Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 »

Not to "ALL" of us.
I do not accept the naive realists' claims of what is reality.


Yes, all of us. You're just as much a direct realist (in action) as me.


There is no way you can assume what is perceived by other animals is the same of how you perceive the same object.

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 atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer him- or it-self; then what is seen is as it is.


Also, you cannot assume human beings has the final authority on deeming what a thing is as real or most real.

Of course I don't. The apple is real and exists independent of me. Me, I apprehend it.


What I meant is the difference between seeing something with the best eyesight and the the best electron microscope.

No. Seein' more of sumthin' is not seein' it more real.


"the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are."

Your definition here do not seem to align with naive realism.


My definition is exactly in keepin' with the wiki definition.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 5:50 am
Atla wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 5:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 5:02 am
Naive realism claim that whatever is observed represent something that is real in itself, i.e. the thing in itself.
The above claim there is no thing in itself.
Russell clearly disagrees with you, have you actually read him? He says we can conjecture anything we want about the thing in itself, including the conjecture that there is no thing in itself at all.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls; Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

20. Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all
What is the difference in conjecturing God and anything else which at the end remained a conjecture?

Naive realists claim of real thing directly corresponding to what is perceive are not conjectures.
Russell doesn't claim that there is no thing in itself. He claims that we can conjecture anything we want about the thing in itself, including that there is no thing in itself.
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: Mon May 17, 2021 5:47 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 12:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am You are SO ignorant.
Oh yes, I am ignorant of many things. In fact, there are more things I don't know than there are that I do, and that always will be so. That's why I never stop studying, thinking about, and learning new things. It's because there is one thing that terrifies me, that I might end up with that kind of intellectual stagnation that results from believing whatever one has been taught and never thinking for themselves, as you have.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am This is laughable.
Then I hoped you laughed. I like to see people happy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am You are claiming atoms are real because there are real apples, real fruit, real cars, real people, real whatever.
Yes, that's what I said. If there were no real things that can actually be perceived, there would be no atoms.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am What about real atom-bombs that killed millions in Japan?
It is such real atom-bombs that killed millions in Japan that is an indication 'atoms' are real.
You've got it. Good examples. If there were no real atom-bombs, real Japanese, or any other real things one can actually see and feel, there would be no atoms. I'm relieved to see you agree with me.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am To update your knowledge of what are real atoms, just google "real atoms" and the note the numerous researches and images from the search.
I began my study of, "atoms," before you were born and probably before your parents were born. I had my own cloud chamber in 1952, I have stayed pretty much up to date with nuclear physics since. I'll forgive that mistake since there is no way you could have known what I have studied in the past. This is just so you won't make the same ignorant mistake again.

I know you have a little reading comprehension problem, which is nothing to be ashamed of. Lot's of intelligent people have that problem. I never said atoms weren't real. They are as real as momentum or mass. They are explanations of certain aspects of the real physical world we are directly conscious of, just as momentum and mass are, but, if there were no real physical entities that could be perceived, there would be no mass, no momentum, and NO ATOMS.
Your above is based on ignorance that there are atoms because there are real apples.
What you learned in 1952 of Physics are now the dinosaurs of Physics and it is not easy to keep up with the latest in Physics especially when you are THAT old.
Yes, I'm old, but the real difference between us is, I never stopped learning. You apparently have. Most people, like you, learn a few things and then settle back and spend the rest of their lives defending whatever nonsense their teachers have taught them, quoting whatever authorities they have decided to accept, without ever thinking for themselves, ever having an original thought, or learning anything new.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am You should have known the consequences of Big Bang, then subatomic particles, atoms, and smaller elements that enable things like "apples" to emerge much later in time.
Tell you what, show me the big bang, an atom, or any subatomic particle and I'll take you to the grocery store and show you an apple. Why would you think what you have never seen or ever can is more real than what you do see?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am 'What is apple' is merely what humans name a cluster of atoms [and other particles] in a certain configuration.
You have actually seen these atoms you say apples are made out of? I've actually seen apples, picked them off trees I've actually seen, eaten and tasted apples, and made apple pies from them. Where have you ever seen an atom (or "other particles"), or touched them, or tasted them. How do you know they exist at all, or are you just taking the word of things you've read that they exist? Show me an atom and I'll show you an apple and we can compare to see which is more real.
There is no real apple-in-itself but merely apple-via-humanselves, i.e. what is apple is conditioned within human conditions. When apples rot what is still left are the molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles which in this case are more real than the apple-itself.
That is the oddest description of atoms I have ever read. I have studied all the models of atoms through history, including those of Democritus, Dalton, Thompson, Rutherford, Bohr, and Schrödinger, but not one scientist I know ever pictured atoms as the slop left over from rotting apples. That's a whole new theory of atoms. If that is all atoms are, where did they come from before there were apples?
Whilst the molecules, atoms, finer particles are more realistic than the "apple," they themselves are not real in the ultimate sense without being conditioned upon human conditions.
What you do not understand is that atoms are just sciences way of, "picturing," the nature of chemical attributes of actual entities. There are no atoms, "in themselves," only atoms as a means of describing the chemical attributes of physical things. At one time, they were, "pictured," as, "particles," like grains of sand, then as little, "balls," or even miniature, "solar systems," like the Rutherford and Bohr models. If you had kept up with science, you would know atoms are no longer pictured is tiny particles, but more as, "clouds," or, "waves," as in the Schrödinger model. But they are all, just models, and have no existence of their own except as explanations of entities which actually exist on their own and can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted. Atoms are, in fact, just very useful fictions invented to help scientist picture what are only properties and not actual entities at all.

Image

Every actual existent must be different in some way from all other existents. It is not possible that any two things can be identical in every way and be two thing. If there were no difference at all in what were supposed to be two things, they would be the same thing.

In every model, all atoms of the same element are pictured as identical. All iron atoms are identical to all other iron atoms. If atoms were actual existents, every atom would have to be different from every other atom in some way. It would have to have some attribute or characteristic that was different from all other atoms of the same kind. In order to account for the fact they must be different atoms must are pictured as differentiated solely by, "relative attributes," i.e. position and behavior (such as energy levels). But relative attributes are not inherent in entities and only exist as relationships. No real thing can exist with no inherent attributes whatsoever--atoms only exist as concepts for attributes and characteristics of perceivable physical entities, not as independent entities on their.

If actual perceivable physical entities are not truly real, nothing invented to explain their nature (like atoms) can be true either.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 5:47 am Your above is based on ignorance that there are atoms because there are real apples.
What you learned in 1952 of Physics are now the dinosaurs of Physics and it is not easy to keep up with the latest in Physics especially when you are THAT old.
Yes, I'm old, but the real difference between us is, I never stopped learning. You apparently have. Most people, like you, learn a few things and then settle back and spend the rest of their lives defending whatever nonsense their teachers have taught them, quoting whatever authorities they have decided to accept, without ever thinking for themselves, ever having an original thought, or learning anything new.
That you jumped to the conclusion about "my learning state" indicate your very low level of learning ability. Otherwise you would have asked me about or for proofs to LEARN about my current state of learning. You did not attempt to LEARN, did you?

FYI, in the last 12 months or so I have saved appx. 1400 files in 72 folders [articles, books, notes, mostly on morality and ethics] plus those in Kant.
I presume you will make noises I did not learn anything therefrom?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am You should have known the consequences of Big Bang, then subatomic particles, atoms, and smaller elements that enable things like "apples" to emerge much later in time.
Tell you what, show me the big bang, an atom, or any subatomic particle and I'll take you to the grocery store and show you an apple. Why would you think what you have never seen or ever can is more real than what you do see?
Are you implying that you will not believe any warnings [backed by scientific research and forecasts] on hurricanes, tsunami, snow-storm, volcano eruption, earthquakes, other serious threats etc. coming your way, because you did not see them and such are not real?
It is only real when you are directly affected by these catastrophes, which it may be too late if you are one of those unlucky ones.

You should have learned [since you are into Science, Physics, ] that scientific knowledge is the most reliable generating the highest confidence level at present and so are the predictions from scientific knowledge as most possible.

Apple aside, whatever "thing" you insist is real cannot be relied upon by common sense but has to be scientifically verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
As such, what is apple scientifically within Physics [atomic] and Chemistry [chemically] is more realistic than what is apple within the science of Biology [merely genus or species].
Are you insisting there is no difference in the degree of reality between common sense, conventional sense, biology, chemistry and physics?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:30 am 'What is apple' is merely what humans name a cluster of atoms [and other particles] in a certain configuration.
You have actually seen these atoms you say apples are made out of? I've actually seen apples, picked them off trees I've actually seen, eaten and tasted apples, and made apple pies from them.
Where have you ever seen an atom (or "other particles"), or touched them, or tasted them. How do you know they exist at all, or are you just taking the word of things you've read that they exist?
Show me an atom and I'll show you an apple and we can compare to see which is more real.
Note my point that scientific knowledge is more reliable than what you claim based upon your personal senses and perception.

It is not between you and me.
From the humanity perspective, apple-in-terms-of-atoms are more real than what is perceived as an "apple-in-your-eyes"
There is no real apple-in-itself but merely apple-via-humanselves, i.e. what is apple is conditioned within human conditions. When apples rot what is still left are the molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles which in this case are more real than the apple-itself.
That is the oddest description of atoms I have ever read. I have studied all the models of atoms through history, including those of Democritus, Dalton, Thompson, Rutherford, Bohr, and Schrödinger, but not one scientist I know ever pictured atoms as the slop left over from rotting apples. That's a whole new theory of atoms. If that is all atoms are, where did they come from before there were apples?
You insisted you have not stopped learning but your points above exposed the truth your knowledge database has remained stagnant for a long time.

Scientific Knowledge [albeit are at best polished-conjectures] is the most reliable at present. Thus even if the conception of 'atom' has changed, it has no impact on the credibility of scientific knowledge. Scientists will rely on which scientific knowledge that works effectively for them. Example, even there are the later Einsteinian and QM perspectives of reality, the classical Newtonian scientific theories are still useful.

Every scientist [Physics, Chemistry, General] will understand the following;
If put an apple in a tight container with the relevant gases to allow it to rot, what is left surely are the molecules, atoms, particles or in terms of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Whilst the molecules, atoms, finer particles are more realistic than the "seen whole apple," they themselves are not real in the ultimate sense without being conditioned upon human conditions.
What you do not understand is that atoms are just sciences way of, "picturing," the nature of chemical attributes of actual entities.
There are no atoms, "in themselves," only atoms as a means of describing the chemical attributes of physical things.
At one time, they were, "pictured," as, "particles," like grains of sand, then as little, "balls," or even miniature, "solar systems," like the Rutherford and Bohr models.
If you had kept up with science, you would know atoms are no longer pictured is tiny particles, but more as, "clouds," or, "waves," as in the Schrödinger model.
But they are all, just models, and have no existence of their own except as explanations of entities which actually exist on their own and can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted.
Atoms are, in fact, just very useful fictions invented to help scientist picture what are only properties and not actual entities at all.

Image

Every actual existent must be different in some way from all other existents. It is not possible that any two things can be identical in every way and be two thing. If there were no difference at all in what were supposed to be two things, they would be the same thing.

In every model, all atoms of the same element are pictured as identical. All iron atoms are identical to all other iron atoms. If atoms were actual existents, every atom would have to be different from every other atom in some way. It would have to have some attribute or characteristic that was different from all other atoms of the same kind. In order to account for the fact they must be different atoms must are pictured as differentiated solely by, "relative attributes," i.e. position and behavior (such as energy levels). But relative attributes are not inherent in entities and only exist as relationships. No real thing can exist with no inherent attributes whatsoever--atoms only exist as concepts for attributes and characteristics of perceivable physical entities, not as independent entities on their.

If actual perceivable physical entities are not truly real, nothing invented to explain their nature (like atoms) can be true either.
There is nothing that is real-in-itself.
Note my definition of what is real is conditioned upon the specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
This is where we have real scientific knowledge [the most credible], real medical knowledge, real economic, legal, etc.-real-knowledge relative to their respective specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

You are telling me about model-based reality??
I have been quoting Stephen Hawking's Model Dependent Realism so often,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
My point is,
what is the real apple to you based on common sense, conventional sense and naive realism is too crude as compared to the scientific-based-model of reality, i.e. in terms of the biological, chemical and Physical model of reality with their progressive levels of reality respectively.
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 18, 2021 7:53 am My point is,
what is the real apple to you based on common sense, conventional sense and naive realism is too crude as compared to the scientific-based-model of reality, i.e. in terms of the biological, chemical and Physical model of reality with their progressive levels of reality respectively.
I know what your point is, you just have it all backwards.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 7:53 am My point is,
what is the real apple to you based on common sense, conventional sense and naive realism is too crude as compared to the scientific-based-model of reality, i.e. in terms of the biological, chemical and Physical model of reality with their progressive levels of reality respectively.
I know what your point is, you just have it all backwards.
From the beginning in the proto-days of humanity, for all humans there was no such things as apples or oranges, what existed then was merely things that can be eaten to survive from things if eaten will cause pains or death [as experienced and observed].
It was only in time that progress was made by humans in categorizing things, labelling them, then putting them in a taxonomy.

At the present with the current status of human thinking ability and with hindsight we must deliberate on the truth of reality as it was and is.
I have argued scientific knowledge is the most credible and reliable at present despite at its best are merely polished conjectures.

From our most reliable knowledge, i.e. scientific, it is known that the Big Bang happened and propelled [still ongoing] basic elements via various stages to whatever solid things we observed at present.
The power of the BB impel things from the 1. basic particles [atoms, quarks] to 2. stars to 3. stardust to 4 Earth to 5. living things [fruits] to human beings giving names to these things.

From hindsight and our thinking ability, it is a fact 'apples' as in 5 above came after atoms in 1.

Therefore with the power [still ongoing] of the BB forces, "atoms" came before "apples", not your other way round.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
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: Mon May 17, 2021 11:08 am .....
Suggest you read Russell's chapter 1 thoroughly, it is only a short one.
Here is a summary of chapter 1 to help you.
(I have such a summary for every chapter and I do the same for all the relevant books I've read).

SUMMARY - Chapter 1 Problems of Philosophy
  • 1. Is there Knowledge So Certain it can be Exempt from Doubt
    2. Ordinarily we Assume Certainty but Scrutiny reveals otherwise
    3. Start with Experience to search for Certainty of Knowledge
    4. What is so Evident can be doubted to be true
    5. The Table is so real to the Senses but not if we are to be more Precise
    6. There are so many perspectives to what is the Color of the Table
    7. The Different Perspective Critical to the Painter and specialists
    8. There is a Distinction between Appearance and Reality
    9. Table do not have a particular color, depend on light, spectator, angle
    10. Table – no particular texture, normal sight, via microscope
    11. The Shape of the Table in not ‘Real’ but Inferred
    12. Touch of the Table, Sensation Varied
    13. Sound of Table also varied to perspectives
    14. Real Table not as Immediately known by Sensed and Experienced
    15. Sense-data =immediately known in Sensation [immediate aware]
    16. Relation of the Sense Data to the Real Table [Physical Object]
    17. Sense-Data is not THE Table, also not the direct properties of the Table
    18. Real Table [if exists] is Physical Object
    19. All Physical Objects is Matter, Does it exists? If so, what is it?
    20. Berkeley – there is no matter independent of Minds
    21. What is Matter – something opposed to mind
    22. Berkeley Demonstrated ‘Matter’ is not real, sense-data exist as sign to SOMETHING independent of us as idea in the mind of God.
    23. To Others [Idealists], Table seen by Whole Collective Mind of the Universe but they don’t DENY matter. Leibniz – collection of rudimentary minds [monads].
    24. Most Philosophers [realists] agreed There is a Real Table
    25. What Arguments for the Real Table and What is its Nature?
    26. Senses refer only to truth of sense-data not the truth of the Physical Object independent of us.
    27. If Appearance is not Reality, Is there Any Reality at All?
    28. The Ordinary Table raise many doubts and opposing views
    29. Perhaps There Is No Table at All.
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: Wed May 19, 2021 5:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:08 am .....
Suggest you read Russell's chapter 1 thoroughly, it is only a short one.
Here is a summary of chapter 1 to help you.
(I have such a summary for every chapter and I do the same for all the relevant books I've read).

SUMMARY - Chapter 1 Problems of Philosophy
  • 1. Is there Knowledge So Certain it can be Exempt from Doubt
    2. Ordinarily we Assume Certainty but Scrutiny reveals otherwise
    3. Start with Experience to search for Certainty of Knowledge
    4. What is so Evident can be doubted to be true
    5. The Table is so real to the Senses but not if we are to be more Precise
    6. There are so many perspectives to what is the Color of the Table
    7. The Different Perspective Critical to the Painter and specialists
    8. There is a Distinction between Appearance and Reality
    9. Table do not have a particular color, depend on light, spectator, angle
    10. Table – no particular texture, normal sight, via microscope
    11. The Shape of the Table in not ‘Real’ but Inferred
    12. Touch of the Table, Sensation Varied
    13. Sound of Table also varied to perspectives
    14. Real Table not as Immediately known by Sensed and Experienced
    15. Sense-data =immediately known in Sensation [immediate aware]
    16. Relation of the Sense Data to the Real Table [Physical Object]
    17. Sense-Data is not THE Table, also not the direct properties of the Table
    18. Real Table [if exists] is Physical Object
    19. All Physical Objects is Matter, Does it exists? If so, what is it?
    20. Berkeley – there is no matter independent of Minds
    21. What is Matter – something opposed to mind
    22. Berkeley Demonstrated ‘Matter’ is not real, sense-data exist as sign to SOMETHING independent of us as idea in the mind of God.
    23. To Others [Idealists], Table seen by Whole Collective Mind of the Universe but they don’t DENY matter. Leibniz – collection of rudimentary minds [monads].
    24. Most Philosophers [realists] agreed There is a Real Table
    25. What Arguments for the Real Table and What is its Nature?
    26. Senses refer only to truth of sense-data not the truth of the Physical Object independent of us.
    27. If Appearance is not Reality, Is there Any Reality at All?
    28. The Ordinary Table raise many doubts and opposing views
    29. Perhaps There Is No Table at All.
I suggest you work on being able to answer simple one sentence posts so that you can actually address the content of the sentence at hand.
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 »

Apparently I'm done with the conversation so I'll simply re-state my position and leave it at that...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **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 our heads.

*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.

**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.
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 19, 2021 2:44 pm Apparently I'm done with the conversation so I'll simply re-state my position and leave it at that...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **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 our heads.

*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.

**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.
I'm not interested in any particular "-ism," but I agree with your description of perceived reality being reality as it is. I also, like you, prefer the word, "apprehend," because it includes everything, as you say, as well as or consciousness of our body's internal states (interoception) which is usually neglected.

I would add only one thing, reality is all they you describe and includes the fact that we apprehend it, because so many today separate existence from the fact of our consciousness of it, as though existence were real, but our consciousness of it is not.

And, if you will allow it, I'd point out that our direct apprehension of reality (or existence) is our consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
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 19, 2021 2:44 pm Apparently I'm done with the conversation so I'll simply re-state my position and leave it at that...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **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 our heads.

*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.

**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.
Note;
apprehend: to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apprehend

Whatever is "intuitive" is NEVER verified and justified reality. It is at best an opinion without any semblance of being realistic.

As I had stated, your definition above is not in alignment with what is generally accepted within the philosophical community which include THIS forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism
As such your definition of naive or direct realism has no philosophical "currency-value" in the typical philosophical discussions.

Ultimately that is your discretion and personal opinion that is not shared by many.
I'll leave it at that as well.
Post Reply