Reply to comment

My questions deal with the idea of pattern continuation and the brain's ability to construct. We know that we have a blind spot. We know that the brain fills in this blind spot with outputs rather than inputs. It seems that our "perception" of reality is informed by the brain enough to call it a function of the brain. It seems that Dickinson is winning the argument. What does this mean for humanity that we realize that "perception" is a very individual, even subjective phenomenon? What does it mean for science? Science, as we have defined it, is a summary of observations constantly informing itself through new observations. What does it mean that these observations are subjective? What if a variety of constructions can fill one blind spot? Which one is correct? It seems that developments in neurobiology may be problematic to science as something sterile and calculable.