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?)