Nowhere have I said that people, in general, are blind and stupid. I do not discount that may be your own opinion, as you are steering the discussion towards cflimate change again.
Consider quantum mechanics. Neither observer, nor apparatus including existing subject is emergent from the result. Though the notions about the result are definitly formed at observation not prior to it. Re, Einsteins question to Pais; the observation product moon (phenominal) is not a reality pror to observaton. The material Moon object (Noumenal) is and continues to be existing whether the observer looks or does not, it is observation independent, That is a difference between foundational material reality and emergent realities that quantum physics does not consider . QM is all about the emergent , from information , other than the material , foundational level reality.

    Georgina Woodward
    Your model is of a world where people, and other living things, are inherently, from the ground up, incapable of correctly seeing or knowing the reality that they encounter. Fact: this ties in with your climate change views.

      Georgina Woodward
      Your model, your evaluation of the nature of reality, is clearly not correct: as I previously mentioned, we can now send spacecraft to Mars, and do all sorts of other amazing things because we are using our knowledge of how the world works at a fundamental level. Contrary to your model of the world, people ARE able to correctly see and know and represent reality.

          Lorraine Ford
          I am providng a vocabulary to enable differentiation betweem things and emergent products that are different in type but called by the same word 'realiy'. In using this terminology we avoid cofusion between what is absolute,observer independent material existence and what is emergent from information processing, relative and limited , Thought based on learning is not observer independent existence no matter how much we agree or disagree with the though i.e. .A thought is a though whether valid, in our opinion, or not.

              Georgina Woodward
              Furthermore,

              1. We should not be surprised that the quasi reality produced by synthesis, usually assumed to be reality, is consistent with the model and narratives used in its production.
              2. The formative models and narratives are foundational to the believed quasi reality but not the Basement level foundational Object reality.
              3. Quasi reality is individually generated, using the individuals experience and learning including models and narratives.
              4. Similarity of personal quasi realities relies upon similarity of experiences and learning, as well as similarity of models and narratives.
              5. Similarity of experience can derive from living within a group exposed to the prevail
              6. Models and narratives can be scientific dogma, be religious, be other secular models including pseudo science and popular conjecture. A cohesive social group is likely to have shared models and narratives whether believed to be true or not by individuals.
              7. AI and Social media algorithms endanger social cohesion; by taking up a lot of attention that might be expended otherwise in shared social and cultural pursuits, Lessening their influence, and over individualizing experience. Giving quasi realities that are less similar to each other because of deprivation of shared experience and shared models and narratives. Making it less likely the individuals will agree, as they are not starting from ‘common ground’.
              8. Different cultural groups will also have different quasi realities (‘how the world is’, as I see it). Knowledge about the models, narratives, and experiences used in synthesis of their world view can give insight into attitude and behaviour
              9. We can not assume all ‘not mentally ill’ people by virtue of being people, or because there is a belief in one true reality, will have similar quasi realities/world view. This is a problem for globalization. Local conditions and cultures vary and so does quasi reality. ‘One size does not fit all’ though we might wish it was not so.
              10. This model may be helpful in addressing; ideological differences or differing moral stances, religious differences, differing scientific views, differing background both social and environmental, different education, in order to enable constructive conversation between the parties, and form suitable responses to fit the circumstances.

                  Georgina Woodward
                  Your model of the world is wrong. We can now send spacecraft to Mars and do all sorts of other amazing things using our knowledge of how the world works at a fundamental level. Contrary to your model of the world, people ARE able to correctly see and know and represent the world: this is why we can have a thing called “science”.

                  Your model of the world is wrong. Contrary to your model of the world, living things, even very low-level living things, survive because they can correctly perceive and analyse the current situation in their surrounding world, and thereby find food and avoid danger.

                  So, contrary to what you say, the foundations of knowledge are secure. We do in fact know/ perceive/ experience the actual world. Furthermore, the brain can correctly analyse, interpret and collate the low-level knowledge, about the current situation in the surrounding world, acquired via the eyes, ears and nose etc.

                  It is only in the very high-level analysis, interpretation and collation of this knowledge by the brain, especially the high-level analysis, interpretation and collation of knowledge about high-level analysers-interpreters-collators of knowledge (i.e. knowledge about high-level beings, including human beings, including oneself), that misdiagnoses can occur.

                  Your model of the world is wrong because it flatly denies that the science that sends spacecraft to Mars is possible.

                      Lorraine Ford
                      i'm trying to make less ambiguous ,what we mean when we use the word 'reality. That involves thinking about relative emerging viewpoints from processing of aquired information in cotrast to the absolute ,observation independent material,Object reality. I have not written about rocket science used to get to Mars.

                          Georgina Woodward
                          Vision woks by processing detectable fequencies and intenensitiesof so called electromagnetic radiation ( due to specificities of individual photoreceptors) ,into a semblance of thr external source but can not be identical with the sousce. Emergent, relative thought can not be identical to existing absolute material reality.They are categorically different. Also note the limitation of information actallty processed into awareness, perception and subjective, quasi reality compared to the totality of information released by the source.
                          A reference frame is not a slice of the space-time continuum,giving the observer's present It is actually a sample of unitemporal (one time) space containing potenttial sensory data of dfferent temporal origins.
                          Natural selection works by selction of traits actually aid survival so that reproduction is possible. Traits decreasing survival are selected againt and do not increase in the population.
                          Sensory processig is an energetic cost that has to be compensated by survival advatage. Higher fidelity of sesory perceptio, does not necessarly confir advantage from an evolutionary perspective.

                              Georgina Woodward
                              It is not a matter of defining words like “reality” or detailing the physics or detailing the mechanisms. It is a matter of looking at the actual world:

                              Contrary to your blind man and elephant model, the survival of life, from the most primitive life onwards, depends on their being able to correctly perceive and analyse and respond to the current situation in their immediate surroundings.

                              But in order for the most primitive life to have correct perception, this correct perception can only develop and be built out of low-level matter like particles, atoms and molecules also “correctly perceiving” aspects of the other low-level matter they interact with.

                              This necessary-for survival knowledge must be built from the ground up, on rock-solid real foundations. Necessary-for survival knowledge can’t be built on imaginary unreal foundations.

                                  Lorraine Ford
                                  What do you mean by 'correctly percive? Are you talking about fidelity of sensory perception? A creature without eyes sees nohing. A creature with only simple eyes sees darkness ansd light. Which of those organisms correctly percieves and analyses the enviroment in comparison to a sighted organism with complex eyes?

                                      Georgina Woodward
                                      Knowledge/ perception involves all the senses, not just sight, and not just the 5 (or whatever number) senses that human beings have.

                                      But necessary-for-survival knowledge/ perception must be built from the ground up, on rock-solid real foundations, going all the way down to, and built out of, what physicists would symbolically represent as variables and numbers, and the relationships between these variables.

                                      The point is that necessary-for-survival knowledge/ perception can’t be built on imaginary unreal foundations.

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          imgine a simple lifeform with simple eyes, that hides when a moving shadow passes.But only half the time the shadow is associated with a materially real, potetially hostile presence. Reacting as if in danger has a survival advantage over a creature without simple eyes , even though the assumption of danger is fase half the time

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              You have missed the point of what I’m saying.

                                              A cat might mistakenly, fleetingly, perceive a brown leaf blown by the wind to be a scuttling tiny mouse. But that just goes to show that the cat is analysing, interpreting, and acting on, the rock-solid, but low-level, information the cat acquired when light waves interacted with it’s eyes. (Such interactions can maybe be seen as a type of information exchange.)

                                              The point is that necessary-for-survival knowledge/ perception can’t be built on imaginary unreal foundations.

                                                  Georgina Woodward
                                                  All of the senses work by processinglimited sensory input, not absolute objects, no matter which stimulus is used. Because environment than hearing and smell. Travel time of (pre)light exceeds travel time of sound and smells, and touch and taste are limited by only being able to sence what is in contact with the material body of the experiecing one, or very close to it . ii does not work for remote objects.

                                                    Lorraine Ford
                                                    Your latest post reminds me of the large number of videos online, showing cats startled by cucumbers. Utilizing.for amusemwent their instinctive reflex behaviour that has helped avoid snake bites and is thus a survival advantage. Better to have some false positiove fruit avoidance than be snake food. Truth is irrelevant to the cat, all that matters is avoiding a potential threat.

                                                        Georgina Woodward
                                                        Speed of response is paramount to survival advatage of an individual cat. For that reason I would not be suprised if the response is subconscious, That is to say the cat responds before it is fully aware of what it is seeing.The body acting in response to basic Image reality indicating a possible threat in this scenario .Prior to alerting the conscious faculty for further urgent processing and decision making is required. Before perception of what is being seen. Also before it has had time to make a decision of what action to take based on prior experiences i.e. using it's self generated subjective quasi reality..

                                                            Georgina Woodward
                                                            You have missed the point of what I’m saying.

                                                            A cat might mistakenly, fleetingly, perceive a brown leaf blown by the wind to be a scuttling tiny mouse. But that just goes to show that the cat is analysing, interpreting, and acting on, the rock-solid, but low-level, information the cat acquired when light waves interacted with it’s eyes.

                                                            It seems obvious that, with more advanced living things, this analysis and interpretation of the incoming information coming from the enormous number of individual low-level interactions continually taking place in the senses, would need to be backgrounded, and not in executive-level consciousness.

                                                            The point is that necessary-for-survival knowledge/ perception can’t be built on imaginary unreal foundations. Necessary-for-survival knowledge/ perception must be built from the ground up, on rock-solid real foundations, going all the way down to, and built out of, what physicists would symbolically represent as variables and numbers, and the relationships between these variables.

                                                                Lorraine Ford
                                                                A cat rapidly responding to a movement, that is possible prey, is not showing the cat has analysed and processed the information, decicded on it's action and therefore been mistaken. The cat probably acted automatically without unneccesary slow expenditure of energy on thought, Cats attacking possible pey as soon as possiblle are more likely to be successful and have a survival advantage. It will not be mistaken if no identification of the object as mouse has yet happened.
                                                                I am not denying that the atoms making the leaf-'mouse' exist and the photons released into the environment,from it , in obsevation inderendent reality, That exists and happens ,as well.as the cat and leaf emergent, relative, generated reality.

                                                                    Georgina Woodward
                                                                    To be clear, the type of reality or category of reality in this framework is not dependent on scale. An atom that is a constituent of a cat is ObJect reality and so is the arrangement of atoms that makes the material cat.