How do you see this article fitting in with Buddhist principles? https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

Fascinating read, and I wondered what the wisdom of the crowd was on how closely they thought this notion fit with the principles of Buddhism, most notably the idea of reality being an illusion, and the liberation of ourselves from the chains of perception?
Buddhism does not state 'perception' ('sanna') is a chain. In fact, without perception, enlightenment (perceiving the true nature of things, including perception itself) cannot occur.
Instead, Buddhism lists the following chains (fetters):


belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)

doubt or uncertainty,
especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)

wrong use of morals and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)

sensual desire (kāmacchando)

ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)

lust for material jhana, lust for material things (rūparāgo)

lust for immaterial jhana, lust for immaterial things, such as status,
fame, etc (arūparāgo)

conceit (māna)

restlessness (uddhacca)

ignorance (avijjā)


Fetter (Buddhism) adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the perception of the 'illusion of perceptions', if this was actually seen clearly, desires &amp; attachments would end because, in reality, the mind only desires &amp; attaches with concrete (solid) self-belief to concrete (solid) objects .
It is one thing for a cognitive scientist to create concrete ideas &amp; theories about the illusion of perception, which may not end the desires &amp; attachments of the scientist. It is another thing to actually see the illusion of perception meditatively, which will certainly end desires &amp; attachments.

Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it &amp;
appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it &amp;
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage?
In the same
way, a monk sees, observes &amp; appropriately examines any perception
that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or
subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing
it &amp; appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
Phena Sutta