Spacetime is just a headset: An interview with Donald Hoffman

Donald Hoffman is Professor of Philosophy, Cognitive, Information and Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception, and evolutionary psychology through mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. He believes that our perception has evolved to hide reality from us. University of California, Irvine website: https://www.uci.edu/

Your video guide:

00:00 Start
02:03 Donald Hoffman talks about himself and his work
06:31 Hoffman's theory
12:13 Spiritual traditions
14:28 How different scientists relate to Hoffman's theory
17:07 How can you prove the existence of consciousness
20:35 The impact of Hoffman's theory on the world
25:19 Imagination and reality
29:11 The place of the soul in Hoffman's theory
33:23 How Hoffman relates to his theory. Recommendations for its perception
40:29 End

As before, my response is that wouldn't any sane person throw out the theory of evolution before throwing out the idea of reality?

I mean you don't need a ton of mathematics to see (sorry!) that any sense organ designed by random mutation+natural selection would not describe reality!

PS, IMHO, although the Russian girl is very beautiful, the disjointed conversation doesn't help.

David

As before, my response is that wouldn't any sane person throw out the theory of evolution before throwing out the idea of reality?

I mean you don't need a ton of mathematics to see (sorry!) that any sense organ designed by random mutation+natural selection would not describe reality!

Can you elaborate? I don't really get what you mean here.

As before, my response is that wouldn't any sane person throw out the theory of evolution before throwing out the idea of reality?

I mean you don't need a ton of mathematics to see (sorry!) that any sense organ designed by random mutation+natural selection would not describe reality!

PS, IMHO, although the Russian girl is very beautiful, the disjointed conversation doesn't help.

David

Why wouldn't it describe reality? If it didn't, wouldn't those organisms die off pretty quickly?

Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "describe."

~~ Paul

Can you elaborate? I don't really get what you mean here

Why wouldn't it describe reality? If it didn't, wouldn't those organisms die off pretty quickly?

Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "describe."

Well I guess you should pose that question to Donald Hoffman (DH), because he claims to have a mathematical proof that random mutations plus natural selection will not converge on an eye that describes reality. The proof is written in a deeply impenetrable style and I confess I gave up on it - maybe you would have better luck.

However, to me that is just one example that demonstrates that RM+NS can't explain evolution, never mind how life got here in the first place.

IMHO the Discovery Institute's scientific arm is much closer to the mark. They have published a number of research papers plus some more popular books describing this concept, for example:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

I find this book particularly fascinating because it seems to show that the operation of RM+NS gradually degrades an organism's genome by mutating genes that are not in active use. This makes an organism less and less able to adapt to changes in the environment.

I have, of course, debated all this with you (Paul) before at Skeptiko, I don't know if you want to go through it all again here. However, I'd like you to clarify what you think about DH's argument.

David

Well I guess you should pose that question to Donald Hoffman (DH), because he claims to have a mathematical proof that random mutations plus natural selection will not converge on an eye that describes reality. The proof is written in a deeply impenetrable style and I confess I gave up on it - maybe you would have better luck.

However, to me that is just one example that demonstrates that RM+NS can't explain evolution, never mind how life got here in the first place.

IMHO the Discovery Institute's scientific arm is much closer to the mark. They have published a number of research papers plus some more popular books describing this concept, for example:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

I find this book particularly fascinating because it seems to show that the operation of RM+NS gradually degrades an organism's genome by mutating genes that are not in active use. This makes an organism less and less able to adapt to changes in the environment.

I have, of course, debated all this with you (Paul) before at Skeptiko, I don't know if you want to go through it all again here. However, I'd like you to clarify what you think about DH's argument.

David

I have no interest in trying to understand his proof. I'll leave that to the mathematicians and biologists. I'm not sure why evolution could converge on a simulacrum of reality rather than actual reality. If it can't evolve something complicated, why does it matter what that thing is? And I'm really quite done with Michael Behe.

Of course, no one is claiming that we are perceiving reality exactly the way it is. Clearly we have a simplified representation of the outside world through our senses and in our memories. In many cases it's just plain wrong. But Hoffman suggests that, for example, Quantum Mechanics is an interface to a world that is more complicated. Really? QM isn't complicated enough? Occam's Razor comes to mind. But then he suggests that the world is a product of our consciousness. I don't know how to reconcile those two ideas.

~~ Paul

I have no interest in trying to understand his proof. I'll leave that to the mathematicians and biologists. I'm not sure why evolution could converge on a simulacrum of reality rather than actual reality. If it can't evolve something complicated, why does it matter what that thing is? And I'm really quite done with Michael Behe.

Of course, no one is claiming that we are perceiving reality exactly the way it is. Clearly we have a simplified representation of the outside world through our senses and in our memories. In many cases it's just plain wrong. But Hoffman suggests that, for example, Quantum Mechanics is an interface to a world that is more complicated. Really? QM isn't complicated enough? Occam's Razor comes to mind. But then he suggests that the world is a product of our consciousness. I don't know how to reconcile those two ideas.

~~ Paul

Have you read Michael Behe's book? If you haven't, how do you know you are done with him?

From my perspective any proof that starts with Darwin's theory is flawed from the start - so that deals with DH. However, to be fair to DH, I think he probably realises that Darwin's theory is false - but then he doesn't have a credible argument!

David

However, I'd like you to clarify what you think about DH's argument.

I just didn't know what you meany by giving up on evolution before giving up on reality.

I think Hoffman is right to some extent, it seems almost common sense that evolution would not give us a carte blanche understanding of the world.

Though it does admittedly get tricky when we bring in Psi and Survival, though mysticism & NDEs also suggest that what we see in our mundane lives is not all there is to reality.

Have you read Michael Behe's book? If you haven't, how do you know you are done with him?

From my perspective any proof that starts with Darwin's theory is flawed from the start - so that deals with DH. However, to be fair to DH, I think he probably realises that Darwin's theory is false - but then he doesn't have a credible argument!

David

Because I've read more than my share of his writings since around 2000, along with dozens of rebuttals. I don't need to keep going just in case. As far as "Darwin Devolves" is concerned, I'll leave it to his fellow department members to comment on his work.

~~ Paul

Because I've read more than my share of his writings since around 2000, along with dozens of rebuttals. I don't need to keep going just in case. As far as "Darwin Devolves" is concerned, I'll leave it to his fellow department members to comment on his work.

Do you want to elaborate or supply a link?

David