4 ms·

Hoffman goes wrong partly because he is violating some fundamental scientific principles. According to modern science, the world is organized in levels of comp

Hoffman goes wrong partly because he is violating some fundamental scientific principles. According to modern science, the world is organized in levels of complexity, and for each higher level we get new phenomena that require new labels that don't apply to the lower ones. So for instance, an election consists of activity by human beings made of atoms, but to describe it in any meaningful way we have to use terms that are not from physics, like candidates and ballots. In a similar way, when we move from the sensory and response mechanisms of bacteria to first multiple cell organisms, and then ones with nerves and a central nervous system, and then human beings, at each level we get phenomena for which we need new, quite valid concepts, including accurate understanding of reality.

woodandsteel 10y ago
To make this a little clearer, I am saying the phenomena of having a perception of reality requires very complex mechanisms that bacteria simply don't have. Therefore to note that bacteria don't have a perception of reality is simply irrelevant, and doesn't in any way prove humans don't. It's like saying atoms don't reproduce, therefore animals don't either. By the way, if, as Hoffman claims, human beings don't have a perception of reality, then it would be meaningless to say that sometimes it is accurate and sometimes it is inaccurate, and certainly not something that could be studied scientifically. Does that seem really right?
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  An important point here is that bacterial sensing is tightly efficient, with the bacteria having only the absolute minimum needed to direct a simple response at the right time. Human perception, on the other hand, has a vast amount of excess. So for instance, when you see a tree, you see hundreds of leaves, each with a fairly complex shape, even though all of this is usually of no use. Our senses and brains do this because with humans, you never know when some new situation will arise where perception that is normally useless will be useful, and so it makes sense to have vast excess in our reality perception capacities. With bacteria, on the other hand, there are no novel situations, only a few stereotyped ones arising over and over again, so excess capacity would be useless and run counter to efficient survival.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    One more point. Hoffman claims he is making a scientific argument, and it is based on scientific concepts like bacteria, sensing, and evolution. But if humans can't know reality, then these concepts, developed by humans, are false, and so his whole argument collapses. That is, if his argument is true, then it is false. Actually, he is really making a philosophical argument, one based in the radical skepticism that has plagued many (but not all) Western philosophical schools since Descartes, but dressing it up in some quite poor science.

woodandsteel 10y ago

To make this a little clearer, I am saying the phenomena of having a perception of reality requires very complex mechanisms that bacteria simply don't have. Therefore to note that bacteria don't have a perception of reality is simply irrelevant, and doesn't in any way prove humans don't. It's like saying atoms don't reproduce, therefore animals don't either. By the way, if, as Hoffman claims, human beings don't have a perception of reality, then it would be meaningless to say that sometimes it is accurate and sometimes it is inaccurate, and certainly not something that could be studied scientifically. Does that seem really right?

woodandsteel 10y ago
An important point here is that bacterial sensing is tightly efficient, with the bacteria having only the absolute minimum needed to direct a simple response at the right time. Human perception, on the other hand, has a vast amount of excess. So for instance, when you see a tree, you see hundreds of leaves, each with a fairly complex shape, even though all of this is usually of no use. Our senses and brains do this because with humans, you never know when some new situation will arise where perception that is normally useless will be useful, and so it makes sense to have vast excess in our reality perception capacities. With bacteria, on the other hand, there are no novel situations, only a few stereotyped ones arising over and over again, so excess capacity would be useless and run counter to efficient survival.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  One more point. Hoffman claims he is making a scientific argument, and it is based on scientific concepts like bacteria, sensing, and evolution. But if humans can't know reality, then these concepts, developed by humans, are false, and so his whole argument collapses. That is, if his argument is true, then it is false. Actually, he is really making a philosophical argument, one based in the radical skepticism that has plagued many (but not all) Western philosophical schools since Descartes, but dressing it up in some quite poor science.