Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
- 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
I am relying on solid sound arguments that naive realism is not a tenable theory to represent reality.
I'm sorry, VA, but your arguments aren't sound. I've ground them up.
But, we can go thru them again, if you like.
List your arguments. Leave out the commentary. I'll grind 'em down.
I'm sorry, VA, but your arguments aren't sound. I've ground them up.
But, we can go thru them again, if you like.
List your arguments. Leave out the commentary. I'll grind 'em down.
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
The bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am"Take my words for it"??RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:00 pmFirst 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.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.
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.
I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant.
Maybe the example I shown was not contrasted enough.
Here is another;
If you cannot see two 'bend' lines, you should consult a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Off you trot to the shrink!
- 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
That definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:29 amI had already given the link;Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:11 amIn other words, it's from the definition according to whom?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:26 am
I stated 'in principle'.
That is from the definition of what is naive realism.
again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
In fact, that Wikipedia article explicity says, ". . . that are usually perceived correctly" and "By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is"
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Thu May 13, 2021 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
And you know exactly what those processes are and exactly how they produce what you call, "seeing." Is that right? Because otherwise you are just guessing or presuming those processes (which I very much doubt you can actually describe) produce anything except the processes themselves. Guessing is neither science or philosophy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am What is perception or seeing is a culmination of a set of complex processes.
So you are saying the drawing you are using to illustrate what you call an illusion, is not really a drawing, "in itself," even though it looks lake a drawing, because, "it is meaningless and nonsense to posit 'what things really are" by themselves.'"Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am In a natural setting of reality ... 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.
But if what looks like a drawing cannot really be a drawing, but only an illusion, what are you using to prove your point.[/quote]
Odd that all those who hate reality and want to prove that reality is not exactly what we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste always have to use that world exactly as it is perceived as their evidence--then deny it.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Thu May 13, 2021 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
I have to admit, Sculptor, in spite of our less important disagreements, when you're right, you are delightfully droll.
Unfortunately, I doubt the subject of your comment is capable of appreciating it.
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Only a moron can't recognise the implication. And you are a moron, which is why you can't recognise the implication.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 1:18 pm That definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.
If perception is fallible then how do you decide which percepts to trust as "real" which percepts to doubt as failures of perception?
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
That's not a flaw, it's the only reasonable guess. It's simply the case that no matter how we conceive of this objective reality, our conception will always be dependent on "human conditions", in other words we can't get outside our own minds.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:28 am 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.
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Indeed. I know he's not listening. But I am glad that someone notived my comment.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:08 pmI have to admit, Sculptor, in spite of our less important disagreements, when you're right, you are delightfully droll.
Unfortunately, I doubt the subject of your comment is capable of appreciating it.
This whole thread is a massive projection of himself
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
You as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 pmWhat does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Note the additional point to the same definition,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 1:18 pmThat definition neither explicitly says nor implies the notion of perception being infallible under naive realism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:29 amI had already given the link;Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:11 am
In other words, it's from the definition according to whom?
again,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
In fact, that Wikipedia article explicity says, ". . . that are usually perceived correctly" and "By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is"
That errors are accepted does not compromised the essence of the naive realism principle.According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves.
To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
It not because "I know" but it is scientific knowledge that I referred to.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:02 pmAnd you know exactly what those processes are and exactly how they produce what you call, "seeing." Is that right? Because otherwise you are just guessing or presuming those processes (which I very much doubt you can actually describe) produce anything except the processes themselves. Guessing is neither science or philosophy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am What is perception or seeing is a culmination of a set of complex processes.
How is that you ignored this definition I included in my post,
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Your above is a strawman.So you are saying the drawing you are using to illustrate what you call an illusion, is not really a drawing, "in itself," even though it looks lake a drawing, because, "it is meaningless and nonsense to posit 'what things really are" by themselves.'"Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am In a natural setting of reality ... 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.
But if what looks like a drawing cannot really be a drawing, but only an illusion, what are you using to prove your point.
I did not say what I presented is NOT a drawing. It is a drawing drawn by humans, thus cannot be a drawing-in-itself, i.e. independent of human conditions. Therefore it is meaningless and nonsense for you to insist that is a drawing-in-itself.
According to the Herring Illusion, normal people will naturally perceive two bend lines in that drawing.
This is one reason [among many] naive realism is flawed.
Your above is based on ignorance of what reality is.Odd that all those who hate reality and want to prove that reality is not exactly what we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste always have to use that world exactly as it is perceived as their evidence--then deny it.
To me reality, i.e. all-there-is and is part-and-parcel-with, is something I unite and embraced with intimately, i.e. not independent of the human conditions.
In your case, you divorced reality from yourself [independent] and merely assumed what is reality via correspondence with words and symbols, and is NEVER ever directly acquainted with reality in-itself.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Do you even understand what is induction and how Science leverage on induction in producing scientific knowledge which has contributed to humanity greatly?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 amThe bent lines are the inevitablity of subjectivity, which you are blind to.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am"Take my words for it"??RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:00 pm
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.
I am sorry for you that you are so ignorant.
Maybe the example I shown was not contrasted enough.
Here is another;
If you cannot see two 'bend' lines, you should consult a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Off you trot to the shrink!
The Herring Illusion is backed by its scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering_illusion
Therefore it is objective i.e. intersubjective consensus.
You are so ignorant yet so arrogant.Researcher Mark Changizi explained the illusion in a 2008 article:
"Evolution has seen to it that geometric drawings like this elicit in us premonitions of the near future. The converging lines toward a vanishing point (the spokes) are cues that trick our brains into thinking we are moving forward as we would in the real world, where the door frame (a pair of vertical lines) seems to bow out as we move through it and we try to perceive what that world will look like in the next instant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hering_illusion
Note this,
ultracrepidarian: noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise.
or
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. ... The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
If philosophical realists admit and concede it is a reasonable guess, then there is no issue.Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 4:01 pmThat's not a flaw, it's the only reasonable guess. It's simply the case that no matter how we conceive of this objective reality, our conception will always be dependent on "human conditions", in other words we can't get outside our own minds.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:28 am 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.
But philosophical realists insist there is a real independent objective reality out there as real awaiting discovery.
In addition, realists will condemn those who think otherwise from the above.Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views [...]
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
It would be of no issue if realists merely guess [reasonably] and assume there is an independent [of human conditions] objective out there, for intellectual and discussion sake, but not insisting there is something really real out there.
This is what modern science would do, i.e. merely assuming there is an objective world out there awaiting discovery.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror
Here is a clue,Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:25 pmYou as that "human mind", can't be outside that "human mind". You can't be outside yourself.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:46 pmWhat does your phrase, "outside our own minds," refer to?
VA thinks that this proves that the human mind (where the "human conditions" are) has no outside.
1. The whole universe [all of reality] can be viewed as a "womb" that is sustaining human life and other beings and all are interconnected as a oneness [non-dual] in the ultimate sense.
2. But of course there are other perspectives, senses and duality in spontaneity within oneness. Here is where there is the duality of internalness and externalness, i.e. giving rise to an independent external world but this is subsumed within 1.