NOS4A2

Is the brain perceiving the process, then?

Right, that’s how naive realism would say it. How would an indirect realist say it?

I know how the biology works. The question can be answered in the form X perceives Y.

I want to know the answer to the question “Who perceives what? For the indirect realist. I want to see if we can examine these objects and their natur...

No problem at all. Yeah, I’m not sure how one can have direct access to a world that does not exist. I’m concerned strictly with the tree as it is per...

I still don’t know why we’d add the qualifier “exactly as it is”. Do you believe we are viewing the trees exactly as they are not?

Perhaps you’re a naive realist. Suppose the following image is accurate. https://df0b18phdhzpx.cloudfront.net/ckeditor_assets/pictures/1510455/origina...

Yes, we’re not viewing a representation of the tree. We need not include the “thing in itself”, which considers the tree independent of any perception...

If they were recognized and enforceable within a particular legal system then they would be limited by jurisdiction. Natural rights are supposed to be...

I wouldn’t posit any noumenon, personally. And I reject the view that sense data creates a tree because neither the perceiver nor the perceived can be...

The perceiver is required in order to formulate any theory of perception. If I leave it out there is no perception. I only which to understand from in...

Why would I leave ourselves out of the picture?

It means that anyone can observe the same properties if they were so inclined. These things would be the objects and systems we measure. Properties de...

I suspect an “objective property” is one that is public, available for anyone to measure. With this one needn’t eliminate an observer.

From my own standpoint, the necessary and sufficient cause of human perception is the human perceiver, and I would hold that the human perceiver is th...

I think it can go too far. For instance the amount of time spent peering into dust, and smashing bits of it together to see what falls from them, has ...

The direct and indirect realist differ in respect to what they directly perceive. For the direct realist, we directly perceive all that’s in our perip...

My issue is that these models are nowhere to be found, so I am unable to say anything of the sort is constructed, at least until such models can be in...

Anyone who understand taxation to be immoral has to contend with Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel’s argument against “everyday libertarianism”, which they...

In your first post you’ve already explained quite well where you think the issue lies, and I’m satisfied by your definitions of direct and indirect re...

The reason I wanted to conceptually remove the perceiver from the man—in your example, the brain—and place it on a table is to imagine if it can perce...

I appreciate the background. Consider me a representative of the Charvaka school. You’re right. No one would. But the pain is no doubt contingent on s...

I have been conditioned to believe that the act of seeing and that which sees is the same thing. I can see my eyes at the same time I use my eyes to s...

It’s moved on since Locke and Berkeley too. Then again I just read a book called “The Case Against Reality” by a prominent cognitive scientist utilizi...

If there is no distinction between perceiver and perceived then it seems to me indirect realism is redundant.

Sure I do. I am seeing. I see myself. Therefore I see myself seeing.

It’s true; I do assume that perspective because I can witness both perceiver and perceived from outside their relationship, and see only direct intera...

I’m trying to distinguish between the perceiver and what he perceives. Perception is either mediated by the perceiver, and thus direct, or it is media...

Anything internal is me, though. What else mediates it?

In my mind the “internal stages” are a part of the perceiver and thus mediated by him. I don’t see why we need to include some other intermediary. If ...

I’m staring at a flower pot right now and I fail to recognize any impoverishment in what I perceive, nor how memory is informing it. I’ll look into it...

Yeah I assumed sense-data, ideas, representations, or whatever else is posited as a perceptual intermediary exists within the perceiver for the simple...

I have no satisfying answer to the argument from illusion. But if perception is decidedly direct, it seems to me that any hallucination or illusion is...

You’re right. I also challenge them to instantiate who and what are the objects of this relationship. That’s where I’m at too.

It was my understanding that for indirect realism there is a perceptual intermediary between perceiver and perceived. If there is none then the distin...

I know that’s not what you’re saying. I just want to know what John is directly perceiving to the indirect realist. If John is not directly perceiving...

Then who or what perceives the tree?

I suspect that he directly perceives all of the above, and everything else within his periphery.

So what does the indirect realist perceive?

I’m with you on this. My concern is that the whole thing opens itself to a withering criticism, for instance Bentham’s critique. The project of natura...

I’m sure of it in my own case. With each passing day I get closer to it. Lysander Spooner is another.

I have portrayed natural rights as not existing. The behavior of granting rights, natural or otherwise, can exist, as I have already explained. If the...

That’s right. The distinction is between so-called natural and positive law. In my mind positive law is circular and dangerous. But natural law is oft...

I like what you said there. Though I do not agree that they are built in to any nature, human or otherwise, they are definitely reasoned from observin...

I think civil rights would fall under legal rights.

I believe in natural rights and natural law. I just don’t think we’re born with them. The opposite is the case. They must first be granted and defende...

I was anticipating the straw-men, quoting out of context, and quibbling. I guess there is no profit in good faith.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Perhaps this is because you suspiciously left out the rest of the argument, for some reason terminating it ...

Willing is an action performed by a thing and not itself a thing. I’m not trying to suggest these people carry with them things called “wills”.

Good point. Any attempt at distributive justice performed in a manner that utilizes injustice in order to achieve a just result is impossible. It can ...