Hi all,

First-time poster here, hoping for a sanity check. I’ve been developing a framework I call The Pinhole Perspective, and I’d appreciate informed critique.

The premise is that limited perception and cognition is the structural precondition for assignment of meaning. From this, the framework looks to unify:

• constrained perception → model formation
• confidence-driven aperture adjustment → self-regulation
• individual modeling → social epistemology
• truth as robustness under diversity of constraints

The framework avoids metaphysics and looks to ground development in evolutionary drivers. The core claim is that models converge when they hold up under perspectives they do not control.

I’d love feedback from people who know this territory better than I do (philosophy of mind, cognitive science, rationalism/epistemics, alignment, etc.). If this is wrong, I’d like to understand where it breaks. If it’s obvious, I’d like to learn who has covered it and where. If it’s meaningless or of no value, I’d like help in identifying where it falls apart. If it partially overlaps existing work, pointers are welcome so I can get situated in the right lineage. I’m here to learn whether this holds water before investing further time and effort.

I’ve posted the draft here (PhilArchive):

https://philpapers.org/rec/HIGTPP-3

If you would like to provide feedback directly rather than in comments on this forum, I’ve also set up a feedback form here:

https://www.ankrd.com/pinhole-perspective-feedback

If you have or know of other relevant work, I’m happy to discuss, reciprocate feedback, or explore ways to collaborate.

Thanks in advance for reading and for any honest pushback.

— Darren