You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
92 reviews for:
The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
Donald D. Hoffman
3.7 AVERAGE
92 reviews for:
The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
Donald D. Hoffman
3.7 AVERAGE
challenging
inspiring
medium-paced
Arguments from evolutionary biology and quantum physics that we do not perceive reality anything like as it is.
I managed to keep my head above water till we got to the use of game theory and statistics to show that evolution drives us towards useful perceptions (what increases or decreases our genes' chances of making it into the next generation) rather than accurate ones and in fact eliminates accurate perception. At that point, I just had to take the author's word for it. But given that as an assumption, the rest of the book was reasonably plain sailing. Our brains apparently create not only the obvious candidates such as colour and taste but even the basic framework of time and space and the objects they contain. What we see is not the actual things in themselves but something more akin to the icons on a desktop which we can manipulate to get the results we want.
The author does have an excessive penchant for TLA and there are references to a colour insert which doesn't seem to be included in the ebook version but I found the book enjoyably stimulating and was inspired to view his TED Talk.
I managed to keep my head above water till we got to the use of game theory and statistics to show that evolution drives us towards useful perceptions (what increases or decreases our genes' chances of making it into the next generation) rather than accurate ones and in fact eliminates accurate perception. At that point, I just had to take the author's word for it. But given that as an assumption, the rest of the book was reasonably plain sailing. Our brains apparently create not only the obvious candidates such as colour and taste but even the basic framework of time and space and the objects they contain. What we see is not the actual things in themselves but something more akin to the icons on a desktop which we can manipulate to get the results we want.
The author does have an excessive penchant for TLA and there are references to a colour insert which doesn't seem to be included in the ebook version but I found the book enjoyably stimulating and was inspired to view his TED Talk.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Interesting title but I can’t get into whatever the author was discussing about. Stopped at the chapter about beauty.
I found this book to be quite tiresome. It isn't really about science; it's a philosophical argument that tries to extrapolate from the fact that our physical mechanisms for perception evolved on the basis of "perceive that which helps us to survive" the idea (which the author presents as another fact) that the reality we perceive therefore does not exist when no one is looking. The tomato, he repeatedly argues, ceases to exist when we stop looking at it. This is not a Shroedinger's cat argument; he applies it to physical reality. While I can, and do, buy the argument that our perceptions function as an interface to translate external reality into that which we are capable of perceiving, I do not buy, as an inevitable consequence, the idea that our perceptions therefore have nothing whatever to do with reality. If our perceptions have evolved to help us survive, there must be some relationship between what we perceive and reality, otherwise those perceptions would not be functional and we would not survive. Along the way, he accepts the idea that "people used to think the earth was flat," a belief he ascribes to the Pre-Socratic world. In fact, the fact of the earth's roundness was documented a century before Socrates was born, and so far as I know (and the author does not bother documenting), there are no scholarly records to suggest that people believed the earth was flat. This is an assumption. Since the author is trying to argue that we cannot base anything on unsubstantiated assumptions, his assumptions are problematic. His claims are necessarily riddled with assumptions: another is his claim that human bodies are made up almost entirely out of six of the elements. However: since he is arguing that we are incapable of perceiving reality, then he must be arguing that the elements are constructs that cease to exist when we are not looking at them, and, therefore, we only THINK that our bodies are made up of elements, since elements do not exist independent of us. The whole thing is a tiresome refutation of the usefulness of all of science to this point and the usefulness of language.
Very cerebral. Yet, even with the deep theory concepts, the author does a good job of connecting intense math and quantum physics concepts to situations that are approachable
challenging
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
It was interesting and thought provoking but it was a little too technical for what I was looking for at the moment. I may pick it back up another time.
I thoroughly enjoyed the process of reading this book, because it made be think all through, but in the end, I could not agree with what it was trying to say.
The author uses game theory and mathematical simulation to understand how evolution shaped our perception of reality. He claims that we evolved to create a perceptual mechanism that is not trying to model the physical reality, but rather it creates an interface through which the physical reality is mapped into our perceptual world model in order to maximize our fitness — that is our ability to make babies and to take care of them.
The traditional view of visual perception believes that our visual mechanism approximates the physical reality, and in higher animal the process is fairly accurate. That is, what we see is very close to the physical reality. The author is challenging this view. According to him, and based on a few game theoretic things he and his colleagues have proved, the claim is that the probability that a higher evolved perceptual mechanism will reflect reality is vanishingly small. In other words, our perception does not capture reality at all. He then extends this to say that our view of space and time is all an artifact of our perceptual system, and the physical reality perhaps has neither space nor time. To support this fantastic claim, he is delving into modern physics, where there are questions about the fundamental nature of reality, which is also sometimes highly nonintuitive.
I love challenging ideas, but his claims seem implausible to me. Here is a few thought experiments to challenge it.
Let’s say I am perceiving I am in an empty room and there is a solid cube one meter away. My visual system is telling me so, which he believes is an artifact created by our cognitive interface. That is a fair assumption. Now let’s say I use a long stick, close my eyes, and try to probe the object with my stick and try to guess the position and shape of this object. Again, my conclusion will be identical to what I saw. The author would say that the interface is still fooling us because it created a self-consistent model, no matter with perceptual mechanism we use. Now let’s say I use an electronic echo device using ultrasonic sound to map my surrounding. Based on the time it takes the reflection to come back I can once again determine the position and shape of the object, and I will get the same answer. Now the author will have to say that the interface that evolved over millions of years of evolution also made provisions for this electronic probe and made sure our illusion is maintained. No matter which cutting-age tool we use to measure the position and shape of this object, the answer will always be the same, and somehow evolution anticipated all these modern innovations and adjusted for each. This is almost absurd to me, rather than assuming that the interface is not reality, but it is approximating the physical reality, and that is why there is such agreement between the different measurements, irrespective of the mode of measurement.
When the author claims that some modern physicists are close to abandoning space and time, he is once again making a strange leap. All that physics might me saying is that space and time may not be fundamental concepts, and there is something deeper that creates space and time. There was a time when we believed atoms are fundamental particles. Eventually we discovered that there are more fundamental building blocks. Discovery of protons, neutrons, and electrons did not make atoms vanish, but just robbed its fundamental status.
It is also strange that while the author is claiming that space, time, and objects do not exist and are just artifacts that our conscious mind creates, and yet he is constantly referring to and arguing with physical objects such as the brain, nerves, and all sorts of objects that live in space and time. While talking about color and color perception he is talking about electromagnetic waves and frequency, but how can there be frequency without the concept of time? That is, he conveniently uses physics based on space-time and then tries to prove that it is not real.
He then proceeds to explain consciousness based on his previous ideas and dismisses any possibility that physical systems can ever explain consciousness. That is again a strange claim to make when any serious scientific enquiry into this area is fairly recent. It is like dismissing the possibility that we will ever understand why the sun is hot in the 15th century. In reality a lot of interesting possibilities are opening up and there is no reason to believe that we have exhausted all avenues of research.
Here is an interesting case of a very smart person coming up with an interesting idea, and then falling so much in love with this idea that he is trying to twist things to fit this world view even when there are perfectly good alternatives available. I would still recommend my friends to read this book because it raises very interesting and tantalizing questions in many disciplines.
The author uses game theory and mathematical simulation to understand how evolution shaped our perception of reality. He claims that we evolved to create a perceptual mechanism that is not trying to model the physical reality, but rather it creates an interface through which the physical reality is mapped into our perceptual world model in order to maximize our fitness — that is our ability to make babies and to take care of them.
The traditional view of visual perception believes that our visual mechanism approximates the physical reality, and in higher animal the process is fairly accurate. That is, what we see is very close to the physical reality. The author is challenging this view. According to him, and based on a few game theoretic things he and his colleagues have proved, the claim is that the probability that a higher evolved perceptual mechanism will reflect reality is vanishingly small. In other words, our perception does not capture reality at all. He then extends this to say that our view of space and time is all an artifact of our perceptual system, and the physical reality perhaps has neither space nor time. To support this fantastic claim, he is delving into modern physics, where there are questions about the fundamental nature of reality, which is also sometimes highly nonintuitive.
I love challenging ideas, but his claims seem implausible to me. Here is a few thought experiments to challenge it.
Let’s say I am perceiving I am in an empty room and there is a solid cube one meter away. My visual system is telling me so, which he believes is an artifact created by our cognitive interface. That is a fair assumption. Now let’s say I use a long stick, close my eyes, and try to probe the object with my stick and try to guess the position and shape of this object. Again, my conclusion will be identical to what I saw. The author would say that the interface is still fooling us because it created a self-consistent model, no matter with perceptual mechanism we use. Now let’s say I use an electronic echo device using ultrasonic sound to map my surrounding. Based on the time it takes the reflection to come back I can once again determine the position and shape of the object, and I will get the same answer. Now the author will have to say that the interface that evolved over millions of years of evolution also made provisions for this electronic probe and made sure our illusion is maintained. No matter which cutting-age tool we use to measure the position and shape of this object, the answer will always be the same, and somehow evolution anticipated all these modern innovations and adjusted for each. This is almost absurd to me, rather than assuming that the interface is not reality, but it is approximating the physical reality, and that is why there is such agreement between the different measurements, irrespective of the mode of measurement.
When the author claims that some modern physicists are close to abandoning space and time, he is once again making a strange leap. All that physics might me saying is that space and time may not be fundamental concepts, and there is something deeper that creates space and time. There was a time when we believed atoms are fundamental particles. Eventually we discovered that there are more fundamental building blocks. Discovery of protons, neutrons, and electrons did not make atoms vanish, but just robbed its fundamental status.
It is also strange that while the author is claiming that space, time, and objects do not exist and are just artifacts that our conscious mind creates, and yet he is constantly referring to and arguing with physical objects such as the brain, nerves, and all sorts of objects that live in space and time. While talking about color and color perception he is talking about electromagnetic waves and frequency, but how can there be frequency without the concept of time? That is, he conveniently uses physics based on space-time and then tries to prove that it is not real.
He then proceeds to explain consciousness based on his previous ideas and dismisses any possibility that physical systems can ever explain consciousness. That is again a strange claim to make when any serious scientific enquiry into this area is fairly recent. It is like dismissing the possibility that we will ever understand why the sun is hot in the 15th century. In reality a lot of interesting possibilities are opening up and there is no reason to believe that we have exhausted all avenues of research.
Here is an interesting case of a very smart person coming up with an interesting idea, and then falling so much in love with this idea that he is trying to twist things to fit this world view even when there are perfectly good alternatives available. I would still recommend my friends to read this book because it raises very interesting and tantalizing questions in many disciplines.
Uma ótima surpresa. Escolhi ouvir esse livro meio que na dúvida ainda, achando que seria mais um livro sobre sentidos e evolução. Foi bem mais do que isso. Acabou sendo o melhor argumento que já li de como nosso entendimento do mundo é limitado e porque vivemos em um universo holográfico.
O Hoffman faz um passeio por como o que a evolução seleciona são organismos capazes de entender o mundo o suficiente para sobreviver, e não organismos com um entendimento completo do que é a realidade. Em seguida ele parte para as propriedades físicas do universo e como o princípio da incerteza de Heisenberg nos impede de saber tudo sobre o universo. Uma mistura de conhecimento bem pesada, mas legal quando costurada junta. Espero que a explicação física/quântica do universo esteja correta, a parte biológica estava bem situada.
O Hoffman faz um passeio por como o que a evolução seleciona são organismos capazes de entender o mundo o suficiente para sobreviver, e não organismos com um entendimento completo do que é a realidade. Em seguida ele parte para as propriedades físicas do universo e como o princípio da incerteza de Heisenberg nos impede de saber tudo sobre o universo. Uma mistura de conhecimento bem pesada, mas legal quando costurada junta. Espero que a explicação física/quântica do universo esteja correta, a parte biológica estava bem situada.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Two key ideas from the book is the Interface Theory of Perception (ITP) and the Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) theorem. The former proposes that our perception of reality, similar to icons on a computer screen, is far from reality itself. The latter, argues that the mentioned perception is formed purely by the impact it has on our survival, and thus explains why it is only reliable in the context of keeping us alive, and not discerning truths.
The rest of the book relates insights from physics and biology to the above ideas. Some of the discussions are interesting (my favourite chapter is the one discussing how space time is not the fundamental building blocks of reality), but the other discussions do get a bit dry. Perhaps it's because there's quite little practical application of the points discussed. Apart from the two key ideas, which is pretty much common sense, everything else is pure theory.
Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if you're deeply interested in reality and the things that shape our perception, I'd recommend this book. However, if you're going into the book looking for some new insights (i.e. things that are neither just common sense or pure theory) that you can use in your life, I think you might be a little disappointed.
The rest of the book relates insights from physics and biology to the above ideas. Some of the discussions are interesting (my favourite chapter is the one discussing how space time is not the fundamental building blocks of reality), but the other discussions do get a bit dry. Perhaps it's because there's quite little practical application of the points discussed. Apart from the two key ideas, which is pretty much common sense, everything else is pure theory.
Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if you're deeply interested in reality and the things that shape our perception, I'd recommend this book. However, if you're going into the book looking for some new insights (i.e. things that are neither just common sense or pure theory) that you can use in your life, I think you might be a little disappointed.