I'm pointing out that both "I see distal objects" and "I see mental phenomena" are true. — Michael

Either we see distal objects, or we see mental phenomena. It cannot be both. Distal objects are not mental phenomena. On second thought, hallucinations are mental, so sometimes we see mental phenomena, other times we see distal objects.

Yes, we experience distal objects like cows. — Michael

Now, that looks like self-contradiction.

A [veridical experience] depends on a [distal object] but the [distal object] is not a constituent of the [veridical experience]. The constituents of the [veridical experience] are just [mental phenomena]. — Michael

:brow:

A painting depends on a painter but the painter is not a constituent of the painting. The constituents of the painting are just paint and a canvas. — Michael

Agreed, but false analogy with regard to what I'm arguing. That fits with what you're arguing about all perception, and what I'm arguing only regarding hallucinations/dreams. Replace the painter with distal objects.

They are what's being perceived in every veridical and illusory case
— creativesoul

Which means what? — Michael

That distal objects are constituents in veridical perception and illusion, but not hallucinations.

I have been trying to explain that when naive realists claim that some distal object is (directly) perceived they mean that the object is a literal constituent of the experience and that when indirect realists claim that some distal object is not (directly) perceived they mean that the object is not a literal constituent of the experience. — Michael

Yup. Go back through my posts here, and it ought be obvious that what I'm arguing fits. However, by "literal" you mean physical, material, 'concrete' entities. I do not. By "constituent" I mean a necessary element constituent thereof. For example, a play requires actors, performance area, costumes, etc. All of those are necessary elemental constituents of a play. The same holds for seeing trees. For you seeing trees is an experience that cannot include anything external to the brain.

Since all three kinds are existentially dependent upon distal objects, but hallucinations do not include distal objects, there are differences in their constitution
— creativesoul

That doesn’t follow. That X depends on Y is not that Y is a constituent of X. A painting depends on a painter but the painter is not a constituent of the painting. The constituents of the painting are just paint and a canvas.

You seem to be confusing constituent with cause. — Michael

No, I'm not. You've misunderstood. I didn't offer an argument for the conclusion you've misattributed. I agree with saying that X depends upon Y is not equivalent to Y is a constituent of X.

Hallucinations are examples, as I've already explained but you've neglected to discuss.

The indirect realist claims that we do not have direct knowledge of distal objects because distal objects are not constituents of experience. The constituents of experience – smells, tastes, colours – are (interpreted) mental phenomena, and I smell smells, taste tastes, and see colours. So the indirect realist, perhaps cumbersomely, says that we smell and taste and see mental phenomena. — Michael

Veridical perception, hallucination, and illusions. You claim they share the same constituents, and the difference is in their causes.

Can you set out the different causes?

The direct (naive) realist claims that we do have direct knowledge of distal objects because distal objects are constituents of experience. The constituents of experience – smells, tastes, colours – are mind-independent properties of distal objects, and I smell smells, taste tastes, and see colours. So the direct realist says that we smell and taste and see mind-independent properties of distal objects. — Michael

There's the semantic hijacking. Odd coming from someone who has charged so many here, including myself, with strawmen. I consider myself a direct realist as I argue that distal objects are necessary for all three kinds of perception. They are what's being perceived in every veridical and illusory case, but they're absent during hallucination(which is the biological machinery behaving as it has in past despite no distal object). Since all three kinds are existentially dependent upon distal objects, but hallucinations do not include distal objects, there are differences in their constitution, although they are all three existentially dependent upon distal objects. Hallucinations arise from veridical experience. Whether or not I'm a 'naive' realist about perception/experience, I'll leave for others. I don't care about the label. I care about the accounting practices being used to characterize the evolutionary progression of biological machinery.

Coffee does not have an inherent property of taste. Cake does not have an inherent property of smell. Cups do not have an inherent property of color. We taste coffee. We smell cake. We see red cups. Tasting coffee is an experience. Smelling cake is an experience. Seeing red cups is an experience. Without coffee there can be no experience of tasting coffee. Without experience of tasting coffee there can be no hallucination thereof. Without cake there can be no experience of smelling cake. Without experience of smelling cake, there can be no hallucination of smelling cake. Without cups with a specific reflective outer layer, there can be no seeing red cups. Without seeing red cups, there can be no hallucination thereof.

You (and others) seem to be getting unnecessarily lost in the grammar of "I see X", but this is a red herring. The relevant concern is the reasoning that precedes such a claim, i.e. are distal objects and their properties constituents of experience and so do we have direct knowledge of distal objects and their properties. If you accept that they're not and that we don't then you're an indirect realist, even if you don't like indirect realist grammar and would rather continue to say "I see distal objects". — Michael

Semantic hijacking of "experience".

Without cups...

Experiences, whether veridical or hallucinations, are reducible to (or supervene on) brain activity. Therefore anything that exists outside the brain cannot be a constituent of experience. Do you not accept this reasoning? — Michael

Reducible? No. Supervene on, perhaps, if that means that all experience emerge in part at least, as a result of brains being part of what it takes. I'm in agreement with that much.

Your earlier argument was valid. I simply disagree with the notion of experience you're working with. It seems to beg the question of regarding the necessary element constituents of perception/experience. You deny external content/constituents. I do not.

So, hallucinations are reducible to brain activity. Seeing a cow includes a cow. Hallucinating a cow does not. It requires having already seen cows.

Yep. Was a great night. For a while I even had a split mind which was weird. — Michael

So, I've heard about 'shrooms. More and more, I personally find myself liking life much better with the natural chemical cocktails that the body makes all by itself. When younger, things were different.

I don't understand what you think indirect realism has to account for. — Michael

That perception of apples is required in order to later have hallucinations thereof. Therefore, they are not the same thing.

What is the difference between the cause of hallucination as compared to veridical experience on the indirect account you're arguing for/from?

patterns of colours — Michael

Fungus huh?

:lol:

If hallucination of an apple amounts to the biological machinery doing the same thing it has done in past, while looking at an apple, then it becomes clear which one is existentially dependent upon the other.

They are not the same. Indirect realism cannot seem to account for that.

There is no difference between the constitution of an hallucination and a veridical experience. Their difference is in their causes. — Michael

According to the account you're arguing for/from.

Is hallucination of an apple possible if one has never ever seen an apple, if one is completely unaware that there are such things as apples?

So at least according to his meaning, your use of the word "because" above is a non sequitur. — Michael

Well, whether or not something follows from one's terms is established by one's meaning, not the others'.

If cake molecules entering the body and interacting(physically) with one's biological machinery does not count as direct perception, then nothing will.

In evolutionary progression terms...

I cannot make sense of hallucination unless compared to non-hallucinatory experience. Non hallucinatory experience does not depend upon hallucinatory in the same sense of "depend". Existential dependency. On the indirect realist account, there is no difference between the constituents.

That's just plain wrong.

A hallucination or dream of an apple does not require a distal object(an apple) except sometime in past experience. For that is when the biological machinery does its perception work. In dreams and hallucinations, its (mis)firing as though it has once again perceived or is once again perceiving an apple, despite no apple being perceived.

So, I'm curious and I've circled around some questions I'd like you to answer. I've hinted, I guess is one way to put it. Now, I'm going to directly ask(pardon the pun).

There's some barbecue chicken in the kitchen. I can smell it, because the molecules are entering into my body unimpeded, carried along in the air. My biological machinery is doing what it does.

To me, I am directly perceiving the chicken in the other room, because small parts of it entered my nose.

I'm guessing you'll deny that my perception of the chicken is direct. I'm guessing that you'll deny that the chicken is a constituent of my perception or my experience. I'm guessing that you'll deny that the molecules are a constituent of my perception or experience.

Do I have that right?

Yes, I do believe that the existence of the tree I see is not in question. If I decide to question it and then accept an answer, then, and only then, has belief come into play. In other words, of course all doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based, but I am speaking about the situation prior to any doubt about the veracity of our vision. — Janus

That's when one's initial basic worldview is forming. One is acquiring and accruing belief about themselves and the world around them. Prior to doubting the veracity of one's own vision, one completely and totally trusts their physiological sensory perception(eyes in this case). During these times prior to that awareness... seeing is believing. What I mean is that one does not doubt their own eyes until they become that they are sometimes untrustworthy, by then we're operating under a belief system.

When we begin looking at the world, we believe that there are things all around us, despite the fact that we cannot articulate nor formulate our own experiences. It's impossible for a bike rider to swerve in order to avoid an obstacle that they do not believe is there. Belief is baked into all experiences.

It leads to a whole network of philosophical garden paths in which, absurdly, the self is forever "cut off" from the world in which it lives. — Banno

Reminiscent of Kant's Noumena. The whole denial that I know that the heater grate to my right is what I'm seeing. I know what it's made of. I know where it's located. I know the size and shape. I know it's function. I know some dangers it poses to passersby. I know it's not located in my head/body. I know mental representations are. Thus, the grate I'm looking at is not a mental representation.

I don't claim not to have reliable knowledge of distal objects... — Michael

The end.

:wink:

We're in agreement.

There's semantic hijacking going on in here concerning what counts as direct realism/perception. Earlier fdrake posted some SEP stuff that is more in line with where I'm at. I also have sympathy for disjunctive views on this topic.

I also find little sense in a self divorced from physiological sensory perception.

Cut out my tongue, and I'm still me, but there's a bit less. The tongue remains a part of me, just disconnected. Self and sight, hearing, etc. seems the same.

It makes sense to say that you interact with the room by way of a complex of representations, but how is the model equal to you interacting with the room? — frank

I almost quoted that paragraph, crossed that part out, and agreed. That part caused me pause as well.

I don't think believing the tree is there is necessary for seeing it. I see the tree there, and the question of whether or not it is really there (answering that question being the point where belief enters into the picture) doesn't arise, certainly doesn't have to arise.

You can say that seeing the tree presupposes believing it, (like the old adage "seeing is believing") and that is one way of speaking about what is happening; I just happen to see that way of speaking as redundant. I think believing comes into play when there is doubt and we decide to go with one possibility or another. — Janus

Do you really believe that the question of whether or not we're hallucinating(whether or not the tree is really there) comes before belief?

All doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based.

A good spinach salad tastes better using chopsticks. Couldn't be more physically direct contact. Could be less links in the chain.

Light directly enters the eye and interacts with biological machinery beginning at the back of the eye and spreading out into the brain. Numerous biological structures are involved. I do not know the names of them all, nor do I need to. There are, and that's what matters. That's all physical interaction. How much more direct can anything be?

We have direct perceptual knowledge of our body's response to stimulation. — Michael

We know a lot about how bodies respond to stimulation. Some of it was inferred, hypothesized, tested and verified. The half second delay between seeing a 100mph fastball and that consciously registering within the batter was discovered. Blind sight, and all that too. Knowledge of our body's response to stimulation is not always acquired in the sense that 'direct perceptual knowledge' requires.

I'd agree with adding "sometimes" to the quote at the top of this post.

Our physiological sensory perception(biological machinery) is in direct physical contact with distal objects. Light directly enters the eye and lands on the structures in the back of the eyes, which are physically connected to the brain via even more biological structures. The same holds good for coffee in the mouth, fire on the skin, cake molecules in the nose, or decaying flesh in both the nose and mouth.

How do you square the physicalist standard you've required for what counts as being a constituent of experience against what's above? Do we agree on the above?

We have names for all the different parts of biological machinery that facilitates our perception of grates.

Light directly enters the eye. The grate in the floor does not. By virtue of the light, the grate, and our biology, we directly perceive the grate. The surface of the grate directly touches the skin. By virtue of our skin, and the grate, we directly perceive the grate. The hot coffee directly touches our mouth parts. By virtue of our skin, our gustatory structures, and the hot coffee, we directly taste the coffee. The cake directly enters our nose, albeit in very small molecular form. By virtue of the cake, the air, and our noses, we directly smell the cake.

It seems that that argument against direct perception amounts to a notion of "direct perception" that cannot include complex biological machinery like ours.

It's like the opponents(arguing for indirect perception) are offering naive realism(like the eyes function like a window to the world) or nothing.

I see the tree in the yard but do not believe it's there.
— creativesoul

I don't believe it is possible to actively disbelieve in something you see in front of you. Well, I know I can't at least. I also don't see that as supporting the notion that active belief is necessary in those situations. That said, I don't deny that you can talk about believing that the tree you see is there, rather than simply saying you see it there, but I think the former way of speaking is less parsimonious, even redundant... — Janus

"Redundant" is n interesting choice of terms. So, do we agree that belief is necessary for seeing the tree in the front yard?? It goes without saying that seeing a tree in the yard includes believing that something is there, doesn't it? That necessary presupposition is what makes the terminological use redundant, right?

I see the tree in the yard but do not believe it's there.
— creativesoul

I don't believe it is possible to actively disbelieve in something you see in front of you. Well, I know I can't at least. I also don't see that as supporting the notion that active belief is necessary in those situations. — Janus

Waddaya mean "actively"? If you do not actively disbelieve, then by default, you believe something is there, even before learning the name of it. We need not say "I believe a tree is there" to ourselves in order to believe we're looking at a tree. Unless we're one of those people who say they believe that they're not looking at a tree, but rather looking at a representation of one.

We agree that one need not formulate propositional belief to themselves at every moment throughout one's life in order to see trees. I'm attempting to point out that propositional belief are not the only kind. Although, any and all of our candidates will take propositional form in our report of them.

It's all about the necessary elemental constituents. That is determined and facilitated by biological machinery. Physiological sensory perception. Words are not always part of the content, despite being part of the content for each and every report thereof.

The way you're using the term "belief" cannot take all this into account.

By the way, my apologies for how the "shallow" comment came off earlier. "Inadequate" is more in line. Sometimes things do boil down to a matter of how we're using words, and there's no relevant fact of the matter to compare/contrast differing opinions with/to. It doesn't follow that all frameworks are on equal footing. Sometimes there is not a fact of the matter, but rather an abundance of them. All of them are germane. One's notions cannot - ought not anyway - conflict with such facts.

What defines them as being indirect realists is in believing that we have direct knowledge only of a mental representation. — Michael

The heater grate to my right is not a mental representation. It is a distal object. It's made of metal. It has a certain shape. It consists of approximately 360 rectangle shaped spaces between 48 structural members. The spacing is equally distributed left to right as well as top to bottom. However, the left to right spacing is not the same as the top to bottom.

The 'mental representation', whatever that may refer to, cannot be anywhere beyond the body.

According to you, all we have direct access to and thus direct knowledge about is mental representations.

Where is the heater grate?


The irony of the "bewitchment" allusion...

I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate
— Vera Mont — BC

Ah, don't feel bad. Humans have been doing that forever. Road signs. Language. Landmarks.

What are hallucinations if not an experience of a distal object without a distal object? — flannel jesus

Malfunctioning biological machinery.

The relevant disagreement between direct and indirect realism concerns whether or not experience provides us with direct knowledge of the external world and its nature. Our scientific understanding is clear on this; it doesn't. 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. — Michael

I think what I'm offering here is relevant.

None to me. I'm trying to make sense of the conclusion that the heater grate six feet to my left is not what I see.
— creativesoul

I'm not saying that it's not what you see. I'm saying that distal objects are not constituents of experience. — Michael

So, what I see is not a constituent of my experience or the heater grate is not a distal object?

None to me. I'm trying to make sense of the conclusion that the heater grate six feet to my left is not what I see.

I'm still dyslexic... it's actually to my right.

Funny that.

Yes, distal objects are not physical constituents of experience, which is why knowledge of experience is not direct knowledge of distal objects, hence the epistemological problem of perception. — Michael

Okay. So then are distal objects mental constituents of experience?

Physical constituent then?

Okay. I'm currently drinking coffee. Kona coffee to be precise. I'm also talking to you, thinking about what you're writing, and listening to the sounds coming from the other room where some friends of mine are playing cards. I can hear the sounds of shuffling cards. I can hear the sharp smack of card faces against the table as they're being played. I can also hear the clacking of card edges against the table as players contemplate their next move. I can also hear the conversation between the players as it progresses. It includes much more than the game being played.

We're all getting hungry. We've been discussing which bread to use to make French toast. We have different kinds of bread here. Some is frozen. Some not. There are also all sorts of things in my direct line of sight; from the vantage point I'm currently positioned at in relation to all the other distal objects I can see, smell, hear, and feel from here. There's also a faint scent leftover from a particular cleaning solution that we used yesterday while cleaning the house.

Are you saying that none of that counts as a distal object?

Yes. Experience does not extend beyond the body. Distal objects exist outside the body. Therefore, distal objects are not constituents of experience.

Experience and distal objects are in a very literal physical sense distinct entities with a very literal physical spatial distance between the two. — Michael

It follows that no constituent of experience extends beyond the body.

Is that about right as well?

I look out into the distance and see a tree in the yard. There's a squirrel running around the tree, doing its thing. You're claiming that the squirrel and the tree are either not distal objects or - if they are - they are not(cannot be) constituents of experience.

Is that about right?

I don't need to believe it's there in order to see that it is. — Janus

I see the tree in the yard but do not believe it's there.

Why can't distal objects be constituents of experience
— creativesoul

Because experience does not extend beyond the body – it’s the body’s physiological response to stimulation (usually; dreams are an exception) – whereas distal objects exist outside the body. — Michael

Are you saying that distal objects are unnecessary for the response?

Well, if we take it that adiaireta, awareness of something, is a sort of knowledge, it seems like we can possess it without formulating any propositional beliefs about a thing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the engagement. I agree that some knowledge(that a thing exists; is there) does not require forming propositional belief about that thing. So, I agree with the above. I've not claimed that all knowledge is existentially dependent upon propositional belief. I'm claiming that all knowledge is existentially dependent upon belief of some sort or another, in some way or another. The sorts and ways are many. There is more than one kind.

Whether or not a case of awareness counts as knowledge that is not existentially dependent upon belief greatly depends upon 1.) what may be called "the object of awareness"(what it is - exactly - that one is aware of), and 2.) the biological machinery of the candidate. Awareness of some things is only possible via language use.

One cannot become aware of something that does not exist(purely imaginary things) without language use.

However, belief about the world and/or oneself is being formed long before language acquisition begins in earnest. So, I would think awareness is needed during those times. I may agree with calling some cases of awareness during such times "knowing"(that something is there).

We can have false propositional beliefs about something... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. We can.

I'm not sure if we can have a "false awareness" of something. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Depends upon the something.

Secondhand info exists. The recent public usage of "CRT" is evidence of how one can become aware that there is a theory named "Critical Theory" based upon false belief about the theory. If based upon false belief, and it counts as an awareness that there is such a thing as "Critical Theory", it could be said that they know Critical Theory exists. Such awareness/knowledge seems to require propositional belief though, so it's not a good example of the criterion/outline you've offered, although it seems to be a case of "false awareness".

So, at least this sort of knowledge seems possible... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would think it's impossible to become aware of something that one does not believe exists. I do not see how one can become and/or be aware of something else that they do not believe is there.

...the total reduction of knowledge to propositional beliefs and their truth values so common in modern analytical philosophy. It seems obvious to me that I know my brother for instances, but I can know him more or less well than I currently know him. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. I've long argued against those practices.

That's the death knell of Cartesian doubt.

Until one becomes aware of their own human fallibility; until one no longer believes their own eyes; until one begins the endeavor of metacognition with a particular focus upon the shortcomings of the human perceptual capabilities; seeing is believing.

I would say 'seeing that there is something to be mimicked', 'seeing that another individual behaved in some certain way', 'seeing that someone did something or other'. Unless the case is that those things were not seen but reported by someone else, in which case 'believing' would be, for me, the apt term. — Janus

Believing another's words is one species of belief; one way to draw correlations; one way to make connections; one way to attribute meaning(in this case to the terms "belief" and "believing").

One way to talk? Sure. A bit shallow though.