>>3876
>
In order to perceive distinct objects in the room, I must be given something which might distinguish them. If I'm denied all my current senses (vision, smell, touch, taste, hearing), then I can only distinguish objects if I have some other sense I didn't know about before.
I am saying that you can not only perceive an object through it's secondary qualities but also by its primary qualities, what I am essentially saying is that an object's extension and impenetrability proves that it exists. You do not need another sense to perceive this as you are blocked by the object when moving, for example if we walked in this room you would find yourself unable to walk further when walking into a wall. The same is with the apple, when moving out your hands you will notice that one has more pressure on than the other; through moving your hands around the area you will be able to map the apple in your hand due to the force it exerts on your hand.
>Because I can't actually find out whether or not there's something in my way while walking, since I can't feel my legs (no touch, remember?). Nor can I "feel" anything up to find out whether it's a chair, a vase, or a person.
You can still feel your legs, your legs are still attached to your body and you are in control of your body, only your sense of touch has been removed. As you still have your own extension, impenetrability and force, you can still "feel" objects.
>I don't know what you took "seeing no color" to mean, maybe you thought it meant "seeing stuff in grey scale". But that's still "seeing color", since a shade of grey is one. That means I see fuck all, like when I try to look at the back of my head.
Yeah I always find "colourless" odd but lets imagine that this room is completely black, there is no way for you to see anything apart from pitch black, it's the equivalent of you not having eyes until the door has opened.
>The only way I might have some spatial conception of any object in the room without reference to any of these ~sensibilia~ would be if I had some sensation relating either to space itself, or to my own position in it.
Yes, I understand this but I am not saying that we are dropped into this room with no knowledge as to what space is, we understand what space is and what matter is previously so you are almost correct saying "I would directly perceive the position of my own body, and thus would be able to infer the contents of the room in the manner you originally suggested", however when you are in the room you are not directly perceiving your own body, when you were previously in the room you had been though.
>Second. And this one might stem from my ignorance about Locke and indirect realism, but can this form of realism still be called "indirect"?
Yes it is still Indirect Realism as I am simply attempting to prove that objects can be perceived by only their Primary Qualities and not just their Secondary Qualities. As the person already has Sense Data regarding what walls, tables and apples are, he is able to deduce that they would be these things when he opens the door. As he is still referring to his sense data, this is Indirect Realism.
You could argue that this means that we do rely on our Sense Data and Secondary Qualities to perceive an object in this room but this is only to define an object in the room; if a man is dropped into an identical room with no Sense Data regarding Secondary Qualities he will still be able to understand that something is in his way when walking into a wall even if he has never perceived a wall. He is perceiving the object in his way by its Primary Qualities. This shows that objects exist in their Primary Qualities outside of being perceived by their Secondary Qualities. This shows that objects exist independently of observers as the ignorant man is perceiving the object directly without the use of Secondary Qualities and Sense Data.
I guess this conclusion leads us to say that, through Sense Data, objects can be perceived by their Secondary Qualities. However, objects can also be perceived directly through their Primary Qualities without the need of Sense Data. Though, to define these objects as objects and to understand the differences between objects, Sense Data will have to be needed. Since these objects can be perceived directly, however, shows that these objects exist independently of the perceiver.
tl;dr I guess I'm creating a mix of Direct Realism and Indirect Realism here. I'll post tomorrow to see how it holds up against criticisms of Indirect and Direct Realism.