Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:26 pm The fact is, almost everything presented as evidence of perception's deficiencies, is actually evidence of perception's incredible reliability. Most so-called, "perceptual illusions," for example, are not illusions at all, or are misinterpretations of what is perceived at the conceptual level.

I'll explain no more here, looking forward to Henry's, 'grindin' to dust," the kind of absurd examples I know will be offered, if anyone is bold enough to try it. I'll redouble the challenge to anyone who doubts that physical reality is reality exactly as it is perceived and no one can provide an example of reality directly perceived that is otherwise.
My favourite example is purple, naive realists can't really answer what it is. Sure, purple is purple, it's real and it's exactly as perceived, so far so good. But purple has no known wavelength, science hasn't found purple light yet.

According to naive realists we should see red and blue at the same time. Even if we average red and blue wavelength light, which a naive realist shouldn't do, we get green wavelength light. But we see purple instead of red and blue, or green. So what is purple and why do we experience it?
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: Mon May 10, 2021 8:05 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:26 pm The fact is, almost everything presented as evidence of perception's deficiencies, is actually evidence of perception's incredible reliability. Most so-called, "perceptual illusions," for example, are not illusions at all, or are misinterpretations of what is perceived at the conceptual level.

I'll explain no more here, looking forward to Henry's, 'grindin' to dust," the kind of absurd examples I know will be offered, if anyone is bold enough to try it. I'll redouble the challenge to anyone who doubts that physical reality is reality exactly as it is perceived and no one can provide an example of reality directly perceived that is otherwise.
My favourite example is purple, naive realists can't really answer what it is. Sure, purple is purple, it's real and it's exactly as perceived, so far so good. But purple has no known wavelength, science hasn't found purple light yet.

According to naive realists we should see red and blue at the same time. Even if we average red and blue wavelength light, which a naive realist shouldn't do, we get green wavelength light. But we see purple instead of red and blue, or green. So what is purple and why do we experience it?
Oy vey. I already explained this to you.

And ferchrissakes, you can even just look at Wikipedia: "Violet is the color of light at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum, between blue and invisible ultraviolet. It is one of the seven colors that Isaac Newton labeled when dividing the spectrum of visible light in 1672. Violet light has a wavelength between approximately 380 and 450 nanometers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_(color)

Saying completely ignorant things while pretending they're not ignorant/they can't be straightened out or refuted isn't really an argument, even though that seems to be your preferred approach.
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: Mon May 10, 2021 8:05 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:26 pm The fact is, almost everything presented as evidence of perception's deficiencies, is actually evidence of perception's incredible reliability. Most so-called, "perceptual illusions," for example, are not illusions at all, or are misinterpretations of what is perceived at the conceptual level.

I'll explain no more here, looking forward to Henry's, 'grindin' to dust," the kind of absurd examples I know will be offered, if anyone is bold enough to try it. I'll redouble the challenge to anyone who doubts that physical reality is reality exactly as it is perceived and no one can provide an example of reality directly perceived that is otherwise.
My favourite example is purple, naive realists can't really answer what it is. Sure, purple is purple, it's real and it's exactly as perceived, so far so good. But purple has no known wavelength, science hasn't found purple light yet.

According to naive realists we should see red and blue at the same time. Even if we average red and blue wavelength light, which a naive realist shouldn't do, we get green wavelength light. But we see purple instead of red and blue, or green. So what is purple and why do we experience it?
What's, "purple?" I mean, when you use the word, what are you referring to?

Image

You don't seem to be very familiar with the nature of colors. The opaque primary colors (pigments) are red, yellow, and blue; the subtractive primary colors (colored filters and layers of colored photographic film and most screen printing) are cyan, magenta, and yellow; and the additive primary colors (human eyes and most TV and computer graphics) are red, blue, and green.

Image Image Image

Have a look at the About Colors appendix to my online HTML for Everyone course, to learn how we see colors. You apparently have no idea.

I think you need a new favorite argument.
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 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:02 pm
Atla wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:05 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:26 pm The fact is, almost everything presented as evidence of perception's deficiencies, is actually evidence of perception's incredible reliability. Most so-called, "perceptual illusions," for example, are not illusions at all, or are misinterpretations of what is perceived at the conceptual level.

I'll explain no more here, looking forward to Henry's, 'grindin' to dust," the kind of absurd examples I know will be offered, if anyone is bold enough to try it. I'll redouble the challenge to anyone who doubts that physical reality is reality exactly as it is perceived and no one can provide an example of reality directly perceived that is otherwise.
My favourite example is purple, naive realists can't really answer what it is. Sure, purple is purple, it's real and it's exactly as perceived, so far so good. But purple has no known wavelength, science hasn't found purple light yet.

According to naive realists we should see red and blue at the same time. Even if we average red and blue wavelength light, which a naive realist shouldn't do, we get green wavelength light. But we see purple instead of red and blue, or green. So what is purple and why do we experience it?
Oy vey. I already explained this to you.

And ferchrissakes, you can even just look at Wikipedia: "Violet is the color of light at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum, between blue and invisible ultraviolet. It is one of the seven colors that Isaac Newton labeled when dividing the spectrum of visible light in 1672. Violet light has a wavelength between approximately 380 and 450 nanometers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_(color)

Saying completely ignorant things while pretending they're not ignorant/they can't be straightened out or refuted isn't really an argument, even though that seems to be your preferred approach.
That's right, and all the explanation that's needed.

My response is also meant to head off some of the other, "the colors we see aren't the actual colors," nonsense that will probably be tried.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Objects independent of observation can be proven through the change in observation. As observation occurs it changes. A new phenomenon is introduced which is seen.

The object as unseen is the potential change in observation thus the thing in itself exists as the point of change within an observation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Mon May 10, 2021 11:19 am If you suffered from Charles Bonnet Syndrome [++] you could one day out of a sudden see a 'real' lady speaking to you in a room whereas others with you at that time only see a framed picture of a woman on the wall.
If you are a naive [direct] realist, you will readily accept that the woman you saw is really real until you are certified and convinced by a psychiatrist you were suffering from Charles Bonnet Syndrome.


In other words: if you were ill you might make mistakes, be in error.

This is not a decent example of why direct realism is incorrect.

Even a healthy person, with unimpaired mind might make mistakes. Direct realism offers no immunity from error.


The point is there are so many counter-examples against Direct [naive] Realism and one has to accept it with all the relevant qualifications.

Then, please, offer some counter-examples...I look forward to grindin' them to dust.
It is common for people to make mistakes in perceptions, example seeing snake within a shady or dark location when it is actually a piece of rope. Such mistakes in perception are due to various conditions of the person is in. This can easily be corrected upon investigation.

However, what I have presented are illusions that are natural and unavoidable even with knowledge of what is going on.
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.

What is I am presenting are illusions that are natural, inevitable and unavoidable that pose a problem to naive realism.
There are various types of such natural illusions, e.g. empirical, logical, based on pure reason, etc.
That one see the Sun as appearing larger on the horizon than the midday Sun is not a mistake but it is a natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusion.

Note this optical illusion,

Image

In the above case, no matter how you understand the illusion, you will never be free from its illusory effects which is natural, inevitable and unavoidable.

There are load of such illusions in reality where the naive realists would not be aware to take note and rationalize, thus there are many "illusions" that the naive realists would take for real based on what they are perceiving.

Thus naive realism by itself is a faulty theory.

On the other hand, 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].

It is not only that one has to deal with empirical illusions but there are those based on thoughts on perception which are natural, inevitable and unavoidable that are very complex and sophisticated that can lead to very dire consequences.
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: 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.
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 »

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.
If by, "illusion," is meant that perception itself is, "erroneous," or, "incorrect," there are no perceptual illusions. There are certainly mistakes in our, "interpretation," of what is perceived, but perception itself cannot be, "mistaken."

Perception is nothing more than conscious awareness of reality as it actually is, in it's entire metaphysical context. A straight stick in water looks, "bent," because a stick lying on the ground that appeared that way would be called bent. But a stick in water is not the same metaphysical fact as a stick in water. Perception perfectly perceives the real difference between those two different metaphysical facts, which makes it possible to discover the nature of refraction and improve our perception with lenses, telescopes, and microscopes. The so-called, "bent-stick illusion," is in fact a profound proof of the veracity of perception.

I have more to say, but hope Henry will comment before I do.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:03 pm What's, "purple?" I mean, when you use the word, what are you referring to?

Image

You don't seem to be very familiar with the nature of colors. The opaque primary colors (pigments) are red, yellow, and blue; the subtractive primary colors (colored filters and layers of colored photographic film and most screen printing) are cyan, magenta, and yellow; and the additive primary colors (human eyes and most TV and computer graphics) are red, blue, and green.

Image Image Image

Have a look at the About Colors appendix to my online HTML for Everyone course, to learn how we see colors. You apparently have no idea.

I think you need a new favorite argument.
I was talking about purple, or nowadays it's called magenta, on your page it's magenta. (Not violet, quoting someone as incompetent and in need of attention as Terrapin, won't work.)
violet 400 nm, indigo 445 nm, blue 475 nm, green 510 nm, yellow 570 nm, orenge 590 nm, red 650 nm.
You listed the wavelengths of the colors on your page, but you left out magenta, because it doesn't have one.
It is interesting to note that the colors we see may not be the colors reaching the eye at all. For example, when we see orange it might be pure orange light (590 nm), but might be a combination of red (650 nm) and green (510 nm) light with no orange light at all.
Sucks for naive realists. So somehow our brain does average the perceived wavelenghts, and creates the light we should see.

The funnier thing is that when we average red and blue light (when red and blue cones are firing equally), we get green, not magenta.

Anyway you already admitted in your own words that we may not see objects as they actually are.
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: Tue May 11, 2021 3:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:03 pm What's, "purple?" I mean, when you use the word, what are you referring to?

Image

You don't seem to be very familiar with the nature of colors. The opaque primary colors (pigments) are red, yellow, and blue; the subtractive primary colors (colored filters and layers of colored photographic film and most screen printing) are cyan, magenta, and yellow; and the additive primary colors (human eyes and most TV and computer graphics) are red, blue, and green.

Image Image Image

Have a look at the About Colors appendix to my online HTML for Everyone course, to learn how we see colors. You apparently have no idea.

I think you need a new favorite argument.
I was talking about purple, or nowadays it's called magenta, on your page it's magenta. (Not violet, quoting someone as incompetent and in need of attention as Terrapin, won't work.)
violet 400 nm, indigo 445 nm, blue 475 nm, green 510 nm, yellow 570 nm, orenge 590 nm, red 650 nm.
You listed the wavelengths of the colors on your page, but you left out magenta, because it doesn't have one.
It is interesting to note that the colors we see may not be the colors reaching the eye at all. For example, when we see orange it might be pure orange light (590 nm), but might be a combination of red (650 nm) and green (510 nm) light with no orange light at all.
Sucks for naive realists. So somehow our brain does average the perceived wavelenghts, and creates the light we should see.

The funnier thing is that when we average red and blue light (when red and blue cones are firing equally), we get green, not magenta.

Anyway you already admitted in your own words that we may not see objects as they actually are.
Look, Atla, if you want to believe the world you see is not reality as it actually is, I certainly won't object. I'm not interested in convincing you otherwise. I only explain why it is impossible for me to doubt what I see, and hear, and feel, and smell, and taste is actually what it is, and not, "something else," (because those who believe that can never tell me, "what else.")

All the, "explanations," of why what I see, for example, is not actually what I see, such as your supposed explanations of color, when the details are correct, only confirm, the orange colored fruit is see is as orange is orange. Your attempt to explain why it's not orange only explains why it is. If the orange did not have the physical attributes that I perceive as orange, it would not look orange, however much you try to explain it away.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:25 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 3:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:03 pm What's, "purple?" I mean, when you use the word, what are you referring to?

Image

You don't seem to be very familiar with the nature of colors. The opaque primary colors (pigments) are red, yellow, and blue; the subtractive primary colors (colored filters and layers of colored photographic film and most screen printing) are cyan, magenta, and yellow; and the additive primary colors (human eyes and most TV and computer graphics) are red, blue, and green.

Image Image Image

Have a look at the About Colors appendix to my online HTML for Everyone course, to learn how we see colors. You apparently have no idea.

I think you need a new favorite argument.
I was talking about purple, or nowadays it's called magenta, on your page it's magenta. (Not violet, quoting someone as incompetent and in need of attention as Terrapin, won't work.)
violet 400 nm, indigo 445 nm, blue 475 nm, green 510 nm, yellow 570 nm, orenge 590 nm, red 650 nm.
You listed the wavelengths of the colors on your page, but you left out magenta, because it doesn't have one.
It is interesting to note that the colors we see may not be the colors reaching the eye at all. For example, when we see orange it might be pure orange light (590 nm), but might be a combination of red (650 nm) and green (510 nm) light with no orange light at all.
Sucks for naive realists. So somehow our brain does average the perceived wavelenghts, and creates the light we should see.

The funnier thing is that when we average red and blue light (when red and blue cones are firing equally), we get green, not magenta.

Anyway you already admitted in your own words that we may not see objects as they actually are.
Look, Atla, if you want to believe the world you see is not reality as it actually is, I certainly won't object. I'm not interested in convincing you otherwise. I only explain why it is impossible for me to doubt what I see, and hear, and feel, and smell, and taste is actually what it is, and not, "something else," (because those who believe that can never tell me, "what else.")

All the, "explanations," of why what I see, for example, is not actually what I see, such as your supposed explanations of color, when the details are correct, only confirm, the orange colored fruit is see is as orange is orange. Your attempt to explain why it's not orange only explains why it is. If the orange did not have the physical attributes that I perceive as orange, it would not look orange, however much you try to explain it away.
That's sort of a strawman. We can trust our perceptions most of the time, they are like 99%+ accurate, 99%+ reliable for everyday life. We can treat our experiences as totally real and reliable for all practical purposes, I certainly do.

But as I said, people who believe in 100% like you, usually wouldn't survive a psychosis. When things go really wrong, perceptions can get extremely distorted, and people can even experience things which do not exist at all, aren't happening at all. Some people hallucinate all the time and it's impossible for them to tell hallucination from what's actually happening.

(Also, pretty lame ignoring the problem of magenta and talking about of orange, which does have a known wavelength.)
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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 2:59 pm
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.
If by, "illusion," is meant that perception itself is, "erroneous," or, "incorrect," there are no perceptual illusions. There are certainly mistakes in our, "interpretation," of what is perceived, but perception itself cannot be, "mistaken."

Perception is nothing more than conscious awareness of reality as it actually is, in it's entire metaphysical context. A straight stick in water looks, "bent," because a stick lying on the ground that appeared that way would be called bent. But a stick in water is not the same metaphysical fact as a stick in water. Perception perfectly perceives the real difference between those two different metaphysical facts, which makes it possible to discover the nature of refraction and improve our perception with lenses, telescopes, and microscopes. The so-called, "bent-stick illusion," is in fact a profound proof of the veracity of perception.

I have more to say, but hope Henry will comment before I do.
Agreed.
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 »

My favourite example is purple, naive realists can't really answer what it is.

It's a color, a blend of red and blue.


Sure, purple is purple, it's real and it's exactly as perceived, so far so good. But purple has no known wavelength, science hasn't found purple light yet.

As I say: purple is red and blue, blended. I'm not gettin' the whole science hasn't found it yet thing. If you mean purple isn't a primary, you're right. Not sure what that has to do with direct realism. The color (any color) is in the light. I apprehend the light. Depending on how well my old eye is workin', I see the color (I conduct information into myself). There are no particular neural firings specifically related to the color (red, blue, or the blend of red and blue called purple). No representation or model is constructed of color. I see purple, I comprehend purple.


According to naive realists we should see red and blue at the same time.

We do. We see red and blue together and call it purple.

If you mean direct realists say we should be able to see the entirety of the spectrum and parse individual wavelength, I know of no direct realist who asserts such a thing. From the eyes clear on back thru the chain to the brain, the system is limited. I cannot see the totality of the spectrum. My system (more accurately, I) only apprehend a portion of the spectrum. Much of the information in the light is never apprehended by or conducted into me.

Again: direct realism does not assert perfect apprehension, only direct apprehension.


Even if we average red and blue wavelength light, which a naive realist shouldn't do, we get green wavelength light. But we see purple instead of red and blue, or green. So what is purple and why do we experience it?

Actually, blue and yellow make green. Red and blue make magenta, which is just a fancy shade of purple...which is a color (in the light...that you see [not model internally]).
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: 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?
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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:14 pm
Do you agree that there could be something wrong with, say, your eye(s) or your ear(s) that would lead to inaccurate information about what something is like at the spatiotemporal "point" where your eye or ear is, though?--I mean, where that's not an interpretational issue, per se, but a physical issue with your eye or ear? For example, say if someone has Meniere's disease, so that music sounds very distorted, even though the soundwaves at the point where they make contact with the inner ear don't actually have those characteristics?
Post Reply