flannel jesus

No, you are tacking on that last bit yourself with seemingly no reason, is how it looks to me. An indirect realist distinguishes themselves from a dir...

Where are you reading this stuff?

yeah, I fully agree, and that's the part of direct realism that doesn't sit with me.

for me, the question is "is the representation -the world as it is- or does it have some big differences from the world as it is?" And I think the ans...

idk what you mean by "direct" here. Idk what your question is asking.

good luck with your writing

I agree with every word you said there

The fact that we perceive colour in a "colour wheel" at all is a great example of perceptual experience containing artifacts unique to our biology tha...

The qualia of colour, for example. There's no objective reason why I apply the qualia I call blue to the wavelength range of light that I apply it to ...

This phrasing is kind of odd, but if it works for you then that's fine. I would say, there are features of our perceptual experience that cannot also ...

And yet that seems to be a feature of every definition of direct realism.

Yes, you did say that, and I don't know why. If I asked 100 indirect realists if they demand that, I don't think a single one would say yes. The conve...

I see it that indirect realism demands the literal exact opposite. An indirect realist would say your visual experience of your house is NOT just your...

I've made a point previously in the thread that indirect realists can (and in real life, not in this thread, usually do) use the word "see" in a compl...

Yes, you've claimed that, but every example of skepticism you've provided applies equally well to direct realism.

I don't think you're making a very compelling case that indirect realists need to have any special skepticism in regards to what they see. We all live...

Direct Realists are immune to eye problems? I thought cataracts were a thing regardless of if direct realism or indirect realism make more sense. If d...

It doesn't seem that way to me. Any reason an indirect realist might have to be skeptical seems inherently applicable to direct realists as well. You ...

I don't think you have to go that deep into ancient philosophy to understand all that. It is philosophical, yes, it's epistemology for sure.

I'm happy to start from my own intuition and go from there. I wouldn't personally consult Kant myself But if I wanted to seek external opinions about ...

You are certainly free to just say that, but some of us like to go on to think about what the reasons might be that we do observe those regularities. ...

first of all, let me just say that it's not like I'm certain there even is the second kind of law. It makes the most sense to me, and I can't really c...

no, I think you're failing to see that there are two very different things people mean when they say "law of nature". One of them is the so-called law...

Perhaps I'm misreading your words, I feel like they leave a lot of room for interpretation there.

I think a lot of it is bloviating for sure. I think the foundations for the philosophy of science are probably pretty important. Good epistemology can...

I'm in the mood for getting more specific: you said there's no laws, only regression to the mean, but you haven't given any indication of where this '...

Why does the skeptic tap on his door but not yours?

I don't have a problem with anything. I'm just curious about how you deal with these situations. You previously said "Nature does not conform to Laws....

I guess we just mean different things when we say 'looking at'. That's ok by me.

I don't see why it needs to be metaphorical. What else would "looking at" mean if not what I said? What I said was not metaphorical at all.

I don't think there's any problem with an indirect realist saying "I'm looking at mars". That's just shorthand loosely for "My physical eyes are point...

I would go as far as to say, things -as they are- don't "look like" anything. The idea that our visual experience of looking at something could be, so...

So are those pieces of matter, molecules, attractive force -- is all that due to something you might describe as 'rules' or 'laws'? Like, why is there...

cool cool

Does that place representationalism among direct-realist ideas or indirect?

For what it's worth, I think your take here is completely reasonable. What we experience, when it comes to sensory experience, corresponds to the exte...

And how does regression to the mean produce balls falllng from towers with incredible consistency? I'll quote myself, because I'm really curious about...

is there a reason they average out, by chance, to look super consistent in certain realms of inquiry? Like if I drop a ball from a tower, and I time h...

What's your opinion?

What's the difference between them having those properties, and them following laws that produce those properties? They seem like just different phras...

Why? Perhaps you're taking the word "law" too literally - is it inconceivable that pieces of reality do what they do as consistently as they do them b...

That shouldn't be a surprise. All topics are dead ends on every philosophy forum. Even topics that ARE settled among experts, so doubly so for topics ...

Okay, so if there's no consensus that direct realism is true, then it's not ignorant of someone to reject direct realism it seems to me. It feels like...

This entire post gives this air of being above the conversation, because the answers are all there and you've read deeply into enough to know what the...

you did not understand that exchange. Your edit to my question is nonsensical and not what I was asking at all.

you tell me, why are you bothering with it? The distinction is foolish, in your own words - nobody is forcing you to make this foolish distinction. Yo...

indirect realists are often non skeptical realists. Representationalism is treated as borderline synonymous with indirect realism by a hell of a lot o...

My question was why do you think what you think about indirect realism, why do you reject it. You reject it because things you imagine indirect realis...

You could quote indirect realists who talk about that, instead of being sarcastic and snarky. That might be more fruitful.

But just because you theorize that people CAN do that doesn't mean indirect realists DO do that. Why does it matter if someone can do this? Surely it ...