Talk:Perception

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Damoose95.
===Abandoned user draft===
Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Damoose95/sandbox (see diff), incorporate what is useful, blank the user page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 11:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Damoose95/sandbox (see diff), incorporate what is useful, blank the user page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 11:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Abandoned user draft

message: At the top of this page is a list of article policies. No original research is one of our fundamental policies. I'm a bit disturbed to see a suggestion that " The authors therefore decided to invite his or hers personal, real life, experiences of every reader to fill in the gaps - with style.". This is clearly original research, and with all dues respect, not acceptable, no matter how a few editors feel about it. Articles must be reliably and verifiably sourced. As it says underneath the edit window in which I am writing, "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." See WP:RS and WP:Verify. Other Wikipedia articles, by the way, are not acceptable as sources. I doubt that replacing the current article with one without inline citations will be acceptable either, and I hope that isn't attempted. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. DES (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The section on perception-in-action does not distinguish well between Gibson's and Glaserfeld's account. First, Glaserfeld should be referred to as a radical, not a social constructivist. The concept of invariants as referred to by Gibson, and by Glaserfeld in contrast, are quite remote, and as far as I understand, the constructivist and direct realist positions are in stark opposition.
Also, it should strongly be distinguished between the action-perception interrelation, and the topic of direct perception.
As to action-perception: schema theory as developed e.g. in M. A. Arbib 1989, motor theory of perception, and the articles on embodied cognition, situated cognition, the buzzwords of action-perception and sensorimotor loops can help.
As to direct perception: Gibson's ideas are based on Brunswik's (the conception of molar units as important for psychology is further developed there). The concept of "information pickup" should be elaborated. Apart from current revivals (also,  again, see the article on situated cognition), this has been discussed by several (with a tendency towards opposition) camps, e.g. Ullman: Against direct perception, and work by Glenberg, Greeno, Turvey, Shaw. Morton Shumway (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perception-in-action 

message: Under "Types" I read: "phenomenal consciousness is thought, on average, to be predominately absent without sight. Through the full or rich sensations present in sight, nothing by comparison is present while the eyes are closed."
What follows is that blind persons' phenomenal consciousness is absent in comparison to that of non-blind. A solution of course is to consider the other senses, including proprioception. Morton Shumway (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenomenal consciousness and vision 

message: I wanted to look up the Aristotelian theory of the inner senses, especially given the discussion of qualia which occurs variously in other Wiki articles, and the description given of Eccles' understanding of sense.  I figured, these things get mentioned, theoretically this should be covered, right?  Well, there's no article on "inner sense", which has enough pedigree that there should be.  I don't mean ESP or non-verifiable unreasoned postulations, I mean the philosophical theory used to hypothetically explain imagination, memory, estimation and distinction between different proper objects of sensation put forward by Aristotle and fiddled with by Moderns.
Now, I figured, if there's no article on inner sense, there will be one on "sense".  I looked, and lo and behold!  There was an article on sense, but there's nothing on inner sense, because from the beginning, the article limits itself to a physiological discussion.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Aristotle didn't say there wasn't an organ (or many organs) corresponding to the inner senses, and in fact there were many hypotheses about where in the brain or heart these organs might be located.  So why is it not mentioned, even as a historical interest?  Or under "philosophy of perception" (no mention)?  Perception, the article, lacks a single mention of the theory.  Shouldn't it be, I don't know, somewhere?  It's related to all of these articles, and used to be used as a grand unifying philosophical theory of perception; it's still taught in philosophical schools; and Wikipedia is not the place for chronological snobbery.
Whatever the case, if nothing gets done, I might just add something myself.  I've just been really busy and am hoping someone else might see fit to bring this into the light.
TonalHarmony (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a good point to start would be the article on sensus communis, i.e. koine aisthesis. Or you might expand the article on On the Soul. Otherwise, the concept has some history in philosophy, but also in neuro- and the cognitive sciences (the mirror neurons and the simulation theory of theory of mind come to mind, so that starting a decent article on that concept would be quite some work. Morton Shumway (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little bit of omission going on 

message: This subject needs way more neuroscience involvement.  This should be listed as a neuroscience article just as much (if not more) than a philosophy or psychology article.  I know I'm biased because I am a neuroscientist, but really.Grouphug (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already part of the Neuropsychology section of the Mind and Brain Portal. Please add a section on the concept in the particular context of Neuroscience. --Morton Shumway (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It rather needs a rewrite—n. b. Gibson is no psychophysicist. Best, Morton Shumway—talk 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It's one of the more famous personality tests that tests subjects' "perceptions" of inkblots --Frank0229 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuroscience?! 

message: I've removed these two paragraphs. They no doubt resulted from a good-faith attempt to improve the article, but the language was so confusing as to be mostly meaningless. Witness "Two types of consciousness are considerable regarding perception:", "Using this precept, it is understood that, in the vast majority of cases, logical solutions are reached through simple human sensation." and "all of which holds true to the linear concept of experience". This includes the removal of a mention of Richard L. Gregory, but the article needs to mention him, just in a comprehensible sentence. When I was a student of perceptual psychology, Gregory and Gibson were two equally important figures: I don't know which way the debate has gone in the last 17 years. I recommend using the newly rewritten lead as a guide to the structure of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Types section 

message: I would include  more information regarding how perception is based on appearances to the senses and bring in the whole "nothing perceived can be proven true" discussion.
Phord42 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there will have to be more on this aspect. However, see also Philosophy of Perception. Morton Shumway—talk 01:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  not very much philosophy 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Percept (computing) (an incomplete disambiguation) which may be of interest to contributors of this page. Please feel free to join in. France3470 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion in progress 

message: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336101/title/Magic_trick_reveals_unconscious_knowledge "Magic trick reveals unconscious knowledge; People 'know' what they don't believe they've seen, study shows" by Laura Sanders Web edition November 14th, 2011  97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What, potentially, might the Science News article add to this article?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: This article might be more related to Implicit cognition.  99.190.86.16 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Science News]] resource 

message: Out of curiosity, is vision left off the list in the "Types" section of this article for a reason? It seems like an obvious omission, but perhaps there's a valid reason visual perception is not at least briefly addressed there. Lostraven (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Vision

message: There's a citation in the lead missing the closing part, can anyone fix this? I can't find which one it is.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken citation in lead 

message: stage of human perception 154.74.127.166 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage of human perception  

message: , I have reverted your edit because there was no source supplied for any of your addition. If you would like to have the content added back, please provide a source for it. Kimen8 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced additions 10 December 2023 

message: Consider getting rid of and replacing the expression "home in", which recurs with alarming frequency in the article, with a more clear and less idiomatic expression. For one, it's too informal, and second, it creates strange phrasing like "home in upon", which can confuse readers who have learned English as a second language. "Bring into focus", "make salient/relevant", or "move towards", depending on the contextual meaning of "home in", I think are better. 205.189.187.4 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Home in" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kpere039 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication

message: Human 103.121.172.57 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health & physical education and creative arts grade.6