Naïve Realism : To What Extent Are Are We Naïve Realist?

by frankiespeakin 8 Replies latest social physical

• 

  frankiespeakin

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

  For the psychological theory called "naïve realism", see naïve realism (psychology)

  Naïve realism argues we perceive the world directly

  Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mindrooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses.

  The realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, occupyspace and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usuallyperceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them. [1]

  Naïve realism is known as direct as against indirect or representative realism when its arguments are developed to counter the latter position, also known as epistemological dualism; [2] that our conscious experience is not of the real world but of an internal representation of the world.
• 

  Oubliette

  Frankie, you have started many threads on a variety of really interesting and relevant subjects. But most of them are just a Copy & Paste from Wikipedia.

  Why don't you write YOUR IDEAS on the subject, perhaps including a few salient and well-chosen quotes to support your views.

  Oubliette
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Ok here it is in a gist:

  I think colors and sounds are all a productions of the mind and not a direct awareness of what is out there. We see the world through sight, hearing, touch, smell, words, and thoughts. These are just tool of the mind born by evolution's survival of the fitest doing the selection. These sense are the brains measuring devices that the the brains processing power is reading they give to the conscious mind is merely symbolical in nature/ representations/labels.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF61lhEeGng
• 

  Phizzy

  It is very easy to slip from the world of Neurological Science in to Philosophy on this one !

  You say we really only interpret what we see, smell, feel whatever, rather than experiencing these things as they really are. You may well be correct.

  An added problem for some is a condition called Synaesthesia, which I have very mildly, and it causes me no problem, but for some it is very confusing.

  It basically refers to a condition where the brain fuses two or more senses, a guy I heard on the Radio some weeks back for example, says that when he hears words , he "tastes" them, the taste is not related at all to the word he hears. So "Grass" may "taste" like coffee for example.

  In my case I "see" certain things in colour, for example , the days of the Week, mention one, and that days colour springs to my mind. Music too flows along in colour for me, quite nice really.

  I think all of this goes to show that your premise is right, and for me, and others with Synaesthesia, our interpretation of reality is perhaps a little muddled.

  Or, in my case, is it all down to the beer ? LOL
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Thanks for the imput, and I'm thinking is every persons "red" the same in everyone imagination(we only assume it is) not to mention some born with color blindness. So when we touch say the outside world what are we really feeling? Electromagnetic replusion thats what,, molecules don't touch each other, too much force field resistance so that it is impossible. And what the hell is this thing called the inner world? It is a label that's what it is,, it is a label/symbol/metaphor that means different thing to different people we only assume it means the same thing just ask any of these word definition debaters. Inner world to me is mind processing and what's going on when we think.

  Our inperpetation of the world is very survival oriented and not toward objective reality, or to say it more simply "very subjective" according to the processing power bias in the running programs of observation,, goals and objectives(speaking very abstractly here), we were born with these programs and some we learned latter in life.
• 

  cofty

  The realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.

  I am a realist.

  If I sneak up behind you and smack you across the back of the head with a shovel your will feel the pain even though you didn't observe the shovel.
• 

  talesin

  Phizzy

  I have Synaesthesia, but don't see it as a negative thing. I see music as well as hear it. I also can hear the music of anything (be it Mozart, or G&R) in my head, just as it is played; ie, all the instruments, meloday as if it was playing on the stereo.
  
  For most of my life, I thought everyone saw music, until I saw David Foster being interviewed and he brought up synaesthesia. He, too, sees music, and said it is a 'gift' that some musicians have. After that, I polled a few of my friends. Sure enough, the only other one who has this gift is my besty, who is a professional musician. It's kinda cool to listen to Mozart, and close my eyes, and see, in my mind's eye, the trickling brook in the music, or to listen to Tales From the Vienna Woods, and see what Strauss was portraying with his music. Ahhhhh........

  Frankie

  I've come across this concept when reading up on physics. People who are strongly oriented toward this 'naive realism' have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept that all matter is indeed, fluid. A chair is not a chair, and the solidity of such objects is only our perceptoin. At least, that is my crude understanding. Perception is everything, and I think our minds are capable of much more than we knjow at this time. Are we evolving to a higher sense of consciousness, where our perceptions will change? Yes, I think so.

  tal
• 

  breakfast of champions

  The realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.

  I would agree with this except for the "smell, taste and color" part. Objects do not have color or smell, but physical properties like size, shape, mass as well as the fact that they are made of certain chemicals, as well as being able to reflect only certain wavelengths of light and not others. Smell and taste are a construct of the mind related to chemicals; color is another construct of the mind related to wavelengths of light. Size, shape and texture exist whether a mind exists or not (as do wavelengths of light and chemicals).

  What this means is that as (what I consider to be) a realist, all I could vouch for is seeing a roughly textured, black-and-white image of a rock being thrown at my head.

  Fortunately, I rarely see this.