This is what happens when you hire a philosophy major.

When you are programming and you feel philosophical

How Javascript handles Infinity:

Infinity * 1 == Infinity
Infinity * 0 == NaN
Infinity / 0 == Infinity
0 / Infinity == 0
Infinity + Infinity == Infinity
Infinity - Infinity == NaN
Infinity / Infinity == NaN
NaN & Infinity == 0
NaN && Infinity == NaN
NaN || Infinity == Infinity
1 % Infinity == 1
Infinity << 1 == 0
Infinity >> 0 == 0
Infinity | 0 == 0
Infinity | Infinity == 0

That's kinda philosophical, isn't it?

I, my dev friend and a non dev friend were having a deep Philosophical chat
NDF - while we are here on earth, we should give something back to the mankind
DF - Yeah man! (sarcastically pointing at me) But this guy never gives anything to anybody
Me - Oh I have contributed a lot to the mankind. You should check my github profile.

Needless to say two of us burst out laughing while one was giving blank stare.

"As it turns out, this world isn't all that complicated. It's pretty simple actually. It's all a game, a very simple game. Of course, some will try to make it difficult. But you can handle them, I know it. I know you can!"

There's a lot of truth in that. When you get into the depths of how the world works, things turn out to be pretty simple.

One thing I cannot rationalize though. The human spirit. The desires that it embodies. I've had this question for so long - what makes us humans human?

If for example a future surgeon - able to exchange individual cells between me and you - would do so, at which point do you become me, and the other way around? 50+% exchange? But that'd mean that at least part of me is still "you". In that state, are you truly you?

Not sure what the cellular definition of an individual is, given that we're headed towards a bionic society where synthetic organs will likely become more relevant than the donated parts of me that I've recently applied as a donor for. I wholeheartedly encourage that future, but the philosophical questions that surround it become more relevant.

How about the impact of influencers on the mind? For example, I've seen the term "certified enganeers" become a trend here, which I'm very grateful for. It does raise a question though. If for example I were to die, would the term live on? And if so, is that a part of what makes me "me"? Would a part of me live on in you? Would your spirit be partially me, due to mere influence?

What makes up the human creature anyway? I think of my own body as a mere vessel for my mind, but I can't quite grasp what makes up the mind, and philosophical questions like "if I were to upload my mind to a robot and instruct it to kill me, would that carbon copy become *me*?"

The human nature is such a weird thing.. and technology doesn't make it any simpler. Is it really just a simple game, with simple rules and e.g. a biological program running inside of a biological motor? Or is there more to it?

Google translate translated lorem ipsum into this philosophical nightmare

My CEO uncle: "anyone can program."

A quote from when we were discussing strategy for my sit down with the CEO of a company I was applying at (FYI, his advice was to research the company, be familiar with their long term strategies and such). I get that there's no need to prove my technical prowess to a business exec, but it isn't because "anyone can program."

I mean, sure, in a philosophical sense, anybody has the capacity to learn. But developers aren't a fungible asset. Treating them as such leads to ruin.

Philosophical question: If you develop an application but no one uses it.. does it even exists?

Just sayin, most people can't tell the difference between unconventional and insane.

Here’s book most of you have either read a newer edition or some variant based on this book, as computer science students you had to take an intro to logic course.. prior to digital logic.. or atleast that’s how it went for me and many others I know.
Which regardless how much the universities screwed up teaching comp sci and programming.. this is one aspect I think they nailed. Requiring philosophical logic course for comp sci.

Again this isn’t a digital logic book. It’s just philosophical logic. The first edition of this book came out in 1953... and I think they are edition 14 or 15... for a book to have this many editions and last this long thru time it’s a good book.

It’s a book that should be a must read for anyone venturing into AI and working on human machine thought processing.

It’s a great book to have around as reference, considering philosophical logic is not a walk in the park atleast not in the beginning because it requires you to change the way you view things.. more specifically it requires you to think objectively and make decisions objectively rather than subjective emotional reasoning.

Programmers need to think objectively with everything they do. The moment you begin thinking subjectively .. ie personal style, wishes and wants, or personal reasons and put that into code for a code base with a team u just put the team at risk.

Does this book teach objective thought? No... indirectly yes, because it teaches the objective rules of logic... you don’t get to have an emotional opinion on wether you agree or disagree or whatnot, logic is logic even philosophical. Many people failed the logic course I was in university.. infact the bell curve was c- / D ... many people had to take the course more than once.. they even had to change the way the grading was done.. just to get more people to pass...

But here’s the thing it’s not about it being taught wrong.. people just couldn’t adapt to thinking objectively, with rules as such in philosophical logic courses. Grant it the symbols takes time getting use to but it literally wasn’t the reason people failed.. it was their subjective opinions and thought process interfereing with the objectiveness of the course exams and homework.

Here's a thought!

Our bodies are mortal. And they are like flowers: they grow, blossom at their best and then begin their slow degradations, deaths.

Our mind is what seems to be the essence of _us_.

Now suppose someone finds a way to copy our minds into some tech so they could survive our bodies' deaths. Making us sort of immortal. Sounds cool, eh?

But that would make a copy of your mind. You would still be stuck in your mortal body while your copy would be immortal. Would you be happier to die knowing that it's YOU who is dying and not your copy, rather than dying w/o leaving a copy of you behind? Is a copy of you still YOU?

It could be YOU for others. But is it YOU for you?

Is it gay to like Ed Sheerans music?

He’s one of the few new people with actual talent in my opinion.

Many people say men listening to Lana del Rey are gay so I don’t give a shit anyway.
But I’m still wondering.
How many of the guys without a life (like me) here listen to and actually enjoy listening to Ed Sheraan?

Gaaaaaaaaalway Girl, nananannananannaa gaaaaaalway Girl, nananannananananananananna
That shits is stuck in my head now..

I feel like a sailor waiting for an upcoming voyage. Restless, yet hopeful, yet a bit anxious about what will happen.

Also, am unemployed now. Lol. Feels awesome... Except for the financial part. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, am making way too many philosophical decisions as I stand at the edge of an important phase of my life. And rediscovering a part of my personality I forgot existed.

Anyways, hopefully future brings more robots, more AI, more fantastic things to build, and more money and success.

This book isn't at all what I thought it was going to be. I hoped it would be patterns and practices to writing better code...it's more like a philosophical Chicken Soup for the Developer's Soul. Self-care for syntax geeks.

And by that merit, it's actually quite good.

Around 6 years ago I started at this company. I was really excited, I read all their docs then I started coding. At every code review, I noticed something was a little off. I seemed to get lots of weird nitpicking about code styling. It was strange, I was using a linter, I read their rules but basically every review was filled with random comments. About 3 months in I noticed, "oh! there aren't actually any rules, people are debating them in my code reviews!" A few more reviews went by and then I commented, "ya I'm not doing any of this, code review isn't a place to have philosophical debates." All hell broke loose! I got a few pissed off developers, and I said, listen I don't care what the rules are, you just need to clearly fucking articulate them and if you want to introduce one, I don't care about that either just don't do it in the middle of my review. I pissed off 1 dev real bad. Me and this dev were working together, the QA person on the team stood up and said "hey! you know what I love about your code reviews?!" The other dev and myself looked at each other kind of nervously, "I love that you're both right, these are all problems!"... 1 year later (and until now) me and the other dev are still friends. Leave it to QA to properly identify the bug.

2 hour meeting to brainstorm ideas to improve our system health monitoring (logging, alerting, monitoring, and metrics)

Never got past the alerting part. Piss poor excuses for human being managers kept 'blaming' our logging infrastructure for allowing them to log exceptions as 'Warnings', purposely by-passing the alerting system.

Then the d-head tried to 'educate' everyone the difference between error and exception …frack-wad…the difference isn't philosophical…shut up.

The B manager kept referring to our old logging system (like we stopped using it 5 years ago) and if it were written correctly, the legacy code would be easier to migrate. Fracking lying B….shut the frack up.

The fracking idiots then wanted to add direct-bypass of the alerting system (I purposely made the code to bypass alerting painful to write)

Mgr1: "The only way this will work is if you, by default, allow errors to bypass the alerting system. When all of our code is migrated, we'll change a config or something to enable alerting. That shouldn't be too hard."
Me: "Not going to happen. I made by-passing the alert system painful on purpose. If I make it easy, you'll never go back and change code."
Mgr2: "Oh, yes we will. Just mark that method as obsolete. That way, it will force us to fix the code."
Me: "The by-pass method is already obsolete and the teams are already ignoring the build warnings."
Mgr1: "No, that is not correct. We have a process to fix all build warnings related to obsolete methods."
Mgr2: "Yes. It won't be like the old system. We just never had time to go back and fix that code."
Me: "The method has been obsolete for almost a year. If your teams haven't fixed their code by now, it's not going to be fixed."
Mgr1: "You're expecting everything to be changed in one day. Our code base is way too big and there are too many changes to make. All we are asking for is a simple change that will give us the time we need to make the system better. We all want to make the system better…right?"
Me: "We made the changes to the core system over two years ago, and we had this same conversation, remember? If your team hasn't made any changes by now, they aren't going to. The only way they will change code to the new standard is if we make the old way painful. Sorry, that's the truth."
Mgr2: "Why did we make changes to the logging system? Why weren't any of us involved? If there were going to be all these changes, our team should have been part of the process."
Me: "You were and declined every meeting and every attempt to include your area. Considering the massive amount of infrastructure changes there was zero code changes required by your team. The new system simply worked. You can't take advantage of the new features which is why we're here today. I'm here to offer my help in any way I can with the transition."
Mgr1: "The new logging doesn't support logging of the different web page areas. Until you can make that change, we can't begin changing our code."
Me: "Logging properties is just a name+value pair dictionary. All you need to do is standardize on a name and how you add it to the collection."
Mgr2: "So, it's not a standard field? How difficult would it be to change the core assembly? This has to be standard across all our areas and shouldn't be up to the developers to type in anything they want."
- Frack wads smile and nod to each other like fracking chickens in a feeding frenzy
Me: "It can, but what will you call this property? What controls its value?"
- The look I got from both the d-bags I could tell a blood vessel popped.
Mgr1: "Oh…um….I don't know…Area? Yea … Area."
Mgr2: "Um…that's not specific enough. How about Page?"
Mgr1: "Well, pages can cross different areas, and areas cross different pages…what do you think?"
Me: "Don't know, don't care. It's up to you. I just need a name."
Mgr2: "Modules! Our MVC framework is broken up in Modules."
DevMgr: "We already have a field for Module. It's how we're segmenting the different business processes"
Mgr1: "Doesn't matter, we'll come up with a name later. Until then, we won't make any changes until there is a name."
DevMgr: "So what did we accomplish?"
Me: "That we need to review the web's logging and alerting process and make sure we're capturing errors being hidden as warnings."
Mgr1: "Nooo….we didn't accomplish anything. This meeting had no agenda and no purpose. We should have been included in the logging process changes from day one."
Mgr2: "I agree, I'm not sure why we're here"
Me: "This was a brainstorming meeting as listed in the agenda. We've accomplished 2 of the 4 items. I think we've established your commitment to making the system better. Thank you all for coming."

- Mgr1 and 2 left without looking at me or saying a word.

One elementary school teacher of mine once said:

"In a football (soccer) game, the goalkeeper can be a very good player. He can make some incredible saves during the match. If he concedes a howler, people will remember him by that.

The forward can do everything wrong during the match. If he manages to score one goal, this is sufficient to justify why he was playing."

A team without a forward will have a harder time trying to win, but it is possible. A team without a goalkeeper will certainly lose. If you think into it, it's possible to conclude that the goalkeeper is more important than the forward. But football isn't rational; it isn't about fairness or importance. It is about emotions: forwards get all the visibility and fame because they get to do the "fun" part of the job.

Why people subject themselves to be goalkeepers then? Well, not every one is the same. In this game, if you, for any reason, aren't good playing with your foot, and still want to play, there is only one position you can take.

I think about this all the time because feel that in our work environment, managers are forwards and devs/scientists/technicians are goalkeepers.

Money.

I wish I had a more philosophical answer like building cool shit, but this is real life, so I've made it as a dev when I make at least ₹20 lakh per year.

do {
liveLife();
} while (you != dead);

ATLAST THEY REMOVED THE NEXT BUTTON!
I have read it so many times that 90% of Google users never click the next page button and thought , that's completely true, even I don't do that. Why don't they remove it?Nice philosophical move, Google.

Although , to think about it,i guess they are smartly hiding a trick to respond back on the site-priority accusations : "No , we are not moving the local sites to later pages while featuring in the Google search(than the ones who are paying us hefty loads of for ad-money, or say amazon). You see, their is no 'next' page. They are all there on your screen. Just get a 30 inch long screen and you will see them all. "

:|

Why is there a - 1 plus option? Just listened to a podcast by stackoverflow where they explained how they removed the down vote option on comments out of the idea that you cant be wrong on what you think..
Just throwing an idea

Every once in a while I start to question my development principles and start to read articles, especially software philosophical, and try to improve my practices, aswell as find several trade-offs between my own best practices.

People who speak in puzzles during code reviews - fuck you! Just say what you want to say without being philosophical about it. Want me to change the name of a function? Let me know, instead of ranting on about some other shit. I should not have to ask you twice for every god damn comment what you mean, you prick. It’s just annoying and a waste of time.

Your time is not limited except by birth and death. What actually defines what you do are other limitations and your priorities.

Why do I see so many developers in the game community asking if a <insert tool> is usable for making a game? (I see it a bit here too for language and framework suggestions.)

Then I started thinking that these people either don't know what they want to do or they don't research the tools to find out what the capabilities are. Yes a certain percentage don't have a clue and are asking out of complete nativity.

However, as a developer I have always looked into features I think I need and base decisions on that. Often times spending a couple of days to play with the tool. Learn by doing.

Then I got a bit philosophical. Are the people asking these questions because their value system is based upon collectivism rather than merit? They will be in for a rude awakening when they cannot finish a project on time or at all when a feature is not there.

I get it on some level though. Sometimes we gotta know if something is complete shit.

!dev philosophical

Quality vs Opinion

I have a feeling that these things have always been at odds with each other and now with the constant connectedness it has just become more apparent that most people don’t understand the difference (or even realize there is a difference for that matter)

Let’s face it. Most people have awful taste. They listen to whatever new music their radio station decides was hot. They watch whatever show everyone else is watching. They are manipulated by large scale news organizations...

Basically, most people are sheep.

The problem is that sheep are a dangerous combination of loud and stupid. Giving these loud stupid sheep a platform to amplify their voice is a bad idea for a society, but a great tool for the pigs to manipulate them.

“Frightened though they were, some of the animals might possibly have protested, but at this moment the sheep set up their usual bleating of "Four legs good, two legs bad," which went on for several minutes and put an end to the discussion.”

This isn’t confined to one political party or view, it isn’t geographic, it isn’t based on education, it isn’t based on wether a person is ethical or not...

It’s universal.

You can translate “four legs good, two legs bad” into Agent Orange and his followers chanting “lock her up” just as well as it could be translated into the angry leaders of the modern feminist movement.

In both cases (both on opposite ends of the ethical spectrum) you have the loudest dumb, angry sheep getting the even dumber sheep to chant along, wether it is good for them or not.

Now to loop this back. The problem is that dumb sheep are emotional. They truly believe that they are NOT dumb and that their opinions and emotions are a measure of quality.

I FEEL bad, and you are talking to me, so you must BE bad.

I don’t LIKE this amazingly well made movie, so it must BE bad.

And anyone else who has a different opinion is just wrong. Anyone who try’s to explain the merits of the other side is either my enemy or is stupid.
^^^
Their opinion, incorrect.

————

Now for the tough part...

Most likely, based on probability, you are a sheep.

Yes, you! The smartest person you know. The guy/girl who has a degree or masters of a PHD. The person who builds amazing software. You! Are. A. Sheep. And you are dangerous to the world.

To put a cherry on top.

No, you opinions are not important. Your feelings are fucking meaningless. Your morals are worthless. Your voice has as much value and a loose asshole fart from a fat guy trapped in a deep well in Siberia.

But don’t get down about this. It’s doesn’t make you any less of a person. Remember that almost every person who has ever lived in history has been a sheep. They have chanted one useless, dangerous, misguided, harmful chant after another through the ages.

————

To those of you who try not to be sheep. Just keep trying to get a little better every day. When someone says...

“We do it this way because we have always done it this way”

... be skeptics. Explore the merits and logic of the situation.

And if you are tired of being led by stupid sheep then save some money, build something cool and start your own business.

Just remember, you will always need the sheep. They will be your employees, your friends, your bosses, your investors etc.

Treat them well, don’t hate them, and if you ever find yourself leading a pack of sheep then try to keep a healthy distance from their chanting while leading them down the right path.

They will thank you for it in the end.

———

PS. For those of you thinking “this is very judgemental and self centred”

All I can do is to try to speak your language....

Baaaahhhhh, baaahhhhh, bahhhhh

Which translates form sheep to human as...

“Eat a dick. Have a nice day”

When someone asks for help, a typical programmer gives you philosophical comments.

In Russia, battle rap is huge.

The most viewed battle rap video of all time is Russian "Oxxxymiron vs Slava KPSS" with over 46 million views and one million likes.

As it usually happens in rap, initially the Russian battles was nothing but dick jokes and yo mama puns delivered aggressively, but as the new, intelligent rap culture was brought to life by Oxford graduate Oxxxymiron, Babangida and others, rappers started to see battle rap as a way to express their own ideas and picture of the world.

Today, if you don't know what was the philosophy of Kant and Hegel all about, who is Slavoj Zizek and if you didn't even read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", they won't call you a retarded loser – they just won't talk to you.

In Russian you can put the words into sentences almost any way you wish, which allows intricate poetry and many additional meanings.

Many see today's Russian battlers as direct descendants of The Golden Age and The Silver Age of Russian poetry. They are just that – more poets than rappers, and they deliver really sophisticated rhyme structures really often.

Despite that, their flow is also solid, with grime, doule-time and even constantly altering flow with the changes performed flawlessly.

Some compact punchlines are so complex that they unfold in a whole new picture as you google trying to understand them. They are virtually untranslatable, requiring a lot of cultural and philosophical context to even scratch a surface.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To get to the other side, of course! I mean, what did you expect? Some kind of deep, philosophical answer? It's a chicken, not Socrates. Let's move on.

The more you achieve, the more you are pushing yourself beyond (and away) from everyone else. From your environment. It's just statistics. Thus, the peak transhumanist becomes completely alone.

But, our achievements that literally fight nature are responsible for prolonging our life expectancy, eradicating disease, all other heights we ascended upon.

Transhumanism and environmentalism are opposing philosophical concepts. But with the very first paracetamol pill you voluntarily took because you chose not to feel the pain, you accepted transhumanism.

Transhumanism and environmentalism are opposing philosophical concepts. If so, environmentalism is death.

Transhumanism is life.

A philosophical question about maintenance/updating.

There is no need to repeat the reasons we need to update our dependencies and our code. We know them/ especially regarding the security issues.
The real question is , "is that indicates a failure of automation"?

When i started thinking about code, and when also was a kid and saw all these sci fi universes with robots etc, the obvious thing was that you build an automation to do the job without having to work with it anymore. There is no meaning on automate something that need constant work above it.

When you have a car, you usually do not upgrade it all the time, you do some things of maintance (oil, tires) but it keeps your work on it in a logical amount.
A better example is the abacus, a calculating device which you know it works as it works.

A promise of functional programming is that because you are based on algebraic principles you do not have to worry so much about your code, you know it will doing the logical thing it supposed to do.
Unix philosophy made software that has been "updated" so little compared to all these modern apps.
Coding, because of its changeable nature is the first victim of the humans nature unsatisfying.

Modern software industry has so much of techniques and principles (solid, liquid, patterns, testing that that the air is air) and still needs so many developers to work on a project.
I know that you will blame the market needs (you cannot understand the need from the start, you have to do it agile) but i think that this is also a part of a problem .
Old devices evolved at much more slow pace. Radio was radio, and still a radio do its basic functionality the same war (the upgrades were only some memory functionalities like save your beloved frequencies and screen messages).

Although all answers are valid, i still feel, that we have failed. We have failed so much. The dream of being a programmer is to build something, bring you money or satisfaction, and you are bored so you build something completely new.

When you have to do an assignment for university but the sheet with the instructions is so badly formated, that you have to read the whole sheet again to find a line. BTW the prof also have a philosophical degree.

Haven't been here in a while, but I hope I will be helped with my question.

Can I get recommendations for cool software blogs to read, not primarily focused on software, but more "philosophical", kinda like Martin Folwer.

hey folks, what are your thoughts on different kinds of insurances?

I recently went through a major accident that would have impacted our finances significantly , if i didn't had a corporate insurance. And this led to me researching a lot into different kinds of insurances : health, motor, home, travel, life, term life,... there are so many of these.

And they have a significant cost! they do cover benefits (claims) of even bigger amount but some1 with my salary and 12 different insurance will be shelving out approx 4 months of salary as premium every year. at the same time, our dear ol govt is taking 30% (4 months worth) as taxes.

and then we have a simpler generation that was my parents, who lived their 50+ years without any of these insurances and taxes. their income sources were very less to be taxed (or make considerable savings) , they will rush to govt hospitals for free treatment and prey to never get a major disease, and not leave the world without making their dependents independent.

so this is a weird philosophical question. should i live knowing am secured from stranger companies which may help at times ,while i try to manage my live with 40% of my salary?
or should i live like my parents(& billion others), trusting the govt and system to help me in times of need while i feed them my 30% salary an try to stay alive with the remaining 70%?

The Turing Test, a concept introduced by Alan Turing in 1950, has been a foundation concept for evaluating a machine's ability to exhibit human-like intelligence. But as we edge closer to the singularity—the point where artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence—a new, perhaps unsettling question comes to the fore: Are we humans ready for the Turing Test's inverse? Unlike Turing's original proposition where machines strive to become indistinguishable from humans, the Inverse Turing Test ponders whether the complex, multi-dimensional realities generated by AI can be rendered palatable or even comprehensible to human cognition. This discourse goes beyond mere philosophical debate; it directly impacts the future trajectory of human-machine symbiosis.

Artificial intelligence has been advancing at an exponential pace, far outstripping Moore's Law. From Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) that create life-like images to quantum computing that solve problems unfathomable to classical computers, the AI universe is a sprawling expanse of complexity. What's more compelling is that these machine-constructed worlds aren't confined to academic circles. They permeate every facet of our lives—be it medicine, finance, or even social dynamics. And so, an existential conundrum arises: Will there come a point where these AI-created outputs become so labyrinthine that they are beyond the cognitive reach of the average human?

The Human-AI Cognitive Disconnection

As we look closer into the interplay between humans and AI-created realities, the phenomenon of cognitive disconnection becomes increasingly salient, perhaps even a bit uncomfortable. This disconnection is not confined to esoteric, high-level computational processes; it's pervasive in our everyday life. Take, for instance, the experience of driving a car. Most people can operate a vehicle without understanding the intricacies of its internal combustion engine, transmission mechanics, or even its embedded software. Similarly, when boarding an airplane, passengers trust that they'll arrive at their destination safely, yet most have little to no understanding of aerodynamics, jet propulsion, or air traffic control systems. In both scenarios, individuals navigate a reality facilitated by complex systems they don't fully understand. Simply put, we just enjoy the ride.

However, this is emblematic of a larger issue—the uncritical trust we place in machines and algorithms, often without understanding the implications or mechanics. Imagine if, in the future, these systems become exponentially more complex, driven by AI algorithms that even experts struggle to comprehend. Where does that leave the average individual? In such a future, not only are we passengers in cars or planes, but we also become passengers in a reality steered by artificial intelligence—a reality we may neither fully grasp nor control. This raises serious questions about agency, autonomy, and oversight, especially as AI technologies continue to weave themselves into the fabric of our existence.

The Illusion of Reality

To adequately explore the intricate issue of human-AI cognitive disconnection, let's journey through the corridors of metaphysics and epistemology, where the concept of reality itself is under scrutiny. Humans have always been limited by their biological faculties—our senses can only perceive a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, our ears can hear only a fraction of the vibrations in the air, and our cognitive powers are constrained by the limitations of our neural architecture. In this context, what we term "reality" is in essence a constructed narrative, meticulously assembled by our senses and brain as a way to make sense of the world around us. Philosophers have argued that our perception of reality is akin to a "user interface," evolved to guide us through the complexities of the world, rather than to reveal its ultimate nature. But now, we find ourselves in a new (contrived) techno-reality.

Artificial intelligence brings forth the potential for a new layer of reality, one that is stitched together not by biological neurons but by algorithms and silicon chips. As AI starts to create complex simulations, predictive models, or even whole virtual worlds, one has to ask: Are these AI-constructed realities an extension of the "grand illusion" that we're already living in? Or do they represent a departure, an entirely new plane of existence that demands its own set of sensory and cognitive tools for comprehension? The metaphorical veil between humans and the universe has historically been made of biological fabric, so to speak.