Sorry but this doesn’t hold up – Hoffman’s either exaggerating to make a point o

Sorry but this doesn’t hold up – Hoffman’s either exaggerating to make a point or simply wrong.
1) There exists a zero point of energy in the quantum background.
2) There exists a zero point of time in the quantum background.
3) All life forms exist at some scale, in some gravity, processing information at some rate, categorizing objects, spaces, and backgrounds at some rate, given the rate of sensation, perception, action, and rewards on action possible by the organism.
4) The difference between life forms is merely their scale and their rates that determine the priority of objects, spaces, and backgrounds. However otherwise, there is no meaningful difference in the abstract – the processes are the same.
5) As organisms evolve complexity they will deterministically grasp this just as humans have, and as such all intelligent organisms will converge on the same general laws of the universe, and categorization of the universe as we have: by scale independence.
6) There is no evidence that humans perceive the world differently from other animals except in degree of resolution (precision of information), memory (volume of information) and capacity for categorization (scale) and prediction (time). In fact the precision of human sense-perception-cognition(modeling)-prediction(auto-association)- and action(coordinated motion) is so disturbingly accurate that we must intentionally construct ‘deceptions’ (optical illusions) to overload our pattern recognition to violate that precision.
7) As such we can demonstrate for example the shading problem (checkerboard) or the object disambiguation problem (missing jet engine problem) or the shape prediction problem (elephant legs example) all compensate by assisting us with disambiguation (increased precision) rather than falsehood (simplification of prediction of object recognition).
8) AFAIK Hoffman is only trying to make this point. But making it poorly and therefore promoting pseudoscience. The truth is I cannot find a single philosopher that is not engaging in pseudoscience of some sort today, with the least bad being John Searle and recently deceased Daniel Dennett. I’m surprised anyone even interviews anyone else. It’s embarrassing.

Reply addressees: @drawveloper