That perception distorts reality isn't the assumption but the conclusion. — Michael
Phenomenal experience is direct. We perceive the world via phenomenal experience. The world is first in the chain of events leading to phenomenal experience, and the experience is last. Therefore, we perceive the world indirectly. — hypericin
If person A directly saw an object as it really is, and person B looking at the same object also saw the object as it really is, then person A would know what was in person's B mind — RussellA
IE, suppose the thing in the world is in fact orange, yet I always perceive it to be blue. It is true that I can never experience the thing in the world as it is, but this is irrelevant to my relationship with the world, as I always perceive the thing in the world to be as I perceive it to be, in this case, blue.
I’m not sure how something can in fact be orange but appears blue, so I cannot suppose it. — NOS4A2
I’m not sure how something can in fact be orange but appears blue, so I cannot suppose it. — NOS4A2
Colour vision deficiency (colour blindness) is where you see colours differently to most people, and have difficulty telling colours apart. There's no treatment for colour vision deficiency that runs in families, but people usually adapt to living with it. (www.nhs.uk/)
I think the implication is that if you can take a thought and ferry it through the air to cause a thought in the other person, this constitutes telepathy. — AmadeusD
Whence the need for omniscience? — creativesoul
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. — Banno
As a conclusion based on the assumption that perception enables an undistorted picture, namely the scientific understanding of perception, it is a contradiction of the grounding assumption, and therefore self-refuting. — Janus
Are the trees lining the banks not bald cypress?... Are those things in our mind? I would not think a direct realist would arrive at that. — creativesoul
Are the trees lining the banks not bald cypress? — creativesoul
One of the central flaws in Kant’s theory of knowledge is that he has blown up the bridge of action by which real beings manifest their natures to our cognitive receiving sets. He admits that things in themselves act on us, on our senses; but he insists that such action reveals nothing intelligible about these beings, nothing about their natures in themselves, only an unordered, unstructured sense manifold that we have to order and structure from within ourselves. But action that is completely indeterminate, that reveals nothing meaningful about the agent from which it comes, is incoherent, not really action at all. (W. Norris Clarke) — Count Timothy von Icarus
Good. As Austin showed, the framing of the argument in those terms is muddled....this does not address the arguments made by either direct or indirect realists. — Michael
Again, that lemons smell like lemons, and not like (say) mint.I'm also still trying to understand what you mean by saying that we smell things as they are. — Michael
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 as it is, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
That still suits my purposes.We do, on occasion, see, hear, smell or touch the world, and thereby make true statements about things in the world.
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 way the males see the world is very different to the way the females see the world (with respect to its orientation). — 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.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
The way they navigate and talk about the world is the same, and yet the way they see (and smell and taste) the world is very different. — Michael
Again, that lemons smell like lemons, and not like (say) mint. — Banno
As Austin showed, the framing of the argument in those terms is muddled. — Banno
Again, no; the "object of their rational consideration" is the snake and the competing males. — Banno
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. — Banno
One possibility would be colour blindness. I'm sure you can think of others.
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.