The science against metaphysical materialism

[modernPrimitive2]

In line with my philosophical attempt to explain the errors of materialism, this may be more to the liking of those with a more scientific bent:

There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.

Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects.

Emphasis mine.

Article here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be more meaningful if you were quoting a particle physics journal. I don't put much stock in people who have no training in the field telling me what "Physics tells us" especially those promoted by the Chopra foundation. Deepak also made his fortune partly by telling us "what quantum physics means". I know of no one but those in the woo crowd who take such claims seriously.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It would be more meaningful if you were quoting a particle physics journal. I don't put much stock in people who have no training in the field telling me what "Physics tells us" especially those promoted by the Chopra foundation. Deepak also made his fortune partly by telling us "what quantum physics means". I know of no one but those in the woo crowd who take such claims seriously.

Yeah. Except it's not just the Chopra Foundation, it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things and cognitive science has been moving in the direction of quantum physics for quite some time now.
Besides you conveniently fail to address the statements on evolutionary game theory and in the article he also addresses the problem from his results with mathematical models of consciousness. Did you actually read it or did you just dismiss it "Because Chopra"?

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

 

[Juma]

It would be more meaningful if you were quoting a particle physics journal. I don't put much stock in people who have no training in the field telling me what "Physics tells us" especially those promoted by the Chopra foundation. Deepak also made his fortune partly by telling us "what quantum physics means". I know of no one but those in the woo crowd who take such claims seriously.

Yeah. Except it's not just the Chopra Foundation, it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things

Show a peer reviewed article where they say this.

cognitive science has been moving in the direction of quantum physics for quite some time now.

Fringe, and with no success.
Again: show peerrevied articles.

 

[bigfield]

Hoffman's claims about quantum mechanics are false.

Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers.

The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects.

In a article Hoffman published on the UCI website, he makes the same claim using different terminology:

Placing atoms and subatomic particles in the MUI rather than in the objective world iscompatible with quantum theory. Indeed, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantumtheory asserts that the dynamical properties of such particles have real values only in theact of observation (see, e.g., Albert 1992; Wheeler & Zurek 1983, Zurek 1989). That is,they are part of the observer’s MUI. Quantum physics does not contradict MUI theory.

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/MindBody

Hoffman is simply mistaken. The Copenhagen interpretation states that the act of observation causes a physical system to reduce to a single definite set of properties; Hoffman misinterprets that to mean that each observer sees that physical system with a different, subjective set of properties.

Besides you conveniently fail to address the statements on evolutionary game theory and in the article he also addresses the problem from his results with mathematical models of consciousness.

At no point in the article does Hoffman discuss game theory, which leaves us with nothing to address.

Similarly, Hoffman tells us about his mathematical models but doesn't actually explain what they are. Simply saying 'I did some maths' isn't an argument that needs to be addressed.

However, Hoffman's paper explain his theory of cognitive realism in more detail:

First, conscious realism is a nonphysicalist monism. What exists in the objective world,independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world ofunconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs ofconscious agents, but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world.Consciousness is fundamental. It is not a latecomer in the evolutionary history of theuniverse, arising from complex interactions of unconscious matter and fields.Consciousness is first; matter and fields depend on it for their very existence.

Hoffman's argument is simply that no consciousness experiences the world objectively, therefore the objective world does not exist. He argues that the only thing that exists is a network of consciousnesses interacting with each other, and calls this Conscious Realism.

Hoffman also confuses abstract representations of things with the things themselves. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics is an abstract representation of some phenomena we observe through scientific experiments; without humans there would be no Standard Model, but the phenomena the model describes still exist, just as they did before humans invented the notion of subatomic particles.

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

Appeals to authority are not always fallacious; it isn't fallacious to appeal to the authority of the scientific community, such as the claim made in a paper that passes peer-review.

Your own standard for appeals to authority is evidently much lower: You were swayed by buzzwords: "blah blah evolutionary game theory blah blah', the journalist, and by like "blah blah mathematical model blah blah" or "blah blah quantum physics blah blah."

So science! Very quantum! Much Planck! Wow!

 

[skepticalbip]

It would be more meaningful if you were quoting a particle physics journal. I don't put much stock in people who have no training in the field telling me what "Physics tells us" especially those promoted by the Chopra foundation. Deepak also made his fortune partly by telling us "what quantum physics means". I know of no one but those in the woo crowd who take such claims seriously.

Yeah. Except it's not just the Chopra Foundation, it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things and cognitive science has been moving in the direction of quantum physics for quite some time now.
Besides you conveniently fail to address the statements on evolutionary game theory and in the article he also addresses the problem from his results with mathematical models of consciousness. Did you actually read it or did you just dismiss it "Because Chopra"?

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

When people make claims about science, physics, or QM that are idiotic on the face of it, it doesn't take a genius to see their claims are baseless.

You apparently buy this because he is claiming that well known scientists said it... they didn't or they didn't say it with respect to what he is claiming. Descriptions of quantum events given by a particle physicists does not apply to the everyday macro world. (Particles can "tunnel" through the barriers and appear on the other side. People can't walk through a brick wall.) When someone pitching this woo say it is physics, they are talking out their ass... when they say it is quantum mechanics they are trying to blow smoke up your ass.

ETA:
This bit:

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

Just struck me. I love irony so don't know why it didn't pop out earlier. You are claiming this shit is meaningful because "it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things". And you have absolutely no reason to believe that those noted scientists said it except that Donald Hoffman said they did. - a double layered appeal to questionable authority.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Hoffman is simply mistaken. The Copenhagen interpretation states that the act of observation causes a physical system to reduce to a single definite set of properties; Hoffman misinterprets that to mean that each observer sees that physical system with a different, subjective set of properties.

Is he actually saying that or is that how you're interpreting what he's saying?

At no point in the article does Hoffman discuss game theory, which leaves us with nothing to address.

Well he gives analogies like the dekstop analogy and the example about being fine-tuned for the right amount of water. Sure, it's not a paper but it's fairly logical that we're adapted for survival rather than for reality. So without going into detail at first appearances his argument seems pretty strong to me. Admittedly this is just an article, not a paper, so it's just an entry point for discussion...

Similarly, Hoffman tells us about his mathematical models but doesn't actually explain what they are. Simply saying 'I did some maths' isn't an argument that needs to be addressed.

However, Hoffman's paper explain his theory of cognitive realism in more detail:

First, conscious realism is a nonphysicalist monism. What exists in the objective world,independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world ofunconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs ofconscious agents, but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world.Consciousness is fundamental. It is not a latecomer in the evolutionary history of theuniverse, arising from complex interactions of unconscious matter and fields.Consciousness is first; matter and fields depend on it for their very existence.

Hoffman's argument is simply that no consciousness experiences the world objectively, therefore the objective world does not exist. He argues that the only thing that exists is a network of consciousnesses interacting with each other, and calls this Conscious Realism.

Hoffman also confuses abstract representations of things with the things themselves. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics is an abstract representation of some phenomena we observe through scientific experiments; without humans there would be no Standard Model, but the phenomena the model describes still exist, just as they did before humans invented the notion of subatomic particles.

Ok, I'm out of my depth here in trying to understand the simulation he ran at any sort of academic level, but my layman's understanding from the article was that in his simulations he removed the objective world (W) from his formula and his conscious agents continued to work perfectly well, implying that there isn't a need for an objective world. Admittedly that doesn't prove an objective world doesn't exist it simply implies that, if his model is correct, an objective world wouldn't be necessary. Enter Occam and then? Another way to look at it is via thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy. Nature seems to be highly efficient. Why have an actual physical universe when a simple simulation would suffice?

Appeals to authority are not always fallacious; it isn't fallacious to appeal to the authority of the scientific community, such as the claim made in a paper that passes peer-review.

Hmm....see I'm not sure about that because even though the scientific attempts to rule out subjectivity, in the end it's done by humans. Psychology and psychodynamics are my field and I can guarantee that psychological disposition affects interpretation, experimental design, motivation, chosen field of study and so on. You simply ask who funds the study and who benefits and you already have cause for concern...

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Yeah. Except it's not just the Chopra Foundation, it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things and cognitive science has been moving in the direction of quantum physics for quite some time now.
Besides you conveniently fail to address the statements on evolutionary game theory and in the article he also addresses the problem from his results with mathematical models of consciousness. Did you actually read it or did you just dismiss it "Because Chopra"?

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

When people make claims about science, physics, or QM that are idiotic on the face of it, it doesn't take a genius to see their claims are baseless.

You apparently buy this because he is claiming that well known scientists said it... they didn't or they didn't say it with respect to what he is claiming. Descriptions of quantum events given by a particle physicists does not apply to the everyday macro world. (Particles can "tunnel" through the barriers and appear on the other side. People can't walk through a brick wall.) When someone pitching this woo say it is physics, they are talking out their ass... when they say it is quantum mechanics they are trying to blow smoke up your ass.

ETA:
This bit:

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

Just struck me. I love irony so don't know why it didn't pop out earlier. You are claiming this shit is meaningful because "it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things". And you have absolutely no reason to believe that those noted scientists said it except that Donald Hoffman said they did. - a double layered appeal to questionable authority.

LOL. What I expected was a rational discussion not a "he said X" so it doesn't count, end of discussion. That's an appeal to authority. I thought there might be some actual engagement like bigfield.

 

[untermensche]

What utter nonsense.

To say that incomplete theories that do nothing but partially explain some behaviors should replace clear perceptions of the world is the depth of scientific gibberish.

 

[skepticalbip]

When people make claims about science, physics, or QM that are idiotic on the face of it, it doesn't take a genius to see their claims are baseless.

You apparently buy this because he is claiming that well known scientists said it... they didn't or they didn't say it with respect to what he is claiming. Descriptions of quantum events given by a particle physicists does not apply to the everyday macro world. (Particles can "tunnel" through the barriers and appear on the other side. People can't walk through a brick wall.) When someone pitching this woo say it is physics, they are talking out their ass... when they say it is quantum mechanics they are trying to blow smoke up your ass.

ETA:
This bit:

I find it so weird that many pseudo-skeptics have not dropped the whole "appeal to authority" idea that they inherited from religion rather than attempting to think for themselves. There's where our mythology is relevant because it's no different from an appeal to a sky daddy, metaphorically speaking - the projection has just shifted onto a new ideology that makes you feel nice, warm and comfortable.

Just struck me. I love irony so don't know why it didn't pop out earlier. You are claiming this shit is meaningful because "it's physicists like David Bohm, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli saying these things". And you have absolutely no reason to believe that those noted scientists said it except that Donald Hoffman said they did. - a double layered appeal to questionable authority.

LOL. What I expected was a rational discussion not a "he said X" so it doesn't count, end of discussion. That's an appeal to authority. I thought there might be some actual engagement like bigfield.

What is there to engage? He didn't offer references to where he supposedly got those quotations so I can't check to see if they were what was said or even if a similar statement was made. My years of study of those "cited" physicists indicates that what he is claiming they meant is directly opposite to their work or has nothing to do with it so I have to question Hoffman's honesty. I'm not saying that they didn't make those statements - they well could have all gotten together, having a drunken party, and decided to have a contest writing the most absurd interpretation anyone could possibly make from their work. His "quotes" could have well been some of the submissions.

It reminds me of a panel I once saw Deepak on. He was challenged about his claims of what QM says. After a lot of sidestepping which the other panelists ignored he finally claimed that his statements of QM were only meant as a metaphor. Unsatisfied, one of the panelists asked if he is saying that it was a metaphor using the common misconceptions about QM to explain whatever point he was attempting to make.

Expecting a meaningful discussion of the BS of Hoffman you linked would be like expecting a meaningful discussion of a claim that "Einstein said that matter/energy is always conserved, we are made of matter/energy so we will live forever just as we are now".

 

[modernPrimitive2]

What is there to engage? He didn't offer references to where he supposedly got those quotations so I can't check to see if they were what was said or even if a similar statement was made. My years of study of those "cited" physicists indicates that what he is claiming they meant is directly opposite to their work or has nothing to do with it so I have to question Hoffman's honesty. I'm not saying that they didn't make those statements - they well could have all gotten together, having a drunken party, and decided to have a contest writing the most absurd interpretation anyone could possibly make from their work. His "quotes" could have well been some of the submissions.

It reminds me of a panel I once saw Deepak on. He was challenged about his claims of what QM says. After a lot of sidestepping which the other panelists ignored he finally claimed that his statements of QM were only meant as a metaphor. Unsatisfied, one of the panelists asked if he is saying that it was a metaphor using the common misconceptions about QM to explain whatever point he was attempting to make.

Expecting a meaningful discussion of the BS of Hoffman you linked would be like expecting a meaningful discussion of a claim that "Einstein said that matter/energy is always conserved, we are made of matter/energy so we will live forever just as we are now".

Yeah I meant with regard to his thoughts on evolutionary theory, the examples he gives that we are fine tuned for survivability rather than reality and his consciousness simulations. I thought these were good points for discussion. Admittedly it was silly of me to post the QM stuff because the consciousness vs copenhagen interpretations have been debated to death in the past, but it has been over 10 years since the days of the Internet Infidels when I engaged in those debates so my memory is a bit fuzzy...LOL. Anyways, point is that I think his evolutionary theory is pretty sound.

 

[bigfield]

Hoffman is simply mistaken. The Copenhagen interpretation states that the act of observation causes a physical system to reduce to a single definite set of properties; Hoffman misinterprets that to mean that each observer sees that physical system with a different, subjective set of properties.

Is he actually saying that or is that how you're interpreting what he's saying?

Feel free to read the paper and decide for yourself.

At no point in the article does Hoffman discuss game theory, which leaves us with nothing to address.

Well he gives analogies like the dekstop analogy and the example about being fine-tuned for the right amount of water. Sure, it's not a paper but it's fairly logical that we're adapted for survival rather than for reality. So without going into detail at first appearances his argument seems pretty strong to me. Admittedly this is just an article, not a paper, so it's just an entry point for discussion...

None of which has anything to do with game theory.

The desktop analogy refers to his multi-modal user interface theory, which is simply the theory that the conscious mind of a human experiences a simplified simulacrum of its environment based on the body's sensory inputs. It's a nifty idea but Hoffman doesn't use this as a basis for arguing against physicalism.

I did not see any claim from Hoffman that humans are 'fine-tuned' from the right amount of water.

Similarly, Hoffman tells us about his mathematical models but doesn't actually explain what they are. Simply saying 'I did some maths' isn't an argument that needs to be addressed.

However, Hoffman's paper explain his theory of cognitive realism in more detail:

First, conscious realism is a nonphysicalist monism. What exists in the objective world,independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world ofunconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs ofconscious agents, but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world.Consciousness is fundamental. It is not a latecomer in the evolutionary history of theuniverse, arising from complex interactions of unconscious matter and fields.Consciousness is first; matter and fields depend on it for their very existence.

Hoffman's argument is simply that no consciousness experiences the world objectively, therefore the objective world does not exist. He argues that the only thing that exists is a network of consciousnesses interacting with each other, and calls this Conscious Realism.

Hoffman also confuses abstract representations of things with the things themselves. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics is an abstract representation of some phenomena we observe through scientific experiments; without humans there would be no Standard Model, but the phenomena the model describes still exist, just as they did before humans invented the notion of subatomic particles.

Ok, I'm out of my depth here in trying to understand the simulation he ran at any sort of academic level, but my layman's understanding from the article was that in his simulations he removed the objective world (W) from his formula and his conscious agents continued to work perfectly well, implying that there isn't a need for an objective world. Admittedly that doesn't prove an objective world doesn't exist it simply implies that, if his model is correct, an objective world wouldn't be necessary. Enter Occam and then? Another way to look at it is via thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy. Nature seems to be highly efficient. Why have an actual physical universe when a simple simulation would suffice?

The lack of an objective reality is the less parsimonious explanation, for it implies some novel, unknown mechanism that gave rise to the system in the first place.

For example: If the evolution of humans is just part of the simulation then by what means did human consciousness come to exist?

Hoffman fails to address this rather obvious problem with his theory.

Appeals to authority are not always fallacious; it isn't fallacious to appeal to the authority of the scientific community, such as the claim made in a paper that passes peer-review.

Hmm....see I'm not sure about that because even though the scientific attempts to rule out subjectivity, in the end it's done by humans. Psychology and psychodynamics are my field and I can guarantee that psychological disposition affects interpretation, experimental design, motivation, chosen field of study and so on. You simply ask who funds the study and who benefits and you already have cause for concern...

So what? The scientific method and peer-review system of publication is the best system we have for establishing facts about nature. It's more reliable than the efforts of any single human, and more effective than any other method of discovery humans have ever invented.

 

[skepticalbip]

What is there to engage? He didn't offer references to where he supposedly got those quotations so I can't check to see if they were what was said or even if a similar statement was made. My years of study of those "cited" physicists indicates that what he is claiming they meant is directly opposite to their work or has nothing to do with it so I have to question Hoffman's honesty. I'm not saying that they didn't make those statements - they well could have all gotten together, having a drunken party, and decided to have a contest writing the most absurd interpretation anyone could possibly make from their work. His "quotes" could have well been some of the submissions.

It reminds me of a panel I once saw Deepak on. He was challenged about his claims of what QM says. After a lot of sidestepping which the other panelists ignored he finally claimed that his statements of QM were only meant as a metaphor. Unsatisfied, one of the panelists asked if he is saying that it was a metaphor using the common misconceptions about QM to explain whatever point he was attempting to make.

Expecting a meaningful discussion of the BS of Hoffman you linked would be like expecting a meaningful discussion of a claim that "Einstein said that matter/energy is always conserved, we are made of matter/energy so we will live forever just as we are now".

Yeah I meant with regard to his thoughts on evolutionary theory, the examples he gives that we are fine tuned for survivability rather than reality and his consciousness simulations. I thought these were good points for discussion. Admittedly it was silly of me to post the QM stuff because the consciousness vs copenhagen interpretations have been debated to death in the past, but it has been over 10 years since the days of the Internet Infidels when I engaged in those debates so my memory is a bit fuzzy...LOL. Anyways, point is that I think his evolutionary theory is pretty sound.

Oh that. It reads to me as just a just-so-story which had as its purpose to advance his pet idea that humans are oblivious to reality more than it was a thoughtful consideration of human evolution. But then I don't have a lot of use for just-so-stories as explanations. I'm sure that there are many such stories (I've heard a few) that have as their primary focus the advancement of other author’s pet ideas presented as stories of evolution. They all sound reasonable but are not that useful at actually understanding the human condition, but maybe useful for spreading the author's pet theory.

Like the adage of the man who’s only tool is a hammer sees every problem as a nail, Hoffman’s primary fixation seems to be that humans can’t recognize reality so that is the answer to any question. I distrust anyone who begins with the answer before considering all possible explanations. Maybe the article isn’t representative of his thought process though.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Yeah I meant with regard to his thoughts on evolutionary theory, the examples he gives that we are fine tuned for survivability rather than reality and his consciousness simulations. I thought these were good points for discussion. Admittedly it was silly of me to post the QM stuff because the consciousness vs copenhagen interpretations have been debated to death in the past, but it has been over 10 years since the days of the Internet Infidels when I engaged in those debates so my memory is a bit fuzzy...LOL. Anyways, point is that I think his evolutionary theory is pretty sound.

Oh that. It reads to me as just a just-so-story which had as its purpose to advance his pet idea that humans are oblivious to reality more than it was a thoughtful consideration of human evolution. But then I don't have a lot of use for just-so-stories as explanations. I'm sure that there are many such stories (I've heard a few) that have as their primary focus the advancement of other author’s pet ideas presented as stories of evolution. They all sound reasonable but are not that useful at actually understanding the human condition, but maybe useful for spreading the author's pet theory.

Like the adage of the man who’s only tool is a hammer sees every problem as a nail, Hoffman’s primary fixation seems to be that humans can’t recognize reality so that is the answer to any question. I distrust anyone who begins with the answer before considering all possible explanations. Maybe the article isn’t representative of his thought process though.

Yeah but now you're not debunking his theory, you're now dismissing his theory by simply saying that humans are fallible. You're playing a "two-faced game" here relying on reason and scientific method only when it suits you. Either his theory holds weight or it doesn't. The idea that humans are fine-tuned for survival and not reality is a theory that to my sense of reason holds significant weight.

 

[bilby]

Oh that. It reads to me as just a just-so-story which had as its purpose to advance his pet idea that humans are oblivious to reality more than it was a thoughtful consideration of human evolution. But then I don't have a lot of use for just-so-stories as explanations. I'm sure that there are many such stories (I've heard a few) that have as their primary focus the advancement of other author’s pet ideas presented as stories of evolution. They all sound reasonable but are not that useful at actually understanding the human condition, but maybe useful for spreading the author's pet theory.

Like the adage of the man who’s only tool is a hammer sees every problem as a nail, Hoffman’s primary fixation seems to be that humans can’t recognize reality so that is the answer to any question. I distrust anyone who begins with the answer before considering all possible explanations. Maybe the article isn’t representative of his thought process though.

Yeah but now you're not debunking his theory, you're now dismissing his theory by simply saying that humans are fallible. You're playing a "two-faced game" here relying on reason and scientific method only when it suits you. Either his theory holds weight or it doesn't. The idea that humans are fine-tuned for survival and not reality is a theory that to my sense of reason holds significant weight.

It's a false dichotomy. Humans are not fine tuned for anything.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It's a false dichotomy. Humans are not fine tuned for anything.

I don't men that in the creationist sense of "fine-tuned", I meant that in the evolutionary sense. We are adapted for survivalbility rather than for "reality". As he says in the article (paraphrased) "If we had to spend time figuring it all out, the tiger would eat you". So for example, if our sense and cognition gave us a QM view of reality we simply wouldn't survive very long.

 

[bilby]

It's a false dichotomy. Humans are not fine tuned for anything.

I don't men that in the creationist sense of "fine-tuned", I meant that in the evolutionary sense. We are adapted for survivalbility rather than for "reality". As he says in the article (paraphrased) "If we had to spend time figuring it all out, the tiger would eat you". So for example, if our sense and cognition gave us a QM view of reality we simply wouldn't survive very long.

There isn't an evolutionary sense of 'fine tuned'.

Evolution only does coarse tuning. And it doesn't get any more real.

You are still pushing a false dichotomy. There is no choice between 'survivability' and 'reality'.

You seem very keen to present as profound, an idea that is banal and trivial. Some errors of fact are less dangerous than others - but that doesn't mean that they are not errors, or that avoiding those errors would be a bad thing.

Your arguments seem to be for a 'woo of the gaps' position. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is known for certain, but that doesn't mean you can put any old shit you like up as though it was equal to actual knowledge derived using our best epistemology - science.

If there is anything other than the standard model (and there likely is), then it has no influence at the scale of living humans. Our brains are described by the standard model, and ONLY the standard model, under all of the conditions that are compatible with life.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh that. It reads to me as just a just-so-story which had as its purpose to advance his pet idea that humans are oblivious to reality more than it was a thoughtful consideration of human evolution. But then I don't have a lot of use for just-so-stories as explanations. I'm sure that there are many such stories (I've heard a few) that have as their primary focus the advancement of other author’s pet ideas presented as stories of evolution. They all sound reasonable but are not that useful at actually understanding the human condition, but maybe useful for spreading the author's pet theory.

Like the adage of the man who’s only tool is a hammer sees every problem as a nail, Hoffman’s primary fixation seems to be that humans can’t recognize reality so that is the answer to any question. I distrust anyone who begins with the answer before considering all possible explanations. Maybe the article isn’t representative of his thought process though.

Yeah but now you're not debunking his theory, you're now dismissing his theory by simply saying that humans are fallible. You're playing a "two-faced game" here relying on reason and scientific method only when it suits you. Either his theory holds weight or it doesn't. The idea that humans are fine-tuned for survival and not reality is a theory that to my sense of reason holds significant weight.

He offered nothing to debunk. It is only a baseless story, baseless as in he only has his idea with absolutely nothing to support it but the story. Science doesn't work that way. It isn't a "theory" it is a story and, to my view, not a very compelling one.

ETA:
Would you settle for a counter just-so-story?

Lets take his assertion that the early hunters didn't need to actually know what a snake was. They only needed to avoid shapes like snakes and some sticks. This would be sufficient to avoid being killed by a snake.

Lets take two tribes, one that is clueless about reality but avoids "snaky-looking-things", and another tribe that was tuned into reality, they knew poisonous snakes, non-poisonous snakes, and sticks so could tell them apart. One member from each tribe goes out to find food for their family. The first one is avoiding all "snaky-looking-things" of which he sees and avoids a few of while searching for some food. The other quickly encounters a poisonous snake and avoids it then spots a non-poisonous snake and a stick near by. He picks up the stick and kills the non-poisonous snake to carry back to feed the family. On the way back, he sees the poisonous snake again and decides what the fuck we can eat that too so cautiously (knowing the reality of the snakes speed and range so being sure to stay at a safe distance) kills it and adds it to the other. The family will feast tonight. Meanwhile the first hunter is wandering through the wilderness avoiding sticks and snakes (tools and food) looking for food - and since the reality is that food is scarce he may not find any that day.

Since evolution is dependent on successful adaption which family do you think has the greatest chance of long term survival and reproduction? The one with the greatest chance will have a much faster increasing population meaning that it is their genes that will dominate future generations.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's a false dichotomy. Humans are not fine tuned for anything.

I don't men that in the creationist sense of "fine-tuned", I meant that in the evolutionary sense. We are adapted for survivalbility rather than for "reality". As he says in the article (paraphrased) "If we had to spend time figuring it all out, the tiger would eat you". So for example, if our sense and cognition gave us a QM view of reality we simply wouldn't survive very long.

Evolution selects for survivability, yes. But survivability means understanding enough of reality to avoid being eaten by that tiger, it does not mean omniscience. Tigers eat people (a reality) doesn't take a hell of a lot of time to learn and, once learned, doesn't need to be re-learned when a tiger is spotted. Some plants are eatable and some are poisonous (a reality) but understanding this doesn't mean that everything about plants must be understood. Failure to learn the reality of which plants are eatable and which are poisonous is fatal.

 

[fromderinside]

Seems to me the second law of thermodynamics holds and that everything in the world trends toward optimizing its exploitation of energy, including evolution, would provide a pretty strong case against materialism being other than physical: IOW not metaphysical.