What you claim it is; "he explicitly states (in various and many places) that some species died out precisely because they perceived reality (to use his own word) “truthfully”.

That is not what he is implying scientifically at all; you're taking it one step further than he is. Maybe I am just being pedantic on your language choices.

The proof using evolutionary theory does not rest on any assumption. You're trying to tangle it together with his philosphical view which he calls "realism" and you call "idealism"

There is no "claim that species died out because they perceived reality as it is" the modeling simply shows they could not compete if they did.

That is where his claim stops with his "proof" because his proof is just equations modeling selection.

You state that he says this "explicitly" but your own quote from him he is also saying "When you analyze the equations of evolutionary game theory" and that's not the same as saying there is an inherhent hypothesis about something we should be able to find fossile evidence of somewhere.

You specifically say: To repeat: the passages above make it clear that Hoffman (if only implicitly) believes two things: 1.) That there is a reality.

(2) That some species “saw reality as it is”.

And in no way is "2" his takeaway, please look at your wording; "some species saw reality as it is".

You're saying that is implicit in his overall worldview of what he calls conscious realism and you call idealism.

Hence, back to my original point, I just re-read your article, and perhaps what you think is clear is not as clear as you think; because you state that Hoffman is contradicting himself in his philosophical thesis with an assumption about what his proof is making.

You appear to be confusing "reality as it appears" his "icons" and our "natural universe" with his claim about an underlying absolute reality just being "mind".

You continue in your article to refer to his proof using evolutionary theory ( which only could show probability of vertical fitness) as a claim he is making about facts in the evolutionary record, and that is not what proof he is making, he is only showing proability of vertical fitness reality as it "is" or as it "needs to be" for fitness.

This is why I suggested that instead of calling his conscious realism your idea of "idealism", which is not a well served descriptor of this view of mind, I suggested that you look into non-dualism analytical philosophy (which does a better job that he of describing "conscious realism").

You continue to go back to making your point about the "idealist" case and I am sorry, but "idealism" as it is understood in western philosophy is not identical to non-dual analytical philosophy and I still suggest this is where your modeling of Hoffman breaks down into misunderstanding.

I note that he calls his view "conscious realism" so as to distinguish it from what are called "idealist" schools of thought, and I understand why he does that, but that still does not make the view he desribes any clearer by calling it idealism and his view is still better served by eastern non-dual philosophy, the "two truths" and I am sure he would find some agreement there.

Fun stuff.

Cheers.