Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Age]

I'm not asserting "the sky is blue to me".
I'm asserting the sky appears blue to me". It may be subjective but it still seems to be a factual statement.

Regardless of whether you assert the certainty or the sky appears to be blue, your assertion is subjective as an opinion or belief.

Is there ANY statement, to 'you', which is NOT an 'opinion' nor 'belief'?

If you SEE this CLARIFYING QUESTION and do NOT answer Honestly, then that is A SIGN that you can NOT back up and support your OWN ASSUMPTION and BELIEF here.

You can only state 'the sky is blue' is factual and objective confidently with reference to 'because science said so' as conditioned by the scientific framework.

Are you even AWARE that NO one is even 'trying to' state ANY such thing, let alone actually stating this?

Also, 'science', itself, does NOT 'say' ANY thing at all.

Only human beings do.

In addition, science will not assert the sky is absolutely blue but only upon certain conditions.

You can NOT even get your short simple statements CORRECT without being CONTRADICTORY.

Now, will 'science' (wrongly worded) "assert" the sky is absolutely blue, or not?

You say 'science' will NOT, but then go onto say that 'science' will, but only upon certain conditions.

So, which one is it?

[Age]

I'm not asserting "the sky is blue to me".
I'm asserting the sky appears blue to me". It may be subjective but it still seems to be a factual statement.

Regardless of whether you assert the certainty or the sky appears to be blue, your assertion is subjective as an opinion or belief.

You can only state 'the sky is blue' is factual and objective confidently with reference to 'because science said so' as conditioned by the scientific framework. In addition, science will not assert the sky is absolutely blue but only upon certain conditions.

I can say the sky appears blue to me and it is a factual statement (at least when I last looked at the sky). It didn't look to be what I consider being "red", it didn't look to be what I consider "yellow". I can say that as a fact (albeit a fact that conceivably only I may be aware of).

This is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct.

[Age]

Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be?
In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

Human beings experience the 'world' as it REALLY IS.

The 'world' as it REALLY IS is the ONLY way human beings 'need' it to be.

There is NO, so called, "mind-blowing talk", EVER.

There is ALSO NO such thing as "our minds".

Furthermore, ACTUAL 'reality' has ALREADY BEEN constructed and is within EACH and EVERY human being, just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, or just NOT YET CONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, by most of them.

[Age]

I wasn't talking about "scientific" facts, anyway, unless it is a scientific fact that I typed earlier in this thread that the sky looked blue to me at t1. But it is a fact (presumably unverifiable by you) that the sky looked blue to me at t1. By the same token, you could say that the sky looked X color to you at t1 and that is equally a fact (albeit only verifiable by you).

The cross-talk here is 'what is fact' exactly.
You are misusing the term 'fact'.

The right thing is just to say, 'I personally saw the sky is blue at t1' which is easily understood by everyone.

LOL "The 'right' thing is to just say", 'I personally saw the sky is blue at t1'.

What I found MORE EASILY understood and FAR MORE SIMPLER to say is what "gary childress" said the first time.

Also, what "gary childress" said in the example they gave has FAR MORE TRUTH than what you propose here in this example. Which can be and will be explained if any one shows any REAL curiosity.

However, philosophically [rigor required], adding the term 'fact' incorrectly and inappropriately mess up the whole thing.

Note,
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

LOOK "veritas aequitas" you are CLEARLY BLINDED by your OWN currently held onto BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true and right.

[Age]

What the OP theory exposed is,
there is no such objective reality that is independent the human conditions.
The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings.

To say
"The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings."
is to make an objective claim about the nature of reality.
It is an ontological claim positing what objective reality is.
You are a human making a claim about what objective reality is.
It is somehow entangled with humans (who themselves of course are a part of reality).

Nope, I am not making an ontological [metaphysical] claim at all.
I am countering those who make ontological claims of objective reality.

What I am making is merely an empirical claim.
Example, I am stating the objective reality of the apple you see [empirically] on the table is somehow entangled with you as a human being.

OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY what is SEEN as an 'apple' on a 'table' is entangled with 'you', the human being. This is because it is 'you', the human being, have come up with the names 'apple' and 'table' and have labeled those 'things' as an 'apple' and a 'table'. And that is EXACTLY HOW those 'things' ARE entangled with 'you', the labeled and named 'human being'.

An ontological claim would be,
-the real apple on the apple exists regardless of any one is observing and entangling with it.

And OBVIOUSLY the 'thing', which 'you' OBVIOUSLY name and label 'apple', which is on the 'thing', labeled and named 'table', WILL EXIST, for as long as it does remain as that labeled 'thing', for as long as 'you', the human being, decides. If that thing labeled 'apple' is NOT removed by ANY source, and does NOT decay past ANY point of which you label that thing 'apple', then 'it' will remain on that 'table' and exist regardless if ANY one is observing 'it' or not.

What the observer observed are merely the wavelengths of materials of the real apple-in-itself.

Which appears to CONTRADICT and be in DIRECT OPPOSITION of what you just CLAIMED WAS TRUE.

[Age]

What is a fact is only a fact when it is verified and justified to be real and factual as conditioned upon a credible Framework and System of Reality/Knowledge. [FSK]

It's a fact that the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked, I assure you.

You cannot claim "it is a fact" the sky appeared blue to you.

LOL "veritas aequitas"

That person just DID claim what they did and which you claim they can NOT. Therefore, you are WRONG, as PROVEN True.

Also, what is 'it' that you can NOT see or can NOT understand here?

If ANY one says, "Some 'thing' appeared to me", then THIS IS A FACT. If what appeared has ANY actual REAL Truth to it or not is a WHOLE COMPLETELY OTHER MATTER.

The most you can do is to claim 'the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked'.

And that is ALL they were doing. That is; until 'you', "veritas aequitas", 'tried' twisting and distorting things around here just so that what you ALREADY BELIEF IS TRUE will be accepted by "others".

Then it is up to me or others to believe you or not whether what you state is true or not.

If ANY one says to you that "Some thing appeared to me", then HOW could you possibly, logically, DISAGREE with them, and also WHY would you even want to DISAGREE with them.

If your FIRST language is NOT english, then WHY you do NOT see what the words in front of you ACTUALLY MEAN, then this is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE. So, what does the word 'appear' ACTUALLY MEAN, to 'you'?

Even then it is still not a fact until you qualified it within the scientific FSK.

Just because you use the 'scientific' word, this does NOT mean that what you are 'trying so hard to' get "others" to agree to and accept is true.

Are you saying the sky didn't look blue to me? And if so, how would you know this? Or do you think I'm lying and it actually looked yellow or some other color to me? If so, why would I do that?

If you have some sort of color blindness or some other visual defects you may have mistaken for the sky you saw as blue.

You are just absolutely DIFFICULT to deal with "veritas aequitas". What you said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL with what "gary childress" has been 'trying to' POINT OUT and SHOW 'you'.

Now, considering this thread is about 'No objective reality', then let us LOOK AT this in a bit more detail.

Is the color 'blue' an 'Objective Reality' or is it just your OWN reality?

If you say that it is the former, then you have quashed your OWN BELIEF and OPINION here.

If, however, you say that it is the latter, then HOW could you POSSIBLY be able to say that another is MISTAKEN?

Note this contentious claim on whether the dress was blue or black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
The dress is a photograph that became a viral internet sensation on 26 February 2015, when viewers disagreed over whether the dress pictured was coloured black and royal blue, or white and gold.

Well this is OBVIOUSLY 'photo shop' and you have provided TWO VERY DIFFERENT and MANIPULATED colored dresses. Which OBVIOUSLY DEFEATS the point that you were 'trying to' make, which was about how ONE dress can LOOK VERY DIFFERENT, to DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Besides this there was ABSOLUTELY NO CONTENTION AT ALL IF EVERY one just said what the ACTUAL Truth was, which is what ACTUALLY APPEARED to them.

If people just EXPRESS what APPEARS to them, instead of EXPRESSING what they BELIEVE is true, then ALMOST ALL of the issues in the 'world' just DISAPPEAR.

Just like when people LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS, instead of LOOKING AT and SEEING what they WANT, ASSUME, or BELIEVE to be true, then, AGAIN, ALMOST ALL of the REAL issues in the 'world' just DISAPPEAR.

So, instead of LOOKING and SEEING 'things' as being positive OR negative ALSO, and instead just LOOKED AT ONLY what IS, and DISCUSSED 'that' only, for example in the glass half full or half empty example, then what they would ACTUALLY JUST SEE is the glass HALF WAY, which is what thee ACTUAL Truth REALLY IS.

ALL of 'this' REALLY is Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written REALLY "should" try it one day, then you will SEE just HOW SIMPLE and EASY it is to turn the WHOLE human race AROUND and start POINTING THEM in the Right DIRECTION.

Because Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer and EVERY observer has their OWN 'subjective' view and perspective of things, then it could be argued that there REALLY is NO 'objective reality'. However, what has been forgotten is that when EVERY thing is being LOOKED AT and SEEN from Everything's perspective, then what is seen from this One 'subjective' perspective is a Truly Objective VIEW of Reality, Itself.

[Age]

It seems like this position as a whole is taking a number of objective ontological stands. Wouldn't the theory itself be a claim about 'the way things are objectively'.

This theory exposed this point,

Generally, philosophical realists claim what is perceived as real is represented by objective reality that is independent of the human conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality.
Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.

What the OP theory exposed is,
there is no such objective reality that is independent the human conditions.

Did the opening post DEFINE and EXPLAIN what an 'objective reality' IS, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then what was that DEFINITION and EXPLANATION.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO USE AT ALL 'trying to' say that some 'thing' does NOT EXIST if one is first NOT going to EXPLAIN and DEFINE what that 'thing' ACTUALLY IS.

This FACT is PROVEN by the thousands upon thousands of years 'you', human beings, have been 'trying to' 'argue' for or against particular 'things'.

The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings.

I have ALREADY TOLD YOU and EXPLAINED EXACTLY HOW they are entangled. BUT, this in NO WAY infers that there was NO 'objective reality' existing BEFORE you human beings, "yourselves", came to exist.

[Age]

In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

You were going so good then "veritas aequitas", that was; Until you COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED "your" 'self' here.

As for reality, Hoffman as a scientists has to [imperative] ASSUMES there is a fundamental reality which he term 'consciousness' with 'conscious agent', else his whole theory cannot work.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of why it is BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, to NEVER make up and create a 'theory', and to NEVER even LOOK AT and USE a 'theory'. Instead what is MUCH BETTER is to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what ACTUALLY IS, ALONE.

He insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic BUT is merely and ASSUMPTION.

I don't agree with Hoffman's need for the above assumption, but as a scientist he has no choice but to assume that to enable his theory to work.

LOL The ABSOLUTE HILARITY in and of this statement is just PURE.

Are you even AWARE "veritas aequitas" of what the VERY REASON IS, WHY you will NEVER achieve what 'it' IS that you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' ACHIEVE HERE?

In fact, do you even KNOW what 'it' IS that you are 'trying to' achieve here?

[Age]

In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

That’s quite a speculative stretch of the imagination there.

And what exactly was it that imbued the initial (and extremely chaotic) “Big Bang” conditions of the universe with the teleological impetus (implicit in the concept of “determinism”) to eventually transform what amounts to this...



...into neural algorithms in a physical brain?

I stated it stretched back to the Big Bang which was an empirical possibility.
Further than that, we cannot talk about it, thus invoking
Wittgenstein's
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

BUT, if as you STATE and CLAIM there is NO Objective Reality, then there is NO 'whereof you can speak, therefore you MUST be SILENT'.

Are you going to FOLLOW your OWN advice here now?

If not, then WHY NOT?

Btw, what is there to be gain from mere speculation of what is beyond the BB.

But there is NO actual 'speculation' when and once 'you' KNOW.

Furthermore, you stated the following:

He [Hoffman] insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic...

I don’t remember Hoffman mentioning the word “God” anywhere in the conversation.

However, if he did, then you can correct my oversight by pointing out the minute marker on the video where he talks about God or anything theistic.

On the other hand, if he didn’t, then shame on you for putting words in his mouth and misleading those who did not watch the video.

You can presume I have to maintain my personal intellectual integrity and honesty. It is possible I could be mistaken in a very marginal cases, but definitely not in such an obvious claim.

I heard but did not keep track of his mentioned of 'God' and creative intelligence, but here is a quickie search of the video; 20:26-27
https://youtu.be/4HFFr0-ybg0?t=1227

I did NOT hear ABSOLUTELY ANY thing about 'God' at that time.

Elsewhere in the video, he stated his theory has nothing to do with a God.

Considering you made the CLAIM, and especially considering you were specifically asked to provide a time, saying, "Elsewhere in the video, he stated his theory has nothing to do with a God" appears to be a VERY BIG COP OUT FROM YOU.

And lastly, the assertion that there is “no objective reality,” could not be further from the truth.

And that’s because everything that exists on the outside of the subjective dimension of your own personal mind is literally “objective reality” relative to you. And that includes the objective reality of your own physical body and brain.

And it especially applies to the objective existence of other minds relative to your mind.
_______

As I mentioned above, the objective reality Hoffman referred to is the 'objective reality' claimed by substance theorists, philosophical realists and the like, that there is an absolute objective reality that exists absolutely independent of human conceptions.

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

• Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality. Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

What is objective reality of our own physical body and brain is relative to the empirical self [I-THINK] and not the ontological I-AM.
As such it is relative objective reality and not absolute object reality as claimed by the substance theorists and philosophical realists.

By the way what that one individual in that video is 'trying to' EXPLAIN can be EXPLAINED very SIMPLY and very EASILY I will add.

But what 'you', "veritas aequitas", just like what that person is doing is WHY neither of 'you' can YET SEE thee ACTUAL of things.

[Belinda]

If it is true, as it is, that some events are more real than other events then it follows there is absolute reality at one pole and absolute disorder at the other pole.

We, of course, can apprehend reality only as we sense and memorise whatever events we do sense and memorise. Those events are a mixed bag of waking awareness, dreams, hallucinations, reveries, wishes, pains, lies, illusions,delusions, pleasures , hopes, faiths, meditations, logical analyses, and expressive creativity.

At one pole we have joint contenders expressive creativity and logical analysis. At the opposite pole we have lies and delusions. In between the poles stand hallucinations near the 'delusions' pole, and pleasure/pain near the 'expressive creativity' pole.

NB expressive creativity is moderated by reason even when the moderating reason is added not by the transmitter of the message but by the receiver. An example of this is Kubla Khan by Coleridge the transmitter where his vision was caused partly by a mind altering drug , and the receivers who are us who hear info from the poem.

[RCSaunders]

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

What brain. That there is a brain is only an hallucination, according to you.

[Iwannaplato]

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

What brain. That there is a brain is only an hallucination, according to you.

Exactly. He seems to have some implict model: Brains perceive via senses the world, but this perception is actually a hallucination. And this model is built off of his knowledge of the way reality is. He is not only talking about his brain/mind, he is also talking about yours. So he somehow knows about you.

How does he even know there is a you?

[Advocate]

Words like "objective" that reference the transcendent are not non-existent just because they're beyond verification. If you see a UFO, it's still a UFO even though it's unidentified. If you experience something that seems to be in the same way as other apparent beings seem to experience it, regardless of whether it's an illusion on some as-of-yet-undiscovered scale, that's what the word reality refers to. This is a stupid argument, always has been. The answer is semantic.

I can't speak for you, but my experience is the realist thing in my universe and the bedrock of everything else i understand. Other apparently existing apparent people seem to concur and behave as though they concur, and a difference that makes no difference is no difference. This is reality. <waves hand>

[Eodnhoj7]

Observations are always conditioned upon the human self [no human no observation], thus it cannot be absolutely unconditional.

False, the totality of being contains within it consciousness as consciousness is the act of reflection. Reflection is the inversion of one phenomenon into another and the repetition of said phenomenon. As such the universe itself is aware considering all phenomena share this nature. Humans may be the apex of observation, but observation is not limited to man.

The totality of being observing itself through itself necessitates observation, as a self referential phenomenon, as absolute and unconditional. Observation observes itself and is not dependent upon anything else given being manifests itself through fractals and these fractals are being self referencing. The totality or being is absolute as existing through itself.

One cannot observe no objective reality without first defining it and making it subject to existence.

There is human consciousness.

What other consciousness are you talking about?
You are merely speculating out of thin air.
Prove whatever "consciousness" you are claiming exists as real?

Human consciousness is empty in itself according to your terms. This emptiness of human consciousness, as nothing in itself, necessitates a form of consciousness beyond it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Agree, that is the claim of the OP.

Rather is what philosophical realists claimed as the most real objective reality out there which is independent of human conceptions is an illusion.

Objective reality is that which exists beyond the mind as the mind is no thing in itself.

There are two perspectives to objective reality, i.e.

• 1. Empirical objective reality
  
  2. Transcendental objective reality

1. The reliable truth of empirical objective reality is scientific justified reality conditioned upon a scientific framework and system.

2. Transcendental objective reality is based on substance theory and philosophical realism

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
  
  Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality. Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Your views are based on mere speculation and pure reasoning which is heavily influenced by the psychological existential impulse to cling on to 'something' despite to real evidence for it.

If your objective reality beyond the mind is not a thing [in the widest sense] then what is it. If that whatever cannot be talked about then note Wittgenstein's,
"Whererof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
i.e. literally shut up!

Those two perspectives are thus objective states of reality as they are the perceptions of objective reality objectified. Objective truth in turn defines the quantity and quality of perspective.