Common sense demands that two students can perceive the same tree, but Berkeley's metaphysics seems to dictate that they never truly perceive the same thing, since they each have their own numerically distinct ideas.
In cases where I am looking directly at an object that is before me, such as a tree, I am inclined to think that what I perceive directly is the tree itself, not some ideational proxy for the tree.
For example, during the aesthetic perception of an individual apple tree, we would perceive shining through the tree, the archetype of all apple trees (i.e., the Ur-phenomenon, as Goethe would describe it) in an appreciation of every apple tree that was, is, or will be.
One can perceive (in the vicinity of the tree) that in the case of the FDARTF_G filtering, the resulting image is less influenced by noise compared to the image produced by other filters.
Upon perceiving a problem, the agent works its way through the tree, performing tests that discriminate among successively smaller subsets of potential faults.
After the 40 trees/ha threshold, the revenue perceived from tree products gradually increase with every unit of tree increase during the practice of FMNR to be stabilized around 40000 CFA (US$80).
In an agricultural region of south-eastern Australia, we first released 20 individuals of an arboreal gecko (Christinus marmoratus) at set distances from trees to determine the distance at which they could perceive their tree habitat (perceptual range).
We can only perceive a spatially distant tree by virtue of its effects on items in our vicinity (light reflected off the tree impinging on our retinas), but this is not seen by those who espouse a direct realist theory of perception as incompatible with their position.
Perceiving a tree, for example, does not consist of constructing a mental image of a tree from stimuli (light energy) entering the visual system and then attributing the visual properties of the image to the tree itself.
The tree is not really a tree.
