while the direct realist is agreeing as to the science but pointing out the grammar. — Banno
Philosophy is mostly grammatical issues.Pointing out the grammar doesn't address the epistemological problem of perception — Michael
Funny, that. Yep, what I call direct realism is unlikely to be what you call direct realism.You seem to have just co-opted the label "direct realism" to describe something else entirely. — Michael
The indirect realist almost has to invent the direct realist in order to get this debate going. — Banno
One can imagine your creature's physiologist making the "discovery" that half the population sees things upside down, and their philosophers explaining carefully that no, they don't.
— Banno
The philosopher would be wrong. The scientist knows best. They're the ones actually studying how the world and perception works. — Michael
The professor made Kohler wear a pair of hand-engineered goggles. Inside those goggles, specially arranged mirrors flipped the light that would reach Kohler's eyes, top becoming bottom, and bottom top.
At first, Kohler stumbled wildly when trying to grasp an object held out to him, navigate around a chair, or walk down stairs. In a simple fencing game with sticks, Kohler would rise his stick high when attacked low, and low in response to a high stab.
Holding a teacup out to be filled, he would turn the cup upside down the instant he saw the water apparently pouring upward. The sight of smoke rising from a match, or a helium balloon bobbing on a string, could trigger an instant change in his sense of which direction was up, and which down.
But over the next week, Kohler found himself adapting, in fits and starts, then more consistently, to such sights.
After 10 days, he had grown so accustomed to the invariably upside-down world that, paradoxically and happily, everything seemed to him normal, rightside-up. Kohler could do everyday activities in public perfectly well: walk along a crowded sidewalk, even ride a bicycle. Passersby on the street did ogle the man, though, because his eyewear looked, from the outside, unfashionable.
Have you noticed how little of the SEP article on the problem of perception has to do with either direct/indirect realism, or with the science? — Banno
Direct Realist Presentation: perceptual experiences are direct perceptual presentations of ordinary objects.
...
Direct Realist Character: the phenomenal character of experience is determined, at least partly, by the direct presentation of ordinary objects.
The empirical evidence suggests that perception distorts reality. — Michael
the science shows that this isn't the case — Michael
The most common form of direct realism is Phenomenological Direct Realism (PDR). PDR is the theory that direct realism consists in unmediated awareness of the external object in the form of unmediated awareness of its relevant properties. I contrast this with Semantic Direct Realism (SDR), the theory that perceptual experience puts you in direct cognitive contact with external objects but does so without the unmediated awareness of the objects’ intrinsic properties invoked by PDR. PDR is what most understand by direct realism. My argument is that, under pressure from the arguments from illusion and hallucination, defenders of intentionalist theories, and even of relational theories, in fact retreat to SDR. I also argue briefly that the sense-datum theory is compatible with SDR and so nothing is gained by adopting either of the more fashionable theories.
Wouldn't they "flip" the image in the way your paper describes, seeing the world right way up? — Banno
Solubility is not a property of salt but a relation between salt and water.
Primary qualities as single predications - the mass of the leaf; secondary properties as relations between the leaf and the observer.
There is no "right way up". There's just the way things seem to you and seem to me, determined entirely by how our bodies respond to stimulation. — Michael
”perception sometimes distorts reality. We know this to be so because mostly, it doesn't". — Janus
Think of two scenarios:
A. Contemporary science starts with the assumption that each person is a body responding to stimulation (and simultaneously altering the environment). The image is similar to a computer arrayed with analog to digital converters. The question scientists grapple with is how the computer is creating a seamless experience out of the flood of data.
B. Now compare this to Berkeley's view: the "stuff" isn't even out there until we turn our gazes upon it.
What draws one to accept A over B? — frank
why can’t I say it is reality itself that is distorted, — Mww
I would say that (A) is the more parsimonious explanation and so should be favoured, unless there's actual evidence to the contrary. — Michael
The point is: fundamentally, there's no difference. — frank
But say a community finds (B) to be more parsimonious. They would advise you to accept (B) unless there's actual evidence to the contrary. — frank
But say a community finds (B) to be more parsimonious — frank
I don't understand this. There is a difference between something continuing to exist and something ceasing to exist and then coming back into existence. — Michael
Presumably one of us is wrong. Either (A) is more parsimonious or (B) is more parsimonious. I'm not sure that reason is relative. — Michael
If you can measure how parsimonious a model is, then it wouldn't matter much what a community thinks. I think in this case, it's probably provable (not by me) that A is more parsimonious than B, because it takes fewer bits to describe a universe where A is the case than B. — flannel jesus
So could there be a species in which half the population see the world upside down?
Wouldn't they "flip" the image in the way your paper describes, seeing the world right way up? — Banno
For there to be a "right way up" would seem to require something like absolute space and/or a preferred frame which I believe is at odds with modern scientific theory. — Michael
I'm asking if "There are Cypress trees lining the bank" states the way things are if and when there are Cypress trees lining the banks? — creativesoul
You and I are most certainly working from very different notions of "mind" and "perception". — creativesoul
You've always held false belief then. It is sometimes possible — creativesoul
We need not know the meaning of "trees lining the banks" in order to see trees lining the banks. — creativesoul
Ordinary language is tied to a frame of reference where the direction of the center of gravity of the Earth plays an important role. So it's not really a problem to translate, "Banno (in Oz) reached down to catch the cup falling off the table." to a frame of reference suitable for an accurate understanding of what happened. — wonderer1
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.