Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Advocate]

>[b]Then, we are lost [/b]and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the piece of rope we perceived[2].

The ultimate substance is not a substance but change itself. Every physical manifestation of reality can be described in relation to change over time. Energy, mass, matter, space, time, causality, are all functions of the same underlying thing. There is no lower, upper, inner, or outer limit to the universe, only to our understanding of it.

[Atla]

Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary. It is a false dichotomy. Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence.

False dichotomies are Veritas's superpower. For example he divides all philosophy into two categories: realism = the world is totally independent of humans, anti-realism = the world is totally human-dependent.

Everyone knows that defined this way, both those categories are extreme, irrational, crazy. But apparently it's impossible to make him understand something.

[Iwannaplato]

False dichotomies are Veritas's superpower. For example he divides all philosophy into two categories: realism = the world is totally independent of humans, anti-realism = the world is totally human-dependent.

It is a very odd experience to have someone telling me what my perception is with complete certainty while saying that all perception, which includes his, is hallcination. Now a Hindu could manage something like that, being a kind of Rationalist and thinking of what we call the world as Maya. But he's an empiricist. An empiricist who believes all perception is hallucination. Now he does think that science taught us how to infer. But it should strike as very odd how well dolphins, in their pre-scientific cro-magnon phase of evolution manage to hunt fish so effectively in teams, with only hallucinations to go by. He then will acknowledge that perception can guide you to right action, which might make him a pragmatist, but then he draws a very sharp distinction between what is useful and what is true. There is no overlap between these, let alone the more likely pragmatist either blackboxing that issue or conflating the two.
But he goes ever further beyond all the epistemological contradicitons by then saying that there is no objective reality. Yet, he goes on and on telling us what is going on in our perception. He doesn't seem to realize that we are not him. We are part of external reality. Unless he is a solipsist. Otherwise he is telling us what we are like, what we can and cannot perceive, what the world is like, since his arguments are based on how the world and brains are like (as someone astutely asked him 'what is a brain?')

It's as bad as when a radical skeptic tells me I (and presumably he or she) can't know anything because the world is like X. How the hell would he or she know? they forget how they arrived at their position and fruit of the poison tree and all that. And that the rules they are saying apply to them also.

Everyone knows that defined this way, both those categories are extreme, irrational, crazy. But apparently it's impossible to make him understand something.

I think people are often in love with how something is on paper and forget that it applies to them also. It has to make sense they can draw the conclusions that are there is what is on the paper is true. If pure anti-realism is the case, and you believe it, it's an odd activity telling people about themselves. It's like your aren't listening to the implications of your own ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False dichotomies are Veritas's superpower. For example he divides all philosophy into two categories: realism = the world is totally independent of humans, anti-realism = the world is totally human-dependent.

It is a very odd experience to have someone telling me what my perception is with complete certainty while saying that all perception, which includes his, is hallucination.

You have also misunderstood my views in many ways.
You still have a lot of philosophical knowledge to discover.

In the above you have generalized all hallucinations.
Note you need to differentiate between meta-hallucination and typical hallucination within their specific perspective.
Meta-Hallucination versus 'General' Hallucinations.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31536

I have never asserted my views with complete certainty.

Now a Hindu could manage something like that, being a kind of Rationalist and thinking of what we call the world as Maya. But he's an empiricist. An empiricist who believes all perception is hallucination.
Now he does think that science taught us how to infer. But it should strike as very odd how well dolphins, in their pre-scientific cro-magnon phase of evolution manage to hunt fish so effectively in teams, with only hallucinations to go by.

To Hindus [advaita vedantists] Maya is a meta-hallucination and they are also empiricists.
All perceptions are meta-hallucination in an overall perspective, but at the empirical perspective they are real, i.e. relative objective reality.

In an encompassing perspective, dolphins would be acting within a meta-hallucination world, but their catching of fish would be empirically real via sonar or eye-sight.

He then will acknowledge that perception can guide you to right action, which might make him a pragmatist, but then he draws a very sharp distinction between what is useful and what is true. There is no overlap between these, let alone the more likely pragmatist either blackboxing that issue or conflating the two.

I given the example where illusions can be very useful for human survival, but they are not true in the real sense.

But he goes ever further beyond all the epistemological contradicitons by then saying that there is no objective reality. Yet, he goes on and on telling us what is going on in our perception. He doesn't seem to realize that we are not him. We are part of external reality. Unless he is a solipsist. Otherwise he is telling us what we are like, what we can and cannot perceive, what the world is like, since his arguments are based on how the world and brains are like (as someone astutely asked him 'what is a brain?')

I stated there is relative objective reality but no absolute objective reality.
I stated we are part and parcel of reality all-there-is, thus we are part of external reality and the whole of reality.

It's as bad as when a radical skeptic tells me I (and presumably he or she) can't know anything because the world is like X. How the hell would he or she know? they forget how they arrived at their position and fruit of the poison tree and all that. And that the rules they are saying apply to them also.

Everyone knows that defined this way, both those categories are extreme, irrational, crazy. But apparently it's impossible to make him understand something.

I think people are often in love with how something is on paper and forget that it applies to them also. It has to make sense they can draw the conclusions that are there is what is on the paper is true. If pure anti-realism is the case, and you believe it, it's an odd activity telling people about themselves. It's like your aren't listening to the implications of your own ideas.

Where did I state the rules or whatever [of this discussion] is on paper do not apply to me?
I know I am existing within a meta-hallucinating reality.
I understand there are various hallucinations within meta-hallucination.

Philosophical anti-realism is realistic as opposed to philosophical realism which is not realistic.
Philosophical realism believes humans are independent of reality out there which I claim is not realistic.

Philosophical anti-realism [mine = empirical realism] believes reality is all-there-is; thus logically, humans are part and parcel of reality all-there-is.
There is no way humans, being part and parcel of reality as all-there-is, can be independent from all-there-is.

Suggest you reflect on the above more deeply else you would be ignorant of one critical and essential aspect of reality.
As I had stated elsewhere, resistance to the above is due to primal psychology inherent in all humans and active in the majority.

[Eodnhoj7]

Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary.
It is a false dichotomy.
Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence.
Our perceptions guide useful actions, but lack truth.

Not, there are facets of perception that accurately reflect reality and others that do not. No we have useful here and truth there. It's amazing how useful perception is not true. I mean, even non-pragmatists should be immediately grasp there is a problem. Further any theory with this paradox at the root of it is either fruit of a poison tree or Rationalism - iow the ideas came directly through revelation. But since VA is an empiricist, no his whole theory is based on perceptions that hide the truth, because empirical science is based on observations.


No nuance. Just binary immaculate separate categories.

While the rest of us live in a more nuanced world.

Btw, I am not a pure empiricist, but rather a rationalist-empiricist, i.e. an empirical realist.

Truth is quite a loose term.
Truth in this case refer to the truth of the ultimate-reality of what-is-perceived.

• Here is an example.
  It is very often that people perceived[1] a snake that is real and is stricken with fear and avoid moving forward and take a detour. When upon close perception[2] and examination it is actually a piece of thick rope in the shadow.
  Here is a case where evolution 'hide' the truth [or generate a falsehood] of what is perceived so as to motivate useful actions to ensure one is not bitten by a poisonous snake.
  So this example, proved my point. There is no fallacy.

The video and the book goes on into a further perspective,
i.e. even the thick piece of rope as eventually perceived [2] and felt is not the ultimate truth.
On more closer perception[3] the truth is that piece of rope is a bunched of tightened fibers of some materials.

On more closer perception[4] the tightened fibers are fibers of hemp.

On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the individual hemps are make cellulose molecules.

On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [C6H12O6] are comprised of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

On more closer perception[7], it is a bundle of generic atoms

On more closer perception[8], it is a bundle of generic electrons and proton,

On more closer perception[9], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived.

On more closer perception[10], there are various types quarks

Then, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the piece of rope we perceived[2].

As you can see what is perceived is never 'the truth' but merely an apparent truth.

Under the above initial conditions, evolution is not interested in the more refined truths of perceptions 2 to 10 but rather generate a falsehood to ensure survival just in case it is a real poisonous snake.

The above is proof that
natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

Thus the OP, there is no ultimate Objective Reality of things [objects and the likes] we perceived.

1. Each phenomenon, as a link in a chain, is a middle phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all truths as center points to further truths and as center points to further truths are things in themselves as points of change to further phenomena.

2. Each reality, as a perpetual middle, is an objective reality in the respect it is responsible for a multitude of phenomenon existing beyond it.

3. The ultimate substance is void given all phenomenon are reducible to void. All phenomenon expand from and contract to void.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=487710 time=1609633537 user_id=14533]
1. Each phenomenon, as a link in a chain, is a middle phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all truths as center points to further truths and as center points to further truths are things in themselves as points of change to further phenomena.

2. Each reality, as a perpetual middle, is an objective reality in the respect it is responsible for a multitude of phenomenon existing beyond it.

3. The ultimate substance is void given all phenomenon are reducible to void. All phenomenon expand from and contract to void.
[/quote]

1 and 2 = Every "thing" is a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. The universe is infinite in all directions at all scales.

3 - The ultimate substance is change itself. Energy is change, matter is slow energy, and so forth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Each phenomenon, as a link in a chain, is a middle phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all truths as center points to further truths and as center points to further truths are things in themselves as points of change to further phenomena.

2. Each reality, as a perpetual middle, is an objective reality in the respect it is responsible for a multitude of phenomenon existing beyond it.

3. The ultimate substance is void given all phenomenon are reducible to void. All phenomenon expand from and contract to void.

You are speculating based on Pure Reason which leads to illusions.

Note this point, re proof of that 'void'.

3. What constitutes proof?

If you want to prove the apple on the table is real, what do you need to do?
What is needed is to verify and justify the apple is real by seeing, touching, biting, smelling, etc. that justify to all concern it is a real apple.
A more credible proof would be subject the apple to scientific tests [physical, biological, genetics] to confirm it is an apple as defined scientifically.

If you insist the "void" you claimed as beyond human is real, then do the above tests.

As I had claimed, why you cling so desperately to the 'void' is driven by some subliminal psychology emanating from an inherent existential crisis. Know Thyself!

[Belinda]

Iwannaplato wrote:

But it should strike as very odd how well dolphins, in their pre-scientific cro-magnon phase of evolution manage to hunt fish so effectively in teams, with only hallucinations to go by.

But nobody denies men have instincts too. Nevertheless men, unlike dolphins who evolve via natural selection, evolve along the cultural channel. I am sure if you want to live like a dolphin there are hippy communities still extant.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Each phenomenon, as a link in a chain, is a middle phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all truths as center points to further truths and as center points to further truths are things in themselves as points of change to further phenomena.

2. Each reality, as a perpetual middle, is an objective reality in the respect it is responsible for a multitude of phenomenon existing beyond it.

3. The ultimate substance is void given all phenomenon are reducible to void. All phenomenon expand from and contract to void.

You are speculating based on Pure Reason which leads to illusions.

Note this point, re proof of that 'void'.

3. What constitutes proof?

If you want to prove the apple on the table is real, what do you need to do?
What is needed is to verify and justify the apple is real by seeing, touching, biting, smelling, etc. that justify to all concern it is a real apple.
A more credible proof would be subject the apple to scientific tests [physical, biological, genetics] to confirm it is an apple as defined scientifically.

If you insist the "void" you claimed as beyond human is real, then do the above tests.

As I had claimed, why you cling so desperately to the 'void' is driven by some subliminal psychology emanating from an inherent existential crisis. Know Thyself!

Void is nothingness, nothingness is an absence of form, absence of form is change. Void is thus change and can be observed through the senses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Each phenomenon, as a link in a chain, is a middle phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all truths as center points to further truths and as center points to further truths are things in themselves as points of change to further phenomena.

2. Each reality, as a perpetual middle, is an objective reality in the respect it is responsible for a multitude of phenomenon existing beyond it.

3. The ultimate substance is void given all phenomenon are reducible to void. All phenomenon expand from and contract to void.

You are speculating based on Pure Reason which leads to illusions.

Note this point, re proof of that 'void'.

3. What constitutes proof?

If you want to prove the apple on the table is real, what do you need to do?
What is needed is to verify and justify the apple is real by seeing, touching, biting, smelling, etc. that justify to all concern it is a real apple.
A more credible proof would be subject the apple to scientific tests [physical, biological, genetics] to confirm it is an apple as defined scientifically.

If you insist the "void" you claimed as beyond human is real, then do the above tests.

As I had claimed, why you cling so desperately to the 'void' is driven by some subliminal psychology emanating from an inherent existential crisis. Know Thyself!

Void is nothingness, nothingness is an absence of form, absence of form is change. Void is thus change and can be observed through the senses.

What kind of logic is that??
Surely you are not that desperate?

Change activates differences in forms.
Thus change cannot be absence of forms.
So 'void' is not 'change'.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are speculating based on Pure Reason which leads to illusions.

Note this point, re proof of that 'void'.


If you want to prove the apple on the table is real, what do you need to do?
What is needed is to verify and justify the apple is real by seeing, touching, biting, smelling, etc. that justify to all concern it is a real apple.
A more credible proof would be subject the apple to scientific tests [physical, biological, genetics] to confirm it is an apple as defined scientifically.

If you insist the "void" you claimed as beyond human is real, then do the above tests.

As I had claimed, why you cling so desperately to the 'void' is driven by some subliminal psychology emanating from an inherent existential crisis. Know Thyself!

Void is nothingness, nothingness is an absence of form, absence of form is change. Void is thus change and can be observed through the senses.

What kind of logic is that??
Surely you are not that desperate?

Change activates differences in forms.
Thus change cannot be absence of forms.
So 'void' is not 'change'.

A bird changing into dirt observes the absence of the form of the bird. The bird becomes relatively formless in its own right and this formless allows it to change into another phenomenon. The change of one form into another is the absence of the prior form.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Void is nothingness, nothingness is an absence of form, absence of form is change. Void is thus change and can be observed through the senses.

What kind of logic is that??
Surely you are not that desperate?

Change activates differences in forms.
Thus change cannot be absence of forms.
So 'void' is not 'change'.

A bird changing into dirt observes the absence of the form of the bird. The bird becomes relatively formless in its own right and this formless allows it to change into another phenomenon. The change of one form into another is the absence of the prior form.

You points seem to be getting worse and worse and this is solely to maintain psychological consonance to avoid dissonance.
Surely you are not referring to Plato's form.

Any real "form of the bird" is nonsensical.

What we have is a concept of a bird which is classed as a kind of biological species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Concepts are merely thoughts.

It is not that a bird per se that changes into dirt.
It is feathers and materials of a dead thing [no alive bird] that changes into dirt.
There are no real form of feather either.

Void is not change.

[Eodnhoj7]

What kind of logic is that??
Surely you are not that desperate?

Change activates differences in forms.
Thus change cannot be absence of forms.
So 'void' is not 'change'.

A bird changing into dirt observes the absence of the form of the bird. The bird becomes relatively formless in its own right and this formless allows it to change into another phenomenon. The change of one form into another is the absence of the prior form.

You points seem to be getting worse and worse and this is solely to maintain psychological consonance to avoid dissonance.
Surely you are not referring to Plato's form.

Any real "form of the bird" is nonsensical.

What we have is a concept of a bird which is classed as a kind of biological species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Concepts are merely thoughts.

It is not that a bird per se that changes into dirt.
It is feathers and materials of a dead thing [no alive bird] that changes into dirt.
There are no real form of feather either.

Void is not change.

The bird is composed of curvature, this curvature forms the parts and shape of the bird. This curvature is form. The form of the bird is the repetition of curves which repeat across time and space under a variety of means. The bird form exists through a recursion of specific forms.

Classification, as concepts, is the mirroring of forms through symbols. The classification is a symbol, this symbol represents some phenomenon which repeats. The classification as real necessitates the phenomenon as real given their connection in which one mirrors another.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488747 time=1610219428 user_id=14533]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=488641 time=1610177537 user_id=7896]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488631 time=1610165692 user_id=14533]

A bird changing into dirt observes the absence of [b]the form of the bird[/b]. The bird becomes relatively formless in its own right and this formless allows it to change into another phenomenon. The change of one form into another is the absence of the prior form.
[/quote]
You points seem to be getting worse and worse and this is solely to maintain psychological consonance to avoid dissonance.
Surely you are not referring to Plato's form.

Any real "form of the bird" is nonsensical.

What we have is a concept of a bird which is classed as a kind of biological species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Concepts are merely thoughts.

It is not that a bird per se that changes into dirt.
It is feathers and materials of a dead thing [no alive bird] that changes into dirt.
There are no real form of feather either.

Void is not change.
[/quote]
The bird is composed of curvature, this curvature forms the parts and shape of the bird. This curvature is form. The form of the bird is the repetition of curves which repeat across time and space under a variety of means. The bird form exists through a recursion of specific forms.

Classification, as concepts, is the mirroring of forms through symbols. The classification is a symbol, this symbol represents some phenomenon which repeats. The classification as real necessitates the phenomenon as real given their connection in which one mirrors another.
[/quote]

The bird is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, the limits of each of which must be chosen. They do not exist independently of intent.

[Eodnhoj7]

You points seem to be getting worse and worse and this is solely to maintain psychological consonance to avoid dissonance.
Surely you are not referring to Plato's form.

Any real "form of the bird" is nonsensical.

What we have is a concept of a bird which is classed as a kind of biological species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Concepts are merely thoughts.

It is not that a bird per se that changes into dirt.
It is feathers and materials of a dead thing [no alive bird] that changes into dirt.
There are no real form of feather either.

Void is not change.

The bird is composed of curvature, this curvature forms the parts and shape of the bird. This curvature is form. The form of the bird is the repetition of curves which repeat across time and space under a variety of means. The bird form exists through a recursion of specific forms.

Classification, as concepts, is the mirroring of forms through symbols. The classification is a symbol, this symbol represents some phenomenon which repeats. The classification as real necessitates the phenomenon as real given their connection in which one mirrors another.

The bird is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, the limits of each of which must be chosen. They do not exist independently of intent.

Yet that intent is dependent upon a form. One cannot take away from the fact that although the limits change, limits continually exist.