Is it possible to perceive a world which is external to our perceptions?

[hammegk]

No he would not.

Sure he would.

Hmm. Maybe not; he'd probably keep changing his mind. You win.

Even a solipsist perceives a monitor.

Nope, I don't even want to consider going into that train of thought ...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Mind" is a dualistic term, the result of Descartes.

And in this case it suffices to name the image of the tree that I have in my subjective experience/mind/consciousness/inner awareness/brain/mind's eye.

The tree is not in my head, yet I can picture it without looking at the actual tree. Is that picture the object of perception?

I don't remember Sid Descartes saying that.

~~Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is this masturbatory exercise about the tree getting us anywhere?

~~Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And I'm sure he is a royal whackjob. Nevertheless, it is an example of another kind of realism, suggesting that your two choices do not cover all possible realities.

Roy Bhaskar is beyond the current discussion. He is what pops out the other end.

However, it sounds like we agree that direct realism allows for an arbitrarily complex sensory pathway in the brain, without rendering my perceptions indirect. If that is the case, I'm all up with direct realism (at least for now).

~~Paul

How are we going to defend it from the brain in a vat argument?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is this masturbatory exercise about the tree getting us anywhere?

~~Paul

It's therapy for Upchurch.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How are we going to defend it from the brain in a vat argument?

The BIV is directly perceiving the neural inputs being fed to it.

Now, this brings up the fact that what I'm directly perceiving are the various signals arriving at my senses, not the tree itself. Does that suddenly make this indirect realism? It's not that I'm looking at a screen or a photograph. But there certainly are multiple levels of indirectness between the actual tree and my inner experience of it.

Have we shot both direct and indirect realism dead yet?

Bill and I have abandoned critical realism and are working on our latest thesis: get realism.

~~Paul

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What you are doing is trying to impose a metaphysical interpretation on the objects of your perception.

Sorry, but I disagree (to an extent). The computer and the tree are metaphysical interpretations!!! You cant avoid them! unless you enter the noumena territory, in which there are no "computer" and "no computer", nor any kind of "you". Pure monism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, but I disagree (to an extent). The computer and the three are metaphysical interpretations!!! You cant avoid them! unless you enter the noumena territory, in which there are no "computer" and "no computer", nor any kind of "you". Pure monism.

This is coming from a Buddhist?

A Buddhist who has lost the lifeworld?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

WOW! Well done BDZ. Have a peanut. Hard, wasn't it?

mmm why do you INSIST in treating me like "a materialist"???? I have told you, in several occasions, that our worldviews are very similar! So, you can withrdraw that silly face.

That said, you didnt read my possition, in the other thread that I opened based on your questions.

Oh, and you are the one who has problems with it. As I have told you before, I see the "common man view" as extremely useful in daily life. I dont see why should I talk as if there was "something else" than a dualist, material-mind world. If we are talking about philosophy, fine, but I still dont see why you insist in "attack" materialists... which, btw, appear to be inexistent in the forum!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Neuroscience may inform, but in the end there is a metaphysical problem to be navigated.

I didn't say there wasn't a metaphysical problem. From my perspective, however neuroscience and particularly experimental psychology inform and limit much of the debate.

For instance, it is commonly argued that we perceive objects as wholes. That is true in the natural, non-pathologic state. But there are well-recognized and well-described agnosias that demonstrate the brain areas responsible for putting different pieces of the puzzle together so that we can perceive in the way that we do. I earlier mentioned to you a particular condition -- Balint's syndrome, which is comprised of three different problems largely dealing with issues of where things are in space and how we deal with them, but with one interesting component known as simultagnosia. Simultagnosia is, simply put, the inability to see the forest for the trees. Folks with bilateral damage of the superior parietal lobes simply cannot perceive chairs. They see the object out there, but it is not properly speaking a chair (from their visual perspective) but a collection of different parts. The whole does not make sense to them. The existence of this entity suggests that perception is largely a construction performed by our brains -- knock out the superior parietal lobes and wholes don't make visual sense. It is reasonable to assume, but certainly not demonstrated without doubt that this area of the brain is responsible for this bit of perception.

None of this concerns the ultimate nature of reality, only our means of perceiving/interpreting the stuff out there. When discussing issues of how perception occurs, this sort of information does seem important.

Neuroscience has no comment on the ultimate question of what "is". But it has much to say about our means of discovering what is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The BIV is directly perceiving the neural inputs being fed to it.

Nice try. Doesn't work.

Do you live in a world of neural inputs? Look in front of you! See those neural inputs? No. Neither do I. The brain isn't directly percieving any neural inputs. Not unless you live in Kevinland.

Now, this brings up the fact that what I'm directly perceiving are the various signals arriving at my senses, not the tree itself.

I am a direct realist. I perceive a tree. Even if I am a BIV.

Does that suddenly make this indirect realism?

Sounds rather like it.

It's not that I'm looking at a screen or a photograph. But there certainly are multiple levels of indirectness between the actual tree and my inner experience of it.

Have we shot both direct and indirect realism dead yet?

No, indirect realism is dead but direct realism is just currently not defended from the BIV argument. The BIV argument isn't fatal, but we need a way to escape from it. Claiming the BIV perceive neurons won't work.

Bill and I have abandoned critical realism...

Then you are back in BIVland.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You must be imaginary. An authority on such matters, our own AdminiModerator Darat, once assured me there is no 'Eastern' thought, as opposed to 'Western'.

Lets see, I have to decide if Im imagining that you are saying that I must be imaginary or if it is "the other side" of the noumena who says it...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is coming from a Buddhist?

A Buddhist who has lost the lifeworld?

You need to learn to see beyond form! You see, one thing is to think, and another VERY different is to see. Not the computer, but the noumena. Can you understand that?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you live in a world of neural inputs? Look in front of you! See those neural inputs? No. Neither do I. The brain isn't directly percieving any neural inputs. Not unless you live in Kevinland.

Yawn. Yes, yes, obviously I did not mean that I see neural inputs. In the case of the BIV, the brain's perceptual processes are working off computer-generated neural inputs. My brain is working off sensory neural inputs.

I am a direct realist. I perceive a tree. Even if I am a BIV.

So there are no photons in your world?

Sounds rather like it. [indirect realism]

Yet another reason why our two choices don't offer enough flexibility. Introduce photons and sound waves and wham! it changes from direct to indirect realism.

No, indirect realism is dead but direct realism is just currently not defended from the BIV argument. The BIV argument isn't fatal, but we need a way to escape from it. Claiming the BIV perceive neurons won't work.

Obviously I didn't mean that it perceives neurons, but that its perceptions are driven by direct input to its neurons.

~~Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By the way, Bill and I just met Mr. BIV. His name is Roy G. BIV. Nice guy. Too bad about his color blindness, though. He's a good friend of Mary's.

~~Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Even the Stone Age dude understands that there is a physical tree he can throw a rock at or walk into, and there is also the image of the tree in his mind's eye.

Do you really think so? I am not at all certain that this is the case. Does your SAD (stone age dude) have language?

...sorry, this would be a derail. I will post it anyway, just to say that there is no reason to suspect (although no concrete claim to the negative) that SAD thinks in an internal/external manner.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your job is going to be trying to find a way to defend the alternative realist position, then. You are a direct realist, but I'd bet my house you can't defend that position. It was your assumption that direct realism was true without having given it sufficient thought which led to your problems in the previous thread.

As others have been pointing out to you, your distinction between direct and indirect realism is a false dichotomy, so I don't think anybody can be sensibly said to be either a direct realist or an indirect realist, as you define them.

As you define it a direct realist is committed to the belief that they cannot be fooled by hallucinations or BIV scenarios, so your version of direct realism is silly.

As you define it an indirect realist is committed to the belief that they can have 100% certainty in the accuracy of their perceptions, despite the possibility of hallucinations and BIV scenarios, so your version of indirect realism is also silly.

The view summarised by Paul's quoted text, "critical realism", seems to be the sound view, regardless of whether someone we have never heard of has taken the idea and run somewhere silly with it. Stuff is perceived and acted on via a long causal chain, and we have less than 100% certainty that our perceptions map on to an external world, but our experiences lead us to be 99.99...% certain that there is a consistent world we are part of.

Right now I am trying to demonstrate that both forms of realism must be false. Perhaps it would help if you started from the short refutation of indirect realism. If you agree with that then we can start on direct realism.

I have no intention of giving away my position this time, and for a very good reason. Once people know where I am going, they will start re-arranging their definitions and arguments if they want to avoid the destination.

As I've laid out here, those two aren't "both forms of realism", they are "the two forms of realism I proposed". Since both of them aim for, and fail to achieve, 100% certainty in a consistent world we are part of, both are foolish positions to adopt.

Your problem is that you deny the very possibility of alternative views which claim 99.99...% certainty, insisting that the only two possible views are 100% certainty in direct perception or 100% certainty in indirect perception.

By the way, it's entirely legitimate to re-examine one's definitions if it turns out one's definitions lead to conclusions you don't like. Nobody ever said philosophy had to be a one-way trip. You can zip back and forth as much as you like to get to a consistent position.

Your game is to try to convince people firstly that they must commit to one of two silly positions, and then that they are not allowed to take back their assent if the option they chose turns out to be silly, so that they must instead adopt whatever third option you pull out of your hat. That is just not how philosophy is supposed to work.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

...sorry, this would be a derail. I will post it anyway, just to say that there is no reason to suspect (although no concrete claim to the negative) that SAD thinks in an internal/external manner.

But what must he think about the fact that he can lean back in his cave and picture the tree in his mind's eye? Wouldn't he have some notion that he wasn't looking at the actual tree? And what about his cave drawings? He knows they aren't actual bison.

I think our SAD is cleverer than we might give him credit for.

~~Paul

 

[hammegk]

... Stuff is perceived and acted on via a long causal chain, and we have less than 100% certainty that our perceptions map on to an external world, but our experiences lead us to be 99.99...% certain that there is a consistent world we are part of.

We are discussing worldviews, and if your worldview is that there is a 99.999% probability that, say, materialism, is true, what is the .001% if not some form of interactive dualism?

 

[Mercutio]

But what must he think about the fact that he can lean back in his cave and picture the tree in his mind's eye? Wouldn't he have some notion that he wasn't looking at the actual tree? And what about his cave drawings? He knows they aren't actual bison.

I think our SAD is cleverer than we might give him credit for.

~~Paul

More clever than this, I would hope! Sorry, Paul, but you have spent an entire life thinking differently than he has. He may very well think as you do, but I cannot assume this to be true. It is quite possible that he might think of both the tree (that you think of as "out there") and the imagined tree (the "in here" tree) as "in here", with no real world at all...or he could think that the imagined tree is "out there" but projected to him by some god, or (quite possibly) he may think in a way so unlike ours that I cannot conceive of it.