I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Most direct realists say that we have direct visual perception of apples and trees and everything else that emits or reflects light into our eyes, whereas your account is that we only have direct visual perception of light. Yours is a strange kind of direct realism.

What we should not say is that we never saw Alcaraz defeat Djokovic, only ever images of Alcaraz defeating Djokovic. — Banno

The relevant issue is that when I see the tennis match on television I do not have direct perception of the tennis match. In the context of the dispute between direct and indirect realism, "direct perception" means something substantive, and the dispute cannot be "deflated" simply by saying "I saw the tennis match" or "I see the apple".

In your example, the apple causes the pattern of light that is seen ten seconds later. Hence the apple is a constituent of the experience. — Banno

That the apple causes the experience isn't that it's a constituent of the experience. I'll repeat the quote from Martin, with emphasis:

So, even if those objects are implicated in the causes of the experience, they also figure non-causally as essential constituents of it... Mere presence of a candidate object will not be sufficient for the perceiving of it, that is true, but its absence is sufficient for the non-occurrence of such an event. — Martin 2004

Given that the apple does not exist at 10:00:25 it is not a constituent of the experience at 10:00:25.

Are you saying that the apple is a constituent of the episode during the first 10 seconds? — Ludwig V

No, I'm saying that:

P1. If the apple is not a constituent of the experience during the second 10 seconds then it is not a constituent of the experience during the first 10 seconds
P2. The apple is not a constituent of the experience during the second 10 seconds
C1. Therefore, the apple is not a constituent of the experience during the first 10 seconds

Moreover, this move overlooks the fact that there are other ways of cashing out what “direct” means that are neither dependent on the reification of consciousness nor reducible to deflationary semantics. — Esse Quam Videri

Yes, as I have tried to explain several times, e.g. with the distinction between phenomenological direct realism and semantic direct realism. It is possible that perception is direct₁ but not direct₂, where "direct₁" and "direct₂" mean different things.

You are free to stipulate indirect realism in this purely negative way if you wish, but it’s unreasonable to expect others to adopt this stipulation given that indirect realism was traditionally a substantive, positive thesis about perception, rather than merely the rejection of one particular type of direct realism. — Esse Quam Videri

Then forget the terms "direct realism" and "indirect realism". We have two theses, one negative and one positive:

1. We do not have direct perception of distal objects
2. We have direct perception of mental phenomena

I am primarily interesting in arguing that (1) is true, where "direct perception of distal objects" is to be understood in the traditional way, i.e. mind-independent objects and their mind-independent properties are "constituents" of first-person phenomenal experience, such that things "really are" as they appear to us (e.g. coloured in the sui generis sense) even when not being perceived.

As for (2), I'd like to refer back to something you said here:

Strictly speaking, insofar as the apple has disintegrated, there is no direct object of perception during the second interval. — Esse Quam Videri

Clearly something is happening during the second interval; I am having a visual experience with phenomenal character, described as "seeing a red apple 10m in front of me". If you don't want to say that qualia or sense data or mental phenomena are the "constituents" of this visual experience then I don't really understand what you think this visual experience is (are you an eliminative materialist?). It's clearly not nothing, else I'd be saying "I don't see anything". I suspect that, once again, you just mean something else by "direct object of perception", and so are misinterpreting what is meant by (2).

Very well, then how do we falsify indirect realism as you've defined it? — Hanover

I don't know, and it's not how I've defined it.

This is the scientific account of perception:

The process of perception begins with an object in the real world, known as the distal stimulus or distal object. By means of light, sound, or another physical process, the object stimulates the body's sensory organs. These sensory organs transform the input energy into neural activity—a process called transduction. This raw pattern of neural activity is called the proximal stimulus. These neural signals are then transmitted to the brain and processed. The resulting mental re-creation of the distal stimulus is the percept.

To explain the process of perception, an example could be an ordinary shoe. The shoe itself is the distal stimulus. When light from the shoe enters a person's eye and stimulates the retina, that stimulation is the proximal stimulus. The image of the shoe reconstructed by the brain of the person is the percept. Another example could be a ringing telephone. The ringing of the phone is the distal stimulus. The sound stimulating a person's auditory receptors is the proximal stimulus. The brain's interpretation of this as the "ringing of a telephone" is the percept.

This is clearly what indirect realism argues, as contrasted with their naive realist opponents, hence why it says here that "indirect perceptual realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific view of perception".

I thought the selling point of IR is that it can explain error in perception where DR cannot. — Ludwig V

What? Maybe someone else is positing that. I think its patently clear that there is no way to assess error beyond error as a mathematical/statistical exercise or a purely practical one (trial and error, i guess) no matter which theory you prefer. The DRist, I think, wants to say that a mediated perception is direct enough to capture error. I just disagree.

Well, we need to assess whether given indirect perceptions are veridical by some means that is independent of them. What do you suggest? — Ludwig V

No we dont Is my position. I don't see why. And given the above, I can't see why we would try (but that's baked into the disagreement, so just noting for completeness).

There's no better way of knowing what's going there. — Ludwig V

Exactly. So you're admitting you're seeing light which presents the sun as it was eight minutes ago. I shall leave this there and just see if it lands.

I don't think there's any reasonable ground for doubt — Ludwig V

Which is batshit insane on the facts, to my mind. Not concluding error might be reasonable, but denying any reason for doubt is just... good god. Not sure i'm cut out for such a wild claim. The following doesn't help, because its entirely recursive.