One is good for daily spoken language, but not for writing a powerful declamation. — L'éléphant

Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?

As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?

Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim.

German clearly impacts Germans too. There language is particularly literal and every european I spoke to living in Berlin remarked about how literal Germans were as the most significant cultural difference. — I like sushi

You've got studies showing that the language makes the person more literal and less figurative?

Assuming such could be measured, you'd have to prove it was the language and not the culture resulting in that. It'd be like saying the Dutch are humorless because Dutch isn't a funny language, and so try as we might, we can't tell a joke in Dutch.

Nevertheless, not untrue. — Merkwurdichliebe

I do wish to clarify that I don't think Westerners are more intelligent than non-Westerners, but I limit my comments to Western values in the sense I do in fact hold them superior to others, but not superior to all.

Superior in every way possible would include intelligence, — Baden

That's what this is all about?

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

"Every way possible" should have been limited to those things along the lines of the examples given and not included things like height, athletic ability, sexual prowess, soccer skills, big game hunting, ability to navigate the high seas on a paddleboard, prettier hair styles, and everything else that would be included in the term "every way possible."

I will now add to the end of my errant sentence "along these lines" so as to remove that confusion that I wonder if ever really existed, but it did say what it said, so you were undoubtedly correct to have responded as you did, as opposed to having limited my comment into what a reasonable person might have said.

Let me clarify. What I said was:

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

What part confuses you?

The sweeping nature of which makes it obviously false. But I still want it admitted so and withdrawn without any BS attempts to pretend he never said that. — Baden

I did say it because I meant it. There is a moral superiority of the West to others. What's shocking is that you can't admit it.

You then inserted in your own projections to make it say something that it didn't, like no one but the West is moral and that somehow Trump is proof that America is an immoral nation.

Lol. you know what you wrote is amazingly stupid at best and now you're just going to try to babble it away. Withdraw the comment and get it over with. Or be held to the utter moronic idea that Western societies are superior in every possible way to non-Western societies. — Baden

You're ridiculous.

You can't even agree that the value you adhere to are superior and so you make a reference to Trump and say "but he's as stupid as they come." As if that's responsive to the conversation. Of course there are bad politicians, but should a Republican become President, I think I'd persevere, as opposed to someone from Hamas becoming President.

It's amazingly amazing for example how superior and more civilized American politics is to, say, Japanese politics. Trump is probably the best example of this. Americans also live longer and are more intelligent than the Japanese. Yes, indeedie. Superior in every possible way... — Baden

And so we now are talking about the civility of poltics? American politics is more civil than Palestinian politics, at least to the extent there has been an election in the past 20 years in Palestine, with almost half of their population never having actually lived through one. And what a civil leadership they have. Instead of using their money on schools, medicine, or hope of any kind, they spend it on subterranean rat holes designed to funnel homemade rockets so they can launch them onto the unsuspecting party goers next door. Their politics is built only around their hate for their neighbors.

Of course not every politician is wonderful, and not every nation outside the West (like Japan, as you've pointed out) is morally bankrupt, but I have no problem claiming that Western democracies are protective of the rights you hold most dear, and I can say that recognizing that there are other societies outside the west that adhere to the same values, but also recongnizing that we should not promote those that do not.

The fact that there was mass outrage over the killing of a handful ISRAELI Hostages, but not thousands of Palestinian Children is telling of the Israeli position and extreme bias. — Vaskane

You've uncovered the fact that Israel is biased towards Israel?

I also note that the Palestinians didn't protest the October 7 attacks, uncovering the fact that Palestine is biased toward Palestine.

So you're saying that we should back Israel, not only because Israel needs to defend itself, but because the Israeli way of life is superior to the Hamas/Palestinian way of life, and if the latter is allowed to take over Israel, Israel would be a worse place. Is that what you're saying? — frank

I'm saying we back Israel because they have the right to defend their land that was invaded and we need not be so foolish to think that the outcome of this war won't have greater implications for all involved, which includes who gets to control the area politically.

It's an impossibility for Hamas to militarily defeat Israel, a nuclear state backed up by the U.S. Talk about an invented fear. — Baden

The fear isn't invented, at least not for the raped women and burned babies. Are you suggesting the only way to lose is by complete takeover?

Are you also worried about Honduras taking over California? — Baden

No, but I am pretty sure if Honduras attacked California, what you're seeing in Gaza would look like child's play.

Should we go in and bomb just in case? It's absurd. — Baden

Now my position is being interpreted as arguing for preemptive war? My position is that Hamas set this in motion, not just Israel deciding there might be an attack forthcoming so it decided to act first. Just to remind ourselves of the sequence: Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second.

The only existential threat is to the Palestinians. They're the ones who just had their city of 1.5 million people destroyed and you're telling me the danger is Israelis being ethnically cleansed? — Baden

They started a war and then there was a response and so we blame the self defender? And where is the ethnic cleansing? The population of Palestinians has soared since Israel has been a state. Take a look at the statistics of Jews throughout the Middle East during that time. They have literally been removed from every nation except Israel. What rights do you think Jews get in all these supposedly non-apartheid Arab states?

And I'm not a fan of, say, Iran as a society either. But so what? If I don't want to wipe them from the earth militarily, is that supposed to indicate some guilt complex about being Western? — Baden

I've not suggested fixing the world's problems one bomb at a time. We're talking about a real life Western type democracy being attacked by a group of folks who hate everything Western. They are the ones who would in fact reorganize the world one bomb at a time if left unchecked.

We could take a deep dive into this question, but can you see how bringing this up in a thread about a Israel and Gaza makes it sound like you think Israel's attack is justified based on Israel's moral superiority? Do you really believe that? — frank

Of course I don't think that Israel can go and invade any nation it feels (or actually is) morally superior to. The basis for the war is that Israel was invaded by a group of people who were morally inferior to it and the consequences of not protecting itself goes beyond just A now occupying where B used to be. The consequences are that A being in B's place will have far more significant consequences that have to be considered when one is thinking about who to back in this war.

Have you considered the options for defending the value of civility that don't involve bombing schools, designated safe routes, shooting white flag carriers, and pulling the plug on newborn babies in incubators. Because those things don't seem all that civil. It's almost like they're the opposite of civility... It's almost like war crimes do not constitute superior values but are barbaric and something we should be against. Right? — Baden

Yes, those are the facts, just as you've stated them. Israel awoke Monday morning and decided today's the day we'll yank premies from their warm incubators, we'll open fire on the children to nip those emerging problems in the bud, and we'll bomb indiscriminately, well, because we're just enraged at these trespassers.

Or, maybe what happened is that Hamas received billions of dollars from nations that want to eradicate Israel and force everything Western out of "their" region (speaking of apartheid), they built a fortress of underground tunnels, they sent over their rapist special forces to murder and burn, and then they got pushed back only to find those they attacked weren't willing to allow this to happen again, but then they used their finest tactic of hiding behind babies in hospitals to defend themselves.

And then the hostage exchange. How many Palestinian terrorists must Israel exchange for Israeli children? Do we talk about that?

. If you would just remove yourself from the situation and see it as group A vs group B and focus on the actions of each, I think you could come up with a coherent position but you won't do that. Everything is coloured with the fact that you will support Israel no matter what. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. — Baden

Really, you need to read this again, consider the implications, and potentially rephrase it so you don't sound like some Victorian "white man's burden" carrier. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass satired off. I mean, dude... — Baden

What you need to do is realize it's not about A versus B. Again, you carry around this torch of equality like it's a virtue as if to argue you bring nothing better to the table that the other side does. What I ask of you is what you ask of me, which is to abandon your vantage point as if it's superior. I think your position is foolish.

I'm not walking around asking that other countries be invaded so as to impose my beliefs upon them. I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force.

Mine is no more white man's burden than your is white man's guilt, fearful of just admitting the obvious that a Palestinian controlled region would be disastorous for world democracy and every inhabitant of Israel. Should Palestine come into control of the region, every current Israeli would be forced entirely out of the region, just as they've been forced out of every Middle Eastern nation except Israel and then they would impose whatever wonderful government upon those remaining.

As Bob Dylan says:

I've heard you say many times
That you're better than no one
And no one is better than you
If you really believe that
You know you have
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians. — Mikie

Would you choose to live in Egypt or Israel.

It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.

We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course. — Mikie

What's hard to believe is that you don't think you can say it out loud that your society is better than others.

It's not possible to justify killling thousands of children if one of the ways we're superior is that we don't kill thousands of children to impose our superior values. There is a difference between imposing and defending. The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way.

Au contraire, morality works like this: in the decades long conflict of Israel vs Palestine, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinian civilians, that is good because they are the good guys but when the Palestinians do the same, that is bad because they are the bad guys. If you want to know whether killing innocent people is good or not, you need do no more than look at what people they are. If they are "Palestinian", killing them is good. If they are "Israeli", killing them is bad. If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. This is also very convenient because the IDF does much more killing so there is much more good killing than bad killing and the world is good and right. If you disagree with any of this, you are indeed irrational and simply hate the good guys. In fact, you are probably a bad guy, like Hamas. — Baden

This a caricature of your opponent's position, claiming that only good can be seen in their own behavior and evil in the other's. The caricature of your position is that you can't see good or evil anywhere, but just points of view, as if no particular way of life is more defensible than the other. I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one, and certainly not our mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives, and especially not those who might not subscribe to traditional male/female roles. Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what one might expect in terms of justice and equality when comparing one country to the next.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. To the extent you accept or reject this notion of exceptionalism will likely color your view on how aggressively you defend those values versus how aggressively you declare it imperialistic and try to quash it.

In any struggle, large or small, the ones who bear the brunt of the conflict are always the most vulnerable. The children in their beds and women walking about were the first attacked, and now it's the poorest and least able to protect themselves that are being harmed. War is a horrible thing, but this war wasn't started by Israel and it most certainly wasn't started on October 7.

This is the worst of the gaslighting. That these Hamas militants with their tiny rockets, rifles, and hang gliders are a real military threat (even an existential one!) to a nuclear powered proxy of the world's superpower that will only accept their complete subjugation or displacement and actually has the means to achieve that. Analagous to Trump claiming the election is stolen while trying to steal it himself. — Baden

If your opponents have overstated the threat, here you have understated it. If Israel did not have the iron dome, it would be showered with rockets daily and be unlivable. The hang gliders were actual militants brought over as an act of war by their accepted government. You understate this threat and act as if this was a handful of thugs who could have been quickly eliminated, but this has been going on for decades, with backing of other governments, and it poses a real threat to the citizens to live a livable life, reasonably free from fear of death, burning, and rape. That is the purpose of terrorism, to destablize, to ruin, and evoke fear.

Hamas has an intricate system of underground tunnels designed for no purpose other than attacking Israel. They use every dollar they get to build tunnels and rockets instead of building infrastructure for their people. Gaza is a military base on Israel's Western border whose primary objective is the eradication of Israel. That they can't acheive victory is just their unfortunate reality and is not the result of lack of effort. They aren't just a handful of miscreants who just need a bit of understanding and appeasment, and it's not reasonable to believe Israel will just let them exist and accept that every now and again they'll be terrorized.

The flowers are Potentilla erecta, which have four true petals. — Banno

What does the word "true" add to this sentence?

This isn't responsive though to your attempt to negate the distinction between the object and the perception. Our conversation initially revolved around what you seemed to suggest was the superfluousness of referring to phenomenal states and your equation of the perception of the thing to the actual thing.

This Austin quote isn't controversial to any degree. He's not discussing metaphysics at all, but instead is just trying to hammer out how we use the term "direct" and "indirect." The fact that we have reasons to distinguish between those things we perceive without obvious interference between ourselves and the object offers a reason why we have words for that, but that's as far as it goes. It says nothing about reality. It just talks about how we talk.

list. Bless. It's not that simple. — Banno

You say there are two sorts of perceptions: direct and indirect. I ask you to give me examples of each. You say it's too complicated?

Well, yes, its not. It's a Beetles song, heard many times before, that I can play bits of and that many will be able to sing along with and which quite a few folk have made their own. — Banno

I want to bring this song thing into my house. What do I bring in my house to have that song? As we've determined, realism demands the song thing be able to exist independent of the perceiver.

The realist commits to the view that "the flower has four petals" is either true, or it is false, and that this is so regardless of who is looking at it or how. Those are epistemological claims — Banno

A realist knows nothing about the flower except that it exists or not. This has nothing to do with how we know things or what counts for knowledge.

You didn't see it directly, you saw it through a telescope, or a mirror, or only its shadow; how we are to understand "direct" perception depends entirely on what it is contrasted with; so of course it is difficult to imagine what "direct perception" is, per se. It's a nonsense, an invention of the defenders of the sort of argument Ayer is presenting. You can find examples in every thread on perception*. — Banno

This is indirect realism, just with you claiming varying degrees of indirectness. There is no pure direct perception as you've described it, but just your arbitrary gradations of directness versus indirectness. Perhaps me looking at the flower is more direct than me seeing its shadow. Is that all you're saying: everything is blurred to some degree, just some more than others, and the more unblurred is called "direct" when contrasted with the more blurred?

Then we have to determine somehow which perceptions are most closely correlated to the noumenal flower in order to rank the perceptions from most direct to least direct?

This goes back to my request for a list. You can't avoid making this concrete with actual examples of direct and indirect perceptions or at least providing which are more and which are less direct and then providing reasons why you place them on your sliding scale.

And that repeated mischaracterisation of those who reject indirect realism is at the heart of why these threads are interminable. Sometimes you see stuff directly, sometimes you see the same stuff indirectly. — Banno

Very well, once you overcome your exasperation, in column 1 tell me those instances where we see directly and in column 2 tell me those instances where we see indirectly, offering whatever context you need.

I propose that when you hear a song, it is the song that you hear. — Banno

Is the song not the sound waves? Is it just the experience of hearing sounds?

A realist will say that it is true that the flower has four petals, and that this is true regardless of what you percieve. — Banno

A realist makes no epistemological claim. He doesn't suggest an accuracy of the senses. He will say that the flower exists however it does independently of the observer. He has no opinion on how many petals it has.

instead of just reacting, it is clear that the alternate to our seeing things only indirectly is that we sometimes see them directly, sometimes indirectly. — Banno

So I ask my question once again so I can understand what you're talking about. You say there are certain objects we see directly. We will call them D. There are certain objects we see indirectly. We will call them I. Give me a list of object Ds and then a list of object Is. I can then go back and forth between the two and figure out what the rule is that you are using to place each in its respective catagory.

You hold that you never see the sub or hear "let it be". That's enough of a reductio to reject your view. — Banno

What I hear is an interpretation of sound waves. It's for that reason that when you sing behind a wall, I don't hear the song. What do you suppose I hear when I hear the song?

You are agreeing that there are things about the flower that are true regardless of one's perceptions. Where previously you had insisted that "My position is that it is unknowable" you now agree the flower has four petals. You don't believe your own theory. — Banno

A realist, which I think we both are, holds only that things exist outside the mind. The simple act of existing is not a property. What I can say of the flower is that it exists. What I can say of my perception of the flower is that it has four petals. I don't think I'm inconsistent in my position.

What's all symbolic? — Ludwig V

Everything that you sense. Such is the nature of indirect realism. That's why it's called representationalism. Your phenomenlogical state of the flower is the symbol you have for that flower.

You are arbitrarily claiming that some perceptions are symbolic and others not. When you see the flower, what you see is a representation of it, just like when you see a blip on a computer screen, you see a representation of an airplane.

The blip is a representation in the symbolic sense. — Ludwig V

It's all symbolic. You can't just remove the instances that show indirect realism and call them the indirect sort without having some basis for that.

William James thought that what an infant sees in the beginning is "a buzzing, blooming, confusion", just because it doesn't have any sense of what has been socially agreed upon. Sadly, they can't tell us, and we can't see it. — Ludwig V

I think we all see flowers fairly consistently cross-culturally, indicating the way in which we perceive relates to biology as opposed to culture. That is, tribe members from the rain forest see flowers as I see flowers, despite our not sharing social norms. They may worship flowers and hold them as sacred objects, but they don't see them in the chaotic state you're describing how James suggests infants see things.

Maybe. But it is what you asked for. Where have I gone wrong? — Ludwig V

If I were to see a small blip on a radar screen showing me an airplane, would that be an airplane or a representation of one?

More precisely, the concept of flower is an intersubjectively constructed object. Its objectivity is thus a socially constituted ideal. We judge error and illusion in perception in relation not to a world as it is in itself but in relation to our constructed idealities, which, being relative, can always be other than how we now constitute them as objectively existing. — Joshs

This just seems doubtful. I would expect that an infant sees what I see when it looks at a flower, despite it not having any sense of what is socially agreed upon. This concept would apply cross-culturally as well, lending support to the idea that we reach out to the flower to pick it not due to some inter-subjective, socially agreed upon basis, but because we think the flower it out past our hand ripe for picking.

Do you really think there is an image of the flower in your mind? Is that image the phenomenal state you refer to, or is the image distinct from the phenomenal state? — Ciceronianus

I have a phenomenological state that seems to me to be elicited by an external stimuli, but I know that it can be elicited without it because people dream and some people have hallucinations elicited by brain injury, direct brain stimulation, drug use, or perhaps some sort of mental illness.

I say all this because I do think it to be an image that is distinct from the flower.

The phenomenological state is the full brain state, which would include the image, the smells around me, my hunger, my thoughts of getting home in time for dinner, my slight headache, and whatever other fleeting thoughts that might be within me.

Despite there being all sorts of more elementary components you might be able find within a phenomenological state, the conscious state presents as a holistic event. I typically refer to this idea as the transcendental unity of apperception when I'm hanging out with my friends.

How about Banno's flower? It has four petals, a definite height and flowers at a particular time of year. — Ludwig V

That's just a restatement of naive realism.

You may have determined something about Banno's flower, but I didn't determine anything about it. I couldn't make head or tail of what you were going on about. — Ludwig V

Then re-read it and see if you can better understand what I said.

The photo is an accurate representation of the flower as seen with UV light. your asking if it validly represents the flower is confused. We can ask, quite validly, if the filter cut out sufficient red light, or if the emulsion might have emphasised some frequency a bit too much. Such considerations do not stop the photo being of the flower in UV light. — Banno

Any inconsistency between the flower and the perception is defined as distortion. If the radio transmits a song filled with static, we don't say the static was part of the song. We say the song was distorted by the static. If you ask if I'm hearing the song, my answer is I'm hearing parts of the song and parts of other things as well, but, to the extent the song is X, I'm not hearing X. I'm hearing all sorts of other things.

What holds true of hearing the song holds true of all perceptions of things. We have to determine which part of Object X I am sensing against those perceptions I am having of things imparted upon Object X if we want to distill what Object X is. What is the undistorted X?

My position is that it is unknowable because the perception necessarily is filled with all sorts of distortions from within me and from the environment. Pragmatically, I live my life dealing with distortions of varying degrees, but the thing is not the distortion.

Neither. They are photos. And both. The flower has structural features that cannot be seen in visible light, but can in UV. We now understand bee behaviour better, because they seek out these structures due to their sensitivity to UV. Context. — Banno

What the bee can sense is that which assists in its survival, regardless of whether it bears any resemblence to the flower.

Either the flower is red or the flower is white. Either the flower has certain structural features or it does not. What is different about color in that it can vary from perceiver to perceiver but not change the fact that it's the same flower but if the structural feature of the flower is different from one flower to the next it's a different flower?

That's an affectatious way of saying that you don't see the flower when your eyes are closed. — Banno

If I have an image of the flower in my mind after I close my eyes, I experience the phenomenal state of the flower with my eyes closed. If I open my eyes and that elicits a flower experience, then I then have that experience. Phenomenal states are brain created, often elicited by our senses, but not always.

Great idea for lyric too! — schopenhauer1

I should weave that in to the upcoming short story contest.

Accurate for what purpose? — Banno

Accurate for reflecting what is really there, with the term "really" being used in the sense you use the term "real" in the terms direct realism and indirect realism. If we concede a pragmatism, then idealism works as well.

Valid in what argument? — Banno

I wasn't speaking in terms of maintaining the validity of a syllogism. I was speaking in terms of the photograph being an accurate representation of the flower.

The image is not arbitrary, but is determined by the reflection of UV and the subsequent filters and film used. — Banno

You do not see the UV light. You see the photographic representation of the flower of how it might look to someone who can see UV rays. What you see is a representation of a flower, which is then represented to you in your consciousness.

Anyway, which one is the flower, A or B? Both? C? I just want to know what color it is. If I'm colorblind, is it black?

It is a loaded question, but because it supposes the nonsense of "phenomenal state of the flower in my consciousness". Poor philosophical theories produce poor results. — Banno

I do have a phenomenal state in my consciousness and it goes away when I close my eyes, but the flower remains. It seems like two different things. Is it not?

I rather doubt that your scenario is even likely, so I don't feel any need to decide that question. — Ludwig V

The point wasn't to determine the liklihood of how a forgery might or might not occur, but it was to point out that a forgery is a purely subjective determination. It's a judgment, having nothing to do with the physical composition of the object, unless the perceiver dictates it does. Two entirely similar US dollars, exactly the same in terms of ink, paper, and design can be different only in terms that one is forged and one not and that will affect the value of each. A forgery is a forgery due to the intent and authority of the maker, not due to the quality of the item.

I would say the object, the environment and me. However, whatever we say about these cases does not justify asserting that the same difficulties apply to everything we see. — Ludwig V

Give me a concrete case then of an object that is unimpacted by the perceiver so that you can say object A is described as having the qualities of a, b, and c in all instances.

We determined Banno's flower is not one such object and it seems your fish is not either. What then is that object you refer to?

That doesn't follow. Take the example of forged money (notes or coins). Some money is forged. Some money is genuine. Both those statements must be true, or the distinction between them collapses. So one cannot ask of all notes and coins whether they are all forged. One can ask of each note or coin, whether it is forged. But when it has been established that a given note or coin is genuine, the question is empty. — Ludwig V

The forgery example makes clear the significance of subjectivity. That is, the distinction between a true dollar bill and a forged one does not come down to a discernable physical difference between the two because it's possible to create an exact replica. A perfect forgery would still be a forgery. Distinctions in the physical appearance might count as proof of the forgery, but the true distinction is what the authority declares to be real. If I forge a dollar bill and the king is so impressed he declares it real, then it is real.

But the more telling question is this: In @Banno's example, he presented two pictures of the same flower. Which one is the accurate depiction? If we say that Flower B is the correct depiction, do we then say that Flower A is an incorrect version? I don't think we do. My assumption is that you would say that both A and B are correct depictions, just under different conditions.

Consider another example with Flower C, which is a photoshopped version of Flower A, that makes it looks larger and more colorful. Would we not all say that Flower C is not an accurate depiction of the "the flower"? What then makes A and B correct depictions but not C? That is, why is "the flower" under conditions C not a valid flower but the conditions that prevail upon A and B allow the flower to retain its validity.

And "the flower" is the complicated entity that somehow prevails throughout the conditions regardless of what they are.

I'd suggest that what makes us want to say that C is a fake is that we've added something to "the flower" which neither A nor B contains. This distinction collapses, I'd argue, because there's no meaningful difference between the arbitrary changes we impose by photoshopping as there is with regard to the arbitrary changes we might make to the external environment or to our own ability to perceive.

That is, what it means for A and B to be the same but only under "different conditions" but not for C only makes sense if we abitrarily decide which conditions are invasive enough for us to allow "the flower" to still persist.

Perceptions can be manipulated in a number of ways: (1) by manipulating the external environment by changing the lighting, the temperature, the air pollution level, whether it's suspended in air or in a glass of milk, and all sorts of ways; (2) by intentionally changing it by photoshopping it, drawing on it, cutting its leaves, etc; or (3) by changing the perceiver, by altering someone's consciousness, optic nerves, or putting rose colored glasses on the perceiver.

The question then becomes: once I have the phenomenal state of the flower in my consciousness, which one of those still represents the flower? Keep in mind, the question is loaded because it uses the word "represents" which indicates "the flower" is noumenal and has been subjected to all sorts of conditions from within and without that makes us question whether this representation is an accurate one or whether we have been so deceived to see it not as it is.

That is, this is indirect realism, with the italics to indicate we are not questioning whether our perceptions are of something external and real (i.e. not figments of our imagination), but we are questioning whether we have a blurred, photoshopped, or deteriorated version. That I might see a flower as a gorilla under certain conditions only means I am denying direct realism, claiming that the flower does have anything within it that makes it inherently gorilla-like. I see whatever I do as an interplay of the object, the environment, and my subjective way of seeing things, which is why Descartes was correct in asking whether his perceptions were reliable measures of reality.

Interesting to note if in the US this will cause more critique or not in the democratic party. — ssu

It will split the Democratic party and hand Trump a victory.

With a bit of help, we can see UV. — Banno

Doesn't this example show the opposite of what the OP hopes to prove, namely that we have no reasonable basis to challenge the veracity of our senses?

If for millions of years we saw the flower as X, but now we learn the flower more truly appears as Y, can't we conclude for all things what we learned from the flower, namely that things as we sense them are not as they truly are?

If X is a perception inconsistent with reality, then the thesis of the OP (i.e. we have no reasonable basis to challenge the veracity of our senses) is disproved.

Once we establish a basis for our skepticism regarding the veracity of our perceptions in one instance (as we just did from your flower example), we'd then logically need to do the same for all perceptions, which leads us to Descartes, the person I feel the OP most wants to avoid.

What an I missing?

Which is merely to say that we're human beings. One might say the same of any living creature. Are they "blind" as well? We must be omnipotent, be God then, in order not to be "blind"? It seems a rather unusual way to use the word. — Ciceronianus

If there is something we do not know, then by definition, we are not omniscient. Your question, as I took it, was why we should ever doubt the accuracy of what we see before us, and that should we so doubt, we do it disingenuously.

You attempted to deal with a very simple case in the OP where you acknowledged that our vision did report to us information that could mislead us into thinking that a person grows in height as we move closer to them, but you correctly pointed out that our vision isn't the only thing that informs us of the world, but that our intelligence does as well. That is, I know you don't get physically larger when I get closer to you or that the straw in the glass of water doesn't actually bend even though it looks that way because I am able to noodle all that in my head and realize such perceptions need to be interpreted by me and with that I can figure out the world in which I live.

I then took a more complex case dealing with a person who might be truly blind to portions of reality incapable of sorting out what the world truly were like as in the case of the approaching subject or the bending straw. That then resulting in efforts to interpret "blind" very narrowly, as in surely someone who needs glasses knows when he's not wearing them that the world isn't actually blurred. I then explained that blindness is any sort of inability to sense things as they are, which is obviously the case because we all know that what we smell isn't what a dog smells. We can also imagine that there are sensations that no organism can detect.

The point of all of this is responsive to what I think is the larger inquiry, and that is whether folks like Descartes are foolish to question that which no one has a basis to question. I think the above discussion does provide such a basis.

course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters. — baker

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people admit they can't smell an intruder like a dog.

seems unlikely that many people believe this. — baker

We are in fact "blind in some regard" whether you believe. You can't see ultraviolet, hear high frequencies, taste certain flavors, feel minute variations, or smell certain smells.

I think it's unlikely that the nearsighted and the blind will conclude that all are nearsighted and all are blind. — Ciceronianus

I think it's unlikely that we are not blind in some regard we don't know about.

Well, does the fact that they appear blurred to you with your glasses off persuade you they are or may be blurred? — Ciceronianus

My perception of the apple is blurred without the glasses. If I never had glasses, I would assume the apple and the blurriness were one in the same. My assumption is that there are other distortions between the apple and my perception that are not correctible or that they are correctible by means I don't yet know about.