Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488817 time=1610239135 user_id=14533]

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

Word salad.

Things are patterns in the mind derived from experience. We can creatively remix things we've experienced before but we cannot invent new things. As sensory input comes to us, we sort and file it. Only with drugs can we create truly novel experiences, but they're still a remix, albeit one at a level of understanding that would not have occurred to us. Hormones sort of bridge the gap. Anyway, if you mean the form in the mind, yes. If you mean something outside a mind, no. The "form" is physically bound in the sense of a brain and metaphorically bound in the sense of a mind's understanding of embodied experience.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

Word salad.

Things are patterns in the mind derived from experience. We can creatively remix things we've experienced before but we cannot invent new things. As sensory input comes to us, we sort and file it. Only with drugs can we create truly novel experiences, but they're still a remix, albeit one at a level that of understanding that would not have occurred to us. Hormones sort of bridge the gap. Anyway, if you mean the form in the mind, yes. If you mean something outside a mind, no. The "form" is physically bound in the sense of a brain and metaphorically bound in the sense of a mind's understanding of embodied experience.

By observing the mind from the perspective of the mind necessitates one mind as existing outside another. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. How with this circularity of ths mind observing the mind necessitates a form existing as beyond the mind, that of the circle, given the rational is predetermined by a form. Form exists as beyond the mind as it guides the mind.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488823 time=1610240674 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488820 time=1610239697 user_id=15238]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488817 time=1610239135 user_id=14533]

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

Word salad.

Things are patterns in the mind derived from experience. We can creatively remix things we've experienced before but we cannot invent new things. As sensory input comes to us, we sort and file it. Only with drugs can we create truly novel experiences, but they're still a remix, albeit one at a level that of understanding that would not have occurred to us. Hormones sort of bridge the gap. Anyway, if you mean the form in the mind, yes. If you mean something outside a mind, no. The "form" is physically bound in the sense of a brain and metaphorically bound in the sense of a mind's understanding of embodied experience.
[/quote]

By observing the mind from the perspective of the mind necessitates one mind as existing outside another. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. How with this circularity of ths mind observing the mind necessitates a form existing as beyond the mind, that of the circle, given the rational is predetermined by a form. Form exists as beyond the mind as it guides the mind.
[/quote]

Word salad with dressing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad.

Things are patterns in the mind derived from experience. We can creatively remix things we've experienced before but we cannot invent new things. As sensory input comes to us, we sort and file it. Only with drugs can we create truly novel experiences, but they're still a remix, albeit one at a level that of understanding that would not have occurred to us. Hormones sort of bridge the gap. Anyway, if you mean the form in the mind, yes. If you mean something outside a mind, no. The "form" is physically bound in the sense of a brain and metaphorically bound in the sense of a mind's understanding of embodied experience.

By observing the mind from the perspective of the mind necessitates one mind as existing outside another. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. How with this circularity of ths mind observing the mind necessitates a form existing as beyond the mind, that of the circle, given the rational is predetermined by a form. Form exists as beyond the mind as it guides the mind.

Word salad with dressing.

Agree with the above.

[Eodnhoj7]

Word salad.

Things are patterns in the mind derived from experience. We can creatively remix things we've experienced before but we cannot invent new things. As sensory input comes to us, we sort and file it. Only with drugs can we create truly novel experiences, but they're still a remix, albeit one at a level that of understanding that would not have occurred to us. Hormones sort of bridge the gap. Anyway, if you mean the form in the mind, yes. If you mean something outside a mind, no. The "form" is physically bound in the sense of a brain and metaphorically bound in the sense of a mind's understanding of embodied experience.

By observing the mind from the perspective of the mind necessitates one mind as existing outside another. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. How with this circularity of ths mind observing the mind necessitates a form existing as beyond the mind, that of the circle, given the rational is predetermined by a form. Form exists as beyond the mind as it guides the mind.

Word salad with dressing.

No you just need to learn how to read before you post senseless remarks.


Observing a mind requires a mind to observe it which exists outside the mind. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. This recursion of the mind necessitates a cyclical self referentiality thus necessitating a form, that of the circle, as guiding the mind.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=489103 time=1610339154 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488847 time=1610247989 user_id=15238]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=488823 time=1610240674 user_id=14533]


By observing the mind from the perspective of the mind necessitates one mind as existing outside another. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. How with this circularity of ths mind observing the mind necessitates a form existing as beyond the mind, that of the circle, given the rational is predetermined by a form. Form exists as beyond the mind as it guides the mind.
[/quote]

Word salad with dressing.
[/quote]
No you just need to learn how to read before you post senseless remarks.


Observing a mind requires a mind to observe it which exists outside the mind. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. This recursion of the mind necessitates a cyclical self referentiality thus necessitating a form, that of the circle, as guiding the mind.
[/quote]

Word slaw.

[Eodnhoj7]

Word salad with dressing.

No you just need to learn how to read before you post senseless remarks.


Observing a mind requires a mind to observe it which exists outside the mind. One form of consciousness exists beyond another. This recursion of the mind necessitates a cyclical self referentiality thus necessitating a form, that of the circle, as guiding the mind.

Word slaw.

No, you just contradict yourself. There is a reality which exists beyond human observation.

[Terrapin Station]

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time . . .

So who did Donald Hoffman think he was addressing with "our perceptions?" The people the one mind (his own, of course) is imagining?

And for that matter, why bother writing/releasing a book about this? The one mind already knows all the content it's writing, no? Just how does his ontology of mind work where there would be a need for imaginarily writing an imaginary book for people the mind is imagining to imaginarily read? That seems rather comical.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493386 time=1612018781 user_id=12582]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=485832 time=1608630331 user_id=7896]
Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [i][edited][/i] such thing as Objective Reality.

[quote]... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time . . . [/quote][/quote]

So who did Donald Hoffman think he was addressing with "our perceptions?" The people the one mind (his own, of course) is imagining?

And for that matter, why bother writing/releasing a book about this? The one mind already knows all the content it's writing, no? Just how does his ontology of mind work where there would be a need for imaginarily writing an imaginary book for people the mind is imagining to imaginarily read? That seems rather comical.
[/quote]

*That seems utterly pathetic.

Solipsism is an irrelevant, self-defeating idea. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and you can have exactly none of that in a world where you imagine things up and pretend they're "real" in any way that anyone else is supposed to take seriously. Evidence is about replication. That's where the certainty comes from, without which we are guessing.

[Terrapin Station]

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

So who did Donald Hoffman think he was addressing with "our perceptions?" The people the one mind (his own, of course) is imagining?

And for that matter, why bother writing/releasing a book about this? The one mind already knows all the content it's writing, no? Just how does his ontology of mind work where there would be a need for imaginarily writing an imaginary book for people the mind is imagining to imaginarily read? That seems rather comical.

*That seems utterly pathetic.

Solipsism is an irrelevant, self-defeating idea. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, and you can have exactly none of that in a world where you imagine things up and pretend they're "real" in any way that anyone else is supposed to take seriously. Evidence is about replication. That's where the certainty comes from, without which we are guessing.

It's weird that your posts don't format normal. Have you messaged a moderator about that? Sometimes I don't notice that you're responding to me because of this.

At any rate, I'm not sure what your comment is saying with respect to mine.

One thing I don't agree with is "The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty." In my view, certainty is a very silly thing to worry about at all.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493407 time=1612028358 user_id=12582]
One thing I don't agree with is "The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty." In my view, certainty is a very silly thing to worry about at all.
[/quote]

It's a semantic point. Certainty can't mean absolute, exhaustive certainty, it can only mean certain enough for a given purpose. Without it you can only guess or flail.

[Atla]

In his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

and video,
Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time, do not reveal objective reality.

We encounter a startling “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) theorem, which states that evolution by natural selection does not favor true perceptions—it routinely drives them to extinction.
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

The FBT Theorem tells us that the language of our perceptions—including space, time, shape, hue, saturation, brightness, texture, taste, sound, smell, and motion—cannot describe reality as it is when no one looks.

Space, time, and physical objects are not objective reality.
They are simply the virtual world delivered by our senses to help us play the game of life.

At this point Hoffman hypothesis would agree with the following threads I raised;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Despite postulating there is no objective reality, Hoffman is driven by the same fundamental psychological impulse to think there is still some thing more fundamental, i.e.

Physics and evolution point to the same conclusion: spacetime and objects are not foundational.
Something else is more fundamental, and spacetime emerges from it.

If our senses hide reality behind an interface, then what is that reality?
I don’t know.

Hoffman then speculated the basic of that reality could be 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide, and act.
If so, consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail.
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Note in the video Hoffman stated, the consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God or creative intelligence.

What he stated was, such consciousness and conscious agents are merely ASSUMPTIONs necessary for his theory to work.

My take from Hoffman's book is there is no independent objective reality or objective facts out there.
In contrast to my take, people like Peter Holmes et. al. insist there is a real objective feature of reality, i.e. facts that we make factual assertions [descriptions] about.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSK] constructed by humans and thus objective in that sense and it is interdependent with the human conditions.

David Hoffmann: there is an inaccessible objective reality that's not independent from us, human consciousness works via indirect realism
VA: there is no objective reality

Jesus

[Skepdick]

David Hoffmann: there is an inaccessible objective reality that's not independent from us, human consciousness works via indirect realism
VA: there is no objective reality

Jesus

David Hoffmann: there is an inaccessible objective reality that's not independent from us, human consciousness works via indirect realism
VA (addressing direct/naive realists): there is no objective reality

Jesus

Atla is supposed to understand that words are fashioned for the target audience. Guess his brain doesn't understand this "human communication" thing yet...

[Atla]

David Hoffmann: there is an inaccessible objective reality that's not independent from us, human consciousness works via indirect realism
VA: there is no objective reality

Jesus

David Hoffmann: there is an inaccessible objective reality that's not independent from us, human consciousness works via indirect realism
VA (addressing direct/naive realists): there is no objective reality

Jesus

Atla is supposed to understand that words are fashioned for the target audience. Guess his brain doesn't understand this "human communication" thing yet...

Things have gotten so bad now that Veritas, the upcoming saviour of our world, in whom we all must put our trust, now sometimes refers to YOUR comments for support. Just think about that for a second.

[Skepdick]

Things have gotten so bad now that Veritas, the upcoming saviour of our world, in whom we all must put our trust, now sometimes refers to YOUR comments for support. Just think about that for a second.

Ah well! You should stop him, right here in his tracks on Philosophynow before he turns into the next Hitler or Stalin.

I heard he has amassed quite a following with his charm and logic.