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

[Z]

To add... LW quoted a bit which seems to say that it is still direct realism, to perceive through a sensory chain as we do. If that's so, I am in favor of direct realism. Is indirect realism a form of representationism? I hate all these terms... why can't people just call a spade a spade???

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

All very possible. But I'll bet you dinner at TAM5 that he thinks the tree is a self-sufficient external object, right along with the sabre tooth tiger and the nasty dude from the next tribe. Then he draws pictures to teach his kids what to watch out for.

But we have no way to know, do we? Okay, I'll buy you dinner anyway.

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

You idiot.

You're welcome. I'm honored, humbled and flattered to be in the presence of such elevated intellects such as yours.

That is EXACTLY the point that I am trying to make and which Upchurch doesn't understand. You are right. Your question should be an open one: What is this? But before you can ask it, you need to point to something and say THIS!. You cannot even ask "what is this?" before you've got a THIS. Can you explain this to upchurch please?

No, you do not. Not in the way you do: You have already determined that this is a tree. How did you come to that conclusion?

You give the answer before you have explained how you got to the answer.

No I don't. I am perfectly aware of blondlot and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a monitor in front of you.

How do you know it is a tree?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

[derail]
Yiihaa! Neverending thread crossover! 99.99... = 100.
[/derail]

Fair comment. My intent was that the string of nines terminates at some unspecified finite point.

Is there a handy mathematical symbol for indicating that?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You're welcome. I'm honored, humbled and flattered to be in the presence of such elevated intellects such as yours.

At least I was justified in calling you an idiot. You had no justification for doing the same to me earlier in this thread.

No, you do not. Not in the way you do: You have already determined that this is a tree. How did you come to that conclusion?

It's standing in front of me.

How do you know it is a tree?

It's a wooden thing with green leaves on it. It's a tree.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To add... LW quoted a bit which seems to say that it is still direct realism, to perceive through a sensory chain as we do. If that's so, I am in favor of direct realism. Is indirect realism a form of representationism? I hate all these terms... why can't people just call a spade a spade???

There shall be no spades in philosophy.

It seems that it's okay in direct realism to have sensory pathways. Is it okay to sense photons and sound waves and such? If so, then direct realism sounds reasonable. If it's not okay to have photons then direct realism is just plain silly. That eliminates both direct and indirect realism, which was Geoff's goal. But then ... why ... there must be a third type of realism. Get realism!

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fair comment. My intent was that the string of nines terminates at some unspecified finite point.

Is there a handy mathematical symbol for indicating that?

99.999...9

~~ Paul

 

[Soapy Sam]

I just got expanding insulating foam all over my hairy forearm. I'm peeling it off now, in small bits. If this is what waxing your arms is like, then women ARE the stronger sex.
I just felt I should throw this in, as in some inscrutable fashion it reminded me of this thread.
I'm off for the weekend.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Remind me to start a Virgin Mary thread sometime.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems that it's okay in direct realism to have sensory pathways. Is it okay to sense photons and sound waves and such?

If you are very careful. I'm not sure how exactly you are using "sense". If you mean "percieve" then no. If you are talking about functioning bits of neural tissue then this is OK. You do not hear a sound wave. You hear a dog bark.

If so, then direct realism sounds reasonable. If it's not okay to have photons then direct realism is just plain silly. That eliminates both direct and indirect realism, which was Geoff's goal. But then ... why ... there must be a third type of realism!

~~ Paul

There is no third type of realism. There are subtypes of direct and indirect realism, but they are all also either one or the other:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_The_conflict2

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Critical realism" isn't actually a metaphysical position in the same class as anti-realism, indirect and direct realism with respect to external objects. It isn't about external objects at all. Instead, it is the name adopted by the science-religion interface community, of which Roy Bhaskar is a leading example. i.e. it's the position of people like me, but nothing to do with direct and indirect realism.

I specifically stated I was referring to the definition Paul posted, and not to any wacky ideas attached to the term.

Geoff, just clear this up for us.

Firstly, given that apparently direct realists think that a long causal chain between object and perception is compatible with direct realism, what's the difference between direct realism and indirect realism again? Is it some business with a homonculus, and if so exactly what is the homonculus supposed to be doing that is different in each case?

Secondly, do you have some reason why critical realism as defined by the text Paul quoted, not defined by anything else should not be on the table next to direct and indirect realism as a possible view? In other words, is there a reason why we are forced to choose between 100% faith in direct or indirect realism, and cannot choose to have 99.9999999% faith in long-causal-chain realism?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You do not hear a sound wave. You hear a dog bark.

This is a play on the word hear.

There is no third type of realism. There are subtypes of direct and indirect realism, but they are all also either one or the other:

Okay, then I'll go for semidirect realism.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... and cannot choose to have 99.9999999% faith in long-causal-chain realism?

Ooh, I like that: LCC realism.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This is a play on the word hear.


Okay, then I'll go for semidirect realism.

~~ Paul

Doesn't exist.

 

[hammegk]

99.999...9

Given

99.999...9

00.000...1 at least is a smaller fraction to force your dualism into. Still there though ...


Contemplating how many 9's are needed right of the decimal point to =100% is a zen koan. That should also be a useful exercise for most of you.

... is there a reason why we are forced to choose between 100% faith in direct or indirect realism, and cannot choose to have 99.9999999% faith in long-causal-chain realism?

Nothing other than the hint of dualism remaining in any physicalist view at <100% certainty.

 

[Mercutio]

Agreed. He just sees a tree.

We cannot know this, either. He may have all sorts of other, unknown-to-us assumptions, as you have assumptions about him which you claim are merely stripping away other assumptions. We can suppose all we want to, but I don't think we can be certain about what Stone Age Dude thinks.

 

[Mercutio]

If you are very careful. I'm not sure how exactly you are using "sense". If you mean "percieve" then no. If you are talking about functioning bits of neural tissue then this is OK. You do not hear a sound wave. You hear a dog bark.

Interesting...Wundt, James, and the other founding psychologists used the method of introspection, in which subjects were asked to dissect their perceptions, their experience, into its component parts, the very elements of consciousness. (It was a horribly flawed method, but oh well.) Wundt would have taken issue with "you hear a dog bark", and said that even that statement included interpretations and assumptions.

"No assumptions", ironically enough, means different things to different people.

 

[cyborg]

Contemplating how many 9's are needed right of the decimal point to =100% is a zen koan.

Zen koan? Screw that. It's a matter of mathematical semantics and nothing more. If you disagree you don't understand mathematics. If you read more into it than there is to it you don't understand logic systems. The answer is an infinite number of 9s. There ends the conversation.

 

[Upchurch]

Unbelievable. Mercutio has got it right. Even the stone age dude is one step ahead of upchurch.

Okay. You're not getting it. Let's take some baby steps here.

"sjkios dnnkwok arkdsjl qqies ab"

The above statement makes absolutely no assumptions at all. The words mean absolutely nothing. There is no correct pronunciation. There is no metaphysic that can be applied to them. It has no context whatsoever.

Now, do you agree with the above statement?

 

[Mercutio]

Remind me to start a Virgin Mary thread sometime.

~~ Paul

No way, man. One of these threads, without the benefit of alcohol?