Indirect realism Flashcards
What is indirect realism?
The theory that all objects exist in an external, real, mind-independent world but that we perceive them in an indirect, mediated way through ideas or sense-data.
realism claim: objects are real
sense data claim: we perceive sense data
representation claim: sense data represents real world
causation claim: real world causes sense data
How does IDR solve the problem of illusions for DR?
The sense-data isn’t always an accurate portrayal of the external world, so sometimes we may perceive things that are different to reality.
How does IDR solve the problem of hallucinations for DR?
Sense-data is sometimes produced that doesn’t reflect anything from the external, mind-independent world so we sometimes perceive things that do not exist.
How does IDR solve the problem of time lag for DR?
We perceive the sense-data directly, but the sense-data is indirect so we perceive the external world indirectly (it is mediated by time).
How does IDR solve the problem of PV for DR?
Objects have primary qualities and secondary qualities. SQs produce sensations in our minds. The sensations produced in the mind differ depending on other conditions in relation to the perceiver, so not everyone’s sense-data will be the same.
Give one attack against IDR.
SCEPTICISM: we are our minds and perceive our sense-data so can confirm they exist. But how do we know the objects exist?
Bc of the indirect nature of perception we should be sceptical of the existence of mind-independent objects.
How does Locke defend IDR against scepticism?
fundamental difference between perceiving mind-independent reality and our imagination:
reality = INVOLUNTARY
imagination = VOLUNTARY
So, reality is separate from imagination.
COUNTER: just because there is a fundamental difference, it doesn’t mean one is real. They might be two different types of imagination.
How does Trotter-Cockburn defend indirect realism against scepticism?
Different senses provide corresponding and consistent data: the data we get from feeling and seeing a tree aligns and ‘agrees’ with each other (e.g. it looks rough and feels rough). So, it makes sense there is a consistent, mind-independent, external world that causes corresponding data through our senses.
COUNTER: this only proves IDR to be fairly likely, not certain. It might be that our brains are deceiving us into thinking the data makes sense and supports each other, in order to make sense of the hallucinations we experience.
How does Russell defend IDR against scepticism?
Although we can’t 100% prove IDR, he says it is highly likely as it is the best hypothesis. It gives the simplest (Ockham’s razor), most plausible, most accurate explanation so is probably the right one.
COUNTER: what we consider is the ‘best’ hypothesis is subjective, so fallible to error (our brains might be deceiving us into believing what we want to believe, as idealism can be uncomfortable to think about)
what are Locke’s primary qualities?
objective properties inherent in the object itself (e.g. size, shape, motion, number)
what are Locke’s secondary qualities?
powers of an object to create sensations in humans (subjective) e.g. colour, taste, smell, feel
indirect realism essay
good as it solves issues with DR but ultimately unconvincing
good, solves illusions and hallucinations and timelag and PV using sense data/ideas
BUT issue of global scepticism, veil of perception, which counters the “realist” part
Locke’s involuntary/voluntary defense
but while it does prove a distinction between perception and conception, it doesn’t prove that this distinction is that perception is of real objects and conception is not. They might be different in another way, and still be both mind-dependent.
So Locke’s defence isn’t thorough enough and IDR remains a failed explanation of perception as it claims realism but simultaneously leads to scepticism of the real world.
Trotter Cockburn: sense data from different sources correspond with each other
BUT only proves IDR likely, not 100%, Descartes 3 waves of doubt shows that an evil deceiver could be fabricating this
Russell’s abductive reasoning: the best hypothesis is that there’s no evil deceiver, a real world exists, and we indirectly perceive it.
BUT we should find a theory that is provable, not just what is probably true. A theory of perception that is 100% undubitable is ideal, but IDR is not this as the “realism” bit is dubitable due to scepticism
Perhaps idealism better
