The subtlety is not lost on me, you know.
There's a reason why I stated "as much as my brain permits".
If it actually were possible to live in true objective reality, and not to exist as a subjective state machine*, I would favor that form of existence. It would be very nice to be free of such sources of internally generated bias.
However, since that is not currently possible--
Being mindful that one is indeed, such a subjective state machine, is essential to taking measures to counteract it, and to be as close to that objective reality as is possible to achieve.
* It is not well established exactly what mode of computation a human brain uses primarily. It could be likened to an assembly of state machines, each being supplied, and simultaneously supplying inputs to and from other state machines, however. This is a very simplified (and thus wrong) view, yet, it should get the point across about how such a system can develop glitches arising from persistent states inside its operation, leading to systemic biases in its outputs. The devil most certainly does live in the details, but getting to the nitty gritty cellular morphology, electrochemical potential energy, and potentiation and reinforcement subsystem levels of operation are not necessary to make this point. "Bias" is an integral component in the logical operation of how a human makes decisions and choices, because of how it stores states. The point is that this model of operation relies inherently on bias generation, which is counter-intuitive to operating in true objective problem space. Human perception and cognition is forever bound within the impenetrable bubble of subjective experience and memory.
Rather than interpret the statement I made as "I foolishly think I live in objective reality! Herpa derpa!", Think instead "When made aware of the inherent bias-generating nature of one's own existence, and that this internal perception of reality is forever divorced from a real, objective one that exists outside of that experience, why do people consistently choose to favor their internal, and known flawed models of that objective reality, rather than seeking objective means of verifying and correcting their internal models regularly?"
This is especially vexing to me, when one considers that "Simply because I believe something to be true, does not mean that it is." along with "No matter how much I wish for something to be true, my internal model will never directly influence the actual objective reality it represents-- The objective reality is what underpins the operation of the simulation of my subjective reality, not the other way around."
I just said it in a significantly less verbose manner.
Clearly it was not sufficient.