>>13047718im glad intellectuals exist on this board
>>13047628he means something very specific. he means, we dont know the true nature of reality. we only know the conscious representation of reality. therefore conscious representation of reality and reality itself might be radically different.
consider this: is pic related truth? well, no. pic related is a green shape on beige background. that shape is a representation for the english word "truth". if you said it out loud, it would produce a specific air vibration that would also represent the same word. but that word itself is a representation of the concept of truth, and the concept of truth is most certainly not a green shape upon beige background.
in a very rough way, he is saying that we are trying to reach the concept of truth, but all we have is a green shape upon a beige background. we consciously experience things about the world, and fool ourselves into thinking that these experiences literally *are* the deepest layer of reality, when there is no reason to suppose so.
