@Sewblon Sense-data are not just all perceptions. Sense-data are specifically private mental images.
And it seems more probable than representative realism, certainly; representative realism requires two ontological planes (1. the physical world and 2. sense-data) whereas sophisticated direct realism only needs one. Thus, representative realism fails according to Occam's Razor.
An hallucination is usually private & transient. Sense data can usually be corroborated (i.e. public) without time limitation. Of course you could suppose all perception is just a public, non-time limited hallucination. Which is possibly either scepticism or idealism depending on how you want to look at it...
About sense-date and hallucinations. Sense-data is either a catch-all term for everything that we perceive via our senses, or a chemical reaction in our brains. And hallucinations are either just another thing that we perceive with our senses, or a chemical reaction in our brains that does not have the cause we habitually think that they do.
Am revising for my January mocks at the moment - it's tomorrow. On Knowledge of the External World and Reason and Experience. Nothing was making sense until i watched this video. Thanks Mate, Done Well. :)
This video was superb! Well done I just did AS philosophy AQA and am carrying on with A2 next year, it was really interesting to have a look at these arguments after a few months so thanks! You did it really well :)
Perhaps you can say "The chaotic world, and the orderly one, are not fundamentally distinct, but the orderly macro world, which has enduring objects as one of its features, has mind-independent existence." OK? Careful though: the orderly world, if it has mind-independent existence, must not be *exactly* the same thing as the chaotic world, because then it couldn't have order at all. Are you OK with this? If not, you could go back to saying order/coherence is an illusion of perception.
Again, you can still believe that everything reduces to the chaotic world revealed by physics and chemistry. The issue here is whether the world of order (which includes things) is imposed on reality by our perception, or whether this order actually has objective existence. You said that perception provides the appearance of coherence earlier, and that if we saw the world as it really is, we would see chaos, but you may want to revisit whether that belief is consistent with indirect realism.
"So your position is that reality is *not* made up of tables and chairs and rocks and things, but rather is made up of something that is relatively chaotic, and that macro objects have no existence outside perception?"
Some form of this question is what any indirect realist must eventually tackle, and it's a bed indirect realism made for itself.
Most importantly, it is not true that Direct Realism states that what we perceive always equals what is in the world. Direct Realists not only are aware of hallucinations, but the position claims adherents including philosophers who are very informed about all the latest cognitive science has to say about perception. What Direct Realism is committed to is that there are times when people perceive the world accurately, and directly.
My main reason for believing we do not perceive anything that can be called reality is that "reality" in its most objective form is nothing but chaotic interactions between particles and energy. Our brains go to great lengths to arrange these interactions into meaningful sense data. But you must understand: what is really going on "behind the scenes" of perception is *very different* from what we perceive.
Umm, well, I understand that the machinations of our sense organs are not the same thing as the objects of perception, in fact this is the central thesis of direct realism; the objects of perception are in the external world. If your point is that the objects we *think* we're perceiving are *very different* from what we actually perceive, I wonder how on earth you know this, if in fact you're burdened with this obstacle between yourself and the external world.
Direct realism is the worst theory in philosophy. It is a fact that we do not perceive anything that can be called "reality." Every person who has taken a course in biology or physics knows that our sense perceptions are incredibly limited. Direct realism is simply out of the question. The only question that remains is, what is the relationship between mental states and brain states? Indirect realism is a good theory.
If you make an argument, I will try to respond to it. I am not a committed representative realist, but I think it's a much better theory than direct "naive" realism.
There are time when the term "Direct Realism" is used interchangeably with the term "Naive Realism," but there are also subtleties that are missed when we equate them, is all I mean to say...
You're right that direct realism can be distinguished from naive realism - if you support direct realism. Obviously, since I disagree with direct realism, I will tend to associate it with naive realism.
The association of direct realism with naive realism is not dependent on the amount of affection one has for direct realism. While Naive Realism may overlap a great deal with Direct Realism, and be interchangeable in some of the literature, there are places on the ends where the circles do not overlap. The term "Naive Realism" denotes something specific, as does the term "Direct Realism;" we're not only talking about connotations here.
How bout this one: Representative realism claims the world is altered by our perception, that we do not see the world as it is. But if we don't have an original copy of the world to compare our perception to, then how do we know that our perception is somehow not an exact reproduction? The direct realist does not deny the intermediate steps between the world and perceivers, but sees these steps, as Avrum Stroll points out, as facilitating (aiding) rather than mediating (standing in between).
Why are you assuming that we should "know" anything about our perception? The fact is that we *don't* know most of what goes on in perception because it is involuntary. Our nervous systems carry out billions of processes to translate chaotic reality into something comprehensible. Also, I fail to see the difference between "facilitating" and "mediating" between reality and perception. This looks like a sidestep to me. Either way, the result is still indirect realism.
No, it's not a side step, because facilitating is not to stand in between, but to aid. A fork is a facilitator between yourself and your steak. The fact that you use a fork does not mean you're not actually eating a steak. As for knowing, the indirect realists are the ones adding a layer of knowledge claim here: they say the world is different from our perception of it, yet they're somehow confident about this external world, in spite of the veil they've superfluously erected.
It is already apparent that perception is meant to "aid" our interactions with the world. But that is not enough to topple indirect realism. Remember that *every* biological process serves to aid something, which is why that process exists: it proved useful in the course of natural selection. But a process can be an aid and an obstacle at the same time! Perception is exactly that. It is mostly useful, but it also leads us to make perceptual errors as well.
This is because perception is based on heuristics (rules of thumb) rather than deterministic algorithms. In other words, perception is very flexible. It allows us to perceive more freely than computers - but on the other hand, it also makes us prone to errors that computers wouldn't make. I think this comparison of computers and brains is very important for my argument.
That perception is useful is fine, the question is if it's correct. Indirect realism says it's not, which it is in no position to know, because it has asserted 1) that there is an obstacle between us and the world, and 2) that we don't have an original copy of the world to compare our perception to.
The fact that perception aids in a practical way is neither here not there.
Again, I can say that perception is not *accurate* because I know what the world consists of at the most fundamental level (based on physics and chemistry). It consists of interactions between particles and energy. If we could see reality as it "really is," we would see nothing but this chaos, and it would be useless to us. The whole purpose of perception is to guide us through this chaos in a meaningful way. To do this, perception alters reality.
I always thought it was warranted to believe *both* in the level of reality that physics and chemistry describe *and* in macro level objects... So your position is that reality is *not* made up of tables and chairs and rocks and things, but rather is made up of something that is relatively chaotic, and that macro objects have no existence outside perception?
I would not say that macro objects have no existence; I would say that they are not distinct from the fundamental matter-energy from which they emerged. The coherence we perceive does not exist in reality.
You're hedging. Earlier you said reality is really chaotic matter and energy and our perception transforms this chaos into something meaningful. If what you're only confident in saying is that reality is "nothing but this chaos," then you really don't have any business believing in macro objects. Before, you said perception alters this chaotic reality, now, you're saying that the macro objects of perceptions aren't distinct from the fundamental matter-energy from which they emerged. Which is it?
In other words, if something 'emerges,' then it's something in its own right; it's not just some other thing our perception fiddles with and tricks us into thinking it's something. So either we have no warrant in believing in anything but chaotic matter-energy, or something emerges, not both.
No, those two statements are compatible. Macro objects are not distinct from matter-energy precisely because perception alters reality. Perception makes the matter-energy into coherent wholes.
Would you do me a favor and tell me what a macro object is, if, according to you what *really exists* is chaotic matter-energy? In other words, do macro objects exist only in perception? See, ArcadianGenesis, macro objects are not chaotic, they have at least some duration and life. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe in macro objects, it's simple really.
Remember that you introduced the term "macro object," not me. I don't like the term at all, because it implies a separate level of existence. In the end, everything reduces down to the same stuff. I agree that order emerges from chaos, but I can't agree that this leads to a whole new level of existence.
The issue is not whether it is a whole new level of existence, the issue is whether the order that emerges from chaos is *imposed* on reality by our perception or whether this order (order resulting in "things," by the way) exists objectively. You said that it is perception that gives us this impression of coherence, but now you're hinting in the opposite direction.
You have nothing to fear from the term "marco object." The video itself uses the synonymous term "things." The only reason I added "macro" is because you insisted that reality as it really is, is chaotic. It follows that the chaotic world revealed by physics and chemistry is a "micro" world and to the extent that there is an objectively existing world of things that possess integrity and duration over time, this world is the "macro" world; it's not controversial actually.
As for definitions, you know what they say. Whoever defines the terms has already won the argument.
You seem to be presenting me with a false dilemma. While I believe that matter-energy is all that is real (along with space-time), it does not follow that there are no objects. I argue that objects are very different from what we perceive, although they do exist.
And Arcadian, there's really nothing to fear from the term "macro object." The video itself goes with the synonymous term "things." The only reason I added "macro" is because you insisted that what is really real is chaotic, and that perception adds the appearance of coherence. So it follows that at the micro level, things are chaotic. BUT at the macro level, realists on perception believe that things that objectively have some level of duration, consistency, coherence, and integrity, exist.
Also, you muddied the water up again by saying "The coherence we perceive does not exist in reality." What would the macro world we perceive be without coherence? If it doesn't exist, fine, but if it emerged from the fundamental matter-energy, then presumably it has some life of its own, at least for a little while. It doesn't have to be permanent or ontologically autonomous to have some level of mind-independent existence.
Fine, if you want to define "emerge" in such a way as to neatly fit your argument, then I'll retract my previous statement. I assert that the macro world does not exist separately from matter-energy at all.
My definition of emerge is not exotic. And you still haven't made your choice very explicitly. Do you, or do you not believe that there are macro objects, or do you believe there is *only* chaotic matter-energy, with the macro objects existing only in our perception, but not in reality?
even though i agree with you, the fact of the matter is that direct realism is what avcergae joe including us uses to percieve the possilb eoutside world. an argument for dircet realism is that sense perceptions can construct synthetic arguemnts for potential truths that can thus be valivdated again by experience.
That's easy. Representative realism is the theory that there is an objective reality which we do not perceive. Instead, we perceive a representation of it. If I were an idealist, I would say reality is not objective; I would equate reality with the mind. So there is a clear difference.
But you're not an idealist, and you at least believe that indirect realism is a "good theory," and that direct realism is the "worst theory in philosophy." So as an indirect realist (at least provisionally) what justifies the belief that there is an external world if we perceive nothing that can be called "reality?" We do not perceive reality, yet there is one? I would say that your earlier statement about perceiving nothing of reality was a little strong, even for indirect realism.
I know there is a reality beneath the veil of perception because of all the findings about space, time, matter, and energy from the physical sciences (physics and chemistry). This is why science is truly a candle in the dark. Science is that method by which we encounter the objective world with our subjective experience. The very reason why science is necessary is that our nervous systems are instruments only designed to create subjective experience. Scientific instruments are more objective.
The information you learn from science would be a miracle, seeing how a bunch of 3rd-person instruments are able to overcome the individual veils of all the scientists involved. Said another way - you should doubt even the results of science because of this veil you've established.
1) You're correct that scientific instruments should not be considered truly objective. This is exactly what Einstein's theory of general relativity is meant to convey. Every measurement is only accurate relative to the instrument used to measure it. Still, these instruments are more objective than perception.
2) Perception *is* a miracle (in a metaphorical sense, of course). That is the complexity of the human nervous system and the emergent universe. But it is certainly no arbitrary miracle.
The sense of the word miracle I meant to convey is the sense in which it would be implausible for science to uncover truth if in fact we're burdened by this veil. Each little experiment would be subject to the same problem as everyday perception.
It seems to me that you do not defend the original hypothesis of direct realism; instead, you defend some kind of "new direct realism." It also seems that your method of doing so is to make direct realism seem more like indirect realism. The fact that direct realism was forced to adjust itself alone implies to me that indirect realism is the better theory. Either way, it seems to be a merely semantic distinction at this point.
If your hypothesis - that direct realism claims that perception only AIDS us in contacting the world - is true, then I will admit that this is not the worst theory in philosophy. At least you've convinced me of that. But you've by no means convinced me that yours is the better theory.
I think it's better simply because it does not say something incoherent, namely, like the thesis of indirect realism, that our perception of the world is altered even though we have no idea what the external world looks like (seems like we would have to know what the external world looks like in order to claim that the causal process of perception results in altered representations).
We don't need to know what the external world "looks like" to know of its nature. I already gave you the argument that physics tells us all we need to know. If you insist that we can't trust physics (within indirect realism), then how about mathematics? Math requires no instruments to measure reality, and yet it is the most objective description of reality.
Not sure where you get the warrant for believing math describes reality, but suffice it to say that with math, I think we may get very off track unless we try hard not to. So, math as a description of reality would be just fine, as a practical matter. But I don't see how you could get realism this way; math could be consistent with all sorts of things, and in any case this would not be realism via perception. It would be more like perception describing math, rather than math describing reality.
Not so. There are philosophers, (examples: Avrum Stroll and Pierre Le Morvan), that explain what direct realism is, and this explanation is consistent with my summary. The difference is clear; d. realism claims the objects of perception are the marco objects we commonly believe ourselves to be perceiving, indir. realism says the objects of perception are representations. Additionally, d. realism says there are times when our perceptions are accurate, indir. realism says they're always altered.
Direct Realism is not at odds with natural science. All the thesis states is that we perceive the external world without mediation. How is that claim at odds with natural science? Protons exist but we just don't perceive them with vision alone. We need something else (E-microscope). Indirect Realism would hold that we need even more than that. In addition to all Direct Realism would claim that we need, the IR would claim that we need ''sense-data'' to mediate our perception.
@ChrisPhilos The problem is that we don't perceive reality as it "really" exists. If we did, are perceptual systems would be constantly overloaded with unimportant data. Instead, our perceptual systems filter out most information, manipulate the remaining information according to various cognitive heuristics, and somehow (in a process not yet understood) translate that information to phenomenal experience. How is that direct in any sense?
You're mistaken. Naive direct realism is not a theory at all, but a pre-theoretical account. Nobody actually maintains the naive direct realist position.
Naive direct realism does not equal sophisticated direct realism. Sophisticated realism rolls back the realist's assumptions. Instead of saying "everything we perceive exists as we perceive it", instead, the sophisticated direct realist claims "everything we perceive is perceived without non-physical mediation (sense-data)".
@willthong How does that ensure, or even render it probable, that what the world looks like to us, has anything in common with the way it really is? Is it even supposed to do so?
Comment removed
tjh308 1 week ago
thanks for the video! very helpful for my AS exam tomorrow :)
VaguelyPhilosophical 1 month ago
@Sewblon Sense-data are not just all perceptions. Sense-data are specifically private mental images.
And it seems more probable than representative realism, certainly; representative realism requires two ontological planes (1. the physical world and 2. sense-data) whereas sophisticated direct realism only needs one. Thus, representative realism fails according to Occam's Razor.
willthong 8 months ago
@willthong And how does sophisticated direct-realism differentiate hallucinations from sense-data? They are both private mental images.
Sewblon 8 months ago
@Sewblon
An hallucination is usually private & transient. Sense data can usually be corroborated (i.e. public) without time limitation. Of course you could suppose all perception is just a public, non-time limited hallucination. Which is possibly either scepticism or idealism depending on how you want to look at it...
CeltoSaxonKnight 2 months ago
About sense-date and hallucinations. Sense-data is either a catch-all term for everything that we perceive via our senses, or a chemical reaction in our brains. And hallucinations are either just another thing that we perceive with our senses, or a chemical reaction in our brains that does not have the cause we habitually think that they do.
Sewblon 8 months ago
Am revising for my January mocks at the moment - it's tomorrow. On Knowledge of the External World and Reason and Experience. Nothing was making sense until i watched this video. Thanks Mate, Done Well. :)
acey172 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the way you have presented this video!
newground777 1 year ago
brilliant.
anniedelaney1989 1 year ago
This video was superb! Well done I just did AS philosophy AQA and am carrying on with A2 next year, it was really interesting to have a look at these arguments after a few months so thanks! You did it really well :)
finerats 1 year ago
To summarize, just because you're forced to make a choice here to avoid being incoherent, does not make it a *false* dilemma.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Perhaps you can say "The chaotic world, and the orderly one, are not fundamentally distinct, but the orderly macro world, which has enduring objects as one of its features, has mind-independent existence." OK? Careful though: the orderly world, if it has mind-independent existence, must not be *exactly* the same thing as the chaotic world, because then it couldn't have order at all. Are you OK with this? If not, you could go back to saying order/coherence is an illusion of perception.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Again, you can still believe that everything reduces to the chaotic world revealed by physics and chemistry. The issue here is whether the world of order (which includes things) is imposed on reality by our perception, or whether this order actually has objective existence. You said that perception provides the appearance of coherence earlier, and that if we saw the world as it really is, we would see chaos, but you may want to revisit whether that belief is consistent with indirect realism.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Incidentally, you never answered my question:
"So your position is that reality is *not* made up of tables and chairs and rocks and things, but rather is made up of something that is relatively chaotic, and that macro objects have no existence outside perception?"
Some form of this question is what any indirect realist must eventually tackle, and it's a bed indirect realism made for itself.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Most importantly, it is not true that Direct Realism states that what we perceive always equals what is in the world. Direct Realists not only are aware of hallucinations, but the position claims adherents including philosophers who are very informed about all the latest cognitive science has to say about perception. What Direct Realism is committed to is that there are times when people perceive the world accurately, and directly.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Comment removed
wilthiswork 2 years ago
My main reason for believing we do not perceive anything that can be called reality is that "reality" in its most objective form is nothing but chaotic interactions between particles and energy. Our brains go to great lengths to arrange these interactions into meaningful sense data. But you must understand: what is really going on "behind the scenes" of perception is *very different* from what we perceive.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Umm, well, I understand that the machinations of our sense organs are not the same thing as the objects of perception, in fact this is the central thesis of direct realism; the objects of perception are in the external world. If your point is that the objects we *think* we're perceiving are *very different* from what we actually perceive, I wonder how on earth you know this, if in fact you're burdened with this obstacle between yourself and the external world.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Thank you so much for making this, its very helpful!
siobhanbligh 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>It is a fact ...
prove it
LagrangianDynamics 2 years ago
Direct realism is the worst theory in philosophy. It is a fact that we do not perceive anything that can be called "reality." Every person who has taken a course in biology or physics knows that our sense perceptions are incredibly limited. Direct realism is simply out of the question. The only question that remains is, what is the relationship between mental states and brain states? Indirect realism is a good theory.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
An interesting answer, but what about the numerous criticisms of representative (i.e, indirect) realism?
doobuzz 2 years ago
If you make an argument, I will try to respond to it. I am not a committed representative realist, but I think it's a much better theory than direct "naive" realism.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Direct Realism is not the same as Naive Realism.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
There are time when the term "Direct Realism" is used interchangeably with the term "Naive Realism," but there are also subtleties that are missed when we equate them, is all I mean to say...
wilthiswork 2 years ago
You're right that direct realism can be distinguished from naive realism - if you support direct realism. Obviously, since I disagree with direct realism, I will tend to associate it with naive realism.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
The association of direct realism with naive realism is not dependent on the amount of affection one has for direct realism. While Naive Realism may overlap a great deal with Direct Realism, and be interchangeable in some of the literature, there are places on the ends where the circles do not overlap. The term "Naive Realism" denotes something specific, as does the term "Direct Realism;" we're not only talking about connotations here.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
I've never seen any criticism of representative realism that is not obviously mistaken.
BrentAllsop 2 years ago
How bout this one: Representative realism claims the world is altered by our perception, that we do not see the world as it is. But if we don't have an original copy of the world to compare our perception to, then how do we know that our perception is somehow not an exact reproduction? The direct realist does not deny the intermediate steps between the world and perceivers, but sees these steps, as Avrum Stroll points out, as facilitating (aiding) rather than mediating (standing in between).
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Why are you assuming that we should "know" anything about our perception? The fact is that we *don't* know most of what goes on in perception because it is involuntary. Our nervous systems carry out billions of processes to translate chaotic reality into something comprehensible. Also, I fail to see the difference between "facilitating" and "mediating" between reality and perception. This looks like a sidestep to me. Either way, the result is still indirect realism.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
No, it's not a side step, because facilitating is not to stand in between, but to aid. A fork is a facilitator between yourself and your steak. The fact that you use a fork does not mean you're not actually eating a steak. As for knowing, the indirect realists are the ones adding a layer of knowledge claim here: they say the world is different from our perception of it, yet they're somehow confident about this external world, in spite of the veil they've superfluously erected.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
It is already apparent that perception is meant to "aid" our interactions with the world. But that is not enough to topple indirect realism. Remember that *every* biological process serves to aid something, which is why that process exists: it proved useful in the course of natural selection. But a process can be an aid and an obstacle at the same time! Perception is exactly that. It is mostly useful, but it also leads us to make perceptual errors as well.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
This is because perception is based on heuristics (rules of thumb) rather than deterministic algorithms. In other words, perception is very flexible. It allows us to perceive more freely than computers - but on the other hand, it also makes us prone to errors that computers wouldn't make. I think this comparison of computers and brains is very important for my argument.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
We agree that the perceptual apparatus of the brain results in errors much or some of the time.
We disagree on whether it makes sense to say such a thing as an indirect realist.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
That perception is useful is fine, the question is if it's correct. Indirect realism says it's not, which it is in no position to know, because it has asserted 1) that there is an obstacle between us and the world, and 2) that we don't have an original copy of the world to compare our perception to.
The fact that perception aids in a practical way is neither here not there.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Again, I can say that perception is not *accurate* because I know what the world consists of at the most fundamental level (based on physics and chemistry). It consists of interactions between particles and energy. If we could see reality as it "really is," we would see nothing but this chaos, and it would be useless to us. The whole purpose of perception is to guide us through this chaos in a meaningful way. To do this, perception alters reality.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
I always thought it was warranted to believe *both* in the level of reality that physics and chemistry describe *and* in macro level objects... So your position is that reality is *not* made up of tables and chairs and rocks and things, but rather is made up of something that is relatively chaotic, and that macro objects have no existence outside perception?
wilthiswork 2 years ago
I would not say that macro objects have no existence; I would say that they are not distinct from the fundamental matter-energy from which they emerged. The coherence we perceive does not exist in reality.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
You're hedging. Earlier you said reality is really chaotic matter and energy and our perception transforms this chaos into something meaningful. If what you're only confident in saying is that reality is "nothing but this chaos," then you really don't have any business believing in macro objects. Before, you said perception alters this chaotic reality, now, you're saying that the macro objects of perceptions aren't distinct from the fundamental matter-energy from which they emerged. Which is it?
wilthiswork 2 years ago
In other words, if something 'emerges,' then it's something in its own right; it's not just some other thing our perception fiddles with and tricks us into thinking it's something. So either we have no warrant in believing in anything but chaotic matter-energy, or something emerges, not both.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
No, those two statements are compatible. Macro objects are not distinct from matter-energy precisely because perception alters reality. Perception makes the matter-energy into coherent wholes.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Would you do me a favor and tell me what a macro object is, if, according to you what *really exists* is chaotic matter-energy? In other words, do macro objects exist only in perception? See, ArcadianGenesis, macro objects are not chaotic, they have at least some duration and life. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe in macro objects, it's simple really.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Remember that you introduced the term "macro object," not me. I don't like the term at all, because it implies a separate level of existence. In the end, everything reduces down to the same stuff. I agree that order emerges from chaos, but I can't agree that this leads to a whole new level of existence.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Comment removed
wilthiswork 2 years ago
The issue is not whether it is a whole new level of existence, the issue is whether the order that emerges from chaos is *imposed* on reality by our perception or whether this order (order resulting in "things," by the way) exists objectively. You said that it is perception that gives us this impression of coherence, but now you're hinting in the opposite direction.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
You have nothing to fear from the term "marco object." The video itself uses the synonymous term "things." The only reason I added "macro" is because you insisted that reality as it really is, is chaotic. It follows that the chaotic world revealed by physics and chemistry is a "micro" world and to the extent that there is an objectively existing world of things that possess integrity and duration over time, this world is the "macro" world; it's not controversial actually.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
As for definitions, you know what they say. Whoever defines the terms has already won the argument.
You seem to be presenting me with a false dilemma. While I believe that matter-energy is all that is real (along with space-time), it does not follow that there are no objects. I argue that objects are very different from what we perceive, although they do exist.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Comment removed
wilthiswork 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And Arcadian, there's really nothing to fear from the term "macro object." The video itself goes with the synonymous term "things." The only reason I added "macro" is because you insisted that what is really real is chaotic, and that perception adds the appearance of coherence. So it follows that at the micro level, things are chaotic. BUT at the macro level, realists on perception believe that things that objectively have some level of duration, consistency, coherence, and integrity, exist.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Also, you muddied the water up again by saying "The coherence we perceive does not exist in reality." What would the macro world we perceive be without coherence? If it doesn't exist, fine, but if it emerged from the fundamental matter-energy, then presumably it has some life of its own, at least for a little while. It doesn't have to be permanent or ontologically autonomous to have some level of mind-independent existence.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Fine, if you want to define "emerge" in such a way as to neatly fit your argument, then I'll retract my previous statement. I assert that the macro world does not exist separately from matter-energy at all.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
My definition of emerge is not exotic. And you still haven't made your choice very explicitly. Do you, or do you not believe that there are macro objects, or do you believe there is *only* chaotic matter-energy, with the macro objects existing only in our perception, but not in reality?
wilthiswork 2 years ago
even though i agree with you, the fact of the matter is that direct realism is what avcergae joe including us uses to percieve the possilb eoutside world. an argument for dircet realism is that sense perceptions can construct synthetic arguemnts for potential truths that can thus be valivdated again by experience.
siobhanbligh 2 years ago
If you believe that we do not perceive anything that can be called "reality," then I have to wonder why you're attracted to *any* type of realism.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
That's easy. Representative realism is the theory that there is an objective reality which we do not perceive. Instead, we perceive a representation of it. If I were an idealist, I would say reality is not objective; I would equate reality with the mind. So there is a clear difference.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
But you're not an idealist, and you at least believe that indirect realism is a "good theory," and that direct realism is the "worst theory in philosophy." So as an indirect realist (at least provisionally) what justifies the belief that there is an external world if we perceive nothing that can be called "reality?" We do not perceive reality, yet there is one? I would say that your earlier statement about perceiving nothing of reality was a little strong, even for indirect realism.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
I know there is a reality beneath the veil of perception because of all the findings about space, time, matter, and energy from the physical sciences (physics and chemistry). This is why science is truly a candle in the dark. Science is that method by which we encounter the objective world with our subjective experience. The very reason why science is necessary is that our nervous systems are instruments only designed to create subjective experience. Scientific instruments are more objective.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
The information you learn from science would be a miracle, seeing how a bunch of 3rd-person instruments are able to overcome the individual veils of all the scientists involved. Said another way - you should doubt even the results of science because of this veil you've established.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
1) You're correct that scientific instruments should not be considered truly objective. This is exactly what Einstein's theory of general relativity is meant to convey. Every measurement is only accurate relative to the instrument used to measure it. Still, these instruments are more objective than perception.
2) Perception *is* a miracle (in a metaphorical sense, of course). That is the complexity of the human nervous system and the emergent universe. But it is certainly no arbitrary miracle.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
The sense of the word miracle I meant to convey is the sense in which it would be implausible for science to uncover truth if in fact we're burdened by this veil. Each little experiment would be subject to the same problem as everyday perception.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
It seems to me that you do not defend the original hypothesis of direct realism; instead, you defend some kind of "new direct realism." It also seems that your method of doing so is to make direct realism seem more like indirect realism. The fact that direct realism was forced to adjust itself alone implies to me that indirect realism is the better theory. Either way, it seems to be a merely semantic distinction at this point.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
If your hypothesis - that direct realism claims that perception only AIDS us in contacting the world - is true, then I will admit that this is not the worst theory in philosophy. At least you've convinced me of that. But you've by no means convinced me that yours is the better theory.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
I think it's better simply because it does not say something incoherent, namely, like the thesis of indirect realism, that our perception of the world is altered even though we have no idea what the external world looks like (seems like we would have to know what the external world looks like in order to claim that the causal process of perception results in altered representations).
wilthiswork 2 years ago
We don't need to know what the external world "looks like" to know of its nature. I already gave you the argument that physics tells us all we need to know. If you insist that we can't trust physics (within indirect realism), then how about mathematics? Math requires no instruments to measure reality, and yet it is the most objective description of reality.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago
Not sure where you get the warrant for believing math describes reality, but suffice it to say that with math, I think we may get very off track unless we try hard not to. So, math as a description of reality would be just fine, as a practical matter. But I don't see how you could get realism this way; math could be consistent with all sorts of things, and in any case this would not be realism via perception. It would be more like perception describing math, rather than math describing reality.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Not so. There are philosophers, (examples: Avrum Stroll and Pierre Le Morvan), that explain what direct realism is, and this explanation is consistent with my summary. The difference is clear; d. realism claims the objects of perception are the marco objects we commonly believe ourselves to be perceiving, indir. realism says the objects of perception are representations. Additionally, d. realism says there are times when our perceptions are accurate, indir. realism says they're always altered.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
@ArcadianGenesis
Direct Realism is not at odds with natural science. All the thesis states is that we perceive the external world without mediation. How is that claim at odds with natural science? Protons exist but we just don't perceive them with vision alone. We need something else (E-microscope). Indirect Realism would hold that we need even more than that. In addition to all Direct Realism would claim that we need, the IR would claim that we need ''sense-data'' to mediate our perception.
ChrisPhilos 1 year ago
@ChrisPhilos The problem is that we don't perceive reality as it "really" exists. If we did, are perceptual systems would be constantly overloaded with unimportant data. Instead, our perceptual systems filter out most information, manipulate the remaining information according to various cognitive heuristics, and somehow (in a process not yet understood) translate that information to phenomenal experience. How is that direct in any sense?
ArcadianGenesis 1 year ago
@ArcadianGenesis
You're mistaken. Naive direct realism is not a theory at all, but a pre-theoretical account. Nobody actually maintains the naive direct realist position.
Naive direct realism does not equal sophisticated direct realism. Sophisticated realism rolls back the realist's assumptions. Instead of saying "everything we perceive exists as we perceive it", instead, the sophisticated direct realist claims "everything we perceive is perceived without non-physical mediation (sense-data)".
willthong 9 months ago
@willthong How does that ensure, or even render it probable, that what the world looks like to us, has anything in common with the way it really is? Is it even supposed to do so?
Sewblon 8 months ago
this man here, he is a clever man.
he says clever things.
its clever.
hmm.
me likey.
skittlesbullets 2 years ago
Awesome vid!! Wahay!!
ellotreacle52 2 years ago
Wow, this really helped with last minute revision. Thanks a bunch! =)
victimisesociety 2 years ago
thats really good man, its helped me with my work on it =]
chrisrox24 3 years ago
awesome
videolover428 3 years ago