Talk:Representationalism

Any facts? Who are "we" in "We do not concern ourselves with any differences in meaning...?" Any reference? Any quote? Is this more than name-dropping? Wetman

Please see User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text for information on the origin of this text. Please feel free to clarify, depersonalise and tighten up the language. EdH 05:17, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I reverted this article to its state before the most recent edit. I think that edit was a mistake; the article made little grammatical sense without the edited text.

Final paragraph
The concluding paragraph clearly presents a POV. What is the “widespread misunderstanding of the Homunculus argument”, who says it is a misunderstanding and why should we think the “many psychologists” who reject it are wrong? Banno 21:19, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) No one seems upset, so I removed it.Banno 07:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophers of perception often contrast representative realism with indirect realism and would deny that the representative realist is committed to any 'veil of ideas'. According to the indirect realist and the naive realist, perceptual consciousness puts you involves direct awareness of something. What they disagree about is the nature of the object of awareness. Someone like Russell would say that what you are aware of is something mental; the naive realists insists that you are immediately aware of external objects. The representative realist (typically) disagrees with both in that they think that perceptual consciousness, like cognition, involves a kind of intentional content and it is in virtue of the intentional content that your experiences are about what your experiences are about. They would deny that your representing the world through contentful states makes the world indirect just as we would deny that my having to act on the world with my body makes my interaction with the world indirect.

There is some controversy in the literature as to how representative realism relates to indirect and naive realism. Some indirect realists consider themselves representative realists and others consider themselves direct or naive realists and this article as it is written does not make note of this. C.L.

Merge?
Representative realism should be merged with this page and re-directed. Any objections? Banno 21:11, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * agree, with no objections in 6 months, im goin for it. how about Indirect realism aswell? Spencerk 07:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)