how strong is his "case" such that evolution is refuted. That is, does evolution lead to an absurd conclusion? — Gregory

If evolution happens (to humans also) because 'reality bites', then it follows that evolution must necessarily put pressure on humanity to have a realistic world view. Hence, "Darwin awards".

Obviously one does not 'have' reality in one's eye or in one's brain, one has visions and models and heuristics. But crossing the road without attending to what one can see and hear is perilous and foolish.

Hint: "... truly see reality" is a dog's breakfast of a phrase.

My eyesight is poor, but I can see truly enough to truly cross a real road without getting extinctified by the truly really real predatory traffic.

Note: how strong is his "case" such that evolution is refuted. That is, does evolution lead to an absurd conclusion? — Gregory

You may have taken his metaphorical language too literally. Hoffman makes no attempt to "refute" Reality or Evolution. Instead, he takes Darwinian Evolution for granted, as the mechanism that produced human observers, such as scientists & philosophers, and assumes that a real world is out there.

Then, he merely notes that our knowledge of that vast & complex world is inherently, and necessarily, incomplete. Also, our personal worldview is an interpretation, not an observation. Moreover, as the link below implies, we create our own Ideal version of Reality by selectively omitting most of the available information. His metaphor portrays your perspective on the world as something like an icon on your computer or phone screen : it serves as an abstract symbol of the underlying world, and "hides" irrelevant details that are not necessary for your livelihood.

Whether his conclusion is "absurd" or not, largely depends on the worldview that you bring to the book. For a Christian or Muslim, the creator of the human mind is God, not an accidental fluke of random evolution. So, if you don't accept the concept of godless evolution, Hoffman's "conclusion" won't make sense. Unless perhaps, God wanted to spare you from certain harsh realities that are beyond your comprehension. :smile:

PS___ The "Reality" he refers to is your personal partial worldview : subjective vs objective reality.


What is the case against reality summary?
The Case against reality can be summed up succinctly. We are participants in the creation of reality, we operate using a species specific user interface which selects information that's out there and condenses it into information that guides our action.
https://wisewords.blog/book-summaries/case-against-reality-book-summary/

What he doesn't understand: you can't have a first premise (reality exists) and then from this premise prove that the premise is wrong. That's not a valid argument. — Gregory

Yes you can; it's called refutation by contradiction.

The work of Donald Hoffman, and especially his book "the case against reality", has been discussed on this forum before, so I'll assume you know something about it. Basically he says evolution has not provided us with tools to truly see reality. — Gregory

I think the whole "what is reality?" question is insoluble because all the answers aren't really answers at all, they're definitions. We can define reality as anything we want, and philosophers do - over and over again - back and forth ad infinitum. Hoffman isn't wrong, he's just defined reality a bit differently than you and I do. You probably mean something different than I do. My personal favorite definition for everyday use runs along same tracks as @unenlightened's. It's what we can see (or taste, or feel, or smell, or hear, or maybe even think of) truly enough to truly live in the real world without getting extinctified by the truly really real predatory reality. It's, you know; apples, electrons, my wife's new hip, tree frogs, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate, Donald Trump Jr., and maybe Sherlock Holmes and love.

I hadn't heard of Hoffman so I looked him up on Wikipedia. I've been thinking about the evolution of mind and it's relation to reality recently, so this caught my eye:

Hoffman argues that natural selection is necessarily directed toward fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of reality that increase these fitness payoffs. This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. This led him to argue that evolution has developed sensory systems in organisms that have high fitness but don't offer a correct perception of reality. — Wikipedia

Right now I'm in the middle of Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror" which also focuses strongly on evolution and objective reality but comes to a completely opposite conclusion.

This is the basis of our conviction that whatever our cognitive faculty communicates to us corresponds to something real. The 'spectacles' of our modes of thought and perception, such as causality, substance, quality, time and place, are functions of a neurosensory organization that has evolved in the service of survival. When we look through these 'spectacles', therefore, we do not see, as transcendental idealists assume, some unpredictable distortion of reality which does not correspond in the least with things as they really are, and therefore cannot be regarded as an image of the outer world. What we experience is indeed a real image of reality - albeit an extremely simple one, only just sufficing for our own practical purposes; we have developed 'organs' only for those aspects of reality of which, in the interest of survival, it was imperative for our species to take account, so that selection pressure produced this particular cognitive apparatus...what little our sense organs and nervous system have permitted us to learn has proved its value over endless years of experience, and we may trust it. as far as it goes. For we must assume that reality also has many other aspects which are not vital for us.... to know, and for which we have no 'organ', because we have not been compelled in the course of our evolution to develop means of adapting to them. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

Lorenz's book is great. It's changed my perspective on a lot of issues that I've been contemplating for a long time. I plan to write more about it here later, but I'm just in the middle of my reading. For a shorter read, you can try his paper "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." Here's a link:

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

This led him to argue that evolution has developed sensory systems in organisms that have high fitness but don't offer a correct perception of reality. — Wikipedia

Organism and environment coevolve. So what increases the organism's fitness the most is arguably the ability to sense things as they are, not only the parts that happens to increase one's fitness relative to one's current environment. Hence perception of reality evolves towards being correct.

Right now I'm in the middle of Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror" which also focuses strongly on evolution and objective reality but comes to a completely opposite conclusion. — T Clark

The conclusions don't seem so much in opposition to me. It seems to me that the following two sentences are just different ways of expressing a similar understanding.

This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. — Hoffman

What we experience is indeed a real image of reality - albeit an extremely simple one, only just sufficing for our own practical purposes — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

The conclusions don't seem so much in opposition to me. It seems to me that the following two sentences are just different ways of expressing a similar understanding. — wonderer1

Yes. After I wrote my post and then read some of the other comments, I started to come to the same conclusion. But it was a set up job - I was framed. The title of the book is "The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes." The first line of the writeup in Amazon is "Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally." But it seems, as you note, that that's not what Hoffman was saying at all. Lorenz, on the other hand, explicitly stated that our understanding of the evolution of mind in humans and animals demonstrates that there is an objective reality.

Hoffman is not a philosopher and doesn't seem to like philosophers. What he doesn't understand: you can't have a first premise (reality exists) and then from this premise prove that the premise is wrong. That's not a valid argument. How can he even ever say again "evolution is true" if all the research into it is based on illusions. His is a self-defeating thesis. — Gregory

Hoffman often addresses this criticism directly in interviews I have seen. He says something like his theory can be measured by its practical utility and explanatory power and not by its correspondence to objective reality. You'd need to look it up.

I guess Hoffman is a kind of epistemological idealist. The real question is how useful is such a theory - it's a bit Kantian - we only see phenomena (the human dashboard or 'interface theory of perception' versus the noumena (the world we don't and can't see).

If accurate, how does this model assist us in dealing with the world? Any ideas? Or is it all just a kind of conceptual metaphysical toy for a certain kind of academic to play with? I guess ultimately Hoffman and his friend Kastrup (and fellow Essentia Foundation member) are saying similar things. Reality is an illusion and consciousness is fundamental.

My eyesight is poor, but I can see truly enough to truly cross a real road without getting extinctified by the truly really real predatory traffic. — unenlightened

Hoffman often likes to say the same kind of thing. The consequences of being run over by a bus on Main Street if we are not looking while we cross remains an ontological danger. It just isn't what we think it is. Evolution has programmed us with a 'dashboard' of sense experiences, a kind of a simulation of reality - this realm still holds risks and threats and rewards and experiences, it's just that we do not see them for what they really are.

Lorenz, on the other hand, explicitly stated that our understanding of the evolution of mind in humans and animals demonstrates that there is an objective reality. — T Clark

I may be wrong but as I understand Hoffman he also acknowledges an objective reality. But he contends that the reality we experience is not that objective reality. According to him, evolution programs us to survive by using practical shortcuts. The reality we perceive with our senses is one of those shortcuts, a vastly simplified version (perception as heuristics) with many gaps.

I think the problem being outlined is that you cannot take for granted those premises if your theory is demolishing access to anything which could confirm it. I see the issue..

The real question is how useful is such a theory - it's a bit Kantian - we only see phenomena (the human dashboard or 'interface theory of perception' versus the noumena (the world we don't and can't see). — Tom Storm

Lorenz explicitly connects his views with Kant. As I noted, the title of the paper I linked is "Kant's Doctrine Of The A Priori In The Light Of Contemporary Biology." In contradiction to my initial impressions, Hoffman's position doesn't seem that far off.

The consequences of being run over by a bus on Main Street if we are not looking while we cross remains an ontological danger. It just isn't what we think it is. Evolution has programmed us with a 'dashboard' of sense experiences, a kind of a simulation of reality - this realm still holds risks and threats and rewards and experiences, it's just that we do not see them for what they really are...

...I may be wrong but as I understand Hoffman he also acknowledges an objective reality. But he contends that the reality we experience is not that objective reality. According to him, evolution programs us to survive by using practical shortcuts. The reality we perceive with our senses is one of those shortcuts, a vastly simplified version (perception as heuristics) with many gaps. — Tom Storm

I think Lorenz would say it is an image of reality, not a simulation and I think, or at least I think Lorenz thought, that's an important difference. We see things the way they really are, but we don't see everything. I have a metaphysical prejudice against the idea of objective reality, so I have some sympathy for Hoffman's perspective.

I think the problem being outlined is that you cannot take for granted those premises if your theory is demolishing access to anything which could confirm it. I see the issue.. — AmadeusD

Yes, I think many have accused Hoffman of a self-refuting contradiction. As I say he addresses this, but I don't recall exactly what he says.

I think Lorenz would say it is an image of reality, not a simulation and I think, or at least I think Lorenz thought, that's an important difference — T Clark

I seem to recall that Hoffman uses the terms icon and image too. I may have been unwise to write 'simulation' - Hoffman is not a simulation theory guy as far as I recall.

The problem with all of this material is we seek undertaking in a few paragraphs, when deep study is probably required.

I have a metaphysical prejudice against the idea of objective reality, so I have some sympathy for Hoffman's perspective. — T Clark

I hear you.

I’m reading the Case Against Reality at the moment, although finding it a little difficult to maintain interest. I’ve also listened to some of his panel discussions and debates. (I have the mischievous notion that maybe he’s up to the ‘then there is no mountain’ stage of the Zen koan.)

I guess the main quibble I have is that his ‘fitness beats truth’ puts too much weight on biological determinism. I’ve long argued that not every human faculty is determined by biology alone, and that through language, reason and abstract thought we are able to discern things that other creatures cannot. Yes, bats can ‘see’ by sonar, and many other animals have uncanny perceptual abilities, but only h.sapiens can, as it were, weigh and measure the Universe. And indeed Hoffman is appealing to science to arrive at his judgement about the misleading aspects of cognition so presumably he has attained a perspective outside that. Anyway I’ll keep reading it, as it’s a book I’ve been meaning to finish for a good while.

I’m also very interested in the whole apparent convergence between cognitivism and philosophical idealism. Hoffman is on the board of Kastrup’s Essentia Foundation, which represents ‘analytical idealism’, and they have many interesting authors, books and articles, of which Hoffman is only one.

The problem with all of this material is we seek undertaking in a few paragraphs, when deep study is probably required. — Tom Storm

Yes. I'm in the middle of the Lorenz book and it's having a big effect on my views in this area. I definitely need to think more on the subject.

I guess the main quibble I have is that his ‘fitness beats truth’ puts too much weight on biological determinism. — Wayfarer

Maybe not fitness beats truth. Maybe fitness shows us the truth. Or at least that there is a truth to be shown.

Maybe not fitness beats truth. Maybe fitness shows us the truth. — T Clark

His 'theorem' - and there are objections to his use of that term in this context - is precisely that 'fitness beats truth'. It is that natural selection favors organisms that perceive the world in a way that enhances their survival and reproduction, rather than in a way that accurately depicts objective reality. This means that our perceptions and cognitive processes are shaped more by evolutionary pressures to survive and reproduce than by the need to see the world as it truly is. As a result, the way we perceive reality might not be a true reflection of it, but rather an adaptive construction that helps us navigate and thrive in our environment.

Here's rather a good interview with Hoffman, from which:

We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.

But what does 'not taking it literally' mean? That the train is not really' 'a train'?

He answers:

Q: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?

A: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.

But I'm only up to Chapter 2 of the book (out of 10) so I intend to keep reading.

I can't recall, does Hoffman hold a 'consciousnesses only' ontology. Looks like it from the above.

'fitness beats truth'. It is that natural selection favors organisms that perceive the world in a way that enhances their survival and reproduction, rather than in a way that accurately depicts objective reality. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting point. A pragmatist might argue that this amounts to a definition of truth anyway- that which is useful for certain purposes (Rorty).

I guess the meaningful quesion that emerges from this position is what the nature of truth might be. The notion of truth like our 'desktop reality' may just be a useful heuristic rather than anything linked to an objective reality or even, dare I say, it a transcendent realm. Thoughts?

Based on Buddhist studies readings, I see a convergence between Hoffman's views and the Buddhist principle of śūnyatā (emptiness). In Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the principle that all phenomena are empty of intrinsic existence or inherent nature (svabhava). This means that objects do not possess an independent, unchanging existence; rather, their existence and characteristics depend on various conditions and also on the perception of the observer.

Hoffman's idea that snakes and trains (and all objects) are not objective, observer-independent entities aligns with this Buddhist perspective. According to Hoffman, what we perceive as a snake or a train is a mental representation created by our sensory system to help us navigate our environment effectively. These representations are shaped by evolutionary pressures, but they do not necessarily reflect an truly observer-independent reality. Similarly, in Buddhism, objects are seen as lacking inherent existence and being dependent on our perceptions and conceptual impositions. This is especially characteristic of the 'mind-only' school of Buddhism (Yogācāra).

Both perspectives suggest that our experience of the world is in some fundamental sense constructed by the mind and that the nature of objects is not fixed but contingent on our cognitive and perceptual processes. This convergence highlights a shared view that our understanding of reality is deeply intertwined with our mental constructs and not an accurate portrayal of an independent external world.

You might think this leads to solipsism, which is the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. But both perspectives suggest that while our individual perceptions are subjective, there is a shared aspect of our experience due to the similarities in how minds operate. This is the basis for inter-subjectivity.

In Buddhism, the concept of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) explains how phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, including the perceiving mind. This interconnectedness means that while our perceptions are not independent realities, they are not entirely isolated either. The shared conditions and the way our minds work allow for a common experience of the world among different individuals. That's also why there are different worlds ('lokas') of which the human world and animal worlds are examples.

Similarly, Hoffman's idea that our perceptions are shaped by evolutionary pressures implies that there is a common framework within which human minds operate. This shared evolutionary heritage means that "like minds see like things." While our perceptions are not objective realities, the similarities in our sensory and cognitive systems result in a coherent and consistent experience of the world among different individuals.

Therefore, both views maintain that while our perceptions are subjective and constructed, there is a commonality in how we perceive the world due to shared mental and sensory structures. This shared framework allows for a coherent and intersubjective experience of reality, avoiding the pitfalls of solipsism.

His 'theorem' - and there are objections to his use of that term in this context - is precisely that 'fitness beats truth'. — Wayfarer

My comment wasn't clear. I wasn't questioning your characterization of Hoffman's position. I was offering an alternative I think is more consistent with what Konrad Lorenz wrote in the book I referenced. I think you might still judge that it puts too much weight on biological determinism. I'm not sure which one I like more or, I guess, dislike less. Either one makes me rethink some questions I thought I had answered to my satisfaction.

As a result, the way we perceive reality might not be a true reflection of it, but rather an adaptive construction that helps us navigate and thrive in our environment. — Wayfarer

This is an issue I raised in my first post in this thread. Nobody seems to agree on, or even have a good understanding of, what reality really is. If I don't think the idea of an objective reality is a useful one, what difference does it make whether what I perceive is a true reflection or just an adaptive construction.

Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features.

Lorentz would disagree with this, but I don't. Or at least I don't think I do.

A pragmatist might argue that this amounts to a definition of truth anyway- that which is useful for certain purposes (Rorty).

I guess the meaningful quesion that emerges from this position is what the nature of truth might be. The notion of truth like our 'desktop reality' may just be a useful heuristic rather than anything linked to an objective reality or even, dare I say, it a transcendent realm. — Tom Storm

A pragmatist might also argue that truth is irrelevant, maybe even meaningless. All that's needed is to know what to do next.(T Clark)

If I don't think the idea of an objective reality is a useful one, what difference does it make whether what I perceive is a true reflection or just an adaptive construction. — T Clark

I think at stake is Capital T Truth. There's not much consideration for that in philosophy today. 'Whatever works' becomes the measure.

Hoffman makes the same mistake as Kant, supposing that there is a really, truly world out there that is different to and inaccessible from the world we live in.

But the world is the world we live in.

You may have taken his metaphorical language too literally — Gnomon

His book is titled "The case against reality"...

Spot on. So do you have an account of the reductio Hoffman uses?

The first line of the writeup in Amazon is "Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally." — T Clark

I wonder if the Amazon writeup is decribing what Hoffman is arguing for accurately. But regardless, (and with the cutesy 'seriously but not literally' aside) I can easily see myself agreeing with Hoffman if he means to say something like, "We need to take our perceptions seriously, because they are the result of interactions within reality, but there is a lot of benefit to understanding that things are a lot more complex than our perceptions suggest, and we can benefit from being cognizant of that."

Lorenz, on the other hand, explicitly stated that our understanding of the evolution of mind in humans and animals demonstrates that there is an objective reality. — T Clark

I wouldn't say "demonstrates", but certainly biological findings are consistent with there being an objective reality, not to mention such biological findings having great explanatory power.

I think at stake is Capital T Truth. — Wayfarer

Of all the metaphysical entities, I think Truth is the most misleading. It takes up too much of philosophers's attention and distracts from issues I see as more central to our lives.

'Whatever works' becomes the measure. — Wayfarer

No, promoting human values is the measure. If "whatever works" can achieve that, I don't see any reason to object.

I wonder if the Amazon writeup is decribing what Hoffman is arguing for accurately. — wonderer1

I assumed that the writeup was provided by the author or publisher. If so, it is consistent with the provocative language in the title.

We need to take our perceptions seriously, because they are the result of interactions within reality, but there is a lot of benefit to understanding that things are a lot more complex than our perceptions suggest, and we can benefit from being cognizant of that. — wonderer1

I'm ok with that. One of the reasons I like the Lorenz book I've been referencing is that he gives concrete examples of the ways that reality is "a lot more complex than our perceptions suggest." Those examples are supported by the results of scientific observations and experiments. He then goes on to examine the philosophical implications of those results.

Lorenz, on the other hand, explicitly stated that our understanding of the evolution of mind in humans and animals demonstrates that there is an objective reality.
— T Clark

I wouldn't say "demonstrates", — wonderer1

I might agree with you. I'm still thinking about it. But that is what Lorenz wrote and I found it substantive enough that I didn't dismiss it out of hand.

Never rated Hoffman. I remember thinking when I read one of the original "fitness beats truth" papers that the model he made was too rudimentary to really support his conclusions. Overextends albeit things felt in reasonable territory still.

However, saw Phillip Goff's and Keith Frankish's Mindchat episode with him and was just basically spewing unintelligible garbage.

Of all the metaphysical entities, I think Truth is the most misleading — T Clark

In Chapter 3, Hoffman discusses the background to his ideas, including his apprenticeship under Francis Crick among others. He also introduces the Fitness Beats Truth idea and the kinds of experiments that he says proves its validity. (For the first time, I'm actually understanding what he means when he talks about mathematical models of the theory.)

A question I have is, what is 'truth' as distinct from 'perceived reality'? I think he means 'what exists independently of perception' or what really is so. Thus, the 'truth' about reality—how things really are in themselves—is fundamentally different from the constructed, adaptive realities we perceive.

In this framework, 'objective truth' represents the underlying reality that exists independently of observers, akin to Kant's noumenal realm or things in themselves. Our perceptual reality, on the other hand, is the subjective experience generated by our sensory systems, tailored by evolutionary pressures to help us navigate our environment effectively rather than to accurately reflect this objective truth.

I'll keep going with the book.

Banno is about to have a field day.