Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

At the risk of seeming illiterate-- WHICH notion, exactly, do you believe ruffles my feathers?

That our experience can misrepresent itself/be a misrepresentation.

Oh, I see.  There's a surprising amount to unpack about that sentence.  Let me say that not only does what you're saying not ruffle my feathers, it's kind of the reason for my agnostic stance.

Based on what I've learned about science, there is probably no case where experiences DO properly represent objects.  The video in the OP talks quite a lot about that, and it's in the title.

For example, I "know" (i.e. as an academic understanding gleaned through the sensation of reading books, listening to teachers, watching videos and so on) that the table in front of me is 99.9999% empty space (I'm making up an arbitrary degree of precision here), and that the 0.0001% is squirrely nondeterministic bullshit that cannot be represenbted by sensation.  I also know, through sensation, that the table top is a continuous unbroken surface, and that the table occupies its volume fully and convincingly.

Given that, how would you define any experience as being representational, and how would you establish that an experience failed properly to represent?  If I'm so poorly perceiving whatever-is-out-there-in-objective-reality that I think 99.9999% emptiness is 100% solidity, then what, exactly, DO my experiences represent?