Talk:Direct and indirect realism

message: With no objections in 6 months, im goin for the merge. There was also a less developped page called Indirect realism aswell, which i merged into this one. 
On the name for this page? lets discuss:
*"Representative realism" -861 google hits
*"Representative Theory of Perception" - 517
*"Indirect realism" -876
*"epistemological dualism" -9,650  
Spencerk 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this merge is that the article claims that representative realism is "related to" indirect realism, while the redirect suggests that they are the same thing.  I think this is a contradiction. Mark Foskey (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge boldness

message: I would like to ask two major questions. One is why is it that when I type in Representationalism (an artistic movement) I get a philosophical topic which seems to e related, but distictly difrent from what I am looking fp
The second thing, is the link in the see also section labeled Representationalism takes you to this page. (circular linking) See the above remark regarding the seperate meanings. [Representationalism]
Related Subjects:
 Artistic Realism
 Comics
 Computer and Video Games
(KickAssClown 08:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representationalism (fine arts) and Representative realism (philosophy) are not the same. 

message: Thomas Reid is a direct realist pur sang, and fierce critic of the concept of sense data, representationalism and the like. For this reason, I've removed the reference to him from this page.
Stdbrouw 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Reid 

message: I am desperate for a reference for 'Aristotle realised this and simply proposed that ideas themselves (representations) must be aware' for my phd. If anyone knows where this came from (if it is actually substantiative), please-o-please let me know at my talk page here. Excellent work on this article! Mark Elliott 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle reference needed! 

message: More to the point, "holymorphic" is a 19th century invention that is somehow gifted backwards to Aristotle. 
From the article:
"In On the Soul he describes how a seer is informed of the object itself by way of the hylomorphic form carried over the intervening material continuum with which the eye is impressed.[5]" 
This is wrong. First, the footnote gives a bald rendition of Aristotle's thinking.  Second, nothing in On the Soul describes something carried over intervening material continuum to impress the eye. What grotesque babble.  
Aristotle's theory of perception is direct. JA Smith's translation: "The activity of the sensible object and that of the percipient sense is one and the same activity..."  To make it clear: "when that which can hear is actively hearing and which can sound is sounding, then the actual hearing and the actual sound are merged in one."  No holymorphic forms flying across continuums.
Aristotle's direct perception was abandoned for nearly 2000 years. 
Brian Coyle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle's On the Soul Discusses this 

message: Hi! I would like to know some references about the section about references. :) The problem of explaining how reference of expressions works if we accept representationalism interests me, but the text doesn't cite any sources. Can anybody help me (and this article) by mentioning some papers or books that discuss this subject?
Mirrmurr (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: We propose something like the following two paragraphs for this section:
At canonizer.com a growing group of grass roots volunteers are developing rigorous ways to collaboratively develop and concisely state 'camps' representing accepted theories.  And to also quantitatively measure who and how many people are in each.  Everyone is encouraged to contribute, making the survey more comprehensive, and Mind Experts are determined by a peer ranking process which will enable quantitative measures of 'scientific consensus'.
This survey process is just getting started with a topic on theories of consciousness, but  already a Consciousness is Representational and Real camp has established a clear early lead at how well it is developed and how much support it has.  The members of this camp and the various supporting sub camps believe no other theory of consciousness will ever be able to match the amount of consensus this camp will be able to achieve going forward.  And ultimately that demonstrable scientific proof will convert everyone into this camp revealing it to be THE ONE true theory of consciousness.  The primary goal of canonizer.com is not to determine truth via popularity, but to simply rigorously measure how much support there is for all accepted theories, especially the good minority ones, and the best terminology to use to describe such, going forward as scientific evidence continues to come in at ever increasing rates.
Brent_Allsop (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to be kidding. There is no way that web site is a reliable source by the standards here. I removed this nonsense. Please do not restore it without carefully reading WP:V or asking for input e.g. at the reliable sources noticeboard. This article is already bad enough without making it worse with this section. Tim Shuba (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section: 'Does the "Scientific Consensus" support Representative Realism?' 

message: A popularity contest to determine which side wins?  Why not let the Church decide?  Why does direct perception strike such fear into, um, some people?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article a magnet for bad ideas? 

message: It seems that this notion is fairly important in the field of sociology, given that it is related to the philosophy of positivism. It is also mentioned in Schopenahuer's book The World as Will and Representation. ADM (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Positivism is largely obsolete as regard to sociology, so any connection must then be a kind of critical relation, maybe antagonism. And I've gotten the impression that positivism is an empiricist extreme rejection of knowing the underlying nature of observed thing, up to and including things other humans think they can safely deduce. I'm not sure this relates very strongly to representative realism, except insofar as the doubts of the senses is shared. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociology

message: :Although Descartes duality of natural substances may have echoes in modern physics (Bose and Fermi statistics) no agreed account of 'interpretation' has been formulated.
I don't think even the author of that sentence knows what they mean. 
Descartes thought that there is a physical material world and there is also a soul or a world of the mind, and that the latter is also real but exists on a separate plane and is not composed of the same stuff as anything else is. This has absolutely nothing to do with the how modern physics can classify the components of the physical material world into different categories, such as by the parity of their quantum wavefunction representations. To say otherwise is like saying that vitalism has echoes in the fact that some particles do or do not have rest mass, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the philosophical term. (At best, you might try to draw such an allusion for the purposes of explaining the physics, but not for the purposes of explaining the philosophy. It's not as if the brain were made of fermions and everything else of bosons.) I think this is just mysticist trash that has crept into the article, and symptomatic that the article is struggling (failing) to clearly explain the topic. Perhaps it would help if the lead began by contrasting the most extreme characatures of the two positions, leaving the subtle nuance for later in the article? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: The word metaphysical isn't used anywhere else in the article, and I don't think it is being used correctly in the Problems with the indirect theory section in this sentence:
"This also brings up the problem of dualism and its relation to representative realism, concerning the incongruous marriage of the metaphysical and the physical."
Would it be better to say "incongruous marriage of the representational and the physical?"
--Golden Eternity (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dualism between metaphysical(?) and physical 

message: The paragraph starting with
is rather confusingly worded. It might be helpful to clear it up at least grammatically, if not also in terms of meaning. It's a little hard to see for me how a philosophical argument about the nature of perception is linked to social constructivism, but that's just an aside. 79.246.213.187 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Constructivism Paragraph 

message: Veil of perception redirects here. In which case, this idea goes way back, before Aristotle. Fethi Benslama is a French psychoanalyst  who talks about direct and indirect realism that the prophet Muhammad experienced with an angel and then had his wife interpret for him whether it was real or not.  Would anyone like to comment? Would you like "Veil of perception" to be explained in this article or would you like to separate them?  USchick (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Veil of perception

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Direct and indirect realism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811172229/http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/epist/naive-philos.html to http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/epist/naive-philos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905185905/http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html to http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708114333/http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/14 to http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/14
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423134630/http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/17 to http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/17
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423134139/http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/20 to http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As others have noted before, it seems like the Naïve realism article covers the same subject matter as this material, and I can't see any reason to keep them separate from one another. I'm therefore planning on merging them if there's consensus in favor of it, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts either way. --Drevolt (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As defined in this article, it seems that Direct Realism is just an iteration of Naïve realism - that the former only assumes this form when it is used to counter Indirect Realism. I have also found a text that might illuminate their difference. According to Smythies and French, "while each [form of Naïve realism] entails Direct Realism, Direct Realism does not entail any of them, for one can be Moderate Direct Realist and reject each of these forms of perceptual naivete". Successfully refuting the other does not mean that the other was also refuted. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge; as Darwin Naz points out, the shades of meaning are sufficient subtle that it seems very reasonable to discuss in one place. Klbrain (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Against merge; Aren't these terms that evolve over time, and in the hands of different authors, so that they can't in fact be reduced to versions of each other? Also, as someone who is currently digging into some bits of philosophy, I come across the term 'naive realism' quite a lot, 'direct realism' not at all. The danger with a merge is that you leave the largest part of the audience without an explicit acclount of what naive realism is.Willbown (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose because the Naive realism page talks about what naive realism is, while this page only talks about what these philosophical ideas are not. At least, I assume that is why this page only has sections on "problems with" direct and indirect realism without ever having any section on what either of these ideas actually is. NHammen (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objections and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge