Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
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 »

Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:18 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:58 pm
If it's just recognition and not recognition+representation, then the light that hits the eye, simply gets transmitted somewhere into the brain?
Simply: I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc.

Or, if you prefer: light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc.

No model makin': just information acquisition.
So in your mind you don't actually see the colors, you just apprehend information about seeing those colors?
I see the colors.

What is it you think it means to see?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: Tue May 11, 2021 9:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:09 am
It is common for people to make mistakes in perceptions,
It would be impossible to know this if we can't perceive things correctly, in order to know just what mistakes people are making, and of course it would be impossible to know this if we can't know that there are other people, people who are perceiving things via their senses--via their eyes and ears etc., which all requires that we be able to accurately observe things that are external to us.

And again, naive or direct realism does not at all say that there can be no perceptual problems or that there can be no illusions.
Note:
Wiki wrote:In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are.[1]
When referred to as direct realism, naïve realism is often contrasted with indirect realism.[2]

According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves. The naïve realist is typically also a metaphysical realist, holding that these objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all of their properties regardless of whether or not there is anyone to observe them.
Naive realism will provide for perceptual errors and illusions only where it is very obvious.

But in principle perceptual illusions exist extensively and in various degrees and in some cases so subtle that one is unable to recognize one is treating such illusions as real.
In addition, not every one of the 7+ billion humans are aware of even the common illusions.

Because of this naive realism cannot be held as a reliable principle in interpreting reality.

There is no doubt naive realism is useful but it is limited to only certain perspectives of reality, e.g. common sense and low level conventional senses.
Example Newtonian Physics is still useful but limited to the more sophisticated levels of reality, e.g. Einsteinian and QM which are more powerful and has significant contribution to humanity.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:10 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:18 pm

Simply: I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc.

Or, if you prefer: light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc.

No model makin': just information acquisition.
So in your mind you don't actually see the colors, you just apprehend information about seeing those colors?
I see the colors.

What is it you think it means to see?
What is it you think it means to see? You think people literally see with their eyes? Then why can we visualize and dream with closed eyes, and why did we even evolve a visual cortex?
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: Wed May 12, 2021 3:59 am
Naive realism will provide for perceptual errors and illusions only where it is very obvious.
It's rather just that there need to be evidential grounds for errors/illusions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:09 am Note this optical illusion,

Image
What, "optical illusion?" It's just a bunch of black and red lines which I see as a bunch of black and red lines.

Are you interpreting those lines as something else?
That is the problem with naive realism.

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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:10 pm In the case of the Charles Bonnet Syndrome, the person cannot avoid the illusions due to his state of mind. Thus even if the person is told of the illusion, it will still happen again and again and the only way is for the person to rationalize it away. But the problem is when the person is not aware he has the Charles Bonnet Syndrome, thus via naive realism will take what is perceive as really real.

Damaged eyes convey misinformation. The color blind, in a much less disturbing way, suffer similarly. In either case, what is in the light is apprehended poorly or not at all.

Not seein' a refuting of direct realism here. Only an observation of what I've said before: direct realism is not about perfect apprehension; direct realism is only about direct apprehension.

No direct realist asserts perfect apprehension: all assert direct apprehension.


...the indirect realist would not based his interpretation of reality based solely on perception but will ensure further verifications for everything that is perceived before confirming what is real is really real [btw not absolutely real].

A direct realist ignorant of heat on a road or in a desert might very well think there was water in the distance. One who understands the illusion wouldn't be fooled.

As I say: direct realism offers no insulation from error. Only the direct realist himself can partially do that.


Really, you indirect folk need to stop attributin' to us direct folk things we never say or imply.

Again: I say the world exists, exists independent of me, and is apprehended by me as it is (not in its entirety but as it is). I say I apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in my head. That's my plain english, unadorned, definition. Ain't one damn thing in there about my apprehension bein' perfect, complete, or immune from mistake.
Note my response to Terrapin
viewtopic.php?p=510642#p510642

Point is when a philosophical stance or principle has so many reservations and qualification, it is just flawed and limited.
As I say: direct realism offers no insulation from error. Only the direct realist himself can partially do that.
In that case, it is a very personal and subjective principle.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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: Wed May 12, 2021 5:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:59 am
Naive realism will provide for perceptual errors and illusions only where it is very obvious.
It's rather just that there need to be evidential grounds for errors/illusions.
Actually Naive Realism in principle do not provide for errors and illusions.
It is only the individuals who are in the know make their own provisions. [Note Henry's point].

In addition as I had mentioned the human brain and reality is SO complex, there is no way, one can know all the possible natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions there are.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:59 am
Naive realism will provide for perceptual errors and illusions only where it is very obvious.
It's rather just that there need to be evidential grounds for errors/illusions.
*Actually Naive Realism in principle do not provide for errors and illusions.
It is only the individuals who are in the know make their own provisions. [Note Henry's point].

In addition as I had mentioned the human brain and reality is SO complex, there is no way, one can know all the possible natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions there are.
*Becuz it was never meant to.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:51 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:10 pm In the case of the Charles Bonnet Syndrome, the person cannot avoid the illusions due to his state of mind. Thus even if the person is told of the illusion, it will still happen again and again and the only way is for the person to rationalize it away. But the problem is when the person is not aware he has the Charles Bonnet Syndrome, thus via naive realism will take what is perceive as really real.

Damaged eyes convey misinformation. The color blind, in a much less disturbing way, suffer similarly. In either case, what is in the light is apprehended poorly or not at all.

Not seein' a refuting of direct realism here. Only an observation of what I've said before: direct realism is not about perfect apprehension; direct realism is only about direct apprehension.

No direct realist asserts perfect apprehension: all assert direct apprehension.


...the indirect realist would not based his interpretation of reality based solely on perception but will ensure further verifications for everything that is perceived before confirming what is real is really real [btw not absolutely real].

A direct realist ignorant of heat on a road or in a desert might very well think there was water in the distance. One who understands the illusion wouldn't be fooled.

As I say: direct realism offers no insulation from error. Only the direct realist himself can partially do that.


Really, you indirect folk need to stop attributin' to us direct folk things we never say or imply.

Again: I say the world exists, exists independent of me, and is apprehended by me as it is (not in its entirety but as it is). I say I apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in my head. That's my plain english, unadorned, definition. Ain't one damn thing in there about my apprehension bein' perfect, complete, or immune from mistake.
Note my response to Terrapin
viewtopic.php?p=510642#p510642

*Point is when a philosophical stance or principle has so many reservations and qualification, it is just flawed and limited.
As I say: direct realism offers no insulation from error. Only the direct realist himself can partially do that.
In that case, it is a very personal and subjective principle.
*You keep tryin' to expand direct realism into sumthin' it was never meant to be. Taken as it is: there are no reservations and qualifications. It is limited, but the flaws are introduced by the anti-realist as he expands direct realism into, as I say, sumthin' it was never meant to be.
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 »

Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:10 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:34 pm
So in your mind you don't actually see the colors, you just apprehend information about seeing those colors?
I see the colors.

What is it you think it means to see?
What is it you think it means to see? You think people literally see with their eyes? Then why can we visualize and dream with closed eyes, and why did we even evolve a visual cortex?
I believe I've referenced the system from the eyes clear on back thru the chain to the brain at least twice, and, I've described that system twice in different but complimentary ways.

Eyes are part, not the totality, of the system.
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: Wed May 12, 2021 6:59 am Actually Naive Realism in principle do not provide for errors and illusions.
No, this is wrong. Where are you getting this from?
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: 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.

In fact, all anyone sees when looking at that image is lines that have been drawn. Whether those line are straight, curved, or form any pattern are all, "interpretations," of what is seen. Only the, "seeing," [which must occur before any interpretation of what is made] is perception. Even for those who interpret those lines as curved, when they see them, had to see them as they exactly are before that interpretation could be made.
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 »

henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:47 pm And: I see a duck and rabbit just fine.

And: I recognize the reflection in the mirror as my own.
You've been taken in here, Henry. All that can be, "seen," is some lines and marks in a drawing (because that's all there is). What you call seeing a duck or rabbit is a post-perception interpretation of what is seen. Seeing the lines is all that is direct perception. Interpreting those lines as representing something is a conceptual function, something thought, not perceived.

To be perfect, perception does not need to (and actually cannot) identify what things are, it only has to see things as they actually are. To see an apple as it actually is, does not require one to know what an apple is, or to identify what is being seen is an apple. Making one think that is a sophist's deception. It confuses perception with conception (knowledge). Perception is not knowledge, our knowledge is of what is perceived.
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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 6:47 pm And: I see a duck and rabbit just fine.

And: I recognize the reflection in the mirror as my own.
You've been taken in here, Henry. All that can be, "seen," is some lines and marks in a drawing (because that's all there is). What you call seeing a duck or rabbit is a post-perception interpretation of what is seen. Seeing the lines is all that is direct perception. Interpreting those lines as representing something is a conceptual function, something thought, not perceived.

To be perfect, perception does not need to (and actually cannot) identify what things are, it only has to see things as they actually are. To see an apple as it actually is, does not require one to know what an apple is, or to identify what is being seen is an apple. Making one think that is a sophist's deception. It confuses perception with conception (knowledge). Perception is not knowledge, our knowledge is of what is perceived.
If I view the Mona Lisa I'm well aware it's a painting, an image, a representation, and yet I still might refer to that mass of paint as she. In the same way, I'm aware the squiggle isn't a duck or rabbit but can be a representative or symbol for either.

So -- no -- I haven't been taken in.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:28 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:10 pm

I see the colors.

What is it you think it means to see?
What is it you think it means to see? You think people literally see with their eyes? Then why can we visualize and dream with closed eyes, and why did we even evolve a visual cortex?
I believe I've referenced the system from the eyes clear on back thru the chain to the brain at least twice, and, I've described that system twice in different but complimentary ways.

Eyes are part, not the totality, of the system.
But you said the system only apprehends information about seeing stuff. So why is there any vision at all then, and not just information about vision?
Post Reply