Perception- Direct Realism Flashcards
What is the argument from perceptual variation?
What we perceive isn’t exactly the same as what is in the external world.
1) there are variations in perception
2) our perception varies without corresponding changed in the physical object we perceive.
3. ) therefore, the properties physical objects have and the properties they appear to have are not identical.
4) therefore, what we are immediately aware of in perception is not exactly the same as what exists independently of our minds.
5) therefore, we do not perceive physical objects directly.
What is Direct realism?
Physical objects exist independently of our minds and of our perceptions of them and the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties.
What can be used as an example of perceptual variation?
Russell’s table - looking an even brown colour all over or even the shape the desk remains rectangular even as the way it looks to me changes as I look at it from different angles.
What is sense data?
A sensation that you are immediately aware of something the content of my perceptual experience. Exactly how we perceive them to be
ACTUAL: mental images or representations of what is perceived, the content of perceptual experience. If sense-data exist, they are the immediate objects of perception and are ‘private,’ mind-dependent mental things.
Objections to Russell for direct realism
Direct realists argue that perceptual variation assumes we are not aware that the object such as a table is not truly the colour/shape at which it appears when we perceive it at different angles. As humans we have the capability of understanding that this is not the case - we can see the truth using our senses.
What are the main theorists involved with the argument for Direct Realism?
> Thomas Reid: naive common sense realist = there IS an external world
Russell : What we perceive isn’t the same as what is actually outside of our mind - Russell’s table
Plato: Everything linking to Plato
Descartes: the cogito : I think therefore I am
Locke:
What is Descartes first arguments?
> Doubting his senses,: sense sometimes deceive us,e.g. victims of illusion.
Dreaming: deluded when we dream, can we be sure we are not in a dream right now?
Evil Demon: whether or not I am dreaming, the things I am dreaming about must have some basis in reality, A powerful demon has made anything appear to be the case. life could have been a fiction created by the demon.
The COGITO:
start with that you can never be 100% certain of anything again. Nothing is certain perhaps you do not even exist at all.
However, my own existence cannot be doubted because when I attempt to doubt it , I recognise that there must be something doing the doubting.
I think, therefore I am.
It is impossible to doubt your own existence, the fact you are doubting implied that you exist!
Clear and distinct ideas:
His belief that he exists is so clear and distinct in his mind that he can immediately intuit its truth by reason. Any other ideas that are as clear and distinct as this must be true
What is Descartes?
A rationalist.
What is Descartes method of doubt?
Descartes attempts to doubt all that he thought to be true up to that point in his life in an attempt to find something beyond doubt. ‘Waves of doubt.’ each one represents a stronger and more extreme doubt than the last.
What are the doubts that Descartes has?
- ) The argument from Illusion: senses cannot be trusted as they sometimes deceive us. However, Descartes concludes that he would be insane if he considered the senses misled him to the extent of thinking he had a body when he did not.
- ) The dreaming argument: we may be dreaming and not know it. Daily things could be reproduced in a dream. However, because his dreams contain objects which have shape, colour etc, it is reasonable to assume the ideas they represent are real in some sense., even if the picture they make is not a true one.E.G CENTAUR = made up of two things combined that are real even though the creature itself is a mythical one.
- ) The Malignant Demon argument:
What are the doubts that Descartes has?
1.) The argument from Illusion: senses cannot be trusted as they sometimes deceive us. However, Descartes concludes that he would be insane if he considered the senses misled him to the extent of thinking he had a body when he did not.
2.) The dreaming argument: we may be dreaming and not know it. Daily things could be reproduced in a dream. However, because his dreams contain objects which have shape, colour etc, it is reasonable to assume the ideas they represent are real in some sense., even if the picture they make is not a true one.E.G CENTAUR = made up of two things combined that are real even though the creature itself is a mythical one.
3.) The Malignant Demon argument:
We may be deceived by some supernatural, all-powerful being.
> God being good would not create us in order for us to be deceived , however, we are sometimes wrong in our judgements and God allows these mistakes, so why should he not allow deception on a grander scale? (such as the illusion that a physical world exists independently of us?)
What does Descartes argue happens when you attribute more power to your cause?
The less likelihood of there being such a power making us easily capable of being mistaken or deceived.
This is because - any being capable of being mistaken would be less perfect.
Therefore, accordingly would its creator be less powerful, A PERFECT AND ALL POWERFUL BEING WOULD NOT CREATE AN IMPERFECT THING!
How does Descartes finalise his argument?
By not wishing to attribute anything but goodness to God,. All possible deception must be from a malignant demon, whose sole purpose is to mislead us.
Descartes clear, objective being that: if he can prove God exists and has not created him to be constantly mistaken, then he can prove that the malignant demon argument is false, that his senses are more or less trustworthy and that the physical world exists.
What does Direct Realism claim?
what we perceive are mind-independent physical objects and their properties.
Who founded the argument from perceptual variation?
Bertrand Russell
What is the argument from hallucination - or how does it differ from that of illusion?
The fact that with illusions we are still perceiving a physical object that is subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception. However, in Hallucinations, you don’t perceive a physical object at all , the argument against Direct Realism again stating that you just perceive sense data. (and not the physical objects directly, so Direct Realism is false.)
What is the argument against Hallucinations(for direct realism?)
The disjunctive theory of perception
What does the disjunctive theory of perception say?
In hallucinations we do not perceive anything at all we IMAGINE it. To imagine something is not to perceive something mental, such as sense data, but not to perceive anything at all. So the argument from hallucination doesn’t show that in veridical perception, we perceive sense data instead of physical objects.
What is the argument from TIME LAG?
As Russell notes, everything you taste, touch and smell is in the past and you are not ‘directly’ perceiving these things in the moment you believe you are. Due to our senses and nerves taking a matter of seconds to configure what it is we are doing in order for us to know we are doing these things.
How can Direct realism be dis-proven using the argument from time lag?
Directly realism is proven not to be the case as the belief that these physical objects exist independently when our mind is not seeing them is shown to be false. This is due to the fact that evidence such as light from a star that we see now could be a distant star that has exploded several billion years ago whose light has taken this long to reach us.
what would be a Direct Realists reply to the argument from time lag?
We are still visibly aware of what the object was even though it does not exist anymore. We are able to ‘directly’ see that the physical object existed and what it was like we are still directly perceiving it! Even in instances such as a mirror reflection being slightly in the past. Even though it is in the past it is only a few microseconds ago so this could be seen as irrelevant. .
what would be a Direct Realists reply to the argument from time lag?
We are still visibly aware of what the object was even though it does not exist anymore. We are able to ‘directly’ see that the physical object existed and what it was like we are still directly perceiving it! Even in instances such as a mirror reflection being slightly in the past. Even though it is in the past it is only a few microseconds ago so this could be seen as irrelevant. .
what would be a Direct Realists reply to the argument from time lag?
We are still visibly aware of what the object was even though it does not exist anymore. We are able to ‘directly’ see that the physical object existed and what it was like we are still directly perceiving it! Even in instances such as a mirror reflection being slightly in the past. Even though it is in the past it is only a few microseconds ago so this could be seen as irrelevant. .
What is Direct Realism and common sense?
Any theory that claims that we perceive sense data has to say that perception is not what it seems to be.
> It has to say that it seems that we perceive mind-independent objects. But we don’t. we need strong reasons to accept that perceptions is misleading in this way.
