Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Atla]

And all of science is consistent with a partially unknowable external world, so the claim is scientifically proven.

Well well wouldn't you know. VA doesn't know what to say. Not even Kant was a demigod whose insights transcended all of science.

So Indirect realism > Transcendental idealism. Naturally, this was already decided like 100 years ago, VA is just really late to the party.

[Atla]

It seems to me that our senses perceive the tree.
But the tree itself is composed of atoms that are mostly empty space.
What we see is the mind's work of piecing together information in a particular way that is useful to us, however, it doesn't perfectly correspond to what's actually out there independent of the human mind creating the illusion. Are trees actually out there in the same way that we perceive them to be out there? For example, are trees actually green or are they emitting photons at a particular wavelength that hit our retinas and cause our mind to code it as "green" in the way we experience it?

From the antirealist PV [against Indirect Realism] there is no pre-existing 'tree' out there awaiting our senses to perceive it.

What happens is a something [pattern] emerged and is realized as real upon the states and condition of being human and this something is perceived and cognized as described as a 'tree'.

Granted, this is all highly theoretical in the sense that we could never see what is actually there in itself according to the hypothesis, but it seems like it is true based on scientific theories of what atoms are. And there are, I've heard, instances where the mind actively constructs sense data that is not really there using limited or incomplete data to form a more coherent picture that fits with its expectations. So it seems that the mind/brain can indeed construct experiences that are not really there.

Or is all this that I've said above incorrect?

The brain do generate sense-data but it is not from any external tree out there.
The sense data is generated from that something that emerged and is realized as real within the human conditions with its supposed emerging environment [not external].

Or when you say "indirect realism is not realistic" what does that sentence mean? Is it to say that indirect realism is not the case? Or is it to say that "indirect realism" is (literally) not the same thing as "realism"?

1. My take - antirealist [Kantian];
What is reality, real and realistic is contingent upon a human-based specific framework and system [FS].
As such, when anyone declares something to be real, that reality must be Qualified to a human-based FS, for example scientific reality and truth must be qualified to a the human-based scientific method and its condition.

2. The Indirect Realist take on Reality.
The problem [as I see it and do not agree with] is Indirect Realism claims what is real is really real, i.e. exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not; as such, there is no need to qualify what is real to any human-based FS.

My argument based on antirealism is there is no real thing that can exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not.
The insistent on such a thing is referring to an illusion, thus delusional.
The supposedly real thing which indirect realists rely of philosophical realism is actually an illusion.
Because it is an illusion, it cannot be realistic.

Direct Realism also relies on philosophical realism, so it is not realistic as well because it is chasing an absolutely independent reality out there which in an illusion reified as real.

Generally realists themselves will argue Indirect Realism is more reasonable than Direct [naive] realism, but both ideologically and dogmatically are chasing after illusions.

All that seems to make sense to me.

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

[seeds]

From the antirealist PV [against Indirect Realism] there is no pre-existing 'tree' out there awaiting our senses to perceive it.

What happens is a something [pattern] emerged and is realized as real upon the states and condition of being human and this something is perceived and cognized as described as a 'tree'.


The brain do generate sense-data but it is not from any external tree out there.
The sense data is generated from that something that emerged and is realized as real within the human conditions with its supposed emerging environment [not external].


1. My take - antirealist [Kantian];
What is reality, real and realistic is contingent upon a human-based specific framework and system [FS].
As such, when anyone declares something to be real, that reality must be Qualified to a human-based FS, for example scientific reality and truth must be qualified to a the human-based scientific method and its condition.

2. The Indirect Realist take on Reality.
The problem [as I see it and do not agree with] is Indirect Realism claims what is real is really real, i.e. exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not; as such, there is no need to qualify what is real to any human-based FS.

My argument based on antirealism is there is no real thing that can exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not.
The insistent on such a thing is referring to an illusion, thus delusional.
The supposedly real thing which indirect realists rely of philosophical realism is actually an illusion.
Because it is an illusion, it cannot be realistic.

Direct Realism also relies on philosophical realism, so it is not realistic as well because it is chasing an absolutely independent reality out there which in an illusion reified as real.

Generally realists themselves will argue Indirect Realism is more reasonable than Direct [naive] realism, but both ideologically and dogmatically are chasing after illusions.

All that seems to make sense to me.

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Precisely!

I shudder to think what he will write, but I'd like to hear VA explain how a thousand different people could be standing in an open field in which a single tree is growing,...



...and depending on the acuity of their eyesight, not only come up with pretty much the exact same image of that tree in their minds, as depicted in VA's graphic...



...but could each take a picture of the tree with their iPhones for later viewing, and all of the pictures would be of the exact same tree.



How in the world would that be possible if there is no fixed and stable outer world?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Precisely!

I shudder to think what he will write, but I'd like to hear VA explain how a thousand different people could be standing in an open field in which a single tree is growing,...



...and depending on the acuity of their eyesight, not only come up with pretty much the exact same image of that tree in their minds, as depicted in VA's graphic...



...but could each take a picture of the tree with their iPhones for later viewing, and all of the pictures would be of the exact same tree.



How in the world would that be possible if there is no fixed and stable outer world?
_______

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow which is confined to the common-vulgar and conventional sense.

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

The above is a fact!

However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

[Atla]

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Precisely!

I shudder to think what he will write, but I'd like to hear VA explain how a thousand different people could be standing in an open field in which a single tree is growing,...



...and depending on the acuity of their eyesight, not only come up with pretty much the exact same image of that tree in their minds, as depicted in VA's graphic...



...but could each take a picture of the tree with their iPhones for later viewing, and all of the pictures would be of the exact same tree.



How in the world would that be possible if there is no fixed and stable outer world?
_______

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow which is confined to the common-vulgar and conventional sense.

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

The above is a fact!

However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

Notice how VA evaded the whole problem. Yes the tree changes, but it's the same tree and the same change for everyone. How does that happen when there is no tree, there is no tree that could change, there is no change (hell, there aren't even other people)?

[Veritas Aequitas]

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

The above is a fact!

However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

Notice how VA evaded the whole problem. Yes the tree changes, but it's the same tree and the same change for everyone. How does that happen when there is no tree, there is no tree that could change, there is no change (hell, there aren't even other people)?

The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.
This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.
This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.

[Atla]

With reference to perceiving and cognition of tree-T1 at t1 and then perceiving the supposedly 'same' tree-T2 at t2.
Yes, within the common and conventional sense, the tree-T1 at t1 is the same tree at t2.

But in another perspective with deeper and more serious reflection, the tree-T1 at t1 is NEVER exactly the same tree at t2.

The only constant is 'change', nothing is absolutely permanent.
Note Heraclitus,

• “No man ever steps in the same river twice.
  For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
  Heraclitus.

The physical quantity and volume of materials comprising tree-T1 at t1 would have changed, to different quantities and volume at t2.
The leaves of the tree drop, as such quantity of leaves would have changed by t2 [in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. ]
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
Realistically we cannot insist they are the "SAME' tree when we take the above variations into account.

Why we say it is the same tree within seconds, minutes, days, and years is a matter of convenience which must be qualified as within the common and conventional sense.

The above is a fact!

However, the above is not the main issue with Indirect Realism.
Indirect Realism as a subset of philosophical realism claims there a noumenal tree that exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
The idea of a noumenal tree as real is due to reification of an illusion as real.
To insist such an illusion is real is delusional.

Besides the above, with Indirect Realism there is also the problem of the unresolvable Veil of Perception and the REALITY-GAP.

Notice how VA evaded the whole problem. Yes the tree changes, but it's the same tree and the same change for everyone. How does that happen when there is no tree, there is no tree that could change, there is no change (hell, there aren't even other people)?

The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.
This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.
This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.

You've re-stated your position without explaining how it can make sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notice how VA evaded the whole problem. Yes the tree changes, but it's the same tree and the same change for everyone. How does that happen when there is no tree, there is no tree that could change, there is no change (hell, there aren't even other people)?

The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.
This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.
This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.

You've re-stated your position without explaining how it can make sense.

1. Point is what is same inferred from and image & memory in the mind cannot be the same in reality [FSERC-ed].

2. The very real tree comprised of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc..
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.

3. However to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality, it would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
As such, the the whole tree-T1 at t1 [image in memory] would be the SAME as tree-T2 at t2
[present image ] are presented as the same images in the brain/mind.

4. But it it obvious in reality, the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2 in terms of the quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter and volume of other materials.

How could any person who thinks critically and is rational cannot grasp the above 1-4.

[Atla]

The reality is there is no absolute SAME tree out there!
'Sameness' comes in degrees in relation to perspective.

What is the 'same' tree is only based on the persistent image and memory in the human mind which is incapable to grasping the whole real tree but merely a concept and crude image of it.

As I had stated, what is 'same' is only valid within the common and conventional senses which do not "represent" reality [as it is] accurately, thus the individual has been duped by nature to believe it is the 'same' tree.
This is deception is crucial to facilitate basic survival but it cannot be absolute for all levels of survival.

The idea of absolute sameness within indirect realism as subset of scientific realism and philosophical realism is a farce.
This based on an emotional and psychological pleading driven by an evolutionary default rather than basing on critical thinking and rationality.

You've re-stated your position without explaining how it can make sense.

1. Point is what is same inferred from and image & memory in the mind cannot be the same in reality [FSERC-ed].

2. The very real tree comprised of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc..
The quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter, etc. of the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2.
The volume of water would also have changed due to the differences via evaporation and intake.

3. However to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality, it would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
As such, the the whole tree-T1 at t1 [image in memory] would be the SAME as tree-T2 at t2
[present image ] are presented as the same images in the brain/mind.

4. But it it obvious in reality, the whole tree-T1 at t1 would be different from tree-T2 at t2 in terms of the quantity of molecules, atoms, quarks, dark matter and volume of other materials.

How could any person who thinks critically and is rational cannot grasp the above 1-4.

Again re-stating your position without explaining how it can make sense. How about addressing what seeds and I have been talking about?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It make good sense for nature to deceive the observer,
so to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality.
It would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
Thus it is critical for humans at the common sense level to perceive [as images in the brain] the tree as the 'same' all the time [until it cut off, strike by lightning or dies.]

Meantime the real tree is NEVER the same since it changes every nano-second with time.

[Gary Childress]

From the antirealist PV [against Indirect Realism] there is no pre-existing 'tree' out there awaiting our senses to perceive it.

What happens is a something [pattern] emerged and is realized as real upon the states and condition of being human and this something is perceived and cognized as described as a 'tree'.


The brain do generate sense-data but it is not from any external tree out there.
The sense data is generated from that something that emerged and is realized as real within the human conditions with its supposed emerging environment [not external].


1. My take - antirealist [Kantian];
What is reality, real and realistic is contingent upon a human-based specific framework and system [FS].
As such, when anyone declares something to be real, that reality must be Qualified to a human-based FS, for example scientific reality and truth must be qualified to a the human-based scientific method and its condition.

2. The Indirect Realist take on Reality.
The problem [as I see it and do not agree with] is Indirect Realism claims what is real is really real, i.e. exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not; as such, there is no need to qualify what is real to any human-based FS.

My argument based on antirealism is there is no real thing that can exists absolutely independent of human minds and so, regardless of whether there are human or not.
The insistent on such a thing is referring to an illusion, thus delusional.
The supposedly real thing which indirect realists rely of philosophical realism is actually an illusion.
Because it is an illusion, it cannot be realistic.

Direct Realism also relies on philosophical realism, so it is not realistic as well because it is chasing an absolutely independent reality out there which in an illusion reified as real.

Generally realists themselves will argue Indirect Realism is more reasonable than Direct [naive] realism, but both ideologically and dogmatically are chasing after illusions.

All that seems to make sense to me.

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

[Gary Childress]

Of course, my frame of reference in the above does come with some contemporary scientific baggage, such as that color is assessed through particles striking the rods and cones in my retina. I'm not sure if you agree with that notion or not. However, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say on that matter.

[Atla]

It make good sense for nature to deceive the observer,
so to facilitate basic survival with common and conventional senses, there is a need to compromise reality and the mind is not concern with precise reality.
It would be a liability if it would try to be precise.
Thus it is critical for humans at the common sense level to perceive [as images in the brain] the tree as the 'same' all the time [until it cut off, strike by lightning or dies.]

Meantime the real tree is NEVER the same since it changes every nano-second with time.

Again you didn't address the big issue. It stands to reason that you simply don't understand at all what your own position entails.

[Atla]

All that seems to make sense to me.

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

No, that's roughly my position and what VA is 'arguing' against.

[Gary Childress]

I'm curious how it makes sense to you. Allegedly, these "emerged and realized patterns" have no connection to the outside world, because there is no outside world (VA), or maybe there is one or there isn't, but it is 100% unknowable (Kant). And yet not only do we see the same tree every time we look at it, the entire universe is also exactly the same. Even though there is no tree and there is no universe, so there is nothing that could form this perfectly persistent, consistent picture. And yet we see it anyway, all the time. How isn't this just dumb?

Do we make up a different universe at every moment? Not even basic English fits into VA's mind, how does an entire universe fit into it?

Maybe I misunderstood, then. I thought he was more or less saying that what is out there exists but not necessarily in the same way that we perceive it through the medium of the senses and brain. For example, when I see a green apple tree, there really isn't a green apple tree out there in the same way as I perceive it. It's a collection of matter in and of itself that my senses interpret or construct as a green apple tree for me. Not to say that the thing in itself isn't out there but that my senses organize it in such a way as to make it useful information for me based on my needs such as hunger, threat assessment and things like that.

@VA, If I'm misunderstanding your position, then I apologize.

No, that's roughly my position and what VA is 'arguing' against.

Interesting. Is that true, VA? What do you disagree with in my summary above?

_____