shiftedShapes comments on Realism : Direct or Indirect? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: kremlin 13 February 2013 09:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (44)
Tags: realism philosophy

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shiftedShapes 14 February 2013 03:19:29AM 0 points [-]

All of the evidence that could be produced would just be a subset of one experiences. If a means of transmission is only reliable to a certain limited extent then the media transmitted could approach the limits of that channel's reliability, but never surpass it.

Comment author: savageorange 14 February 2013 10:26:10AM 0 points [-]

And.. the description implies that is not the case?

What you have said seems like a straightforward consequence of indirect realism.

To put it another way:

If dishonesty is occurring, what, exactly, is being concealed?

Comment author: shiftedShapes 14 February 2013 04:05:59PM 0 points [-]

The primary nature of first person experience.

Comment author: savageorange 15 February 2013 02:33:25AM *  0 points [-]

The primary nature of first person experience

...

we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is. -- wikipedia article

Nope, that's exactly what is explicitly claimed.

Comment author: shiftedShapes 15 February 2013 02:43:25AM 0 points [-]

Direct realism should reference the reality of one's most direct experiences and not a concept that can only be understood indirectly, the "external world," through direct experience.

Comment author: savageorange 15 February 2013 05:59:40AM *  0 points [-]

I assume you mean indirect realism, since that's what that quote is about.

Am I to take it, then, that you would approve of a statement revised to read:

"Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the view that states that we can know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is, and cannot obtain any knowledge directly from reality."

Comment author: shiftedShapes 15 February 2013 01:20:56PM -1 points [-]

I meant direct

Comment author: savageorange 15 February 2013 02:17:06PM *  -1 points [-]

So, right at the beginning of this thread, you meant 'direct'. And you never corrected this misunderstanding, even after I repeatedly talked about indirect realism in my replies?

Comment author: shiftedShapes 15 February 2013 02:34:44PM 0 points [-]

No when I said indirect I meant that as well. My problem is that they both use "reality" to reference a theoretical construct that arguably none of us have ever experienced.

Comment author: savageorange 16 February 2013 12:32:30AM 0 points [-]

They do. What else would we use the word 'reality' to mean? I'm not seeing any alternative here (infinite recursion on the concept of 'reality' doesn't count as a solution.)

Comment author: David_Allen 14 February 2013 04:35:40AM 0 points [-]

If a means of transmission is only reliable to a certain limited extent then the media transmitted could approach the limits of that channel's reliability, but never surpass it.

Actually, error free communication can be established over any channel as long as there is some level of signal (plus some other minor requirements).

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you are making?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit