[snip]
> I am saying that the common sense idea that the tree we are
>aware of that we think is beyond our eyes is wrong is not really
>beyond our eyes. The tree we are aware of is a tree constructed of
>phenomenal qualia in our brain via certain not yet completely
>understood neural correlate. This tree we are aware of only
>abstractly represents the real tree beyond our eyes.
>
[snip]
Doesn't this just mean that we are aware of the tree beyond our eyes?
What is wrong with saying that we are aware of two kinds of things: our
own organism's reaction to reality, and reality *via* analysis of that
reaction?
Guru George