Naive realism (or externalism) is probably false

Thanks to my gomergcc for accepting.For sake of clarity, I will agree with naive realism that there exists a world of material objects, that sense-experience gives us some knowledge about this world, and that material objects exist independent of perception. I’m thus a realist in regards to the external world, but my argument will take a form of indirect realism and thus deny perception independent properties of objects and that we have direct perception of reality. Perceptual VariabilityThe typical human eye responds to wavelengths from 800 mu to 400 mu. The visible spectrum for a bee is 650 mu to 300 mu. Compared to humans, bees see light in shorter wavelengths. Their spectrum extends to ultraviolet, a color that humans cannot see. Bees can distinguish only four different colors in their visible spectrum: yellow, blue-green, blue, and ultraviolet. Humans are able to distinguish from about sixty different colors in the visible spectrum [1].Bats use echolocation to navigate their surroundings. Their unique perceptual tools enable them to “see” with sound by emitting usually ultrasonic calls, above the 20 kHz range for humans to be able to hear [2].Depth perception is perceived through binocular vision, image displacement, motion parallax and loom. In comparison to humans, rats have a limited binocular vision. They have to rely on motion parallax for depth perception, meaning they move their head from side to side so the objects seem to change position relative to each other based on distance thus enabling them to judge depth in a different way to ourselves [3].I think it evident that the perceptions of bees, bats, and humans are all unimaginably different. There’s no way one could even imagine seeing in the visible spectrum of bees or perceiving reality through sonar like bats. A rat’s depth perception is more conceivable, but ultimately something completely different to the way we perceive depth. If bees, bats, rats, humans, and all creatures see reality in vastly different ways, is it remotely reasonable to say that humans perceive reality as it is? Evidently, there are many different ways of seeing reality. Our cognitive properties and sense organs interpret reality and help us to make sense of it. Animals evolved different set of perceptual tools, thus making empirical reality vastly different for different creatures. For bees, reality is only four colors, including ultraviolet, which humans cannot see. Humans are able to see in many more colors but some of us can see in far more colors than others. For example, an artist with a rare condition called Tetrachromacy can see in an incredible 100 million colors (or shades of color) [4]. As mentioned, there are differences in the way depth is perceived as well. We could say the same of the cognition of objects in general.Argument from IllusionObjects appear differently to different observers, and under different conditions. There are many different reference frames for perceiving a given object. The position of the observer, the state of their nervous system, and the effects of light all determine how an object appears. In similar situations the object will look different yet there’s no qualitative aspect of the experience can distinguish them. We can say that the object causes us to have an idea of it, which is only a representation, not a true picture since the mind imposes its subjective elements on the experience. Humans also have fallible sense organs. We all have a blind spot in an eye corresponding to where the optical nerve connects the retina to the brain [5].Color is the most obvious flaw in naive realism. When I look at my desk, I see it as a shade of brown. No doubt, this is because it’s light waves correspond to that sensation. However, we could not say that color is an actual property of the table. It changes color based on lightning and looks different to people with different visible spectrums. The same thing goes for texture. It feels smooth but smooth is just a subjective feeling and if we were to look at it through a microscope, it would have many grooves and ridges. I haven’t tried licking my desk, but I’m sure we could say that my desk has no inherent taste to it. Taste and the other qualities of perception are given to objects by humans, not the other way around. They are not actual qualities of the physical objects.Perception-Independent Properties of Objects/Direct Perception of the World by Means of the SensesNaive realism fails in its belief that objects have and retain the properties we perceive them as having independent of humans. As the Wikipedia article puts it, that "their properties are perception independent". Indirect realism is the most rational way of viewing the cognition of objects. The desk sitting in front of me exists independently of me. However, my perception of it is mediated, not immediate. I do not directly engage with it perceptually. In between my perception of the desk and the desk itself are my sense organs and the cognition of sense data. All I see are percepts--objects of perception--not the actual objects themselves. We see objects by way of neurophysiological features involved in perception, meaning reality is mediated. I’m sure Pro agrees that experience is mediated, so why does this matter? Because reality is mediated in different ways, as seen as above, thus resulting in subjectivity. The mediation effects the experience. What we bring to bear on experience shapes experience. Reality is also too complex to capture completely. The mind must synthesize the vast array of data in a given experience into an intelligible whole. It thus does not assimilate most of the empirical data into the perception and the picture that it constructs is entirely created. It takes a fragmented jumble of elements and shapes it into a coherent whole by way of synthesis. This is the mind creating the perception as much as the external object. Perception is reciprocal. All experiences have very subjective characteristics which we call qualia: “I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry” [6]. These subjective properties are mental. Experience is mental. The objects of experience, as we know them, are mental. However, the material world is physical, which implies a disconnect between our inward representation of reality and reality itself. Our mind imposes concepts and categories onto experience which shape how we perceive objects. Strip away the subjective components of experience and you have nothing left. Sources[1]http://static.sewanee.edu...[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[3] http://www.ratbehavior.org...[4]http://www.learning-mind.com...[5] http://www.britannica.com...[6] http://plato.stanford.edu...