That's nuts.

That's nuts. — frank

I know. Now we've got to start over this whole thread now that we learn you don't need eyes or a brain to see.

:grimace:

Now we've got to start over this whole thread now that we learn you don't need eyes or a brain to see. — Hanover

Those of us who are plants?

They can start their own thread.

Believing what scientists say about what their scientific studies have determined about the world (including perception) is rational. — Michael

I would add, that an indepth understanding of the science behind perception brings perspective about our ability to work around the limits of our perceptual capabilities. A result of such understanding for me, is that time spent arguing over direct or indirect realism seems like time that might be better spent developing an understanding of the relevant science, and humanity's ability to work around our perceptual limitations.

But then I'm inclined to say things like, "I looked at it on the [oscillo]scope and saw that the amplifier was clipping.", with confidence that the person I would say that too wouldn't have much trouble understanding what I mean. So perhaps I speak nonsense?

Depth is a characteristic of visual sensations, and so it seems as if there are coloured objects outside the body. — Michael

From the indirect realism thread, we have a similar perspective on this topic.

Yet part of what confuses these threads is that there really are colored objects outside the body, in the sense that there are really objects which reflect light in ways that allow them to be discriminated. Moreover they really do look the way they do: appearing this way (to humans) is a stable, mind independent property (just not independent of all minds, it is like a social reality)

Yet part of what confuses these threads is that there really are colored objects outside the body, in the sense that there are really objects which reflect light in ways that allow them to be discriminated. Moreover they really do look the way they do: appearing this way (to humans) is a stable, mind independent property (just not independent of all minds, it is like a social reality) — hypericin

There is no good reason to believe this. It's just like what atheists say about people who believe in God, you just believe this because it makes you feel more comfortable.

Yet part of what confuses these threads is that there really are colored objects outside the body, in the sense that there are really objects which reflect light in ways that allow them to be discriminated. — hypericin

If by "coloured objects" you just mean "objects which reflect light which cause colour sensations" then sure. But that's dispositionalism, not naive colour realism.

Moreover they really do look the way they do: appearing this way (to humans) is a stable, mind independent property (just not independent of all minds, it is like a social reality) — hypericin

Yes, and stubbing one's toe really is painful. But pain is still a sensation.

If by "coloured objects" you just mean "objects which reflect light which cause colour sensations" then sure. But that's dispositionalism, not naive colour realism. — Michael

Rather than "objects which reflect light", it might be better to say that we distinguish through our eyes, the energy levels of groups of electrons responding to their environmental conditions. I believe it is important to notice that we attribute mass to "an object", and electrons have very little, if any, mass. Since the mass of an object is attributed to the nucleus of the atoms, it is very important to understand this revelation of modern science, the fact that we do not see the massive "object". The eyes are sensing something else completely, and presenting that to the conscious mind as the appearance of a coloured object. This is the way that the senses are said to deceive us, through the creation of what we call "appearances".

Rather than "objects which reflect light", it might be better to say that we distinguish through our eyes, the energy levels of groups of electrons responding to their environmental conditions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rather not. The micro scale is just one scale, one perspective, not more or less privileged than the human, planetary, or cosmic. What scale we talk in depends on context. On our human scale, there are not just protons and electrons, but vast assemblages of them which behave in the ways that are meaningful and relevant to us.

If by "coloured objects" you just mean "objects which reflect light which cause colour sensations" then sure. But that's dispositionalism, not naive colour realism. — Michael

Sure, but I feel people conflate two or all three of these different senses in which there really are colored objects out there (one of which is false), which contributes to the endless frustration of these discussions.

Rather not. The micro scale is just one scale, one perspective, not more or less privileged than the human, planetary, or cosmic. What scale we talk in depends on context. On our human scale, there are not just protons and electrons, but vast assemblages of them which behave in the ways that are meaningful and relevant to us. — hypericin

That's the problem. Depending on which "scale" we "look" at things from, what we "see" is vastly different. The terms "look" and "see" are meant in the sense of looking and seeing with the intellect, rather than with the eyes. The sense of sight provides us with the way that things "appear" from a very specific "scale", or perspective, and since we rely heavily on that sense, we are deceived into thinking that this is the "correct" way that things "look". But as you now correctly point out, from different scales, things "look" vastly different, so we need to resolve all the inconsistencies between the various different "looks", before we can claim to know how things really "look".

That's why I objected to your post claiming that things really do "look" the way we perceive them to look, through the sense of sight.

That's why I objected to your post claiming that things really do "look" the way we perceive them to look, through the sense of sight. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, I didn't say that.

Moreover they really do look the way they do: appearing this way (to humans) is a stable, mind independent property (just not independent of all minds, it is like a social reality) — hypericin

Read more carefully before knee-jerk replying.

I stand by my interpretation. This is what you said:

Yet part of what confuses these threads is that there really are colored objects outside the body, in the sense that there are really objects which reflect light in ways that allow them to be discriminated. Moreover they really do look the way they do: appearing this way (to humans) is a stable, mind independent property (just not independent of all minds, it is like a social reality) — hypericin

This is what I said:

But as you now correctly point out, from different scales, things "look" vastly different, so we need to resolve all the inconsistencies between the various different "looks", before we can claim to know how things really "look". — Metaphysician Undercover

Notice, you made a statement about what there really is, or specifically "there really are...". And you said "...they really do look the way they do...". That is what I objected to. In my last post I explained why we cannot truthfully make assertions about the way things really are, or how things "really look". And that is exactly what you did.

You are confusing the chronology. This is what you said in reply to your quote of me:

There is no good reason to believe this. It's just like what atheists say about people who believe in God, you just believe this because it makes you feel more comfortable. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no good reason to believe objects really selectively reflect light? Or that objects really appear the way they do to us?

There is no "true" way objects look, I agree with you. This is due not just to scale, but to the multitudinous perspectives one can have on an object (scale is just one dimension of these perspectives). Perception itself is radically perspectival, the redness of red, and the spherical appearance of a ball, is a perspective, and a co-creation between you and the ball. That is how perception to conscious beings necessarily works, in a world where there is no such thing as how things "truly" appear (to any of the senses).

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020

What is the difference between the colour "red", and the concept of "red"?