Prolific these days are interpretations of reality science that equate “consciousness” and reality. The result is mind-reality equivalence, a tempting though hollow solution to the modern dilemmas created by information-rich systems.
Mind-reality equivalences are solipsistic. Only one's own mind is sure to exist. They risk conflating a mind that can conceive of reality with a reality that is mind. (Or conflating a consciousness that conceives of reality with a reality that is consciousness.) Further aggravating the problem, a modern (ineffective) critic of M-R equivalence will likely then conflate reality with logical or experimental proof. In that case, they dismiss mind- or consciousness-based reality arguments as groundless and anti-realist, establishing the scientifically rigid false equivalence between reality and proof.
While critics are of course free to level such arguments, from the perspective of mind- or consciousness-centric logicians, such an equivalence grants a transcendent quality to their own logic. Those who dismiss their logic are in denial of ultimate reality.
Both perspectives are workarounds to the theoretical physics and cosmology mess generously referred to as reality ‘science.’ Rather than admit it’s a mess, people continue to fuel these disputes by letting themselves be forced to choose a position between whether or not a coherent and fathomable physical basis for reality exists or not.
There is a neutral choice — a choice C: “Our institutionalized conceptions are a complete mess and until we clean up this act I won’t let myself be forced to choose between reality and mind (or consciousness).”
Original question on Quora -- What is your opinion on Chris Langan's idea that M = R?