5 ms·

I think this article stretches some terms and statements to say things that sound reasonable, but aren't quite right. I noticed the pattern a few times: 1) Yes

by vkalan 10y ago

I think this article stretches some terms and statements to say things that sound reasonable, but aren't quite right. I noticed the pattern a few times: 1) Yes, QM talks about observations making a difference. But to say 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"? There's a lot of steps in between where the work isn't shown. 2) Yes, scientists who ignore QM are using "300 year old physics". But somehow mechanical engineers (and even electrical engineers) still manage to create things that work without ever thinking about physics beyond 1900. There's definitely an argument that could be made that brains need QM to be understood - but again, it's not immediately obvious that this should be the case. 3)Yes, an organism that sees only "fitness" can outcompete one that sees "reality". But that doesn't mean that there's no relationship between "fitness" and "reality". I think the main argument of this article is mostly a philosophical point about consciousness and perception, and to be fair, that discussion is really important! But I think there's a huge step missing between the science of QM and the brain that's being discussed, and the conclusions that are being drawn.

wyattpeak 10y ago
It reads like a classic case of a researcher going way outside his domain of expertise. He appears by all accounts to be a well respected cognitive scientist, and I'm more than willing to accept (tentatively) his thesis that evolution doesn't optimise for an accurate understanding of reality, but the stuff about QM demonstrates an understanding on par with someone who's flipped through a high school textbook.
yourapostasy 10y ago
To point 3, see Peter Watts novel Blindsight [1]. In it, he makes the case that consciousness is not necessarily aligned with the fitness function; that's curiously similar to the argument Hoffman makes that "correctly perceiving reality" is not necessarily always an improvement upon the fitness function. However, from my admittedly layman's poor understanding of QM, his "conscious agents all the way down" doesn't mesh with our current understanding of QM. That is, I've not read anywhere that current QM theory and practice postulates nothing exists until a conscious observer pays attention to it. Can someone with a physics background please chime in on what Hoffman is referring to? [1] http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
Retra 10y ago
Newtonian physics is an assumption of QM. (It's traditionally called the "classical limit.") QM would be nearly useless if 300 year old physics weren't correct. It's just that 300 year old physics is not a complete picture of reality, which may have been something its developer's improperly assumed.

by vkalan 10y ago

wyattpeak 10y ago

It reads like a classic case of a researcher going way outside his domain of expertise. He appears by all accounts to be a well respected cognitive scientist, and I'm more than willing to accept (tentatively) his thesis that evolution doesn't optimise for an accurate understanding of reality, but the stuff about QM demonstrates an understanding on par with someone who's flipped through a high school textbook.

yourapostasy 10y ago

To point 3, see Peter Watts novel Blindsight [1]. In it, he makes the case that consciousness is not necessarily aligned with the fitness function; that's curiously similar to the argument Hoffman makes that "correctly perceiving reality" is not necessarily always an improvement upon the fitness function. However, from my admittedly layman's poor understanding of QM, his "conscious agents all the way down" doesn't mesh with our current understanding of QM. That is, I've not read anywhere that current QM theory and practice postulates nothing exists until a conscious observer pays attention to it. Can someone with a physics background please chime in on what Hoffman is referring to? [1] http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

Retra 10y ago

Newtonian physics is an assumption of QM. (It's traditionally called the "classical limit.") QM would be nearly useless if 300 year old physics weren't correct. It's just that 300 year old physics is not a complete picture of reality, which may have been something its developer's improperly assumed.