Perception of objects is indirect, mediated by ‘mental paint,’ or sense-data. Human beings possess five senses with which to perceive an object: hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling. Each of these five senses receives information in a very specific way, such as how ‘hearing’ involves the reception of vibrations in the immediate medium around one’s self by one’s ears and how ‘seeing’ involves the reception of wavelengths of light by one’s eyes. Whether it is one sense or another though, how this information is transmitted and processed all eventually involve the same system of the human body.
The nervous system, the collection and processes of the nerves within the body, is responsible for carrying the information received by those five senses and transmitting it to the brain. It carries this information via electrochemical signals to the brain, where the information is then processed. What this means, however, is that any object that is perceived by the mind, from any or all five senses, is actually just the electrochemical signals being received by the mind and converted in an appropriate fashion so as to be understood. Vibrations, for example, are not simply received and recognized as sound. They are received, converted, transmitted, and then processed as what the mind hears as sound. This is especially apparent when there is a flaw within the nervous system. Such a flaw might result in the misinterpretation of information and thus the externally testable flawed perception of objects, which would not occur with direct perception.
So perhaps than if there were to be a flaw within the nervous system the person may not have the ability to understand what it is that is effecting their body?
ReplyDeleteWhat if i were to say that 'direct perception' is an oxymoron, or that 'indirect perception' is nonsense? Or put differently: is there any sense in talking about an object's existence outside of our perceptions? That the amalgamation of various vibrating waves and electrochemical signals (plus the concept thereof) simply is the object?
ReplyDeleteI guess my thing is that, while your argument is super consistent, ending it with 'direct perception' points to a sort of weak spot in your argument, the onus on you (as the author) to define what that real object or direct perception would be. At least for the skeptical reader.
(sorry)
ReplyDeleteI think, too, that your argument--spec: 'Vibrations, for example, are not simply received and recognized as sound. They are received, converted, transmitted, and then processed as what the mind hears as sound.'--implies that direct perception would be perceiving the actual vibrations, without the electrochemical mediation. Scientifically.
My thing though is that perceiving said vibrations is experiencing sound. That the direct/indirect distinction is meaningless in terms of perception. Like, when you say indirect perception I imagine peripheral vision.