Why you did not present my whole point but cut off the critical point,Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 11:45 amYes, of course. That's the whole gist of the view contra representationalism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:03 am According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves . . .
Huh?That errors are accepted does not compromise[] the essence of the naive realism principle.
Again, naive realism doesn't claim that perception is infallible, and the Wikipedia article doesn't say or imply that naive realism says that perception is infallible--in fact it explicitly says otherwise. You misunderstood the article, which apparently served as your sole basis of what the view is.To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions
To state the above is very flawed as countered by the examples of natural, inevitable and unavoidable illusions plus many others especially there is no things-in-themselves as really real things.
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
The natural illusions [not errors] are merely a clue, what is critical is ultimate there is no real things-in-themselves that correspond to the naive realists representations.
When you perceive an "apple" out there, as a naive realist you merely assumed there is an apple that fit yours [and other naive realists'] perception and description of it.
And more realistically, that assumed apple is a cluster of molecules or atoms.
To be more precise that assumed apple is a bundle of quarks.
When you try to zoom into in with greater precision still, it is a heap of either particles or waves.
As such there is no objective "apple" but merely a subjective apple depending on which point of view the person[s] adopt to realize the supposed apple.
In principle the naive realist view of reality based on guesswork, albeit is useful, but ultimately it is flawed.