... considering the notion of perception v reality (Hoffman)

If anyone wants to share their thoughts on the following, please do. If it doesn’t flow or make sense, tell me.

It’s my first rough draft for the prelude to this CAR post-mortem project that’s been occupying my thoughts for months.


If Donald Hoffman (DH) had categorized his book “The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes” as new age literature, metaphysical intellectual entertainment, I’d have no complaints. It’s his insistence on passing it off as serious science that begs a frank detailed response, even if I’m only a thoughtful spectator and no academic.

All of us view the world through our own unique perspective, which of course is the product of genes, upbringing, environment, cumulative learning and experiences that produce inevitable biases in how we perceive the same bits of information. Admittedly, there’s an ocean of difference between the professor and myself, which will be reflected in my critique.

Donald David Hoffman (12/29/55) is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a Professor in the Dept of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, the Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.

Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. His research subjects include facial attractiveness, the recognition of shape, the perception of motion and color, the evolution of perception, and the mind-body problem. (wiki)

Me, I’m on the outside looking in. Born the same year Hoffman was, mine was a working-man’s life with a love for learning about Earth’s story through science via personal research, reading quality publications, along with books, visiting libraries, museums, then the internet and always pondering the fundamental questions and being astounded at all science was learning and sharing.

In particular, I’ve been impressed that even with all the unexpected surprises over these decades, there remained an underlying harmony and consistency that’s astounding.

Then to hear someone of Hoffman’s stature simply dismiss it all and replace our day to day reality with imaginary icons, and evolution with computer interface & games analogies, topped off with “conscious agents” zinging around like so many photons, it’s bewildering, disconcerting and a hell of challenge to enunciate my perspective and confront his contrived vision with a much more down to Earth vision of perception, reality, and our human condition upon this planet that created us.

Hoffman begins his book with a quote from a famous father of science,

I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on . . .

reside in consciousness. Hence if the living

creature were removed, all these qualities

would be wiped away and annihilated.


In fairness, that was penned a life time before people started understanding the light spectrum, hundreds of years before we started understanding biochemistry and learning about the molecular structures that made up odors and tastes.

Today, we understand physically what creates different tastes, smells and other sensations. We also understand how our body processes those sense signals in amazing detail.

How those signals are ultimately perceived within my mind, remains shrouded in mystery, even as scientists keep learning more details about my brain. I imagine it was that particular mystery that great man was grappling with.

Still, that’s a perception question - it in no way negates the fact that we understand physically, molecularly, what creates those different tastes, smells and other sensations. It is material stuff. Does stuff vanish when we are not there to witness it, then reappear according to my own whim? Of course not, unless one believes the universe revolves only around them.

We also understand how our body processes those sense signals in amazing detail. That’s not to be sniffed at.

DH: Why are our eyes, and all our sense, reliable guides? … the real world we assume… objects in space and time… Our senses are simply a window on this objective reality.

Notice how DH morphs the “real world” of “objects in space and time” into “objective reality,” he does this throughout the book without really examining just what his “objective reality” is.

There’s no acknowledging the profound divide between our perceptions and the physical reality that we’ve been born into.

I contend that metaphorically speaking, “objective reality” is the reflection of reality against the retina of our mind’s eye. It is the product of our brain processing the information that our senses are collecting from one’s physical reality.

====

Objects in space and time are made out of atoms, molecules and follow specific well understood natural ‘laws’. What we see around us is the ongoing result of billions of years worth of Physical Reality unfolding via time and Evolution through her various ways and means.

It will continue long after we are all gone. To seriously entertain the notion that “Physical Reality” depends or cares about how we perceive it, is hubris maximus.

I contend that metaphorically speaking, “objective reality” is the reflection of reality against the retina of our mind’s eye. It is the product of our brain processing the information that our senses are collecting from one’s physical reality.
So if our senses were extraordinarily enhanced (as is potentially the case with technologies) the "metaphorical reflection", would that reflection of "objective reality" become clearer or more confusing?

 

To begin with the metaphorical has to do the description of reality reflecting off a metaphorical screen of the metaphorical mind’s eye.

"Mind’s Eye’ is simply another way of saying the thoughts we hold, consciousness, the mind, the dwelling place of our thoughts - whether fact based or fanciful.

.

As for technological advances enhances our senses, damned straight - increased our information and understanding - of course, as with all good things we can take it too far and reach the land of diminishing results.

For instance, when our enhanced sensing via atom smashers and ultra-super-duper computers investigates the world of the ultra tiny, the quantum world with it’s weirdness and unresolved mysteries - was too many have drawn erroneous, but oh so sexy and fascinating extrapolations.

With the basic error being fantasizing that behaviors at the very physical limits of matter and energy, can extrapolated into our macro world.

Donald Hoffman being a prime example of spinning real knowledge into deadend intellectual entertainment.

To begin with the metaphorical has to do the description of reality reflecting off a metaphorical screen of the metaphorical mind’s eye.

“Mind’s Eye’ is simply another way of saying the thoughts we hold, consciousness, the mind, the dwelling place of our thoughts – whether fact based or fanciful.


Too many metaphors for my taste in trying to understand things.


Re:

... the basic error being that behaviors at the very physical limits of matter and energy, can (be) extrapolated into our macro world.
I could say "true dat". I think it was Widdershins, who made a similar assertion.

 

I was lucky to come across this video,

Mysteries of Modern Physics by Sean Carroll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpR0LBsUfM

Darwin College Lecture Series

One of the great intellectual achievements of the twentieth century was the theory of quantum mechanics, according to which observational results can only be predicted probabilistically rather than with certainty. Yet, after decades in which the theory has been successfully used on an everyday basis, most physicists would agree that we still don’t truly understand what it means.

I will talk about the source of this puzzlement, and explain why an increasing number of physicists are led to an apparently astonishing conclusion: that the world we experience is constantly branching into different versions, representing the different possible outcome of quantum measurements. This could have important consequences for quantum gravity and the emergence of spacetime.

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, and an External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute. He is the host of the weekly Mindscape podcast. He is the author of several books, most recently Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime.


Because Sean sounds like a serious scientist, listening to him is an example of the scientific process and constructive debate dedicated to better understanding rather than selling a product… Quantum world still very weird, but he keeps it real.

After that video listen to one of Donald Hoffman’s videos, it’s showmanship, rhetorical fancy dancing, along with red flags right and left.

 

So back to your question, yes and no. All depends on how one handles it.

You’re playing games.

 

There’s nothing metaphorical about the division of what’s happening within your thoughts and what’s unfolding within our physical material world.

 

Oh, incidentally is there any discuss about the quantum world that doesn’t get loaded down with metaphorical everything?

Furthermore, what discussion about perception doesn’t slip into metaphors?

 

Thought it’s gratifying that we agree on the extrapolation fallacy.

I figured I may as well update ithis:

If Donald Hoffman (DH) had categorized his book “The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes” as new age literature, metaphysical intellectual entertainment, I’d have no complaints. It’s his insistence on passing it off as serious science that begs a frank detailed response, even if I’m only a thoughtful spectator and no academic.

All of us view the world through our own unique perspective, which of course is the product of genes, upbringing, environment, cumulative learning and experiences that produce inevitable biases in how we perceive the same bits of information. Admittedly, there’s an ocean of difference between the professor and myself, which will be reflected in my critique.

Donald David Hoffman (12/29/55) is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a Professor in the Dept of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, the Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.

Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. His research subjects include facial attractiveness, the recognition of shape, the perception of motion and color, the evolution of perception, and the mind-body problem. (wiki)

Me, I’m on the outside looking in. Born the same year Hoffman was, mine was a working-man’s life with a love for learning about Earth’s story through science via personal research, reading quality publications, along with books, visiting libraries, museums, then the internet and always pondering the fundamental questions and being astounded at all science was learning and sharing.

In particular, I’ve been impressed that even with all the unexpected surprises over these decades, there remained an underlying harmony and consistency that’s astounding.

Then to hear someone of Hoffman’s stature simply dismiss it all and replace our day to day reality with imaginary icons, and evolution with computer interface & games analogies, topped off with “conscious agents” zinging around like so many photons, it’s bewildering, disconcerting and a hell of challenge to enunciate my perspective and confront his contrived vision with a much more down to Earth vision of perception, reality, and our human condition upon this planet that created us.

Hoffman begins his book with a quote from a founding father of science,

I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on . . .

reside in consciousness. Hence if the living

creature were removed, all these qualities

would be wiped away and annihilated.


In fairness, that was penned a life time before people started understanding the light spectrum, hundreds of years before we started understanding biochemistry and learning about the molecular structures that made up odors and tastes.

Today, we understand physically what creates different tastes, smells and other sensations. We also understand how our body processes those sense signals in amazing detail.

How those signals are ultimately perceived within my mind, remains shrouded in mystery, even as scientists keep learning more details about my brain. I imagine it was that particular mystery the great man was grappling with.

But, that’s a perception question - it in no way negates the fact that we understand physically, molecularly, what creates those different tastes, smells and other sensations. It is material stuff.

. . . . . . . DH asks: “Why do our senses exist to reveal the truth?” (¶2)

That is not scientific, it’s a leading question, intend on convincing rather than informing. Evolution doesn’t care about truth, “truth” is a lawyer’s conception that does not translate into the ways and means of our Earth’s living biosphere.

Senses were honed through attrition and experience over time to better collect incoming information from the environment, process it through neurons and brains into information that guided bodies to react as appropriate to a bewildering array of challenges. Doing the best one could with what one had, is a better approximation, for an ever changing, fast moving, complex reality.

. . . . . . . DH: “Why are our eyes, and all our sense, reliable guides? … the real world we assume… objects in space and time… Our senses are simply a window on this objective reality.” (¶3)

Notice how DH morphs the “real world” of “objects in space and time” into “objective reality,” he does this throughout the book without examining just what his “objective reality” is all about.

“Objectivity” is a construct within the minds of the observers. Objectivity is not a part of the fabric of our energetic material reality.

. . . . . . . DH: “These hunches are wrong.” (¶4)

As they say in the movies, them are fighting words.

. . . . . . . DH goes on to explain: “It’s that the very language of objects in space and time is simply the wrong language to describe objective reality. This is not a hunch. It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.” (¶4)

Here again Hoffman points to ‘objective reality’ - but objectivity, or the lack thereof, is a product that unfolds within our minds, it is not a property of ‘physical reality’ itself, which simply IS.

To bolster his claim, Hoffman declares victory by presenting his theorem as though that settled it. Never mentioning that theorems are manmade concoctions that require assumptions and judgement calls to be made.

But the experiences of hundreds of generations, not to mention the full range of Earth sciences these past few hundred years, that Hoffman derisively dismisses as a ‘hunch’ - that’s entertainment, not science.

reread, edit, reread, edit, reread, edit, and I’m still missing last my paragraph or two. Was going to work on it all morning,. . . but am off to to help pick and pickle tomatoes.

If Donald Hoffman had categorized his book “The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes” as new age literature, metaphysical intellectual entertainment, I’d have no complaints. It’s his insistence on passing it off as serious science that begs a frank detailed response, even if I’m only a thoughtful spectator and no academic.

Science is a set of rules and an attitude for observing and striving to understand our physical world, it’s about atoms and molecules and all they create, including biology and our planet’s biosphere, along with the rules all of it follows. Science strives for objectivity, it demands facts and rejects ego driven conclusions.

All of us view the world through our own unique perspective, which of course is the product of genes, upbringing, environment, cumulative learning and experiences that produce inevitable biases in how we perceive the same bits of information. Admittedly, there’s an ocean of difference between the professor and myself.

Donald David Hoffman (12/29/55) is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a Professor in the Dept of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, the Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.

Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. His research subjects include facial attractiveness, the recognition of shape, the perception of motion and color, the evolution of perception, and the mind-body problem. (wiki)

Me, I’m on the outside looking in. Born the same year Hoffman was, mine was a working-man’s life with a passion for learning about Earth’s story through science, personal observation, thinking, reading quality popular publications and books, visiting libraries, museums, then the internet and always pondering the fundamental questions, fitting together pieces of the puzzle, and being astounded at all science was learning and sharing.

In particular, I’ve been impressed that even with all the unexpected surprises over these decades, there remains an underlying harmony and consistency that’s astounding. Our understanding has been like an image coming into better focus as more pixels of information are gathered. Seems like great proof that we’ve developed a reasonably accurate understanding, even if some mysteries and surprises remain. We shouldn’t glibly turn our backs on that.

To hear someone of Hoffman’s stature simply dismiss it all and replace our day to day reality with imagined icons replacing stuff; then reduce Evolution to a computer interface & games analogies; topped off with “conscious agents” zinging around like so many photons. It’s bewildering, disconcerting and a hell of challenge for me to get to work on enunciating a more down to Earth perspective on the evolution of perceiving the reality surrounding us.

Hoffman begins his book with a quote from a founding father of science,

I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on . . .

reside in consciousness. Hence if the living

creature were removed, all these qualities

would be wiped away and annihilated.

In fairness, that was penned a life time before people started understanding the light spectrum, hundreds of years before we started understanding biochemistry and learning about the molecular structures that make up odors and tastes.

Today, we understand physically what creates different tastes, smells and other sensations. We also understand how our body receives and processes those sense signals in bewildering detail. Pretending that away is nothing less than scientific fraud.

How those signals are ultimately perceived within our minds, remains shrouded in mystery, even as scientists keep learning more details about our brain’s operations.

But, that’s a perception question - it in no way negates the fact that we understand physically, molecularly, what creates those different tastes, smells and other sensations. There’s no mystery, it is material stuff that can be measured, described and replicated.

DH asks: “Why do our senses exist to reveal the truth?” (¶2)

That is a leading question, it’s not scientific, it’s intend is setting the stage for a story. Evolution doesn’t care about truth. “Truth” is a lawyer’s conception that does not translate into the ways and means of our Earth’s living biosphere or evolution.

Senses were honed through attrition and experience over time to better collect incoming information from the environment, process it through neurons and brains into information that guides bodies to react as appropriate to a bewildering array of immediate real world challenges.

Doing the best one could with what one had, is a better approximation for what’s needed in an ever changing, fast moving, complex reality.

DH: “Why are our eyes, and all our sense, reliable guides? … the real world we assume… objects in space and time… Our senses are simply a window on this objective reality.” (¶3)

Notice how DH morphs the “real world” of “objects in space and time” into “objective reality,” he does this throughout the book without examining just what his “objective reality” is all about.

DH: “These hunches are wrong.” (¶4)

As they say in the movies, them are fighting words.

DH goes on to explain: “It’s that the very language of objects in space and time is simply the wrong language to describe objective reality. This is not a hunch. It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.” (¶4)

Here again Hoffman points to ‘objective reality’ - but objectivity, or the lack thereof, is a product that unfolds within our minds, it is not a property of ‘physical reality’ itself, which simply IS.

To bolster his claim, Hoffman declares victory by presenting his theorem as though that settled it. Never mentioning that theorems are manmade concoctions that require assumptions and judgement calls to be made, and are limited in their application.

The experiences of hundreds of generations of observers, not to mention the full range of Earth sciences these past few hundred years, with their increasingly sophisticated observation equipment, that consistently produce surprises, yet those surprises make sense in hindsight and a bit more learning. All pointing to an overall harmonious and accurate understanding.

All of that Hoffman theatrically dismisses as a ‘hunch’ - that’s entertainment, not science.

Hoffman conveniently overlooks the profound divide between our perceptions and physical reality. He speaks of “objective reality” as though it were our “physical reality” - which it certainly isn’t.

By confusing physical reality with our perceptions of reality, Hoffman ends up with a muddle that’s of no use in our pragmatic real lives, but it makes for a beguiling story, that seems to sell well to a frivolous society that rather daydream than deal with the reality of living on an over-populated planet with rapidly shrinking resources.

Hate it when it disappears me like that. Oh well, probably my fault. At least I’ve made it to the end now, so I’ll give it a day or two and see how it feels.

If Donald Hoffman had categorized his book “The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes” as new age literature, metaphysical intellectual entertainment, I’d have no complaints. It’s his insistence on passing it off as serious science that begs a frank detailed response, even if I’m only a thoughtful spectator and no academic.

Science is a set of rules and an attitude for observing and striving to understand our physical world, it’s about atoms and molecules, all they create, including biology and our planet’s biosphere, along with the rules all of it follows. Science strives for objectivity, it demands facts and rejects ego driven conclusions.

All of us view the world through our own unique perspective, which of course is the product of genes, upbringing, environment, cumulative learning and experiences that produce inevitable biases in how we perceive the same bits of information. Admittedly, there’s an ocean of difference between the professor and myself.

Donald David Hoffman (12/29/55) is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a Professor in the Dept of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, the Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.

Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. His research subjects include facial attractiveness, the recognition of shape, the perception of motion and color, the evolution of perception, and the mind-body problem. (wiki)

Me, I’m on the outside looking on academia. Born the same year as Hoffman, mine was a working-man’s life with a passion for learning about Earth’s story through science, personal observation, thinking, reading quality popular publications and books, visiting libraries, museums, then the internet and always pondering the fundamental questions, fitting together pieces of the puzzle, and being astounded at all science was learning and sharing.

In particular, I’ve been impressed that even with all the unexpected surprises over these decades, there remains an underlying harmony and consistency that’s astounding. Our understanding has been like an image coming into better focus as more pixels of information are gathered. Seems like proof that we’ve developed a reasonably accurate understanding, even if some mysteries and surprises remain. We shouldn’t glibly turn our backs on that.

To hear someone of Hoffman’s stature simply dismiss it all and replace our day to day reality with imagined icons replacing material stuff; then reduce Evolution to a computer interface & games theory analogies; topped off with “conscious agents” zinging around like so many photons. It’s bewildering, disconcerting and a hell of challenge for me to get to work on enunciating a more down to Earth perspective on the evolution of perceiving the reality surrounding us.

Hoffman begins his book with a quote from a founding father of science,
<p style=“text-align: center;”>
I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on . . .</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>reside in consciousness. Hence if the living</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>creature were removed, all these qualities</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>would be wiped away and annihilated.</p>

In fairness, that was penned a life time before people started understanding the light spectrum, hundreds of years before we started understanding biochemistry and learning about the molecular structures that make up odors and tastes.

Today, we physically understand what creates different tastes, smells and other sensations. We observe how our body receives and processes those sense signals in bewildering detail. Pretending that away is foolish.

How those signals are ultimately perceived within our minds, remains shrouded in mystery, even as scientists keep learning more details about our brain’s operations.

But, all that is a perception question - it in no way negates the fact that we understand physically, molecularly, what creates those different tastes, smells and other sensations. There’s no mystery, it is material stuff that can be measured, described and replicated.

… DH asks: “Why do our senses exist to reveal the truth?” (¶2)

That is a leading question, it’s not scientific, it’s intent is setting the stage for a story. Evolution doesn’t care about truth. “Truth” is a lawyer’s conception that does not translate into the ways and means of our Earth’s living biosphere or evolution.

Senses were honed through experimentation, attrition and experience over eons to better collect incoming information from the environment, process it through neurons and brains into information the mind uses to guide its body’s actions as appropriate to a bewildering array of immediate real world situations and challenges.

Doing the best one could, with what one had, is a better approximation for what’s needed in an ever changing, fast moving, complex reality.

… DH: “Why are our eyes, and all our sense, reliable guides? … the real world we assume… objects in space and time… Our senses are simply a window on this objective reality.” (¶3)

Notice how DH morphs the “real world” of “objects in space and time” into “objective reality,” he does this throughout the book without examining just what his “objective reality” is all about.

… DH: “These hunches are wrong.” (¶4)

As they say in the movies, them are fighting words.

… DH goes on to explain: “It’s that the very language of objects in space and time is simply the wrong language to describe objective reality. This is not a hunch. It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.” (¶4)

Here again Hoffman points to ‘objective reality’ - but objectivity, or the lack thereof, is a product that unfolds within our minds, it is a conscious property, not a physical one.

… DH: “It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.” (¶4)

Hoffman declares victory by presenting his theorem as though that settled it. Never mentioning that theorems are manmade concoctions that require assumptions and judgement calls to be made, and are limited in their application.

… DH: “This is what evolution has done. It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring. Space as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop - a 3D desktop.” (¶8)

“… I explain why evolution hid objective reality and endowed us instead with an interface of objects in space and time.” (¶13)

Why write off the experiences of hundreds of generations of observers, not to mention the full range of Earth sciences these past few hundred years, with their increasingly sophisticated observation equipment - that consistently produce surprises, yet those surprises as consistently make sense in hindsight as we learn things we didn’t know before. All pointing to an overall harmonious and accurate (if incomplete) understanding of the physical reality our minds are embedded within.

All of that Hoffman theatrically dismisses as a ‘hunch’ - that’s entertainment, not science.

… DH: “Together, we will explore how this counter intuitive idea dovetails with discoveries in physics that are equally counter intuitive.” (¶13)

Here Hoffman refers to his explorations of the quantum realm at the very divide between physical matter and energy. The reality of single atoms, in a world where ~5,000,000,000,000 atoms dance on the sharp tip of a pin.

Hoffman never justifies transferring experimental conclusions from that realm of physics at the absolute tiniest, up into our human macroscopic reality of measurable hard substances and organisms with lives unfolding within an inescapable space and time. But he certainly does.

… DH: “In chapter 7, we wade into the curious and curiouser: spacetime is just a data format . . . “ (¶22)

Hoffman conveniently overlooks the profound divide between our perceptions and physical reality. He speaks of our “objective reality” as though it were our “physical reality” - which it certainly isn’t.

… DH: “If our senses hide reality behind an interface then what is that reality? I don’t know. But in chapter 10 we explore the idea that conscious experiences are fundamental…” (¶26)

… DH: “Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experiment, decide and act. . . . Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness - as a perpetual interface” (¶27)

By confusing physical reality with our perception of reality, Hoffman ends up with a muddle that’s of no use in our pragmatic world - but it makes for a beguiling story that seems to sell well.

Donald Hoffman’s “Case Against Reality - Why Evolution Hide The Truth From Our Eyes” provides a structure framework to better enunciate a more down to Earth vision of our human condition and to explore the profound divide between our Mindscapes and the Physical Reality we exist within.

It will be slow going, but I’ll keep plugging away at his chapters as I can and share my results.

Chapter 1, Mystery: The Scalpel That Split Consciousness

Chapter 2, Beauty: Siren of the Gene

Chapter 3, Reality: Capers of the Unseen Sun

Chapter 4, Sensory: Fitness beats Truth

Chapter 5, Illusory: The Bluff of the Desktop

Chapter 6, Gravity: Spacetime is Doomed

Chapter 7, Virtuality: Inflating a Holoworld

Chapter 8, Polychromy: Mutations of an Interface

Chapter 9, Scrutiny: You Get What You Need, in Both Life and Business

Chapter 10, Community: The Network of Conscious Agents

Appendix, Precisely: The Right to Be Wrong


Turned out to be salsa we were making.

From our own two greenhouses. Two families, cooperative effort.

I’m proud of the doors I put on now that we need to start thinking about freezing nights once in a while.

Well a bunch more edits (that I’ll spare you) and guess it’s time to pull the trigger.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2020/09/case-against-reality-zerogravity.html
You bet it could be better, but that would require a little serious feedback which I can't seem to muster for the life of me.

Oh well, it is what it is, Oooooommmmmm. Then I’ll be gone.

Though, I can’t deny, it’s maddening seeing the kind of bullshit others manage to build entire careers out of.