Albert said:

>> 
So, what is Direct Realism, and what is Indirect Realism? If someone could explain that to me then I would be very grateful. 
<<

You can only comprehend the distinction in the context of the paradigm that views the human organism as a biological machine, with sensory organs that operate like microphones and video cameras transmitting information to the brain for central processing. In this paradigm all of experience is nothing other than the electrochemical activations in the brain which in turn represent external reality indirectly.

If one denies the biophysical nature of man, and believes that experience is all that exists, then the concept of representationalism appears profoundly paradoxical. This is your paradigmatic perspective, as revealed in this quote:

>>
human experience and the world that we experience are not distinct - that is: easily seen, clear. That is why they are, after more than 2,500 years, still argued about?
<<

You are saying that it is self evident that the world of experience is the world itself, not a replica of the world in your brain. From that perspective representationalism is profoundly paradoxical, as are dreams and hallucinations that appear like solid reality but are also self-evidently not real.

Indeed, it is that profound paradoxy in that view of perception that flags the whole paradigm as questionable. Yes indeed after more than 2,500 years, this is still in debate! Because most people still believe in the demonstrably wrong paradoxical paradigm that we all adopt instinctively as infants, and many, even vision scientists, refuse to even consider the alternative even as a theoretical possibility to be considered and rejected.

But we cannot have a debate about the directness or otherwise of perception if you begin with the assumption that perception is direct, because that is the issue in question. Can you temporarily and provisionally suspend your initial assumption long enough to explain to me why it is impossible for perception to be indirect, besides just claiming that it is self-evidently so?

Don't tell us of your conclusion, but the mental process that led you to it. Or have you ever even explored the alternative, that the world of your experience is NOT the world it appears to be? Can you entertain that hypothesis long enough to explain WHY it is wrong? 

Because to me, the indirectness of perception is self-evident in the existence of dreams and hallucinations, which in turn reveals the paradox of visual experience to be merely a biochemical process that takes place in the biochemical organ of the brain. I will admit that this opens another, perhaps deeper paradox, which is, how can the biochemical organ of the brain construct such a magnificently persuasive illusory reality? You will never enjoy the challenge of engaging that delicious paradox if you remain wedded to your direct perception paradoxes which are easily resolved. You cannot even know of the existence of that deeper, more magnificent paradox until you abandon yours and see the world as it really is.

Till then we will just be talking past each other -- a characteristic of this whole thread, if you care to review it!

Its a sure sign that a dramatic paradigmatic shift is about to occur when bizarre paradoxes begin to appear in our philosophy. History will view this debate in the same category as the debate whether life has an "elan vitale" (vital essence) which is beyond scientific explanation, and whether mind and soul is a supernatural entity invisible to science. The result will be the same: No, it is not magic, it is just physical reality as always. But it is magnificent nonetheless.