Realists as Animals Cannot Recognize Themselves in a Mirror

[RCSaunders]

Amusingly it's naive realists like you who wouldn't survive a psychosis. When the picture on the wall starts to talk to you, you have no choice but to believe that that's what's really happening.

I suspect you really do believe, "the picture on the wall," is real. You call it, TV, and probably believe you are watching reality.

A, "naive realist," knows everything is exactly what it is, not just an appearance, and therefore would never confuse a, "TV," for anything other than a machine. For you, a thing's identity is some imaginary thing produced in the mind and you have no way to distinguish between what exists objectively (like apples and TVs) and what appears on a TV screen. That is a kind of psychosis, a self-induced one no doubted supported by some kind of academic post modernist nonsense and psychobable.

It's alright with me if you hate the real world and believe you can evade it by believing it's not what it appears to be, but it will cost you in the end.

I was talking about a picture, not a TV. What are you babbling about?

Well, apparently you don't understand that a TV, like a wall-hanging large screen TV, is just an electronically produced picture. Since that is too difficult for you, there is no point in discussing this any further.

[Terrapin Station]

If you want to believe the intellectual machinations of a psychotic are knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't.

Amusingly it's naive realists like you who wouldn't survive a psychosis. When the picture on the wall starts to talk to you, you have no choice but to believe that that's what's really happening.

. . . and that's not what naive realism is. No surprise that you don't really get it.

[Atla]

I suspect you really do believe, "the picture on the wall," is real. You call it, TV, and probably believe you are watching reality.

A, "naive realist," knows everything is exactly what it is, not just an appearance, and therefore would never confuse a, "TV," for anything other than a machine. For you, a thing's identity is some imaginary thing produced in the mind and you have no way to distinguish between what exists objectively (like apples and TVs) and what appears on a TV screen. That is a kind of psychosis, a self-induced one no doubted supported by some kind of academic post modernist nonsense and psychobable.

It's alright with me if you hate the real world and believe you can evade it by believing it's not what it appears to be, but it will cost you in the end.

I was talking about a picture, not a TV. What are you babbling about?

Well, apparently you don't understand that a TV, like a wall-hanging large screen TV, is just an electronically produced picture. Since that is too difficult for you, there is no point in discussing this any further.

You started talking about TVs vs what appears on TVs, to run away from addressing the issue with psychosis. And now you pretend to be the smart guy. It's what weak-minded people do who can't handle it when their wrong, childish beliefs get challenged.

[Sculptor]

Freudian Psychologists would have a field day with this thread.
It's almost like VA has looked in the mirror at the horror there and has convinced himself that he is looking at others on the Forum.
Then he has the temerity to accuse others of projection.

[RCSaunders]

I was talking about a picture, not a TV. What are you babbling about?

Well, apparently you don't understand that a TV, like a wall-hanging large screen TV, is just an electronically produced picture. Since that is too difficult for you, there is no point in discussing this any further.

You started talking about TVs vs what appears on TVs, to run away from addressing the issue with psychosis. And now you pretend to be the smart guy. It's what weak-minded people do who can't handle it when their wrong, childish beliefs get challenged.

Why would you worry about what a, "weak-minded," individual, with, "childish beliefs," thinks or says? Save yourself some trouble and ignore him.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are not into "philosophical realism" then you must be into anti-philosophical_realism, i.e. the real apples are not independent of the human conditions.

Sorry you have swallowed that false dichotomy. My views are not dictated by any, "ism," such as either of those wrong views of ontological reality. They make people say absurd things like:

If what is real apple to you is the one you are seeing, then, that apple-seen-as-real is dependent on your human conditions, i.e. you-seeing-the-apple.

An apple's existence is not dependent on anyone's perceiving it.
The apple must exist and be what it is in order for there to be an apple for anyone to perceive.

Yes, the apple's existence is not dependent on anyone perceiving it.
However the existence of the apple must always be qualified to humans perceiving it or is perceivable by humans.

That you stated "The apple must exist and be what it is .." imply an ontological entity that exists independent of human conditions awaiting to be perceived.
This meant that the apple will exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
Thus whatever name or no name you give to your 'rose' it is still "philosophical realism" regardless of whether you accept it or not. [A]

As such you cannot claim there is a real apple but rather only apple-seen-as-real, i.e. what is real apple to you is always qualified by the human senses.

I make no claims about apples. You are the one that claims the existence of apples must be something different (although you never say what) than what is seen, because it is seen, as though that were some kind of defect. Perhaps, in your case, it is. In my case, it isn't.

I the apple I see is not an apple as it actually is, what is it actually? In what way, precisely, is an apple something other than the one with all the properties of an apple is see, feel, smell, and taste. What are the other properties of an apple and how do you know of them.

You can have you mystical, "really real," apples that I cannot see, I'll keep the one's I defectively see, because you can eat them and make apple pie from them. I have no idea what you can do with your mystical apples.

You claim 'what is apple' is dependent of "all the properties of an apple is see, feel, smell, and taste."
In that case, 'what is apple' is conditioned upon the qualifications of you and other humans defined what is the properties of an apple.
As such, "what is apple" cannot be independent of human conditions.
With that you are an anti-philosophical_realist. [.B]

Seem like you are adopting a contradiction, i.e. being [A] and [.B] at the same time and in the same sense [of reality].

So it is either you adopt [A] or [.B].
You are more likely an [A], i.e. a philosophical realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Simon Blackburn has argued that whatever positions they may take in books, articles or lectures, [*or in philosophy forms], naive realism is the view of "philosophers when they are off-duty."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

*my edit/addition

But since we are discussing in a 'philosophy forum' we are supposed to be 'philosophers' on active duty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, apparently you don't understand that a TV, like a wall-hanging large screen TV, is just an electronically produced picture. Since that is too difficult for you, there is no point in discussing this any further.

You started talking about TVs vs what appears on TVs, to run away from addressing the issue with psychosis. And now you pretend to be the smart guy. It's what weak-minded people do who can't handle it when their wrong, childish beliefs get challenged.

Why would you worry about what a, "weak-minded," individual, with, "childish beliefs," thinks or says? Save yourself some trouble and ignore him.

You diverted to escape being cornered or you were ignorant of the point.

Are you familiar with Charles-Bonnet Syndrome?

Charles Bonnet syndrome is a relatively common condition in elderly patients with low visual acuity and may affect up to 12% of the patients with visual impairments.1 The syndrome is characterized by complex visual hallucinations and full or partial preservation of insight, with no other sensory hallucinations or delusions and exclusion of other mental disorders.1
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... 4000200185
Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry

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.

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

So what Blackburn stated is true [Henry's],

• Simon Blackburn has argued that whatever positions they may take in books, articles or lectures, [*or in philosophy forms], naive realism is the view of "philosophers when they are off-duty."

A philosopher [professional or part-time] cannot be a simple-simon.
A philosopher [professional or part-time] has a greater mission towards the progress of the humanity and thus when on active-duty cannot adopt limited naive realism; note Russell's mission for philosophers,

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

[henry quirk]

Simon Blackburn has argued that whatever positions they may take in books, articles or lectures, [*or in philosophy forms], naive realism is the view of "philosophers when they are off-duty."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

*my edit/addition

But since we are discussing in a 'philosophy forum' we are supposed to be 'philosophers' on active duty.

So: the off-duty philosopher can be honest about the subject, but the on-duty philosopher has to pretend otherwise.

Why?

If most philosophers are, as Blackburn sez, naive or direct realists when off-duty, why go against the grain of their own experience and engage in what amounts to self-sabotage & -denial when on-duty?

I know the apple is real, exists independent of me, and that I apprehend the apple as it is, but I'll pretend otherwise.

Makes no damn sense.

[henry quirk]

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.

[Terrapin Station]

Sometimes the more Veritas writes, the less clear his view is, and this seems to be at least partially due to the fact that he mostly seems to be attempting to anthologize other philosopher's views. If one anthologizes too many different passages, too many different philosophers, the resultant combination isn't likely to be very consistent or coherent when taken as a whole.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Exactly. I've seen a few different people recently forward the straw man that direct realism says that perception can't get things wrong, that illusions can't occur, etc. That isn't at all what it says.

[Atla]

Well, apparently you don't understand that a TV, like a wall-hanging large screen TV, is just an electronically produced picture. Since that is too difficult for you, there is no point in discussing this any further.

You started talking about TVs vs what appears on TVs, to run away from addressing the issue with psychosis. And now you pretend to be the smart guy. It's what weak-minded people do who can't handle it when their wrong, childish beliefs get challenged.

Why would you worry about what a, "weak-minded," individual, with, "childish beliefs," thinks or says? Save yourself some trouble and ignore him.

I'm not worrying at all.

[RCSaunders]

Then, please, offer some counter-examples...I look forward to grindin' them to dust.

Exactly. I've seen a few different people recently forward the straw man that direct realism says that perception can't get things wrong, that illusions can't occur, etc. That isn't at all what it says.

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.

[henry quirk]

Then, please, offer some counter-examples...I look forward to grindin' them to dust.

Exactly. I've seen a few different people recently forward the straw man that direct realism says that perception can't get things wrong, that illusions can't occur, etc. That isn't at all what it says.

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.

I'm expectin' the usual list of reasons why direct realism must be false, as well as the usual hair-splittin' over jargon.

Me: I got no interest in the jargon (all the various kinds of realism); and my defense of direct realism will be, er, direct. No traipsin' down sideroads or pickin' at nits.

Simply: 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.

As I say: I look forward to grindin' arguments against or counter to direct realism into dust.

And I'll do it thru the application of common sense alone.

Now, havin' said all that, I welcome any allies who want in on the grindn'. Feel free to amplify anything I offer or to offer your own thinkin'.

I guess we're just waitin' on VA or other opposers to begin with the counter-examples.