I am skeptical in believing that my sensory input is not a true representation of reality. I certainly see the point with our brain filling in the holes that result from the optic nerve. And to some extent, what is filled in is not true. But neither is that part of our vision a primary source of input, and so it cannot effect how we see things in our brain so much. How about if we just say that our brain is "smart"? It is able to compromise when it does not have complete sensory input. Of course, there is a limit to our brain's self-smartness just as there is a limit to our intelligence. The two are of different type. Either way, I think that we are living in a real world and what we "see" is reality.

The whole checkerboard example is sort of playing with me. We have not finished our discussion on the topic yet, but as of now, we have not really explained how we see. See as in not just borders and changes, but putting all of that together and making an image of an object in our brain that the I-function can understand. I assume that the I-function is going to have to come in at some point. Not for all of our vision, but when we are trying to look at something specific. We will find out, I suppose.

Your intution is correct; we will (of course) find an I-function lying around somewhere, but not (by any means) everywhere. Your skepticism is also appropriate but let's see whether it wanes as we go on. The blindspot is much more typical of how sensory systems work than you may suspect. Yes, the rest of the nervous system is "smart", but whether that gives one (ever) a "true representation of reality" is a totally different question. In any case, your input is NOT a "true representation of reality" in lots of important senses. Which leaves an interesting, appropriate, and answerable question: why do you think that you are living in a "real world" and seeing "reality"? PG