> This makes no sense. Statement mis-identifying personal state of mind as extrinsic property? > (rest of comment) Simple assertions about personal world-mod

> This makes no sense. Statement mis-identifying personal state of mind as extrinsic property? > (rest of comment) Simple assertions about personal world-model? > Or maybe I just don't get the point. Definitely get your feels though. The article doesn't have teeth. However... Are dreams "reality"? Certainly you experience them. At the very least they are capable of forming vivid memories, no? Heck, if you really want, you can even experiment with lucid dreaming and discover "dream laws". However, dream experiences don't operationalize in the same way as waking life experiences. If you have a really mind-blowing glass of water in a dream, I don't know of a good way to get friends to experience that too. Should we go full Scientist TM and say that reality is discoverable and reproducible? Perhaps. Elements that operationalize in this way are friggin' useful. However, that one time the sound of a breeze over a summer lake brought you to tears is not "reproducible" in any meaningful way. That specific memory is closer to a dream in many ways, since it mostly operates as memory. So was that experience "not real"? Okay, so maybe "reality" isn't just Scientific Laws or whatever? Maybe the article has a point? Personally, I find the act of asking these questions and seriously engaging with them to be fruitful. They can highlight the boundaries, edge cases, and bugs in a mental model. Humans can get into all sorts of interesting mind-states. In my experience, the "makes no sense" feeling is usually an indicator that I've failed to engage my mirror neurons and simulate said mind-state.