This is extremely valuable to me and I greatly appreciate it. My thoughts are below because I process with words; they are not critiques of your reading process.

First para, it may help to know I didn't follow the link at the end of your first paragraph, I kept on reading. So when you led off with "illusions are cool", my internal narrative was "yes, illusions are cool".

Hmm... yeah, I didn't predict that. The whole post was assuming that you had, at one point, read that post. Note to future self: Quote the relevant part from the prerequisite link. I skipped it this time to try cutting down words but it hurt more than helped.

Your second para had me thinking something like, "He's going to go past surface appearances, regarding the picture he's posted. OK, good. Let's keep reading." I probably looked at the picture only at that point.

Your third para is a side-trip into number theory. It made me a little impatient, but I tried to rein that in, as I took in your point about "be careful about the definition of primeness or you will get surprising results". I'm primed to receive some insight regarding such apparent "surprises".

Note to future self: Keep second examples shorter. When addressing a particular subject beyond surface dialog check the language the experts use.

Final para and I'm pleasantly surprised at how short this post is, I may have upvoted it at this point without quite reading to the end. (Upvote later retracted, after some deliberation, for the reasons I gave.) I'm still not following links, by the way, just barely glancing at the URLs. One I did look at was the "color constancies". I am still experiencing a feeling of approval as I read "dropped a bad belief and am looking for a replacement". Yep, yep.

I went for short this time because I thought the point didn't deserve a lengthy post. I think a lot of the initial upvotes I received were evidence that I was on the right track with this goal. I suspect that most of them were retracted later.

I guess what then makes me uneasy is the string of "should, should, should" in the final three sentences, capped by "obvious". Wait, what ? I rewind to "looking for a replacement". Forward back to "obvious". You're making me feel like I missed something, so I fire off a comment - in retrospect perhaps hastily - about the part of the post that right now bugs me.

In retrospect, what I was expecting that you didn't fulfill was "I am looking for a replacement...", setting up for "...and here's how I plan to do that".

That makes sense. Notes to future self: Finish the primary example. Don't expect the readers to assume you did it offscreen.

The point of your post (correct me if wrong) is "the 'cool' of optical illusions is an instance of the 'weird' that is referred to in Think Like Reality". If that's your entire point, it just maybe doesn't quite deserve four paragraphs.

Where could I trim? I would guess the number example was extraneous. Your summation of the point works.

You bring up a specific example that has engaged your thinking. I approve of that. You make a "meta" point. I can approve of that, but provisional on your showing how your object-level thinking has benefited from the meta.

Okay. This is the big point I get to take away from your analysis. Again, thank you.