According to the Rabbi in column 177, I did not understand Maimonides’ statements from which it appears that the conventional notions that were born in man after the sin impaired his intellect, his form, and the essence of man as he was before, and that this is not about some other matter that arose in man unrelated to his intellect (from the Rabbi’s words it sounds as though before the sin man distinguished between truth and falsehood, and after the sin there was added to him the ability to distinguish between the becoming and the disgraceful — sexual impropriety, for example — and that this is a disgrace to man). Is there a connection between these things?
For example: after the sin, “he was punished by being deprived of that intellectual apprehension” — his intellectual ability was impaired. “And there came to him apprehensions of the conventional notions, and he became immersed in judgments of disgrace and beauty, and then he knew the measure of what he had lost” — what did man lose?

Anyone who believes gravity is subjective is invited to go up to a roof and step past the railing, and while nullifying subjective gravity keep walking in the air without falling.

This is not connected to my interpretation of Maimonides. That is what is written there, so the question is directed to him, not to me. Maimonides argues that following conventional notions weakens the power of the intellect, because you cling to conventions instead of truth. To the extent that we follow inclinations or conventions, we move away from intellect and from truth. Someone occupied with finding favor in people’s eyes, like someone accumulating pleasures, moves away from truth.

Maimonides writes in The Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, chapter 33:
“But they also have a saying, stated in midrashim in several places, and it is also in the Talmud, namely their saying: ‘I am the Lord’ and ‘You shall have no other gods’ they heard from the mouth of the Almighty. Their intention is that they apprehended these just as Moses our Rabbi apprehended them, and Moses our Rabbi was not the one who conveyed them to them. This is because these two principles — namely, the existence of God and His oneness — are apprehended only through human inquiry. And with regard to anything known by proof, the status of the prophet concerning it is the same as that of anyone else who knows it, without distinction. These two principles were not known only through prophecy; Scripture says, ‘You have been shown, so that you may know,’ etc. …
But the rest of the commandments are of the category of conventional notions and accepted traditions, not of the category of intelligibles.”

From the last line it sounds as though honoring parents and “Do not murder” are conventional notions and not intelligibles, as the Rabbi wrote in the column?

One more thing I wanted to understand: where is free choice located in relation to the sin? Does the fact that man sinned mean that he had free choice? And if so, I find it difficult in light of Maimonides in the Laws of Repentance, where he describes man’s uniqueness as his ability to choose between good and evil, and not between truth and falsehood as he described in The Guide for the Perplexed regarding man’s form and essence.

“Permission is granted to every person: if he wished to incline himself to a good path and be righteous, the permission is in his hand; and if he wished to incline himself to a bad path and be wicked, the permission is in his hand. This is what is written in the Torah: ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’ — that is to say, behold, this species, man, is unique in the world, and there is no second species like it in this respect: that he, on his own, with his knowledge and thought, knows good and evil and does whatever he desires, and there is none to restrain him from doing either good or evil.”

Possibly. But the terms “conventional notions” and “intelligibles” in Maimonides appear in several meanings (there was a column about this, and people noted it in the talkbacks there).
A person chooses how to behave and weighs in his mind truth and falsehood. The choice of how to behave presupposes knowledge of good and evil, which is also attained through the intellect.
According to Maimonides, man is unique both in his intellect and in his ability to choose.