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
An obnoxious read. It uncomfortably reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with a former friend who felt compelled to prove something he believed I disagreed with and bade me not to interrupt him until he was satisfied. He started off with a strong claim that would have required an impressive proof but after an hour of piling on contingencies and reiterations, had reduced the claim down to one so small as to be almost axiomatic.
Such as with this book, which boldly claims to have a case against reality itself but after 200 pages of repurposed solipsism has managed to propose only what if what we call ‘real’ was actually ‘beef’ and so what we know as reality is in truth something called beefity and well that would really be something to think about now wouldn’t it.
Also contains a unfortunate number of approving citations of Steven Pinker.
Such as with this book, which boldly claims to have a case against reality itself but after 200 pages of repurposed solipsism has managed to propose only what if what we call ‘real’ was actually ‘beef’ and so what we know as reality is in truth something called beefity and well that would really be something to think about now wouldn’t it.
Also contains a unfortunate number of approving citations of Steven Pinker.
4.5⭐️. Fascinating read.
Some cons: At times the writing is repetitive. The book contains some positive references to string theory and Elon Musk, and I think the theories here are viewed favorably by Jordan Peterson - for these reasons, I want to remain skeptical.
But taking the arguments of this book at face value, I find them very compelling and extremely interesting. I’m even a bit less skeptical of evolutionary psychology than I was before reading.
This was a great companion book to read after finishing An Immense World by Ed Yong, which explored animal senses. If you’re interested in the nature of consciousness and reality, I highly recommend.
Some cons: At times the writing is repetitive. The book contains some positive references to string theory and Elon Musk, and I think the theories here are viewed favorably by Jordan Peterson - for these reasons, I want to remain skeptical.
But taking the arguments of this book at face value, I find them very compelling and extremely interesting. I’m even a bit less skeptical of evolutionary psychology than I was before reading.
This was a great companion book to read after finishing An Immense World by Ed Yong, which explored animal senses. If you’re interested in the nature of consciousness and reality, I highly recommend.
This book is quite a rollercoaster, both in content and ideas, in complexity and in style. Some parts are really interesting, well written and offer great and surprising insights into what reality actually is and isn't. And then there are the parts that are downright impossible to follow because of the many ontological concepts getting thrown around.
This book is definitely not for the faint of heart or for the casual reader. Would not recommend, even though the ideas really are quite riveting.
This book is definitely not for the faint of heart or for the casual reader. Would not recommend, even though the ideas really are quite riveting.
A few kernels of interest here, but you have to wade through some sexist and ableist science to get there. Men prefer rings around women's eyes and women with breast implants, but similar physical attractions aren't true for women because of their cycles or something (sorry, any research that breaks down to the point you have to blame women's menstrual cycles is immediately suspect). And how men's preference for women with eye rings and big honkers relates to humankind's ability to perceive or create "reality" is completely unclear. I am befuddled as to how the author justified this type of phrenology-like research to his university's research board.
More aggregiously, when presented with an opportunity to discuss how people without vision (or with limited vision) could create their own "reality," the author instread compares color blind people to sociopaths. It becomes clear that the author finds any sort of physical disability a hindrence to their ability to construct any sort of life experience he would find valuable to explore, and even appears to cast aspersion on their mental capacities in general.
This book could work as a philosophical reflection of where theories of space/time break down and how they could be replaced with a human interface idea, but instead the author attempts to hype his own irrelevant research and makes it clear there's a few bus-sized holes in whatever it is he actually thinks is true.
More aggregiously, when presented with an opportunity to discuss how people without vision (or with limited vision) could create their own "reality," the author instread compares color blind people to sociopaths. It becomes clear that the author finds any sort of physical disability a hindrence to their ability to construct any sort of life experience he would find valuable to explore, and even appears to cast aspersion on their mental capacities in general.
This book could work as a philosophical reflection of where theories of space/time break down and how they could be replaced with a human interface idea, but instead the author attempts to hype his own irrelevant research and makes it clear there's a few bus-sized holes in whatever it is he actually thinks is true.
challenging
informative
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The book argues that the role of perception (our senses) is not to represent the world as it is, it is to ensure our survival so we can reproduce. What matters is the payoff, not the truth of our perception.
I am not skilled enough in philosophy or biology and evolution to judge the argument but it did make me think and consider the question. From a lay point of view the argument and its presentation needs work.
I am not skilled enough in philosophy or biology and evolution to judge the argument but it did make me think and consider the question. From a lay point of view the argument and its presentation needs work.