Naïve meaning eliminative physicalist (there is no mind)? If so then I disagree (if not then please correct me, as that’s the basic premise of this reply).
Let’s say, hypothetically, that someday we discover the exact pattern of firing synapses which forms the thought “A is A.” So, if you think that A is A, that simply means that thus-and-such neuron was primed just so to initiate the “A=A” circuit. Does this mean it wasn’t your thought, in the first place?
In this thread http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24331 Secondhander (way down towards the bottom), in my opinion, nailed the issue quite perfectly:
“It seems to me that the main mistake made is to tacitly presuppose that a man is something different than his attributes. Yes, you can look at my brain and “predict” what choice I am going to make. But my brain IS me, or part of what is me. So all you’re really saying is that you are looking at what I am choosing to do and then saying it’s not really me choosing it, just my brain, and therefore I don’t really have free will, as though my brain isn’t me.”
All I think (again, I make great assumptions here) Eiuol is saying is that the brain is part of someone, just as much as their liver or kidneys, and it would make only perfect sense that the mind is a product of its processes.
But, again, I’m not sure if that’s what you were asserting.
I suspect that tad was indulging in a little bit of satire…