Quite so. But then one has to explain what a hallucination of a dagger is, if not a mental image. That's not easy, because most people are absolutely sure that, like Macbeth, they see a dagger that is not there. Hence, a dagger-like object. Illusions like the bent stick are easy - we can demonstrate that the stick in water should look as if is bent - it's an actual physical phenomenon. At the moment, I'm inclined to just say that Macbeth is behaving as if he can see a dagger, and believes he is seeing a dagger - but there is no dagger and hence no perception of a dagger. — Ludwig V

That’s more or less the approach I take as well. On my view, hallucination involves mental imagery together with a false judgment that something mind-external is being perceived. There is imagery and belief-like commitment, but no perceptual relation to an object.

I think your slow-light apple case is a very good stress test, and it helps clarify what “direct” can and can’t mean.

If we build “direct perception” to require strict simultaneity — the object must exist at the very time of the perceptual experience — then your conclusion follows. With light at 1 m/s, after the apple disintegrates I would still have an experience as of an intact apple, and it would indeed be odd to say I am directly seeing something that does not exist now. But that shows that the simultaneity requirement is doing the work; it is not forced by the ordinary contrast between direct and indirect perception.

On the view I’m defending, “direct” does not mean instantaneous or unmediated by delay. It means that perception does not proceed by inference from an inner surrogate. In your case, what is present to perception is not a mental intermediary, but a worldly manifestation of the apple itself — its visible presence at my location. The light that carries this presence is not a numerically distinct object perceived instead of the apple; it is the means by which the apple is perceptually available across space and time.

So am I directly seeing the apple? The right answer, I think, is: I am seeing the apple, but not the apple-as-it-exists-now. I am perceptually related to the apple as it was at the relevant emission time, via its causal presence reaching me now. That is not “seeing a non-existent object” in the sense that would imply illusion or imagination. The error, if there is one, lies in the judgment “the apple exists now”, not in the perceptual relation itself.

This also answers the non-arbitrary cutoff worry. There is no threshold speed or distance at which perception suddenly flips from direct to indirect, because directness is not a function of causal delay. Delay determines which temporal aspect of the object is perceptually available; it does not introduce an epistemic intermediary. The relevant contrast is between perception as non-inferential openness to the world and cognition that proceeds by inference from a representation.

Finally, when I distinguish proximal stimulation from the intentional object of perception, this is not a retreat to indirect realism. The proximal stimulation is not something we perceive instead of the object; it is how the object makes itself perceptually available within the physical world’s causal structure. That distinction allows us to acknowledge causal mediation without collapsing perception into awareness of inner or outer surrogates.

It is not my intention to obscure the facts. I am engaging honestly with you - and in good faith - even if it may not seem like it to you.

Here are the facts as I understand them:

The formal definition I provided to you (or similar variation) is the one you will find in most (if not all) of the standard textbooks on Real Analysis, Set Theory and Discrete Mathematics that discuss countably infinite sets. This is why it confuses me when you say that you don't believe that this is the standard formal definition of "countably infinite".

Likewise, and for the same reason, I am also confused by your insistence that the definitional existence of a bijection requires that the bijection be temporally or procedurally executable. Within the global mathematics community it is commonly understood and accepted that procedural execution is not a requirement for definitional existence. This is why you will not find such a requirement listed in any of the above mentioned textbooks. This is also why I previously stated that adding this requirement would amount to something like an external constructivist critique of the dominant paradigm.

I hope that this helps clarify my perspective on this. I understand that you may not agree with the criticisms that I have offered, but they are based on sincere and honest confusion regarding your claims, given my current understanding of academic mathematics. I am certainly open to being mistaken on these points, but it's currently hard to see how given that these are fairly basic observations about how mathematics is currently done. Thanks.

Thanks — this is a very clear statement of your position, and it helps isolate where we disagree.

I agree that perception is causally mediated and temporally downstream, and that in cases like astronomy our perceptual access depends on events in the past. I also agree that if objects are individuated strictly as momentary temporal instantiations, then the Sun-at-t is not identical to the Sun-at-t–8 minutes, and that no relation can obtain to what does not exist.

Where I disagree is with the inference you draw from this. I do not take the objects of perception to be momentary temporal stages. On my view, mind-external objects are temporally extended continuants that persist through change. The fact that the Sun is continually changing does not entail that it is a numerically different object at each instant in the sense required to break perceptual reference.

I also reject the claim that temporal mediation entails that the object of perception must be a present mental item. The causal chain explains how perception occurs, not what perception is of. That the light emitted earlier makes perception possible does not entail that what is perceived is a memory, an illusion, or an inner surrogate. It shows only that perceptual access is finite and temporally indexed.

This is why I think the Caesar and crime-scene analogies mislead. We deny direct knowledge of Caesar not because he is in the past, but because our access is symbolic, testimonial, and inferential. By contrast, perceptual access to the Sun or a ship is sensory and causal, not mediated by beliefs or descriptions. Temporal distance alone does not make knowledge indirect; mode of access does.

Finally, I think your conclusion overgeneralizes in a way that undermines Indirect Realism itself. If temporal mediation and non-simultaneity were sufficient to make perception indirect, then all perception would be indirect — not only perception of mind-external objects, but even the perception of mental images or sense-data, since those too are causally and temporally mediated. In that case, perception itself could never get off the ground, because every purported object of awareness would require a further epistemic intermediary, generating an infinite regress.

So while I agree that a relation cannot obtain to a non-existent object as such, I deny that this forces the conclusion that the object of perception must be a present mental item. The disagreement now seems to be about ontology — whether objects are momentary temporal stages or persisting continuants — rather than about logic or semantics.

If you re-read my reply carefully you will see that I did not say that mathematicians do not use the word "capable", but that they use it in a different way.

"A is countable" means "∃f such that f is a bijection between A and ℕ". That's it. There is nothing procedural in this definition. That was the point I was trying to make.

Thanks, that’s a fair question — but I think it slightly mislocates the point I was making.

I’m not claiming that the mere fact that world-directed judgments can be true or false rules out inversion hypotheses, or renders them false. I’m happy to grant that spectrum inversion or other private aberrations remain metaphysically conceivable.

The claim is instead about explanatory role. Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment, inversion hypotheses no longer explain anything further about how perceptual judgments succeed or fail. They don’t add to our account of justification, error, or skepticism.

In particular, we don’t need to assume that colour is a property of objects or deny that assumption in order to make sense of perceptual error. Error arises when a judgment about the world fails to be satisfied by how things are, not when an inner experience mismatches an outer property.

So the point isn’t that inversion is impossible or incoherent, but that it’s explanatorily idle with respect to the epistemic issues under discussion — even if it remains metaphysically possible.

I thought it might be interesting to interject here since I see my position as being wedged between @Banno's and @Richard B's on the one hand, and @Michael's on the other.

I’m broadly sympathetic to the spirit of Banno's and Richard's replies here, but I wouldn’t go quite as far as saying these inversion scenarios are outright incoherent or fail to be truth-apt.

I’m happy to grant that scenarios involving inverted neural realizations or inverted experiential mappings are logically and even physically conceivable. Where I part company with Michael is in what follows from that conceivability. I don’t think the mere possibility of private experiential differences that make no difference to judgment, action, or correction does any epistemic work.

In particular, I don’t think such scenarios motivate skepticism, indirect realism, or the introduction of epistemic intermediaries. Even if two subjects differed in their neural realizations or phenomenal character while making the same world-directed judgments, all that would show is multiple realizability at the causal level, not that perception is mediated by inner surrogates or that perceptual justification is undermined.

So my view sits between the two positions on offer here: I don’t want to deny the coherence of these scenarios altogether, but I do want to deny that they carry the philosophical weight Michael wants them to carry. Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment, private inversion possibilities become explanatorily idle, even if they remain metaphysically conceivable.

Thanks for the clarification. I think it shows how much ground we may actually agree on. But I don’t think the temporal argument you’re introducing does the work you want it to do.

From the fact that perception is causally mediated and temporally downstream, it does not follow that the object perceived no longer exists, nor that what is perceived is a memory or an illusion. Temporal priority in a causal explanation does not turn perceptual awareness into awareness of the past in the sense relevant to memory or illusion. If it did, then all perception—including the sensory contents the Indirect Realist treats as directly known—would collapse into illusion as well.

When I see a ship, the light reflected from it may have been emitted a fraction of a second earlier, but the ship itself has not thereby ceased to exist, nor has my awareness become memory-like. The causal story explains how perception occurs; it does not determine what perception is of. Conflating causal mediation with indirect awareness is precisely the move the Direct Realist rejects.

So at this point, the disagreement is no longer about logic or semantics, but about whether temporal causation entails that the object of perception must be a present mental item rather than a mind-external object. I don’t think that entailment holds, and if it did, it would undermine perceptual realism of any kind, not just Direct Realism.

Well said.

Nothing is capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with all of the positive integers. — Metaphysician Undercover

I will attempt to clarify once more for the sake of the thread.

This statement of yours is neither a theorem, nor a definition nor a logical consequence of anything from within the formal system. This is a philosophical assertion grounded in a procedural interpretation of "capable" that is foreign to the mathematics. All you are saying here is that the impossibility follows from your definition of "capable", and that you think your definition is the right definition. This is an external critique. At no point have you derived a contradiction from within the system. Therefore, nothing you have said so far justifies the claim that the system is inconsistent.

I apologize if this comes off as rude, but this has been spelled out multiple times now from multiple different users. I think that if we still can't agree, then we have probably reached a principled stopping point that no further clarification is likely to resolve.

It all depends on how one defines "countable" — jgill

Exactly. "Countable" means something very specific within the formalism. The critique provided amounts to a rejection of that notion, not a derivation of contradiction from within the system.

But you haven't derived your conclusion from the axiom “I exist”. You have simply defined existence itself as relation to your Window, and then ruled out other Windows on the basis of that definition. Given that ontology, symmetry is excluded by stipulation. But there is no need to accept this ontology, and there is nothing in the axiom "I exist" that forces it. So the contradiction you describe is conditional on your metaphysical definitions. If those definitions are rejected (and I do reject them), then the contradiction never surfaces.

Cheers. :up:

That's an interesting pivot. At this point, I think the disagreement is no longer about logic or indexicals. You’re explicitly adopting an ontology on which existence itself is defined by relation to a unique Window, and nothing exists independently of it. Given that assumption, symmetry is ruled out by stipulation. But that assumption is precisely what I reject, and nothing in the logical facts about first-person perspective forces it. So the contradiction you describe is conditional on that ontology, not a consequence of logic itself.

Nice. It looks like you've noticed the pressure point, however, I don't think your proposed solution evades the problem. You’re right that relativizing “You” undermines the argument, but replacing “your world” with “The World” doesn’t fix that, because “The World” is still being defined indexically as the world in which you are You. That just reintroduces the same subject parameter under a different name.

Unless “The World” can be specified independently of the very first-person perspective it is supposed to ground rather than being fixed by it, the argument remains circular. Capitalizing “World” doesn’t turn a subject-relative fact into a global one. As it stands, “You is global because it is true in The World” and “This is The World because I am You in it” mutually define one another.

If this still seems unclear or incorrect on my part, no worries. We may have reached the point where we're simply talking past one another.

Saying “in your reality only your perspective is first-person” is exactly the token-indexical point, not a denial of it. Once you relativize first-person facts to a perspective (“in your reality / in my world”), global absoluteness is gone.

This would become clear if the argument were to be formalized. At the beginning of the argument you treat first-person perspective like a predicate that takes a subject and a perspective as parameters. The decisive moment in your argument is where you introduce the notion of the Window. This is where you absolutize the predicate by dropping the subject parameter, thereby equivocating on the meaning of "first-person perspective".

Grammatical person does not track metaphysical kind: the fact that I must refer to your perspective in the third person does not make your perspective third-person simpliciter. It is first-person for you.

The non-triviality of self-location (“who am I?”) does not turn indexical facts into world-level constants. No contradiction arises unless one assumes—without argument—that first-person must be a single global slot. That assumption, not logic, is still doing all the work.

As SolarWind posted his thesis 5 years ago, I had been thinking about this issue also way before that. Here I used LLMs as a tool to help formalize the thesis. — bizso09

Fair enough. However, I must say that as I look through your conversation with Gemini I see the familiar pattern playing out where (in my opinion) the LLM treats your assertions largely as stipulations rather than pausing to assess whether the key inference actually follows.

As for your reply above, I would say that you are not deriving the singularity or absoluteness of “You”; you are simply stipulating it. From the fact that only one perspective is this one, it does not follow that only one perspective is first-person.

The inference “if another perspective were first-person, it would be You” is invalid; it confuses token uniqueness with category membership. Other perspectives are not You, but that does not make them third-person simpliciter.

No contradiction arises unless you assume, without argument, that “first-person” must be a single global slot. That assumption, not logic, is doing all the work. Absent an argument for that assumption, there is no contradiction to resolve.

Interesting. I think this nicely illustrates why we should not uncritically accept the output of LLMs when discussing philosophical topics (or anything else for that matter).

You keep sliding from token uniqueness (“only one perspective is this one”) to global uniqueness (“only one perspective exists”). From the fact that I can unequivocally tell who I am, it does not follow that there is exactly one first-person perspective in reality.

When I say “I am Esse” and you say “I am OP,” we are not asserting competing world-level facts. These are token-indexical truths with different centers. No meta-world or selector is required, and no contradiction arises unless you assume—without argument—that “first-person” must be a single global slot.

What forces solipsism or dialetheism in your reasoning is not logic, but the insistence on that unsupported premise.

I still think the argument equivocates between the necessity of first-person reference for asking questions and the existence of a unique, world-level subject. “You” is token-indexical, not an absolute global fact, so no contradiction arises when multiple subjects each truthfully say “I am You.”

Appealing to a “total perspective” doesn’t help here because a total description of the world does not amount to a single perspective. To get that, one would have to posit an additional subject that experiences all perspectives first-personally, which changes the ontology. Either that subject has its own first-person standpoint (in which case it is just another “I”), or it doesn’t (in which case it cannot ground a unique global “You”).

The problem is clear. The mathematicians in this forum refuse to accept the refutation, though it is very sound. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m afraid it’s not, and I’ll try to clarify why.

All you’ve claimed so far is that mathematicians are working with a notion of infinity that you don’t accept, and you’ve given some philosophical reasons for rejecting it. That’s a legitimate philosophical position.

The problem is that this is a philosophical objection, not a mathematical one, and as such it doesn’t justify the claim that the mathematical notion of infinity is contradictory. The mathematical definition is perfectly sound relative to the formal system in which it is embedded.

By analogy: suppose we’re playing a game of Chess and, on your turn, you legally move your queen from d1 to a4. Suppose I respond to your move by saying: “that move doesn’t make sense because in real life kings are more powerful than queens and so only kings should be able to move like that”. That may be a fine external critique of the rules of Chess, but I haven’t thereby shown your move to be illegal. Given the established rules, it was a perfectly valid move.

Likewise, your objection to the mathematical notion of infinity is a meta-level objection. It doesn’t undermine the internal coherence of mathematics as it is standardly practiced. At most, it shows that the standard mathematical notion of infinity conflicts with your own metaphysical views.

If you wanted mathematicians to take this challenge seriously as mathematics, it would require proposing an alternative formal framework built around your accepted notion of infinity and showing that it does at least as much mathematical work as the existing one. As things stand, no such reason has been given for abandoning the standard definition.

I'll leave it at that.

Neat puzzle.

I think the apparent contradiction hinges on the fact that the puzzle quietly slides between two different levels of description: impersonal/third-person description and indexical/first person description.

These are not competing descriptions of the same kind. They answer different questions.

• The impersonal description answers: What exists?
  
• The indexical description answers: Which perspective is mine?

Once you keep those apart, the apparent contradiction dissolves.

The impersonal facts about the situation don't change, the only thing that changes is the perspective that is occupied. "You" are not an extra object over and above Alice, Bob, etc., but rather an indexical that shifts across perspectives.

No contradiction arises unless you mistakenly demand that indexical facts must be reducible to non-indexical ones.

I think this is a helpful clarification, but I want to push back on one point. The inference you’re calling “logical” is not on the same footing as the laws of identity, non-contradiction, or excluded middle. Those are formal constraints on any intelligible discourse whatsoever. By contrast, the premise “the mind is only directly aware of the senses” is not a law of logic; it is a substantive epistemological thesis.

The argument you give is valid if one accepts that premise, but that is exactly what the Direct Realist denies. The dispute is therefore not about whether one accepts logic, but about whether one accepts a particular account of what perceptual awareness consists in. Rejecting that premise is no more a rejection of logic than rejecting sense-datum theory or representationalism would be.

To put it another way: the claim that sensory mediation entails awareness only of inner effects is not logically forced. It is a philosophical interpretation of perception. The Direct Realist’s alternative claim is that perceptual awareness is a relation to mind-external objects via sensory capacities, not an awareness of sensory items from which external causes must be inferred. That difference is not something logic alone can settle.

So I agree with you that if someone simply takes it as a basic truth that the mind can only ever be directly aware of sensory items, then no argument will move them. But that cuts both ways. What’s at issue here is not acceptance or rejection of logic, but which epistemological starting point one finds more compelling.

It looks like we've circled back to the starting point again, which is fine. I think this shows that we still have a disconnect at the level of foundational epistemic commitments. Your response attempts to push the discussion back into the traditional framing, whereas my view rejects that framing. It seems like we've hit bedrock here.

Sorry, Magnus, but your "proof" merely begs the question. All you have done at this point is:

• asserted impossibility without derivation
• treated definitional existence as illegitimate by fiat
• accused others of fallacy and bad faith for not sharing your standards
• refused to specify what would count as proof

This is why the discussion keeps looping. If you want to move the discussion forward you need to either (1) derive (not assert) an actual contradiction within the accepted mathematical framework (per ) or (2) reject the standard framework and present a coherent alternative (e.g. intuitionism, finitism, non-classical logic, etc.).

As it stands, Banno has already shown that combining your premise (1) with transitivity, antisymmetry and the existence of infinite partitions leads to contradictions. At this point there is nothing of substance left to discuss.

I think this makes the disagreement very clear, and it turns on a specific claim you’re making: that it is logically impossible for the human mind to directly know how things are in a mind-external world, because everything we know comes through the senses. I agree entirely that all perceptual knowledge is sensory-mediated. But I don’t think mediation by the senses entails indirectness in the epistemic sense you’re assuming.

The inference you’re relying on is:
sensory mediation ⇒ only effects are directly known ⇒ causes can only be known by inference.
That inference is not a logical truth; it depends on a particular picture of perception as awareness only of inner effects from which outer causes must be inferred. The Direct Realist rejects that picture. On their view, perceptual awareness is a relation to the object itself via sensory capacities, not an awareness of an inner item from which the object is inferred as a cause.

So when I see a red screen, I am not directly aware of a mental effect and only indirectly aware of a wavelength. I am directly aware of the red screen as a mind-external object, even though my access to it is mediated by physiological processes. Those processes explain how perception occurs, but they are not what perception is of. Knowing that a wavelength and neural signals are involved is itself a further piece of knowledge, typically gained instrumentally and inferentially, but that doesn’t show that ordinary perception is awareness only of effects.

In short, the dispute is not about whether we use inference to explain causal chains — of course we do — but about whether perception itself is exhausted by awareness of inner effects. You take that to be a logical constraint; I take it to be a substantive philosophical thesis, and one the Direct Realist denies.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I now see fairly clearly where we diverge, and it’s not at the level of physiology, causal mediation, or even skepticism, but at a deeper metaphysical level about what counts as a feature of the world at all.

As I understand you, you’re assuming that any property defined in relation to human perceptual capacities collapses into a claim about perception rather than a claim about the world. On that assumption, statements like “the sky elicits blue-type responses under normal conditions” amount to nothing over and above claims about how humans experience the sky, and so the distinction I’ve been drawing between claims about experience and claims about the world simply disappears.

I reject that assumption. On my view, many genuine properties are relational without being mental or experiential in their subject matter. Properties like visibility, fragility, toxicity, solubility, or mass-relative-to-a-frame are all defined partly in relation to possible interactions or observers, but they are still properties of the world, with truth conditions fixed by how things are. I take ordinary color predicates to work in a similar way: they are world-involving, response-dependent properties, not reports about inner presentation.

This is why the two claims I’ve been distinguishing come apart for me. A claim about how humans experience the sky has its truth conditions in facts about experience. A claim about the sky’s standing in lawful relations to perceivers has its truth conditions in facts about the sky and those relations. If one denies that relational properties can be genuinely worldly, then of course that distinction collapses — but that is precisely the metaphysical constraint I’m resisting.

Once that difference is in view, I think it becomes clear why we’re talking past each other. Given your constraint, my position can only look like a terminological reshuffling. Given my rejection of that constraint, your insistence that everything here is “really about perception” looks like a substantive metaphysical narrowing of what the world can be like. At that point, the disagreement appears to be principled rather than clarificatory.

Shape as seen or shape as felt? — Michael

I’d say neither the look nor the feel of shape as such is identical to the mind-independent shape of an object. Shape is a structural property that can be accessed through different sensory modalities and at different scales, each of which presents only partial, resolution-bound aspects of that structure.

Molyneux-style results show that cross-modal access to the same structure is learned rather than innate, not that there is no shared object or that perception is indirect. Likewise, questions about “which scale is the real shape” rest on a false assumption that there must be a single privileged resolution. Shape descriptions are scale-relative but objective within a scale.

None of this requires that perceptual experience mirror shape as it is in the world, and none of it implies that perception proceeds via epistemic surrogates. It just means that perceptual access to structure is perspectival and modality-specific.

Then we're back to what I asked in this post (which I'll repeat below), which I don't think was addressed:

What's the difference between a bionic eye that is "integrated into perception such that judgments are still answerable to objects through ongoing interaction and correction" and a bionic eye that is "a surrogate whose adequacy depends on a generating process that stands in for the world"?

It just seems like there's a lot of special pleading here. — Michael

I think the reason this keeps sounding like special pleading is that you’re asking for a principled distinction I don’t think exists. On my view, there is no such thing as a physical process being an “epistemic intermediary” as opposed to a merely causal intermediary.

All perception—organic or bionic—involves deterministic transduction from the world to the nervous system. What makes something an epistemic intermediary is not its material constitution or causal role, but a theoretical decision to treat some inner item as what perception is of and as the standard against which correctness is assessed.

I reject that move. Perceptual error is explained by false world-directed judgment, not by mismatch with an inner surrogate. Once that assumption is dropped, the demand to distinguish epistemic from non-epistemic intermediaries simply dissolves.

As I said before, you can mean anything you like by "directness". I'm concerned with what it means in the context of the traditional dispute between direct and indirect realism, which I summarised here (which I'll repeat below), and which I also don't think was addressed: — Michael

And as I have said before, I'm rejecting a shared assumption (phenomenal mirroring) that the traditional framing is built on. I don't think direct realism requires taking on this assumption, but if you don't agree then that may be as far as we can go. I don't think re-litigating the traditional framing is likely to help move the discussion forward at this point.

I'm not calling your view Cartesian. I'm saying that the scenario with the visor and the screen functions like a Cartesian Theatre. This would clearly be indirect perception even though their perceptual judgement "there is a ship" is about an object in the world.

So your claim that "perception is cashed out entirely in terms of perceptual judgment, and perceptual judgments are about objects in the world ... [therefore perception is direct]" is a non sequitur. — Michael

Sorry, missed this somehow.

I don’t think there’s a non sequitur here once my notion of “directness” is kept in view.

On my view, “direct” and “indirect” perception are not distinguished independently of where epistemic answerability terminates. To say that perception is indirect just is to say that perceptual judgment is answerable, in the first instance, to an epistemic surrogate rather than to the world itself.

The visor-and-screen case counts as indirect precisely because it introduces such a surrogate: the subject’s epistemic access runs through an internally generated stand-in whose adequacy must be assessed. That is not true in ordinary perception, even though both cases involve world-directed judgments.

So the inference from “perceptual judgment is about objects in the world” to “perception is direct” is not meant to be a standalone logical step. It’s a definitional consequence of rejecting epistemic intermediaries altogether. If one insists on distinguishing directness from judgmental answerability, then we’re simply working with different explanatory primitives.

That’s an interesting scenario to consider. Here is how I would answer your questions:

(1) Is the scenario logically plausible?
Yes. There’s no contradiction in two populations having systematically inverted orientation mappings.

(2) Is it physically plausible?
In principle, yes (vestibular inversion, neural remapping, spaceflight, etc.). The details are contingent, but not conceptually incoherent.

(3) Is one group seeing the “correct” orientation?
No. Because orientation is not an absolute property of the world, there is no “correct” mapping independent of a frame.

(4) How would we determine correctness without begging the question?
I think I would say we wouldn’t, because correctness isn’t the right notion here. I think what matters is

• internal coherence,
• successful coordination with the environment,
• shared practices of action and correction.

To summarize, I would say that orientation is frame-relative in a way that shape is not. That doesn’t imply error or indirectness, just that “up/down” are relational predicates whose correctness is fixed within a shared frame, not absolutely. This makes orientation relational rather than illusory, much like “left/right” or “near/far.”

Thoughts?

This is a restatement of what I've said amount to the same thing? I can't see a response to what I've said there specifically. — AmadeusD

Identity is not comparison.

I'm not quite sure how you can make that claim: science tells us our mind cannot look at objects. Our eyes look at objects and our mind constructs images from sense-data. There is an unavoidable chasm between objects and our representations in this form. Can you explain what you mean in the above quote in light of this? — AmadeusD

What I mean is that causal mediation does not by itself settle what perception is of. Science tells us that perception is implemented by sense organs and neural processes; I agree entirely. But it does not follow from this that the object of perception must be an inner representation rather than a mind-external object.

Saying that the mind “constructs images from sense-data” is already a philosophical interpretation of the science, not something the science itself establishes. All that science requires is that perception depends on causal processes. It does not require that awareness terminates in sense-data or inner pictures rather than in the world itself.

So the “chasm” you’re describing is not something science forces on us; it’s the result of adopting a particular representationalist model of perception. My claim has been that rejecting naïve mirroring does not commit us to that model.

They are the same thing. — AmadeusD

No, they are not the same thing.

A claim about perceptual presentation is a claim about how experience is structured (e.g. “humans tend to experience the sky as blue”). A claim about the sky-as-related-to-perceivers is a claim about the world under certain conditions (e.g. “the sky has properties such that, under normal conditions, it elicits blue-type responses”).

Those differ quite clearly in terms of:

• subject matter (experience vs world),
• truth conditions (facts about perceivers vs facts about the sky),
• direction of explanation (mind → world vs world → mind).

Collapsing these distinctions is exactly what turns a claim about the world into a claim about experience, which is the move I’ve been resisting throughout.

But out of curiosity, would you make the same claims about shape and orientation (and other features of geometry) that you make above about colour? — Michael

That’s a fair question, and the short answer is: no, I wouldn’t treat shape and orientation in exactly the same way as colour — but I would reject naïve phenomenal mirroring for them as well.

Colour is plausibly response-dependent in a way that shape and orientation are not. Ordinary claims about shape and orientation track relatively stable, mind-independent structural features of objects — and that’s why geometrical error correction, measurement, and intersubjective agreement work the way they do.

But even in those cases, I don’t think truth requires that the phenomenal character of experience reproduce those properties as they are in the world. A judgment like “the ball is round” is true because the object has a certain spatial structure, not because a phenomenal roundness in experience mirrors a roundness in the object.

So the difference isn’t that colour judgments are non-realistic while shape judgments are naïvely realistic. The difference is that colour predicates are more tightly tied to perceptual response profiles, whereas shape predicates are tied to structural and relational features of objects. In neither case does perceptual truth require that properties be “directly present” in experience in the sense the naïve realist needs.

That’s why rejecting naïve realism about colour doesn’t force indirect realism about perception more generally — and rejecting phenomenal mirroring about shape doesn’t amount to denying that objects have shapes.

Then I'll repeat what I said to Banno: I think the visor and its screen functions exactly like a Cartesian theatre (which is a strawman misrepresentation of indirect realism), and a Cartesian theatre is exactly the sort of thing that would qualify as indirect perception. So you've defined "direct realism" in such a way that even the strawman misrepresentation of indirect realism would count as direct realism. — Michael

Calling my view “Cartesian” doesn’t address the issue I’ve been pressing. The Cartesian Theatre is defined by the presence of an epistemic surrogate whose adequacy must be evaluated. My whole point has been that once phenomenal experience is not truth-apt, treating it as the “immediate object of perception” does no epistemic work. If that move reclassifies the traditional taxonomy, so be it—but that’s a consequence of rejecting phenomenal-first assumptions, not a reductio.

These seem to be the same thing? — AmadeusD

When I contrast mirroring with a judgment’s being correct or incorrect, I’m not redescribing the same relation. Mirroring posits a relation between mental items and worldly items; truth is a normative status of a judgment, not a relation between two objects. A judgment is answerable to how things are not by resembling the world, but by being correct or incorrect depending on how things are; when true, what is affirmed is identical with what is the case, without any mediating, internal mental replica.

Everything you say about variability, mediation, and scientific accounts of perception concerns causal dependence. I agree with all of that. Where I disagree is with the further step that treats causal mediation as implying epistemic mediation by inner representations. That step isn’t delivered by science.

It is a contradiction in terms, but I understand the second to actually mean "The sky is blue, as far as the HUman perceptual system tends to present" and that is obviously true. — AmadeusD

No, the claim is not just about how the human perceptual system presents things. It’s still a claim about the sky; namely the sky as it is in relation to the human perceptual system under normal conditions.

The point is just that ordinary truth doesn’t require predicates to correspond to simple intrinsic properties instantiated by objects. Rejecting naïve color metaphysics doesn’t make ordinary color judgments false—it just rejects a mirroring account of what makes them true.

The direct realist tries to avoid this by arguing that the sky appears blue because a) the sky is blue and b) the sky is directly present in experience. The indirect realist argues that this argument fails because (b) is false — Michael

I've granted that "blueness" is not a property of the sky, yet I maintain that "the sky is blue" is true. This sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is.

I would say that ordinary perceptual judgments like "the sky is blue" do not have to be interpreted in a naive way, but can be interpreted as something like "under normal viewing conditions, the sky systematically elicits blue-type visual responses in normal perceivers". This makes the claim objective, fallible, publicly assessable and non-projective. Nor does it require that the sky instantiate a phenomenal property as experienced. Many of the claims that people make ("the sun is rising", "that table is solid") can be cashed out in similar terms without resorting to naive realism.

And so we circle back to the example with the visors. The judgement "there is a ship" is a judgement about an object in the world, but it's still indirect perception. You seem to be conflating which things are the immediate objects of perception and which things our judgements are about. These are not the same thing. — Michael

It's not conflation, it's deflation. In the view I am defending, perception is cashed out entirely in terms of perceptual judgment, and perceptual judgments are about objects in the world. That’s not to deny that sensation causally mediates perception, only that it epistemically mediates it.

If you agree that phenomenal experience cannot be correct or incorrect, then the hypothesis that phenomenal experience is "what is directly seen" no longer explains error or motivates the skeptical worries you have presented. At that point, our disagreement reduces to whether experience is the direct object of perception or merely a mode of access. My point has been that the direct objects of perceptual judgments ("that's a ship") are objects in the world (ships), not phenomenal contents (redness as-seen, sourness as-tasted, etc). And this pretty much brings us full circle to where we landed a few posts back.

No, I'm saying that it's thing directly seen. From this we then make judgements about the world that can be correct or not. — Michael

I see what you're saying, but I think that the distinction you're making here is more terminological than substantive. As I understand your account, it requires that it is possible for there to be a mismatch between the phenomenal character of experience and the world. Understanding phenomenal experience as something that can succeed or fail to line up with how things are burdens it with a representational role that I would reject. That's a difference in how we locate epistemic mediation within the context of perception, not about whether judgments are made “from” experience,

Yes, I think this makes the divergence fully explicit now.

You’re treating phenomenal character as that which is assessed for correctness in the act of perception, whereas I’m treating judgments about the world as what are assessed, with phenomenal character merely causally occasioning those judgments.

The difference here concerns what we each take as epistemically basic. It may be that we've hit rock bottom on this issue, which is fine. Either way, I have enjoyed the discussion very much.

I think this is where we finally reach the deepest point of disagreement.

I reject the assumption that for veridical perception and hallucination to belong to a “common kind,” there must be a common object that is the immediate object of assessment. On my view, what is common is not an object, but a kind of epistemic activity: world-directed judgment undertaken from a perceptual standpoint.

In veridical perception, that judgment is answerable to objects in the environment and can be corrected by further interaction with them. In hallucination, the same kind of judgment is made, but it fails—there is no object that satisfies it. No inner surrogate is thereby promoted to the status of what is assessed; rather, the judgment is simply false.

That is why the Common Kind Claim does not force the conclusion you draw. Fallibility does not require that the immediate object of assessment be the same in success and failure. It requires only that the same kind of claim can succeed or fail.

This is also why the bionic vs organic distinction does no work here. I agree entirely that proteins are not privileged over silicon, and that both are deterministic transducers. But that shows only that causal mediation is ubiquitous. It does not show that perception involves an epistemic intermediary unless one assumes that error must always be explained by reference to an inner object.

So the dilemma you pose—either perception is indirect in both cases or direct in both cases—rests on an assumption I reject: that epistemic assessment must target an intermediary whenever perception can misfire. I deny that assumption. Judgments can be directly answerable to the world and still be wrong.

@Metaphysician Undercover @Magnus Anderson

It seems to me that this discussion keeps looping because the objection is being framed as an internal refutation of standard mathematical proofs, rather than as a foundational challenge to the notion of existence those proofs rely on.

Both of you have raised worries about the “doability” of bijection for infinite collections, which suggests a rejection of the identification of existence with formal definability and consistency. That’s a substantive philosophical position. But if that’s the objection, then it isn’t a matter of showing that the usual definitions lead to contradictions (they don’t), but of rejecting the underlying framework.

Put differently, the objection seems clearer if stated explicitly at the level of foundations, e.g.:

“I reject the identification of mathematical existence with formal definability. I require a constructive or modal account of possibility, and under that account I deny that completed infinite bijections exist.”

or

“I reject classical set theory in favor of a finitist or constructivist framework, where existence requires explicit construction.”

Framed that way, the disagreement would look less like an accusation about the failure of proof and more like a clash of foundational commitments, which is where I suspect the disagreement really belongs.

So why is this not also the case for the bionic eye? It simply replaces rod and cone cells with silicon. — Michael

It could be the case for a bionic eye — nothing I’ve said rules that out.

Simply replacing rods and cones with silicon does not by itself introduce an epistemic intermediary. What matters is not what the components are made of, but whether the system functions as part of the ordinary perceptual coupling with the world, or instead produces an output whose correctness must be assessed independently of that coupling.

If the bionic eye is integrated into perception such that judgments are still answerable to objects through ongoing interaction and correction — as with natural, transplanted, or lab-grown eyes — then there is no epistemic intermediary, and perception is direct in the sense I’m using.

The visor and nerve-stimulation cases differ because they interpose a surrogate whose adequacy depends on a generating process that stands in for the world, rather than being part of the perceptual relation itself.

So the distinction isn’t silicon vs biology, or artificial vs natural; it’s whether the device replaces part of the perceptual interface with the world, or replaces the world with an internal stand-in.