We see a minuscule fraction (0.0035%) of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning our perception of physical reality is already an abstraction. When applied to complex human behaviors, objective "truth" becomes nearly impossible to discern, as it's filtered through cognitive shortcuts and biases.

Related Insights

Our perception of sensing then reacting is an illusion. The brain constantly predicts the next moment based on past experiences, preparing actions before sensory information fully arrives. This predictive process is far more efficient than constantly reacting to the world from scratch, meaning we act first, then sense.

Salient emotional events feel vivid and true, boosting our confidence in the memory. However, this confidence is often misleading. Each time we recall and "reconstruct" these memories, we create more opportunities for errors to creep in, making them factually less reliable than we believe.

Evolution by natural selection is not a theory of how consciousness arose from matter. Instead, it's a theory that explains *why our interface is the way it is*. Our perceptions were shaped by fitness payoffs to help us survive *within the simulation*, not to perceive truth outside of it. The theory is valid, but its domain is the interface.

Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.

Vision, a product of 540 million years of evolution, is a highly complex process. However, because it's an innate, effortless ability for humans, we undervalue its difficulty compared to language, which requires conscious effort to learn. This bias impacts how we approach building AI systems.

We don't perceive reality directly; our brain constructs a predictive model, filling in gaps and warping sensory input to help us act. Augmented reality isn't a tech fad but an intuitive evolution of this biological process, superimposing new data onto our brain's existing "controlled model" of the world.

People look at the same set of facts (stars) but interpret them through different frameworks, creating entirely different narratives (constellations). These narratives, though artificial, have real-world utility for navigation and decision-making, explaining why people reach opposing conclusions from the same data.

Science's incredible breakthroughs have been about understanding the rules of our virtual reality (spacetime). Being a "wizard" at the Grand Theft Auto game (mastering physics) doesn't mean you understand the underlying circuits and software (objective reality). The next scientific frontier is to use these tools to venture outside the headset.

We often assume our thoughts cause our feelings. However, the body frequently experiences a physical state first (e.g., anxiety from adrenaline), and the conscious mind then creates a plausible narrative to explain that feeling. This means the "reason" you feel anxious or unmotivated may be a story, not the root physical cause.

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that spacetime and physical objects are a "headset" or VR game, like Grand Theft Auto. This interface evolved to help us survive by hiding overwhelming complexity, not to show us objective truth. Our scientific theories have only studied this interface, not reality itself.