The thing itself, as it seems, is not in the man's mind; it is the idea that is in the man's mind, and that represents the thing.

Sometimes it appears to give a true account of it; sometimes it seems to give a garbled account; sometimes it is a false representative throughout--there is no reality behind it.

It is, then, the _idea_ that is immediately known, and not the _thing_; the thing is merely _inferred_ to exist.
I do not mean to say that the plain man is conscious of drawing this conclusion.

I only maintain that it seems a natural conclusion to draw from the facts which he recognizes, and that sometimes he seems to draw the conclusion half-consciously.
On the other hand, we must all admit that when the plain man is not thinking about the distinction between ideas and things, but is looking at some material object before him, is touching it with his fingers and turning it about to get a good look at it, it never occurs to him that he is not directly conscious of the thing itself.
He seems to himself to perceive the thing immediately; to perceive it _as_ it is and _where_ it is; to perceive it as a really extended thing, out there in space before his body.

He does not think of himself as occupied with mere images, representations of the object.
He may be willing to admit that his mind is in his head, but he cannot think that what he sees is in his head.