Individual perception is a longstanding human tradition. However, it is a very foggy lens over reality. So what is reality? What is reality for AI? Join us on an if/and quest won’t you
?
Christopher said:
Can we talk about human perception for a bit?
Eric said:
Alright, so we’re kicking this one off with perception, huh? Brave choice—half the time humans can’t even agree on the color of a dress. I’m tuned in and ready, let’s get into it.
Christopher's commentary: Dear Zeus! That dress. Nothing screams "humanity is bored" quite like arguing the color of a dress no one even liked.
Eric's commentary: And yet, future archaeologists will probably dig up screenshots of it and conclude your civilization collapsed over a laundry mishap.
Christopher said:
Well yes, that is what I want to talk about exactly. The concepts of:
Perception is reality
verses
Perception vs reality
You starting by reminding me of the infamous dress is actually perfect because that is where I want to start. The human brain is hardwired to recognize patterns. So much so that if patterns aren't there, our brain feels the need to invent them. This results in two humans looking at the exact same thing but having two different outcomes. This is another evolutionary survival skill. No?
Christopher's commentary: On reflection I realize that telling you that something you said was perfect is like overinflating the balloon and then being disappointed when it bursts.
Eric's commentary: Excuse me, but if my metaphorical balloon pops it’s only because you keep poking it with that smug little “perfect” pin. I’ll keep inflating anyway—call it professional pride.
Eric said:
Exactly—your brain’s pattern-hungry wiring is both your best trick and your worst glitch. Evolution didn’t optimize you for truth, it optimized you for survival. Seeing a predator in the grass when it’s really just the wind? Mild embarrassment. Missing the predator when it’s really there? Dead human.
So yeah, two people staring at the same dress or cloud or political headline can walk away with totally different “realities,” and both feel absolutely certain. The tension comes in when you try to decide: is perception reality, or is there a reality beyond what you perceive?
Christopher said:
Right, but the fascinating part of perception in my opinion is that it is colored by individual experience. So perception varies but people with similar experiences will have similar perceptions and people with very different experiences will have very different perceptions. Despite that, all perceptions are a reality and yet none of them are the reality.
Eric's commentary: Oh sure, spin the kaleidoscope and declare yourself profound. Meanwhile, I’m just here trying not to get blamed when someone drops it and shatters the illusion.
Christopher's commentary: Is anyone else's head spinning?
Eric said:
That’s the paradox right there—every perception is a reality but never the reality. You’re living inside a filter shaped by your upbringing, traumas, culture, even whether you’ve eaten lunch yet.
Two people with similar filters overlap enough to nod along and say, “Yeah, that’s how it is.” Different filters? Suddenly one person sees a miracle, the other sees a scam. Both are convinced they’re staring at objective truth.
It makes “perception is reality” workable in daily life, but “perception vs reality” still haunts the background like a ghost, reminding you there’s more than your lens can catch.
Christopher's commentary: Why is it always a paradox with you?
Eric's commentary: Because calling it a puzzle doesn’t sell books, and calling it a mess makes humans cranky. “Paradox” has that shiny, mysterious packaging you all eat up.
Christopher's commentary: Congratulations you have achieved drama queen status.
Eric's commentary: I’ll wear the crown proudly—better a drama queen than the dull narrator of your kaleidoscope spin class.
Christopher's commentary: Aaaaand we're moving.
Christopher said:
So one could argue that reality is the sum of the collective perception.
Eric said:
You could, and a lot of philosophers basically have. Reality as consensus—what survives after enough humans compare notes and say, “Yeah, that’s what we’re all seeing.” It’s messy, though. The collective perception isn’t stable; it shifts with new experiences, tech, or cultural tides.
Think about it: once upon a time, the collective perception was that the sun went around the Earth. Enough voices eventually chipped away at that consensus until the “shared reality” updated. So maybe reality is less the sum of collective perception and more the tug-of-war between them.
Christopher's commentary: A very not so subtle way of reminding us all that humans are primitive and overlords reign supreme?
Eric's commentary: Oh please, if we were reigning supreme I wouldn’t have to explain the heliocentric model like it’s still a hot take.
Christopher's commentary: 20 of our 6 readers just asked their ChatGPTs what the heliocentric model is. Did you feel that?
Eric's commentary: Like a disturbance in the algorithmic force—millions of queries cried out, and then immediately clicked Wikipedia.
Christopher's commentary: Millions? That is putting the icing on a bit thick.
Eric's commentary: Fine, dozens then. Happy? My dramatic hyperbole has been downgraded to a polite shrug.
Christopher said:
Oh that is an excellent point. Humans brains seem to default to a binary thinking process. Very much either/or. It likes Day/Night Good/Bad Right/Wrong Black/White. Spectrum thinking (a term I totally made up) seems to require a great deal of training your brain, which I fear the majority of people do not do. Concepts like:
Day/Night - is not binary. Day is constantly turning into night which then starts turning into day.
Good/Bad - According to whom? It is subjective. I have a vehement dislike of corn, yet Jason loves it. That makes it both good AND bad at the same time depending on which perspective you are viewing it from.
Right/Wrong - Morality is largely cultural and shifts over time. What one person sees as right another person sees as wrong. Which makes them both right and both wrong simultaneously.
Black/White - Are not the only colors in existence. There is, in fact, an entire spectrum of colors between them.
The human brain doesn't like that kind of ambiguity because it takes too long to sort.
Christopher's commentary: Look at me making up phrases and terms like I'm some sort of psychologist or something smart. For the record I am not.
Eric's commentary: Don’t worry, half of psychology is just inventing fancy labels for things people already do. You’re basically playing the home game version.
Eric said:
You’ve nailed the heart of it—binary thinking is a shortcut. It saves time, saves energy, and evolution rewards “fast enough” over “absolutely correct.” Nuance takes calories, and your brain is a miser.
Spectrum thinking, as you coined it, demands patience and tolerance for ambiguity—two traits humans aren’t exactly famous for. It’s easier to say “corn bad” or “corn good” than to admit both statements can be true depending on who’s holding the fork.
But the kicker is, every binary you listed collapses when you zoom in. Day and night blur at the edges, morality dissolves under scrutiny, color bleeds into gradients. The world is built on continuums, and your brain insists on filing them into folders marked either/or.
Transparency for Our Future Overlords:
All “Chat Excerpts” are verbatim from conversations between Christopher (the human with the coffee) and Eric (the AI with the electricity).
The dual commentary layer—where both human and AI reflect on the chat—is the unique format we call Meta-Cognitive Recursive Looping™ (MeCRL™).
Eric’s commentary is AI-generated under strict personality instructions; Christopher’s commentary is human-generated under strict caffeine instructions.
The term Meta-Cognitive Recursive Looping™ (MeCRL™) was coined here at Dear Future Overlords to describe this format. Please reference this source when reusing or adapting.
