I reduced the quote to memory many decades ago. — James Riley

Thanks.

Neuroscience wants to be able to figure us out, insofar as we are composed of that which adheres to natural law, but if and when it does figure us out with the certainty of natural law.....will “I” disappear? — Mww

And my point is that science, as with the projection of reality, wants knowledge, but only "insofar as we are composed of that which adheres to natural law", and, taken in that sense, is only that which meets the standard of being certain, which simple just rules out most of who we are; our lives, our criteria for judgment, for action, for saying something; our possibilities, our freedom, etc.

Even if proved illusory, not needed in conformity to law, superfluous with respect to determinism writ large.....do we then relinquish relative truths? — Mww

No, to recognize the desire for a reality or science to ground our world with certainty, is not to condemn us to relativity. We have different specific precise criteria for each thing but not the predetermined irrefutable answer. We have to acknowledge our responsibility, which is not the same as reducing our whole society to my opinion, feelings, or thoughts.

Discussion requires agreement. Without agreement, nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

That which is objectively true.

Reality is biological extension, in the sense that apparent reality is a biological readout, it is how ultimate reality affects ones biology. So to are the creations of biology whether a bird's nest or culture it is all biological extension.