Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against Reality

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: The Case Against Reality

#31

Post by kazinator »

ccallebs wrote: post #26
wmt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that we can measure reality with all kinds of instruments, and based on those measurements have been able to make theories (in the scientific meaning of the word) that have taken us to other planets of our solar system. So yeah, I'd say our perception of reality is pretty okay.

The point he makes is that those instruments and theories have an inherent bias to the kind of reality we perceive. That reality is a result of our evolutionary fitness and is not objective. Even the words we use to describe concepts are a function of the limitations our vocal cords and frontal lobe. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM3CptVZDYU

So what? A bias doesn't mean that these observations and theories are wrong. There can be non-conflicting, different ways of looking at the same thing. Usually they will have something in common (at least that thing itself, plus some of its attributes that are included in both aspects).

A bias doesn't preclude objectivity, either; "biased" is not a synonym for "subjective", and therefore not the opposite of "objective".

Re: The Case Against Reality

#32

Post by bsmith89 »

maldusiecle wrote: post #23

I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to evaluate his claims--we don't have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs. But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he's mathematically proved that "an organism that sees reality as it is w…

An evolutionary argument like the one he uses is _always_ a big, stinky, red flag.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#33

Post by ccallebs »

If I may make a shitty analogy...

Most humans see reality through the lens of high-level languages. A hyper-defined DSL of Ruby. Our everyday interactions and understanding of the world are both informed by that DSL. However, as people specialize into various areas they realize that there exists something deeper, something closer to the metal.

Eventually, Julie the scientist discovers that our language can be broken down into more discrete operations than our Ruby DSL would lead us to believe. After much study and experimentation she finds heaps of cryptic-looking code dedicated to memory management, CPU optimization, fault tolerance, etc. The more she studies, the more she finds. By now she's uncovered machine code and developed an instrument to compile it down to an even more fundamental entity: binary. You can take this analogy down to the hardware level -- I'll spare you.

But as human beings we cannot process the world in binary and still function normally. We can certainly think about it and after much effort place our experiences in that context. But we need the aforementioned abstractions to quickly and easily process that we need to run from tigers. Although we know the Ruby DSL hides many details of reality from us by its very nature, we ignore that out of pragmatism.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#34

Post by jblow »

astazangasta wrote: post #13

Okay, after thinking about this a bit longer, I would like to critique his argument. He asserts that we can prove that it is better for so-and-so to perceive according to "fitness" rather than according to "truth", and maintains this is true with mathematical rigor; fine. This is observably true (allowing me the possibility of observation for the space of this conversation) - predators, for example, usually have forw…

You're missing the main thrust of the argument, I think (and this is maybe a little expected because the article kind of presupposes it).

Imagine a hippie concept such as "you are effectively the same being as that guy over there, if either of you gets hurt, it's isomorphic, it's equally bad to the overall organism".

Now, imagine that this is objectively true, i.e. there is something in the basic laws of reality that, if you could observe it, would show the hippie idea to be obviously true.

Then perceiving this part of the laws of reality would be anti-fitness, so you would evolve to be blind to it.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#35

Post by amelius »

> If it’s conscious agents all the way down, all first-person points of view, what happens to science? Science has always been a third-person description of the world.

It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that science is some kind of introspection.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#36

Post by jcfrei »

maldusiecle wrote: post #23

I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to evaluate his claims--we don't have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs. But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he's mathematically proved that "an organism that sees reality as it is w…

I think you are being a bit pedantic here. His example merely demonstrated that if consciousness is a function of reality (and for the sake of his example he more or less explicitly makes the assumption that there is an observer independent reality) it can be either optimized on how closely it matches said reality OR how much that function helps survival. So if you assume that there is an observer independent reality the projection of that (consciousness) function will most likely divert from reality (at least that's the argument Hoffman makes). Needless to say that if you assume that there is no observer independent reality then a whole lot of questions about perception become moot (ie. everybody sees what he wants/can).

Re: The Case Against Reality

#37

Post by ccallebs »

kazinator wrote: post #31
ccallebs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point he makes is that those instruments and theories have an inherent bias to the kind of reality we perceive. That reality is a result of our evolutionary fitness and is not objective. Even the words we use to describe concepts are a function of the limitations our vocal cords and frontal lobe. Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM3CptVZDYU

So what? A bias doesn't mean that these observations and theories are wrong . There can be non-conflicting, different ways of looking at the same thing. Usually they will have something in common (at least that thing itself, plus some of its attributes that are included in both aspects). A bias doesn't preclude objectivity, either; "biased" is not a synonym for "subjective", and therefore not the opposite of "objecti…

I'd argue that any sort of bias is orthogonal to the idea of an absolute reality. However, it doesn't preclude any reality. Out of pragmatism we need to be able to define one. The survival of our species also hinges upon that.

But thought experiments have the luxury of not needing pragmatism.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#38

Post by noahlt »

bsmith89 wrote: post #32
maldusiecle wrote: post #23

I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to evaluate his claims--we don't have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs. But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he's mathematically proved that "an organism that sees reality as it is w…

An evolutionary argument like the one he uses is _always_ a big, stinky, red flag.

The way you say this makes it sounds like you have examples of times when evolutionary arguments have been used in the past. I'd love to hear some examples.

Re: The Case Against Reality

#39

Post by noahlt »

cubano wrote: post #22

I've read this article twice now, and both times the same thought struck me. How much, really, are his "insights" much different from Plato's Allegory of Cave philosophy? Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin…

Plato had additional metaphysical beliefs, such as that "reality" consists of ideas, and is not spatiotemporal.
Post reply on HN