It is a bit more than a technicality. If we start from the position that our perceptions are accurate something interesting happens. 1) If we start by assuming

It is a bit more than a technicality. If we start from the position that our perceptions are accurate something interesting happens. 1) If we start by assuming our perceptions are accurate; we can reasonably conclude that we are a product of evolutionary forces. 2) Those evolutionary forces mean our perceptions are subject to the anthropic principle - ie, heavily biased away from truth and towards things that cause conscious patterns to reoccur and reproduce. 3) Therefore there is strong reason to believe our perceptions aren't accurate reflections of the state of the world, because if we are in a universe where accurate perception of reality means we won't bother to reproduce or wouldn't see ourselves as conscious, we are likely be unable to perceive those aspects of it. So I'm quite happy to contend that our perceptions are probably critically flawed, because they are heavily biased towards making us believe things about ego, self, in- and out-groups, etc that are probably inconsistent with accurately perceiving reality. Under that lens, perceiving time itself jumps out as something that might be an evolutionary adaption rather than the true state of things. Those baseline assumptions that allow the conversation to happen are therefore probably wrong. Although, humorously, that does mean there isn't much point discussing the topic unless you just like playing around with nonsense. Long and the short of it; we can't escape what is "obviously true" to us. Although I don't think you were challenging that part of the conversation.