Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception? — Corvus

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception.

Why do you think it is the case? — Corvus

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception.

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception. — MoK

Coherence comes from your reasoning, not from perception. You must ask yourself why your reasoning cannot understand your own perception.

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception. — MoK

Idealism is the way you see the world. It is simply saying that what you perceive is ideas, and what you believe, think, remember, see and imagine in your mind are real.

Coherence comes from your reasoning on your perception. You seem to be not able to tell the difference between your perception and your reasoning on perception.

We couldn't possibly reason if what we perceive was random. So, let's focus on perception. Why things that you perceive is coherent?

What you are describing appears to be a novice version of transcendental idealism.

is right to ask you how it can explain both the consistency of your perceptions, and how it is that we overwhelmingly agree as to how things are.

What you are describing appears to be a novice version of transcendental idealism. — Banno

It was not transcendental idealism I was trying to describe. It was ideal realism I was trying to describe.
So what is your account of non-novice version of transcendental idealism?

is right to ask you how it can explain both the consistency of your perceptions, and how it is that we overwhelmingly agree as to how things are. — Banno

Mok doesn't seem to understand that perception just presents to us the world as it is. Perception doesn't give us coherence of reality. It just perceives the objects and world as they are, and feeds us with the information in most raw form of data i.e. images. motions, shapes, sounds and words. That is where perception ends.

He has been keep asking how perception can tell coherence of reality, which doesn't make sense.

From ideal realism, perception don't give us coherence of reality. Coherence of reality can be known via our analytic thinking and reasoning on the perceived contents via the principle of cause and effect and necessity.

Think of how many times a book has given you an idea, or the words of another person, a painting, etc. This means that ideas are contextualized in and by an extramental world. — JuanZu

Yes, I agree that our ideas can be passed onto other minds in forms of materialised media, books, words, music, arts etc. And when those materialised ideas are passed onto other minds, they can form new ideas and creativities in forms of other materials, so forth and so fifth ad infinitum. Could this be similar idea with Hegel's absolute idea or spirit? I am not sure, but just inferring here.

You haven't answered the key point question. What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point? — Corvus

I wrote "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause."

It goes back to your two previous statements:

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object. — Corvus

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. — Corvus

I am trying to show that this is a misrepresentation of Indirect Realism. For Indirect Realism, there is only "1x copy of every object in your perception."

This means that when an Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, they are only directly perceiving the colour red. They are only directly perceiving one thing. They are not directly perceiving two things, the colour red and the cause of their perception of the colour red.

As I wrote:

When the Indirect Realist perceives the colour red, for example, they are not perceiving a representation of the colour red, they are directly perceiving the colour red.
Anything otherwise would lead into the homunculus problem of infinite regression.
What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure.
In a sense, the colour red that is directly perceived is a representation of the unknown something in the world, which may or may not be the colour red.
There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

I am trying to show that this is a misrepresentation of Indirect Realism. For Indirect Realism, there is only "1x copy of every object in your perception." — RussellA

You seem to be confusing the point that I was trying to point out the fact that transcendental idealism has problem of having dualistic view of the world i.e. phenomenon and noumenon. I was trying to clarify that ideal realism is not transcendental realism. Banno seems to be confusing himself on this point in his post above, which I tried to correct his confusion.

There is only one object of perception for the Indirect Realist, and that is the direct perception of the colour red.

I only mentioned on indirect realism, because you brought it up. I don't actually know what it is claiming officially, because just by reading your posts about it, it sounded like a tautological statement as I mentioned before.

So what is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? From what you are saying, they sound exactly the same claims.

You seem to be confusing the point that I was trying to point out the fact that transcendental idealism has problem of having dualistic view of the world i.e. phenomenon and noumenon — Corvus

A dualistic view in itself is not necessarily incorrect. For example, a word is an example of dualism. On the one hand it exists as a shape and on the other hand it exists as what it is representing.

This describes Direct Realism:

When the perceiver and the world is in direct physical contact which allows the perceiver to have direct perception, sensation, and interaction with the world or objects in the world, the world presents to the perceiver as physical entity or material objects. — Corvus

This describes the Direct Realist closing their eyes and using their imagination:

When the perceiver is only thinking about the world without direct visual or material sensation or perception, the world is in the mind of the perceiver as ideas only. — Corvus

So what is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? From what you are saying, they sound exactly the same claims. — Corvus

As I wrote on page 2

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

As I wrote on page 2 — RussellA

Thanks for the clarification.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist says the person is directly perceiving the cause of their perceiving the colour red. The Indirect realist says that the person is only directly perceiving the colour red.

That sounds confusing. Is it not the other way around? Are you sure you haven't put them wrong way around in the definition? What significance the word "indirect" have in the name? Why indirect?

That sounds confusing. Is it not the other way around? Are you sure you haven't put them wrong way around in the definition? What significance the word "indirect" have in the name? Why indirect? — Corvus

I don't believe so.

Suppose someone perceives the colour red. Both the Indirect and Direct Realist would agree that something in the world caused their perception.

The Direct Realist would argue that they are directly seeing the something in the world that caused their perception. They argue that the something in the world is actually red.

The Indirect realist argues that they are directly perceiving the colour red in their mind and only know about the something in the world that caused their perception indirectly through reason. They argue that the something in the world might be red, might be green, might be a wavelength of 700nm or might be something else altogether.

The Direct Realist argues that they have direct knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception, whereas the Indirect Realist argues that their reasoning can only give them indirect knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception.

the Indirect Realist argues that their reasoning can only give them indirect knowledge about the something in the world that caused their perception. — RussellA

1) What is the significance of direct and indirect knowledge?
2) Indirect or direct on relation to what?
3) What are the differences in direct and indirect knowledge compared to knowledge?

1) What is the significance of direct and indirect knowledge?...........................................3) What are the differences in direct and indirect knowledge compared to knowledge? — Corvus

I have direct knowledge of New York because I have been there, but only have indirect knowledge of Seattle as I have never been there.

I have direct knowledge of my perception of red, but only have indirect knowledge of the something in the world that might have caused it

Indirect knowledge signifies a belief.

I believe that the Space Needle in Seattle was originally sketched on a napkin, but I don't know it for a fact as I wasn't there at the time.
===============================================================================

2) Indirect or direct on relation to what? — Corvus

In relation to something in the world. The relation between what exists in the mind and what exists in the world.

Indirect knowledge signifies a belief.

I believe that the Space Needle in Seattle was originally sketched on a napkin, but I don't know it for a fact as I wasn't there at the time. — RussellA

Does it mean that Indirect Realist can only have beliefs? No knowledge at all?
And likewise, Direct Relists can only have knowledge? No beliefs at all?

In relation to something in the world. The relation between what exists in the mind and what exists in the world. — RussellA

That seems to imply that they are back to the dualism.

That seems to imply that they are back to the dualism. — Corvus

Yes, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with dualism.

If there was no dualism there would be no language. A word on the one hand exists as a shape and on the other hand exists as a representation of something else.

Does it mean that Indirect Realist can only have beliefs? No knowledge at all?
And likewise, Direct Relists can only have knowledge? No beliefs at all? — Corvus

The meaning of the words "direct knowledge" and "indirect knowledge" depends on context.
In ordinary language, I have direct knowledge of The Empire States Building as I have visited it, but I only have indirect knowledge of The Space Needle as I have never been there.

In philosophy, I have direct knowledge of my perceptions of the colour grey and rectangular shape, but I only have indirect knowledge through reasoning of the something in the world that may have caused my perceptions.

The meaning of the words "knowledge" and "belief" depends on context.
In ordinary language, I know that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, and I believe that the Eiffel Tower was built in 1889.

In philosophy, I know my perception of the colour red, and I believe that there is something in the world that caused this perception.

The Indirect Realist
Not entirely. The Indirect Realist has knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red. But they argue that we can only have beliefs about what exists in the world that may be causing these perceptions in the mind.

The Direct Realist
The Direct Realist argues that they have knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red, and they argue that they also have knowledge about the something in the world that caused these perceptions in the mind.

However, as I see it, Direct Realist is an invalid philosophy. IE, they are wrong.

The Indirect Realist
Not entirely. The Indirect Realist has knowledge about what exists in their mind, such as when they perceive the colour red. But they argue that we can only have beliefs about what exists in the world that may be causing these perceptions in the mind. — RussellA

However, as I see it, Direct Realist is an invalid philosophy. IE, they are wrong. — RussellA

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong.

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong. — Corvus

It depends what is meant by "knowledge".

Knowledge could mean justified true belief. If I believe that the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall and can justify my belief, perhaps I read it in Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Eiffel Tower is actually 330m tall, then I have knowledge about the Eiffel Tower

I agree that we perceive things and can then use our reason on these perceptions in order to give us knowledge about the world, such that the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall.

But in order to reason about my perceptions, I must first know that I am perceiving the colour red, for example. I don't think that I am seeing the colour red. I don't believe that I am seeing the colour red. I don't need to reason that I am seeing the colour red. I know that I am seeing the colour red.

Is knowing something knowledge? Is knowing that I see the colour red knowledge that I see the colour red?

In propositional terms, when I say "I know the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall", the fact "the Eiffel Tower is 330m tall" is knowledge. Similarly, when I say "I know I see the colour red", the fact "I see the colour red" is knowledge.

I would say that I have knowledge that I see colours, shapes, sounds, etc

It seems that knowledge can be about what is in the mind as well as what is outside the mind.

Perception cannot give us knowledge. It can only present with what is perceived in the form of raw data i.e. shapes, colours, sounds, words and motions. That is where it ends. It is our reasoning and inference which give us knowledge on the reality. Hence both DR and IRists are wrong. — Corvus

We perceive the colour red and reason that it was caused by a red object in the world.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Just because we have reasoned that our perception of the colour red was caused by a red object in the world, suppose we are mistaken, and in fact our perception of the colour red was not caused by a red object in the world.

Suppose it was caused by a green object. We wouldn't then have knowledge about reality in the world.

Why should our perceptions necessarily give us knowledge about the world?

But in order to reason about my perceptions, I must first know that I am perceiving the colour red, for example. I don't think that I am seeing the colour red. I don't believe that I am seeing the colour red. I don't need to reason that I am seeing the colour red. I know that I am seeing the colour red. — RussellA

Your seeing colour red is not knowledge. You are just making a statement on your seeing colour red, and that is all. That colour red could be anything. You must further reason or infer whether the colour red is an apple or a red lamp, if the shape was not clear to you.

Knowledge is verified belief or fact which carries truth. If something is not truth, or unclear, it is not knowledge.

So IRists were confused seeing the colour red as having knowledge on the ultimate reality, it seems.

Why should our perceptions necessarily give us knowledge about the world? — RussellA

For empirical cases like seeing colour red, you must go out and investigate further and verify for the truth, if needed. Seeing the colour red is just like CCTV monitoring a street, and recording the scene. There is no intelligence or coherence in the images. Human mind must analyse, and tell the image what it is by matching the images to his intelligence for true knowledge.

AI implemented cameras can tell the what the object of the colour red is, when detecting the object. But it needs the image recognition programming in the implementation.

Idealism can be tricky. Is that desk there an idea. A large, wooden idea and if i push it over, am i pushing an idea? Is my soul an idea? How does my sole know matter as matter? Is there something that connects all philosophical ideas within my soul?

Is that desk there an idea. A large, wooden idea and if i push it over, am i pushing an idea? Is my soul an idea? — Gregory

If you think, imagine, remember or believe in the existence of the large desk, then it is idea of the desk in your mind. If you stand in front of the desk, touch it, push it or work on it, then it is a matter, or a physical desk you are dealing with.

How does my sole know matter as matter? Is there something that connects all philosophical ideas within my soul? — Gregory

Soul is a tricky concept. Does your soul exist? Where is it? In what form does your soul exist?

For empirical cases like seeing colour red, you must go out and investigate further and verify for the truth, if needed. — Corvus

Suppose in reality the truth is that an object in the world is green, but for whatever reason you always perceive green objects as red.

You could look at the green object from all directions and all times of the day and will always see this green object as red.

How is it possible for the human mind to analyse the fact that they always see a red object to discover the truth of reality that the object in the world is actually green?
===============================================================================

Your seeing colour red is not knowledge. — Corvus

Your seeing the colour red is knowledge about what is in the mind, but is not knowledge about what is in the world.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

As regards the mind, the colour you see is the colour you see, regardless of its name. The colour you see is necessarily a justified true belief, and is therefore knowledge.

As regards the world, you may believe the colour of the object is red. You may be able to justify that the colour of the object is red. But if the object is in reality actually green, then you have no knowledge about the truth of reality.

You could look at the green object from all directions and all times of the day and will always see this green object as red. — RussellA

You need to check if you were wearing red coloured eye glasses, or perhaps you might have developed problems with your sights? Or indeed there is an object which is green, but appears red. The important thing here is that, you are thinking and reasoning that you are seeing red, but it could be green.
You are not just seeing the object like antique CCTV camera.

How is it possible for the human mind to analyse the fact that they always see a red object to discover the truth of reality that the object in the world is actually green? — RussellA

Because human mind thinks, imagines, reasons and infers on what they perceive.

As regards the world, you may believe the colour of the object is red. You may be able to justify that the colour of the object is red. But if the object is in reality actually green, then you have no knowledge about the truth of reality. — RussellA

That sounds an extreme scepticism. We do have knowledge about the truth of reality, because we have perception and reasoning and inferring on the perception. Not just perception.

Your seeing the colour red is knowledge about what is in the mind, but is not knowledge about what is in the world. — RussellA

You need to check and find out what the red coloured object is you are seeing. Just claiming you are seeing red coloured object doesn't mean much and not very useful to you as knowledge.

You must find out, if it is a traffic red light shining at you, or an apple hanging on the apple tree, or fire burning in your garden, so you must be able to stop the car, or go and get the apple for your supper if it were in your own garden, or get a bucket of water, and pour over the fire in the garden, for your perception worthwhile serving you as knowledge for your survival.

Just saying you are seeing something red, but it might be green is not knowledge, and it doesn't mean much at all. Even a bird can tell it is red object she is seeing, and she wouldn't do anything or care what the red object is about. That's no knowledge. We don't say birds have knowledge, even if they can see objects like we do.

We do have knowledge about the truth of reality, because we have perception and reasoning and inferring on the perception. Not just perception. — Corvus

Ideal Realism is about a relation between the mind and the world: "The universe is just ideas in the head, but real. Matters are only real when accessible and interactable. When not, all matters are just ideas."

If person A was stung by a wasp, only person A would know their particular pain. Person B may know their own particular pain when stung by a wasp, but as mind reading is not possible, it is impossible for person B to know person A's particular pain.

The top light of a traffic light is labelled "red", the middle light is labelled "orange" and the bottom light is labelled "green".

When person A sees the top light of a traffic light, only person A knows the particular colour that they see. Similarly, person B knows the particular colour that they see. As mind reading is not possible, it is impossible for person B to know the particular colour that person A sees.

Therefore person B can never know whether they are seeing the same or different colour to person A

Therefore, it is possible that persons A and B are in fact seeing different colours.

If persons A and B are seeing different colours, then either one of them or both of them are wrong about the reality of the colour of the top light.

If person B is wrong about the true nature of the traffic light, then this means that even though they see a particular colour of the top traffic light, that particular colour may not in reality be the actual colour of the top traffic light. This means that even though person B sees the colour red, the top traffic light may not in reality be red.

If person B is right about the true nature of the top traffic light, it is possible that person A is wrong.

If person A is wrong about the true nature of the top light, then this means that even though they see a particular colour of the top traffic light, that particular colour may not in reality be the actual colour of the top traffic light. Therefore, even though person A sees the colour red, the top traffic light may not in fact be red.

But persons A and B are interchangeable,

Therefore, it is possible that a person may see a colour that in fact doesn't exist in reality in the world

Direct Realism is the theory that all people directly see the colour that exists in reality in the world, but as mind reading is not possible, this is unknowable.

Therefore Direct Realism is not a valid philosophy. The reality of a mind-independent world is inaccessible to the mind.

But persons A and B are interchangeable,

Therefore, it is possible that a person may see a colour that in fact doesn't exist in reality in the world — RussellA

When there are discrepancies in the claims of knowledge on the same situation or object between different folks, you always have chance to carry out testimonies on the knowledge via repeated observations, experiments, or testing on the claims, and update your false beliefs, or correct the other folks false claim on his knowledge. You also have option of mutual agreements on knowledge with the other folks who had different account of the knowledge from you via clarification process.

Therefore Direct Realism is not a valid philosophy. The reality of a mind-independent world is inaccessible to the mind. — RussellA

What we see is the only world there is. There is no other world. Mind-independent world is meaningless if you cannot see or know what it is.

But we know the world as we perceive and reason on it. Where reason cannot stretch further due to its own limits, inference can begin. This is what ideal realism saying, and I think it makes sense.

When there is discrepancies in the claims of knowledge on the same situation or object between different folks, you always have chance to carry out testimonies on the knowledge via repeated observations, experiments, or testing on the claims, and update your false beliefs, or correct the other folks false claim on his knowledge. — Corvus

True, if two people make different claims about the same situation, for example, one says the postbox is red, and the other says the postbox is green, their claims can be judged.

But as regards perception, what a person perceives in their mind cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible.

In exactly the same way, any pain a person experiences cannot be judged by anyone other than that person, as mind reading is impossible.
===============================================================================

What we see is the only world there is. There is no other world. — Corvus

You could only know what another person sees in their mind if you were a mind reader, which is an impossibility.

Only a mind reader could know that what another person sees in their mind is the same as what they see.

Seeing a colour and feeling a pain are both subjective experiences that are unknowable to any one other than a mind reader.
===============================================================================

Mind-independent world is meaningless if you cannot see or know what it is. — Corvus

If you knew something about a mind-independent world then it couldn't be a mind-independent world.

That would be like knowing something that is unknown.