Naive realism (or externalism) is probably false

Thanks to Con for presenting your arguments.Perceptual VariabilityThough interesting, I do not believe that Con’s argument even gets naive realism off its feet. It still admits the indirect representation of reality and thus does not correspond to naive realism.Con’s picture is misleading. I don’t know what Pro’s picture is, but it’s not a picture of ultraviolet light. Humans and most mammals simply can’t see ultraviolet light [1]. Evolution only allowed us to detect what confers an evolutionary advantage and ultraviolet light did not for us. Regardless, Con is missing the point. It would not matter if we were able to see as bees do. The perceptual variability of creatures implies that there is no correct way to perceive reality; there are only different ways.Con is again deceptive in saying that we can hear like a bat by following his link. The sound was slowed down 20 times so that we can hear it, according to his link. It’s 20 times slower than what a bat hears. The sole reason we can’t hear it is because of its speed, so presenting a slowed down version in this debate is pointless. We’re not capable of hearing how they hear, so we’re not capable of conceiving what it’s like to be a bat.Again, regardless of whether we can manage to hear bat sounds, the fact is that our experience of the world is vastly different to theirs. It doesn’t matter if we can get some idea of what their experience is like. It would have nothing to do with being able to perceive reality directly. Both humans and bats see reality indirectly because of their anatomy and cognitive apparatus. No creature sees reality as it is, and if any do, it’s not humans. Even if Con argued we could tap into the minds of every living creature on earth, that would not be an argument for naive realism. It would only mean we have access to different representations of reality. The question is not whether we can transcend our “limitations”--not a word I’d agree with here. The very admittance that we’d have to escape our perceptual apparatus implies that we do construct an indirect representation of reality in our minds. It would not matter if we were able to mimic a bee’s perception of reality. The question is whether in all of this perceptual variance among creatures can we say that there exists the right way of perceiving the world. Perception is best understood by saying there isn’t, but even if there were, how could we know that it’s humans that are doing it right? Con has to defend the proposition that humans perceive reality directly and as it is and that qualia, such as the perception of color, are inherent properties in the world--despite the fact that their very definition distinguishes them as internal and subjective. He thus has to dismiss the perceptual perspective of other creatures and even other humans (such as color blind people, people with Tetrachromacy and even those who perceive depth differently or perceive more patterns in nature. Argument from IllusionAt this moment, I’m sitting at a basketball practice. If I were to describe what I see, I would say that a group of 8 girls, half of whom are wearing yellow pennies, are playing a game. They’re divided into two groups. Their external anatomy distinguishes them as human. And they’re using a spherical ball.An analysis of the description above reveals how reality as perceived by us is constructed. The concept of multiplicity and of abstract numerical entities are human notions, albeit with practical applicability to the world. Every categorization and division of entities in the world is created in my mind. To see this most clearly we can recognize the fact that geometrical entities very rarely correspond to reality, and numerical absolutes can only be approximately represented in the physical world and only through mental categorization. Math assumes identity: that 1 is equal to 1 and the addition of them creates something absolute called 2. In the physical world nothing matches up to his process, because nothing in the world is identical. We merely label things. The very action of taking something physical and isolating it from everything else is a mental process used constantly in everyday life. We conceive reality in mathematical terms and categories because it is extremely useful, but this representation is created by us.I cannot overstress the fact that direct realism would be greatly disadvantageous to us (assuming it is even possible). We could not live life without the categories that we impose on experience. In order to make sense of the world, we use a vast array of perceptual tools such as our synthesization of experience and constant labelling and categorizations which are vital to basic functioning. A direct realist wouldn’t even be able to cross the street. Con does not give us any reason to believe what we perceive as color is an inherent quality of objects. Color is based off of light waves but color does not equal light waves. Experience of color has two components: external stimulation and internal representation--light waves and qualia. A color blind person could know every physical fact there is about redness but she would still lack the understanding of the subjective quality of our perception of what is red, though what red is is different to different people. Light waves are the most objective basis we can give color, but what people perceive as red or blue varies, as evidenced by the women mentioned last round who sees in 100 million colors (or shades of color). Even closing one eye can make color appear different to normal, as Hilary Putnam notes [4].Texture: Con misses the point. The table is neither smooth nor rough. We feel it as smooth because of our anatomy. It is smooth to us but neither smooth nor rough in itself. As Robert Anton Wilson says [3], we really should stop using the word “is” so often and replace it with “appears to be” or “seems to be”. “The desk seems smooth.” “The music feels pleasant.” “Ultraviolet radiation does not appear visible.”As with color and texture, taste corresponds to something objective but is itself subjective and mental. I’m sure my desk would have a taste to me, but it would probably be different to your taste of it. Perception-Independent Properties of Objects/Direct Perception of the World by Means of the SensesI believe Con has ignored my last two paragraphs, including the synthesization of experience and qualia.As stated before, our cognitive apparatus is not a limitation. Indirect realism is necessary for anything to cohere in the world. It is what enables us to go about our daily lives with ease and to study nature in a way that makes sense to us. For example, if we ceased to synthesize experience, we’d no longer see a coherent world. The synthesization of experience is exactly what allows us to take a vast array of complex data and form it into something that give us an intelligible experience. As Daniel Robinson put it (inexact quote) “the radical empiricist would live life starring about with a gross rusticity” [5] (naive realists are not necessarily radical empiricists but radical empiricists would usually have to be naive realists). Thinking in absolutes helps us to organize objects. We use geometrical concepts to organize experience and use abstract mathematical notions to conceive the world as law governed. We see patterns constantly in nature. We make use of symbolism and give everything labels. We categorize objects and divide them into discrete entities. As the above indicates, humans don’t just perceive subjective qualities such as color and taste; the very intelligibility of experience is indirect representation.Con has given us no reason to believe we can escape subjectivity. It’s simply not possible. The world is only coherent because of the way our mind shapes it. Experience can reveal the subjectivity of perception, but does not teach us how to get past it--not that that would be desirable. Moreover, Con seems to outright admit that our knowledge of the world is indirect. Saying that we can escape it assumes that we’re stuck in it now. Con has to show that we perceive the world as the naive realist posits we do; not that it’s possible for us to. My argument is most certainly not outdated. An understanding of cognitive science in fact helps it. Sources[1] http://io9.com...[2] http://motherboard.vice.com...[3] [4] [5] http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk...