The Philosophy of Perception: Can we believe what we see? | Alex Abbott | Skillshare

Playback Speed

  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

The Philosophy of Perception: Can we believe what we see?

teacher avatar Alex Abbott, I like to think!

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

7 Lessons (49m)
    • 1. Introduction to the Course

    • 2. The Problem of Perception

    • 3. The Illusion Argument

    • 4. The Hallucination Argument

    • 5. The Sense-Data Theory

    • 6. Indirect Realism

    • 7. Problems with Indirect Realism

  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.





About This Class

How do we know what we see? What does it mean to perceive something? When I look at something, am I really seeing it? These are just some of the questions we're going to look at in this introductory course in the Philosophy of Perception.

Perception is a very interesting part of Philosophy. It causes us to ask a number of questions about how we're able to experience the world around us. In this course, we're going to be looking at two main theories of perception in Philosophy: Direct Realism and Indirect Realism. These are the two cornerstones of the Philosophy of Perception. What we're going to do is briefly explain both positions, and then go about trying to find things that are wrong with them. 

Engaging in this course will enlighten you to a broad range of philosophical concepts, such as the Illusion and Hallucination arguments, the Sense-Datum Theory of Perception and the Lockean concepts of Indirect Realism. Since this is an introductory course, you're going to be equipped with an overview of the topic. If you really enjoy this course, be sure to let me know and I'll do a more advanced course later on in the year. 

The course content looks like this: 

1. Introduction to the Course

2. The Problem of Perception 

3. The Illusion Argument

4. The Hallucination Argument

5. The Sense-Data Theory of Perception

6. Indirect Realism

7. Problems with Indirect Realism

Copyright info on thumbnail pic: Creator: Westend61 | Credit: Getty Images/Westend61Copyright: Westend61 / Kiko Jimenez

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Alex Abbott

I like to think!


Hello, I'm Alex. I have a BA in Philosophy from the University of Nottingham and am currently in the process of getting an LLM in Law. In the future I would love to pursue academic studies further and go on to do a PhD. I have a keen interest in teaching people what I have learned in fun and interesting ways. My primary expertise include Metaphysics, Logic, the Philosophy of Mind and Ethics. I shall be making courses on some fun and interesting areas of Philosophy. 

My Current Courses include: 


- Can Computers Think? Introduction to the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

- Who am I? Introduction to Personal Identity

- A basic introduction to stoicism

- Introduction to Formal Logic

- Introduction to the P... See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
  • Yes
  • Somewhat
  • Not really
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.


1. Introduction to the Course: Hello and welcome to the philosophy off perception, which is a brand new course here. We got taken introduction to the idea of the philosophy of perception. Specifically, we're going to begin into some really interesting things. I'm gonna cover what we're gonna get into in the just a little bit later on in this video in this introductory lesson. So what really are we talking about? What is perception? What do we mean when we're saying we're going to do the philosophy of perception? As in what is the definition? Effectively So according to the dictionary into Google generally have Really the perception is the ability to hear become aware of things through sensors, century perception. So we have the ability to hear things, the ability to see things, to feel, things, to taste, things to smell things, the's, Airil These are all examples of things we perceive. Okay, Andi, the idea is perception is a fed really quite interesting. It doesn't sound very interesting when we take a soft surface level approach, but when we actually start to think about the the details off the philosophy of perception , we start to realize there's asked, acquire complex issue. It links to our understanding of metaphysics, which is the sort of understanding and the philosophy of reality effectively on it also links to our understanding off missed, um, ology, which is the study of what we know and how we know it. How we can, you know, find justification for what we know and effectively looks at this study off our relationships with the outside world our relationships between within our mind to the outside world and how we can really start to really understand that relationship On a philosophical level, Andi, in this court or going to has taken introduction to the basic challenges that are faced by people who are trying to study perception on we're gonna do an overview off the off the topics in philosophy, modern philosophy on go a little bit back and have a look at some of the older arguments that have been made about perception in general. So specifically in this course, we're gonna look at the problem perception, which is really just setting the ground. Works for what we're this issue where the issues philosophically come from. We're gonna look at two quite interesting arguments, which the illusion on the hallucination arguments for why there isn't any kind of direct link between our minds and the real world. We're gonna then try to answer the illusion and the hallucination argument by looking at different theories. And we'll start by looking at sense data theory or the sense data, my theory off perception. And we're gonna finish off by looking at the idea of indirect realism as a theory of perception on then, take a little introduction to the kind of problems that we could be facing if we're going to accept indirect realism as a philosophy. So, like I said in the next lesson, a problem of perception. That's what we're going to start off. We're look at, really start looking into the philosophical details on All I can say is, Thank you for watching. 2. The Problem of Perception: So in this lesson, we're gonna stop doing the actual philosophy on. We're going to start by looking at the problem of perception. We're gonna look a couple of theories of perception, the sort of intuitive theory of perception. Should I say on. Then we're going to start to introduce the idea that the intuitive notion of perception isn't quite what it seems so specifically in this lesson, we're gonna take an introduction to Perception just a little bit. Give a little bit more detail than we did in the last little introductory video. I'm going to look at our understanding of our openness to the world, the idea of direct realism, Okay, And that's what we're gonna call if we're gonna be talking about direct realism on Essentially can be described as an openness to the world. So as an introduction, the subject's perception has always been an interesting part philosophy. It's always been a very difficult one for people to get their heads around, which is why I'm doing an introductory course. So essentially, the idea of perception is about our link between our mental lives, the living within our brain, on the link to the external world How do we relate the mind to the external world to the rial life things? More specifically, how do we link mind the mind to mind independent objects on object that is independent of our minds. So perception is primer for she just a direct awareness of some kind of object in our environment. Andi. Despite this understanding of perception, there is some very convincing arguments that suggests the hour openness to the world, our ability to have a direct connection with the with non independent objects. That's actually an impossible. It's impossible to do that on their their the arguments we will look at in the next video and the lesson after that and these are known as the paradoxes of perception so suggests that the idea of perception the intuitive idea of perception, is actually paradoxical. It doesn't actually make sense. But what is the intuitive idea of perception? This is really the kind of direct realism argument or the openness to the world view. OK on. It's like when you look around, you see a number of things. Okay, you see objects you see shapes, you see sizes. You see the's shapes have different colors. They have different textures. I've got a water bottle here. I'm looking at his water bottle. It's see through its got a label on. It gets off a certain shapes of a certain size. If I touch it, it's got a certain texture. These things are showing in my mind they're in. They are something that I can mentally picture Arkan mentally understand. OK on. This is what I would characterize. His perception. I'm perceiving this water bottle in front of me. That's what's going on. What's important to know is that the idea of perception is that it does seem to be a kind of direct relationship. It seems to be about a causal relationship. Almost okay, there is a direct relationship between the mind and then the objects in the real world. So if we talk about the war ball, there is a direct relationship between my mind. Andi, this mind independent object, which is the war ball, which I've just made a noise to prove that it is here. Okay, so this is an interesting concept. The Dolph calls the minds openness to the world. The mind is open to the world. Andi, it's really the idea that we perceive things like colors, shapes, sounds and textures on that the perception involves you experiencing those qualities. Okay, that's what perception essentially is on us. What we would probably describes the intuitive idea of perception if we were to go along the street and ask people what what were if you were toe describe perception to me. What do it mean? What does it mean? If I was to perceive something, what would that mean on people would say, Well, it's your experiencing something OK, but more specifically, your experience in something that is independent of yourself. So this is a very important aspect. Off perception when it comes to philosophy is that this is what perception is attempting to entail. Okay, it is supposed to be our connection to the minds on riel objects in the real world. So for this direct link to be outside objects on their minds to exist okay, our minds have to be open to the world. So there's openness to the world is something that has to happen has to be true. If we're to accept that when we perceive something, we have a direct link to that thing, OK, that makes sense. so the concept of openness off the mind is captured by the relation being direct. That's what's important is a direct relation between the two on this idea of direct perception perception ALS like this. Okay, it is a perceptual relation between the mind, which I'm gonna label a on this on one end on a physical object in the world, which I'm gonna A label. Oh, okay, So we've got this direct relationship between a toe, OK, so my mind, this is directly relating information about oh, the objects. And that's how I perceive something on this is fundamentally this will represents the what we're gonna call the direct realist theory of perception is the view That perception involves a direct relationship between the mind on something that is independent of the mind. So, like, this war ball a pen I'm holding. Okay. In the next lesson, we're gonna really explore what this is quite a paradoxical notion. We're gonna begin by looking at the first paradox of perception will go call this the illusion argument on really the illusion argument is gonna is gonna provide a kind of set up for the stronger version, which is the hallucination argument on, then we're gonna look at really just explain why these things mean perception is fundamentally sorry that direct realism is fundamentally a flawed concept. 3. The Illusion Argument: Now that we've looked at and explained the direct realist view off perception, what we're gonna do in this lesson is start to break it down and look at why The view of the direct realist view of perception is essentially quite paradoxical in nature. I'm gonna start by looking at the illusion argument against direct realism. So as an introduction, we'll look at the idea of illusions that should be quite an easy introduction. But we're gonna actually formalized and define an illusion very specifically. And then we look at an example of an illusion, which is gonna be quite trippy. I'm gonna look at then, really, what the illusion argument is We're gonna explain it in premise and conclusion form. We're gonna just really formalize the argument in a lot of detail. And then we look at the implications of the argument what it actually means for direct realism that this argument exists and that this argument is this convincing. So the idea of illusion, what is an illusion? Simply partner illusion is where one perceives a riel object, but they perceive it in some way other than it actually is. Okay, so if we look at the following example, which is a very, very trippy illusion was happening here. So this is an illusion, since the rule image doesn't actually move in reality, there is no movement here. But what makes this is not an illusion and no hallucination is that this image actually exists. There is an image here. It's just that our our picture okay, our perception of this image is different to the actual properties that the image has in reality. In reality, this image isn't moving, but we're perceiving it as if it is moving. What makes this different from a hallucination is a hallucination is where we perceive something that doesn't actually exist at all. It's like this revere hallucination. If I told you that there wasn't any image here, then you have to really start to think about how much you have to drink. But this is an illusion, because there is an image here. Okay, but the thing that is makes it illusionary is the fact that this image here okay isn't moving. Whereas in reality, it in reality sorry. In our minds, as we perceive it, is moving somewhere. Take us off that before we get headaches, so yeah, this illusion says the real image doesn't move by. Perception of the image is that it is moving. Therefore, it's something which looks a certain way in our minds but is actually quite different in reality. Can you sort of see where this kind of line of reasoning is going? If you think back to what we were talking about with direct realism? Ouattara realism says there is a direct link between my mind Andi, the mind independent object that I'm going to perceive. So I think you can start to see why the illusion argument and just the existence of illusions in general proves to be quite controversial for this. For this viewpoint, because if we perceiving something that is actually different in real life as it is in our minds, then how is there a direct link? And that's what we're gonna form your lives here. So it's in the form of a version of ah, a number of parameters on a conclusion. So we we're gonna have a look at it in a minute. So the very notion off existence of illusions is evidence that we cannot actually be directly aware of things are in the external world via perception that cannot be this direct link. OK, so premise one the image above the image that we spoke about with the the moving circles. In that image we perceive motion, we perceive movement. Okay, In reality, there is no motion. There is no movement. I think we can both agree We can all agree. Sorry, that this is a thes two premises are both true. We're perceiving movement and motion in that image when in reality there isn't actually any emotion. I promise. So what? We're really perceiving Can't be riel. Still can't be the rial still image on the page. Okay, Because what the thing in reality is it is still image on the page. But we're not proceeding a still image. We're perceiving a moving image. So what Weapons even can't be that original? Still, image examples of illusions feel exactly the same as examples of non illusions. One is unable to tell the difference through perception alone. This is an interesting one. This is one that some people have Ah, a little bit of a problem taking to be true. However, if you think about it, there is no quantitative or qualitative reasons to allow one to be able to delineate between an illusion and a non. Just a normal perception for radical perception is the is the word we're going to use. Okay, that means just, you know, the rial. Normal perception. There isn't actually any way of delineating between the two. So therefore, in any case of perception, whether it be an illusion or not illusion at all Okay, what we're really seeing is some mental image okay? Off the off the object were not actually seeing the mind independent object, event or property. That's what the illusion argument is stating. The illusion argument is setting up the view, the notion that there are some examples. There are some examples where we perceive something in our minds that is different in reality. And, you know, by just basically showed that illusions exist explaining what they are aan den. What it does is it takes us one step further. That's what premise 12 and three do establishes that there are some things that are different in our minds to what they are in reality. I e illusions or promise four does is try toe, convince you that. Now, Now we know that There are things that exist separately and differently in our minds, as they do in reality, but we can't actually tell the difference between those things. We can't tell the difference between a normal vertical perception. Andi. An illusion. Okay, so that's what gives the link to us conclude, which is what here down here is the conclude that we can't be there can't be any link at all. There's no way of being able to tell between illusions and heretical perception. Then there's no way of there ever being a link between our mind on a mind independent object. So what does this in? What are the implications for this? For direct realism, which is basically offensively, contradict indirect realism. So what the illusion tries to show is that there cannot be any kind of connection to the outside world. So this this link here between a which is me on O, which is some objects, this link doesn't exist. There's no link here because if there was a genuine link between our perception and the real world, we'd expect illusions to feel different to non illusions. Or we'd expect the illusions don't even exist in the first place. they are, there wouldn't exist or they could exist, but they would. They would be able to be easily delineated. That's the illusion argument. So talking philosophically. It's true that there is no phenomena, logical difference between an illusion. Andi, the very Dicle Vertical cases of perception. So what we mean when we say phenomena logical is that there is no difference in our conscious experience of the to. The idea of phenomenology is thestreet d off conscious experience. So phenomenology is the study of experiences that are consciously unique. Like I already said before, when we're talking about vertical perception, we're talking about perception of the real world riel perception. Okay, the rial link. So, like I said at the start, this is made worse. Why the hallucination argument, which we're gonna look at in the next lesson. But for now, if we've looked take a summary, we have summarized what a nilou shin is on. We've outlined the illusion argument on we've pretty much concluded unless you've got some problems with the illusion argument. If you do, then feel free to put it down in the discussion section. But other than that, we've just we've really concluded that direct realism cannot be true because of this argument on we're gonna you know, those things could get worse for direct realism in the next lesson, when we talk about the hallucination argument. 4. The Hallucination Argument: now I've explained it outlined the illusion argument as a really basically a settle to this argument, the hallucination argument in this lesson. We're going to explain what the hallucination argument is on. Then we're gonna look at the implications for it again for direct realism. I mean, direct realism is already down and out, but we're gonna just start kicking it while it's down. Scenes as you know, things will get worse for direct realism. So politically, we go out on ideas of hallucinations again, we're gonna distinguish between what the difference between the hallucination on illusion is we're gonna then look at the hallucination argument in detail, and then we go again. Look at implications for the loose Nation argument. This is a very similar lesson to the last lesson. You'll notice that the main points that we're going to cover effectively the same thing on your notes that the argument is very similar as well. So the idea of hallucinations, they're very similar to illusions, but they differ in a very distinct way, and I mentioned in the last video, but I'm going to go into a lot more detail in this lesson. So it's for this reason that the hallucination argument is seen as a very similar argument of the illusion argument. Okay, They're both very powerful indicators against the concept off the openness to the world theory, the idea that our minds are open to mind independent objects or to just direct realism. In general, hallucinations are different with an illusion. You're perceiving something you're perceiving something different to something that actually exists in the real world. So, for example, there is an image on the next line, but we perceive it to be in motion. So the image that actually exists but we're perceiving it differently than exist in reality like So as we've got here, this image here, I'm gonna take this off the screen so we don't all get a hypnotist. Hallucinations are a little bit different than because what you're doing if you're having a hallucination, is you're perceiving something as existing Aziz existing, but it doesn't actually exist in reality. So, for example, if I was to look at my ball of water here and I was too have an illusion about the bottle of water, I might claim that the bottle of water is green or is yellow isn't in reality. Okay, if I was to have a hallucination about bottle of water, I would see the bottle of water if there wasn't one there. So even if the bottled water wasn't here and I still see it, I'm hallucinating. That's the difference. So if anything is definitely valid point to make that the hallucination argument is more powerful in showing that the openness to the world theory doesn't actually work, that the link between our minds and mind independent objects isn't there. Okay, so this is what it looks like. Formula formerly Sorry. So premise one in a hallucination. Things appear to exists when they don't actually exist at all. In reality, on premise to in these cases, we must be receiving something. There must be something that we're perceiving, even if it's not the actual thing that we think we're perceiving this something cannot be some physical object because no such objects exist because that's the definition of illusion. So we're perceiving something, but we're not receiving anything physical, so it must be some mental entity. There must be some kind of mental entity that we're receiving. No, anything in reality. And then we That's what asked the the idea that hallucinations exist. Okay, on, like like in the last lesson, Like in the illusion arguments lesson. We now have to, you know, make it. We have now have to conclude that we can't have any kind of perception. So we do that by proving that hallucinations are phenomenal, logically indistinguishable from very, very tickle perceptions. For example, a mirage in a desert. To somebody who is very thirsty. A mirage in the desert is phenomenal, logically indistinguishable from if them if there was, actually, you know, an oasis in the desert. In reality, there is literally no difference. Okay. You can't. You can't delineate the to. Just like you can't delineate between illusions. You can't delineate between an allusive nation, Andi. A vertical perception. So, as a conclusion, in any case of perception, hallucinations, vertical perceptions or even illusions. Okay, what we're really perceiving must be some kind of mental image. There isn't any mind independent objects or event. Okay, Only the we're not that there exists some mind independent object, but we just can't. We don't have any there. No mental link to it, or there's no such thing as anything as mind independent objects We'll look at that in the next lesson. But so you've really got to different forms. You got very strong form, which is suggesting that there's no link at all that there is. There are real things that exist in reality, but there's just no link between that, to my perception onto my brain, and you can take the strong, the strong approach, which is not only is there no link, but there aren't any mind independent objects. I'm perceiving this war ball, but there isn't actually a war ball here. It doesn't actually exist. That's where it starts to get a little bit higher up. We starts locker the philosophy of reality, which is something that it is beyond the scope for this course but will touch on it a little bit in the next lesson. So while the implications for the hallucination argument well, like I already said, it's it's a stronger version in the illusion argument because in the case of the illusion argument, a supporter might be able to suggest that there is at least some connection between the mind on a mine independent object. If you were thinking of Ah criticism of the illusion argument in the last lesson, you might be thinking, Well, okay, I don't see the object as it is in reality, but it is very close. So that that image, that's emotion. It's no in motion but over them that I'm perceiving the image correctly. So maybe there is some kind of maybe a weak link between the two and that that's where illusion to rise from. But you can't make that claim with hallucinations, because with hallucinations, you're making the claim that that you're perceiving something to exist when it actually doesn't. There's no link tall. There can't be any link because there's no physical object. So, yeah, you can convincingly claim that there is a connection between the mind and mind independent objects. So as a sort of task, are there any objections with hallucination? Argument? I've already conceded that there might be a way of explaining away the illusion argument on philosophers have explained away the illusion argument in that way. But are there any ways you can explain away the hallucination argument or why we should reject it? Because if no, we're gonna have to reject into a after, uh, were to reject direct realism. So what happens if we do reject direct the brittle we reject direct realism. What happens there? Will we have to look a different theory. So that's what building the next lesson. We're gonna look at this. The idea of the sense data. The're, um Okay, since data theory for perception, and see if that can provide answers to our problems of illusion and hallucination. 5. The Sense-Data Theory: For now, direct realism is essentially on the floor because we have attacked it first with the illusion argument. Andi, second with the hallucination argument. So we're going to start to look for a different theory on this isn't gonna be the theory that we're gonna explore in this lesson, which is the idea of sense data theory of perception on specifically we're gonna recap on really what we did to direct realism. We're gonna explain what sense data theory of perception is on. Then we're gonna move on to the indirect realism in the next lesson. So as an introduction, we've already explored the intuitive openness to the world notion of perception. That's the idea of direct realism that I'm perceiving an object directly on. There's a causal link between the two. Okay, so this is really the idea that yeah, I've just explained what that is. Okay, Her, me. We have also seen that this view might not be very convincing because of the hallucination , Andi, the illusion arguments. We've explained those arguments in the last lesson, which is the idea that if we have a hallucinations and illusions and we can't distinguish between something really and something that is unloosed nation or an illusion that how can we reliably say that there is a connection between a physical object, Andi and our mind Mind on my mind itself. Okay, for all the theories can we used to explain perception if we can use direct realism? One is called the Sense Data Theory of Perception. Now, the Sun States theory of perception suggests that ah, what there exists some kind of sense data Okay on that. These are mind dependent mental entities, so they depend on the existence of a brain or mind. So what we mean here is that they depend on their existence for someone, someone to go on in someone's mind. So according to census data, Syria perception, when we have a perception of something like this water bottle, we're not actually perceiving the water bottle directly where perceiving some kind of sense data When I perceive an object in the real world, there isn't a connection between me and the real world. There's a connection between me and the sense data of the object so equally when I'm perceiving a hallucination or an illusion, I'm just perceiving the sense data off a hallucination on the sense data of illusion. I'm not perceiving the actual object, which is how it gets around the illusion argument on the hallucination argument. Because it could just all be chalked up to the same kind of thing. Always or just sense data. So, yeah, this idea of sense states perception is describing just a relationship between things within our mind. Okay, Now we've closed off our mind, toe mind independent object. We're just talking about things within the mind itself. So, for something to be that particular perception, this exact perception over water bottle that I'm having, Okay, it does not rely on anything from the outside world. It doesn't actually rely on any physical water bottle or objects. Okay, It relies on a differentiation off the sense data. So have you made as you may have already realized? A consequence of this state sense data view is that the external world doesn't actually have to have any kind of relation to our perceptual states. Okay, that doesn't need to be any connection between the external world on our phenomena, logical understanding of perception. So we have line through our arrow here, okay? Between a toe, there is no perception. Okay, so that's a fake to be it. That's the view that where that that's the view will be looking at. In the next lesson, I'm gonna look a indirect realism, which is a view off sense data theory that states that we are not directly seeing an object when we perceive it. What we're doing is we're indirectly perceiving its sense data. So the sense data has some kind of link with the real world. But our perception doesn't It was a lesson task. I want to think about these things. So what do you think of the Senate's data theory? Do you think it's convincing? Is there anything wrong with the sense data theory? You know, uh, is there anything that you would you would change? Any objections to it? There's more reading in detail on sense data theory in the project section. We're going to talk about it in a lot more detail in the next lesson because we're going to link it to indirect realism. And if you still feel like you don't run is done sent state theory, make sure you ask a question. Did this discussion section down below? So finally, in the next lesson, we're gonna look at indirect realism 6. Indirect Realism: As I explained in the last lesson, the sense data theory, which we really cover quite quickly, links quite, quite well. It quite nicely linked to the idea off indirect realism, which is a kind of, ah, opposite a contradiction on opposite view to direct realism. So in this lesson, we're gonna really look at the story so far. Recap everything we've learned so far. Just so we were keeping track of everything that's going on, and I'm going to introduce and explain the idea of indirect realism. And then we're gonna finally just touch on John Locke's view off indirect realism on really where it came from. So what's the story so far? So we've discussed a number of things thus far. We've explained the basic idea off the direct realist notion of openness of the world Through perception. I perceive something with my mind. I have a direct link between that and the objects. We then showed why that position might be on convincing by looking at the hallucination argument on the illusion argument. If I have a hallucination, I can't actually delineate between the rial perception and hallucination, and if I've got a hallucination, then I can't actually have a direct link between objects that that's how does that work. Then we looked at our first move towards the indirect realists theory, which is the idea of the sense data theory of perception. Andi, in this lesson, we're gonna look at, in a normal detail, indirect realism as a whole, where the sense data theory fits into indirect realism. So when we looked at since data theory, one of things that is interesting is that there was the possibility that we could explain perception without any commitment to the external world. I mentioned that in the last video we could claim that there wasn't even an external world at all. We could claim that the external or doesn't even exist on sense. Data theory would still work out, and so would indirect realism. However, we didn't mention that there are multiple kinds of sense data theories. There is the indirect realists since data theory, which suggests that there are definitely mind independent physical object. There are things like my water bottle. They do actually exist in reality. Beyond the idea of sense data. The only thing that's different is that we just don't have any kind of direct interaction with it. Okay, we have an indirect interaction with them. There are also idealists. Onda phenomena list theories off sends data, which suggests that there aren't actually any minded, depending objects. All that exists in reality are the mines that my mind or your mind? OK, this war ball doesn't exist. This microphone doesn't exist. This laptop that I'm using too record this lesson on doesn't exist. There is just sense data theory, so they might have slight differences. But we can both agree with the notion. They both agree with the notion that perception is just a relation between our minds on this mind dependent sense data. That's what's different. There's no mind independent link. So the indirect realist does believe that there are actual mind independent objects. This laptop does actually exist. This war bold does actually exist in reality. That's what the the indirect realists suggests. While the indirect realists says is the we just perceive them indirectly. We don't have a direct causal link between the two. We have a direct link to the sense data on the sense data resembles the mind independent objects, the real world. That's what they say. It was analogy, we could say that like a direct realist is arguing for a view like watching a TV. Okay, so this might sound a bit weird, but let me just get on to it when we watch the TV where perceiving images on a screen. Okay, in this analogy, the sense data is like the images on the TV. We perceive the images on the TV, the sense data. But we don't actually perceive the theon objects on TV. If I'm watching a film I'm not actually seen to read. There's not a direct link between my eyes Andi, the person acting in this film because in between them there's a camera. And then there's a TV and I'm seeing through the TV, so it's almost like watching so that sends data. Indirect realists suggest that it's almost like watching a TV. Okay, we have a direct link between us and the TV, and the TV has a direct link between the real world and and eight. So in the indirect Realists fear we have a direct link between our mind on the mine dependent sense data theory. The sense data OK, and the sense data has a link between self on. Do whatever is in the real world. The, you know, the the mind independent objects, the war ball, for example, this ties into the lock in view off indirect realism. Okay, this is a specific example of a philosophical position. On it comes from the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. Andi, he fundamentally argues the subject s perceives. 01 object if and only if s has some idea I off. Oh, if that makes sense, Okay, that sounds very confusing. And when you read now, read now allowed. So a subject perceives on object if and only if the subject has some idea off the object here. The lucky lock uses the word idea. But this could just as easily be means sense data. So it could be a subject s perceives an object. Oh, if and only if it has some sense data off, it could easily be the same thing that is there. You're effectively talking about the same thing. So that's what we're looking at here According to the locking of us, is the person doing the perceiving you and I oh, is the perceived object. The mind the rial mind independent object on eyes some kind of image a mental representation on. That's effectively it. Okay, we So we have a direct connection to the image of our perception, but not to the object itself on that gets around the hallucination on the illusion argument , I may or may not be linked, toe. Oh, in any way at all. Okay, that's what we look at when we look idealist since data theory. But for this was looking to indirect realists. Since data theory, we all we know is that there is a direct representation. I an image or sense data on that is the representation off. Oh, OK. And we have a link to I. So rather than it being a lynx toe Oh, it's a lings toe. I or s select I. That's what we have, and that is effectively on alternative you to direct realism to the intuitive understanding of perception. In summary, there are different kinds of sense data theory. There's the real, quite strong sense data theory. There's all Berkeley and View. Okay, Andi, in this lesson, we looked at the indoor. A realist view of sense data. Okay. On we looked at the laki an explanation for indirect realist view. We can't really finish up before we talk about the problems with indirect realism, and that's all. Go doing the final lesson. Andi really conclude this entire introduction as an instruction. We took a look, a direct realism, problems with that indirect realism problems of that. So we're gonna finish by looking at the problems with indirect realism. 7. Problems with Indirect Realism: So in this final, less of what we're gonna do is take a look at problems with indirect realism. We looked a direct realism. We looked at problems with direct realism. We now a lot of indirect realism. Now we're just gonna finish up by looking at some problems with indirect realism. So we're gonna recap. We're gonna explain what indirect realism is. And then you look two main problems. We're gonna look at the resemblance problem and the problem of infinite regress, okay? And then we're gonna summarize everything and conclude the course. So what is indirect realism? That's what we're gonna ask again. What? We're gonna what we're gonna what is indirect realism? So, as we've already noted in that realism is the philosophical theory which states that our perceptions have an indirect relationship with mind independent objects and events. So with direct realism, there is a direct relationship between the perception on the mind independent object, like a sudden or the lessons. If I am perceiving this water bottle, what I'm doing is I'm having a direct relationship between my mind on this mind independent object. We've already noted that notice that that is an interesting the controversial position to hold because of the illusion argument and the hallucinations. And then we said, Well, okay, what about indirect realism? What about we have a direct relationship to somehow this kind of mind dependent sense data . But what we don't have is the a direct relationship between our mind and the mind independent object. So lot came up with a very interesting explanation of this indirect realism. He said the s a subject perceives an object if and only if the subject has some idea off the object. And that's how it will be lost. There are few objections to this theory. There are few their two main objectives. This theory, however, you could probably think of other ones as well. And that's what I want toe really get at in the discussion section. So the first thing we're gonna look at is called the resemblance problem. Andi, basically, if we explain Saints data theory on the on the injury realist view of sense data theory, boy saying is that we see external objects in virtue of seeing sense data. We see the sense data off this object, okay, and what allows us to have unique experiences of perception is that the sense data is supposed to have some kind of resemblance off this mind independent object. So we have a direct relationship with the sense data on the sense data resembles the water bottle, for example. But how does the sense Day to do this? It doesn't actually explain how sense data is able to have any kind of resemblance to a minded, dependent object because, as we only know, mental entities are our mental. They are long spatial. Okay, they are within the mind. So how can mental entities have any kind of resemblance off the real world? And this is interesting thing that Berkeley came up with. He suggested there is evidence that an idea could be nothing coming. Nothing can be like nothing but another idea. He suggested that no matter how much you try to make an idea resemble something in the real world, it will never be. It will never resemble it to a you know toe. If it's sufficient standard so effectively, an idea could be nothing like anything other than another idea. That's what he suggested now, so we will take a very strong conclusion to this. So, according to Berkeley. A mental entity does indeed have the capacity to resemble another mental entity, so sense data could resemble another other kinds of sense data. But it doesn't have the capacity to resemble anything in the real world. So the sense data theory falls down collapses, according to Berkeley. And he concludes that the very notion off what is called matter involves a contradiction. It so Berkeley take a very strong stance. He suggests that if we take the resemblance problem on, we assume that indirect realism has some problems. The therefore the reality. There's nothing that, in reality beyond mind dependent objects. So when one looks at the level of problem, they go down the road of suggesting that there's no such thing as a minded, dependent object. This board bottle doesn't actually exist, and arguably, that's quite a strong objection. You know that that takes a very intuitive objection. The idea that the Seven States theory doesn't actually explain resemblance Okay, it is actually isn't able to explain resemblance. And then we go take that conclude that there's no such thing as in mind independent object . That's very strong, so we can look at all the ways we can come to a different conclusion in the discussion section. Secondly, there's the redress problem. Okay, Some philosophers suggests that indirect realism is committed to an infinite regress off perceptions. So it goes a little bit like this. This is how it seems. Teoh how it how it works effectively You perceive a car in virtue of perceiving a mental image of that car sense data of that car. Okay, But in order to do this, you must perceive that mental image in virtue of perceiving a mental image off the mental image off the car. OK, on all to do this, you must receive a mental image in virtual receiving a mental image off the mental image off receiving a medal image off the car. OK, so as you can see if we're to explain is the sense data theory in this way by talking about something in virtual perceiving a mental image Off said in mind, independent object. What we seem to have is an infinite regress problem. It doesn't actually solve any issue. It just it just becomes an infinite loop. OK, this is a very convincing them. It's quite bad Objection, because what is doing is it's effectively straw manning the sentence data theory because it is coming up with, you know, it's creating a strawman of the same state theory. This is actually what sense data theory suggests, and then it is using that to try and disprove it, which isn't true. Okay, because the indirect realists isn't claiming anything about perceiving an image in virtue of anything else, Indra releases just simply stating that you perceive the car indirectly by directly perceiving a mental image of it. There's no such thing. There's nothing about as something being in virtue of something else. So that's where the infinite regress problem falls down. The resemblance problems a little bit more difficult to to tackle. That's why I left it out of this presentation so that we could, like, discuss it in the discussion section and have a look at how one might want to tackle the resentment problem. But infinite regret problem is really easy just toe over just a claim that it's a straw man and then move on because it really isn't a very strong objection. All these objections convincing to you is the resemblance problem convincing to you would be surprised if the infinite regress problem was convincing to you. But, you know Hey, hope if you got way to explain why the infinite regress problem is actually valid, then you put it down in the description section. Do it so in summary, for indirect realism, we've looked at how we might be able to object to the idea of indirect realism. OK, we've taken a look at two main objections, resembles problem on the infinite regress problem. As a course summary, we have really gone over a lot off were taken into drug tree perspective off the philosophy of perception. We've taken a very introductory roll. Okay, we've begun toe look at the philosophy of direct realism and the idea of this openness to the world. And then we start to look objections with direct realism with the illusion and hallucination arguments. And then we moved on to on alternative. The indirect realists sends data theory of perception on. Then we looked objections with that. So thank you for watching. Make sure you have a go at the course project I've got. There are a number of s a kind of questions, short questions. There'll be some further reading as well. If you want to really get back into its and read a lot more detail on you, make sure you look it from the reading, too. I will be doing them or advanced philosophy perception. But for now we're just taking an introductory look a different interesting areas of philosophy. So if you want a more advanced philosophy of perception, where we go into a lot more detail of all of these different different theories on also even new theories like add verbal ism, for example, we're gonna go and never look at that as well. So thank you for watching.