Philosophy Now Forum

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.

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.

Kant in CPR wrote: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

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:33 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:47 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:33 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:54 am
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!!

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 10:07 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:54 am
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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am 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.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:54 am 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)

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]

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

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:54 am 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am3. But Hoffman demonstrated what is empirical reality is ultimately an illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am4. 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 amI 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am3. 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)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 am4. 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:27 amI 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.

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]

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:36 am 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:12 am

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