I agree. But I'm sure I'm not near as well red s Chalmers on all this kind of traditional philosophy.
Such is the problem with traditional surveys. It takes a lot more communication and collaboration to come up with the best ways to split things up rather than a few guys specifying such. A goal of canonizer.com is to be much better at all this.
It would definitely be helpful to have concise specifications of just what the members of each camp (or at least a few of them) meant, when they made these choices.
I can't see the logic of dividing perception theory into these 4 categories: some overlap, others don't.
Isn't the split 3 way? We have direct realism - we perceive the world directly, indirect realism - we perceive a representation of the world, and idealism - there is only perceptual experience (no external world)?