Indeed. Our limited acuity, not just of our eyes but of our ‘everything’ means we can only do the best we can with what we have, what we can imagine or what we can create – which is a LOT.
The great part is: We’ll never know what we’re incapable of knowing, so it will always ‘feel like’ a fullness of knowledge, even if some bacterium is face-palming with its flagellum going, “human, you really have no idea, do you?”
And… I’m ok with that smile emoticon
I hope so. There’s a reason why the Matrix-style theme of, “What you’re told is reality isn’t reality” is so darned POWERFUL: we can relate to it. It’s a common issue.
Some people can’t turn it off. I think the ‘normals’ have greater inhibitions which allows them to function in societies better. Those that have difficulty turning it off, are considered mentally impaired. That’s my thinking anyway.
Indeed I have. Fascinating stuff. I love how the visual system goes through a “channel” that handles outlining “objects”, making one ‘thing’ distinct from another ‘thing’, as well as perspective, which our brain _thankfully_ doesn’t usually provide to us as visual lines in the brain but rather as a “sense of distance”… and then another that takes care of coloring, fuzziness, textures and such, and all converges into this seemingly cohesive reality.
Nice smile emoticon Given the influence of philosophers-over-time, it’s likely that I was inspired in thinking the way I do about this by people who were inspired by the people who HE inspired… concepts filtering their way down and showing themselves in movies, other fields like psychology and such.
Sounds like he was influenced himself by General Semantics – as I see “1954” – and that was right in the proper time-frame where general semantics was a thing and influenced MANY MANY people, including Science fiction writers who I _know_ influenced me smile emoticon