:ok:

To everyone- I’m replying on my phone after a lecture and am not being massively seriously. But I welcome serious responses as I do believe my comments are apt as reductios in most cases

pparently knowledge of the sandpaper without fingers, nerves, and brain processing would be direct? — Leontiskos

Yes. And it’s not possible, so case closed.


Heheheheheh

Again, instead of violating natural language — hypericin

*brings eye brows back from nape”

I don’t know what you could possibly be aiming at. The use of language here is imprecise and unhelpful. So I’ve changed it. That’s how language works.

but you don’t. Empirically. I’ll leave you to it ;)

No, what I have been discussing is whether an 'is' means an 'ought' or whether a 'how' entails a 'meant' — Apustimelogist

In this case you’ll need to let me know whether I should reply.

We are clearly discussing biological determinism and not ethics

How can You convince someone, who thinks that philosophy is just idle talk, that at least not all of this kind is mere empty stream of words? — Pez

Listen to them be wrong, and explain why they are, on something very important like an ethical position or their understanding of reliability of the senses.
The one that has always worked for me, in terms of pointing out what phil. is and getting some interest going, is running over the synthetic/analytic propositions. People tend to review most of their life decisions once this hits home.

This is a fiction. — Leontiskos

Absolutely not, per the majority of what i've put forward in this thread, completely ignored.

The confluence of the senses ("common sense") and their registering is not preceded by any form of decision-making. Others have pointed to the infinite regress at play in this. — Leontiskos

It is precedent TO the 'decision-making'. This has been shown by experiments subsequent to Libet, also. There's a window of decision between receiving data and having an experience of the data.
Unless you can outline how our physically indirect system of sight grants us direct experience, there is no way around this fact. THe fiction is the particularly perniciious habit of ignoring the empirical facts when discussion perception. This has been ignored.

Presumably if the eye sees objects, then the ear also hears objects. — Leontiskos

This goes directly to my attempts to use these words usefully, instead of ways that are useless for this discussion. If 'seeing' is done by the eyes, then 'to look at' means absolutely nothing in contrast to the experience of representations (which is unavoidable, making the distinction the fundamentally important one in this discussion.. more on that below). We experience representations, not objects, in terms of sight. That seems inarguable, and therefore there is no way to pretend what we see is the object. No one but philosophers posit this, anyway, and so we can be fairly sure there's hide-the-ball going on. Obviously, hiding hte ball here is the process between the object/light/refraction/photoreception/electrical impulse/synaptic activity/experience. There are at least five obstacles to the direct conception of sight.

It seems to me that we should be consistent and either talk about media (light/sound) or else mediated objects (the object which is seen/the object which is heard). — Leontiskos

This is getting there, but if your position is to take the 'thing-in-itself' are genuinely un-speakable, im unsure where to go. We must be able to refer to ab object to be able to speak of the 'media' objects can 'aim' at our sense organs. That said, I think your distinction here is at least much, much further toward reality than is a pretend notion that objects in thought (i.e experience) are the objects out in the world rather than some version, at best, of them.

Distinguishing direct from indirect realism is not a matter of terms — Leontiskos

You'll, probably, note on re-reading, that you are not addressing my point at all. Distinguishing anything in a way that has any meaning relies on best-fit terminology and terminology which is consistent, not illogical, and as best we can, exclusive. I have tried to do so - it doesn't touch the concepts. It touches our ability to discuss them and the use of 'seeing' throughout this thread has, on my account, cause the vast majority of dumb quibbling over positions that seem to just be different words to describe the empirical facts, adjusted merely for hte comfort of the speaker. The commitments entailed by avoiding discomfort could be overcome with better words being used, or at least, better use of the words involved.

The glove is a fine example. Here, indirect touch or feel makes sense — Banno

(on your terms) yes, I can see that this is a fine example for you. For me, it's another level of mediation. A different kind, for sure, though.

Is there something similar for smell or hearing? — Banno

Again, the 'data' actually enter the sense organs as-they-are rather than by essentially shadow, as is the case with touch. The space indented into the skin is reflected in the electrical impulses, rather than the actual feel and shape of the object. But, you can know you're touching something via the other senses. You can't know you're seeing something, or hearing something, based on the other senses. There seems to be something unique about touch. With the other four, there is material entering the body by way of light, sound waves or chemicals(smell and taste) physically interacting with the sense organs. Touch works by a kind of inference - which is probably why its so prone to mistake vs other senses that tend to be construed as 'delusive' or 'hallucinatory' if they don't comport with the world around us. We just accept that some people feel cold differently, for instance, but not that we all hear the note E4 differently. There is measurable data input that can be measured without hte sense organs. Not so with touch.

I don't agree with that at all. Of course you feel the sandpaper - 200 grit is very different to 40 grit; a fact about sandpaper, not about nerves. — Banno

You feel the differential effect of sandpaper of varying grit on your nervous system. That can be aberrant, as an example of why this is obviously mediated. You may touch the sand paper directly, but what you experience is not that touch. And that is just a fact about our sense systems. Its not a philosophical argument. For every sense, despite disparate types of input, electrical impulses in the brain are what constitutes an experience subsequent to the sensitivity in question.

I'm thinking its possible you don't deny this, but you're saying that 'well, what else could we possibly experience?" and call that direct.

I can accept that, but just don't think its accurate enough for a proper discussion.

I certainly agree on your grounding. I just note that the usage of seeing that way plays right into Banno's hide-the-ball

"Experiencing" is the most apt general language term that points to the subjective representation component of perception — hypericin

Definitely. That much seems clear on either account, if one is to be honest with themselves.

I think using the term 'seeing' that way (that you describe) is misleading. If 'seeing' is defined as the entire process, then it's a useless term in this discussion because there's no difference between a 'direct' and 'indirect' version of 'seeing'. The difference between the accounts would be lost in the process. Though, I would understand this 'version' as a direct realist conception because it assumes that any process getting from light reflection to experience is by its result direct, instead of by its process. UNless im not groking you entirely.

How do you touch something indirectly? What to make of an indirect realist account that has one feeling a representation of the sandpaper, not the sandpaper itself? — Banno

Through a glove hehe. That said, again, there are two bodily physical events there, which isn't the case with sight, in the same way. The physical interaction (finger touches sandpaper "out in the world"), and the experience of, lets just use, texture, which is an experience in mind. .

I don't think it's right to say you 'feel' the sandpaper itself, anyway. You feel it's impression on your nervous system, shunted through your nerves, into your brain where it is constructed into an experience.

You could be right.
I think it may be harder to describe, simply because we've had far less experience trying to nut out those problems with other senses.

But, using sound as an example, you're right in that 'sound' consists in the sound waves which enter the ears and physically affect parts of the head resulting in an experience. Objects don't consist in the light bouncing off them, on any accounts i've seen.

Nobody is saying that representation is the thing seen. — hypericin

I actually take quite a number of statements throughout the thread, on the indirect side, to be attempting this claim. Banno nailed me on it some time ago, and i've tried to work through it.

The "seeing seeings" comment from (i think) Janus was addressing this. I ran into the same wall Banno is pointing out, linguistically, and it required a better use of terms to make any sense.
If "see" is the act of one's eye falling on/turning to an object, then "perception" must be the further event (i.e experiencing a representation). Otherwise, nothing occurs in consciousness.

But, if "to look" is used for the physical act of turning one's eye to an object, then "to see" is free to symbolize the experience of a representation in the mind. This reduces the problem to whether or not its reasonable to consider "seeing" as a direct experience of a representation (which is not the object), or an indirect experience of an object via that same representation in consciousness. Ooof.

the word "idiot" to describe non-participants, or in a derogatory sense; its most common use was simply a private citizen or amateur as opposed to a government official

Seems similar to the use of 'vulgar' in 18/19C philosophy.

and so commit themselves to being forever segregated from the world — Banno

This doesn't follow at all.

The fact that I cannot see an object directly doesn't mean I can't interact with it. The idea that a blind person is somehow 'forever segregated' is to use your term "of course, a nonsense". Whereas:

And their answer might well be "as it is in itself" - but this is of course a nonsense, since the hand is aways already an interpretation — Banno

Is not, in any way at all a nonsense, unless you just plum don't like the idea that objects are beyond direct access via the eyes. Which they are. Even by your own lights.
You're just quibbling with words here. Our vision system s indirect. You have to ignore this fact and assign the property of 'directness' for reasons of comfort, or ease, to an indirect process. Fine. But that's not what the attempt to delineate between the two is assessing, as best I can tell. This is, patently, also Austin's problem. We're not trying make sensible sentences about sight. We're trying to figure out what the heck to say about vision which is inherently mediated. If we can't directly see objects, so be it. My emotional state has precisely nothing to do with that.

There are a lot of Consolations of Philosophy lol.

Currently reading parts of Parfit's Reasons & Persons for school.

Unfortunately, yes. Almost all heavy left-leaners like A.C Grayling, Justin Weinberg, Carrie Jenkins, Helena Cruz etc... largely, the 'culture war' related philosophers in my experience.

Brian Leiter is a decent inroad, if you want to check it out. I don't recommend beyond some comments on the Leiter Reports

:ok: :ok:

I haven't had time to come back on other replies unfortunately. Writing for school.

Currently writing for University on this topic under one of Parfit and Williams PhD students.

Interesting thread

in reverse, I did no such thing. Please don’t make accusations like that up.

I didn’t miss anything. I agree, but that’s not what suffering consist in. Suffering is not a “bad feeling”. It is the state of being emotionally perturbed by an experience to the point you cannot integrate it. It precludes a silver lining type framing, without further fact.

Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense

"I see Mars" is a figure of speech meaning "the photons which cause me to recognize that I am seeing Mars — RussellA

I note the recursion.

If “I see mars” is a figure of speech “I am seeing mars” can’t be what it symbolises without an endless circle of self-referential justification.

I’m sure you can work out which two words in my response can be swapped out to meet any potential challenger

to suffer is to have a bad experience.

And the argument would go like this: you are delusional.

Interesting. I can’t see how an obligation to bring humans into existence is a serious point to be argued.

I am an antinatalist and it is patent to me so perhaps that’s just par for the course

this is great fodder for the OP

hehe… well, I’m getting there

I suppose it would be any verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature in service of a biblical claim. Obviously I would be predisposed to doubt, which is an issue… but as with Thomas, I imagine this would not be an issue at the time of realisation

No one's claiming it's an authority. It spit out the scientific facts of our sight system.

My claim remains, and is entirely untouched by what you've presented (which is fine, i'm not claiming AI is an authority on anything but presenting established information, such as how our sight system works).

was to demonstrate prevarication on its part, not to elicit an argument for Direct Realism. — Banno

Understood. I disagree what it did was prevaricate, though. Its entirely sensible, given the claim it is addressing. Massaged inputs are probably worse than open-ended questions.

But your point (and its a fair one, generally) equally applies to old philosophers. Including Austin, who, if he is taken at his word(according to your representations), isn't even addressing this distinction correctly, given he's not talking about the difference 'direct' and 'indirect' actually captures wrt realism. However, I've yet to read S&S so refrain from committing to any comment like that. Its just illustrating the same problem you see with using AI for x purpose.

The crux remains unascended.

HI Banno,

I think rather, it makes more sense to suggest that you not pretend to be quite that silly, and read the piece itself..

When light enters our eyes, it passes through the cornea, then the pupil, and is focused by the lens onto the retina at the back of the eye. The retina contains cells called photoreceptors, which convert the light into electrical signals that are sent to the brain via the optic nerve. The brain then interprets these signals as images.
This process allows us to see objects directly in front of us. — DeepAI

This is a completely different claim.

Unneeded.

I don't think it makes sense to say that "I see such a representation." At best I only vaguely imagine such a representation. — wonderer1

Hmm, fair comment.

How would you think about a 'representation' if it isn't available to the mind in experience? I guess, what do you take a 'representation' within this framework of 'sight' to actually be?

I feel exactly the same way :smirk:

From DeepAI in response to 'Is human sight indirect?'

"Yes, human sight is considered indirect because light rays must reflect off of objects before entering the eyes and being processed by the brain to form an image. It is not a direct connection between the eyes and the object being viewed."

No amount of prevarication can make that a direct process.

As pointed out, depends if you mean 'every day philosophy' which is certainly not idle - it is the basis on whcih people act, day-to-day. But it is certainly imprecise, largely flies in the face of facts, and ultimately isn't going to 'progress' the person without some further investigation into their 'philosophy'.

Academic philosophy? 50/50. Philosophy Twitter is a society of PhDs who are absolutely f-ing morons and can't construct a simple sentence to get across an idea that they already know is bunk.

But if you speak to faculties and policy gurus who are trained in philosophy, it's so bloody interesting its hard to take it as anythign but fundamentally important (though, that's an emotional response lol).

Yes, I think this is happening more than I've noticed, causing a lot of 'wtf' in me, wrt responses i get sometimes. To be absolutely clear:

That 'account' (equivalent to say we see 'seeings') is not the Direct Realist account. But that is actually exactly what it requires. Because to ignore the mediating effect of our sight system results in pretending you are 'seeing' a 'sight' which is in fact, a representation. So, yeah, direct realism does entail this, in some way or another.

I was not suggesting this is is consciously owned by direct realists. It is, though, the exact basis for the claim made of 'seeing the world directly', which is the explicit claim of at least some DRs. It couldn't be another way, without plum ignoring the empirical reality of the human system of sight.

However, if we're going to amend these accounts of words to incorporate useful delineations, then we 'perceive' directly the representations which we are 'seeing' indirectly, as a result of 'looking at' a object. This seems to cover all three positions presented, and doesn't disturb the empirical facts. An Indirect Realist would see themselves in this, as would a Direct Realist in the way Banno is putting forward that 'seeing' is, in fact, an indirect activity of hte mind regarding an object, and no of an object. I'm quite happy with this, personally, pending any substantial problems being pointed out.

definitely agree with you here (final para) and apply to many other ideologies

it wasn’t posited as either so I’ll just leave that.

Not, I hope, too dissimilar to the OP, which gave a neat rendering of the arguments, which I addressed. — Banno

I agree. I liked that particular synthesis.

I was referring, though, to the 'crux' i previously referred to as a bumper sticker (previously offered by myself, in this thread).

that seeing a thing consists in constructing a representation of that thing. — Banno

b-b-b-b-b-bingo. I am fully understanding you now. Need to think.

Can you give an example of something which is physically direct, and explain what you would mean by "direct" in that context? — Janus

Sure, but first, as to your next reply to Banno (as per my above): :ok:

I think Banno noted something I've not explored, but seems to rise to this distinction:
Touch.
Actually touching something isn't the same as 'actually seeing' something (removing delusive elements) : "to touch" something can occur whether or not you have an experience of consequence of touch - the conscious experience of texture, heat, wetness etc...
Sight doesn't operate that way. It is, plainly, mediated. You cannot be conscious of 'sight' other than in conscious experience of sight. You can be aware that you 'touched' or 'are touching' something via other senses. So, while i understand that the underlying 'gotcha' in this avenue is valid inasmuchas this is still 'indirect experience' the physical act of touching is a 1:1 type of interaction which is not mediated. Sight just doesn't do that. It only consists in the resulting experience of some film-in-consciousness derived from electrical signals.

see representations is equivalent to saying we see seeings — Janus

Yet, this is exactly what is intimated by the claims of direct realists, who fail to address the entire problem of sight being plainly physically indirect. The conclusion of those positions is that "seeing" is an act of hte mind.... and the eyes... without a difference. Banno nearly conceded this isn't the case in the commnet we're both discussing.. and redefined 'seeing' from what's been its usual use, to one which actually captures his position.

Which is why I've tried, at length, elsewhere, to delineate between "to look", "to see" and "experience"
You look at something with your eyes, experience a representation, which is seen in the mind.

All topics are dead ends on every philosophy forum. — flannel jesus

I have no basis for comparison, unfortunately. ONly real life philosophy groups and professionals :nerd:

No — Lionino

Interesting.

Is the objection that reading Hume or Aristotle didn't necessitate Kant's work? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and as seems standard around these parts, no one's noticing that, as is standard in philosophical discourse, I am parsing phrases and using words in manners that make them make sense instead of less-sensible ways they've been used before - and I cop to that, given this isn't a piece of academic writing. But, I notice others doing this all the time and respond as such, so Im not sure what's missing fro my writing that prevents others from noticing this. The term 'cause' doesn't make sense if it also includes distant influences, and not proximate causes only.

Hume (the Treatise, particularly) is/was necessary, but not sufficient, as a cause for the CPR - would be my position here, and I can't use the word 'cause' to represent something which it doesn't represent, to my mind. If others are using it that way, my position is they are hurting themselves by doing so. I don't understand repeatedly using words in ways that make them impossible to adequately use in detailed discussions. These are personal, developing methods of interacting with these ideas. I see an issue - i address it.

So where is the absence of any causal link? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is the opposite of a reasonable enquiry. Show me one? Given my previous explanation of why i'm still using 'cause' here, I imagine this isn't a reasonable request. But that's the point. It cannot be shown.

"x uniquely determines y," and "x plays a causal role in y." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh, yes, I absolutely agree, and this is largely the reason im rejecting some uses of 'cause'. 'a cause', to me, is a discreet and necessarily traceable relationship. That can't be done adequately for 'causal influence' for eg. It is inferred or assumed loosely (or, when you're actually told by the source that X was a distance influence on work II), whereas a 'cause' is (read: should be, under my use) capable of immediate recognition given, essentially, two pieces of information (the purported cause, and the purported effect per se coupled with their spatio-temporal relationship per se (i.e "Did it occur before, or after?").

I do not find this to be quibbling, either. The distinction you make is baked into my use of the word. I haven't got an adequate singular for 'distant causal influence' on foot, though. Perhaps this is just a needed refinement.

And you don't see that this is fallacious, and unwieldy at best, and complete irrelevant at worst>

That's fair, prima facie, but it's very clear to me. I get the exact same feeling as when some has misheard a word, when i read a lot of the replies attempting to address it.

That doesn't mean its hitting the same for others. I have essentially boiled it down to a bumper sticker a couple of times.

Without Hume there would have been no CPR. — Lionino

This is the worst piece of reasoning ive seen along this line. "if but for" is not the same as 'cause'. Without Aristotle, there would be CPR either.

Wonder when the pin will drop..

So, the whole argument is undecidable in any absolute sense and is thus really a non-starter, another confusing artefact of thinking dualistically. — Janus

Perhaps. I would say it’s undecidable because of the linguistic issues. But I also reject entirely that something odd means a position is wrong. Nothing you’ve said presents any issues unless you don’t like the implications.

Banno, for all his words, hasn’t addressed the issue at all. Nothing he has said establishes anything direct about perception. I’ve nailed down the crux multiple times and all I get back are vague questions about implications he doesn’t like.

No one else has done better. *shrug* I guess people think that perception, which is physically indirect, is direct in discussion. Seems like this may be a dead end on TPF. I mean, almost all of these takes rely on a 1:1 match between experience and object. Which is incoherent on its face - they aren’t even the same dimension.