Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Prof Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-Gravity - the prelude.

An unauthorized critical review.

If Donald Hoffman had categorized his book “The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes” as new age literature, metaphysical intellectual entertainment, I’d have no complaints.  It’s his insistence on passing it off as a serious scientific effort that begs a frank detailed response, (even if I’m only a thoughtful spectator and no academic myself.) 

Science is a set of rules and an attitude for observing and striving to understand our physical world, it’s about atoms and molecules, all they create, including biology and our planet’s biosphere, along with the rules all of it follows.  Science strives for objectivity, it demands facts and rejects ego driven conclusions.


All of us view the world through our own unique perspective, which of course is the product of genes, upbringing, environment, cumulative learning and experiences that produce inevitable biases in how we perceive the same bits of information.  Admittedly, there’s an ocean of difference between the professor and myself.


Donald David Hoffman (12/29/55) is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a Professor in the Dept of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, the Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.


Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. His research subjects include facial attractiveness, the recognition of shape, the perception of motion and color, the evolution of perception, and the mind-body problem. (wiki)


Me, I’m on the outside looking in on academia.  Born the same year as Hoffman, mine was a skilled working-man’s life with a passion for learning about Earth’s story through science, personal observation, thinking, reading quality popular publications and books, visiting libraries, museums, then the internet and always pondering the fundamental questions, fitting together pieces of the puzzle, and being astounded at all science was learning and sharing.  


In particular, I’ve been impressed that even with all the unexpected surprises over these decades, there remains an underlying harmony and consistency that’s amazing.  Our understanding has been like an image coming into better focus as more pixels of information are gathered.  Seems like proof that we’ve developed a reasonably accurate understanding, even if some mysteries and surprises remain.  We shouldn’t glibly turn our backs on all we've learned.  


To hear someone of Hoffman’s stature simply dismiss it all and replace our day to day reality with imagined icons replacing material stuff; reduce Evolution to a computer interface & game theory analogies; topped off with “conscious agents” zinging around like so many photons.  It’s mystifying, disconcerting, crazy-making, and a hell of challenge for me to get to work on enunciating a more down to Earth perspective on the Evolution of perceiving the reality we are embedded within.


Hoffman begins his book with a quote from a founding father of science,


I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on . . . 

reside in consciousness.  Hence if the living

creature were removed, all these qualities

would be wiped away and annihilated. 

In fairness, that was penned a life time before people started understanding the light spectrum, hundreds of years before we started understanding biochemistry and learning about the molecular structures that make up odors and tastes.  


Today, we physically understand what creates different tastes, smells and other sensations.  We observe how our body receives and processes those sense signals in bewildering detail.  Pretending that away is foolish.


It's true that how we ultimately perceive those signals within our minds, remains shrouded in mystery, even as scientists keep learning more details about our brain’s operations. 


But, all that is a perception question - it in no way negates the fact that we understand physically, molecularly, what creates those different tastes, smells and other sensations.  There’s no mystery, it is material stuff that can be measured, described and replicated.


DH asks:  “Why do our senses exist to reveal the truth?”  (¶2)


That's not scientific, it's a leading question intent on setting the stage for storytelling.  Evolution doesn’t care about truth.  “Truth” is a lawyer’s conception that does not translate into the ways and means of our Earth’s living biosphere or evolution.


Senses were honed through experimentation, attrition and experience over eons to better collect incoming information from the environment, process it through neurons and brains into information the mind uses to guide its body’s actions as appropriate in light of immediate real world situations and challenges.  


Doing the best one can with what one has, is a better approximation for what’s needed in an ever changing, fast moving, complex reality, where shear luck also plays a role in evolution. 


DH:  “Why are our eyes, and all our senses, reliable guides? … the real world we assume consists of… objects in space and time.  They exist even if no living creature observes them.  Our senses are simply a window on this objective reality.”  (¶2)


Notice how DH morphs the “real world” of “objects in space and time” into “objective reality,” he does this throughout the book without examining just what his “objective reality” is all about.


DH:  “These (scientific) hunches are wrong.”  (¶4)


As they say in the movies, them are fightin words.


DH goes on to explain:  “It’s that the very language of objects in space and time is simply the wrong language to describe objective reality.  This is not a hunch.  It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.”    (¶4)


Here again Hoffman points to ‘objective reality’ - but objectivity, or the lack thereof, is a product that unfolds within our minds, it is a conscious property, not a physical one. 


DH:  “It is a theorem of evolution by natural selection that wallops our hunches.”    (¶4)


Hoffman declares victory by presenting his theorem as though that settled it.  Theorems are manmade concoctions that require assumptions and judgement calls to be made, with limits to their applicability.


DH:  “This is what evolution has done.  It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring.  Space as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop - a 3D desktop.”   (¶8)


“… I explain why evolution hid objective reality and endowed us instead with an interface of objects in space and time.”   (¶13)


This sounds mighty close to dancing with some sort of Intelligent Design notions.  Why write off the experiences of over a hundred generations of observers, not to mention the full range of Earth sciences these past few hundred years, with their increasingly sophisticated observation equipment - that consistently produce surprises, yet those surprises as consistently make sense in hindsight as we learn things we didn’t know before.  All pointing to an overall harmonious and accurate (if incomplete) understanding of the physical reality our minds are embedded within. 


All of that Hoffman theatrically dismisses as a ‘hunch’ - that’s entertainment, not science.


DH:  “Together, we will explore how this counter intuitive idea dovetails with discoveries in physics that are equally counter intuitive.”   (¶13)


Here Hoffman refers to his explorations of the quantum realm at the very divide between physical matter and energy.  The reality of single atoms, in a world where ~5,000,000,000,000 atoms can dance on the head of a pin.  


Hoffman never justifies transferring experimental conclusions from that realm of physics at its absolute tiniest, up into our human macroscopic reality of measurable solid substances and organisms with lives unfolding within an inescapable space and time.  But he certainly does it.


DH:  “In chapter 7, we wade into the curious and curiouser: spacetime is just a data format . . . “   (¶22)


Hoffman conveniently overlooks the profound divide between our perceptions and physical reality.  He speaks of our “objective reality” as though it were our “physical reality” - which it certainly isn’t.


DH:  “If our senses hide reality behind an interface then what is that reality?  I don’t know.  But in chapter 10 we explore the idea that conscious experiences are fundamental…”   (¶26)


DH:  “Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experiment, decide and act.  . . .  Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness - as a perpetual interface”   (¶27)


By confusing physical reality with our perception of reality, Hoffman ends up with a muddle that’s of no use in our pragmatic world - but it makes for a beguiling story that seems to sell well.  


A critique of Donald Hoffman’s “Case Against Reality - Why Evolution Hide The Truth From Our Eyes provides a framework to better enunciate a more down to Earth vision of our human condition and to explore the profound divide between our "Mindscapes" and the Physical Reality that created us and that we exist within.


My life is crowded with other obligations taking priority, so it will be slow going, still I've been spending months getting to know his book.  Now I’ll keep plugging away at my notes on his chapters and share my results as I can write them up.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Public notice to W.W.Norton Co and Donald Hoffman:


                     

Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-Gravity, 

a critical review:


The Case Against Reality : 

Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes

By Donald Hoffman


Published August 13th 2019 

Publisher: W.W. Norton Company

ISBN13: 9780393254693

©all rights reserved


I hereby claim FairUse on the grounds that Donald Hoffman’s “The Case Against Reality” is part of an ongoing public dialogue which Hoffman explicitly encourages others to join.  He invited critique and I accept his challenge. 


I intend to be a witness for a fact based DeepTime, Evolutionary perspective on our “human mindscape” -“physical reality” divide.  


To do Hoffman’s arguments justice I’m compelled to reprint quite a few of them as I go through his book and I appreciate both W.W. Norton Company and Donald Hoffman’s understanding, and I hope for their consent.



Sincerely,

Peter Miesler

aka citizenschallenge



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Index

Cc’s Students’ Study Guide for The Case Against Reality


©2020 Peter Miesler
  
I intend to be a witness for a fact based Deep Time, 
Evolutionary perspective on our Human Mind ~ Physical Reality interface.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-Gravity 

A critical review of, The Case Against Reality:  Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes, by Donald Hoffman, ©2019, W.W.Norton Company 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Titles are linked)





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hoffman/Prakash’s Objects of ConsciousnessObjections and Replies

Frontiers in Psychology - June 17, 2014


(2.01)  4/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness,  (conclusion)

(2.02)  1/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (1-12)

(2.03)  2/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (13-17)

(2.04)  3/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (18-21)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


(3.01)  Diary - But, wait!  There's more.  Ten Learned Responses:


Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries, by Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash" 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Reviewvolume 22, pages1551–1576(2015)


Abstract

We propose that selection favors nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to fitness. Current textbooks assert, to the contrary, that perception is useful because, in the normal case, it is veridical. Intuition, both lay and expert, clearly sides with the textbooks. We thus expected that some commentators would reject our proposal and provide counterarguments that could stimulate a productive debate. … (HSP)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


(3.02)  Barton Anderson - Where does fitness fit in theories of perception? 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0748-5

(3.03)  Jonathan Cohen - Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0782-3

(3.04)  Shimon Edelman - Varieties of perceptual truth and their possible evolutionary roots. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0741-z

(3.05)  Jacob Feldman - Bayesian inference and “truth”: a comment on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0795-y

(3.06)  Chris Fields -Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash, “The interface theory of perception”. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0742-y

(3.07)  Jan Koenderink - Esse est Percipi & Verum est Factum. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0754-7

(3.08)  Rainer Mausfeld - Notions such as “truth” or “correspondence to the objective world” play no role in explanatory accounts of perception. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0763-6

(3.09)  Brian P. McLaughlin and E. J. Green Are icons sense data

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0780-5

(3.10)  Zygmunt Pizlo - Philosophizing cannot substitute for experimentation: comment on Hoffman, Singh & Prakash. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0760-9

(3.11)  Matthew Schlesinger Interface theory of perception leaves me hungry for more. 

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0776-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Student Resources - Background info:


(4.01)  Rainer Mausfeld: ‘Truth’ has no role in explanatory accounts of perception.

(4.02)  Paul Mealing: considers Hoffman's "Objects of Consciousness.”

(4.03)  The Case For Reality: Because Apparently Someone Needs to Make One

(4.04)  Sabine Hossenfelder: in Defense of Scientific Realism and Physical Reality

(4.05)  "Emergence" - A Handy Summary and Resources

(4.06)  Physical Origins of Mind: Dr. SiegelAllen Institute Brain Science, Tononi, Koch.

(4.07)  Can you trust Frontiers in Psychology research papers?  Student Resource

(4.08)  Critical Thinking Skills - In Defense of Reality - A Student Resource

(4.09)  Philo+Sophia - Love of Wisdom - A Student Resource


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


(5.01)  Summary, 

explaining why I've pursued this project.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dr. Mark Solms deftly demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness, while incidentally highlighting why Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” are luftgeschäft. 


(6.01)  Dr. Mark Solms demystifies Chalmers' "Hard Problem" of Consciousness.

(6.02)  The Other Side of Mark Solms PhD, farmer, vintner, humanitarian.

(6.03)  Students’ Resource: A representative cross-section of Dr. Mark Solms' scientific publications.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My homemade philosophical underpinnings.


(7.01)  An Alternative Philosophical Perspective - “Earth Centrism

(7.02)   Appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide

(7.03)   Being an element in Earth’s Pageant of Evolution

(7.04)   It’s not a “Body-Mind problem” it’s an “Ego-God problem.”



Feel free to copy and share

Serious, constructive comments are welcome, for this particular project please use.

confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com

Email: citizenschallenge  gmail  com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



No comments: