@Fil Albuquerque,
the idea that reality for all humans can be traced back to sensory perception is based upon the idea that most of reality is outside the brain and the brain is only a subset. It follows that this idea itself can be traced to the senses. (ie an idea expressed in language is dependent upon language, and language is created and interpreted within brains, and language evolved within brains from the brain using sensory data.) Its an idea that is very powerful. But it is quite obviously a circular idea, it assumes that most reality is outside the brain, the reality within the brain (such as this idea itself) is only a subset.
naive realism is a different narrative and challenges this basic assumption, and states that when we see a tree it is a tree we see..... not light, not eye neurons, not chemistry or electricity, that
represents internally within the brain a tree. Science is not compatible with naive realism. Objectivity is compatible to both. But it is a different kind of objectivity in naive realism .... not based upon chains of cause and effect.
When we compare objective reality based upon science compared to objective reality based upon naive realism, we will have to be pay very particular attention to the language shared in the conversation. We will also have to be very careful that that shared language can enable us to switch within ourselves from one objectivity to another form of objectivity without noticing. This is particularily true
if each type of objectivity (eg memory based as compared to rationality based) have both individually appeal and distaste. Thus we switch to keep the good of each...... and if we can do this without noticing then all the better.
'Tree' as within the brain compared to tree outside the brain uses the same word. They could not be more different however, especially on discussions of reality. That ambiguity is useful to avoid philosophical mental stress. But equally it causes endless discussions to spiral around and around.
