Banno

It's intended as an example; one might differentiate seeing the hand in the mirror as indirect, in contrast to seeing it without the mirror - directly...

And hence to the idio-cracy of fertility law in 'merca.

The Greeks had a term for those who did not think in terms of our commonality,

Yep.

Which implies that you have not asked questions, made statements, extracted responses, provided answers and so on. Which is a bit odd.

Well, yes, but that is insufficient to carry the thesis of the op. In particular whether the three contentions on p.687 of the Hanna article are accep...

Ok. Wittgenstein had an infamous disregard for the history of philosophy. Some might say this was in order to think things through without prejudice; ...

Thanks for that, but I am still unclear as to what, or if, you are asking or suggesting. Th point being made was to do with the nature of metaphysical...

Banno's rule at work: It is always easier to critique something if you begin by misunderstanding it. Here folk understand Davidson from a few lines an...

Probably for the best.

, , then again maybe there is stuff that autodidacts just miss out on.

Dogs cannot set out the rule they are following. We can. Probably a good way to derail this thread: Elven is not a paradigmatic case of a natural lang...

Ok, back to Chess metaphysics then. The Bishop moves diagonally.

I'm not at all sure what you said there. I don't know what a "physical reference" might be, nor an "actual metre". Are you aware of the difference in ...

We can't falsify it; we can't demonstrate it. But we can assume it. So, where were we? This:

I'm a bit surprised that you say that. But anyway. Perhaps conservation laws are take to be true in the way axioms are - in order to get on with doing...

And how does it contradict itself unless it asserts truth an falsehood of some proposition? Maybe we should go back a few steps. Here is a nice clean ...

I'll have to take your word for it. Dialectic provides a wonderful frame for critique - in the hands of Žižek, the jokes just roll. But is it true? I ...

There were other people. They are how she got there. I don't see this as any sort of counterexample. "...it is impossible to make sense of what it is ...

Some folk do have a predilection for inconsistency. Anything follows. (p & ~p) ? q

I think we can set this out more clearly. 5.6 concerns Solipsism. Meh. I'm taking a leaf from Joshs and posting long quotes. So what is the transcende...

There might be shame in attempting to continue, rather than turn aside. Coherence has merit.

And what of Yablo’s paradox? https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQE2sfXNocFLsw/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1602253415274?e=2147483647&v=...

The first argument presented in the OP is pretty much one of Ayer's arguments, as addressed by Austin. The counters I presented to the others derive f...

Yep, "directly in front of us" - much the same as Austin. AI's will tell you what you want to hear. Treating them as an authority is a mugs game. (Edi...

Why not have Deep AI do its own prevaricating? "Explain how we see things directly, not indirectly. "

A catboat (alternate spelling: cat boat) is a sailboat with a single sail on a single mast set well forward in the bow of a very beamy and (usually) s...

Yep. The Wiki pages are a dog's breakfast, and have been for years. See their talk pages.

That's not quite right. Take solipsism, a scepticism about the existence of a world around us. Solipsists might claim that they do not see the things ...

Which is it, that they are directly linked to the world (how?), or that you assume that they are? The sceptic is tapping on the door...

Further, ...has intimations of intent on the part of the back of the house. Just reasons I would not choose that phrasing.

, , what it seems to me is missing is that perceiving is pictured as passive; the object is presented to you, you just sit there perceiving. But we ma...

:wink: Yep. If it were not for Newbies I would have to think up new arguments, new things to say.

, Meh, it's not a choice of words I would use, but there are bigger fish to fry.

I don't see any advantage in such obtuse phrasings. They seem to me to simply confuse the issue. I'll leave you to it. "The dot is the planet Mars"

It's not Mars presenting itself; it's Mars. The account given by does not correspond to how we use language. We say "you can see Mars, right next to V...

Yep. Yep. So we have two scenarios. In both there are things in the world. In both there are representations of those things. But in indirect realism ...

Glad you saw that. :grin:

The bumper sticker I proffered was Not, I hope, too dissimilar to the OP, which gave a neat rendering of the arguments, which I addressed. Perhaps we ...

Maybe the "crux" is not so clear...?

No. I don't think they set out the problems of perception in those terms, having moved on to more fertile issues. But overwhelmingly, philosophers are...

This? Ok, then if you accept the rest, you accept that we sometimes do things with words? Seems to me you are reading to much in to "elicited response...

Yep. When held down, their arguments tend to fall apart.

The offence of indirect realism, so much as it commits one, is found in the dictum "We never actually see the world as it is, but only ever see the......

Sure we can see Alpha Centauri. Here it is: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Alpha%2C_Beta_and_Proxima_Centauri_%281%29.jpg/1...

That wasn't sarcasm. It's late here and I'm not going to spend time gong over this with a newbie right now. Take a look at the thread i cited earier -

Mmm. I've spen a bit more time on this than just Google and wikipedia. But hey, you go for it.

That's the question I ask the indirect realist! This bit:

:roll: