|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 19, 2021 9:37:45 GMT
What does that even mean? What is he saying a bear actually is? For most of the book, he suggests we don't know. Our senses tell us that a bear is some combination of bone, blood, sinew and fur, but since he argues our senses do not accurately depict reality, we can't know that's what a bear really is. In the final chapter, he goes quite a bit further and suggests reality is generated by multiple consciousnesses interacting with one another. A bear is a consciousness of its own, albeit likely of a different and perhaps more limited sort than human consciousness. So a bear as it appears is a combination of what we as a species have evolved to perceive it as and what the bear exhibits itself as. To give an example of what I think Hoffman is getting at, bears are somehow able to harm us and this interaction has led to our consciousness perceiving them as having big claws and teeth, and strong muscles. But Hoffman argues they do not have these attributes beyond our perceiving of them. Sounds like nonsense to me. This is when I tune out, because it sounds like he is just pulling stuff out of his ass. His reasoning sounds very vague based on your OP. I think we can all agree that we don't have access to TRUTH, but he seems to be making a huge leap and I am not sure what his justification is.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 19, 2021 9:38:58 GMT
I am not even going to pretend I know what this guy is talking about. Is this something like "what is" vs. our perception of "what is"? When stuff gets this deep it more or less starts to lose me. It seems to me that evolution would favor whatever keeps a species surviving and that truth in the way he is describing it doesn't play a huge part in that. Maybe someone can dumb it down for me. I guess I wasn't giving myself enough credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 19, 2021 18:00:50 GMT
Do you mean like some people see a bear as a spirit animal and some people don't or something like that and that the objective is that a bear is a big harry animal with sharp teeth and claws that can be dangerous? Like a symbol vs. literal? I thought the guy was talking more crazy than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 19, 2021 18:30:34 GMT
Or rather our perception of things vs. the actual state of things. I don't know why the guy has to make this so over-complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 19, 2021 20:05:16 GMT
Try to respond in more depth tomorrow, but from your latest post it seems like Hoffman is proposing some kind of solipsism No, he believes there are multiple minds that interact to shape reality. I think the more I read this and your last reply the more confused I am. I'm not sure how he's reconciling the idea that evolution tunes us for survival not truth, which would imply that we can't trust our senses (to some degree) to tell us the truth; but then argue that phenomenal reality is all there is to reality, that there is no noumenal world beyond that. The former argument seems to imply a noumenal because there has to be some reality that our senses are either missing or distorting. I'm also not sure how he squares this argument with the problem of other minds, because we only get to other minds via inference from our correlations of brain states and actions with mind states, including our own; we don't get there from observing other minds directly, or even other brains directly. I guess in general I'm not sure how he's reconciling any inferential beliefs with the idea that phenomenal reality is reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2021 21:16:04 GMT
Sinc no-one has taken up my idea of extreme anthopomorphism, I will expand it a little.
To me this is the antithesis of evolution, and could ONLY apply to most recent cognizent epressions of evolution it some higher animals and apes and man.
On effect then he is totally ignoring the 99.9% of the evolution of all species from first organisms. Is he seriously promoting a view that lower organisms have an option for cognition and perception ? In essence, are the rules of evolution universal from top to bottom or not?
I could be missing something here however mixing psychology and philosophy with the 'science' of evolution is problematic.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 19, 2021 21:30:35 GMT
No, he believes there are multiple minds that interact to shape reality. I think the more I read this and your last reply the more confused I am. I'm not sure how he's reconciling the idea that evolution tunes us for survival not truth, which would imply that we can't trust our senses (to some degree) to tell us the truth; but then argue that phenomenal reality is all there is to reality, that there is no noumenal world beyond that. The former argument seems to imply a noumenal because there has to be some reality that our senses are either missing or distorting. Yeah, I agree. As I say, he lost me in the last chapter. Not sure I agree with you here though. I don't think that's really how we get to accepting other minds exist. I think it's simply that we see others who we believe are similar to us and assume they have minds too. I don't think that bringing brain states into it adds any additional clarity to the matter. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 19, 2021 21:32:45 GMT
Sinc no-one has taken up my idea of extreme anthopomorphism, I will expand it a little. To me this is the antithesis of evolution, and could ONLY apply to most recent cognizent epressions of evolution it some higher animals and apes and man. On effect then he is totally ignoring the 99.9% of the evolution of all species from first organisms. Is he seriously promoting a view that lower organisms have an option for cognition and perception ? In essence, are the rules of evolution universal from top to bottom or not? I could be missing something here however mixing psychology and philosophy with the 'science' of evolution is problematic. I should probably stress that Hoffman doesn't use the terms I used so don't judge him too harshly on anything I've said. I think though he does think there is something that it's like to be the lower order animals but it's probably very different and more limited than human consciousness. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 19, 2021 21:34:06 GMT
Or rather our perception of things vs. the actual state of things. I don't know why the guy has to make this so over-complicated. I agree. I studied semiotics a bit in anthropology and they over complicate it. Probably worth pointing out Hoffman doesn't use semiotic terminology even if he is getting at much the same idea. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2021 21:38:58 GMT
Sinc no-one has taken up my idea of extreme anthopomorphism, I will expand it a little. To me this is the antithesis of evolution, and could ONLY apply to most recent cognizent epressions of evolution it some higher animals and apes and man. On effect then he is totally ignoring the 99.9% of the evolution of all species from first organisms. Is he seriously promoting a view that lower organisms have an option for cognition and perception ? In essence, are the rules of evolution universal from top to bottom or not? I could be missing something here however mixing psychology and philosophy with the 'science' of evolution is problematic. I should probably stress that Hoffman doesn't use the terms I used so don't judge him too harshly on anything I've said. I think though he does think there is something that it's like to be the lower order animals but it's probably very different and more limited than human consciousness. OK that aside ( and I would have to read the book, however it doesn't really seem appealing ) it brings up the universality of the rules of evolution and at what stage in this 'the human element' which could subvert it, enter the equation. As I said I find it problematic to disassociate the science from the pseudoscience. ( I dont men that dismissively as the 'softer' sciences have plenty to give on other ways. I myself studied anthropology psychology and philosphy amongst other such subjects.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 19, 2021 21:57:06 GMT
OK that aside ( and I would have to read the book, however it doesn't really seem appealing ) it brings up the universality of the rules of evolution and at what stage in this 'the human element' which could subvert it, enter the equation. Hoffman has very odd ideas about the origins of humanity. For instance, he suggests thinking of the big bang occurring and starting a chain reaction that eventually led to humans is wrongheaded. Rather, humans perceived an expansion to the universe and projected a big bang into the past - the big bang didn't give rise to consciousness, consciousness gave rise to the big bang! It's hard to see how Darwinian evolution would fit in such a backwards view of things. Hoffman does admit as much and basically says "further thought is needed on this". |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2021 23:11:07 GMT
OK that aside ( and I would have to read the book, however it doesn't really seem appealing ) it brings up the universality of the rules of evolution and at what stage in this 'the human element' which could subvert it, enter the equation. As I said I find it problematic to disassociate the science from the pseudoscience. ( I dont men that dismissively as the 'softer' sciences have plenty to give on other ways. I myself studied anthropology psychology and philosphy amongst other such subjects. The human innovation to evolution is recognizing the signal from the noise. In regards to religion, the noise is confused with the signal. In the Hebrew Bible, there is the prohibition of eating pork. The rationale as explained in the Bible is God declares these animals unclean. In reality, this is noise because there is no God declaring pork as such. The actual signal is undercooked pork causes trichinosis disease in humans. The ancients, of course, had no way of knowing this. Via trial and error, they discovered the dangers of pork and assumed this signal came from God. This false signal worked, so maybe learning cleanliness signals here, even if enculturated, facilitates survival, but religion-based signals have become unnecessary since we know how to eat and be clean rationally knowing why we do so. Yes, Interesing points which we actually haven't discussed much here however IMHO a little off topic with the whole evolutionary argument. Mind you I am particularly interested in the point at which human intervention in their own evolution subverted the sciecne becasue we are all now 'scientificy smarty pantses' and have NOT only managed to crivumvented evolution with science but change our whole ecosystem and the environment of the whole world. Interesting to ponder whether this is an aberration or just a universal feature of on-going evolution. Any thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 20, 2021 2:32:53 GMT
OK that aside ( and I would have to read the book, however it doesn't really seem appealing ) it brings up the universality of the rules of evolution and at what stage in this 'the human element' which could subvert it, enter the equation. Hoffman has very odd ideas about the origins of humanity. For instance, he suggests thinking of the big bang occurring and starting a chain reaction that eventually led to humans is wrongheaded. Rather, humans perceived an expansion to the universe and projected a big bang into the past - the big bang didn't give rise to consciousness, consciousness gave rise to the big bang! It's hard to see how Darwinian evolution would fit in such a backwards view of things. Hoffman does admit as much and basically says "further thought is needed on this". Oh, he is one of those types.  What is his justification for this? What does he think the universe is if there were no humans existing to look for answers? Isn't this kind of speculation sort of muddying the water?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 20, 2021 8:48:50 GMT
What is his justification for this? Basically it follows from his conclusions. If there is no underlying reality beyond the user interfaces of conscious creatures then it makes no sense to say a big bang happened before there were conscious creatures to perceive it. Since he thinks the universe is consciousness, it couldn't exist without conscious creatures (not necessarily humans - intelligent aliens or higher order animals would presumably be sufficient). Yes, but he argues science and philosophy should never be complacent and should continually throw out new ideas for testing. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 20, 2021 9:00:47 GMT
What is his justification for this? Basically it follows from his conclusions. If there is no underlying reality beyond the user interfaces of conscious creatures then it makes no sense to say a big bang happened before there were conscious creatures to perceive it. Since he thinks the universe is consciousness, it couldn't exist without conscious creatures (not necessarily humans - intelligent aliens or higher order animals would presumably be sufficient). Yes, but he argues science and philosophy should never be complacent and should continually throw out new ideas for testing. I read that as "he has no justification."
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jan 20, 2021 15:30:36 GMT
OK that aside ( and I would have to read the book, however it doesn't really seem appealing ) it brings up the universality of the rules of evolution and at what stage in this 'the human element' which could subvert it, enter the equation. Hoffman has very odd ideas about the origins of humanity. For instance, he suggests thinking of the big bang occurring and starting a chain reaction that eventually led to humans is wrongheaded. Rather, humans perceived an expansion to the universe and projected a big bang into the past - the big bang didn't give rise to consciousness, consciousness gave rise to the big bang! It's hard to see how Darwinian evolution would fit in such a backwards view of things. Hoffman does admit as much and basically says "further thought is needed on this". There is a concept in eastern philosophy that says the present causes the past, but I don't think it's meant to be completely literal. Also the idea of superposition, that says the universe doesn't render things into a specific state until they are perceived, seems to fit in here. This means that consciousness does appear to be an integral part of how the world works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2021 20:00:39 GMT
I think the more I read this and your last reply the more confused I am. I'm not sure how he's reconciling the idea that evolution tunes us for survival not truth, which would imply that we can't trust our senses (to some degree) to tell us the truth; but then argue that phenomenal reality is all there is to reality, that there is no noumenal world beyond that. The former argument seems to imply a noumenal because there has to be some reality that our senses are either missing or distorting. Yeah, I agree. As I say, he lost me in the last chapter. Not sure I agree with you here though. I don't think that's really how we get to accepting other minds exist. I think it's simply that we see others who we believe are similar to us and assume they have minds too. I don't think that bringing brain states into it adds any additional clarity to the matter. That's why I said "correlations of brain states AND ACTIONS with mind states (by "actions" I meant what you're describing here). I agree that's how we initially infer minds, but I also think the consistent correlation of brain states with mind states via neuroscience is strong additional evidence for that inference.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 21, 2021 17:30:43 GMT
So is time an illusion as well? Space-time is for Hoffman anyway. Presumably though he believes in some sort of priority of mental events though. Or maybe not, he doesn't really get into it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 21, 2021 21:20:35 GMT
Space-time is for Hoffman anyway. Presumably though he believes in some sort of priority of mental events though. Or maybe not, he doesn't really get into it. I sort of get it. The mental is part of the quantum flux which has no past or future since there is a no creation or ending point to it. Everything is Is and is Now. See, this is where I get off the train. Is he saying that if all thinking creatures go extinct that the universe will no longer exist? Maybe the universe just behaves a different way when there are thinking creatures to observe it. I have no reason to believe that the universe will cease to exits if all conscious life in the universe were to go extinct. Where did consciousness come from if abiogenesis and evolution didn't produce it?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 21, 2021 21:35:23 GMT
See, this is where I get off the train. Is he saying that if all thinking creatures go extinct that the universe will no longer exist? Maybe the universe just behaves a different way when there are thinking creatures to observe it. I have no reason to believe that the universe will cease to exits if all conscious life in the universe were to go extinct. Where did consciousness come from if abiogenesis and evolution didn't produce it? Creatures...and all matter...are the repository of the “thinking” that happens at the superposition, quantum state. This might be territory where I am not smart enough to comprehend what is being discussed. I am unable to believe things I can't understand on some level. Is it saying that everything was all there at the beginning and consciousness was just waiting around to come into play?
|
|
