= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shiftedShapes comments on Realism : Direct or Indirect? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
The primary nature of first person experience.
...
Nope, that's exactly what is explicitly claimed.
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.
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:
I meant direct
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?
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.
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.)
Just what one experiences, with the external world that we agree upon going by consensus reality. Is that what you were asking.