Because you don´t perceive them directly. The only thing you perceive directly is perception itself. Therefore, perception itself is the only thing that can be proven true. No?


We never experience anything directly other than experience it self. We don´t even experience our own bodies directly. Now thats trippy.
Does something really exist just because you can perceive it? No, that can´t be proven. Just because I see a chair in front of me doesn´t prove the existence of a chair in front of me.

It´s as real as it seems. Perception/experience/conscioussness is true, but the content of it, cannot be proven to be true. True, meaning ultimately true. The distinction between real and true is important. The chair in front of me is real to me. It is a part of the experience and therefore a part of me. That there is a me existing to look at a chair that is approximately 4 feet away, is just wild speculation, not a statement of truth.

This is just a "i think im smarter than I am" way of saying, perception is reality.

"Syndiffeonesis

Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or
“difference-in-sameness”. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that
any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same;

if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.
Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the
relational structure of reality.
The concept of syndiffeonesis can be captured by asserting that the expression and/or existence
of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax, i.e. the rules of state and
transformation characterizing the medium. It is from these rules that the relation derives its
spatial and temporal characteristics as expressed within the medium. Thus, a syndiffeonic
relation consists of a difference relation embedded in a relational medium whose distributed rules
of structure and evolution support its existence.
Every syndiffeonic relation has synetic and diffeonic phases respectively exhibiting synesis and
diffeonesis (sameness and difference, or distributivity and parametric locality), and displays two
forms of containment, topological and descriptive. The medium is associated with the synetic
phase, while the difference relation is associated with the diffeonic phase (because the rules of
state and transformation of the medium are distributed over it, the medium is homogeneous,
intrinsically possessing only relative extension by virtue of the difference relationships it contains).
Because diffeonic relands are related to their common expressive medium and its distributive
syntax in a way that combines aspects of union and intersection, the operation producing the
medium from the relands is called unisection (ˆ). The synetic medium represents diffeonic
potential of which the difference relationship is an actualization."

- An interesting take from Chris Langan

Not really, I´m thinking and writing about it to capure a better understanding. Just saying that perception is reality is not very helpful. There is much more to say about it.

What about the different things within your perception/reality, and who is behind that reality, and what is the nature of it?


It´s about making the distinction between the known and the believed. What can we know for sure is true?

That's ok because science is not in the business of proving anything. There are no proofs or ultimate truths in science.

thanks for the virus, OPie...brb posting from my non-falsifiable statements

Good to see a neuroscientist say that. It´s all belief and theory. Science study the human brain for example, but it cannot ever be proven or known that a human brain really exists or not. But of course it is useful to study it non the less, it´s just not truth.

I remember philosophy 101 from my college days. Exciting, isn’t it?

I'll take "Threads Joe Rogan Would Post After Taking DMT" for $350, Alex.

in after pseudointellectual babble

Thats right. Are you on your way to become truth realized/enlightened?

I think its just a limitation of logic. We cant prove anything outside our brain exists but imo this has less to do with it (or things) existing and more with there not being "proof". It is quite silly to think nothing else but you exists as that would undermine literally area of study we have; i don't think we're at that level but it is true that we may not know a particular nuance about something. however, the mere fact that we know this proves something does exist outside of us. you can also jump into a cage with a hungry tiger if you'd like to prove nothing outside of you exists, or jump off a bridge and wish as hard as you can for there not to be ground beneath you. we can probably definitively say no amount of "thinking" you do is going to alter reality. you can't literally fabricate things into existence with your mind, you may be able to use your body to fabricate an idea but you can't think something and then boom it's there outside of emotions.

Its similar to why consciousness may never be replicated. Imagine a power cord and the power running through it, can it ever flip on itself to recognize itself? If there were only one electron can it turn around on itself to recognize itself? No.

Of course, if you deduce our existence down to awareness its similar, but really our "existence" - prob most aptly described as "essence" in this instance - is a euphemism for our body