Just to make a clarification here. I think we try to tailor our descriptions of reality to fit reality as best we can, and as we understand and perceive it. In that way I think our descriptions have some sort of reflection of reality (again, only as we understand and perceive it). But to the extend that we get something wrong in that description(it might not be accurate), we are not somehow changing reality itself. It does not obey our description as if we were speaking commands to it.
I don’t get why you think that for reality to it’s own objective nature, someone like God would have to exist to describe it as if “His Words Are Law” or something to that effect. Why is that required? I see no reason why that has to be the case. Reality could just be some way, and then we (human beings) could try perceive and describe it, whether we succeed in doing so or not.
I don’t disagree with you here. I am not claiming the moon doesn’t exist if there is no one to observe it.
But terms like reality and Truth have meaning only to sentient creatures like us.
This is relevant when one talks about how different organisms perceive reality.
Its a fact that different organisms perceive the same reality differently, and hence reality is different for these organisms.
When we acknowledge that fact, it also becomes obvious that our perception of reality need not be truer than that of other Organisms.
I think you should be careful to distinguish reality being different, from reality being perceived to be different.
The way they think about and experience reality is different, but that doesn’t make reality be different. Only their experiences. The description of reality is not reality itself. The map is not the terrain. You can’t drive to Sweden by putting the map on the floor and pushing a toy-car across it. I think you agree, but the way you portray it can lead to this misunderstanding that you’re saying reality IS some way, as opposed to being perceived some way.
Sure, I would agree we do not have good reasons to think we have the best or most accurate perception of reality.
Not dictated by opinion or perception of a subject. How many balls there really are in the jar depend on how many balls there are in the jar, not whether someone has correctly counted them.
I agree. However, the main point is that reality is something that is perceived.
Hoffman’s claim is more about epistemology as far as i understood.
And in an utilitarian sense, our perception of reality need not be considered better than that of a rat or a cockroach.
So when we lift our perception of reality as more “true”, we are actually claiming that we are special/ our perception of reality is special.
How many balls there are really in a jar has meaning only if a human subject is involved. Nature is incapable of differentiating between the balls or counting.
This is one reason talking about objective reality apart from perception of said reality is more or less impossible.
Of course, God would be able to give “objectiveness” to reality apart from human beings because God is eternal.
Many birds are capable of counting the eggs in their nest. How many eggs there are really in a nest has meaning even when no human subject is involved.
Yes I would agree with that. It makes sense to me, it’s a good way to put it.
I would not make the claim that my perception of reality, the things I see or hear or taste or smell, are a better or more accurate reflection of reality in a utilitarian or evolutionary fitness-related type of sense, than the perception of a rat or cockroach. I would not claim that my perceptions gives me some higher absolute fitness than the perceptions of rats and cockroaches gives them.
Okay, but I’m not concerned with what sort of meaning you can ascribe to the number of balls there are in the jar. Whatever you may take to be the meaning of the number of balls in the jar is irrelevant to how many balls there are in the jar.
I don’t see why nature needs to count the balls in the jar for there to be some number of balls in the jar.
I just don’t see what this reason is. I am talking about it right now. Being able to talk about some concept does not entail a requirement that I know the truth of the referent of that concept. We can do philosophy and metaphysics on these questions.
I literally can’t make sense of that statement. How is objectiveness given to something, and what does the duration or lifetime of the “giving” entity relate to this power to pass objectivity on to it?
I don’t see that the existence of God has anything to do with it.
If God is omniscient, then he should be able to look at the world from a human perspective to assess what humans see as true. And he should be able to look at the world from the perspective of some other creature, to assess what that creature would see as true.
Yes… but as creator of the universe, God’s own perspective would be the most authoritative.
Kinda like how people can have different perspectives on a piece of abstract art, but the author’s perspective is the most authoritative.
Doesn’t matter. There can be a single common reality which is perceived to different extents by different creatures (and different mechanical sensor systems) even in the absence of a deity.
Whether or not there is a deity is completely orthogonal to whether or not there is a single shared reality, not least because an omnipotent deity should be able to provide different realities to co-existing creatures… else he isn’t omnipotent.
No, he’s not at all saying that. Here’s what I understand from the interviews.
He’s saying evolution by natural selection primes a person to construct a physical world (that’s basically a virtual reality) so that they can survive. It hides the truth that reality is actually completely outside the physical world.
He is NOT saying what you’re saying that only PART of the physical world is hidden for our survival. He’s saying the NON-PHYSICAL world is hidden for our survival. Because if we spend our time looking for and observing truth, we go extinct. Therefore, what we see and observe in the physical world is not truth.
So you agree with Hoffman and believe the physical world is not reality? Or do you believe in a cause in addition to evolution by natural selection that sustains life?
Re-watching part of the interview, and now having read one of the papers Hoffman co-authored makes me think you’re right. I think your interpretation of him is the correct one. I was confused by the fact that he seemed to make some self-contradictory statements within the first 10-15 minutes of the interview, but in the context of what he goes on to say, and what is written in his papers it seems he just misspoke early in the interview.