Do the benefits of naïve realism outweigh the costs? Comments on fish, perception, hallucination and illusion

Abstract

Fish’s book (2009) is inventive, clear and bold. I have learned much from thinking about it. My plan is as follows. In §1 I will evaluate Fish’s arguments for naive realism about visual phenomenology. In §2 I will identify potential intuitive costs of his theory of hallucination and certain illusions. In §3 I will argue on empirical grounds that the brain plays a more serious role in shaping phenomenal character than is allowed by the naive realist. I think this may be the strongest argument against naive realist and disjunctivist views in general. Burge (2005) also has argued that such views are at odds with science, but my argument differs from his.