Reality is Inaccessible

[Sculptor]

The "real" world is not the same as what we can see.
This is not difficult. It's like saying a cat is not the same as a picture of a cat or the word "cat".

But what you call naive realism does not mean or imply that the real world is the same as what one sees, it means that what one sees and whatever aspects of that real world that can be seen, when seen, are seen accurately. Existence and our consciousness of it are not the same thing. Just as a cat and a picture of a cat are not the same thing.

No one thinks a picture of a cat is actually a cat, only that it is a picture of an actual cat, and whatever aspects of an actual cat are represented by the image are correct. The conscious seeing of a tree is not the tree, what is seen are those attributes of a tree that can be seen, its shape, size, colors and relationships to other entities in the visual field.

Yes but people think that what they see is a cat, when in fact what they see is a representation of a cat.
And that is the point.
You brain only gives you an image.

[Terrapin Station]

It's pointless if you are just going to throw strawmen at me.

??? I'm not claiming that anything is someone else's argument. I'm pointing out something about whether we can observe things as they are.

"There's no implication that an observation is of the 'totality' of what something is like, assuming that would even be a coherent idea (since it basically ignores spatiotemporal reference point necessity and relativity).
. . .
What exactly are you trying to say?

When we say that we can observe something accurately, as it is, we're not saying anything at all like "We can observe the 'totality' of x."

[Terrapin Station]

The "real" world is not the same as what we can see.
This is not difficult. It's like saying a cat is not the same as a picture of a cat or the word "cat".

But what you call naive realism does not mean or imply that the real world is the same as what one sees, it means that what one sees and whatever aspects of that real world that can be seen, when seen, are seen accurately. Existence and our consciousness of it are not the same thing. Just as a cat and a picture of a cat are not the same thing.

No one thinks a picture of a cat is actually a cat, only that it is a picture of an actual cat, and whatever aspects of an actual cat are represented by the image are correct. The conscious seeing of a tree is not the tree, what is seen are those attributes of a tree that can be seen, its shape, size, colors and relationships to other entities in the visual field.

Yes but people think that what they see is a cat, when in fact what they see is a representation of a cat.
And that is the point.
You brain only gives you an image.

Then we have no grounds for saying that we actually view retinas rather than something that's possibly a complete fantasy. And if we can't say that we can observe retinas, then we're not able to formulate arguments based on what retinas are (really) like.

[Zarathustra]

The OP sounds like an extreme form of scepticism or idealism.

[Vitruvius]

The OP sounds like an extreme form of scepticism or idealism.

Perhaps there is no OP at all!

[Walker]

Views?

Thousands of vehicles on a hot highway, moving at high speed, six lanes across, many vehicles changing lanes, each vehicle less than a dozen feet from some other moving or stationary object all the time, and except for an occasional aberration none ever touches another. That’s because each driver is accessing reality.

[RCSaunders]

Yes but people think that what they see is a cat, when in fact what they see is a representation of a cat.

So, if I could actually see a cat, how would it be different from what is only a representation of a cat?

I know you will not understand this, but that, "representation of a cat," is exactly what I mean by seeing a cat. It only has to be a correct representation of a cat to be seeing a cat.

[Sculptor]

It's pointless if you are just going to throw strawmen at me.

??? I'm not claiming that anything is someone else's argument. I'm pointing out something about whether we can observe things as they are.

"There's no implication that an observation is of the 'totality' of what something is like, assuming that would even be a coherent idea (since it basically ignores spatiotemporal reference point necessity and relativity).
. . .
What exactly are you trying to say?

When we say that we can observe something accurately, as it is, we're not saying anything at all like "We can observe the 'totality' of x."

A strawman is a caricature of my argument.

[Sculptor]

Yes but people think that what they see is a cat, when in fact what they see is a representation of a cat.

So, if I could actually see a cat, how would it be different from what is only a representation of a cat?

That you will never know. But we can guess how, say, a bat might perceive a cat.
But the cat initself is not availble to any perceiver.

I know you will not understand this, but that, "representation of a cat," is exactly what I mean by seeing a cat. It only has to be a correct representation of a cat to be seeing a cat.

Then you agree that reality is not accessible - only a version of it.

[RCSaunders]

Yes but people think that what they see is a cat, when in fact what they see is a representation of a cat.

So, if I could actually see a cat, how would it be different from what is only a representation of a cat?

That you will never know. But we can guess how, say, a bat might perceive a cat.
But the cat initself is not availble to any perceiver.

I know you will not understand this, but that, "representation of a cat," is exactly what I mean by seeing a cat. It only has to be a correct representation of a cat to be seeing a cat.

Then you agree that reality is not accessible - only a version of it.

There's only reality, not different versions of it. If the cat is real the representation of that real cat is access to reality. I don't have to able to see everything in order to see something. So long as what is represented is a representation of any aspect of reality, that is access to reality.

You seem to be saying unless one is able to perceive every aspect of reality in its totality it is not perceiving reality. I'm saying whatever aspect of reality is perceived, no matter how limited, that is access to reality. Furthermore, everything else about reality that can be known must be discovered by means of what is perceived, by the physical sciences, for example. If what is perceived is not reality as it is, none of the physical sciences are valid, because it is what is perceived, directly or indirectly (by instruments and electronics for example), that is all the evidence science has to reason from or about.

[Sculptor]

So, if I could actually see a cat, how would it be different from what is only a representation of a cat?

That you will never know. But we can guess how, say, a bat might perceive a cat.
But the cat initself is not availble to any perceiver.

I know you will not understand this, but that, "representation of a cat," is exactly what I mean by seeing a cat. It only has to be a correct representation of a cat to be seeing a cat.

Then you agree that reality is not accessible - only a version of it.

There's only reality, not different versions of it.

Talk to Terrapin about that - he think we all have our own.

If the cat is real the representation of that real cat is access to reality. I don't have to able to see everything in order to see something. So long as what is represented is a representation of any aspect of reality, that is access to reality.

But a image of a cat is not a cat. You only see the cat in your brain.
If you can't make that conceptual step then you have cut yourself off from a very interesting philosophical realm if understanding.

You seem to be saying unless one is able to perceive every aspect of reality in its totality it is not perceiving reality.

I am saying that you only get a partial represented view. What is so difficult to understand?

I'm saying whatever aspect of reality is perceived, no matter how limited, that is access to reality. Furthermore, everything else about reality that can be known must be discovered by means of what is perceived, by the physical sciences, for example. If what is perceived is not reality as it is, none of the physical sciences are valid, because it is what is perceived, directly or indirectly (by instruments and electronics for example), that is all the evidence science has to reason from or about.

I'm wasing my time with you

[Vitruvius]

I'm wasing my time with you

To be fair, you're wasing everyone's time!

[Vitruvius]

But a image of a cat is not a cat. You only see the cat in your brain.
If you can't make that conceptual step then you have cut yourself off from a very interesting philosophical realm if understanding.

I don't see a cat when a cat is not there. So where is the cat?

In my mind?

No!

The cat is out there - objective with respect to the observer.

As for - "a very interesting realm of philosophical understanding" subjectivism is sophistry that denies the possibility of truth.

It's a liar's charter!

[RCSaunders]

But a image of a cat is not a cat. You only see the cat in your brain.
If you can't make that conceptual step then you have cut yourself off from a very interesting philosophical realm if understanding.

I don't see a cat when a cat is not there. So where is the cat?

In my mind?

No!

The cat is out there - objective with respect to the observer.

As for - "a very interesting realm of philosophical understanding" subjectivism is sophistry that denies the possibility of truth.

It's a liar's charter!

Yes!

[Dubious]

The cat would object to not being there when it actually is. Also, cats don't mind ignoring you as if you weren't there, but they don't like it the other way around. Schrödinger never took this in consideration.