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 »

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.
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 »

Yeah, I'm not sure where the misconception/straw man about direct realism is coming from.

Who are folks reading to say that direct realism posits that perception is infallible?

Also, who are they reading to say that realism, direct or not, posits that one perceives "all facts about x" or whatever they're thinking, exactly (a la a belief that one is suggesting that perception of a cube would be perception of all surfaces of the cube, or a belief that one is suggesting that perception of purple would for some reason be perception of the primary colors purple can be "broken into" a la color theory conventions)
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Tue May 11, 2021 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6670
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 5:35 pm 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.
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
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: Tue May 11, 2021 6:15 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm 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.
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
He didn't write anything resembling that, and your initial comment that he quoted has nothing to do with that.
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 6:08 pm
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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:44 am The philosohical_realists are like people who are unable to see both the rabbit and the duck in this image. They can only see one image, either duck or rabbit,

Image
I couldn't care less which philosophical, "ism," those who can't think for themselves embrace but must point out, if anyone sees anything other than a bunch of black lines, it is not perception, it is, "interpretation," of what is seen perfectly well.

I showed this, "picture," to my kitty. She didn't see any duck or rabbit. Is here perception better than a humans?

What sophistical nonsense!
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 »

So somehow our brain does average the perceived wavelenghts, and creates the light we should see.

As I say: from the eyes clear back to brain, the system is finite, it's limited. But that's irrelevant against an argument for direct realism which only asserts: the world is real, the world exists independent of the observer, the observer apprehends the world directly, as it is (not in its entirety).


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.

I took my kid's old crayons: blue and yellow mixed gave me green; red and blue gave me purple, or magenta if you wanna be persnickety. Not seein' where you get this stuff folks seein' red and blue as green.
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 6:22 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 pm
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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:44 am The philosohical_realists are like people who are unable to see both the rabbit and the duck in this image. They can only see one image, either duck or rabbit,

Image
I couldn't care less which philosophical, "ism," those who can't think for themselves embrace but must point out, if anyone sees anything other than a bunch of black lines, it is not perception, it is, "interpretation," of what is seen perfectly well.

I showed this, "picture," to my kitty. She didn't see any duck or rabbit. Is here perception better than a humans?

What sophistical nonsense!
?? Did you mean to quote my post in this response? I was sincerely wondering what your view is re the example I gave.
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 6:15 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm 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.
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
Yes there are neural firings: this is brain workin'. I don't however believe those firings are the brain buildin' models. No, those firings are the brain apprehending and comprehending and labeling and categorin' and associatin'. That neural activity is about recognition, not representation.
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 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:17 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:15 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm 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.
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
He didn't write anything resembling that, and your initial comment that he quoted has nothing to do with that.
Doesn't matter: I answered well anyway.
Atla
Posts: 6670
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 6:44 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:15 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:35 pm 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.
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
Yes there are neural firings: this is brain workin'. I don't however believe those firings are the brain buildin' models. No, those firings are the brain apprehending and comprehending and labeling and categorin' and associatin'. That neural activity is about recognition, not representation.
If it's just recognition and not recognition+representation, then the light that hits the eye, simply gets transmitted somewhere into the brain?
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 6:08 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?
Yes, of course, but that would not mean there was something wrong with perception. Remember, I said, perception is perfect apprehension of reality in its entire metaphysical context. That context includes the entire physical nature of the conscious organism.

If I hear music with cotton in my ears it will (and should) sound different if my perception of sound is correct. If there is damage my eardrum, my hearing will be different than it would be if my eardrum weren't damaged. What I hear with a damaged eardrum is correctly perceiving sound in that metaphysical context. Perception would be mistaken if things sounded the same both with and without a damaged eardrum, and in fact, is one way we learn when something is wrong with the neurological system.

Color blindness, astigmatisms, cararacts, etc. all affect what is seen, because each one of those is a different metaphysical context, just as wearing red tinted glasses or viewing everything in a blue spotlight will look different because the context is different. If seeing something through red tinted glasses, or under blue light, or with eyes without cones or with cataracts looked the same, that would be perceptual mistake. But perception never makes those mistakes and those who want to deny we perceive reality exactly as it is, actually want perception to be some kind of magic that perceives things as though they had no metaphysical context--as though they existed without any relationship to anything else.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 pm 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?
If there is some anomaly in my neurological system related to any aspect of perception, if perception is an accurate awareness of reality as it is, shouldn't perception sans the anomaly be different than perception with it? If there is something wrong, its not conscious perception itself that is wrong, but some aspect of all that relates to that consciousness. That fact, is actually how such anomalies are discovered. Far from being deceptive, such perceptual phenomena are revealing of facts otherwise hidden.
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 6:58 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:44 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:15 pm
So you disagree with the idea that there are red, blue and green cones in human eyes, and when light hits them, they cause neural firings of varying intensities?
Yes there are neural firings: this is brain workin'. I don't however believe those firings are the brain buildin' models. No, those firings are the brain apprehending and comprehending and labeling and categorin' and associatin'. That neural activity is about recognition, not representation.
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.
Atla
Posts: 6670
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 7:18 pm
Atla wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:58 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:44 pm

Yes there are neural firings: this is brain workin'. I don't however believe those firings are the brain buildin' models. No, those firings are the brain apprehending and comprehending and labeling and categorin' and associatin'. That neural activity is about recognition, not representation.
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?
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 6:24 pm Did you mean to quote my post in this response? I was sincerely wondering what your view is re the example I gave.
I don't think so. I think the nested quotes confused me. Could you please point out exactly which example you gave. I'd be glad to comment. Sorry if I missed 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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 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?
Yes, of course, but that would not mean there was something wrong with perception. Remember, I said, perception is perfect apprehension of reality in its entire metaphysical context. That context includes the entire physical nature of the conscious organism.

If I hear music with cotton in my ears it will (and should) sound different if my perception of sound is correct. If there is damage my eardrum, my hearing will be different than it would be if my eardrum weren't damaged. What I hear with a damaged eardrum is correctly perceiving sound in that metaphysical context. Perception would be mistaken if things sounded the same both with and without a damaged eardrum, and in fact, is one way we learn when something is wrong with the neurological system.

Color blindness, astigmatisms, cararacts, etc. all affect what is seen, because each one of those is a different metaphysical context, just as wearing red tinted glasses or viewing everything in a blue spotlight will look different because the context is different. If seeing something through red tinted glasses, or under blue light, or with eyes without cones or with cataracts looked the same, that would be perceptual mistake. But perception never makes those mistakes and those who want to deny we perceive reality exactly as it is, actually want perception to be some kind of magic that perceives things as though they had no metaphysical context--as though they existed without any relationship to anything else.
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:08 pm 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?
If there is some anomaly in my neurological system related to any aspect of perception, if perception is an accurate awareness of reality as it is, shouldn't perception sans the anomaly be different than perception with it? If there is something wrong, its not conscious perception itself that is wrong, but some aspect of all that relates to that consciousness. That fact, is actually how such anomalies are discovered. Far from being deceptive, such perceptual phenomena are revealing of facts otherwise hidden.
Well, but if the question is if you're perceiving things external to your body accurately, certain conditions would prohibit that, but you'd be perceiving what those externals are in relation to what your body is like accurately.
Post Reply