That’s imaginary figures of childhood which is distinct and separate from illusions of perception.
illusions of perception are traceable and trackable. The substrate is the human nervous system upon which these perceptions work upon.
What’s silly is you going from a map of neurocognition to neurons as if that will evaporate my argument.
That is akin to talking about a table, then responding that “since there are large spaces inside of molecules, the table is but a fable.
That is not my argument. That is your argument that you then defeat. You did not address my argument but created a new one..
Illusions have existence until you reach a point in deconstruction that they do not.
This table my computer is on has existence until you reach a point in deconstruction that it does not.
If you reach the level of ions, where is the table?
If you reach the level of being far enough away that you cannot see or measure the table, where is the table?
Illusions play out on the substrate of neurological activity. All perception does.
What distinguishes the collective agreement of scientists to the collective agreement of the religious?
One is pragmatic and one is not.
Our perception of “what is objective reality?” is _all_ resting on this substrate of perception’s illusions.
We’ve collectively developed tools that we hope will adequately mitigate the errors of perception, which I am calling “illusion”.
But what you are calling “illusion” is too drastic as it would render all knowledge fable. That’s silly.
What is “objectively true”? A collective of subjectivity. This is basic fact. There is no point in processing information that we lose our subjectivity. All we can hope to do, as studiers of the best collective subjectivity, is for ours to be as distortion-free as possible.
But at no point do we lose our perception filters. We can only hope to tune them properly.