Epistemology - Perception Flashcards
What is direct realism
Direct realism is the idea that we perceive things immediately without anything between us and what we perceive (an intermediary). There is the perceived and the mind-independent object being perceived and their properties. It is our senses which allow us to perceive them immediately/directly.
The naïve view of direct realism suggests that we peroxide objects as they truly are.
Define empiricism and rationalism
Empiricism: an epistemological position stating beliefs and knowledge must be based on experience (perception of any kind) (links to David Hume).
Rationalism: regards reason as the primary source of knowledge (links to Descartes).
Define realism and anti-realism
Realism: objects exist independent of our mind.
Anti-realism: objects are mind-dependent.
Realism is seen as the common sense view as it states that (objects and properties are not subjective as they exist in the same way regardless of how we perceive them).
Issue with direct realism: perceptual variation
BERKELEY (anti-realist perspective): criticises direct realism, in Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous he gives the example of a cloud. If you are in a different position such as further away you could perceive the sam cloud to have different properties, he says it makes no sense to claim that it has any real colour and that colour is an effect made upon us and not something in objects themselves and it is not something that is objectively real. It can be argued that this is too skeptical, practical activities in daily life such as measuring things rely on things being real.
(Textbook: if you look at a flower through a microscope it would look different than to the naked eye).
RUSSEL (realist perspective): His objection to direct realism is that colour/other properties change or are perceived differently in different conditions such as different lighting so an object cannot have any one particular colour and we cannot be perceiving the object directly.
LOCKE (realist perspective): His objection to direct realism is that as the same temperature water can feel different to two hands temperature cannot be a property which we perceive directly.
Response to the issue of perceptual variation with direct realism
We are aware that at times there can be perspective differences which can make an object seem to possess different properties so it doesn’t trick us into thinking to object itself is really a different colour. Direct realists argue that Russel makes an unwarranted inference.
Can measure objects and get the same measurements.
What is sense data
(RUSSEL) the properties we experience are our specific sense data, degrees to immediate objects of perception and what we are directly aware of (properties such as colour) not the physical objects which cause them. The table itself is perceived indirectly through our awareness of sense data. Sense data is certain in that an individual cannot be mistaken in how something appears to them. APPEARANCES/OBJECTS OF IMMEDIATE PERCEPTION, THESE ARE DISTINCT FROM THE OBJECT, WE ARE NOT PERCEIVING THE OBJECT DIRECTLY.
Issue with direct realism: illusion
We do not directly perceive the object itself, but an appearance of the object.
P1 - object appears to have a particular property (subject to illusion)
P2 - Perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property/sense data
P3 - The object does not have this property in reality
C1 - What the perceiver is directly aware of and what is real is DISTINCT
C2 - So direct realism is false, we do not perceive physical objects directly
Response to the issue of illusion with direct realism
Direct realists can respond to P2 (perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property / sense data) and can claim that they are directly aware of the real oar but it is the circumstances which makes it appear bent, this does not mean that there is something between our direct perception of the oar, it is just the manner of the oars appearance. Therefore we do not have to suppose that objects have to appear directly as they are. as things can appear differently depending on how they relate to the perceivers so it does not need to be deemed as ‘sense data’ or seen as two distinct objects.
Issue with direct realism: hallucination
P1: hallucinations occur when someone perceives something that does not exist in their mind.
C1: So what they perceive, their hallucination, only exists in their mind.
P2: Hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception.
P3: If hallucinations and veridical perceptions are subjectively indistinguishable then the person must be aware of the same thing in both cases.
C2: So, from C1, P2 and P3, what they are directly aware of during veridical perception must also be in their mind.
C3: Hence we perceive the world indirectly and direct realism is false.
Response to the issue of hallucination with direct realism
Direct realists can respond to P3 (If hallucinations and veridical perceptions are subjectively indistinguishable then the person must be aware of the same thing in both cases) and can claim that just because they can be indistinguishable, does not mean they are the same phenomena in reality. Hallucinations have a different causal history from veridical perception as rather than being caused by physical objects impacting our senses, they are caused by a malfunction in the brain. Therefore, while hallucinations occur within the mind, this is not true of veridical perception, which we perceive directly.
Issue with direct realism: time lag argument
Russel, example of sound of thunder and light travelling from the sun (8mins).
P1: The light from distant objects (such as the sun) takes time to reach our eyes.
C1: So what we are seeing now may no longer exist.
C2: So what we are seeing and what there is is different.
P2: This is no less true for physical objects at any distance.
C3: And so, what we see directly is sense data not physical objects and direct realism is false.
Strength: rooted in scientific understanding.
Response to the issue of time-lag with direct realism
Could criticise C1&2 (C1: So what we are seeing now may no longer exist.
C2: So what we are seeing and what there is is different.) by arguing that we are still directly perceiving the object, just as it was. Shows DRs must give up the naive Dr where everything is believed to be perceived instantaneously, we cannot be aware of how objects are now but as they were.
Strength: in line with how we live/describe things in our life.
