I guess we have a different definition for direct experience.
To me, direct experience is simply the non conceptual, raw data that is "received via the senses", not the the conceptual overlay you call "I see fire".
The conceptual overlay contains a subject and objects, it defines processes and relations - whereas direct experience contains none of that.
Sure, agree.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 12:45 amOn-going direct experience, what a person sees, smells, hears, tactilely feels, tastes, informs that dynamic catalog you call acquired knowledge. Acquired knowledge allows a person to more keenly judge what he apprehends directly (the fire he sees, smells, feels, and hears also burns so he should take care).
Again, this depends how you define real.
To me, the border between real and made/thought up is direct experience - direct experience is real, whatever thought/knowledge makes of it is conceptual - thus, ultimately, not real.
And, yes, sure, conceptual interpretations are based on direct experience, but they are not it! They are a finger pointing at the moon.
Yet... modern science is not certain at all if "atoms" are not only a convenient interpretation of something that is not physical at all...
Maybe initially, but now, as an adult, you base your interpretations pretty much only on acquired knowledge, not on direct experience anymore.