Is Reality an Illusion? Donald Hoffman

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is Reality an Illusion? - Professor Donald Hoffman, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNk

If I have a visual experience that I describe as a red tomato a meter away, then I am inclined to believe that there is, in fact, a red tomato a meter away, even if I close my eyes.

I believe that my perceptions are, in the normal case, veridical—that they accurately depict aspects of the real world.
But is my belief supported by our best science?

In particular: Does evolution by natural selection favor veridical perceptions?
Many scientists and philosophers claim that it does.
But this claim, though plausible, has not been properly tested.

In this talk, I present a new theorem:
Veridical perceptions are never more fit than non-veridical perceptions which are simply tuned to the relevant fitness functions.
This entails that perception is not a window on reality; it is more like a desktop interface on your laptop.
I discuss this interface theory of perception and its implications for one of the most puzzling unsolved problems in science: the relationship between brain activity and conscious experiences.

[attofishpi]

Though I appreciate watching a qualified someone talk about things that I am interested in - I am 10 mins into the vid and am about to pull my hair out over his insistence that 'somehow' if we 'program AI in a certain way' we might get CONSCIOUSNESS!!!

Sir Roger Penrose interviewed by Lex Fridmann
https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

A far more intelligent comprehension that consciousness is not a mere facet of what is computable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a commentary [not mine] related to Hoffman's main idea..

In his TED talk, biologist Donald Hoffman calls into question the notion that the human mind operates on and requires an accurate perception of reality. Hoffman argues that not only we do not truly see reality as it is (citing humanity’s old, incorrect beliefs such as the Earth being flat and the Earth being the unmoving center of the universe), but that natural selection — and consequently evolution — does not favor seeing reality as it is. The latter part of his theory, he explains, is supported by fitness, not reality as it is, being a key component of the equations of evolution. Hoffman goes on to say that evolution has given us an “interface” that hides reality and instead guides adaptive behavior — akin to the desktop interface on a computer that shows you files and images as opposed to the coding and software behind them. Hoffman states: “...reality, whatever it is, is the real source of cause and effect in the world; not brains, not neurons. Brains and neurons have no causal powers. They cause none of our perceptual experiences, and none of our behavior. Brains and neurons are a species-specific set of symbols, a hack”. The overall importance of Hoffman’s theory is that it, as he puts it, opens up new possibilities in relation to the mystery of consciousness. His theory questions reality itself, and in turn, how it affects our conscious experiences.

I was very intrigued by Hoffman’s discussion of his theory, however, I am not in complete agreement with it. Hoffman makes the bold claim that fitness is more valuable than perceiving reality as it is. I argue that perceiving reality as it is is an aspect/component of fitness in and of itself. Google defines fitness (in terms of biology) as “an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment”. I contend that an accurate perception of reality IS an advantage when it comes to survival. Moreover, the notion that “we REconstruct what we see” is not in opposition to my assertion; rather, it provides elaboration. Hoffman uses the example of Australian jewel beetles, a species that nearly went extinct due to its males’ failed attempts to mate with dimpled, glossy brown beer bottles that resembled the species’ females. Utilizing this example, Hoffman is able to declare that an organism’s perception of reality is not useful, especially in contrast to fitness. I declare that the species’ poor perception of reality resulted in its near-evolutionary failure. Perhaps the question Hoffman should be asking is “is our perception of reality accurate” as opposed to merely insisting that perceiving reality is virtually unimportant.

The ideas of German 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant can be connected to the ideas of biologist Davis Hoffman. Kant philosophized that two realms/worlds exist, the noumenal realm (external world — objective) and the phenomenal realm (internal consciousness — subjective). On a similar note, Hoffman theorizes that we have conscious experiences based on reality as an objective experience, though he does not claim to be sure of what exactly this noumenal world is. Hoffman also supports the notion that “we Reconstruct what we see”, relating once again to Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal realms. Both Kant and Hoffman appear to agree that ontology — the theory of what is real — is a dualistic matter, meaning that two worlds exist:
one being objective and external/noumenal, and
another being subjective and internal/phenomenal.

I don't agree with the above views on Kant.

Kant never claimed there is a really real objective and external reality [the noumenal].
What Kant asserted is, one can think of an real objective external reality but should never insist it is really real [in the positive sense] but only conditionally real subject to one's thinking [in the negative sense].

If by 'Noumenon' we mean a Thing so far as it is not an Object of our Sensible Intuition, and so abstract from our Mode of intuiting it, {then} this is a Noumenon in the negative sense of the term.
B307

What is real to Kant, like Hoffman is limited to the "interface" which has effective utility for the survival of humanity [to the possibility that humans can inhabit other planets in the future], of course it must be verifiable, justifiable and rational.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Though I appreciate watching a qualified someone talk about things that I am interested in - I am 10 mins into the vid and am about to pull my hair out over his insistence that 'somehow' if we 'program AI in a certain way' we might get CONSCIOUSNESS!!!

Sir Roger Penrose interviewed by Lex Fridmann
https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

A far more intelligent comprehension that consciousness is not a mere facet of what is computable.

Hoffman would never claim that 'consciousness' is human consciousness but merely machine-human-like-consciousness.

Your existential-angst-driven-consciousness is an illusion and cannot be really real as you want it to be.

[attofishpi]

Though I appreciate watching a qualified someone talk about things that I am interested in - I am 10 mins into the vid and am about to pull my hair out over his insistence that 'somehow' if we 'program AI in a certain way' we might get CONSCIOUSNESS!!!

Sir Roger Penrose interviewed by Lex Fridmann
https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

A far more intelligent comprehension that consciousness is not a mere facet of what is computable.

Hoffman would never claim that 'consciousness' is human consciousness but merely machine-human-like-consciousness.

Your existential-angst-driven-consciousness is an illusion and cannot be really real as you want it to be.

What is all this "HOFFMAN theory"?

Care to explain what this HOFFMAN THEORY actually is?

Care to explain what HE has to offer that nobody else attempting to contemplate consciousness have ALREADY gone over *YEARS AGO!!

I managed to watch another 10 mins of the video before I realised he is a boring twat that doesn't have a clue but clearly is making out that machines can be conscious when "programmed the right way" FFS!!! WOT A NOB.

Do yourself a favour and watch someone will a modicum of intelligence talk about the subject of consciousness: https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

(a physicist not a 3rd level scientist - a biologist)

[Dontaskme]

Care to explain what this HOFFMAN THEORY actually is?

Care to explain what HE has to offer that nobody else attempting to contemplate consciousness have ALREADY gone over *YEARS AGO!!

It's just another man-made theory, just as your own theory is.

Nothing to get hung over, since all theories are just simple noise within this ever present unchanging silence.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose we could say that:

A) reality is an illusion, in the sense that we are always experiencing it through the sense organs, and the sense organs perhaps ultimately distort what may truly be out there. What is truly out there is supposedly relatively undifferentiated matter in motion, forming 'illusory' things like lions and tigers that will destroy the composition of matter that forms me/us or take the form of friends who will help me/us or other possible entities etc. etc.

Or B) reality may be an illusion in the sense that none of what I/we think is out there is actually out there, including 'matter' itself.

I think the latter sense of reality being an illusion (option B) is much trickier territory to talk about than the former (option A) because it's more speculative. Of course, that may not necessarily mean that it isn't the case.

[Gary Childress]

Care to explain what this HOFFMAN THEORY actually is?

Care to explain what HE has to offer that nobody else attempting to contemplate consciousness have ALREADY gone over *YEARS AGO!!

It's just another man-made theory, just as your own theory is.

Nothing to get hung over, since all theories are just simple noise within this ever present unchanging silence.

Yes. I think in the end it all boils down to that, for the most part. Silence seems deafening at times.

[Iwannaplato]

In this talk, I present a new theorem:
Veridical perceptions are never more fit than non-veridical perceptions which are simply tuned to the relevant fitness functions.

It's a very strange assertion I think mainly because it makes it binary. As if perceptions are true representations, period, or false, period. When it sure seems like they are a mix. While we may perceive all sorts of things not quite present in a field with clumps of nettles and holes and gulleys, we get enough of the true shape of the field to run through it. It would be very odd if a prey animals thought every plant was a lion or leopard and ran from these as they need to from a predator. So, they are veridically distinguishing, better than chance, between predator and plant. And this will be selected for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Though I appreciate watching a qualified someone talk about things that I am interested in - I am 10 mins into the vid and am about to pull my hair out over his insistence that 'somehow' if we 'program AI in a certain way' we might get CONSCIOUSNESS!!!

Sir Roger Penrose interviewed by Lex Fridmann
https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

A far more intelligent comprehension that consciousness is not a mere facet of what is computable.

Do yourself a favour and watch someone will a modicum of intelligence talk about the subject of consciousness: https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

(a physicist not a 3rd level scientist - a biologist)

Penrose's Argument is claimed to be unsound by many; his supporters are a rare species within philosophy and physics.
Do a search on the reviews and critique of Penrose's Argument re Consciousness.

Here is one;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E ... #Criticism

The Penrose–Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence was criticized by mathematicians,[13][14][15][16] computer scientists,[17] and philosophers,[18][19][20][21][22] and the consensus among experts [which?][4] in these fields is that the argument fails,[23][24][25] with different authors attacking different aspects of the argument.

LaForte pointed out that in order to know the truth of an unprovable Gödel sentence, one must already know the formal system is consistent. Referencing Benacerraf, he then demonstrated that humans cannot prove that they are consistent,[13] and in all likelihood human brains are inconsistent. He pointed to contradictions within Penrose's own writings as examples. Similarly, Minsky argued that because humans can believe false ideas to be true, human mathematical understanding need not be consistent and consciousness may easily have a deterministic basis.[27]

Feferman faulted detailed points in Penrose's second book, Shadows of the Mind. He argued that mathematicians do not progress by mechanistic search through proofs, but by trial-and-error reasoning, insight and inspiration, and that machines do not share this approach with humans. He pointed out that everyday mathematics can be formalized. He also rejected Penrose's Platonism.[14][

Searle criticized Penrose's appeal to Gödel as resting on the fallacy that all computational algorithms must be capable of mathematical description. As a counter-example, Searle cited the assignment of license plate numbers to specific vehicle identification numbers, as part of vehicle registration. According to Searle, no mathematical function can be used to connect a known VIN with its LPN, but the process of assignment is quite simple—namely, "first come, first served"—and can be performed entirely by a computer.[28]

"(a physicist not a 3rd level scientist - a biologist)"

Btw, Lex Fridmann also hosted Hoffman;
Donald Hoffman: Reality is an Illusion - How Evolution Hid the Truth | Lex Fridman Podcast #293
It has 4.2 million views compared to Penrose's 1.6 million views which is a crude indication Hoffman's views are more "credible" than Penrose.

Here is another critique that Penrose's argument is unsound;

GAPS IN PENROSE'S TOILINGS
Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland

Abstract: Using the Gödel Incompleteness Result for leverage, Roger Penrose has argued
that the mechanism for consciousness involves quantum gravitational phenomena, acting
through microtubules in neurons. We show that this hypothesis is implausible.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? ... 906db2cf9e

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is all this "HOFFMAN theory"?

Care to explain what this HOFFMAN THEORY actually is?

Care to explain what HE has to offer that nobody else attempting to contemplate consciousness have ALREADY gone over *YEARS AGO!!

I managed to watch another 10 mins of the video before I realised he is a boring twat that doesn't have a clue but clearly is making out that machines can be conscious when "programmed the right way" FFS!!! WOT A NOB.

It is obvious you did not pay serious attention [as expected when you have such biasness] when listening to the video.

In the video, Hoffman spent the first 20 minutes explaining why the current theories of consciousness [including Penrose & Hameroff] has failed.
The reason is these theories of consciousness had relied heavily on assumptions which are false at the higher levels of reality, i.e. the assumption that spacetime is real.
In the present, the Physics community had accepted SpaceTime is an illusion.
Time is an Illusion; Do a search to read more about this claim.
Thus the current theories of consciousness [including Penrose & Hameroff] are grounded on an illusion, thus false.

Hoffman offered an alternative theory, i.e. evolution has, as a necessity, deceived humans in believing in falsehoods as critical to fitness and survival.
As such, what is claimed to be 'reality' [objective reality] when considered in depth is an illusion.
Hoffman proposed we should deliberate on consciousness from this new perspective or paradigm.

Hoffman's views in the video and in his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

set out to explain his basis for the New Paradigm that what most think as 'real' [has objective reality] is actually an illusion of necessity adapted via Evolution.

My point;
1. In general, you, me and all normal people agree there is an empirical reality out there.
2. As a theist, you relied on empirical reality and the Cosmological Argument to infer [taking a big leap] God exists as real.
3. But Hoffman demonstrated what is empirical reality is ultimately an illusion.
4. Therefore, since your cosmological argument is grounded on an illusion, what follows is your concluded God is also an illusion, thus is not really real.

I had further argued why theists jumped the gun to a real God is driven by the inherent existential angst operating within different degrees of psychological intensities resulting in different types of God, from the primitive God, to the Abrahamic God to the pantheistic & panentheistic God.

[attofishpi]

My point;
1. In general, you, me and all normal people agree there is an empirical reality out there.
2. As a theist, you would like rely on empirical reality and the Cosmological Argument to infer God exists as real.

The cosmological argument is ridiculous.

3. But Hoffman demonstrated what is empirical reality is ultimately an illusion.

Yes, and I have sussed that since 1997 when God made it rather obvious to me (empirically)

4. Therefore, since your cosmological argument is grounded on an illusion, what follows is your concluded God is also an illusion, thus is not really real.

Again, the cosmological argument is ridiculous. Stop insinuating that I give a shit about a ridiculous concept blabbed on by idiot evangelists.

I had further argued why theists jumped the gun to a real God is driven by the inherent existential angst operating within different degrees of psychological intensities resulting in different types of God, from the primitive God, to the Abrahamic God to the pantheistic & panentheistic God.

You should stop putting all 'theists' into the same box, as if they all have a single mind on the matter of God. And, again I am no longer a mere theist, I have 25yrs of gnosis og God's existence.

What Hoffman needs to comprehend that Penrose DOES - is that conciousness is NOT computable. The likes of Hoffman in their idiocy think that faster machines where they appear more intelligent will eventually become sentient...ridiculous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point;
1. In general, you, me and all normal people agree there is an empirical reality out there.
2. As a theist, you would like rely on empirical reality and the Cosmological Argument to infer God exists as real.

The cosmological argument is ridiculous.

3. But Hoffman demonstrated what is empirical reality is ultimately an illusion.

Yes, and I have sussed that since 1997 when God made it rather obvious to me (empirically)

4. Therefore, since your cosmological argument is grounded on an illusion, what follows is your concluded God is also an illusion, thus is not really real.

Again, the cosmological argument is ridiculous. Stop insinuating that I give a shit about a ridiculous concept blabbed on by idiot evangelists.

I had further argued why theists jumped the gun to a real God is driven by the inherent existential angst operating within different degrees of psychological intensities resulting in different types of God, from the primitive God, to the Abrahamic God to the pantheistic & panentheistic God.

You should stop putting all 'theists' into the same box, as if they all have a single mind on the matter of God. And, again I am no longer a mere theist, I have 25yrs of gnosis og God's existence.

What Hoffman needs to comprehend that Penrose DOES - is that conciousness is NOT computable. The likes of Hoffman in their idiocy think that faster machines where they appear more intelligent will eventually become sentient...ridiculous.

If you are not a theist, then what are you?

Even with gnosis, as long as your beliefs are grounded on a God, that would be basically theistic.
Otherwise it would be non-theistic gnostic, e.g. certain groups in Buddhism;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticis ... _parallels
In 1966, at the Congress of Median, Buddhologist Edward Conze noted phenomenological commonalities between Mahayana Buddhism and Gnosticism,[52] in his paper Buddhism and Gnosis, following an early suggestion put forward by Isaac Jacob Schmidt.[53][note 16] The influence of Buddhism in any sense on either the gnostikos Valentinus (c. 170) or the Nag Hammadi texts (3rd century) is not supported by modern scholarship, although Elaine Pagels (1979) called it a "possibility".[57]

It seems you may not be the typical atheists, e.g. Abrahamic and the likes, but basically you are still a theist, i.e. gnostic-theist.

There are mainly 3 justification for God, i.e.
1. Ontological
2. Cosmological
3. Physico-Theological.

In the widest sense, your basis is likely to be Cosmological i.e. based on your personal experience which to you is empirical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What Hoffman needs to comprehend that Penrose DOES - is that consciousness is NOT computable. The likes of Hoffman in their idiocy think that faster machines where they appear more intelligent will eventually become sentient...ridiculous.

You missed it?
I had already addressed this point;
viewtopic.php?p=617252#p617252
Many critiqued Penrose's argument as unsound.

There has been loads of argument whether Consciousness is Computable or Not.
Problem is 'consciousness' is a very loose term.
In the extreme, consciousness is bestowed by God to humans; this is ridiculous especially when God itself is an illusion while consciousness in something that is very real.

The point is, human consciousness in its best empirical sense is computable; this can be duplicated and qualified by machines and robots with artificial intelligence.

[Skepdick]

Is Reality an Illusion? - Professor Donald Hoffman, PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhGYsUitgNk

Jesus christ. When will all these morons take a few introductory courses to the most general/abstract fields in Mathematics.

Start with an introduction to topology so instead of blabbering on about "space and time" (in particular) they can actually understand the abstract idea of a "space" in general.

And after they have some of the basic concepts etched into their idiot-philosopher brains wreck their inherent reductionist tendencies by focusing on point-free topology so they stop talking about stuff like "fundamental particles".

Atomism is dead. Can we move the fuck on? The representation/model/theory/map is NEVER the reality.