5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The optic nerve blocks part of you vision, which you are not aware of. https://visionaryeyecare.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/eye-test-find-your-blind-spot-in-each-eye/ https://visionaryeyecare.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/eye-test-f... Squid for example use a different arrangement without that hole. So, while people are not getting accurate information, the gap is arbitrary and not selected for by evolution.
powera 10y ago
"his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality" If both he and the press are hyperbolic about the absurdity of his claims, I feel justified in saying that the claims he's making in these articles are on-their-face absurd.
- mbfg 10y ago
  Still the color argument is pretty strong. What if the energy emitted/reflected by the universe was totally in the non visible light spectrum. No one would see anything. To a blind person this is a normality, and so perhaps a person who is blind would have a better feel for what this means, but to the rest of us, color is so ingrained as "color is reality" it's hard to imagine. Now also realize that we touch absolutely nothing. And yet we perceive solid things, as if they were solid. But again they are not. We just feel electro-magnetic force. Following with QC, there isn't really anything such as particles.. the world is just fields of various types. Only when we go and look at the fields do we see particles, but they are just excitations in the fields. I sometimes walk around and think what if i shut off all the perceptions that i know are only in my body/head, and thought about what was left. There really wouldn't be anything at all what we think there is. I'm not concluding that this guy is right or wrong, but I think we have an almost impossibility in comprehending that this could actually be the case. Given that we are 90% fooled, why couldn't we be 100% fooled?
  - warrenpj 10y ago
    What would it be like to touch "something", rather than mere electro-magnetic forces? Isn't this just a game of words? When we touch electro-magnetic forces, we are in fact touching solid things.
    - mbfg 10y ago
      Imagine you had a force field generation machine, that could produce fields in any size, shape, density, etc. If you made a force field in a tubular shape about 8 inches long, with a smooth rubber tactile force, that was squishable, but still somewhat firm, .. would it be a banana? If you moved that force field close to your mouth would it provide sustenance (whatever that means)? Would you be touching a real thing?
Turing_Machine 10y ago
For those who have actually looked at Hoffman's work (rather than just reading a popularized account): What happens when the fitness function is not static (as it often is in the real world)? My gut instinct is that an organism that perceives actual reality (or some close analog thereof) will be more adaptable to a changing environment than one that is optimized for static conditions. Perhaps Hoffman has taken this into account (I don't know -- that's why I'm asking).
taneq 10y ago
This seems to be begging the question of whether it's possible to have a well-tuned fitness function that doesn't map in some significant way to the underlying reality. Sure, maybe there's no point in us knowing the difference between hot and cold, as long as we avoid contact with both of them. Only wait, there is a point - if we know the difference, we can take different actions in response to each in order to respond in a more survivable manner to both. And this is indeed what we see - as well as abstracted signals (like 'pain') we have signals which measure our environment more directly (like 'hot' and 'cold'). These signals raise our fitness because they let us know not only that we should take action, but in what direction that action should be taken.

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.
- Retric 10y ago
  The optic nerve blocks part of you vision, which you are not aware of. https://visionaryeyecare.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/eye-test-find-your-blind-spot-in-each-eye/ https://visionaryeyecare.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/eye-test-f... Squid for example use a different arrangement without that hole. So, while people are not getting accurate information, the gap is arbitrary and not selected for by evolution.

powera 10y ago

"his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality" If both he and the press are hyperbolic about the absurdity of his claims, I feel justified in saying that the claims he's making in these articles are on-their-face absurd.

mbfg 10y ago
Still the color argument is pretty strong. What if the energy emitted/reflected by the universe was totally in the non visible light spectrum. No one would see anything. To a blind person this is a normality, and so perhaps a person who is blind would have a better feel for what this means, but to the rest of us, color is so ingrained as "color is reality" it's hard to imagine. Now also realize that we touch absolutely nothing. And yet we perceive solid things, as if they were solid. But again they are not. We just feel electro-magnetic force. Following with QC, there isn't really anything such as particles.. the world is just fields of various types. Only when we go and look at the fields do we see particles, but they are just excitations in the fields. I sometimes walk around and think what if i shut off all the perceptions that i know are only in my body/head, and thought about what was left. There really wouldn't be anything at all what we think there is. I'm not concluding that this guy is right or wrong, but I think we have an almost impossibility in comprehending that this could actually be the case. Given that we are 90% fooled, why couldn't we be 100% fooled?
- warrenpj 10y ago
  What would it be like to touch "something", rather than mere electro-magnetic forces? Isn't this just a game of words? When we touch electro-magnetic forces, we are in fact touching solid things.
  - mbfg 10y ago
    Imagine you had a force field generation machine, that could produce fields in any size, shape, density, etc. If you made a force field in a tubular shape about 8 inches long, with a smooth rubber tactile force, that was squishable, but still somewhat firm, .. would it be a banana? If you moved that force field close to your mouth would it provide sustenance (whatever that means)? Would you be touching a real thing?

Turing_Machine 10y ago

For those who have actually looked at Hoffman's work (rather than just reading a popularized account): What happens when the fitness function is not static (as it often is in the real world)? My gut instinct is that an organism that perceives actual reality (or some close analog thereof) will be more adaptable to a changing environment than one that is optimized for static conditions. Perhaps Hoffman has taken this into account (I don't know -- that's why I'm asking).

taneq 10y ago

This seems to be begging the question of whether it's possible to have a well-tuned fitness function that doesn't map in some significant way to the underlying reality. Sure, maybe there's no point in us knowing the difference between hot and cold, as long as we avoid contact with both of them. Only wait, there is a point - if we know the difference, we can take different actions in response to each in order to respond in a more survivable manner to both. And this is indeed what we see - as well as abstracted signals (like 'pain') we have signals which measure our environment more directly (like 'hot' and 'cold'). These signals raise our fitness because they let us know not only that we should take action, but in what direction that action should be taken.