it's certainly more clearly and sensibly worded than what he did say, and was the first interpretation I would give to it, but the problem with how he's presented the idea is that he's taking it as a given somehow that indirect realists want direct realism to be true, which is a strange thing to take as a given.

If you just say "indirect realists want to be able to perceive reality as it is", without adding the necessary context of "... In order for them to accept direct realism", then it's just kinda nonsense.

Who cares about what indirect realists want? I just don't see why that's a relevant part of the conversation.

I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal

Exactly. Thanks for articulating it more clearly than I could.

:up:

Do you think indirect realists are incorrect regarding that reasoning? If so, why?

I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal

That's also my understanding. As the SEP article on The Problem of Perception notes:

This is why many naive realists describe the relation at the heart of their view as a non-representational relation.

How is representation a core part of what is defined as "Direct Realism"?

I don't know why he's assuming indirect realists want or demand direct realism to be true. — flannel jesus

I don't think indirect realists want direct realism to be true.

You seem to take direct realism to be the view that we can perceive things as they really are (in themselves). However, I take direct realism to be the view that we do perceive real things but not things as they are in themselves (i.e. perception which is absent any representation of those real things). Perception necessarily involves representation.

I take indirect realism to be the view that all we can perceive are representations, such that we are unable to perceive any real things. I therefore think that indirect realists fail to acknowledge that perception necessarily involves representation. I can only assume that indirect realists are attempting to account for the fact that perception necessarily involves some form of representation, but when their conclusion is that all we can perceive are representations, it strongly points to a kind of homunculus inside of us who is doing the perceiving (instead of us).

However, I take direct realism to be the view that we do perceive real things but not things as they are in themselves — Luke

That's just what all versions on non skeptical realism have in common - direct and indirect realism are variations of that

I therefore think that indirect realists fail to acknowledge that perception necessarily involves representation. — Luke

Isn't that exactly what indirect realists are claiming? That perception involves representation?

That's just what all versions on non skeptical realism have in common - direct and indirect realism are variations of that — flannel jesus

Realism is more generally a view about existence: that the world or objects exist independently of our minds. Despite the name, direct and indirect realism specifically concern perception; and whether our perceptions are of real objects or of representations of real objects.

Isn't that exactly what indirect realists are claiming? That perception involves representation? — flannel jesus

No, indirect realists make the stronger claim that our perceptions are only of representations. Our perceptions can involve representations without also being perceptions of representations.

That just turns it into the semantic debate, which I don't have any comments on.

I only disagree with direct realism to the extent that it says we see things "as they really are" - if you decide to call yourself a "direct realist" but aren't sticking to the "as they really are" idea, I really don't have much to say about the rest of the semantics.

Actually, I've thought about it a bit and I do have something to say about the semantics:

I think it makes sense why semantically you would say "I see Mars" to not mean "I see my internal representation of mars", naturally,

BUT I do think there are situations in natural language where the most natural interpretation probably IS about "seeing" the representation and not the thing.

"Did you see how beautiful that sunset was?"

This isn't about the sunset itself, this is about the qualia experience of the sunset, which only happens when we experience and focus in on the representation.

I think in natural language, humans tend to use BOTH semantic meanings of "see", and it's usually obvious enough from context which one they mean.

This isn't about the sunset itself, this is about the qualia experience of the sunset, which only happens when we experience and focus in on the representation. — flannel jesus

I'm not sure, you could think about the sunset itself having the quality of being beautiful, as we do of people.

But I agree with your point. Some clearer examples.

"I was hit on the head so hard I saw stars"
"Just draw what you see"

This is more a question for the Direct Realist. Would they agree that perceiving photons of light entering the eye is what they mean by perceiving the external world?

That’s one part of it, yes. But we also touch and taste things, and so on, so we need not limit our relations to other things to just the light alone.