Talk:Perception

Dear Maja,

I found the following problems in the first part of your article:

The are significant readability issues, in some cases, they are grammatical errors (for instance, "ones perception"; standing-alone sentences with verbs only in gerund, which cannot act properly as a verb; improper sentence's structure...), in other cases, difficulties to be understood; redundancies and incoherencies with respect to the previous content. All in all, the text requires a thorough reading and re-expression.
You make no proper distinction between sensing and perception. Your section about neuroscience of perception rather deals with sensing than with perception.
What is the difference between perception of touch and haptic perception? and what is the difference between perception of sound and auditory perception? You did not distinguish them in the first place when you enumerated the types of perception.
When you speak of taste, what is the meaning of "the sensory cells collect all information about the taste"? In order to collect, both harvesting and storing is required, but sensory cells do not store.
You seem to use indistinctly sensory data and sensory information, but is it really the same?
What's the meaning of "perception in the molecular area"?
When you state "humans cannot perceive electromagnetic field" you must be aware that the seeing is basically electromagnetic sensing, and besides there are scientific evidences of some human compacities to detect changes in magnetic field (s. article in Science.
I don't understand what you mean with "the human being is determined within its "self" and "being"".
"The endocrine system regulates everything" is a too strong assertion that underestimate other regulation mechanism.
In the section of "perceptional focus", you state that in danger "perception focuses on hearing, seeing and smelling" while "other perceptions [...] are largely faded out". I would like to know the source supporting that, because I don't thing so. We even use expressions like "he put all the senses..." to stress the state of active awareness of a person who needs to come of a dangerous or comple situation.
In the section "social perception" you state "judgment can harden further through so-called summation and implicit personality theories", but these theories do not act upon the judgment but on our understanding about these processes.
The section "stages of perception" list these stages without any support and disconnected from the previous discussion in which the consideration of the stages might be very relevant to explain the distinction between sensing and perception and other questions you have previously dealt with.
In the section "beholders share" you provide no source and I have the feeling you are mixing aesthetic reception and perception.
Having a section as "Causal Theory of perception" would require more than making a simple statement from such theory that clearly does not suffice to understand the theory itself.
"Social perception" can hardly be subsumed under "neuroscience of perception".

All in all, I think the first part of the article at least requires a thorough re-structuring and re-ellaboration.

All the best,

José María Díaz-Nafría (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)