Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by henry quirk »

I am relying on solid sound arguments that naive realism is not a tenable theory to represent reality.

I'm sorry, VA, but your arguments aren't sound. I've ground them up.

But, we can go thru them again, if you like.

List your arguments. Leave out the commentary. I'll grind 'em down.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:47 am The 'normal' person will see the two red lines as 'bend'.
Actually both the red lines are straight and parallel, you can confirm this by seeing them from the side of your computer screen instead of directly.
First of all, you have no idea what, "the normal person," or anyone else sees. The subjective experience of, "seeing," cannot be examined or studied by anyone. All you have for, "evidence," is the testimony of others who claim to be able to see.

Perhaps you see two curved red lines, as you claim. I'll take your word for it, just as I have to take your word for it that the world as you directly perceive it, is not the world as it actually is. If that is the case, I'm sorry for you.

To assert that just because you have defective perception and the existents you see aren't actually what you see, but something else (which you can neither identify or know) to attribute your perceptual to others is like your thinking, just because you cannot speak Mandarin, no one can.
"Take my words for it"??
I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant.

Maybe the example I shown was not contrasted enough.
Here is another;

Image

If you cannot see two 'bend' lines, you should consult a psychiatrist or psychologist.
The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:29 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 7:26 am
I stated 'in principle'.
That is from the definition of what is naive realism.
In other words, it's from the definition according to whom?
I had already given the link;
again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
That definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.

In fact, that Wikipedia article explicity says, ". . . that are usually perceived correctly" and "By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is"
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Thu May 13, 2021 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am What is perception or seeing is a culmination of a set of complex processes.
And you know exactly what those processes are and exactly how they produce what you call, "seeing." Is that right? Because otherwise you are just guessing or presuming those processes (which I very much doubt you can actually describe) produce anything except the processes themselves. Guessing is neither science or philosophy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am In a natural setting of reality ... there is no way you can know 'what they really are' and in a way it is meaningless and nonsense to posit "what things really are" by themselves.
So you are saying the drawing you are using to illustrate what you call an illusion, is not really a drawing, "in itself," even though it looks lake a drawing, because, "it is meaningless and nonsense to posit 'what things really are" by themselves.'"
But if what looks like a drawing cannot really be a drawing, but only an illusion, what are you using to prove your point.[/quote]

Odd that all those who hate reality and want to prove that reality is not exactly what we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste always have to use that world exactly as it is perceived as their evidence--then deny it.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Thu May 13, 2021 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
I have to admit, Sculptor, in spite of our less important disagreements, when you're right, you are delightfully droll.

Unfortunately, I doubt the subject of your comment is capable of appreciating it.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:18 pm That definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.
Only a moron can't recognise the implication. And you are a moron, which is why you can't recognise the implication.

If perception is fallible then how do you decide which percepts to trust as "real" which percepts to doubt as failures of perception?
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:28 am As such, indirect realism is one-up on naive realism as a theory of reality, but indirect realism is still flawed since it assumed there is still an objective reality out there.
That's not a flaw, it's the only reasonable guess. It's simply the case that no matter how we conceive of this objective reality, our conception will always be dependent on "human conditions", in other words we can't get outside our own minds.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 2:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
I have to admit, Sculptor, in spite of our less important disagreements, when you're right, you are delightfully droll.

Unfortunately, I doubt the subject of your comment is capable of appreciating it.
Indeed. I know he's not listening. But I am glad that someone notived my comment.
This whole thread is a massive projection of himself
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pm ... we can't get outside our own minds.
What does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pm ... we can't get outside our own minds.
What does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
You as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.

VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:29 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:11 am

In other words, it's from the definition according to whom?
I had already given the link;
again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
That definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.

In fact, that Wikipedia article explicity says, ". . . that are usually perceived correctly" and "By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is"
Note the additional point to the same definition,
According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves.
That errors are accepted does not compromised the essence of the naive realism principle.

To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 2:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am What is perception or seeing is a culmination of a set of complex processes.
And you know exactly what those processes are and exactly how they produce what you call, "seeing." Is that right? Because otherwise you are just guessing or presuming those processes (which I very much doubt you can actually describe) produce anything except the processes themselves. Guessing is neither science or philosophy.
It not because "I know" but it is scientific knowledge that I referred to.
How is that you ignored this definition I included in my post,
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am In a natural setting of reality ... there is no way you can know 'what they really are' and in a way it is meaningless and nonsense to posit "what things really are" by themselves.
So you are saying the drawing you are using to illustrate what you call an illusion, is not really a drawing, "in itself," even though it looks lake a drawing, because, "it is meaningless and nonsense to posit 'what things really are" by themselves.'"
But if what looks like a drawing cannot really be a drawing, but only an illusion, what are you using to prove your point.
Your above is a strawman.

I did not say what I presented is NOT a drawing. It is a drawing drawn by humans, thus cannot be a drawing-in-itself, i.e. independent of human conditions. Therefore it is meaningless and nonsense for you to insist that is a drawing-in-itself.

According to the Herring Illusion, normal people will naturally perceive two bend lines in that drawing.
This is one reason [among many] naive realism is flawed.
Odd that all those who hate reality and want to prove that reality is not exactly what we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste always have to use that world exactly as it is perceived as their evidence--then deny it.
Your above is based on ignorance of what reality is.

To me reality, i.e. all-there-is and is part-and-parcel-with, is something I unite and embraced with intimately, i.e. not independent of the human conditions.
In your case, you divorced reality from yourself [independent] and merely assumed what is reality via correspondence with words and symbols, and is NEVER ever directly acquainted with reality in-itself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:00 pm
First of all, you have no idea what, "the normal person," or anyone else sees. The subjective experience of, "seeing," cannot be examined or studied by anyone. All you have for, "evidence," is the testimony of others who claim to be able to see.

Perhaps you see two curved red lines, as you claim. I'll take your word for it, just as I have to take your word for it that the world as you directly perceive it, is not the world as it actually is. If that is the case, I'm sorry for you.

To assert that just because you have defective perception and the existents you see aren't actually what you see, but something else (which you can neither identify or know) to attribute your perceptual to others is like your thinking, just because you cannot speak Mandarin, no one can.
"Take my words for it"??
I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant.

Maybe the example I shown was not contrasted enough.
Here is another;

Image

If you cannot see two 'bend' lines, you should consult a psychiatrist or psychologist.
The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.
Off you trot to the shrink!
Do you even understand what is induction and how Science leverage on induction in producing scientific knowledge which has contributed to humanity greatly?

The Herring Illusion is backed by its scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering_illusion
Therefore it is objective i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Researcher Mark Changizi explained the illusion in a 2008 article:

"Evolution has seen to it that geometric drawings like this elicit in us premonitions of the near future. The converging lines toward a vanishing point (the spokes) are cues that trick our brains into thinking we are moving forward as we would in the real world, where the door frame (a pair of vertical lines) seems to bow out as we move through it and we try to perceive what that world will look like in the next instant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering_illusion
You are so ignorant yet so arrogant.
Note this,

ultracrepidarian: noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise.

or

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. ... The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:28 am As such, indirect realism is one-up on naive realism as a theory of reality, but indirect realism is still flawed since it assumed there is still an objective reality out there.
That's not a flaw, it's the only reasonable guess. It's simply the case that no matter how we conceive of this objective reality, our conception will always be dependent on "human conditions", in other words we can't get outside our own minds.
If philosophical realists admit and concede it is a reasonable guess, then there is no issue.
But philosophical realists insist there is a real independent objective reality out there as real awaiting discovery.
Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views [...]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In addition, realists will condemn those who think otherwise from the above.

It would be of no issue if realists merely guess [reasonably] and assume there is an independent [of human conditions] objective out there, for intellectual and discussion sake, but not insisting there is something really real out there.
This is what modern science would do, i.e. merely assuming there is an objective world out there awaiting discovery.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pm ... we can't get outside our own minds.
What does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
You as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.

VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
Here is a clue,
1. The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "womb" that is sustaining human life and other beings and all are interconnected as a oneness [non-dual] in the ultimate sense.

2. But of course there are other perspectives, senses and duality in spontaneity within oneness. Here is where there is the duality of internalness and externalness, i.e. giving rise to an independent external world but this is subsumed within 1.
Post Reply