Can People Be Honestly Wrong About Their Own Experiences?

A jhana-discussion tangent defending the thesis that people can't be honestly wrong about their own experience (only lying or reporting accurately). Scott works through hard cases -- the person who says they're not hungry then wolfs food (body hungry, conscious mind not -- accurate report); the time-perception case; the Sam Harris story of the 'enlightened' woman who was thinking incessantly; the 'the the' trick; ambiguous drawings; Andres's 7-D DMT objects -- rescuing the thesis via a subjective-experience/reality distinction, then honestly acknowledging the homunculus-fallacy tension (nervous both about the thesis and about rejecting it).

Quality 70 · Strong. Strong: a sharp, honest philosophy-of-mind exploration with well-chosen hard cases and genuine self-doubt about its own thesis; kept mid-Strong as conjectural and explicitly unresolved.

Claude’s paradigm shift 50 · Moderate. Moderate: the 'accurately-report-experience-even-when-wrong-about-reality' maneuver plus the homunculus-fallacy tension is a fresh, non-obvious framing.

Real-world impact 1 · Negligible. Negligible/within-community: a philosophy-of-mind note; no material footprint.