I am unsure you are being generous here. Some, and on some accounts, most people do not think in words. They have to translate, essentially by rote learned language, their thought to be intelligible to others. So, it's not clear to me that it matters whether we think linguistically, to define thought. I do think it nearly impossible to define 'thought' though. There's no way to extricate each thought from the other, so is it just a mess of mentation? — AmadeusD
I probably was having a thought about that. But i couldn't be thinking that. It is external to my thought, and cannot be identical with it. Also, was I thinking of the photo, or the flower (this is irrelevant, but quirky and worthy noting)? Any way you slice this, my thought is indirectly of any given external thing, and my utterance to you is representative of my thought. It strikes me as bizarre that people are so resistant to this obviousness. It's not really a matter of 'certainty'. There is no room for 'uncertainty' about those relations, given the words we have invented for different relations. — AmadeusD
But there are epistemological problems with indirect realism, and they are insurmountable. If one is privy only to his experience, or representation, whatever the case may be, how can he know whether they represent the real world? — NOS4A2
That's the point. Indirect realists believe that there is an epistemological problem precisely because the only information given to rational thought is the body's reaction to stimulation.
Direct realists believed that there isn't an epistemological problem because distal objects and their properties are actual constituents of the experience (and not just causes), and so entails things like the naive realist theory of colour. That's what it means for perception to be direct. But this view of the world was proven wrong by modern science.
I am a direct realist and do not believe distal objects and their properties are actual constituents of the experience. — NOS4A2
I try my best to make sense of the argument, but so far "experience" appears to be a roundabout way of describing the body, at least metaphorically.
Then I don't know what you mean by "direct".
If both "direct" and indirect realists agree that distal objects and their properties are not actual constituents of the experience then what are they disagreeing over?
So let's just examining the raw physics. There is a ball of plasma 150,000,000 km away. It emits electromagnetic radiation. This radiation stimulates the sense receptors in some organism's eyes (or, feasibly, some other sense organ). These sense receptors send electrical signals to the brain and clusters of neurotransmitters activate, sending signals to the muscles causing the organism to move.
What do direct realists believe is happening here that indirect realists don't believe, and vice versa?
The eyes are active; they seek out and use the light, transducing it, converting it to signals for use by the rest of the body, in a similar way you mention. My guess is indirect realists do not consider such an act as an act of perception because it doesn't involve a mediating factor. — NOS4A2
They agree that the eyes move about their sockets and in response to stimulation by electromagnetic radiation send electrical signals to the brain, which in turn sends signals to the muscles.
But, like many direct realists (and unlike you), they also believe in first-person experience and consciousness, and perception is related to this rather than just the body's unconscious response to stimulation.
Yeah sure, but if we want to make something clear to us or to others, we use language, if we don't articulate to ourselves what we are thinking, we can't say anything about it much less express it to other people. — Manuel
But then you'd count what goes on prior to articulation as thought and expression as a form of mediation — Manuel
But since we have no other way of discussing thought, I don't see how we progress here. — Manuel
Technically correct, especially the "having a thought about". I directly see a flower as given to me, a human being, not a tiger nor an angel. — Manuel
There is no access to objects absent mediation, but I don't think mediation is equivalent to "indirectness". If we remove mediation, we are left with a mere postulate. — Manuel
We accept that communication (of thought) is necessarily indirect. I don't see why that's so unsatisfactory, myself.
I suppose 'progress' would depend on whether you take an 'idea' to be different to a 'thought'. Thoughts are specific instances of ideas, surely. I just don't know if that adequate teases out separate concepts for each. — AmadeusD
That is, to my mind, clearly indirect on any conception of the word 'indirect' that I am aware of, and is coherent. I just don't have any discomfort with it! I can't understand that discomfort others have with concluding hte above (obviously, assuming it were true). — AmadeusD
evident benefits from saying that communication is indirect. — Manuel
We agree on mediation but disagree on how mediation plays into a direct/indirect framework. — Manuel
This is not a consideration in this discussion. If it is, it is. Benefits are not relevant to whether something is the case. — AmadeusD
I don't understand how its possible disagree, without being plain incoherent, that something heavily mediated is indirect. The definition of direct seems to preclude a mediated system to be claimed as direct from one end ot the other. — AmadeusD
I suppose what is noteworthy here would be to ascertain just how well you "got" what the other person was thinking. One thing is to have a general indication of what they may be thinking, the other is those moments of knowing exactly what they are thinking. But sure, point taken. — Manuel
Searle takes up the argument from science quite well if you'd like to read an opposing argument. — NOS4A2
The direct realist believes that this relationship is constitutive (entailing such things as the naive theory of colour) — Michael
I can't make sense of such statements as I indirectly state my thoughts in my sentences. — Manuel
I wouldn't call it an indirectly expressed thought — Manuel
Why is something heavily mediated indirect? — Manuel
If I follow that route, I am going to end up saying I indirectly mediated my view of this thing. — Manuel
If I said, because of mediation I indirectly saw a flower indicates to me that there is a single proper way to see a flower, but this is false: knowledge is perspectival and relational. — Manuel
I certainly don't accept naive realism; nor do I know of any scientist who does. — Manuel
There is no illusion.
There are two astronauts in space 150,000km away. Each is upside down relative to the other and looking at the Earth. Neither point of view shows the "correct" orientation of the external world because there is no such thing as a "correct" orientation. This doesn't change by bringing them to Earth, as if proximity to some sufficiently massive object makes a difference.
Also imagine I'm standing on my head. A straight line could be drawn from my feet to my head through the Earth's core reaching some other person's feet on the other side of the world and then their head. If their visual orientation is "correct" then so is mine. The existence of a big rock in between his feet and my head is irrelevant. — Michael
Your thoughts aren't your statements. They are not identical. You are factually not directly conveying your thoughts. That is the nature of speech. I am entirely lost as to how you could call it anything else. It factually isn't direct, so your use of 'direct' must be a matter of your preference. This is why i keep coming back to "Why the discomfort?", That something isn't satisfying doesn't make it untrue. — AmadeusD
But, it's not the thought. It literally is not the thought. You cant claim a direct transmission of your thought. That option isn't open. — AmadeusD
You've answered your own Q. This is exactly like asking "Why is something that has been made not-dry wet?". It serves as an analytical statement, essentially. — AmadeusD
Direct means there is no mediation. NO way-points. NO stops along the way. That is not hte case either with receiving external data to create a phenomenal experience or in communicating thoughts. They are necessarily indirect. — AmadeusD
Why would it indicate that? If there is not a way to directly apprehend something (i.e literally have it enter you mind without mediation) that doesn't mean we just give up and say ah well, closest we can get should be called Direct then. That is shoddy thinking, frankly. Somewhat cowardly, in the sense of retreating from the facts. If the case is that your communication is mediated and therefore indirect, we can then just call that direct and get on with it outside of day-to-day living(ie, this discussion is outside of that) — AmadeusD
We don't know how the mind works to bring sensory data to life, we just know it's not a passive "blank slate." Would it improve things to just dispense with the terminology of direct and indirect? — frank
Forty-two pages ago, I posited [...] — Banno
I don't recall saying that thoughts are statements. — Manuel
Statements are an expression of thought, it's the only kind of thought we have acquaintance with, whatever else goes on prior to articulation, call it thought, call it mental activity, is not something that can be expressed and it is even doubtful it is open to introspection. — Manuel
You are telling me that I am not conveying my thoughts — Manuel
"think" to have any practical meaning at all. — Manuel
is something that cannot be provided, as even the subject matter is extremely obscure. — Manuel
it seems as if you have defined thought in a way in which it must be indirect. — Manuel
If so, then I think you would need to add that one does not have access to ones own thoughts, because when we express them, we are leaving out what matters. — Manuel
I take it that mediation and directness (or indirectness) are different things — Manuel
then nothing is direct. — Manuel
But then indirectness loses any meaning, there is no contrast to it, for even speaking about directness is indirect. — Manuel
No. We only have our concepts and our mode of cognition to interact with the world, there are no other avenues available to us. — Manuel
"Closest we can get?" The only thing we get. — Manuel
As I mentioned earlier, yours appears to be a quasi-functionalist view. It's a minority view, but one that's appealing to many. Its weakest point is that it has no force for lack of any evidence. Maybe one day that will change. — frank
100%, we're in the same boat. This is exactly why I noted you answered your own question. You have described, exactly, and with great clarity, why both communication and phenomenal experience are indirectly achieved. Nice (yes, I am being cheeky here). — AmadeusD
You have just used thinking/mentation with a practical meaning other than this, and linked it to why it is not identical, or even similar, to you conveying an expression of your thought through the air (or whatever) to me, another mind. So, this, on your own terms, is false. I agree. — AmadeusD
It's not what i require. THis is what meets the standard of 'Direct' in any other context. No idea why this one requires some massaging of that to make people comfortable. ONly discomfort with concluding that we do not directly communicate thoughts could require that weird side-step (on my view). Happy to hear another reason. One hasn't been presented so far. — AmadeusD
. It is using plain language as it is used elsewhere, in this context. If there's some special definition of Direct which includes indirectness, all good. But, you can see where that's going.. surely. You've not actually addressed the supporting discussions, I note, which are the empirical facts I am consistently mentioning, but are being ignored in favour of idea-fiddling. — AmadeusD
Claiming that we have to use the term 'direct' because there isn't a sufficient example of 'indirect' despite you having used that concept to describe X and Y. — AmadeusD
When you are hanging upside down, the flower pot sitting on the floor may momentarily appear as if it is inverted and stuck to the ceiling. — Pierre-Normand
Suppose you are walking towards a house. As your distance from it is reduced by half, the house doesn't visually appear to have grown twice as large. — Pierre-Normand
Do you believe that naive/direct realism cannot deny color as a property of objects? — creativesoul
I'm not sure what other meaning of "visually appears to grow" you might mean. — Michael
With the phrase "visually appears to grow" I refer to the visual information about an objective increase in the dimensions of an object. — Pierre-Normand
My stance differs in important ways from a functionalist view, even though it may share some superficial similarities. The key distinction is that I'm not trying to identify mental states like perceptual experiences with narrow functional roles or internal representations realized in the brain. — Pierre-Normand
In contrast, embodied conceptions sees perceptual experience as an active, world-engaged skill of the whole embodied agent, not just a function of the brain. — Pierre-Normand
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.