| | Dragonfly wrote, The Peikoffian model sounds suspiciously like the dualist model of the Cartesian Theatre, somewhere in the brain, where the "I" is "directly" observing the incoming signals from the different senses. There is however no such place where "direct perception" takes place, where there is some localized interface between the "I" and the incoming signals (like a screen displaying the visual representation of the outside world for example). Perception is a complex process, in which the brain actively participates, building a model of the outside world. For us, these processes have become so fast and automatic, that we're not aware of them, which creates the illusion of "direct perception", but it is an illusion. No, it isn't. The Peikoffian model is correct. There is nothing else to perceive but reality. The only alternative to reality is unreality, which does not exist to be perceived. It is true that perception is a complex process in which the brain actively participates, because we always perceive reality in some particular form and by some particular means, but that does not mean that the brain therefore builds a "model" of the outside world, such that what we perceive is the model and not the outside world itself, which is a Kantian theory of perception if I ever saw one!
There are really only two alternatives: either you are conscious of reality or you are not conscious of it. If you are conscious of it, then you perceive it directly. If you don't perceive it directly, then in order to know it, you must infer it from what you do perceive directly. But the only thing that you could perceive directly other than reality is unreality, which does not exist. Therefore, if you perceive anything directly, it has to be reality; there is nothing else to perceive. Also, perception is, by definition, direct; there is no such thing as indirect perception. Any kind of indirect knowledge is inferential; it is acquired by inference from direct observation.
What you may be thinking is that since different people can perceive the same object differently (e.g., a color-blind person and a normal person), the object of awareness cannot be perceived directly, for if it were, then everyone would perceive it in the same way. This is what David Kelley calls the "diaphanous" theory of perception (see his book The Evidence of the Senses for a refutation of that view). The diaphanous theory holds that in order to perceive reality (directly), one must perceive it by a process of pure consciousness devoid of any means or form of perception. But it is that theory that must be rejected, because it makes no sense. Perception necessarily requires a specific means--physical sense organs--and a specific sensory form--e.g., vision, hearing, touch, etc.--without which it is literally inconceivable. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is not that because we perceive in some particular way and by some particular means, we do not perceive reality directly. The conclusion to draw is that we do perceive it directly but in different ways and by different means.
- Bill
|
|
