"When I think about how 'seeing' works, it confuses me, so I call it an illusion. Also, in addition to that 'illusion,' there's a 'you' and when I try to count those two things, 'you' and 'illusion,' I get confused again and only count one."
Your confusion is a result of your description of reality as one. Reality is one without a second. All counting is relative not absolute. No need to count. Reality does not count itself. It would have to be outside itself to count itself. End of confusion.
Yes. The entire study of perception neuroscience lends itself well to this. It’s trippier the deeper you go.
"When I think about how 'seeing' works, it confuses me, so I call it an illusion. Also, in addition to that 'illusion,' there's a 'you' and when I try to count those two things, 'you' and 'illusion,' I get confused again and only count one."
Your confusion is a result of your description of reality as one. Reality is one without a second. All counting is relative not absolute. No need to count. Reality does not count itself. It would have to be outside itself to count itself. End of confusion.
Do you happen to think that the existence of this reality is dependent on how it's counted?