Comments

  • After all - Artificial Intelligennce is thick as a brick
    ↪Patterner
    Your word's but a whisper, anyway.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Moliere
    My guess is that
    So is salt water soluble in-itself or does water construct the solubility of salt? — Count Timothy von Icarus
    relates to
    ...the whole 'things known "in-themselves"' issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I'm guessing that the issue is how, for example, the leaf being green-in-itself parallels salt being soluble-in-itself; and the answer is given by the analysis I presented previously. Salt is soluble-in-water, a single placed predicate; the leaf is (perhaps) green-to-most-people, a single placed predicate; but we can change this to a two-placed predication, soluble (salt, water) and green(leaf, most-people). The question of whether salt is soluble-in-itself dissolves in the two-placed analysis, as does the question of whether the leaf is green-in-itself.

    This is one way to analyse primary and secondary qualities in first order logic. Primary qualities as single predications - the mass of the leaf; secondary properties as relations between the leaf and the observer.

    Of course, as always, there are complications. Do we consider solubility a secondary quality of salt? Of naphthaline?
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    "Perception sometimes distorts reality. We know this to be so because mostly, it doesn't". — Janus

    Yes!

    The reply will be that we don't know things as they are, we only know our sense data or whatever, and have to infer the state of the world from that sense data, using pragmatics or probability or some such.

    As if there were a reliable way of assessing the probability that your hand is before you in Moore's "Here is a hand!"

    Oddly, indirect realism seems related to scientism.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Moliere
    And hot oil dissolves naphthalene faster than cold - not sure about quantity.

    But I wasn't able to relate this discussion to the thread's topic.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Janus
    Hmm. It's an interesting case. I'd say
    The science of perception is correct and does not suggest that perception distorts reality
    Moving the negation. This has a different sense to @Michael's
    The science of perception is correct and suggests that perception does not distort reality
    bringing out your
    The unacknowledged assumption is that perception, being that upon which the science of perception is necessarily based, gives us an accurate picture of what is the case. — Janus
    Perception sometimes distorts reality. We know this to be so because sometimes, it doesn't. Importantly, and you might agree that folk seem to keep missing this, we can only know that perception distorts reality if we know what is real.

    Some of the things we say about the world are true. Suggesting that we never perceive things as they are undermines this.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    That lemons smell like lemons is a vacuous claim — Michael
    Not so much. If the smell is only a thing constructed by the mind, then there is no reasons that lemons might not on occasion smell like mint. The reason lemons smell like lemons is, put simply, that that is how lemons smell.

    Then you're welcome to present Austin's arguments. — Michael
    Done, here: Austin: Sense and Sensibilia and in a post back on page one of this thread.

    I don't see how saying irrelevant things like "lemons smell like lemons" is helpful at all. — Michael
    Plainly, for you, it isn't. Not my problem.

    It's not the immediate object of their rational consideration. — Michael
    Sure, you can make up a story in which you talk like this.

    But it is made up.

    I'm amused that you presented a story that you supposed supported indirect realism, but ended up with an account that fits direct realism. The inversion drops out of consideration. One can imagine your creature's physiologist making the "discovery" that half the population sees things upside down, and their philosophers explaining carefully that no, they don't.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪creativesoul
    Nice.

    The way the males see the world is very different to the way the females see the world (with respect to its orientation). — Michael
    Well, no. They both see the same thing - the world. They both see the snake coming to have one of them for dinner. They both see the competing males.

    The appearance of the world is a mental phenomenon, and it is the appearance of the world that is the immediate object of their rational consideration. — Michael
    Again, no; the "object of their rational consideration" is the snake and the competing males. If they get caught up considering their sense impressions and justifying to themselves the inference from sense impression to world, they are going to end up as virgin dinner.

    @creativesoul, excuse my answering a question to you.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ...this does not address the arguments made by either direct or indirect realists. — Michael
    Good. As Austin showed, the framing of the argument in those terms is muddled.

    I'm also still trying to understand what you mean by saying that we smell things as they are. — Michael
    Again, that lemons smell like lemons, and not like (say) mint.

    You seem to be having trouble with this:
    We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world as it is, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
    Now if it makes you feel better, you can take out the "as it is", if that is too much for you, so:
    We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
    That still suits my purposes.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪AmadeusD
    Yeah, like me you need your 'fix'. We are not dissimilar to poor old Russ...
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪AmadeusD
    Are you suggesting @RussellA is on psychedelics? :wink:

    Maybe.

    The arguments in this thread are all about "merely using a word incorrectly".

    Isn't that your third or fourth post since leaving the thread? :razz:
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪creativesoul

    Seven.

    You and I both know the number written at the start of this post - "you know what is in my mind"

    ↪RussellA
    seems to think that this implies telepathy...

    I don't follow his reasoning.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus


    Solubility is not a property of salt but a relation between salt and water.

    Confusion will occur if folk treat two-places predicates as one-place predicates without due care.

    If you like, (dissolves in water) is a property of salt, but not of, say, ground coriander.

    But Naphthalene, I am told, does not have the property (dissolves in water) but instead (dissolves in oil)

    Or, if you prefer two-place predication, the following are true:

    • dissolves (salt, water)
    • ~dissolves (salt, oil)
    • dissolves (Naphthalene, oil)
    • ~dissolves (Naphthalene, oil)
    • ~dissolves (ground coriander, water)

    Now, how does this relate to the topic?

    (I suspect that the confusion stems, like many such problems, from an over-reliance on ancient logic, which did not easily make this distinction, rather than modern logic, which makes it as a matter of course. But I won't argue the case.)

    Edit: Seems I was misinformed. Naphthalene might be a better example than xanthan.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪RussellA
    The quote above from the SEP article The Problem of Perception refers to the debate within Direct Realism, not to the debate between Direct and Indirect Realism. — RussellA
    :roll:
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪Michael
    Well, you might excuse me since it remains unclear to me what it is you are claiming. It seems to be something like that, since lemons sometimes smell lemony, therefore that is how they smell when nothing has a nose...

    I don't know what to make of that.

    Directly or indirectly, even you, Michael, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪creativesoul
    I had a lemon the other day that smelled of mould. :grimace:

    But overwhelmingly, lemons smell like lemons.

    Seems some folk are perplexed by this.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ↪RussellA
    That'll be the article which ends:

    The question, now, is not so much whether to be a direct realist, but how to be one.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    ...under any reasonable reading... — Michael

    Sure. You interpret it the way you want. :wink: It'll save you thinking.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    So things have a smell even if nothing has a nose? — Michael
    How did you get to that?

    Sometimes - mostly - things smell as they should (or even as they do) - ozone like ozone, lemon like lemon; If ozone smelt like lemon, that would be notable.

    Thats why we have different words for the smells of ozone and of lemon.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Some saw gold, some saw blue. Regardless, everyone saw a dress; on this there was agreement.

    The dress is black and blue. The manufacturer and the photographer confirm this.

    Sometimes we see things as they are; sometimes, not.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Why are you so certain of this?
    — Banno
    Because logically these are the only possibilities.     — hypericin
    So it's not that you think we can never be certain; it's just that you think we can only be certain about some issues, not others. Good.

    Knowing the truth, getting things right, is completely orthogonal to the discussion. — hypericin
    Well, yes, in that it cuts right across our discussion; we want to get it right. It does not matter if you know of an enemy attack directly or indirectly, if you know that it is truly occurring: provided you get it right.

    I only doubt it to the extent that I am not absolutely certain of their existence. If I somehow had direct access to their inner lives, I could be absolutely certain. — hypericin
    Again, it is of little consequence whether your certainty is "absolute" or not, so long as you act as if....

    You can be certain I read your post, since I quoted it and replied to it. The addition of "absolute" is unnecessary. Indeed, if it inspires you to doubt, I suggest that it is counterproductive.

    So again, I'll point out that you do sometimes know how things are, and this despite your protestations to the contrary. Some of the things you say are true.

    Ubiquitous doubt is misplaced.

    You are certain of some things, but not of others, and you are right some of the time. It seems your supposition that certainty must be "absolute" or else must be doubted is somewhat overblown.

    I put it to you that you do sometimes see, touch, hear or smell things as they are. Talk of having "absolute" certainty here is irrelevant.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    There's just two possibilities: absolute certainty, or the possibility of doubt. — hypericin

    Why are you so certain of this?

    I put it to you that you know you are not having a vivid dream - you really do not want to admit to be dreaming of me, do you?

    I put it to you that you also sometimes know how things are - not all the time, and sometimes you are indeed wrong, but sometimes, you get it right - which is to say, you occasionally speak the truth. I hope you will agree with me at least on this.

    Whether that amounts to having "direct access to reality" or not is by the by.

    So far as other people are concerned, if you doubt their existence, then they should not stop you walking naked through the local shopping mall. Their gaze can be quite convincing.

    The point is not to seriously entertain these possibilities... — hypericin
    Indeed. So, don't.

    Perhaps the direct/indirect framework is misleading you.
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    or better, but more difficult,

    https://archive.org/details/g.-e.-m.-anscombe-an-introduction-to-wittgenstein-s-tractatus
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    The Tractatus is a difficult work easily misunderstood.

    Perhaps this will help: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/tractatus/
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    I've been unable to follow hypericin's account.

    Take the following:
    All we know directly is perception, reality itself could potentially be anything. — hypericin

    I don't see him claiming we have *no* access to the world, just no direct access. Indirection still allows access to empirical facts, just not absolute certainly about those facts: everything could always be a simulation, or whatnot. But absolute certainty is overrated. — hypericin

    The world could be anything, yet we somehow have access to empirical facts...?

    Sure, certainty is overrated; but hereabouts, even more so, doubt. You are presently reading this sentence. An empirical fact? Call it what you will, it is... difficult... to see how it might be coherently doubted.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    The argument from illusion:
    • We sometimes see things as other than they are,
    • Therefore we never see things as they are
    It is clearly invalid. Indeed, it is inept.

    As has been pointed out, by myself and others, that we know we occasionally see things as other than they are implies that we know how things are, and if one accepts empiricism, that we at least occasionally see things as they are. If you insist both that the only way we know stuff is through our senses and yet that we can never see things as they are, you have some explaining to do.

    Again, we can reject the juxtaposition of direct and indirect experiences entirely, and admit that we do sometimes see (hear, touch, smell...) things as they are; and that indeed this is essential in order for us to be able to recognise those occasions in which we see (hear, touch, smell...) things in the world erroneously.

    We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world as it is, and thereby make true statements about things in the world. It is true that you are now reading a sentence written by me.

    And again, I commend the SEP article The Problem of Perception.

    The question, now, is not so much whether to be a direct realist, but how to be one. — SEP
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    we know because we know that image isn't animated. — flannel jesus

    'cause no one knew about illusions before Micky Mouse.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    I'd say that the science of perception supports the converse assumption that we do see the world as it really is, including optical illusions under various conditions. — jkop

    Yep. But I don't think we need the "really". We (sometimes, just for Flannel) see the world as it is.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    To trust it and base arguments on it, would on that assumption, be a performative contradiction. — Janus
    I agree.

    Both direct and indirect realists of course accept the account of perception provided by science. The difference is not one of fact, so much as of expression; that is, it is a philosophical difference.
  • Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
    Privilege is imperceptible to the privileged.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    ↪unenlightened
    surely tuning the engine is doing something…?

    Even if it’s only making noise.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    Nope. This is factually not the case. We 'feel' electrical impulses. That is the case. No idea how you're supporting a pretense that this isn't the case, and i've been asking for your(and others) account of that for pages and pages and yet nothing but obfuscation. The only reasonable response to this is to outline how it is the case that you feel ANYTHING without those electrical impulses. And you don't. So, maybe just adjust your position instead of having a short-circuit on a forum :) — AmadeusD

    If anything, that paragraph shows a simple failure of comprehension.

    Sure, we only feel stuff because of nerve impulses. I never claimed otherwise.

    But we do not feel the impulses, we feel the sandpaper.

    Not much more that can be added.
  • A Summary of the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"
    See the SEP Article Wittgenstein’s Logical Atomism.

    The nature of "object' is contentious; it might be bets to acknowledge this and move on

    (For my part I'll go along with Anscombe that objects are particulars and un analysable.)
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ↪Fooloso4
    Cheers.
  • Thought Versus Communication
    ↪180 Proof
    I hope you realise I rejected that view.
  • Indirect Realism and Direct Realism
    . You feel electrical impulses taking on a certain character when decoded into conscious experience — AmadeusD

    No, we do not.

    I touch the two pieces of sandpaper and choose the 200 grit for the fine work; I hand them to you and ask you to choose the 200 grit, you are able to do so.

    You and I both feel the difference between the 40 grit and the 200 grit.

    We feel the sandpaper, not the electrical impulses.

    You do not say :"the impulses here have a finer character than the impulses there"; you say "This sandpaper is finer than that".

    You might feel with or via those impulses, but they are not what you feel.

    To feel electrical impulses, try sticking your fingers in a light socket.
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ↪Jamal
    Well, over time, it is inevitable that the interpretations of an author diverge.
    An Hegelian will read with an Hegelian lens.
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ↪Fooloso4
    But where is this used by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus?

    Third ask. The pointless bit is continuing a conversation where someone says a text says something that the text does not say.
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ↪Fooloso4

    Best drop this. It is a side line and rather pointless.
  • Thought Versus Communication
    ↪Olento
    ,
    ↪wonderer1
    , that'd be ChatGPT, not you. You can do more than just "continue the prompt".
  • Wittgenstein’s creative sublimation of Kant
    ↪Jamal
    Well, I went over the various papers mentioned hereabouts.

    But in the end it seems to me that if what is involved in 'sublimating Kant" is just making use of a transcendental argument then the point is pretty trivial.

    And that if there is some deeper point, I haven't been able to follow it. Kant places transcendence in experience, Wittgenstein places transcendence in the commonality of language. On this we agree.

    I do not share your regard for Kant. So while there are plenty of issues here we might discuss, I see Kant as being of little help.
Home » Banno