Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Lacewing]

It can be perplexing and chaotic to have a discussion from countless perspectives of varying depths and spans.

Human language/concepts/forms limit discussion further. But we keep trying to describe (in limited language) what is beyond description of our world of concepts/forms.

If we were to agree on a singular truth/reality, what would we do with that? Would we do something differently than what we are doing now?

Or, if we were to get a sense that everything is fine and as it should be, what might we do with that?

Is there a greater truth beyond (and somehow detached from) the fullness/potential of any present moment?

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

To percieve a phenomenon is to be imprinted by it, to be imprinted by it is to accept it, to accept it is to assume it. All reality is assumable given it is that which is imprinted. Any experience, that is accepted "as is" is assumed.

Assumptions which align with prior assumptions are true, assumptions which fail to align with prior assumptions are false. Thus truth value is symmetry and this symmetry is order. An assumption is thus true or false based upon its alignment with other assumption.

Given the continual expansion of context of one assumption to many, all assumptions are thus simultaneously true and false given the expansion of context necessitates some assumptions connected to other's while other's being false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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>

Yours is a stupid argument. It is not essentially a semantic issue but rather an epistemological versus the metaphysical.
I stated somewhere, the issue of objective reality is in the following senses, i.e.

1. empirical objective reality - epistemological
2. transcendental objective reality - metaphysical & ontological.

If one claim one saw a UFO, that is a question of empirical objective reality, i.e. an empirical possibility. This is a personal belief.
It can only be fact or knowledge when justified with evidences via an empirical framework and system, e.g. the scientific FSK.

What is transcendental objective reality is related to substance theory,

• 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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are groping around in la la land.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

You are groping around in la la land.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

False I am following your logic of "no thing in itself".

You contradict yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are groping around in la la land.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

False I am following your logic of "no thing in itself".

You contradict yourself.

What?? You are not following my logic.

There is no thing-in-itself, therefore there is no consciousness-in-itself,
but on the contrary,
you are claiming there is consciousness-in-itself beyond normal human consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It can be perplexing and chaotic to have a discussion from countless perspectives of varying depths and spans.

That is the nature of and essential within philosophy.
Reality is too complex to fit into one mould/model of cognition.

Note,

Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification.
It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs.
For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another.

Typically, this coherence is taken to involve three components: logical consistency, explanatory relations, and various inductive (non-explanatory) relations.

https://iep.utm.edu/coherent/#

Note also Reflective Equilibrium

• Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are groping around in la la land.
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

False I am following your logic of "no thing in itself".

You contradict yourself.

What?? You are not following my logic.

There is no thing-in-itself, therefore there is no consciousness-in-itself,
but on the contrary,
you are claiming there is consciousness-in-itself beyond normal human consciousness.

I never said there was consciousness in itself, in the prior post, but rather there is no human consciousness in itself thus consciousness beyond it.

However the totality of being exists in itself as moving through itself as itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False I am following your logic of "no thing in itself".

You contradict yourself.

What?? You are not following my logic.

There is no thing-in-itself, therefore there is no consciousness-in-itself,
but on the contrary,
you are claiming there is consciousness-in-itself beyond normal human consciousness.

I never said there was consciousness in itself, in the prior post, but rather there is no human consciousness in itself thus consciousness beyond it.

However the totality of being exists in itself as moving through itself as itself.

There is no such thing as human-conscious-in-itself.
Whatever X-consciousness you claim that is beyond human-consciousness is consciousness-in-itself.
"In-itself" mean existing by itself independent of all other things including human conceptions.

I linked this many times, but you don't seem to get it,

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

What?? You are not following my logic.

There is no thing-in-itself, therefore there is no consciousness-in-itself,
but on the contrary,
you are claiming there is consciousness-in-itself beyond normal human consciousness.

I never said there was consciousness in itself, in the prior post, but rather there is no human consciousness in itself thus consciousness beyond it.

However the totality of being exists in itself as moving through itself as itself.

There is no such thing as human-conscious in itself.
Whatever X-consciousness you claim that is beyond human-consciousness is consciousness-in-itself.
"In-itself" mean existing by itself independent of all other things including human conceptions.

I linked this many times, but you don't seem to get it,

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.

False there would be a consciousness beyond that one as well thus resulting in an infinite regress of consciousness with this infinite regress necessitating consciousness not only as a constant but conditioned to lesser and greater forms of consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I never said there was consciousness in itself, in the prior post, but rather there is no human consciousness in itself thus consciousness beyond it.

However the totality of being exists in itself as moving through itself as itself.

There is no such thing as human-conscious in itself.
Whatever X-consciousness you claim that is beyond human-consciousness is consciousness-in-itself.
"In-itself" mean existing by itself independent of all other things including human conceptions.

I linked this many times, but you don't seem to get it,

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.

False there would be a consciousness beyond that one as well thus resulting in an infinite regress of consciousness with this infinite regress necessitating consciousness as a constant.

You did not get it?

If there is a consciousness-in-itself, that mean it is existing unconditionally independent of everything else, there is nothing to regress from it.
Consciousness-in-itself would be equivalent to a God-in-itself which is the ultimate, totally unconditional and absolutely-absolute, thus nothing to regress.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as human-conscious in itself.
Whatever X-consciousness you claim that is beyond human-consciousness is consciousness-in-itself.
"In-itself" mean existing by itself independent of all other things including human conceptions.

I linked this many times, but you don't seem to get it,

False there would be a consciousness beyond that one as well thus resulting in an infinite regress of consciousness with this infinite regress necessitating consciousness as a constant.

You did not get it?

If there is a consciousness-in-itself, that mean it is existing unconditionally independent of everything else, there is nothing to regress from it.
Consciousness-in-itself would be equivalent to a God-in-itself which is the ultimate, totally unconditional and absolutely-absolute, thus nothing to regress.

You did not get it...a consciousness beyond man would result in a consciousness beyond that as well thus leading to an infinite regress of conscious states...one consciousness is condition by another thus making a perpetual absolute loop of consciousness that is ever present and intertwined with all of being.

No consciousness in itself results in an infinite loop of conscious states.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False there would be a consciousness beyond that one as well thus resulting in an infinite regress of consciousness with this infinite regress necessitating consciousness as a constant.

You did not get it?

If there is a consciousness-in-itself, that mean it is existing unconditionally independent of everything else, there is nothing to regress from it.
Consciousness-in-itself would be equivalent to a God-in-itself which is the ultimate, totally unconditional and absolutely-absolute, thus nothing to regress.

You did not get it...a consciousness beyond man would result in a consciousness beyond that as well thus leading to an infinite regress of conscious states...one consciousness is condition by another thus making a perpetual absolute loop of consciousness that is ever present and intertwined with all of being.

No consciousness in itself results in an infinite loop of conscious states.

How can there be a loop if there is an infinite regress which is an absurd idea?
If you rely on any infinite regress, that is entering la la land.
If your idea of consciousness is in an infinite regress within a loop, it cannot be consciousness-in-itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

You did not get it?

If there is a consciousness-in-itself, that mean it is existing unconditionally independent of everything else, there is nothing to regress from it.
Consciousness-in-itself would be equivalent to a God-in-itself which is the ultimate, totally unconditional and absolutely-absolute, thus nothing to regress.

You did not get it...a consciousness beyond man would result in a consciousness beyond that as well thus leading to an infinite regress of conscious states...one consciousness is condition by another thus making a perpetual absolute loop of consciousness that is ever present and intertwined with all of being.

No consciousness in itself results in an infinite loop of conscious states.

How can there be a loop if there is an infinite regress which is an absurd idea?
If you rely on any infinite regress, that is entering la la land.

One degree of consciousness repeats through another as fractals, consciousness thus maintains itself through a variation. Consciousness thus loops itself through a variety of states.

Infinite regress is necessary if everything continually changes ad infinitum. If change is not infinite it is not continual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You did not get it...a consciousness beyond man would result in a consciousness beyond that as well thus leading to an infinite regress of conscious states...one consciousness is condition by another thus making a perpetual absolute loop of consciousness that is ever present and intertwined with all of being.

No consciousness in itself results in an infinite loop of conscious states.

How can there be a loop if there is an infinite regress which is an absurd idea?
If you rely on any infinite regress, that is entering la la land.

I never said infinite regress I said loop.

One degree of consciousness repeats through another as fractals, consciousness thus maintains itself through a variation. Consciousness thus loops itself through a variety of states.

However Infinite regress is necessary if everything continually changes ad infinitum. If change is not infinite it is not continual.

I believe "consciousness" is strictly confined to humans and never beyond humans.

The term "consciousness" in more details is such a complex idea that is not well understood within human terms [hard problem of consciousness], thus term [consciousness] provide no solid grounds for it to be extended beyond humans.

This is why I insist your use of the term 'consciousness' beyond humans is leaping into la la land as driven by a psychological impulse.