(Apologies for taking my anger at the system out on you, no hate intended on a personal level.)

> The current Western approach to science is strictly that subjective measure is fully informative of objective reality, and (equally if not more importantly) that perception is a mechanism operating within objective reality, an object within reality, and that object is subject to natural laws.

Sometimes, sure. But science/scientists also has knowledge of Indirect Realism, but only sometimes:

- when discussing Indirect Realism from an abstract perspective

- when criticizing the object level quality of ideas other than their own (when it is their ideas the underlying service seems to become disabled, and often even access to memory is blocked)

> The other possibility...

Classic western scientific (as it is manifest at the object level) thinking: framing things as false dichotomies.

>... there is really no way to refute or prove either definitively

Disagree.

Take your perfectly reasonable (by current standards of proper thinking, [highlighting] problematic portions for emphasis): "subjective [measure] [is] [fully] [informative] of [objective] [reality], and ([equally] if not more importantly) that [perception] [is] a mechanism [operating within] [objective] [reality], an [object] [within] [reality], and that object [is] [subject to] [natural] [laws]."

This whole phenomenon takes place within reality, this "is" "true", but the content of reality (comprehensive reality at a given snapshot in time) is also the consequence of it. So while it "is true" that these mechanisms operate within "objective reality", they also produce objective reality (much of which is simultaneously subjective, objectively).

Also: while convenient techniques like "and that object is subject to natural laws" can be useful, they can also be harmful, like when one forgets that "natural laws" (and various other things within the problem space) is virtualized/hallucinated, but appears to not be (there's an easy way to tell: pick someone out of a forum and ask them questions: you will almost always find that they genuinely believe that what seems to be true to them is true; and, they'll often even link to a proof: a claim that it is true, that has no accompanying proof).

> as in all of these dual ontological choices -- is that consciousness is peering into a construct of a universal conscious intellect (something like logos or tao) and the nature of conscious intellect is entirely unlike the nature of the construct, which is an image. This flavor of paradigm offers the possibility for "consciousness" (aka God) to claim omniscient powers, including time dilation (alpha omega) and other matter.

I can see the possibility from an abstract theory perspective, but I cannot see how a complete object level implementation would be possible, even removing science's silly restrictive object level (science as it manifests) restrictions like an absence of evidence is proof of absence. (Are Godel's Incompleteness Theorems relevant here maybe?)

> What helps these models to persist are entirely distinct. The former maps well to shared experiences (modulo group psi phenomena) and is reassuringly direct and simple. The latter persists since it maps well to non-rational content of our minds which the former simply must dismiss as garbage collection or (LLM like) ramblings, void of meaning.

I think training of LLM's is much better analogy, and I also believe that that may be literally the comprehensively correct answer. If you simply pay close attention to how humans (both dumb and the very smartest) talk, if you take them at their literal word, I can't see much flaw: human belief of what is true is a function of what they were trained to believe is true. (Self-referential irony noted....indeed, I think it is possible to think oneself out of the illusion, at least to some degree, sometimes.)

> Physics can't be incorrect but it can be misinterpreted.

This is a perfect example - scientific scripture and even object level scientific work disagrees with this...and yet, one can commonly find highly qualified scientists who make such claims with sincerity and seriousness, if not downright concern for the well being of others who are not able to think in their incorrect yet correct way of thinking. Usually, science would notice anomalies like this and wonder what is the underlying cause...but it seems like there are certain ideas/domains/realms that they have a strong aversion to studying.

I'll even give an example: Whorfism or Linguistic Relativity - this topic is practically guaranteed to trigger predictable cognitive error in a human mind, and the more educated the mind is the larger the effect (more powerful base cognition can produce error of a larger magnitude).

> That Bohr's interpretation proved to be the correct interpretation has bearing on this discussion in more than one sense.

Science also uses very important and very complex words like "correct" colloquially when it serves their purpose, which is contrary to their scriptures, which they regularly use as a proof of the comprehensive superiority of their ideology.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey