This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Perception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Perception:
Priority 1 (top)
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raksha H.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsteph98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tyler Colgrove.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasonPerez7, Jasonaperez7.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The senses of hearing, olfaction, tasting and touching also allow for phenomenal consciousness. I will update the article with this information. Alan347 ( talk) 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would add that much of the writing on this page is very handwave-y and ambiguous ("esemplastic"?!). Lots of science, hard thinking and work has been put in to this field over thousands of years and it deserves better. Also, Gibson is not the only psychophysicist. Needs enriching. -- argumentum_ornithologicum ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the Rorschach test has relevance to perception? -- 96.244.248.77 ( talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Alan347 ( talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Alan347 ( talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The edits by Alan347 need to be reverted because, however well-intentioned they are, they have damaged the article. Wikipedia policy is broken by not having the disambiguation link at the top. The sidebars are now crowded together at the bottom. Unnecessary headings have been introduced. A well-written lead has been removed. Most seriously, a lot of content has gone, some of it sourced to academic sources. The "Perception and Reality" section had five sources, which wasn't enough, but now it has none. Thanks Morton for raising this issue. Alan, you can't ignore the rules because you just don't like them. Please work with Wikipedia rather than against it, and make changes incrementally rather than major surgery as you have done. MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Robert Fludd's diagram of perception is now described in English. Alan347 ( talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Alan347 has been placing the Fludd image at the top of the article with the argument that "Robert Fludd's description of perception is exceedingly important" - I linked here to demonstrate there was no consensus for this, but I realise now this talk section is about his Fludd-heavy editing of the lead, and the issue of Alan347 adding an inappropriate Fludd image (he seems to be doing this on a few articles) was actually had at Talk:Conscience.
I'd say the same argument stands here, though - this article doesn't mention Fludd, or even mention historical views of the concept of perception. Even if it did, one man's 17th century theory doesn't merit the weight of a large image at the top of the article, when the article's subject is much, much broader. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Fludd's description of Perception was present here before any of my edits. Refer to article history. I just described the image. The image needs to be described because it is a valid, inclusive theory of perception. It is precisely the inclusion of conscience, imagination and memory which make perception what it is and not the physical realm in abstraction. Unfortunately, by the way this article has been written it deals with perception as if it where only a mechanical thing. Perception involves the person in his wholeness, and this includes his conscience, his reflection, his memory, his imagination, and his motive. Also the physical realm is not the only realm that exists. There is also the intellectual realm. This is the realm by which we decide things such as good/bad. For example how did you perceive that my Fludd's diagram was a bad addition and needed to be reverted? You did this by your conscience, not by your eye-sight. For your eye-sight would have only given you an article void of any significance which is tantamount to no perception what so ever. Alan347 ( talk) 10:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In philosophy the term perception precisely relates to being perceptive Alan347 ( talk) 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
It occurs to me that the definitional sentence is wrong, or at least not backed up by the source. It isn't "the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information." but the process of attaining awareness (and other things) of things in the environment, by means of sensory information. Help is welcome with decent sources for a proper defintion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This section fails to give an account of what this is, and instead devotes most of the space to discussing J.J. Gibson's ideas. Richard Gregory's essay on Perception as hypotheses in The Oxford Companion to the Mind is a good place to look. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 06:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The influence of sad mood on cognition. Emotion, 7(4), 802-811. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.802 Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken: Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 75(2), 318-331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.318
-- Pazapatabalarezo ( talk) 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no discussion of the "object model". By "object model" I mean the perception that the world consists of distinct objects, in a 3D space + time.
The object model seems to be pre-programmed in people. It is the basis of logic and mathematics. Propositions about objects cannot be made until they are recognized. Objects cannot be counted or put in sets until they are recognized. So there is not logic without the object model.
This model distorts perception somewhat. For example a finite line segment is regarded in mathematics as an infinite set of point objects. Thepigdog ( talk) 04:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
stage of human perception 154.74.127.166 ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
72.211.76.250, 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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elizabethfourniotis, Sbeno0021, Kian.Davis4 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Kpere039 ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Human 103.121.172.57 ( talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Perception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Perception:
Priority 1 (top)
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raksha H.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsteph98.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tyler Colgrove.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasonPerez7, Jasonaperez7.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The senses of hearing, olfaction, tasting and touching also allow for phenomenal consciousness. I will update the article with this information. Alan347 ( talk) 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would add that much of the writing on this page is very handwave-y and ambiguous ("esemplastic"?!). Lots of science, hard thinking and work has been put in to this field over thousands of years and it deserves better. Also, Gibson is not the only psychophysicist. Needs enriching. -- argumentum_ornithologicum ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the Rorschach test has relevance to perception? -- 96.244.248.77 ( talk) 03:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Alan347 ( talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Alan347 ( talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The edits by Alan347 need to be reverted because, however well-intentioned they are, they have damaged the article. Wikipedia policy is broken by not having the disambiguation link at the top. The sidebars are now crowded together at the bottom. Unnecessary headings have been introduced. A well-written lead has been removed. Most seriously, a lot of content has gone, some of it sourced to academic sources. The "Perception and Reality" section had five sources, which wasn't enough, but now it has none. Thanks Morton for raising this issue. Alan, you can't ignore the rules because you just don't like them. Please work with Wikipedia rather than against it, and make changes incrementally rather than major surgery as you have done. MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Robert Fludd's diagram of perception is now described in English. Alan347 ( talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Alan347 has been placing the Fludd image at the top of the article with the argument that "Robert Fludd's description of perception is exceedingly important" - I linked here to demonstrate there was no consensus for this, but I realise now this talk section is about his Fludd-heavy editing of the lead, and the issue of Alan347 adding an inappropriate Fludd image (he seems to be doing this on a few articles) was actually had at Talk:Conscience.
I'd say the same argument stands here, though - this article doesn't mention Fludd, or even mention historical views of the concept of perception. Even if it did, one man's 17th century theory doesn't merit the weight of a large image at the top of the article, when the article's subject is much, much broader. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note: Fludd's description of Perception was present here before any of my edits. Refer to article history. I just described the image. The image needs to be described because it is a valid, inclusive theory of perception. It is precisely the inclusion of conscience, imagination and memory which make perception what it is and not the physical realm in abstraction. Unfortunately, by the way this article has been written it deals with perception as if it where only a mechanical thing. Perception involves the person in his wholeness, and this includes his conscience, his reflection, his memory, his imagination, and his motive. Also the physical realm is not the only realm that exists. There is also the intellectual realm. This is the realm by which we decide things such as good/bad. For example how did you perceive that my Fludd's diagram was a bad addition and needed to be reverted? You did this by your conscience, not by your eye-sight. For your eye-sight would have only given you an article void of any significance which is tantamount to no perception what so ever. Alan347 ( talk) 10:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In philosophy the term perception precisely relates to being perceptive Alan347 ( talk) 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
It occurs to me that the definitional sentence is wrong, or at least not backed up by the source. It isn't "the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information." but the process of attaining awareness (and other things) of things in the environment, by means of sensory information. Help is welcome with decent sources for a proper defintion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This section fails to give an account of what this is, and instead devotes most of the space to discussing J.J. Gibson's ideas. Richard Gregory's essay on Perception as hypotheses in The Oxford Companion to the Mind is a good place to look. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 06:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The influence of sad mood on cognition. Emotion, 7(4), 802-811. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.802 Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken: Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 75(2), 318-331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.318
-- Pazapatabalarezo ( talk) 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no discussion of the "object model". By "object model" I mean the perception that the world consists of distinct objects, in a 3D space + time.
The object model seems to be pre-programmed in people. It is the basis of logic and mathematics. Propositions about objects cannot be made until they are recognized. Objects cannot be counted or put in sets until they are recognized. So there is not logic without the object model.
This model distorts perception somewhat. For example a finite line segment is regarded in mathematics as an infinite set of point objects. Thepigdog ( talk) 04:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
stage of human perception 154.74.127.166 ( talk) 07:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
72.211.76.250, 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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elizabethfourniotis, Sbeno0021, Kian.Davis4 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Kpere039 ( talk) 19:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Human 103.121.172.57 ( talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)