Luke

Thanks :blush:

Then maybe I'm not a naive realist, but that's not required to be a direct realist. Given representations (R), perceptions (P) and objects (O), direct...

You must have a lot of difficulty with captchas when they ask you to choose all the photos with buses or traffic lights in them, since your answer mus...

If I take a photograph of a flower, then the flower is in the photograph. Distal objects are present in phenomenal experience in the same sense. Your ...

In what sense are they not?

I agree, and that's the point. Your interpretation (the intermediary) is either part of the perception, or else it occurs after the perception. Either...

Is your phenomenal experience of the painting on the wall, or is it of the light, the eyes, and the unconscious processing of neural signals?

Do we perceive the intermediaries or the distal stimulus? The intermediaries are part of the "mechanics of perception"; they are not the perceived obj...

Right, sensation and cognition are both part of perception; they are both involved in our perception of an object. As you say, these are "facts about ...

The sensory information that an organism receives from its environment is a perception. You are basically saying that our perceptions are direct. In t...

I take a direct perception of the world to involve two things: a perception and the world. A direct perception is a perception of the world without an...

I agree that everyday seeing involves indirection. However, the position of the indirect realist is not merely that perception involves indirection, s...

That's what I said. Indirect realists claim that we see objects indirectly because we can only see their visual representations. You cannot attend eit...

Wouldn't the position of the indirect realist be that we can only "attend to" (or "see") visual representations and are unable to choose otherwise? Th...

I think so, although I'm not exactly sure what you mean. To clarify: if the direct realist account is that we directly perceive the world, and if the ...

Naive realism posits that we directly perceive the world, not that "the qualitative features of perception mirror the features of reality sans percept...

How can the world possibly be perceived “independently of an observer”?

What is the difference between directly seeing a representation and directly experiencing a representation? What do you directly experience when you i...

You might say that you directly see the reflection of your hand in the mirror, but this is not what an indirect realist would say. In principle, nothi...

I wouldn’t say that seeing is indirect. But if I did, then I suppose that seeing representations would be doubly indirect..? Otherwise, seeing real ob...

No, indirect realists make the stronger claim that our perceptions are only of representations. Our perceptions can involve representations without al...

Realism is more generally a view about existence: that the world or objects exist independently of our minds. Despite the name, direct and indirect re...

I don't think indirect realists want direct realism to be true. You seem to take direct realism to be the view that we can perceive things as they rea...

Exactly. Thanks for articulating it more clearly than I could.

I haven’t read about this stuff for many years; it’s mostly my own thoughts on the subject. The indirect realist says that what we see is not a real o...

I don't see it as being a part of direct realism, but as a part of indirect realism. The indirect realist desires a perception of the world as it is i...

As @"hypericin" notes, and I agree, I think the concept of perceiving the world as it is (in itself) is an incoherent one.

I'm not sure that I would even describe seeing a hand in a mirror as seeing it indirectly. Or, at least, that's a different meaning of "indirect" comp...

I would say that "seeing objects" and being "mediated by the indirection of representation" are one and the same thing. If you eliminate the mediation...

Fair enough, it was perhaps a poor choice of word. Please see my reply to @"hypericin".

Direct and indirect realists can both agree that perception necessarily involves construction of a representation. They disagree over whether the cons...

I said that indirect realists demand that you see your house as it is in itself. I was referring to the thing-in-itself in the Kantian sense. See here...

I had a quick look but couldn't find this reply. Could you direct me to it? I'm sure you don't, but do you mean that you can see your house as it is i...

As I understand it (which is not very much), direct realists use the words "see" or "perceive" in a conventional manner, taking into account the filte...

Do you at least acknowledge that Floyd is a 4D object according to eternalism? A 4D object requires higher dimensions within which to move, but that’s...

You refuse to acknowledge that Floyd at noon is but a 3D part of a 4D object. Technically, Floyd-at-noon and Floyd-at-1pm are two different 3D parts (...

As I just explained: You are treating Floyd as a 3D object, not as a 4D object. That is not consistent with eternalism. Since the 4D object as a whole...

I think you've misread. I said presentism, not perdurantism. Huh? No, it wasn't hard to correct you. You are again assuming that Floyd is a 3D object....

True, but time travel is also not possible under eternalism since nothing moves in a 4D universe. Fair point. Presentism is a theory of existence, whe...

I didn't realise there were two different definitions of 'happens'. What is the eternalist definition of 'happens'? Can you clarify how it is distinct...

The observation that "those words can be applied to a block view" doesn't make it logically consistent (with eternalism) to do so. We can observe many...

Are you referring to my attempts at such descriptions? Or your attempts? Or just attempts in general? If you mean the former, then no, I do not see et...

You've made this unsupported accusation several times. What makes you think I'm ignorant of the theory of eternalism? For someone who regularly accuse...

Yes, because most people are not physicists that understand relativity theory. Hence, "commonly held". 3D parts of the 4D object. I thought I made tha...

But I am arguing against your view. My argument against motion in an eternalist universe does not allow for the motion of consciousness over time if t...

The traditional view is a presentist one, where 3D objects move over time. You are simply ignoring my argument. If consciousness is underpinned by phy...

I understand the concept. As per my quote of Herman Weyl in the other discussion I referred to recently: But if the host’s consciousness supervenes on...

I understand. However, I’m assuming that the consciousness has a physical basis on the host. I’ve given arguments for why neither the 4D host nor a 3D...

The consciousness of what? If you mean the consciousness of the 4D host, then that is extended across time and doesn’t move. If you mean the conscious...

I have presented my views on time previously on the forum, e.g. in this discussion. The argument I present below can also be found in the same discuss...