If people with realist intuitions argue against direct realism, they usually start by taking the existence of mental objects (such as images) at face value. Their argument usually goes something like “well clearly those mental objects can’t be the external objects because xyz”, where xyz can be about the brain’s processing pipeline or about visual illusions. This xyz stuff is in fact pretty hard to argue with, which makes the entire thing look a little silly/trivial.
However the actual controversial step here is completely unacknowledged, which is to assume that mental objects exist at all. A Dennettian-aligned skeptic can simply argue that our talk of seeing visual images is just a clunky/confused way to describe the limited access we have to our visual processing pipeline—which is in fact something like a highly sparse representation, or maybe even a list of features—and nothing like a 2d pixel image (or even vector image) is ever actually created.
Under this view, insofar as “what we see” refers to any object at all, well it kind of does refer to the external physical object. Not in the sense that we have some magical ability to read off real properties of the physical object, but just in the sense that there is nothing else causally upstream of our reports about seeing visual images.
So what about visual illusions? Well, visual illusions are cases where our reports aren’t accurate. But so what? This just means we’re making a mistake in describing the external thing, not that we’re describing anything else. I don’t think that the frequency of illusions or the magnitude of the mistake is actually all that relevant.
My hot take is that realists generally don’t understand this and that’s why virtually every post arguing against direct realism fails to address the actual crux.
So what about visual illusions? Well, visual illusions are cases where our reports aren’t accurate. But so what? This just means we’re making a mistake in describing the external thing, not that we’re describing anything else. I don’t think that the frequency of illusions or the magnitude of the mistake is actually all that relevant.
No and no. Perceptions and misperceptions aren’t just reports, for one thing.
For another, perceptual illusions don’t have to result in false reports , because you can cognitively compensate for them...adults don’t believe pencils bend in water.
To explain dream and hallucination as misperception, as crude DR does, is to stretch a theory to breaking point...if you are dreaming with your eyes closed, there is no external object to be confused about.
Not the OP, but here is an attempt.
If people with realist intuitions argue against direct realism, they usually start by taking the existence of mental objects (such as images) at face value. Their argument usually goes something like “well clearly those mental objects can’t be the external objects because xyz”, where xyz can be about the brain’s processing pipeline or about visual illusions. This xyz stuff is in fact pretty hard to argue with, which makes the entire thing look a little silly/trivial.
However the actual controversial step here is completely unacknowledged, which is to assume that mental objects exist at all. A Dennettian-aligned skeptic can simply argue that our talk of seeing visual images is just a clunky/confused way to describe the limited access we have to our visual processing pipeline—which is in fact something like a highly sparse representation, or maybe even a list of features—and nothing like a 2d pixel image (or even vector image) is ever actually created.
Under this view, insofar as “what we see” refers to any object at all, well it kind of does refer to the external physical object. Not in the sense that we have some magical ability to read off real properties of the physical object, but just in the sense that there is nothing else causally upstream of our reports about seeing visual images.
So what about visual illusions? Well, visual illusions are cases where our reports aren’t accurate. But so what? This just means we’re making a mistake in describing the external thing, not that we’re describing anything else. I don’t think that the frequency of illusions or the magnitude of the mistake is actually all that relevant.
My hot take is that realists generally don’t understand this and that’s why virtually every post arguing against direct realism fails to address the actual crux.
No and no. Perceptions and misperceptions aren’t just reports, for one thing.
For another, perceptual illusions don’t have to result in false reports , because you can cognitively compensate for them...adults don’t believe pencils bend in water.
To explain dream and hallucination as misperception, as crude DR does, is to stretch a theory to breaking point...if you are dreaming with your eyes closed, there is no external object to be confused about.