Epistemology - theories of perception

The Theory - 

Everything exists independently to our minds, and doesnt need a mind in order to be percieved. We percieve the world directly with no intermediary, the world is exactly as i percieve it. E.g. if i see a red door, i percieve all itsproperties exactly as they truly are. 

The arguments against - 

The time lag argument. Light takes time to travel, it takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. Therefore we cannot be pericieving the world directly as we are seeing it as it was in the time it takes the light to hit our eyes. 

The illusion argument. We have illusions day to day, e.g. seeing a stick bent in water. However this is not the way the world truly is, so we are percieving incorrectly. How can we account for illusions which we know to be false?

The hallucination argument - This undermines the claim that objects are mind-independent as hallucinations require a mind to exist, similarly to Illusions they do not exist but we still percieve them so how can we know what we're percieving is true?

The Theory - 

Indirect realism claims the perceptions you have of physical objects are mediated by a veil of perception. This veil is called your 'sense data'. Your sensations are a representation of the external world, however becuase we do not percieve the external world directly you could not be percieving it accuratly. What we immediatly know is our sense data, however we're locked inside this.

The Argument against - 

Sceptics attack Indirect realism as we cannot prove the origin of perceptions. However Russell claims sense data is the best hypothosis but even he concedes its a weak argument. 

Idealism also argies if we cannot know what is past our sense data, then how can we know there is an external world at all? Locke counters though, by saying the fact we cannot choose what we percieves and the information is coherent with one another suggests it is not simply in the mind like an illusion might be. 

The Theory - 

Bishop Berkley theorised that what we thonk of as physical objects are actually bundles of ideas and everything we percieve is either a primary or secondary quality. (primary - properties inside, secondary - power to make you percieve the property).  Since we percieve nothing in addition to this,everything we percieve is mind-dependent. This makes the theory anti-realist. If no one is looking at the guitar in oyur bedroom, it does not exist, except since this theory is not secular (it was concieved by a Bishop) and as a result ivolves God... who sees all.. you see where im going with this. 

The argument against - 

It can be pushed over into solopcism, as it means we doubt the existence of other minds. However Berkely argues that wecan reason the origin of properties is the mind is the mind of God and my experience is evidence of other minds... weird counter.