I never said what you claim I did. I kindly withdraw.

You’re imaging things, friend.

None of that is contrary to what I said.

You said the evidence to the contrary was obvious. What evidence to the contrary?

“That narrative”.

What evidence to the contrary?

Write the word “self” on a label and stick it to any one of the options you’ve provided. The entity upon which that label finally sits is the self, and in every case it is the human individual in its entirety.

Clever? It’s authoritarian. He used the insurrection lie as a pretext to weaponize the DOJ against his political opponent, jail those who protested his presidency, and to paint those he doesn’t like as extremists.

In any case, it’s unfalsifiable and cannot be proven, except when it comes to the science of perception.

I’m not sure there is any good reason for the indirect realist to believe in any of them, since any evidence regarding anything about the external world lies beyond his knowledge. He doesn’t know what he is experiencing indirectly. Hell, he can’t even know that his perception or knowledge is indirect.

I don’t think so because Berkley’s objection to indirect realism still stands, and the direct realist can raise it without himself believing in idealism.

Given that any evidence of the external world lies beyond the veil of perception, or experience, is the realism regarding the external world a leap of faith?

The how do you infer that experience is caused by the environment, for example?

Experience is a causal consequence of our body interacting with the environment but our knowledge of that environment is indirect; we make inferences based on our direct knowledge of our own experiences.

We infer on the basis of evidence and reasoning, but since we only have direct knowledge of experience, we cannot be aware of the evidence of anything outside of it.

Experience is a causal consequence of our body interacting with the environment but our knowledge of that environment is indirect; we make inferences based on our direct knowledge of our own experiences.

How does one know that experience is the causal consequence of his body interacting with the environment if he only has direct knowledge of his own experience, and not of what causes it?

I can see things when I close my eyes, especially after eating magic mushrooms. The schizophrenic hears voices when suffering from psychosis. We all see and hear and feel things when we dream.

There's more to the meaning of "I experience X" than simply the body responding to external stimulation, else we couldn't make sense of something like "some people see a black and blue dress and others see a white and gold dress when looking at this photo" or "I'm looking at this 'duck-rabbit' picture but I can't see the duck".

I get all that, I just don’t understand how someone can see something without eyes. If sight involves eyes, and those eyes are missing or closed, then is he really seeing?

I don’t think so. In my view the nomenclature is strictly metaphorical, a sort of folk biology, the result of the disconnect between states of feeling and states of affairs.

Perhaps better verbs are in order, for instance “I dream of such and such” or “I am hallucinating”.

Do we directly experience the external world? The indirect realist accepts that we experience the world; he just claims that the experience isn't direct.

So what is the relevant philosophical meaning of "direct"? It's the one that answers the epistemological problem of perception that gave rise to the dispute between direct and indirect realists in the first place. Direct realists claimed that there isn't an epistemological problem because perception is direct, therefore the meaning of "direct" must be such that if perception is direct then there isn't an epistemological problem of perception. Given that experience does not extend beyond the body and so given that distal objects and their properties are not constituents of experience, and given that experience is the only direct source of information available to rational thought, there is an epistemological problem of perception and so experience of distal objects is not direct.

But the indirect realist does not experience the external world. As you say, experience doesn’t extend beyond the body, and the indirect realist does not believe the external world is a constituent of his experience. Well what is?

So in my mind the important philosophical question is: “what does the indirect realist believe he is experiencing directly”? The history of philosophy and the myriad terms and theories regarding the nature of this mediator attests to the importance of the problem.

Yeah, you need to learn the difference between horns and antlers.

Moose hat? No, he was the guy claiming it was an insurrection. In fact, I think he might be the first guy to use the term, and everyone else just followed.

What does it mean for some A to view some B?

That’s what I don’t understand. In layman’s terms viewing, seeing, looking etc. involves the eyes. How does one see a representation?

That question doesn't address the philosophical disagreement between direct and indirect realism. It's a red herring.

It's like asking "do we kill people?" Yes, we kill people; but we kill people using guns and knives and poison and so on.

So one person says "John didn't kill him; the poison killed him" and the other person saying "John killed him (using poison)" and then they both argue that one or the other is correct. It's a confused disagreement; it's just two people describing things in different ways.

This is the confused disagreement that you and others are trying to engage with.

It ought not to matter if the grammar is irrelevant. It’s basically the same question, just worded differently and without the ambiguity.

Do we experience the external world? The direct realist would say yes, the indirect realist would say no. After answering we can approach the philosophical disagreement. So what’s missing?

But that’s exactly what they did. The J6 protest was Biden Inc’s Reichstag fire. Remember that Nazis claimed the fire was a plot to topple the government, and used the lie to crush their opponents.

True and false are two different ways of speaking about the same thing. Predicates can be true or false, for instance. So dismissing grammar is a mistake, in my opinion, and I’m not sure why someone would want to eschew it.

The arrows in the pictures are meant represent the direction and indirection of the interaction. For indirect perception, something in the world causes a representation of an apple, which is viewed by something in the brain.

The relevant philosophical difference between direct and indirect realism is that regarding the epistemological problem of perception; are distal objects and their properties constituents of experience and so does experience inform us about the mind-independent nature of the external world. To be a direct realist is to answer "yes" to these questions and to be an indirect realist is to answer "no" to these questions.

The question is loaded. If I answer “yes” I confirm there is a realm of experience in which phenomena occur, and the existence of an epistemic mediator called “experience”. Experience is treated like a place or thing, in which these other objects are parts. But “experience” as used cannot be instantiated, so I must say “no”.

Perhaps we can formulate it another way. Do we experience “distal objects”?

This image seems absolutely nonsensical to me, intuitively and reflectively. What does that say? I don't know, and i'm implying anything. Just curious as to your reaction to that. It may say nothing.

It’s nonsensical to me too. I’m just describing the images evoked by the arguments.

All perception is direct—we all agree there is an immediate object of perception, and that X perceives Y. The only difference between the two positions is the nature of what it is we are directly perceiving (an apple or representation of an apple), the nature of who or what perceives it (a person or a brain), and how they go about doing so.

Elucidating each position requires the use of grammar—nouns, verbs, and adjectives—each of which can be confirmed to be true or false when compared to states of affairs. So the grammar is relevant because it describes (or at least ought to) the subject of perception, the object of perception, and how both are interacting with each other.

The grammar can indicate where a position goes off the rails. For instance, upon hearing the arguments my alarm bells go off. "Well, that noun doesn't refer to anything in particular"; "that object of perception is just a reiteration of the subject and predicate, an equivocation"; "experience is treated as if a space or container in which things occur, albeit with no defined boundary or volume or location".

The imagery the grammar evokes is important, in my opinion. For me it evokes as follows:

Direct Perception


Indirect Perception

I'm not sure what it means to be "strictly caused", but there's a clear, predictable connection between Trump's verbal attacks on named individuals and threats by Trump supporters to that individual. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think Trump is unaware?

I do deny it. The ability to criticize is a precious right. Criticism does not constitute a threat, plain and simple, but that’s how they and you are trying to portray it. And again, there is little to no evidence these threats even occurred, that they were from Trump supporters, that they are the result of Trump’s criticisms.

Mr. Trump’s documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case in two respects

The theory is complete nonsense. Trump making people aware of someone's name through criticism or otherwise does not cause threats. The worst it could ever do is inform others, and that's where his culpability ends.

Their entire theory is premised on the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. At no time do they consider the millions of people who do not threaten anyone, but will violate their rights in order to stop the few people (if any) who do.

The threats, if there really are any, are strictly caused by the motives of the threatener. We don't even know who they are, and the court never mentions who they are. It is only assumed they are Trump supporters, based on the scantest of evidence, but that's it. The recipients could be lying, like Jussie Smollett. Those issuing threats could be operatives pretending to be Trump supporters, doing so to influence the trial. They could be foreign actors. They could be kids goofing off.

Either way, the very high burden of proof for a prior restraint gag order has not been met.

I hold a similar view. I imagine concepts derived from the fact of one’s embodied state are quite primitive and foundational. Concepts such as “inside” or “outside”, “forward” and “backward”, “through” or “over” or “under”, all seem inextricably linked to one’s form as a being insofar as it moves through space and time.

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.

I suppose you're right. The problem for me, as mentioned, is first-person experience of what is actually occurring behind the eyes is wholly limited. Much of what is occurring in there cannot be sensed, and it is this lack of sense that informs indirect realism, perhaps even feeling and subjectivity entirely, so the label "naive" is more appropriately applied to this view, I think.

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?

By direct I mean only not indirect. There is no mediating factor prohibiting me from sensing the world.

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?

I can only speak for myself. The eyes aren't just stimulated as if they passively await light to hit them. The body isn't a Rube Goldberg device. 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.

It's a leap to call a court-imposed restriction on what someone can say at the penalty of fine or jail censorship?

The Supreme Court has deemed gag orders constitutional only where it protects the right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is the right of the defendant, not the judge and his daughter. The gag orders here, as in Chutkin's court, is to protect people from supposed threats, not to protect their's or anyone else's right to a fair trial. That's my legal contention.

My moral contention is that it is wrong to censor someone on specious grounds, such as prior restraint, the assumption that his speaking will lead to this or that ill effect in the future. They do not know the future. They do not know what will happen. They cannot connect Trump's speech to any of the threats, nor do they know the motives of anyone who threatens them, and until they find someone who confesses that Trump's words forced him against his will to threaten someone, the conspiracy theory is absurd.

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.

The fallacy of ambiguity always factors high in these discussions. I wager the activity described as "information given to rational thought" is something that does not occur. I apologize but I have to remain sceptical of what I can only describe as imaginary things and processes. It is unclear what any of these words refer to, if anything. I'd much prefer a look at what is actually going on there and use that as a basis. Only then can we speak of things and activities involved in perception.

I am a direct realist and do not believe distal objects and their properties are actual constituents of the experience. Again, in order to wade through the fallacy of ambiguity, 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. So I'll have to dismiss it as just that. But scientists are also not immune to ambiguity. Searle takes up the argument from science quite well if you'd like to read an opposing argument.

The only reason why experience wouldn’t extend beyond the body is because experience is bodily, of the body, and in fact identical with it. So it’s like saying the body does not extend beyond the body.

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? that they do so indirectly?

While it is true that distal objects are not constituents of the body, luckily the sense are, and the body is equipped to sense its surroundings. Unfortunately the senses do not point inward, and he cannot use them to discern what is going on inside. The subjective disconnect between states of feelings and states of affairs will forever perplex indirect realism. A being who cannot watch his own brain supposes to tell us what is occurring inside. Should evidence concern us, one ought to remain skeptical of these phenomenological claims.

Lastly, the causal relationship as proposed by indirect realism (as far as I can tell) is largely backwards. It does not account for the activity of perception, for instance focussing, grasping, tasting a distal object, all of which occur prior.

Anti-Trumpism is a propaganda-driven moral panic. In order to stop the authoritarianism, racism, and fascism that never seems to arrive, anti-Trumpism employs all of the above to save us from the existential threat of a Trump presidency. Even though their conspiracy theories have revealed themselves as hoaxes, and their fear-mongering as lies, they double down, creating for themselves the conditions that justify the panic.

The defendant has the constitutional right to a fair trial, but in this case he was gagged using prior restraint. So in this case the idea that gag-orders insure a fair trial is false. Yes he was harmed; his rights were violated by the same institution that is tasked with protecting them.

You appeal to authority to guide your reasoning. That’s all you’ve offered. The problem is you’ll defer to them even when they’re wrong or unjust. You yourself argued prior restraint, echoing the court, as far as I can tell not applying a single thought of your own.

If you don’t know or understand why free speech is preferable to censorship, there are thousands of years of argument and history you can peruse if you’re interested, but I call you a censor because you defend censorship, not because I disagree with you.

Reading through, the play for indirect realism seems to be to pick two supposedly distinct aspects of a perceiver and to have one mediate perception for the other. This gives the impression that there are 3 parties, a relationship that is necessary for mediation, and for indirect realism.

But the distinction is abstract and has no empirical grounds. All one has to do is observe a perceiver and note that only two parties are involved in the perceptual relationship, and all the indirect realist has really done is implied that the perceiver mediates his own perception, which isn’t mediation at all.

You tacitly acknowledged threats of violence occur, and applauded it:

If they didn’t abuse their power they wouldn’t get threats. It’s as simple as that. What I applaud is retributive justice. If there is no punishment for their malfeasance I would hope people let them know how they feel.

And the problem is that so many Trump supporters are stupid and biased. Like Trump, they consider all Democrats corrupt. Their faith in Trump is astounding- they're incapable of considering the possibility he's guilty as charged; anyone who says otherwise is deluded and anti-Trump.

There certainly many who are apt to assume Trump guilty of anything. I'm not one of them. I explore the evidence. I've never met a Trump supporter who's familiar with the evidence. But all of them know which judges are Democrats.

He’s done nothing wrong. The alleged crimes are made up out of thin air, and used as they are to influence the election in Biden’s favor. Have you explored the evidence that attests to this?

Yes there is. There's testimony from the Proud Boys acknowledging they were triggered by Trump's encouragement to "stand down and stand by".

Standing down isn’t a in any way nefarious, I’m afraid. Invoking his name during a criminal act is no evidence that his rhetoric leads to criminal acts.

I had asked you to explain how Trump was hurt by the gag order, but it seems you believe it helps! So what's the problem?

His rights were violated on the basis of prior restraint. I’ve mentioned this a few times now.

You are a free-speech absolutist, so your judgement that the grounds (taint the jury pool and potential to incite violence) are stupid doesn't mean very much. Speaking of stupid, obeying a gag order does no harm to Trump, so it seems stupid to flout it. Reminds my of the sexual assault suit- Trump can't keep his stupid mouth shut, so it cost him financially.

And you’re a censor, so it’s no wonder you’ll defend censorship. But it isn’t just my judgement. It’s also the judgement of the Supreme Court. Censorship on the basis of prior restraint is the most pernicious of all forms of censorship.

You're parrotting a popular wing conspiracy theory. It is the irrational perception that the justice system is targeting Conservatives that is the problem. That perception is the product of cherry picking cases and proclaiming the allegation is proved- per the typical approach of conspiracy theorists. This is exactly what I was referring to: the GOP is encouraging this irrational conclusion and thus undermining the system.

I never said they were targeting conservatives. I said they were targeting Trump. I’m not cherry picking any cases here. I’m saying it of all of them. But typical of anti-Trumpism is the misrepresentation of an opponents views in a base effort of propaganda.

One of the greatest stupidities of anti-Trumpism is to attribute to Trump's words some ill effect, like the undermining of the justice system, or the proliferation of threats against public servants, all because he makes comments on social media. There is no evidence for it.

It is also politically stupid. People notice when you justify censorship on such stupid grounds. It makes a martyr out of the censored.

But it’s also the cause of the backlash in the first place. No one, especially Trump, is ordering people to threaten the court or to lose faith in the justice system. The actions of the justice system itself is what undermines the justice system and leads to threats against those involved. When people see that the judge’s daughter is a big-time consultant for the Biden/Harris campaign and Adam Schiff, they think that’s ridiculous and unjust. Why, of all judges, is it this one? Is there no judge without kids who work for Biden/Harris campaign? Is there no judge who has not assumed Trump’s guilt in earlier cases? This is why even the appearance of a conflict of interest is inappropriate.

The questionable decision is the gag order, the violation of a human right, which I’ve already mentioned is using prior restraint, and the refusal to recuse himself. Not only that but the mere appearance of bias, and the fact that the daughter and her clients stand to benefit from a conviction, demands recusal according to state statute. The fact he hasn’t recused himself yet and has refused to do so is judicial misconduct on its face. And it only makes him appear more biased, or ignorant of the law, or both, forever tarnishing the integrity of the justice system.

Trump was absolutely right to point it out, and we’re all better off for knowing it.

He was censored for social media posts that point out the judge has a vested interest in Trump’s conviction, in Trump’s election loss, insofar as it pleases his daughter’s political clientele, who pay her ridiculous amounts of DNC donor cash to help them win elections.

Not only does it hurt Trump’s chances at this sham trial over a this sham indictment, but it also denies the public access to this important information. Perhaps worse, the more and more this corruption and the weaponization of the court continues the more threats people will get. People can only observe so much injustice before they start to pop off. So if judge wants to protect people he should stop being unjust and corrupt, because doubling down clearly isn’t helping.

Why can’t Trump defend himself outside of trial?

The judge used prior restraint to censor the defendant in order to shield his daughter from being exposed for being a DNC apparatchik. Meanwhile Stormy Daniels can make documentaries and Michael Cohen can write books, which according to your logic almost certainly leads to threats.

The corrupt deserve to be threatened, and it is this corruption that almost certainly leads to the threats. Besides, prior restraint is forbidden in the United States. If the judge wishes to avoid threats he ought to just recuse himself and quit being corrupt.

Earlier this week internet sleuths, doing the job of the media class, discovered that the daughter of the judge in the Stormy Daniels sham trial was a digital marketing consultant, whose company raked in millions from the campaigns of Biden/Harris, Adam Schiff, and other anti-Trump demagogues.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/06/politics/trump-judge-daughter-attacks-explainer

So the judge, using prior restraint, expanded an unconstitutional gag order against Trump to shield family members of the court from Trump’s criticism, which risks exposing the incestuous relationship between anti-Trump politicians, election opponents, and the prosecution to the court.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-gag-order-expanded-after-attacks-on-new-york-judges-daughter

The judge, his daughter, and the DNC clients who line their pockets, all gain from Trump’s conviction. The likelihood of a fair trial has been tossed in the garbage along with the US constitution. Despite’s Trump’s censorship more and more of this fascism is being exposed.