Veil of Perception Challenge

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception that leads of scepticism.

Indirect Realism is the view that:
The external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism [philosophical])
But we perceive the external world indirectly, via sense data (hence, indirect realism)

Indirect realism says the immediate object of perception is sense data. This sense data is caused by, and represents, the mind-independent external world.



Sense data can be described as the content of perceptual experience.
It’s not a physical thing, it exists in the mind. However, sense data is said to be caused by and represent mind-independent physical objects (see diagram above).
Sense data is private. No one else can experience your sense data.
This avoids the problems with direct realism described above. For example, differences in perceptual variation can be explained by differences in sense data. The object itself stays the same throughout even if the sense data changes.

The Veil of Perception
Indirect realism invokes the veil of perception.
All we actually perceive is the veil that covers the world, a veil that consists of our sense data.
What, then, justifies our belief that there is a world beyond that veil?

In drawing the focus of our perception away from the world and onto inner items, we are threatened by wholesale skepticism.
Since we can only directly perceive our sense data, all our beliefs about the external world beyond may be false.
There may not actually be any coffee cups or olive oil tins in the world, merely sense data in my mind.
https://iep.utm.edu/perc-obj/#:

Often the Indirect Realist is contrasting his realism against Direct Realism.
In a way, Indirect Realist is more realistic than Direct Realism, but that does not enable Indirect Realist to pass the veil of perception trigger by their assumptions of an absolute mind independent external world.

However, for this to be a strong objection to indirect realism, it would have to be the case that direct realism was in a better position with respect to skepticism, but it is not clear that this is so.
The direct realist does not claim that his perceptions are immune to error, simply that when one correctly perceives the world, one does so directly and not via an intermediary. Thus, things may not always be the way that they appear to be, and therefore, there is (arguably) room for the sceptic to question one-by-one the veracity of all our perceptual beliefs.
ibid

My point:
My charge is, the indirect realists' claim is a farce because to insist there are real things beyond the empirical world and the veil of perception is delusional.
The onus is on indirect realists to prove there are really-real-things beyond the veil of perceptions to show they are not delusional.

The more realistic realism is Kant's Empirical Realism which does not assume based on faith there is an absolutely mind-independent reality out there existing regardless whether there are humans or not.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Related Thread:
viewtopic.php?t=42063

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Atla]

viewtopic.php?p=719589#p719589

[Iwannaplato]

My point:
My charge is, the indirect realists' claim is a farce because to insist there are real things beyond the empirical world and the veil of perception is delusional.
The onus is on indirect realists to prove there are really-real-things beyond the veil of perceptions to show they are not delusional.

The more realistic realism is Kant's Empirical Realism which does not assume based on faith there is an absolutely mind-independent reality out there existing regardless whether there are humans or not.

Discuss??
Views??

Great, so if we apply this to you beliefs it would make you a solipsist. You cannot directly observe other minds. You must use deduction, inference, best explanation for what cannot be experienced directly. Heck, let's bring in Kant: we cannot directly experience other minds. We can only infer them from phenomena.

Do you believe in other minds? If so, why do you believe only in those noumena?
Of if you can demonstrate direct empirical experience of other minds, show us? Where do you see them? Please be specific?

Remember, no indirect observation, no tools for that and no inference.

If you want to say we can confirm it within, say, the science FSK, there's a problem. Scientific FSKs confirm the existence of all sorts of unobservables: from electrons to genes to gravitational waves to forces to planetary orbits and lunar orbits. And let's look at that last one. If the Moon does not exist when no one is watching it, the concept of its orbit is merely useful fiction. But at least you can look at it when you can.

morality proper is not observable, it is noumenon. Just as metphysical antirealists consider the above list.

Once you are inferring and deducing, it's about noumena. You need tools beyond the senses to observe them - if you even can in that case - and you need deduction and inference, because it ain't coming through the senses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Great, so if we apply this to you beliefs it would make you a solipsist.

Terrible strawman.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The antirealist human-based FSERC sense
2. The realist[p] human/mind independent - grounded on an illusion.

The charge of solipsism is only effective when one adopt the realist[s] sense 2 which is illusory and delusional.

Since I am an antirealist [Kantian & like] there is no way any realist[p] views should be applied to me, thus no solipsism.

As an antirealist [Kantian & like], whatever is real is an combination of the processes of emergence, realization of reality, cognition and observation of the things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.

What is Emergence & Realization of reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The above is a more refined realization of reality in contrast to the default common sense of reality and also the conventional sense of reality.

Those clinging to common sense reality are stuck and unable to free themselves from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

[Iwannaplato]

Great, so if we apply this to you beliefs it would make you a solipsist.

Terrible strawman.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The antirealist human-based FSERC sense
2. The realist[p] human/mind independent - grounded on an illusion.

The charge of solipsism is only effective when one adopt the realist[s] sense 2 which is illusory and delusional.

Since I am an antirealist [Kantian & like] there is no way any realist[p] views should be applied to me, thus no solipsism.

As an antirealist [Kantian & like], whatever is real is an combination of the processes of emergence, realization of reality, cognition and observation of the things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.

What is Emergence & Realization of reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The above is a more refined realization of reality in contrast to the default common sense of reality and also the conventional sense of reality.

Those clinging to common sense reality are stuck and unable to free themselves from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

I notice once again that you did not in any way respond to what I wrote. You noticed that I suggested solipsism is entailed by your position. Beyond that you did not respond to a single point but mounted a completely unrelated re-paraphrasing of your position. Then you throw in a quote by Russell that has nothing to do with my posts or the issue. It's a generic condemnation aimed at people not interested in philosophy.

This...

Those clinging to common sense reality are stuck and unable to free themselves from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

is absurd. My beliefs are actually more controversial than yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Great, so if we apply this to you beliefs it would make you a solipsist.

Terrible strawman.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The antirealist human-based FSERC sense
2. The realist[p] human/mind independent - grounded on an illusion.

The charge of solipsism is only effective when one adopt the realist[s] sense 2 which is illusory and delusional.

Since I am an antirealist [Kantian & like] there is no way any realist[p] views should be applied to me, thus no solipsism.

As an antirealist [Kantian & like], whatever is real is an combination of the processes of emergence, realization of reality, cognition and observation of the things contingent upon a human-based FSERC.

What is Emergence & Realization of reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The above is a more refined realization of reality in contrast to the default common sense of reality and also the conventional sense of reality.

Those clinging to common sense reality are stuck and unable to free themselves from the prejudices of the 'practical' [or vulgar*] men to do philosophy-proper as Russell stated below; * archive.,

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men.
The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.
If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

I notice once again that you did not in any way respond to what I wrote.

I don't have any obligation to your demand.
That I responded so far is discretionary for my selfish interest.
With intellectual integrity, I responded to the best of my ability to understand what is written.
Whoever think I have not understood them [given philosophical issues are complex], it is their fault and shortfall in communication, so has to represent till their expectations are met or pass it over.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't have any obligation to your demand.

Of course you don't. If I thought you had an obigation, I wouId have said so. I pointed out that whiIe you quoted me, you did not respond to me. I aIso did not demand that you respond to the points/arguments I raised/made.

That I responded so far is discretionary for my selfish interest.
With intellectual integrity, I responded to the best of my ability to understand what is written.

If that's true, then it's very strange that you toId me you have no obIigation to respond.

Whoever think I have not understood them [given philosophical issues are complex], it is their fault and shortfall in communication, so has to represent till their expectations are met or pass it over.

Ok, so you think you did respond to the points I made and you also think that onIy other peopIe are the source of any miscommunication. Good to know.