6 ms·

This is complete and total bullshit. I'd love to see any demonstration of a model of an intelligent organism with no sense of reality at all but that still fun

by powera 10y ago

This is complete and total bullshit. I'd love to see any demonstration of a model of an intelligent organism with no sense of reality at all but that still functions properly. Barring any evidence, the whole article is simply "if you assume the impossible, then magical unicorn rainbows". (or else it's just extrapolating claims about the intelligence of amoebas way too literally) And remember: They laughed at Bozo the Clown too.

fnovd 10y ago
It's not saying that intelligent organisms have no sense of reality, rather that they only see as much of reality as is advantageous to their reproduction and continued existence.
- Retric 10y ago
  Evolution does not fine tune things that closely. Sure, we can't tell which specific frequency's something reflects. That's a well known limitation. It's also kind of boring. If we had gaps in our hearing range that may support the theory, but a more accurate assessment is detecting the world has costs. Organisms only collect as much sensory information as they need to survive. But, the same is true of running speed. To be predictive you would have to find a new and active distortion in sensing based on some prediction.
- powera 10y ago
  Which is a vacuous claim. I don't perceive FM radio waves, or the weather on Jupiter. Does that mean that I don't have a sense of reality?
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Actually yes, these things and many beyond that are knowable, yet you don't know them. Therefore you only have a sense for a subset of reality, just as you can't see the whole spectrum of light or hear every sound. But this extreme example is not really relevant for this discussion, at least that's my humble opinion.
  - empath75 10y ago
    You also can't detect the Higgs field, or neutrinos or dark matter and energy, or gravity waves, or really vast amounts of forces and particles that are nonetheless very real. Most of 'reality' is totally invisible to us because it doesn't help us survive.
tristanj 10y ago
> I'd love to see any demonstration of a model of an intelligent organism with no sense of reality at all but that still functions properly That is a strawman argument. Hoffman's actual theory is that "under evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness." This is taken from the more in-depth in the Quanta interview [0] linked in the submitted article. [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-arg...
- Retric 10y ago
  Which lacks predictive power. Humans have a blind spot because they can operate just fine while having a blind spot. However other organisms don't have a blind spot thus blind spots are not selected for. The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value. But, that's harder than simply incorrectly interpreting information.
  - tristanj 10y ago
    > Humans have a blind spot because they can operate just fine while having a blind spot. However other organisms don't have a blind spot thus blind spots are not selected for. I'm not quite clear on your point of view, can you clarify? The phrases "blind spots" and "other organisms" are very vague. I'll try to rephrase it into something manageable. This is what I think you are saying: Humans [cannot see behind their heads] because they can operate just fine while [not seeing behind their heads]. However, [other species] [can see behind their heads], thus [seeing behind one's head] is not selected for. The "other organisms" are other species, as logically, the "other organisms" don't have "a blind spot" and therefore could not be human, which do have "a blind spot". Do let know if this is correct, and I'll get back to you. > The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value I'm unclear where this disagrees. That's exactly the point of Hoffman's theory: an (sometimes) incorrect view of the world may have more value than the actual (correct) view of the world.
    - 10y ago
gcmartinelli 10y ago
I don't think they are talking about having NO sense of reality. They are saying that having filters that 'simplify', or make these signals more 'user friendly' bring evolutionary benefits in comparison to experiencing reality as is. In other words, we experience an altered reality sculpted by our cognitive engine. This reminds me of Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception", by the way.
jcromartie 10y ago
If bananas reflected yellow light, but we saw them as blue instead by some purely neuropsychological phenomenon, would this cause any significant problems?
- empath75 10y ago
  That's actually a question of qualia and as long as you see the same frequency or collection of frequencies as the same color consistently, you can swap them around arbitrarily, but if you can't tell the difference between, for example, red and green, that is a real disadvantage.
  - mbfg 10y ago
    Is that true? Yellow/Orange/Red are perceived as 'danger' colors. Is that just a made up association in our brains, or do we see yellow/orange/red more readily? If you flashed a bright orange billboard in front of a chimpanzee, would you get a different reaction than if you flashed one that was dark blue?
    - dismantlethesun 10y ago
      Orange and dark blue are names we give to perceived frequencies of light. Dark blue isn't really any 'darker' in terms of energy content spectrum than orange is, its our brains that have evolved to make this association that X spectrum is dark and Y spectrum is bright.
jessaustin 10y ago
...total bullshit. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this reaction seems "tuned" rather than "reality-based". That is, one reaction to a novel theory is to consider an exaggerated caricature of the theory, because that's easier to dismiss than the theory itself. Dismissing novel theories leaves more time for foraging. b^) Having observed the behavior of prey animals, one might find oneself more open to this theory. Prey animals like deer or turkey largely ignore other, larger prey animals like elk or moose. The presence of a single small dog, however, will set them totally on edge. It's difficult to say that a moose is in any "real" sense less dangerous than a small dog. However, it is sensible that evolutionary tuning would focus more on dog-like animals.

by powera 10y ago

fnovd 10y ago

It's not saying that intelligent organisms have no sense of reality, rather that they only see as much of reality as is advantageous to their reproduction and continued existence.

Retric 10y ago
Evolution does not fine tune things that closely. Sure, we can't tell which specific frequency's something reflects. That's a well known limitation. It's also kind of boring. If we had gaps in our hearing range that may support the theory, but a more accurate assessment is detecting the world has costs. Organisms only collect as much sensory information as they need to survive. But, the same is true of running speed. To be predictive you would have to find a new and active distortion in sensing based on some prediction.
powera 10y ago
Which is a vacuous claim. I don't perceive FM radio waves, or the weather on Jupiter. Does that mean that I don't have a sense of reality?
- DominikR 10y ago
  Actually yes, these things and many beyond that are knowable, yet you don't know them. Therefore you only have a sense for a subset of reality, just as you can't see the whole spectrum of light or hear every sound. But this extreme example is not really relevant for this discussion, at least that's my humble opinion.
- empath75 10y ago
  You also can't detect the Higgs field, or neutrinos or dark matter and energy, or gravity waves, or really vast amounts of forces and particles that are nonetheless very real. Most of 'reality' is totally invisible to us because it doesn't help us survive.

tristanj 10y ago

> I'd love to see any demonstration of a model of an intelligent organism with no sense of reality at all but that still functions properly That is a strawman argument. Hoffman's actual theory is that "under evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness." This is taken from the more in-depth in the Quanta interview [0] linked in the submitted article. [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-arg...

Retric 10y ago
Which lacks predictive power. Humans have a blind spot because they can operate just fine while having a blind spot. However other organisms don't have a blind spot thus blind spots are not selected for. The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value. But, that's harder than simply incorrectly interpreting information.
- tristanj 10y ago
  > Humans have a blind spot because they can operate just fine while having a blind spot. However other organisms don't have a blind spot thus blind spots are not selected for. I'm not quite clear on your point of view, can you clarify? The phrases "blind spots" and "other organisms" are very vague. I'll try to rephrase it into something manageable. This is what I think you are saying: Humans [cannot see behind their heads] because they can operate just fine while [not seeing behind their heads]. However, [other species] [can see behind their heads], thus [seeing behind one's head] is not selected for. The "other organisms" are other species, as logically, the "other organisms" don't have "a blind spot" and therefore could not be human, which do have "a blind spot". Do let know if this is correct, and I'll get back to you. > The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value I'm unclear where this disagrees. That's exactly the point of Hoffman's theory: an (sometimes) incorrect view of the world may have more value than the actual (correct) view of the world.
  - 10y ago

gcmartinelli 10y ago

I don't think they are talking about having NO sense of reality. They are saying that having filters that 'simplify', or make these signals more 'user friendly' bring evolutionary benefits in comparison to experiencing reality as is. In other words, we experience an altered reality sculpted by our cognitive engine. This reminds me of Aldous Huxley's "The Doors of Perception", by the way.

jcromartie 10y ago

If bananas reflected yellow light, but we saw them as blue instead by some purely neuropsychological phenomenon, would this cause any significant problems?

empath75 10y ago
That's actually a question of qualia and as long as you see the same frequency or collection of frequencies as the same color consistently, you can swap them around arbitrarily, but if you can't tell the difference between, for example, red and green, that is a real disadvantage.
- mbfg 10y ago
  Is that true? Yellow/Orange/Red are perceived as 'danger' colors. Is that just a made up association in our brains, or do we see yellow/orange/red more readily? If you flashed a bright orange billboard in front of a chimpanzee, would you get a different reaction than if you flashed one that was dark blue?
  - dismantlethesun 10y ago
    Orange and dark blue are names we give to perceived frequencies of light. Dark blue isn't really any 'darker' in terms of energy content spectrum than orange is, its our brains that have evolved to make this association that X spectrum is dark and Y spectrum is bright.

jessaustin 10y ago

...total bullshit. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this reaction seems "tuned" rather than "reality-based". That is, one reaction to a novel theory is to consider an exaggerated caricature of the theory, because that's easier to dismiss than the theory itself. Dismissing novel theories leaves more time for foraging. b^) Having observed the behavior of prey animals, one might find oneself more open to this theory. Prey animals like deer or turkey largely ignore other, larger prey animals like elk or moose. The presence of a single small dog, however, will set them totally on edge. It's difficult to say that a moose is in any "real" sense less dangerous than a small dog. However, it is sensible that evolutionary tuning would focus more on dog-like animals.