So, it is simply your unverified presumption against mine, based on our differing experience. This is not a matter for debate, but simply a statement of character, as I see it. If one tunes a piano one fixes the strings in a given static mode, which can be retuned. The issue is that we cannot apply such mechanistic notions to the mind. It needs structure, which is better provided by working metaphysics, because this is more adaptable to current needs, such as those resulting from the difficulties arising from the assumption of stable objects in particle physics.
Structure excludes creativity and invention.
In fact all the great minds of physics have claimed to get their ideas from the Mind of God, or some such far flung notion, so your claim is contradicted by the real contributors to the scientific process. The Berkeley view, like the Cartesian view and almost all other views in ancient and modern philosophy are not implementable within the classical paradigm. The Berkeley view is observational, but not classical in the limited sense of classical physics and its philosophical extensions. It cannot be clarified if you have not understood the previous premise. I have already explained to you that in my view MIR is a very small part of my total conception of reality - it is not a modus operandi, so it cannot result in or be the basis for naive realism.