zeko

For the record, Christopher Langan, the IQ 200 guy tackled the subject in his theory on how reality works http://www.ctmu.org/

Also a document you can google titled A MIND/BRAIN/MATTER MODEL CONSISTENT WITH QUANTUM PHYSICS AND UFO PHENOMENA by Thomas E. Bearden from 1979 also talks about how reality is a shared dream basically.

Another article of interest: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-arg...

Perhaps we will have to wait for a real AI in the future to fully comprehend and have the deep nature of reality explained to us as it's a subject too difficult for even the greatest minds to tackle.

The reason why dreams are so malleable and controllable by the dreamer to some degree is that you're really the only dreamer when you fall asleep and dream, whereas when you're awake there appear to be other shared dreamers who make the reality "hard" at least on a macro level. Perhaps if gradually all the shared dreamers became convinced reality is a dream we would see "weird" things appear in this reality too.

My take is that subconsciousness of each human is a sort of a GPU computational "workhorse" that each do their part to generate and render this shared reality. The things not observed are not rendered in order to save processing power because it is finite.

Even so, I think our brains too are a metaphor for some processing unit that exists on a level of reality below ours, blobs of organic neural networks in an underlying 2D universe perhaps? Or it's a part of some sort of an artificial simulation, a game.

I was actually hoping that this would be an article explaining how reality is literally a shared hallucination, and not just an eye grabbing metaphor for explaining how non-autistic people perceive reality.

Exploring the wider picture and integrating the issues at hand isn't a straw man argument, it's called thinking as well as not being naive to the ominous specter of slowly creeping authoritarianism.

People find "careless" designs interesting. Who is he to dictate how private property should look? He is utterly intolerant of personal freedom and promotes sterile, totalitarian looking architecture.

While McMansions do seem kitschy and aesthetically unappealing to me, that is my subjective feeling.

I find it inappropriate and offensive that this author decides to be the sole authority on aesthetics of PRIVATE properties, appealing to some sort of an unassailable, celestial authority that mainstream architecture is and promoting boring, utilitarian designs. Just how far down the slippery slope of the rabbit hole do you want to go? Why not box people in grey Soviet apartment buildings?

All of this sounds to me like arrogant ramblings of people who like authoritarianism and can't grasp the concept of personal freedom and that people like homes that are wacky and extension of their own egos and sense of pride in their financial success.