Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[seeds]

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.

Sorry pal, but if you aren't considering the fact that the illusory nature (the "un-realness") of that which clearly exists "out there"...

(as in outside of your mind)

...doesn't also apply to your very own body, then it is your thinking that is shallow and narrow.

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.

Seriously, V?

Anyone who took Philosophy 101 in their freshman year in college was subjected to that tired old philosophical cliché.

What's next? Are you going to tell us how one should "know thyself"?

Or how about "carpe diem"?

The point is that anyone who has studied the implications of quantum physics is fully aware of the dynamic processes (constant changes) taking place within the fields of energy and information that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe.

And the ultimate point is that regardless of whether or not our minds are involved in the collapse of the wavefunction, you either accept the fact that that which constitutes the wavefunction of the tree in my above example, exists outside and independent of your mind,...

...or, if not, then you must believe in solipsism, and that it is you that is writing this reply, because your mind is the only mind in all of existence.

And lastly, as a remedy for your own shallow thinking, you need to understand - once and for all - that the only things that are truly "real" and "truly independent" of our minds, are other minds.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sorry pal, but if you aren't considering the fact that the illusory nature (the "un-realness") of that which clearly exists "out there"...

(as in outside of your mind)

...doesn't also apply to your very own body, then it is your thinking that is shallow and narrow.

I define what is real [in varying degrees] as that which is contingent upon a human based* framework and system.
*human-based means a collective-of-subjects, the more the better if the FS is credible and objective.
In order words, what is real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and minds.

The direct experience of one very own body or self is merely based in a first-person experience [a subject] which by nature subjective and not objective is not reliable with the possibility of hallucination and brain-in-vat scenarios.

What is objective is dependent on the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects.
E.g. scientific truths are objective [ the most] because they are conditioned upon the shared consensus of a group of scientists within the scientific framework and system.

My body is not something that is "out there" and outside the mind.
Without the body, there is no mind.
You may claim the mind [self, soul] is independent of the body, but you have no proof of it.
Have you seen a live soul leaving a dead body?

I read of this crime, where the son was led to believe there is an independent soul that leave the body upon death.
So the son went on to murder the father with the hope of seeing his soul leaving his body.
When he did not see any soul leaving his father's body, he tried again with his mother, and also sister if I am not mistaken.
This is the result of bad belief of an illusion, which you are doing so.

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.

Seriously, V?

Anyone who took Philosophy 101 in their freshman year in college was subjected to that tired old philosophical cliché.

What's next? Are you going to tell us how one should "know thyself"?

Or how about "carpe diem"?

The point is that anyone who has studied the implications of quantum physics is fully aware of the dynamic processes (constant changes) taking place within the fields of energy and information that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe.

And the ultimate point is that regardless of whether or not our minds are involved in the collapse of the wavefunction, you either accept the fact that that which constitutes the wavefunction of the tree in my above example, exists outside and independent of your mind,...

...or, if not, then you must believe in solipsism, and that it is you that is writing this reply, because your mind is the only mind in all of existence.

And lastly, as a remedy for your own shallow thinking, you need to understand - once and for all - that the only things that are truly "real" and "truly independent" of our minds, are other minds.
_______

So its your way or solipsism?
That is very narrow minded and psychological desperate to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

My belief is, I and reality exist as relatively [not absolutely] real self, contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality which is subsequently perceived, known and describe.

On I am relying on my first person experience and reliance on human-based objective scientific truths which is the most credible and objective.
This is the TOP-DOWN approach, so no need for the Bottom-up approach that there was already an pre-existing soul that was infused upon the fetus during birth. The latter belief is so silly.

What I do is to optimize the well-being of the empirically evident relative real self to the best of one's abilities without many worries about the afterlife or a God [illusory].

[Gary Childress]

There is no such thing as supposedly & absolutely real atoms which are made of particles & quarks.

Particles do not exists as absolutely real.
Particles can either be a wave or physical-thing depending on the human being interaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Relative means we accept whatever is the truth of independent existence based on empirical evidences but cannot be absolutely certain that is the case.
Theoretically it is only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God can claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Being fallible human beings we cannot make claims of absoluteness for any thing.

What do you mean by the word "real" when you say there is no such thing as atoms? When I think of the word "real" one way I think of it is in terms of "real" versus "imaginary" or "illusory". Is that what you mean by the word "real"? For example, my experience of the apple tree may indeed, strictly speaking, be illusory in the sense that what I experience (color, sound, taste) may be part of my experience of the apple tree but possibly not part of the apple tree independently of my experience.

Do you believe that something exists independently of my perception? For example, are there things in this world to satiate what I experience as hunger or need to avoid at cost of harm to me and things like that? Or is the notion that I could die of hunger if I don't find apples or something to eat all illusory?

Are you perhaps thinking that we live in a virtual reality, maybe as brains in vats in some artificial "reality"?

The term 'real' is also a loose term.
Normally when we say a thing is real and independent from humans, it is implied with reference to common sense.
So within common sense, I do believe there things out there which I can eat to satiate hunger or as a threat to be avoided.
Common sense works to a degree, but it is very unreliable.

When we say something is real, it cannot stand 'naked'. What is real cannot be in an absolute sense.

Philosophically there is need to be rigorous, i.e. 'what is real' must be qualified to a specific human-based* sense or framework & system [FS]. * conditioned to a collective of human-subjects.
As such, there is no such thing as 'atoms exists as real absolutely' without qualifying it to a human-based FS.

Thus realistically, 'atoms exists as real' must be qualified to the science-chemistry FS.
So, "atoms exists as real' only because the science-chemistry FS said so.

The problem with Indirect Realists is when they claim there is a real tree out there existing absolutely independent of humans, they simply claim it is so - most likely based on common sense.
When indirect realists claimed 'the apple exists out there as real' in as absolutely independent of humans and without qualification to a FS, then such a supposed real apple is an illusion.
In the extreme indirect realists will claim God exists as real absolutely independent of humans without qualifications except to say, the Book said so.

When pressed, the secular indirect realists claim science can confirm the existence of the tree that is independent of humans.
But science does not exist without being conditioned to a collective-of-human-subjects.
As such, science cannot confirm anything a real absolutely independent of humans.
Therefore, the indirect realist is not realistic [as defined above].

The point is when one claim 'X exists as real', in a philosophical discussion, such a claim must be qualified to the specific framework and system the claim is grounded on.

Therefore, when you claim [philosophically], the tree outside your window exists as real, you must be aware and qualify what is the framework and system you are grounding it upon.
One cannot just claim, I said so [based on what is experienced], because one could be hallucinating or a brain-in-a-vat.

Now, when you make such a claim as 'the tree outside your window exists as real' what are your justifications? [think of all the relevant nuances in your answer].

I think I understand what you are saying. I've heard of the "emergence" approach to things before. It seems like a valid way of looking at the world to me, from a rigorous philosophical standpoint (from what little I know or have been exposed to it). Carry on, professor.

[Iwannaplato]

of course the vat from which all impressions arise is external from the brain...

what matrix?

-Imp

If the actual universe is something like ours. IOW if the vats are objects with brains inside them. But that's us using our model of the (simulated) universe to describe the situation. Once it's some sort of simulation, we don't know any rules or models that apply.

[seeds]

...what is real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and minds.

Except for other minds!

You don't have to believe it, but at least try to pay attention to what your opponents write.

The direct experience of one very own body or self is merely based in a first-person experience [a subject] which by nature subjective and not objective...

Again, unless you are a solipsist, then you must concede that your own mind - with its accompanying (Cartesian) "I am-ness" (the "subject") - is objective relative to, again, "other minds."

What is objective is dependent on the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects.

No.

What is objective (as in truly "real" and permanent) is, again, your mind and other minds, as is depicted in one of my fanciful illustrations,...



...whereas, everything else is indeed illusory and created from an informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that minds use to create what minds call "reality" (again, as depicted in the above illustration).

My body is not something that is "out there" and outside the mind.

Yes it is, V.

It is outside of your mind, and it is outside of my mind.

Our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to the universe that gave rise to our bodies and brains (again, as depicted in the above illustration).

Without the body, there is no mind.
You may claim the mind [self, soul] is independent of the body, but you have no proof of it.
Have you seen a live soul leaving a dead body?

No, but I have witnessed the presence of the incorporeal (bodyless) "SOUL" of this universe - viewtopic.php?t=41452

I read of this crime, where the son was led to believe there is an independent soul that leave the body upon death.
So the son went on to murder the father with the hope of seeing his soul leaving his body.
When he did not see any soul leaving his father's body, he tried again with his mother, and also sister if I am not mistaken.

Are you seriously offering me trivial anecdotal stories about delusional nutjobs to support your argument? Really, V?

You continually demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your somnambulism and the fact that you are a poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

So its your way or solipsism?
That is very narrow minded and psychological desperate to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

There you go again with that silly and childish accusation you apply to everyone who disagrees with you.

It got old a long time ago.

When you say things such as this,...

what is real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and minds.

...then you are evoking the concept of solipsism.

Clearly, you don't understand the implications of your own statements.

Please answer the following question...

Do you, or do you not believe that your mind exists independently from my mind?

My belief is, I and reality exist as relatively [not absolutely] real self, contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality which is subsequently perceived, known and describe.

Well, "my belief" is that you have invested so much time and emotional energy into "your belief" that, no matter what, you must protect it at any and all costs, lest you succumb to an existential crisis.

On I am relying on my first person experience and reliance on human-based objective scientific truths which is the most credible and objective.

So then, you rely on "Naïve Realism."

Sounds about right.

This is the TOP-DOWN approach, so no need for the Bottom-up approach that there was already an pre-existing soul that was infused upon the fetus during birth. The latter belief is so silly.

This is another instance of where it is obvious that you have no idea of what it is I actually believe.

Indeed, I have never stated that there is a "pre-existing" soul.

No, I have suggested that the human brain is designed to bring a "new (eternal) soul" into existence.

Try to get your facts straight for once.

And unless it's some unavoidable defect in your brain, you need to stop treating us as if you have absolutely no memory of what we've discussed in dozens of prior encounters with you. For you can rest assured that we remember what you say, which is why most of us are vividly aware of the brazen inconsistencies (and goal post movings) in many of your arguments.

What I do is to optimize the well-being of the empirically evident relative real self to the best of one's abilities without many worries about the afterlife or a God [illusory].

Sorry, V. but what you do is encapsulated in what Neil deGrasse Tyson once said about humans who try to understand and wield big ideas...

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

Again, you are a poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
_______

[Atla]

This is the best argument against indirect realism I could get out of God:

You're correct that the demand for absolute certainty is often seen as an unrealistic expectation, especially in epistemology. However, the argument against indirect realism doesn't rest solely on the need for certainty but also on the practical and philosophical implications of its claims. Here are some nuanced criticisms that address more than just the need for certainty:

1. **Epistemic Gap**: While certainty may be an irrational expectation, the significant epistemic gap introduced by indirect realism still poses a problem. If our only access to the external world is through sense data, then even probabilistic or highly reliable knowledge becomes difficult to justify. This gap questions the very foundation of how we can claim to know anything about the external world.

2. **Problem of Representation**: Indirect realism hinges on the idea that sense data represent the external world. However, if we can never access the external world directly, we lack a basis for evaluating the accuracy or faithfulness of these representations. This undermines the claim that our sense data can provide a useful or meaningful depiction of reality, even in probabilistic terms.

3. **Perceptual Variability**: Our perceptions can vary significantly between individuals and within the same individual under different conditions. This variability raises questions about the reliability and consistency of sense data. Without a direct way to cross-check these perceptions with the external world, it's difficult to account for these variations in a meaningful way.

4. **The Veil of Perception**: Indirect realism suggests a "veil of perception" between us and the world, leading to solipsistic concerns. If we are forever cut off from the external world by this veil, then our interactions with reality become questionable. This concern isn't just about certainty but about the meaningful engagement with and understanding of the world.

5. **Philosophical Simplicity**: Some argue that direct realism offers a simpler and more parsimonious account of perception. It posits that we perceive objects directly without the intermediary of sense data, which avoids many of the epistemological issues faced by indirect realism. Philosophical theories are often evaluated based on their simplicity and explanatory power, and in this respect, direct realism can be seen as superior.

6. **Practical Implications**: In everyday life, we operate under the assumption that our perceptions, while not infallible, are generally reliable and allow us to navigate the world effectively. Indirect realism's implications can seem disconnected from this practical perspective, leading to a theory that, while coherent in a philosophical sense, might not align well with our lived experiences and practices.

While absolute certainty might indeed be an irrational expectation, the criticisms of indirect realism go beyond this and focus on the coherence, practicality, and philosophical implications of relying on sense data as mediators of our knowledge of the external world. These criticisms suggest that indirect realism, while addressing some issues, may introduce others that are equally, if not more, problematic.

Such objections are obvious, trivial, and easily dismissed. People simply had false philosophical expectations throughout history, and are now whining when indirect realism highlights these inherent uncertanties in our existence, that have actually always been there.

And when we aren't hallucinating or something then we can just act like direct realists in the everyday life. I see not much thought was given to this by philosophers.

I'm kinda hoping that someone can bring up a substantial objection to indirect realism.

[seeds]

I'm kinda hoping that someone can bring up a substantial objection to indirect realism.

I certainly can't.

I suggest that the only situation in which "indirect realism" is not in play in our everyday lives here on earth is when we experience our own inner thoughts and dreams. For that is when we encounter "direct" realism.
_______

[Atla]

I'm kinda hoping that someone can bring up a substantial objection to indirect realism.

I certainly can't.

I suggest that the only situation in which "indirect realism" is not in play in our everyday lives here on earth is when we experience our own inner thoughts and dreams. For that is when we encounter "direct" realism.
_______

We always "directly" experience our own minds, we are part of them too. When we are awake the contents of our minds are largely constructed from external input, and when we dream from internal input. Sometimes I'm quite conscious when the switching between the two modes happens. It's also possible that in some people with psychosis for example the two modes get mixed, a part of the mind is awake and another part is still dreaming.

One notable exception in history when indirect perception may sort of have been circumvented was when a guy accidentally put his head into the beam of an active particle collider. The beam went straight through his brain/mind energizing it I guess, skipping the senses. He said he experienced a brightness of a million suns, interesting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is the best argument against indirect realism I could get out of God:

You're correct that the demand for absolute certainty is often seen as an unrealistic expectation, especially in epistemology. However, the argument against indirect realism doesn't rest solely on the need for certainty but also on the practical and philosophical implications of its claims. Here are some nuanced criticisms that address more than just the need for certainty:

1. **Epistemic Gap**: While certainty may be an irrational expectation, the significant epistemic gap introduced by indirect realism still poses a problem. If our only access to the external world is through sense data, then even probabilistic or highly reliable knowledge becomes difficult to justify. This gap questions the very foundation of how we can claim to know anything about the external world.

2. **Problem of Representation**: Indirect realism hinges on the idea that sense data represent the external world. However, if we can never access the external world directly, we lack a basis for evaluating the accuracy or faithfulness of these representations. This undermines the claim that our sense data can provide a useful or meaningful depiction of reality, even in probabilistic terms.

3. **Perceptual Variability**: Our perceptions can vary significantly between individuals and within the same individual under different conditions. This variability raises questions about the reliability and consistency of sense data. Without a direct way to cross-check these perceptions with the external world, it's difficult to account for these variations in a meaningful way.

4. **The Veil of Perception**: Indirect realism suggests a "veil of perception" between us and the world, leading to solipsistic concerns. If we are forever cut off from the external world by this veil, then our interactions with reality become questionable. This concern isn't just about certainty but about the meaningful engagement with and understanding of the world.

5. **Philosophical Simplicity**: Some argue that direct realism offers a simpler and more parsimonious account of perception. It posits that we perceive objects directly without the intermediary of sense data, which avoids many of the epistemological issues faced by indirect realism. Philosophical theories are often evaluated based on their simplicity and explanatory power, and in this respect, direct realism can be seen as superior.

6. **Practical Implications**: In everyday life, we operate under the assumption that our perceptions, while not infallible, are generally reliable and allow us to navigate the world effectively. Indirect realism's implications can seem disconnected from this practical perspective, leading to a theory that, while coherent in a philosophical sense, might not align well with our lived experiences and practices.

While absolute certainty might indeed be an irrational expectation, the criticisms of indirect realism go beyond this and focus on the coherence, practicality, and philosophical implications of relying on sense data as mediators of our knowledge of the external world. These criticisms suggest that indirect realism, while addressing some issues, may introduce others that are equally, if not more, problematic.

Such objections are obvious, trivial, and easily dismissed. People simply had false philosophical expectations throughout history, and are now whining when indirect realism highlights these inherent uncertanties in our existence, that have actually always been there.

And when we aren't hallucinating or something then we can just act like direct realists in the everyday life. I see not much thought was given to this by philosophers.

I'm kinda hoping that someone can bring up a substantial objection to indirect realism.

"obvious, trivial, and easily dismissed??"
Where are the arguments to support the dismissal?

Indirect Realism is an evolutionary default belief that is triggered the moment any toddler can think independently; this is similar to the very obvious common sense Flat Earth Theory and the Geocentric Theory, and also theism.
Those who are dogmatic with Indirect Realism have not grown up philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...what is real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and minds.

Except for other minds!

You don't have to believe it, but at least try to pay attention to what your opponents write.

The direct experience of one very own body or self is merely based in a first-person experience [a subject] which by nature subjective and not objective...

Again, unless you are a solipsist, then you must concede that your own mind - with its accompanying (Cartesian) "I am-ness" (the "subject") - is objective relative to, again, "other minds."

What is objective is dependent on the shared beliefs of a collective-of-subjects.

No.

What is objective (as in truly "real" and permanent) is, again, your mind and other minds, as is depicted in one of my fanciful illustrations,...



...whereas, everything else is indeed illusory and created from an informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that minds use to create what minds call "reality" (again, as depicted in the above illustration).

My body is not something that is "out there" and outside the mind.

Yes it is, V.

It is outside of your mind, and it is outside of my mind.

Our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to the universe that gave rise to our bodies and brains (again, as depicted in the above illustration).

Without the body, there is no mind.
You may claim the mind [self, soul] is independent of the body, but you have no proof of it.
Have you seen a live soul leaving a dead body?

No, but I have witnessed the presence of the incorporeal (bodyless) "SOUL" of this universe - viewtopic.php?t=41452

I read of this crime, where the son was led to believe there is an independent soul that leave the body upon death.
So the son went on to murder the father with the hope of seeing his soul leaving his body.
When he did not see any soul leaving his father's body, he tried again with his mother, and also sister if I am not mistaken.

Are you seriously offering me trivial anecdotal stories about delusional nutjobs to support your argument? Really, V?

You continually demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your somnambulism and the fact that you are a poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

So its your way or solipsism?
That is very narrow minded and psychological desperate to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances from an existential crisis.

There you go again with that silly and childish accusation you apply to everyone who disagrees with you.

It got old a long time ago.

When you say things such as this,...

what is real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions and minds.

...then you are evoking the concept of solipsism.

Clearly, you don't understand the implications of your own statements.

Please answer the following question...

Do you, or do you not believe that your mind exists independently from my mind?

My belief is, I and reality exist as relatively [not absolutely] real self, contingent upon a human-based framework and system of emergence and realization of reality which is subsequently perceived, known and describe.

Well, "my belief" is that you have invested so much time and emotional energy into "your belief" that, no matter what, you must protect it at any and all costs, lest you succumb to an existential crisis.

On I am relying on my first person experience and reliance on human-based objective scientific truths which is the most credible and objective.

So then, you rely on "Naïve Realism."

Sounds about right.

This is the TOP-DOWN approach, so no need for the Bottom-up approach that there was already an pre-existing soul that was infused upon the fetus during birth. The latter belief is so silly.

This is another instance of where it is obvious that you have no idea of what it is I actually believe.

Indeed, I have never stated that there is a "pre-existing" soul.

No, I have suggested that the human brain is designed to bring a "new (eternal) soul" into existence.

Try to get your facts straight for once.

And unless it's some unavoidable defect in your brain, you need to stop treating us as if you have absolutely no memory of what we've discussed in dozens of prior encounters with you. For you can rest assured that we remember what you say, which is why most of us are vividly aware of the brazen inconsistencies (and goal post movings) in many of your arguments.

What I do is to optimize the well-being of the empirically evident relative real self to the best of one's abilities without many worries about the afterlife or a God [illusory].

Sorry, V. but what you do is encapsulated in what Neil deGrasse Tyson once said about humans who try to understand and wield big ideas...

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”

Again, you are a poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
_______

Your whole argument seem to be banking on solipsism.

Note this;
The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

[Atla]

"obvious, trivial, and easily dismissed??"
Where are the arguments to support the dismissal?

In this topic, you consistently failed to counter them.

Indirect Realism is an evolutionary default belief that is triggered the moment any toddler can think independently; this is similar to the very obvious common sense Flat Earth Theory and the Geocentric Theory, and also theism.
Those who are dogmatic with Indirect Realism have not grown up philosophically.

You're an idiot VA. Indirect realism is definitely not an evolutionary default belief. As we can see even Kantians have trouble with grasping it.

[Atla]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

2. Neuroscience and Perception:
Neuroscience has shown that our perception is heavily processed and interpreted by the brain. This supports indirect realism to some extent (as it shows a distinction between reality and our perception), but also raises questions about how accurately our perceptions can correspond to reality. If our sensory data is subject to significant interpretation and construction by the brain, the reliability of any "indirect" access to the external world becomes questionable.

3. Visual Illusions and Cognitive Biases:
Visual illusions demonstrate that what we perceive can be very different from what is actually present in the external world. This suggests that our perceptions are not always reliable representations of external reality. While this might seem to support indirect realism, it also implies that our intermediaries (sensory data, mental representations) can be flawed or deceptive, complicating the notion of accurately perceiving an independent reality.

Addressed these already. Again, it's typically the direct realists and the Kantians who can't handle the inherent uncertainty of indirect realism, but that doesn't mean that this is a genuine problem. Rather it could mean that the direct realists and the Kantians clang to an irrational expectation of certainty.
And again, we don't walk into walls, some people don't even hallucinate their entire lives, so imo the representation can be seen as "good enough".

4. Relativity and Space-Time Perception:
Einstein's theory of relativity shows that space and time are not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. This challenges the idea of a single, objective reality that is perceived indirectly. Instead, it suggests that reality itself is dependent on the observer’s position and velocity, blurring the line between perception and the external world.

Whoever wrote this one didn't understand Einsteinian relativity. It doesn't have actual observers, say a different observer's frame of reference can be assigned to every point in spacetime. Meaning that even inside the "human observer", there are many or infinitely many frames of reference. The higher part of your brain/mind ages slightly faster than the lower part due to time dilation.

5. The Brain-in-a-Vat Argument:
Philosophical thought experiments like the brain-in-a-vat scenario question whether we can ever truly know the external world. If all our experiences are simulated, then indirect realism's assertion of an external world we perceive indirectly becomes unfalsifiable. This challenges the coherence and practical utility of indirect realism as a framework.

? If what we experience is simulated then any philosophy is wrecked, not just indirect realism.

These scientific facts and theories complicate the indirect realist position by showing that our perceptions and the external world are deeply intertwined, and questioning the accuracy and reliability of our perceptions. They suggest that the relationship between perception and reality is more complex than a straightforward indirect correspondence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

2. Neuroscience and Perception:
Neuroscience has shown that our perception is heavily processed and interpreted by the brain. This supports indirect realism to some extent (as it shows a distinction between reality and our perception), but also raises questions about how accurately our perceptions can correspond to reality. If our sensory data is subject to significant interpretation and construction by the brain, the reliability of any "indirect" access to the external world becomes questionable.

3. Visual Illusions and Cognitive Biases:
Visual illusions demonstrate that what we perceive can be very different from what is actually present in the external world. This suggests that our perceptions are not always reliable representations of external reality. While this might seem to support indirect realism, it also implies that our intermediaries (sensory data, mental representations) can be flawed or deceptive, complicating the notion of accurately perceiving an independent reality.

Addressed these already. Again, it's typically the direct realists and the Kantians who can't handle the inherent uncertainty of indirect realism, but that doesn't mean that this is a genuine problem. Rather it could mean that the direct realists and the Kantians clang to an irrational expectation of certainty.
And again, we don't walk into walls, some people don't even hallucinate their entire lives, so imo the representation can be seen as "good enough".

4. Relativity and Space-Time Perception:
Einstein's theory of relativity shows that space and time are not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. This challenges the idea of a single, objective reality that is perceived indirectly. Instead, it suggests that reality itself is dependent on the observer’s position and velocity, blurring the line between perception and the external world.

Whoever wrote this one didn't understand Einsteinian relativity. It doesn't have actual observers, say a different observer's frame of reference can be assigned to every point in spacetime. Meaning that even inside the "human observer", there are many or infinitely many frames of reference. The higher part of your brain/mind ages slightly faster than the lower part due to time dilation.

5. The Brain-in-a-Vat Argument:
Philosophical thought experiments like the brain-in-a-vat scenario question whether we can ever truly know the external world. If all our experiences are simulated, then indirect realism's assertion of an external world we perceive indirectly becomes unfalsifiable. This challenges the coherence and practical utility of indirect realism as a framework.

? If what we experience is simulated then any philosophy is wrecked, not just indirect realism.

These scientific facts and theories complicate the indirect realist position by showing that our perceptions and the external world are deeply intertwined, and questioning the accuracy and reliability of our perceptions. They suggest that the relationship between perception and reality is more complex than a straightforward indirect correspondence.

Your counter arguments are all nonsense.

Provide references [not from a lone wolf but there should be sufficient to support your views] from those who share your counterviews above?

[Atla]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

2. Neuroscience and Perception:
Neuroscience has shown that our perception is heavily processed and interpreted by the brain. This supports indirect realism to some extent (as it shows a distinction between reality and our perception), but also raises questions about how accurately our perceptions can correspond to reality. If our sensory data is subject to significant interpretation and construction by the brain, the reliability of any "indirect" access to the external world becomes questionable.

3. Visual Illusions and Cognitive Biases:
Visual illusions demonstrate that what we perceive can be very different from what is actually present in the external world. This suggests that our perceptions are not always reliable representations of external reality. While this might seem to support indirect realism, it also implies that our intermediaries (sensory data, mental representations) can be flawed or deceptive, complicating the notion of accurately perceiving an independent reality.

Addressed these already. Again, it's typically the direct realists and the Kantians who can't handle the inherent uncertainty of indirect realism, but that doesn't mean that this is a genuine problem. Rather it could mean that the direct realists and the Kantians clang to an irrational expectation of certainty.
And again, we don't walk into walls, some people don't even hallucinate their entire lives, so imo the representation can be seen as "good enough".

4. Relativity and Space-Time Perception:
Einstein's theory of relativity shows that space and time are not absolute but relative to the observer's frame of reference. This challenges the idea of a single, objective reality that is perceived indirectly. Instead, it suggests that reality itself is dependent on the observer’s position and velocity, blurring the line between perception and the external world.

Whoever wrote this one didn't understand Einsteinian relativity. It doesn't have actual observers, say a different observer's frame of reference can be assigned to every point in spacetime. Meaning that even inside the "human observer", there are many or infinitely many frames of reference. The higher part of your brain/mind ages slightly faster than the lower part due to time dilation.

5. The Brain-in-a-Vat Argument:
Philosophical thought experiments like the brain-in-a-vat scenario question whether we can ever truly know the external world. If all our experiences are simulated, then indirect realism's assertion of an external world we perceive indirectly becomes unfalsifiable. This challenges the coherence and practical utility of indirect realism as a framework.

? If what we experience is simulated then any philosophy is wrecked, not just indirect realism.

These scientific facts and theories complicate the indirect realist position by showing that our perceptions and the external world are deeply intertwined, and questioning the accuracy and reliability of our perceptions. They suggest that the relationship between perception and reality is more complex than a straightforward indirect correspondence.

Your counter arguments are all nonsense.

Provide references [not from a lone wolf but there should be sufficient to support your views] from those who share your counterviews above?

You forgot to point out why they are all nonsense.

And again:

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.[3] Furthermore, indirect realism is a core tenet of the cognitivism paradigm in psychology and cognitive science.

amnesiac much?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are there scientific facts that can be seen as inconsistent with indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the philosophical position that we do not perceive the external world directly; instead, we perceive it through a series of intermediaries (such as sensory data or mental representations). This theory posits a distinction between the way the world is and the way it appears to us.

Several scientific facts and theories can be seen as challenging or providing a nuanced view of indirect realism. Here are some of them:

1. Quantum Mechanics and Observer Effect:
In quantum mechanics, the act of observation can affect the state of a quantum system. This observer effect suggests that the boundary between the observer and the observed is not as clear-cut as indirect realism might imply. If observation alters the state of what is observed, the idea of a separate, independent reality becomes more complex.

Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

(And even if QM turns out to be observer-dependent which may or may not be the case, the QM-observer could be something wildly different than the human mind.)

Where is your references to support the following;

Atla: Strawman - indirect realism doesn't imply a clear-cut boundary, doesn't imply fundamental separation.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

According to the above, "the external world as it really is" imply a clear cut boundary and fundamental separation.
Any indication it is not above, imply direct realism and antirealism.

Indirect realism is a subset of philosophical realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism