There's lots to explore, a lot I don't know, and things that I thought I knew I had to give up.

The perception part of his theory is self-evident. You already know that the "visible spectrum" is an arbitrary sliver of a much broader spectrum that has no color distinction. In some ranges, an apple IS transparent, or even invisible, in others, the air itself is "visually" impregnable. You already know that "red" is made in our minds -- a species mind having a shared set of rules regarding the perception and use of the color -- but red does not actually exist.

You already know that a brain could be just as easily constructed to perceive the red wavelength as blue, and the blue as a flavor, and green as a aural sensation. The mammalian kingdom seems to have a shared set of renderings such that the color markings on a poisonous snake make perfect adaptive sense.

You already know that matter is more that 99.9 percent empty space, and that boundaries that define things like an apple as a single object and not part of a larger one, or as a collection of objects, are arbitrary, are defined by the observer, not intrinsic.

To use a borrowed metaphor: You already know that the important document on your computer desktop is a completely unreal representation of an endless stream of structured binary information, but that what it represents -- though nothing intrinsically like a document icon of borders and size and colors -- is as real as real gets. For this reason, dragging the icon to the trashcan is not something you want to do; neither bug a marked snake.

- Bruss comment
Or we could just get over ourselves.
- Laura Carpenter comment
Plato's republic and the shadow in the cave... None of this is new, everything is a construct of ourselves...
- Jiwi6 comment
"sarve bhavanthu sukhino, sarve santhu niramaaya, sarve bhadrani pashyanthu... Maa kaschicht dukhavadbhavet. ". May every soul/spirit vibrate to its fullest, happiest form of existence. Let's be happy 🙂🙏
- Roshan Vishnu comment
I think we need to create a mathmatical construct of any mathmatical construct proposed about consciousness. T

That can go on infinitely therefore the original proposal is symtom of not a statement about anything. It's circular reasoning. Not mentally healthy, mental hospitals are filled with folks that think exactly like this. It's actually common and totally Norrmal.

- David Thurman comment

So called cognitive psychologist just got out of a denial of the tone of reseached evidences that consciousness is at least 99% generated by brain / body functions ... Please, take a good night of sleep and realize: we are hardly in control of our perceptions (a paradox: thinking that because reality is generated in the brain, we have the power to create it at will, no, we are not disconnected from the universe !), inputs.

And they are trying to make it seems like a break through ! Funnily enough bragging about the process of becoming egoless. From Plato to Spinoza or Antonio Damasio, even introspection has precious insight. But taking some time alone to reflect on ourselves is overrated right ? Preferably strutting around.

Ego chatter a bitch. Work undervalued. Opinions trash. Where is purpose ? Where are priorities ?

And to the other comment !? "If this theory is correct, is it proof of some sort of afterlife?", of course not, on the exact opposite: if reality is defined by the brain (rather than seen in god's theaters), what is it that you have left to perceive reality after you're gone ? From which place ? With what senses ? With whom ?

It is interesting to think about how unlogical reasoning (lie) constructs come to life, maybe it is a sign of how we tend to cling to what we know, why ? Is it in order to have a stable frame of reference from which we can be able to respond to everyday challenges ? Or, are lies emerging from twists, schemes and strings !?

What if, instead of being like the others egocentrical bastards (literally, illegitimates childs of the brain) we tried to identify what we don't know that we don't know ? The article in the link is trying to say that reality being fake as we perceive it, is a legitimate, necessary construct made by the brain to live more efficiently, but why would that be true ?

On the contrary, isn't the human brain top feature to be able to assess new evidences coming through our senses in order to challenge ourselves (there is no strengh without tension, no balance without deepness, understand it as you see fit), change ourselves and our surroundings ? Adaptation is key to life.

Of course, we can only process informations bit by bit (ironically ? No, John von Neumann, pioneer in computer architectures, among others, was inpired by workings of the brain), it's not about reality vs fiction, it's about being part of a whole ! It's about depth and complexity.

For fsck* sake, it seems to me that too many people are asking the wrong questions, if any questions at all ... Been there, done that, didn't do good.

Why does it matter so much to understand how our brain function ? : Capability. The answer is like saying RTFM* ! God Damn It ;-)

*file system consistency check