Thanks for demonstrating my point precisely.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:51 pmJim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:23 pmIn the context of naïve realism, which is the context this is being discussed,it is clearly about perception by the senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realismIn philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. When referred to as direct realism, naïve realism is often contrasted with indirect realism.]
1. Jim perceives-conceives of his senses as sound, smell, taste, sight, and touch.
2. Through this unexamined naive conception, Jim fails to recognize senses of thinking, warmth, balance, and several others and their perceptual content. (Note one can perceive thought-forms not generated by one's own thinking, in case that wasn't clear).
3. Jim thereby refuses to consider any inner-endogenous perceptions as either (a) existing and/or (b) relevant to any scientific inquiry.
4. Jim is a naive realist with regards to senses.
That is my argument and it is compatible with the Wiki definition you use above (although I prefer Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy for all these terms). You are involved in a generally more extreme case of naïve realism here. In more milder case, the person naïvely regards what is perecived via senses as real. Here, you are failing to even perceive the senses in the first place. You are naively regarding the non-existence of certain senses as real, only because you fail to perceive them, even after they have been pointed out to you, and not on any reasoned grounds (hence naïvely).
My initial criticism was that you were falling for common trap of limiting the understanding of this modern prejudice so that it excludes your preferred worldview, as you hold to it, from its purview. With modern prejudices generally, people like to assume it applies to everyone but themselves. There was a time not so long ago I held to idealist understanding that also incorporated naive realism without knowing (for ex. "alter" is held as a naively real perception-conception for most). Also, the reason we can say "perception-conception" is that the two are inseparable, as all modern cognitive science has demonstrated.
You don't understand the meaning of naïve realism. You've made up your own definition.
Actually thinking about it, I can see why you fall for idealism. By your worldview, you can made up what you want and it can all be true. And everyone else's view can all be wrong.