>We directly perceive the objects out there in the world as they are, not a representation of some sort in our heads. My point was that this is a grammatical s

>We directly perceive the objects out there in the world as they are, not a representation of some sort in our heads. My point was that this is a grammatical sentence, but like a christian talking of eternal life, the impossibility and unimaginability of the thing is ignored. That bit about the eyes was a TL;DR and teaser for the linked (very funny) papers, which doesn't mean much without them I guess. It's a spoof/reductio of a kind of argument which has often been used in philosophy, Stove's Gem. Yes sorry, not answering questions. I seem to spend more time questioning questions. They often conceal and smuggle in false assumptions.