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: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:28 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:43 am
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?
No, I never said it only apprehends: I said light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc. and I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc..

Ain't no only in there.

As for why or how our means of apprehending the world is what it is: take that up with an evolutionary biologist or God. I'm not here to defend design, only direct realism.
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 2:44 pm
Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:28 am

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?
No, I never said it only apprehends: I said light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc. and I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc..

Ain't no only in there.

As for why or how our means of apprehending the world is what it is: take that up with an evolutionary biologist or God. I'm not here to defend design, only direct realism.
But you talk about two things: the directly perceived light of direct realism, and the "content" in the light. That "content" is just information about the percieved light, so how do we have any actual visuals?
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: Wed May 12, 2021 2:25 pm
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.
I think what I said may have sounded like an accusation. It wasn't meant that way.

I was referring to what you said, "I see a duck and rabbit just fine." And my point was that all those kinds of nonsense are not examples of so-called perceptual illusions but, if they occur at all, are conceptual mistakes. If someone didn't think of either a duck or rabbit, if they didn't "see," either, it would not imply anything wrong with the validity of their seeing.

I know you weren't deceived, Henry.
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 2:49 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:44 pm
Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 pm
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?
No, I never said it only apprehends: I said light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc. and I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc..

Ain't no only in there.

As for why or how our means of apprehending the world is what it is: take that up with an evolutionary biologist or God. I'm not here to defend design, only direct realism.
But you talk about two things: the directly perceived light of direct realism, and the "content" in the light. That "content" is just information about the percieved light, so how do we have any actual visuals?
Let me answer with questions: the indirect realist sez we model the world or make a representation of it in our head, yeah?

How does this work? Where in the brain is electricity transformed into simulacra? And while you're at it, can you explain how a mass of organic matter generates the self-consciousness or mind to be aware of the simulacra?

If you're wise (like me) you won't even try. We both know the mechanics of vision or self-consciousness are not in question here. We accept vision and self-consciousness as givens. The mechanics of either are only germane if, for example, you can evidence the mechanics of vision preclude the possibility of direct realism. If you do believe this is this case then, please, begin to lay it out. You can start by answerin' the questions above.

Reining us all in...

What's on the table: does a person see the world directly, or is there some mediating particle (sense datum, for example) or some pre-existing template (like qualia, for example) in his head? Is the world real and observation/mind independent, sumthin' we can apprehend directly, or is the world sumthin' nebulous and fuzzy that man, internally, imposes a kind of order on?

So far: the indirectists, in-thread, have fixated on flaws in direct realism that aren't actually flaws at all, and attempts to go down the rabbit hole with questions best left to anatomists and physicists.

Again, my position: 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.

This is what I'm defendin' here, in-thread, and nuthin' else (and, good lord, isn't that enough?)
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 3:19 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:16 pm
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.
I think what I said may have sounded like an accusation. It wasn't meant that way.

I was referring to what you said, "I see a duck and rabbit just fine." And my point was that all those kinds of nonsense are not examples of so-called perceptual illusions but, if they occur at all, are conceptual mistakes. If someone didn't think of either a duck or rabbit, if they didn't "see," either, it would not imply anything wrong with the validity of their seeing.

I know you weren't deceived, Henry.
No worries...you know me: prickly.
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 6:02 pm
Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:49 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:44 pm

No, I never said it only apprehends: I said light enters my eye, the content in the light is carried by electro-chemistry to my brain where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc. and I apprehend information, conduct it inside myself where I comprehend it, categorize it, etc..

Ain't no only in there.

As for why or how our means of apprehending the world is what it is: take that up with an evolutionary biologist or God. I'm not here to defend design, only direct realism.
But you talk about two things: the directly perceived light of direct realism, and the "content" in the light. That "content" is just information about the percieved light, so how do we have any actual visuals?
Let me answer with questions: the indirect realist sez we model the world or make a representation of it in our head, yeah?

How does this work? Where in the brain is electricity transformed into simulacra? And while you're at it, can you explain how a mass of organic matter generates the self-consciousness or mind to be aware of the simulacra?

If you're wise (like me) you won't even try. We both know the mechanics of vision or self-consciousness are not in question here. We accept vision and self-consciousness as givens. The mechanics of either are only germane if, for example, you can evidence the mechanics of vision preclude the possibility of direct realism. If you do believe this is this case then, please, begin to lay it out. You can start by answerin' the questions above.

Reining us all in...

What's on the table: does a person see the world directly, or is there some mediating particle (sense datum, for example) or some pre-existing template (like qualia, for example) in his head? Is the world real and observation/mind independent, sumthin' we can apprehend directly, or is the world sumthin' nebulous and fuzzy that man, internally, imposes a kind of order on?

So far: the indirectists, in-thread, have fixated on flaws in direct realism that aren't actually flaws at all, and attempts to go down the rabbit hole with questions best left to anatomists and physicists.

Again, my position: 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.

This is what I'm defendin' here, in-thread, and nuthin' else (and, good lord, isn't that enough?)
Of course the mechanics of vision preclude direct realism. First, the light that hits the eyes is not how the objects 'actually are like', but it's light that was emitted by those objects, and traveled through spacetime to reach the eye. That light isn't really part of said objects anymore.
Then red, blue and green cones in the eyes can get triggered, and send impulses to the back of the brain. We are already 2-3 steps away from direct realism.
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 »

First, the light that hits the eyes is not how the objects 'actually are like'

Of course it is. If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed), intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example), and the inherent limits of the observer himself, then what is seen is as it is.


it's light that was emitted by those objects, and traveled through spacetime to reach the eye.

Yep, *with vision, light is the conveyor of information and it's such a wildly successful, consistent, accurate conveyor that nearly all higher life uses it to navigate the world (via sight).


That light isn't really part of said objects anymore.

Never said it was; direct realism doesn't require it to be so.


Then red, blue and green cones in the eyes can get triggered, and send impulses to the back of the brain. We are already 2-3 steps away from direct realism.

No, we're not. You, like VA, either don't understand what direct realism is, or you're burdening it with baggage it was never meant to carry.

Again: the world exists, it exists independent of me, and is apprehended by me as it is (not in its entirety but as it is). 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.

Ain't nuthin' you or VA have offered wrecks this definition.




*Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu May 13, 2021 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Atla wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:41 pm First, the light that hits the eyes is not how the objects 'actually are like',
It's rather what those objects are really like from the spatiotemporal situatedness in question. And we're always talking about some spatiotemporal situatedness.

Also, to know that x is not what y is really like, we need to know what y is really like, and claiming that we can perceive this is claiming direct realism.
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 6:59 pm First, the light that hits the eyes is not how the objects 'actually are like'

Of course it is. If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed), intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example), and the inherent limits of the observer himself, then what is seen is as it is.
...
We perceive light coming from the object, not the object itself. So it's not how the object is 'actually like'.
Again: the world exists, it exists independent of me, and is apprehended by me as it is (not in its entirety but as it is). 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.

Ain't nuthin' you or VA have offered wrecks this definition.
I don't think you, VA and RC understand (and TS doesn't understand anything) that in indirect realism (representationalism), the world is also 'real', but we experience it through a representation, a model in the head. The model is part of the real world, and is directly experienced. Fundamentally we still experience the world directly, but with a twist.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
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 11:48 am
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?
I stated 'in principle'.
That is from the definition of what is naive realism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.

What I am trying to show is the very famous Herring Illusion with 'normal person' which is not disputable at all within the psychology, cognitive sciences, various sciences and all those [normal people] who had been shown the experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering_illusion
Show me any reference where 'normal people' will see only straight lines under those expected conditions.
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.
What is "seeing" is perception.
see: to perceive with the eyes; look at.

As such there is no 'seeing' before perception.

What is perception or seeing is a culmination of a set of complex processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
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.
In the above example above, it is because you have the benefit of hindsight that the lines are actually straight lines as drawn.
In a natural setting of reality, you don't have the benefit of hindsight when any illusions occurred and you take that for real based on your principle of naive realism.
As such 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.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu May 13, 2021 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 7:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:48 am
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?
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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
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: Wed May 12, 2021 10:21 am
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.
I am relying on solid sound arguments that naive realism is not a tenable theory to represent reality.

Humans are never acquainted directly with the supposedly-real-thing out there.
Basically the only thing the naive realist has are only sense-data to work with within the mind and body.
As such there is no way what is finally perceived in consciousness will correspond to that supposedly-real-thing out there.
In addition the raw data has to travel through complex set of processes externally and internally before that supposedly-real-thing is perceived in the mind.

As had demonstrated there is the very possibility that what is perceived in the mind is not the supposedly-real-thing as it happened in natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions - not errors btw.

With all the counter-views above, naive realism although is useful within common sense, it is at best be taken an unreliable half-truth theory of reality.

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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
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 8:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 7:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:48 am

No, this is wrong. Where are you getting this from?
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
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 »

We perceive light coming from the object, not the object itself. So it's not how the object is 'actually like'.

Of course it is.

As I say: if you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed), intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example), and the inherent limits of the observer himself, then what is seen is as it is.


the world is also 'real', but we experience it through a representation, a model in the head. The model is part of the real world, and is directly experienced. Fundamentally we still experience the world directly, but with a twist.

As TS has pointed out: if we only experience a representation, how do you know it's representative of the world? What's your measure of fidelity?

Consider: two individuals with radically different personalities. They couldn't be more different. Yet, as different as they are (and I ain't talkin' about just differences of opinion here) they both apprehend the world in much the same way. If all each had was a representation of the world, one generated by each brain (brains that generate such opposing personalities) one might expect these representations to be highly idiosyncratic as well.

But, they're not.

Each sees the apple, and each sees it (taking into account perspective, intervening distortions, and the inherent limits of the observer himself) the same, as it is.

One might adore apples, the other despise apples, but they both agree, these opposed personalities, that indeed what's on the table between them is an apple which -- minus opinion about apples -- they describe similarly.

How is this possible? Again: how do brains which generate such different persons generate such similar representations?
Post Reply