Get the Philosophy of Perception eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 Get the Philosophy Vibe Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' paperback book, available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Very good. I have studied David Hume and Thomas Reid in the last two months. I find direct realism far better than indirect realism with all its objections.
Yeah. Also I think direct realism doesn't reject the fact that our senses rely on some physical circumstances. Like the act of seeing can change in different environments (like in the water or air). This just means stick in the water have 2 pictures.
Indirect realism does not require mind-body dualism! The color absolutely exists in your brain. The representation and the sense data are things that occur in the brain. The only weird assertion is that the act of perceiving is separate and distinct from the thing that is perceived. Yes that is two things to contemplate, and "dual" means 2, but that doesn't mean that the theory that the mind is non-physical is somehow involved in indirect realism. Then he goes into a line of logic that seems designed to make indirect realism look like idealism. The awful truth is that people constantly disagree about seemingly objective things and I don't see how direct realism accounts for that.
"The color absolutely exists in your brain." I feel ridiculous pointing this out, but here we go: there is zero empirical evidence to support your claim that a 'color' absolutely exists within one's brain. Subjective experiences are not physical entities located within the brain. Neural correlates are not equivalent to the subjective experience of colors to which they correlate for the same reason a photo of a 3D map is not the territory. Moreover, the brain's role as a causative force in subjective experiences is only an assumption. People without a Wernicke's area, living brain, or physical body, cannot be heard by people possessing such structures. Representation may happen via the brain, but not in the brain. Colors may be perceived by the brain, but they are not literally in the brain. Sense perceptions (information) have no intrinsic locality, as they are fundamentally subjective. I challenge you, or anyone, to physically extract a color from the brain. If you cannot, or at least explain in principle how it would be possible, then consider your claim refuted. This extraordinarily ridiculous claim, like any claim, requires only ordinary evidence, so you can pick any hue you fancy. Go ahead and do it - extract a damn color from the brain, living or dead, or what you have. A tiniest tinge of a faint little color will suffice.
@@attilaszekeres7435 You are right; dualism is true. But I will not explain you how to proof this because I want to make money from the proof. Sorry that I am so mean, but one has to live of something.
“Aristotle was the first influential philosopher to say in regard to illusions that we must make a clear distinction between what the senses contribute and the interpretation supplied by the mind and so you know if you look at a bent stick in water a stick that's actually straight but appears bent all the sceptics across the centuries moan these are the lesser skeptics all you see our senses deceive us because it looks bent that's really straight. Aristotle says the senses do not deceive you they give you the actual evidence of the facts the senses cannot deceive you the error comes in the conclusion that you make in the theory you put forth to interpret the data in you're saying that the cause of it is that the stick actually bends in the water rather than some other explanation but don't blame the senses for your confused or erroneous intellectual interpretations”
I think the most logical position to take is that we are perceiving the reality as it is but limited. Like humans can't hear the decibel of sound that dogs hear. Or the way snakes see their preys with their thermal camera-like eyes. Reality may be full of different things like this but my point is that the way evolved us enables us to interact with it in a certain limit. And that's where the subjectivity comes from. With our senses we are experiencing the reality directly and subjectively.
How Would one perceive the world as it is but limited? That would be akin to perceiving a pizza as it is but excluding the crust, no? If so, is that the pizza as it is?
He is saying something similar to that yes . The point is we see a certain portion of reality that part of reality which our senses have evolved to perceived so no we wouldn’t be seeing the pizza precisely as it is in your analogy we’d be seeing a subjective version of the objectively real pizza . To “see “ the pizza it’s entirety would require some highly elaborate non energy or time efficient sensory system that could simultaneously receive and process all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emanating from the pizza across the entire electromagnetic spectre not just confined to the visible light spectrum we perceive . It would be pure speculation what this objectively real pizza would “look “ like .
I think we’d always see the crush though 😆, I’m inclined to think or common sense judgements on shape and structure are quite accurate it’s more colour and smell and sounds that are more subjective. With shape and structure I think the scale and level of emergence are important features of the realness of the object.
Nice video on the differences between naïve and indirect realism and some of the arguments against each. But I think you do a bit of a disservice to direct realism by treating all direct realism as naïve realism. I think you gentlemen and your subscribers would likely appreciate my essay contrasting another type of direct realism with naïve realism and indirect realism. I think that it solves the problems inherent in both. You can google: "Philosophy of Perception: Naïve Realism vs. Representationalism vs. Direct Transformative Process Realism"
I think there is a difference (albeit slight) between non naive direct realism, and naive direct realism. Naive direct realism is supposed to be like a "hard" or "strong" direct realism, in the sense that every physical object we perceive is exactly how the material object is in reality. This view is open to all the points made in this video. A non naive direct realist will claim that we do immediately perceice the material world as it is. I think the difference is that non naive direct realists can claim things like perceptual error is possible. But, this view is problematic in itself because to distinguish between different appearences with reality (straight vs bent stick) will inevitably result in reasons being given to prefer the straight stick as the real material object. But then, if reasons are necessary, we are making an indirect realist argument. So, I can't believe direct realism is tenable. I asked my metaphysics professor a semester ago if an indirect realist is forced to hold a dualist position. I believe he didn't think so. Or maybe it was just that a direct realist does not need to be a physicalist about the mind body problem. I feel like it makes sense to be a dualist if you are an indirect realist, however. For the problems of these views, as well as George Berkeley's ingenious and lucid defense of idealism, I myself subscribe to an idealist world view. Great video guys :)
The straight versus bend illusion is a very bad example. For the light rais that arrive at your eyes show a bend stick. That is not an illusion, that is the real situation at the level of your eyes.
@@Rakscha-Sun Of course it is the real situation as you see it directly as such. But if you are a person who believes that your direct perceptions are obviously and immediately and infallibly indicative of what real material objects are like (naive/direct realist position), then you would believe that there is a bent stick in the water, since it looks that way. So I don't think it's a bad example at all, quite the opposite in fact
The indirect realist requires way more metaphysical woo than direct realism to explain epistemological problems with perception (including the idea that there are such problems with perception and not simply with how we're trained to use referential language). Direct realism answers a LOT of the problems surrounding perception easier -- the LANGUAGE we use trains us to assume any part of our observations contain information about physical environmental entities and that the nearest approximate linguistic "seeming" that "seems" to accurately characterise our perception will be a true proposition. Basically, we mischaracterise what we experience in illusions and hallucinations (our language trains us to assume things at the expense of misidentification) and we hastily make judgments about complex observational phenomena using language riddled with half-baked concepts that is absolutely devoid of identification procedures. There are no problems of perception. There ARE problems with referential competence and the accuracy of perceptual BELIEFS (not perceptions themselves).
6:06 i'm confused on the point on dualism, why doesn't the color exist in the brain, in the mental image, if it perceives it from the sense data? is it saying the mental image from the sense data exists in a non material realm? in direct realism, doesn't the perception also need to exist in some non material realm? or is it directly in the brain? if it's directly in the brain, why can't this be the case for indirect realism?
What exactly is meant by "immediate awareness" within direct realism? Surely, in either case, the object being perceived creates a mental image in the mind, how is that immediate or direct?
What would the direct realist say about the geometry of vision? I get the impression your presentation skewed against direct realism. I see the railway lines appear to converge however they are clearly laid parallel to one another. Doesn't that imply that there are two geometries at play?
I appreciate that you’re providing rebuttals to both camps but the assumption that perception is subject isn’t itself the silver bullet it was presented as for indirect realism. Individual differences in perception are widely studied and it’s often said that what we call reality is just what most people would subjectively agree is out there on a moment by moment basis
We can also cause hallucinations in the lab through brain stimulation, which is exactly the same as only having access to ‘sense data’ (because the hallucinated percept wasn’t caused by sampling the external world)
3:25 I Dont think it is correct. You perceive the whole object not the colour and the physical object differently. This is due to the erronous distinction of primary and secondary qualities of Locke that Hume critized
Direct realism is obviously true, but not the way it’s explained here. Every perception is an abstraction of real-world data. So even if I am on drugs, and I feel like there is literally a pink elephant in the room with me, and any other person that would walk in the room would also see this pink elephant, this is just the perception. The perception is true in the sense that it exists in reality. The only fault comes in when trying to apply this perception to what we consider normal reality. The room that we think of when we think of reality and the room in the perception are just completely different things.
to me it seems like your confusing your senses with perception. we perceive affordances meaning the user potential of things in the world, but we sense light(seeing), vibration(hearing), surface(feeling), etc. our perception is a combination of all our senses so seeing a stick as bent in water doesn't mean we perceive it as bent as it still doesn't feel bent and we can see the water that makes it seem like it's bent. please read the book introduction to ecological psychology. i think this book came out last year which makes the direct perception theory make a lot more sense.
The colour is simply a construction off the mind , due to the way in which sensory input is processed. It’s the silver of reality of the optical reality of the object we can perceive, much like a standard camera is designed to perceive represent colours in a similar way, by contrast and infrared camera would offer and entirely different picture of an object as glowing hot or not relative to its surroundings.
The direct realist perspective could be updated a bit. A lot of modern naive/direct realist do not think that all of our observation reports concern the external. Sellers, Austin, Hanson, and others think that our observation reports are often theory laden and do not consist just of sense data and their are implications to our observations. I am not.an expert on there work but still overal a good video.
The real world exists as a reality regardless of our perception of it. If the environment alters the transmitted image to our eyes, this is not a case of dualism. You talk about our color perception. If you worked in a pain shop, you would know that every color has a number or a combination of say Red, Green, Blue. With normal vision and an identical environment, two people would agree that a presented color would have the same number.
See I don’t have a problem with indirect realism! I completely accept the idea of vale of perception, it makes sense to me. However I don’t know why you would logically assume that nothing might exist at all outside of our perception. Like yes it’s a possibility but I don’t see any good reason to assume that’s the case. Like we are all seeing perception but we agree we are perceiving the same thing even if different. Something has to be there to be perceived in order for the perception to form.
Get the Philosophy of Perception eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe3
Get the Philosophy Vibe Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' paperback book, available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
This channel is criminally underwarched
Lol thank you. Growing day by day :)
Yes. He deserves many more views.
Very good. I have studied David Hume and Thomas Reid in the last two months. I find direct realism far better than indirect realism with all its objections.
Yeah. Also I think direct realism doesn't reject the fact that our senses rely on some physical circumstances. Like the act of seeing can change in different environments (like in the water or air). This just means stick in the water have 2 pictures.
@@ulysses5340 Right.
Indirect realism does not require mind-body dualism! The color absolutely exists in your brain. The representation and the sense data are things that occur in the brain. The only weird assertion is that the act of perceiving is separate and distinct from the thing that is perceived. Yes that is two things to contemplate, and "dual" means 2, but that doesn't mean that the theory that the mind is non-physical is somehow involved in indirect realism. Then he goes into a line of logic that seems designed to make indirect realism look like idealism. The awful truth is that people constantly disagree about seemingly objective things and I don't see how direct realism accounts for that.
@Laura Ffz how so
"The color absolutely exists in your brain."
I feel ridiculous pointing this out, but here we go: there is zero empirical evidence to support your claim that a 'color' absolutely exists within one's brain. Subjective experiences are not physical entities located within the brain. Neural correlates are not equivalent to the subjective experience of colors to which they correlate for the same reason a photo of a 3D map is not the territory. Moreover, the brain's role as a causative force in subjective experiences is only an assumption. People without a Wernicke's area, living brain, or physical body, cannot be heard by people possessing such structures.
Representation may happen via the brain, but not in the brain. Colors may be perceived by the brain, but they are not literally in the brain. Sense perceptions (information) have no intrinsic locality, as they are fundamentally subjective.
I challenge you, or anyone, to physically extract a color from the brain. If you cannot, or at least explain in principle how it would be possible, then consider your claim refuted. This extraordinarily ridiculous claim, like any claim, requires only ordinary evidence, so you can pick any hue you fancy. Go ahead and do it - extract a damn color from the brain, living or dead, or what you have. A tiniest tinge of a faint little color will suffice.
@@attilaszekeres7435 You are right; dualism is true. But I will not explain you how to proof this because I want to make money from the proof. Sorry that I am so mean, but one has to live of something.
“Aristotle was the first influential philosopher to say in regard to illusions that we must make a clear distinction between what the senses contribute and the interpretation supplied by the mind and so you know if you look at a bent stick in water a stick that's actually straight but appears bent all the sceptics across the centuries moan these are the lesser skeptics all you see our senses deceive us because it looks bent that's really straight. Aristotle says the senses do not deceive you they give you the actual evidence of the facts the senses cannot deceive you the error comes in the conclusion that you make in the theory you put forth to interpret the data in you're saying that the cause of it is that the stick actually bends in the water rather than some other explanation but don't blame the senses for your confused or erroneous intellectual interpretations”
Great content. And you're teaching me a great deal through your videos. Even so, it's difficult to hear them.
Thank you very much. Very happy to see these videos are helping.
I think the most logical position to take is that we are perceiving the reality as it is but limited. Like humans can't hear the decibel of sound that dogs hear. Or the way snakes see their preys with their thermal camera-like eyes. Reality may be full of different things like this but my point is that the way evolved us enables us to interact with it in a certain limit. And that's where the subjectivity comes from. With our senses we are experiencing the reality directly and subjectively.
Good point
How Would one perceive the world as it is but limited? That would be akin to perceiving a pizza as it is but excluding the crust, no? If so, is that the pizza as it is?
He is saying something similar to that yes . The point is we see a certain portion of reality that part of reality which our senses have evolved to perceived so no we wouldn’t be seeing the pizza precisely as it is in your analogy we’d be seeing a subjective version of the objectively real pizza . To “see “ the pizza it’s entirety would require some highly elaborate non energy or time efficient sensory system that could simultaneously receive and process all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emanating from the pizza across the entire electromagnetic spectre not just confined to the visible light spectrum we perceive . It would be pure speculation what this objectively real pizza would “look “ like .
I think we’d always see the crush though 😆, I’m inclined to think or common sense judgements on shape and structure are quite accurate it’s more colour and smell and sounds that are more subjective. With shape and structure I think the scale and level of emergence are important features of the realness of the object.
6:58 do you mean indirect realist
Nice video on the differences between naïve and indirect realism and some of the arguments against each. But I think you do a bit of a disservice to direct realism by treating all direct realism as naïve realism. I think you gentlemen and your subscribers would likely appreciate my essay contrasting another type of direct realism with naïve realism and indirect realism. I think that it solves the problems inherent in both. You can google: "Philosophy of Perception: Naïve Realism vs. Representationalism vs. Direct Transformative Process Realism"
I think there is a difference (albeit slight) between non naive direct realism, and naive direct realism. Naive direct realism is supposed to be like a "hard" or "strong" direct realism, in the sense that every physical object we perceive is exactly how the material object is in reality. This view is open to all the points made in this video. A non naive direct realist will claim that we do immediately perceice the material world as it is. I think the difference is that non naive direct realists can claim things like perceptual error is possible. But, this view is problematic in itself because to distinguish between different appearences with reality (straight vs bent stick) will inevitably result in reasons being given to prefer the straight stick as the real material object. But then, if reasons are necessary, we are making an indirect realist argument. So, I can't believe direct realism is tenable.
I asked my metaphysics professor a semester ago if an indirect realist is forced to hold a dualist position. I believe he didn't think so. Or maybe it was just that a direct realist does not need to be a physicalist about the mind body problem. I feel like it makes sense to be a dualist if you are an indirect realist, however.
For the problems of these views, as well as George Berkeley's ingenious and lucid defense of idealism, I myself subscribe to an idealist world view.
Great video guys :)
Thank you! And great input into the discussion :)
The straight versus bend illusion is a very bad example. For the light rais that arrive at your eyes show a bend stick. That is not an illusion, that is the real situation at the level of your eyes.
@@Rakscha-Sun Of course it is the real situation as you see it directly as such.
But if you are a person who believes that your direct perceptions are obviously and immediately and infallibly indicative of what real material objects are like (naive/direct realist position), then you would believe that there is a bent stick in the water, since it looks that way.
So I don't think it's a bad example at all, quite the opposite in fact
very precise and clear points
The indirect realist requires way more metaphysical woo than direct realism to explain epistemological problems with perception (including the idea that there are such problems with perception and not simply with how we're trained to use referential language).
Direct realism answers a LOT of the problems surrounding perception easier -- the LANGUAGE we use trains us to assume any part of our observations contain information about physical environmental entities and that the nearest approximate linguistic "seeming" that "seems" to accurately characterise our perception will be a true proposition.
Basically, we mischaracterise what we experience in illusions and hallucinations (our language trains us to assume things at the expense of misidentification) and we hastily make judgments about complex observational phenomena using language riddled with half-baked concepts that is absolutely devoid of identification procedures.
There are no problems of perception. There ARE problems with referential competence and the accuracy of perceptual BELIEFS (not perceptions themselves).
Great video. I've been looking for this philosophy for a while as this is what I tend to believe in.
6:06
i'm confused on the point on dualism, why doesn't the color exist in the brain, in the mental image, if it perceives it from the sense data? is it saying the mental image from the sense data exists in a non material realm? in direct realism, doesn't the perception also need to exist in some non material realm? or is it directly in the brain? if it's directly in the brain, why can't this be the case for indirect realism?
What exactly is meant by "immediate awareness" within direct realism? Surely, in either case, the object being perceived creates a mental image in the mind, how is that immediate or direct?
Gibson's theory of direct realism is not a naive theory, nor is it wounded by illusions or qualia.
6:57 I think you meant to say "indirect realist"
Sir, your videos are helpful to every student
Thank you, glad we could help.
...easy to understand through dialogue. Thanks from pakistan.
Pls make vidoes on Moore sense data and Russell
What would the direct realist say about the geometry of vision?
I get the impression your presentation skewed against direct realism. I see the railway lines appear to converge however they are clearly laid parallel to one another. Doesn't that imply that there are two geometries at play?
I love your vids, keep up the great work
Thank you very much, so glad you're enjoying our work.
nice video, please keep it up. i would like if you can make a video on the synergy between logic and perception.
Thank you :) and we will look into your suggestion.
love philosophy videos like this
Thank you glad you enjoyed it!
what about people that are color blind? does this affect direct realism?
Great video, man. Interesting and entertaining ! :)
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.
This video resembles the a level spec for aqa philosophy that I currently studying, is this video intended for revision purposes?
Yes, we have a few videos that follow the AQA/OCR syllabus. Hope this helps with your studies.
I love this channel 💞💞💞
Thank you :D
Another great video!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed.
No philosophy lacks contradictions. Is there a philosophy that accounts for contradictions as a necessity?
I appreciate that you’re providing rebuttals to both camps but the assumption that perception is subject isn’t itself the silver bullet it was presented as for indirect realism. Individual differences in perception are widely studied and it’s often said that what we call reality is just what most people would subjectively agree is out there on a moment by moment basis
We can also cause hallucinations in the lab through brain stimulation, which is exactly the same as only having access to ‘sense data’ (because the hallucinated percept wasn’t caused by sampling the external world)
love u for this
i like this so much
Thank you :)
But An illusion can be considered a direct realism though since the illusion is indeed a part of the external world.
3:25 I Dont think it is correct. You perceive the whole object not the colour and the physical object differently. This is due to the erronous distinction of primary and secondary qualities of Locke that Hume critized
Ver good video.
Thank you!
george is holding that carrot in a very normal and natural way
Direct realism is obviously true, but not the way it’s explained here. Every perception is an abstraction of real-world data. So even if I am on drugs, and I feel like there is literally a pink elephant in the room with me, and any other person that would walk in the room would also see this pink elephant, this is just the perception. The perception is true in the sense that it exists in reality. The only fault comes in when trying to apply this perception to what we consider normal reality. The room that we think of when we think of reality and the room in the perception are just completely different things.
Guy on the left is always complaining 😂
to me it seems like your confusing your senses with perception. we perceive affordances meaning the user potential of things in the world, but we sense light(seeing), vibration(hearing), surface(feeling), etc. our perception is a combination of all our senses so seeing a stick as bent in water doesn't mean we perceive it as bent as it still doesn't feel bent and we can see the water that makes it seem like it's bent.
please read the book introduction to ecological psychology. i think this book came out last year which makes the direct perception theory make a lot more sense.
You should change voice or these cartoon... getting knowledge is difficult with this viice or the cartoons as well voice speed...
good stuff
Thank you.
loved it
The color point is a good one. In what sense does color exist when we are not directly perceiving it?
The colour is simply a construction off the mind , due to the way in which sensory input is processed. It’s the silver of reality of the optical reality of the object we can perceive, much like a standard camera is designed to perceive represent colours in a similar way, by contrast and infrared camera would offer and entirely different picture of an object as glowing hot or not relative to its surroundings.
What about the kind of realism that views reality in a reductionist perspective
The direct realist perspective could be updated a bit. A lot of modern naive/direct realist do not think that all of our observation reports concern the external. Sellers, Austin, Hanson, and others think that our observation reports are often theory laden and do not consist just of sense data and their are implications to our observations. I am not.an expert on there work but still overal a good video.
That's exactly what I saw the last time I took drugs...
The real world exists as a reality regardless of our perception of it. If the environment alters the transmitted image to our eyes, this is not a case of dualism. You talk about our color perception. If you worked in a pain shop, you would know that every color has a number or a combination of say Red, Green, Blue. With normal vision and an identical environment, two people would agree that a presented color would have the same number.
See I don’t have a problem with indirect realism! I completely accept the idea of vale of perception, it makes sense to me. However I don’t know why you would logically assume that nothing might exist at all outside of our perception. Like yes it’s a possibility but I don’t see any good reason to assume that’s the case. Like we are all seeing perception but we agree we are perceiving the same thing even if different. Something has to be there to be perceived in order for the perception to form.
Why is violet so funny
hello
Hi there.
wut
Explain 😂😂😂😂😂😂