Interface theory of perception

[Strange]

There should be a correspondence between the reality and what we percieve.

 

I think your philosophical view can be a conscious decision. Become a naive realist and then you will know that what you see is exactly what is out there.

 

I am a naive realist by inclination. I believe that the world we see is a close representation of reality. However, I also admit that this is logically indefensible and is thus just a belief. However, it cannot be disproved, either. (Your man Hoffman cannot compare what we perceive with reality so he cannot prove they are different. He is just pretending to use science to support his own philosophical beliefs.)

[Buket]

 

I think your philosophical view can be a conscious decision. Become a naive realist and then you will know that what you see is exactly what is out there.

 

I am a naive realist by inclination. I believe that the world we see is a close representation of reality. However, I also admit that this is logically indefensible and is thus just a belief. However, it cannot be disproved, either. (Your man Hoffman cannot compare what we perceive with reality so he cannot prove they are different. He is just pretending to use science to support his own philosophical beliefs.)

I will be relieved if I know that he does not have evidence and like you say it is only his philosophical view..

[StringJunky]

 

I think your philosophical view can be a conscious decision. Become a naive realist and then you will know that what you see is exactly what is out there.

 

I am a naive realist by inclination. I believe that the world we see is a close representation of reality. However, I also admit that this is logically indefensible and is thus just a belief. However, it cannot be disproved, either. (Your man Hoffman cannot compare what we perceive with reality so he cannot prove they are different. He is just pretending to use science to support his own philosophical beliefs.)

I think the model that our brain builds is the one that has allowed our species to evolve to its current state and kept us alive. This means, to me, that it doesn't follow that it is a true reflection of the world around us; our brain prioritises the parts we see and evaluate to maximise our chances of fulfilling our needs.

 

I agree with your assessment of Hoffman: he is miles away from his expertise with the stuff he is writing about.

Edited October 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

I wish a neuroscientist saw this thread

 

Hoffman's theory really isn't a question of neuroscience. According to this subtitle of his paper, Natural Selection Drives True Perception To Swift Extinction, Mr. Hoffman's theory regards evolutionary affects on true perception that are not necessarily neurological in nature. I found no evidence in his paper supporting his theory.

 

[Buket]

I think the model that our brain builds is the one that has allowed our species to evolve to its current state and kept us alive. This means, to me, that it doesn't follow that it is a true reflection of the world around us; our brain prioritises the parts we see and evaluate to maximise our chances of fulfilling our needs.

 

I agree with your assessment of Hoffman: he is miles away from his expertise with the stuff he is writing about.

What I question is that he says the reality has no resemblance with what we see. If this was true we would see a lion as a cat or a traşn or something else. So how can this help us to survive? There should be correspondence between real world an what we perceive.

[StringJunky]

What I question is that he says the reality has no resemblance with what we see. If this was true we would see a lion as a cat or a traşn or something else. So how can this help us to survive? There should be correspondence between real world an what we perceive.

You would have, for example, the perception that the lion is BIG which creates fear. You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about seeing something as something completely different, it's about perceiving some details being more prominent, or diminished, to your perception than others, which may be different to another organism or sensory system; which one would be the true mirror?

Edited October 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

I think the model that our brain builds is the one that has allowed our species to evolve to its current state and kept us alive. This means, to me, that it doesn't follow that it is a true reflection of the world around us; our brain prioritises the parts we see and evaluate to maximise our chances of fulfilling our needs.

 

That seems to be a summary of Hoffman's position.

 

And, to some extent it trivially correct. For example, we only perceive a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that is useful to us. We must have a completely different view of the world around us than bats (who rely on sonar). And from birds that can see into the ultraviolet.

 

However, it is not obvious that because bats see a chair with sonar while we see it in a limited set of colours, that the chair therefore does not exist (which seems to be his argument). Instead, the most we can say is that we see a chair which is probably not an exact representation of the chair that exists.

You would have, for example, the perception that the lion is BIG which creates fear. You are looking at it the wrong way. It's not about seeing something as something completely different, it's about perceiving some details being more prominent, or diminished, to your perception than others, which may be different to another organism or sensory system; which one would be the true mirror?

 

But he does seem to go from that, entirely reasonable, position to: " ... and therefore reality doesn't exist. Oh, and by the way, here is some mathematics and quantum woo to make it sound more sciency."

[StringJunky]

 

That seems to be a summary of Hoffman's position.

 

And, to some extent it trivially correct. For example, we only perceive a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that is useful to us. We must have a completely different view of the world around us than bats (who rely on sonar). And from birds that can see into the ultraviolet.

 

However, it is not obvious that because bats see a chair with sonar while we see it in a limited set of colours, that the chair therefore does not exist (which seems to be his argument). Instead, the most we can say is that we see a chair which is probably not an exact representation of the chair that exists.

 

But he does seem to go from that, entirely reasonable, position to: " ... and therefore reality doesn't exist. Oh, and by the way, here is some mathematics and quantum woo to make it sound more sciency."

I don't disagree but I was responding to Buket's thoughts directly rather than Hoffman's. I think we agree his ideas are suspect.

[Buket]

 

 

That seems to be a summary of Hoffman's position.

And, to some extent it trivially correct. For example, we only perceive a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that is useful to us. We must have a completely different view of the world around us than bats (who rely on sonar). And from birds that can see into the ultraviolet.

However, it is not obvious that because bats see a chair with sonar while we see it in a limited set of colours, that the chair therefore does not exist (which seems to be his argument). Instead, the most we can say is that we see a chair which is probably not an exact representation of the chair that exists.


But he does seem to go from that, entirely reasonable, position to: " ... and therefore reality doesn't exist. Oh, and by the way, here is some mathematics and quantum woo to make it sound more sciency."

I don't know if he means the chair does not exist at all or it does not exist as the way we see it..
By the way there are a group of people writing and discussing about conciousness creating reality including some mystics..I don't know how they believe it while conciousness is not still well known..

[StringJunky]

I don't know if he means the chair does not exist at all or it does not exist as the way we see it..

By the way there are a group of people writing and discussing about conciousness creating reality including some mystics..I don't know how they believe it while conciousness is not still well known..

We can never know reality as it is but the closest we can get to it is with the scientific method and it's the people that use it to explore this subject are the ones you should be looking at.

[Buket]

We can never know reality as it is but the closest we can get to it is with the scientific method and it's the people that use it to explore this subject are the ones you should be looking at.

You mean Hoffman is not one of them?

[StringJunky]

You mean Hoffman is not one of them?

Not in the area of physics he isn't. He's only presented musings - not practical research with evidence - on a subject that is not in his area of expertise.

[Buket]

Not in the area of physics he isn't. He's only presented musings - not practical research with evidence - on a subject that is not in his area of expertise.

 

Not in the area of physics he isn't. He's only presented musings - not practical research with evidence - on a subject that is not in his area of expertise.

Did he use any quantum physics in his theory?

[Strange]

Did he use any quantum physics in his theory?

 

 

No.

He just made some passing reference to it in the introduction. (And not very accurate, as far as I can tell.)

[Buket]

Those of you who have examined the theory, do you think Hoffman uses scientific method for his theory?

[Mordred]

no

[Buket]

no

How did you find out?

[DrP]

There was once a female swan that followed a pleasure boat around that had a huge swan front to it. It would never leave the boat behind - I found it very sad that the poor swan was in love with what it thought was a prime specimen swan, but really must have been a little sad at the lack of response and affection from it's partner. The article was quite short, so I do not know what happened in the end - I think it stayed with the boat when all the others flew south. Probably died of winter cold, thus removing a little bit of stupidity from the swan genepool. It certainly wouldn't have got her eggs fertilised.

[Buket]

Can we consider a theory to be true if the mathematical theorem supporting it is proved?