Further,

The back of the house presents itself to you... — Jamal

...has intimations of intent on the part of the back of the house.

Just reasons I would not choose that phrasing.

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:

Plato, and also Descartes, thought we dont see with our eyes but through our eyes.

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. — AmadeusD

That is not anything near being the direct realism account, nor is it entailed by it.

I get your concerns, but ultimately, on Indirect Realism, we’re not wholly cut off from the world.

I disagree with the characterisation. Our perceptions are directly linked to the world(assuming they are), but we are directly linked to our perceptions.

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

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

see representations is equivalent to saying we see seeings
— Janus

Yet, this is exactly what is intimated by the claims of direct realists, — AmadeusD

Sounded like you were claiming it was entailed by direct realism, but what you wrote was somewhat ambiguous so perhaps I interpreted it differently than you intended.

Our perceptions are directly linked to the world(assuming they are)... — Ashriel

Which is it, that they are directly linked to the world (how?), or that you assume that they are?

The sceptic is tapping on the door...

Why does the skeptic tap on his door but not yours?

I think it is less confusing to say that the little light you are seeing is Mars presenting itself, appearing, to you. Language may be representative, but seeing is not, and the analogy you present above is inapt. — Janus

Direct Realism is aka Naïve Realism. Indirect Realism is aka Representational Realism,.
(Wikipedia Direct and Indirect Realism)



The red dot represents Mars in the same way that a symbol of a house represents a house and the word "tree" represents a tree.
===============================================================================

I agree it is more parsimonious to simply say we see Mars — Janus

Both the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist can look into the night sky and say "I see Mars"

The Indirect Realist means "I directly see a bright dot in the night sky through my eyes which I know to be the planet Mars". But who is going to say all that. It is far easier and perfectly acceptable just to say "I see Mars".

The Direct Realist means "I directly see a bright dot in the night sky through my eyes which is the planet Mars". In the same way, no-one is going to say all that. It is far easier and perfectly acceptable just to say "I see Mars".

Therefore, although both the Indirect and Direct Realist can say "I see Mars", what they mean by it is different.

The word "see" can be used in different ways in language. Metaphorically such as "I see your pain", meaning within the mind, and literally such as "I see a bright dot", meaning through the eyes.

Similarly, the word "is" can be used in different ways in language, including metaphorically "cheese is heavenly", as a definition "a unicorn is a mythical animal", ironically "spinach is delicious", as a description "the Eiffel Tower is a wrought-iron structure", etc.

When the Indirect Realist says "I see a bright dot", they are using "see" literally, but when they say "I see Mars" they are using the word "see" as a figure of speech, in that the bright dot is a representation of the planet Mars.

When the Direct Realist says "I see a bright dot", they are using "see" literally, and when they say "I see Mars" they are also using the word "see" literally, in that they they argue that they are seeing the external world as it really is.

The problem with Direct Realism is that it assumes an identity between what is seen and the cause of what is seen. It assumes an identity between the bright dot and the planet Mars, such that the bright dot "is" Mars, otherwise the Direct Realist could not see the external world as it really is.

And if this is the case, in that the bright dot "is" the planet Mars, how can a bright dot in the visual field have a mass of ${6.4 * 10^{23}kg}$?

I added that assuming they are part because I haven't provided any justification for this belief.

Yet I do believe that I have good reason to think that they do correspond to the external world. My response to skepticism would be no different from yours, I assume.

My point was merely that, assuming that we have adequately dealt with skepticism, Indirect Realism would not cut us off from the external world as much as you seemed to describe it to.

I second Flannel Jesus' question.

Like I have mentioned many times before, Indirect Realism is no more skeptical realism than Direct Realism is.

All skepticism is is the logical possibility that what you experience and what is real do not correspond.

This seems to be as much of an issue for you as it is for me.

So, we will both appeal to the same solutions and answers to skepticism.

Similarly, the word "is" can be used in different ways in language... — RussellA

Like "look over there is Mars", or "What I see is Mars".

The problem with Direct Realism is that it assumes an identity between what is seen and the cause of what is seen. It assumes an identity between the bright dot and the planet Mars, such that the bright dot "is" Mars, otherwise the Direct Realist could not see the external world as it really is.

And if this is the case, in that the bright dot "is" the planet Mars, how can a bright dot in the visual field have a mass of 6.4∗1023kg? — RussellA

The direct realist doesn't see a dot in the visual field.

The direct realist doesn't see a dot in the visual field. — jkop

When looking up at the night sky, if the Direct Realist doesn't literally see dots in their visual field, what do they see?

When looking up at the night sky, if the Direct Realist doesn't literally see dots in their visual field, what do they see? — RussellA

Stars, planets, moons etc.

Indirect realists sees dots that represent stars, planets. The direct realist sees the stars and planets that may appear as dots, discs, or spheres etc depending on distance, available light etc.

Stars, planets, moons etc. Indirect realists sees dots that represent stars, planets. The direct realist sees the stars and planets that may appear as dots, discs, or spheres etc depending on distance, available light etc. — jkop

When the Direct Realist looks up at the night sky, how can they say "I am looking at a star" if they don't know whether the dot they are looking at has been caused by a star or planet?

It cannot be the case that every Direct Realist knows what each and every dot in the night sky has been caused by.

It could be that a Direct Realist could say "I am looking at Mars", because they are knowledgeable about astronomy.

But what "I am looking at Mars" actually means is "I am looking at a dot in the night sky that I know has been caused by the planet Mars because of my prior knowledge about astronomy".

If the Direct Realist suggests that the dot "is" Mars, this reintroduces the problem of identity, in that how can a 1mm diameter dot in a person's visual field "be" a 6,794km diameter planet?

If the Direct Realist suggests that the dot "is" Mars, this reintroduces the problem of identity, in that how can a 1mm diameter dot in a person's visual field "be" a 6,794km diameter planet? — RussellA

Saying "I see Mars" is in effect saying that the photons which cause me to recognize that I am seeing Mars were reflected by Mars.

I'm afraid that it is rather mystifying to me, that someone capable of using the Internet, doesn't understand why an object the size of Mars at the distance of Mars would have the visual appearance that it does.

Direct or indirect realism isn't epistemology, recall, they're philosophies of perception.

So, regarding the nature of the object of perception, it is the indirect realist who assumes that the object of perception when you see Mars is a 1 mm dot. The indirect realist never sees Mars, only dots, words, or other representations.

While the direct realist may not always know what it is that he sees, it can usually be found out and explained. The indirect realist, however, assumes that he never sees things directly, only representations, e.g. 1 mm dots, and that has, in fact, epistemological consequences. As long as the assumption is that you never see things directly, then skepticism follows. Not so for the direct realist.

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.

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, — AmadeusD

I would think the representation is some collection of neurons in our brains firing with some relationship to a brainwave phase. However, I don't think it makes sense to say that "I see such a representation." At best I only vaguely imagine such a representation.

Like I have mentioned many times before, Indirect Realism is no more skeptical realism than Direct Realism is. — Ashriel

That's not quite right. Take solipsism, a scepticism about the existence of a world around us. Solipsists might claim that they do not see the things around them, but only the images created by their mind.

That is much the same as the claim of indirect realism. They claim that what they see are images created by their brain.

Unlike the solipsist, they might then add that there is a causal link between the "external world" and those images.

In both cases there is a picture of a "self" as sitting looking at images, and a gap is introduced between self and world.

The alternative is that what one sees are the things around us, and that this seeing consists in modelling those things in one's mind. Here the modelling is not a seperate thing to the seeing, and hence has less in common with the account proffered by the solipsist.

Borrowing the example used in this thread, both the indirect realist and the solipsist might say that they see a red dot that represents Mars.

The alternative is that one sees a red dot that is Mars. This is indeed what we do say, until studying philosophy.

I still think that Indirect Realism is the best way to describe what occurs, but that's probably because of my other epistemological and metaphysical views, like dualism and internalism. — Ashriel

Then there is probably not much point in my continuing.

Edit: I changed "representing" to "modelling" in the latter part of this, which might help clarify the point being made. Seeing, touching, smelling tasting and so on consist in constructing a model of the world around the organism and of the organism's interaction with that world. The organism is not seperate from the world.

Direct Realism is aka Naïve Realism. Indirect Realism is aka Representational Realism,. — RussellA

I don't agree that they are equivalent. Naive realism is pre-scientific realism, the eyes were thought of as windows looking out onto a world which exists independently exactly as we see it. With scientific understanding of perception, we have come to realize the world looks different to different organisms.

As organism we are part of the world, each organism sees the world directly via its perceptual apparatus—there is no question of distortion, no need to invoke indirectness...I think those ideas just confuse the issue.

All this seems hopelessly wrongheaded and confused to me, but I lack the will to try to untangle it, since I fear it will just continue going around in useless circles.

Yep.

Direct Realism is aka Naïve Realism. Indirect Realism is aka Representational Realism,.
(Wikipedia Direct and Indirect Realism) — RussellA

The Wiki pages are a dog's breakfast, and have been for years. See their talk pages.

I would think the representation is some collection of neurons in our brains firing with some relationship to a brainwave phase. However, 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

I suppose some objects of conscious awareness are representations. For example, memories and beliefs may represent what's remembered and believed. Representation is asymmetric, so a memory of a rainy day might or might not represent that day but the rainy day doesn't represent the memory.

Other objects of conscious awareness are presentations, which is a unary relation. For example, the look and sound of rain are properties that present themselves in our conscious awareness when we see or hear the rain.

When the rain stops, we normally don't continue seeing or hearing it. That's unlike representations. We can continue believing that it rains regardless of the fact that it has stopped raining.

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.

Unneeded.

No amount of prevarication can make that a direct process. — AmadeusD

...DeepAI... — AmadeusD

Why not have Deep AI do its own prevaricating?

"Explain how we see things directly, not indirectly. "

We see things directly through the process of vision. 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. We are able to perceive things without the need for any intermediary devices or reflections. Our brain processes the visual information in real-time, allowing us to perceive objects, colors, shapes, and movement directly.
In contrast, indirect seeing would involve perceiving objects through mirrors, cameras, or other reflective or refractive surfaces. This would involve the light reflecting off an object before reaching our eyes, resulting in a altered or distorted image. However, our direct vision allows us to see things as they are without any obstructions or alterations. — DeepAI

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.

Yep, "directly in front of us" - much the same as Austin. AI's will tell you what you want to hear. Treating them as an authority is a mugs game.

(Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that the point of the piece quoted from DeepAI was to demonstrate prevarication on its part, not to elicit an argument for Direct Realism.)