By applying the correct reasoning.That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. — RussellA
Where did he say that?Kant said it isn't possible. — RussellA
Some, not all, or doesn't have to be, and depends.I agree. All language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA
Only the cat would know it for sure.Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination. — RussellA
Inadequate reasonings try to keep on going around the circles eternally, but the correct reasoning calls it a game. :DI knew you were engaging in some sort of language games.
— Corvus
Isn't everyone. — RussellA
I would say that "seeing objects" and being "mediated by the indirection of representation" are one and the same thing. If you eliminate the mediation (that indirect realists complain about), then you eliminate the seeing. — Luke
It’s a bit odd, but maybe just shows that indirect realism on the forum is often not thought through (not all of them think this way)...Thus Luke is right on the mark in accusing some indirect realists of a failure to let go of the mythical view from nowhere. — Jamal
So in other words, seeing is inherently indirect. — hypericin
It's intended as an example; one might differentiate seeing the hand in the mirror as indirect, in contrast to seeing it without the mirror - directly.I'm not sure that I would even describe seeing a hand in a mirror as seeing it indirectly. — Luke
Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real".
But is it a real one? When you ask if it is real, what are you sugesting? No, it's a fake; it's an illusion; it's a forgery; it's a phoney, a counterfeit, a mirage... What is real and what isn't is decided in each case by contrast; there is no single criteria.
The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real'
— Austin — Banno
and so commit themselves to being forever segregated from the world — Banno
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
Representation is constitutive of seeing/perception. It doesn’t also need to be the thing seen. — Luke
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. — AmadeusD
For example, as an Indirect Realist, I can say "I see a green apple", using the word "green" in a figurative rather than literal sense. — RussellA
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
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. — AmadeusD
"Experiencing" is the most apt general language term that points to the subjective representation component of perception — hypericin
What happens if you reconsider these issues in terms of touch or smell?
It becomes harder to insert a "representation" in those cases. — Banno
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'. — AmadeusD
They are all ways that your brain presents sense data to you, the conscious decision maker, so that you can then act on it if you decide it's necessary. — hypericin
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. — AmadeusD
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'. — AmadeusD
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. — AmadeusD
Smell is ENTIRELY an experience built up for us by our brains. — flannel jesus
I didn't say it bears no relation, — flannel jesus
Smell is ENTIRELY an experience built up for us by our brains. — flannel jesus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.