Talk:Perception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perception article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
To-do list for Perception: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup:
    • Use clearer references and deal with weasel words
    • Expand:
    • Explain the relationship between perception and consciousness.
Priority 1 (top) 

Contents

[edit] Changes

Going to revert the last changes and begin working to integrate their material into the WP article. I have a concern that this appears to be a quotation from a printed/published source and, lacking context for this update, would rather be safe than sorry. PilotPrecise 01:38, 10 March 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss this page

There seems to be more types of perception. Along with Color, Depth, Form, and Speech perceptions, there could also be time, and speed perceptions. Time is perceived; when doing activity it seems as though time is progressing faster or slower (a watched pot never boils). Speed is perceived, the perception of traveling slower after exiting a freeway and a reduction of measured speed. Maybe, I am not understanding the meaning of types of perception.

-- Distinction that has to be made --

This page needs to be rewritten to reflect two competing theories (PP and PA - I have added this to the introductory paragraph). Without making this clear in the text, misconceptions (already reflected here) will completely cloud the picture.

Fell free to correct my grammar and, if you wish, wisit my website Imagination is Greater than Knowledge for better understanding of active perception theory.

Damir Ibrisimovic 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,
I guess that my intervention in intro is now redundant. Please, fell free to remove it or adjust it to the current content of the article. Thank you. Damir Ibrisimovic 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] modeling

"Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the world, we create a model of how the world works" Which psychologists? jVirus Image:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 15:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Jean Piaget, Eleanor Gibson, Ulric Neisser, Donald Norman to name a few old timers. Be more interesting to name any current cognitive psycholigists who deny the same proposition.Edison 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Object-centered vs. Viewer-centered

Shouldn't this page at least mention these things? It also seems there are no separate pages for them, even though that seems appropriate, too. As far as I know, this is still an ongoing discussion within the field of Perception as understood by Psychology? Gijs Kruitbosch 11:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perception and reality

This section is not NPOV. It is certainly not agreed upon that we do not directly experience objective reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I second this. "...if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it." I've only seen this position seriously purported by extremely :flaky sources, like What The Bleep do We Know. It is quite the claim to be unsourced. Could be wrong though, any thoughts?
98.217.186.65 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Areas of Interest

I’m glad to see some changes away from classical interpretations. These changes are based upon solid scientific findings that have significant impact not only in psychology or neurology. (Please do not use “neuroscience” - this is tautology.)

Recent (and not so recent) findings have also significant impact on validity of many claims made in philosophy, sociology and even physics. The example that comes to my mind is entry on consciousness by your philosophically oriented colleagues in Wikipedia. There is not even a note about Benjamin Libet’s findings!

I would suggest that it is time to start to contemplate possible implications and get involved in these areas of interest, for the science should confront unfounded believes.

Cordially,

Damir Ibrisimovic 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion for Consciousness Related To-do Item

Dethrone the brain as a seat of consciousness in phenomenological sense. (Imagined vs. actually seen images issue.)
Adopt strictly psychological/neurological findings about consciousness in non-phenomenological sense.

This would imply two different types of consciousness that are often awkwardly merged into one.

I would also like to see culture related to-do item.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)