I thought it was reasonably clear from context that he was saying that if human intuitions say reality is weird, the intuitions are objectively wrong, and you would profit from learning to think in ways that mean you don’t get reality being mis-tagged “weird.”
Did you mean to say “weird-3” there, with the implication that experiencing something as weird-1 or weird-2 is equivalent to believing or alieving it to be weird-3?
I thought it was reasonably clear from context that he was saying that if human intuitions say reality is weird, the intuitions are objectively wrong, and you would profit from learning to think in ways that mean you don’t get reality being mis-tagged “weird.”
Did you mean to say “weird-3” there, with the implication that experiencing something as weird-1 or weird-2 is equivalent to believing or alieving it to be weird-3?