henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 3:48 pm
No. No direct realist claims, as a function of direct realism, objectivity or perfect knowledge or lack of bias. Nor are any direct realists, as a function of direct realism, unwillin' to review evidence and update theories.
My bad. You see in my research of direct realism I think I stumbled across the usage of naïve realism in social psychology, which goes under the same name, but is as I described, viewing the world as objective (seeing the world as it is), as well as one’s own views as such and therefore others whose opinions differ as suffering from ignorance or stupidity, so you could see how I might conflate the two views. I’ll make sure I steer clear of those references and keep to the purely philosophical definition. I don’t want to infer states of mind on you that you don’t hold.
henry quirk wrote:
I don't care for perceptions...I prefer apprehendings...and no, our apprehendings aren't always accurate.
Would you care to elaborate on why you don’t like the usage of the word perception in the context of direct realism?
henry quirk wrote:
None of the above is sensible to me. Simply: I apprehend...I see, I hear, I taste, I smell, I touch...the entirety of me is in direct contact with the world around me.
So it seems you very much identify with your entire body? When you say I see, I hear, etc, these are all dependent on the sensory organs doing their jobs, detecting the light, detecting the sound, etc. Or would you object even that the sensory organs detect signals? See, this is why details are important, when we get into the details, we uncover just where you stand on these important metaphysical details. Keeping it too simple glosses over that rich and important detail.
henry quirk wrote:
I don't have to. Direct realism is not *ahem* naive. The Direct realist does not say light, or molecules, or sound waves have no role in seein', smellin', tastin', hearin' the world. The direct realist only sez he sees, hears, tastes, smells, apprehends the real, independently-existing world as it is (not perfectly, not in it's entirety) without buildin' models of it somewhere in his gray matter.
no, you don’t HAVE to. But I asked you to. Again, for important clarifying reasons. I want to see if your view even agrees with current cognitive and neuroscientific understanding of perception. But, I suppose if you refuse, I can’t force you to. But by saying you hear smell etc, you have literally not given me any extra detail than we already knew. It seems tautological to state that we do. Not clarifying.
henry quirk wrote:
Computers are not conscious, not aware, they are nuthin' but jumped up abacuses. Computers recognize nuthin' cuz they can't.
No that’s right, but see that’s my point, perception, or apprehension if you like, isn’t so simple, if it were it would have succumbed to computer science. If it was a simple matter of I see, I hear the world directly, computer vision for example might be a little easier to crack, but instead they are finding that they have to literally build the world from the inside, identifying every aspect of the world within a scene. Our minds are perfectly built for a world of objects, because we need to interact to survive. The objects we perceive in the world, simultaneously contain within them, the manipulability which we require. For instance, when we see a cup, we actually see a handle to grip with our hand to hold liquids in for drinking. The shape and form of the object also contains encoded within our perception it’s functionality.
This is what is meant in cognitive science and neuroscience by “sensori-motor”. Because our senses and motor capabilities are actually highly integrated and inseparable, such that seeing things in the world induces possibilities for interaction and movement within our motivational systems.
henry quirk wrote:
But that's exactly what representationalists do: they appeal to an inner theatre where lil movies of the world play out; lil movies written, directed, produced by the theatre-owner.
There is an appeal to consciousness. Consciousness necessarily entails at minimum, the sense of a bound unity, though some argue it might be illusory. So, there doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be a Cartesian theatre, but there does have to be consciousness, that we are in agreement. But, as I have elucidated elsewhere here, there is no need for a subject object divide, I.e. to divide consciousness into perceiving subject and the perceived object. I agree, THAT would be begging the homunculus, but, just because there is a representation, doesn’t mean anyone is actually observing it. The sense of observing can itself also be a representation, or content on the “screen of the mind”, albeit a very persistent one.
henry quirk wrote:
This highlights again what I pointed out up-thread...
I'm not a collection of systems; I'm an irreducible whole. You can dissect me and write volumes about the pieces and parts but nuthin' you find in all those dismantled systems will tell you diddly about me, the person, me the apprehender.
I, for example, am significantly more than an optical system or an olfactory system or an auditory system or a tactile system or a nervous system. I'm a whole, a person. I self-direct. I don't passively receive data. I actively, with intention, apprehend the world.
There's no need for a homunculus or internal theatre becuz I am in the world as a whole being. I'm not a brain connected to various sensing systems. I am the sensing systems as much as I am the brain. Consciousness, self-awareness, mind may originate in the brain, but it extends out thru the whole of me. The finger (not middle) I wag at you is me as much as the matter between my ears is me.
When I pick up the mug, sniff the coffee, take a sip, and enjoy: I do those things directly, not by way of prosthetics and sensors.
I pick up the mug: I don't control the arm, I am the arm.
I sniff the coffee: I don't access an olfactory sensor, I am the nose.
I take a sip: I don't control lips, tongue, and access taste buds, I am the mouth.
I enjoy: I don't build a sensory model of coffee in my lil internal theatre, I simply enjoy the smell and taste and heat of the coffee as I see it, touch it, smell it, taste it.
A beautiful and poetic description of being. Of course, while you can identify as all of these aspects OF your organism, we could take each one of them away, one by one, and YOU would still be here, just a you which is less capable of sensing the world. But, arguably, there would be certain parts of you, presumably important parts of your brain, which, without those, you would no longer be. We could keep the blood pumping to your brain via a heart lung machine, renewing the oxygen and nutrient mixture, removing the waste products, allowing your brain to continue even if your heart and lungs gave out. Admittedly, the liver is a different ballgame, we haven’t got there yet, but, imagine if we were able to invent a machine which could perform the same function as you liver. We could essentially have just your head, kept alive. A state almost akin to a quadriplegic. Now, you will be far less that you were, no longer apprehending the world, but, there will still be something inside there which it feels like. Or so we think. Maybe without some form of sense coming in, you would loose all touch with reality and fade into some mental nothingness. But no doubt some people have had such existences, or similar.
What I’m saying is, we can identify as literally our whole organism, or we can focus on certain aspects of ourself and identify with those. But on some level, it might just be an idea, the idea of you. In fact, why stop at the boundary of your body? You take food into yourself, which at some stage becomes “you”. But there is no clear line as to when that happens. How about the air which you inhale and exhale? Isn’t that just as much a crucial part of you as any other resource your body requires for survival? Or the water you drink? Or the ecosystem you inhabit which you need to sustain you? In fact, why stop there, because we need this earth, and of course, this earth would not have been without the sun, which we also need the light and heat from to survive, to maintain a certain body heat, to stimulate the melanin in our skin and release vitamin d. To set our body clock. We literally are part of the whole universe, which is all interconnected. We need it all. So, why not identify with that? At some point you could just say, it’s all me? At that stage, what is the difference between saying, I am everything, and I am nothing? Maybe I am just this collection of things.