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
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
A book as frightening as anything that plagued the nightmares of Lovecraft. And yet, it’s maybe the most inspiring non-fiction book I’ve read so far.
“The tinkering of evolution can concoct perceptual interfaces with endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful; the vast majority of these, however, are to us most inconceivable.”
“The tinkering of evolution can concoct perceptual interfaces with endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful; the vast majority of these, however, are to us most inconceivable.”
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Half of the book I understood the other half was very difficult.
Here’s a more accurate (if clunky) title:
The Case Against Physical Reality: An Account of Mistaken Perceptions and the Objectivity of Consciousness
Here’s the cheeky version:
The Case Against Most Perceptions: How Your Senses are Basically Shit but Your Consciousness is Still Somehow Grasps Objectivity bc Vast Network of Interconnected Consciousness Units #Markov #InterwebsIsWe #ButDontCallUsPanpsychism
Disclaimer: avoid the audiobook format (see my note at the bottom of the review).
The original, misleading title reflects a general problem of framing and voice in Donald Hoffman’s provocative book. Hoffman tries to accomplish too much in too little space for too many audiences. As a pop-science book, Hoffman tries to draw in lay audiences with anecdotes and intuitive research findings all within a limited length and format (272 wieldy pages). In trying to make a strong case, he tries to focus on his area of expertise (visual perception) while also surveying prominent issues across the sciences. In proposing an original theory as a potential paradigm shift, he tries to show both the comprehensive limitations of the current paradigm and the comprehensive benefits of his proposed paradigm. And Hoffman isn’t just proposing a paradigm shift, he’s proposing one that first discounts almost all of our intuitions about what is real and then puts the locus of objectivity in an unintuitive mathematical network of consciousness units. AND he only gives the specifics of this contrarian view in a math-heavy appendix. Ultimately, for me, the book fails from lack of exposition. That being said, the writing and argument are engaging and offer some unique takeaways.
As my alternate titles suggest, The Case Against Reality isn’t really an argument against the existence of objective reality or knowledge of that reality. Rather, it is an argument against what most people believe physical reality is: Most people think that discovering the atom or emerging insights on quantum mechanics tell us something significant about what reality actually is—independent of human perception. They say that humans are getting closer to Truth. Hoffman thinks all we are really doing is learning more about how we interface with the world—how we perceive and process information in order to survive and reproduce. The book’s gem is an analogy that Hoffman uses throughout to explain this interface argument. Hoffman compares our perception of reality to the icons on a computer’s desktop. While we should take all of the icons seriously (flashback to heart-wrenching accidental file deletions), we recognize there’s no actual icon in the computer; the icon is just a representation of a low-level code and a even lower level physical state of the machine. We use desktops because they are useful abstractions which hide the actual representations of data. In the same way, Hoffman argues that humans use perceptions to guide behavior because the perceptions are useful abstractions which hide reality from us. We might try to “zoom in” on the icons or visual perceptions, but we shouldn’t assume that the pixels or atomic structures we see are closer to foundational reality (desktop : hardware :: perception : reality).
Making the case that at least some of perceptions are inaccurate or maladaptive for truth is simple and intuitive. Unfortunately, much of Hoffman’s argument is spent on simple visual illusions, which don’t actually imply all that much about what reality is or what our usual, mixed sense data tell us about the world. Plus, at this point, such illusions are hackneyed—101 college courses across disciplines from philosophy to politics make use of such illusions, they even show up in high school classes and as pop-culture curiosities. Hoffman alludes to some interesting findings in his own research, but the book’s scope and length severely limit the exposition.
Making the case that almost all perceptions are inaccurate is difficult and unintuitive to most. Doing it comprehensively even for visual perception is daunting since what we see feels so central to our consciousness and ability to think about the world. The simple illusions help build accurate intuitions and discourage quick judgements, but they can also be easily be dismissed as special cases—clearly we are countering these visuoperceptual biases with specialized instruments, controlled studies, and academic peer-review. However, one unusual, poignant research finding does seem to move the needle for Hoffman’s argument:
Given a resource that is necessary and only beneficial in moderate amounts—like sunlight or oxygen which are fatal at excessive or deficient amounts—perception of fitness performs better than perception of truth. For example, if an organism can only see in black or white, it’s better for white to correspond to the most beneficial amounts of the resource (for example, the middle 50% of the distribution of the resource level in the environment, with black taking up the bottom and top 25%), than for white to correspond to the absolute amounts of the resource (where black would take up the bottom 50% of the distribution and white the upper 50%, so that the most beneficial amounts would overlap between black and white with no discernible pattern to help with fitness). (Yes, this point is much clearer with an illustration. Again, see my note about the audiobook format at the end of the review).
So much for visual perception: Hoffman presents relevant findings with a few tantalizing analogies and counterintuitive insights. But there are still harder cases to be made, like arguing that gravity, elementary particles, and even spacetime itself don’t exist. Hoffman's arguments here are largely interpretative, not conclusive. There’s no original research, like in the case of visual perception. Instead, he does a sort of literature review, showing how certain long-standing conundrums could be amended by focusing on fitness instead of truth. His interpretations of contemporary findings in physics felt too cursory; I never felt that he was presenting sufficient evidence for his own claims or for the opposing views. In the areas where I know a little about the subject, I had trouble accepting Hoffman's gloss.
Finally, even if Hoffman were able to successfully provide sufficient scientific arguments, I’m not sure how he could tackle linguistics, logic, or math. His whole argument depends on language, logic, and math so there’s a tricky case to be made if we follow the logic of his argument and claim that these methods of relaying information evolved simply to solve fitness payoff problems. If that is the case, then how can Hoffman rely on them to argue for his proposed objective view of reality? This problem with arguments against objectivity has long been a problem within philosophy, especially in the last century with the rise of pragmatist, subjectivist, and relativistic schools. The book suffers from Hoffman’s lack of engagement with this glaring problem and the history of thought dealing with it.
I’m tentatively rating The Case Against Reality as 3 stars. I didn’t find much new in Hoffman’s evidence or structure for the argument against objectivism. His proposed paradigm is provocative, but lacked substance to make any waves (there’s a Hoffmanian quantum physics irony in here somewhere). I think the two central aims of the book—refutation of physicalism and positing a better theory of reality based on a mathematical network of conscious units—should have been split into two books. The controversial support for Hoffman’s refutation and proposed paradigm is simply not explained enough to propel the reader’s intuition through the arguments. Even though I found the argument lacking and the argumentative structure poor, the writing itself is enjoyable. Hoffman animate ideas well through figurative language. In particular, the central analogy of the desktop interface is a novel and useful way to spur discussion and reconsider perception, even if the book’s main arguments fail.
———
Note on the audiobook format:
This was a mistake—on my part and the publisher's. Hoffman’s case is heavily dependent on visual illustrations. Apparently, there’s an accompanying PDF that was supposed to come with the Audible audiobook, but it simply isn’t available. However, even with a PDF, the actual text is what is really required: Towards the end of the book Hoffman describes an alternative, mathematics based model of reality which is near impossible to follow aurally—especially if you are unfamiliar with the Markov model.
The Case Against Physical Reality: An Account of Mistaken Perceptions and the Objectivity of Consciousness
Here’s the cheeky version:
The Case Against Most Perceptions: How Your Senses are Basically Shit but Your Consciousness is Still Somehow Grasps Objectivity bc Vast Network of Interconnected Consciousness Units #Markov #InterwebsIsWe #ButDontCallUsPanpsychism
Disclaimer: avoid the audiobook format (see my note at the bottom of the review).
The original, misleading title reflects a general problem of framing and voice in Donald Hoffman’s provocative book. Hoffman tries to accomplish too much in too little space for too many audiences. As a pop-science book, Hoffman tries to draw in lay audiences with anecdotes and intuitive research findings all within a limited length and format (272 wieldy pages). In trying to make a strong case, he tries to focus on his area of expertise (visual perception) while also surveying prominent issues across the sciences. In proposing an original theory as a potential paradigm shift, he tries to show both the comprehensive limitations of the current paradigm and the comprehensive benefits of his proposed paradigm. And Hoffman isn’t just proposing a paradigm shift, he’s proposing one that first discounts almost all of our intuitions about what is real and then puts the locus of objectivity in an unintuitive mathematical network of consciousness units. AND he only gives the specifics of this contrarian view in a math-heavy appendix. Ultimately, for me, the book fails from lack of exposition. That being said, the writing and argument are engaging and offer some unique takeaways.
As my alternate titles suggest, The Case Against Reality isn’t really an argument against the existence of objective reality or knowledge of that reality. Rather, it is an argument against what most people believe physical reality is: Most people think that discovering the atom or emerging insights on quantum mechanics tell us something significant about what reality actually is—independent of human perception. They say that humans are getting closer to Truth. Hoffman thinks all we are really doing is learning more about how we interface with the world—how we perceive and process information in order to survive and reproduce. The book’s gem is an analogy that Hoffman uses throughout to explain this interface argument. Hoffman compares our perception of reality to the icons on a computer’s desktop. While we should take all of the icons seriously (flashback to heart-wrenching accidental file deletions), we recognize there’s no actual icon in the computer; the icon is just a representation of a low-level code and a even lower level physical state of the machine. We use desktops because they are useful abstractions which hide the actual representations of data. In the same way, Hoffman argues that humans use perceptions to guide behavior because the perceptions are useful abstractions which hide reality from us. We might try to “zoom in” on the icons or visual perceptions, but we shouldn’t assume that the pixels or atomic structures we see are closer to foundational reality (desktop : hardware :: perception : reality).
Making the case that at least some of perceptions are inaccurate or maladaptive for truth is simple and intuitive. Unfortunately, much of Hoffman’s argument is spent on simple visual illusions, which don’t actually imply all that much about what reality is or what our usual, mixed sense data tell us about the world. Plus, at this point, such illusions are hackneyed—101 college courses across disciplines from philosophy to politics make use of such illusions, they even show up in high school classes and as pop-culture curiosities. Hoffman alludes to some interesting findings in his own research, but the book’s scope and length severely limit the exposition.
Making the case that almost all perceptions are inaccurate is difficult and unintuitive to most. Doing it comprehensively even for visual perception is daunting since what we see feels so central to our consciousness and ability to think about the world. The simple illusions help build accurate intuitions and discourage quick judgements, but they can also be easily be dismissed as special cases—clearly we are countering these visuoperceptual biases with specialized instruments, controlled studies, and academic peer-review. However, one unusual, poignant research finding does seem to move the needle for Hoffman’s argument:
Given a resource that is necessary and only beneficial in moderate amounts—like sunlight or oxygen which are fatal at excessive or deficient amounts—perception of fitness performs better than perception of truth. For example, if an organism can only see in black or white, it’s better for white to correspond to the most beneficial amounts of the resource (for example, the middle 50% of the distribution of the resource level in the environment, with black taking up the bottom and top 25%), than for white to correspond to the absolute amounts of the resource (where black would take up the bottom 50% of the distribution and white the upper 50%, so that the most beneficial amounts would overlap between black and white with no discernible pattern to help with fitness). (Yes, this point is much clearer with an illustration. Again, see my note about the audiobook format at the end of the review).
So much for visual perception: Hoffman presents relevant findings with a few tantalizing analogies and counterintuitive insights. But there are still harder cases to be made, like arguing that gravity, elementary particles, and even spacetime itself don’t exist. Hoffman's arguments here are largely interpretative, not conclusive. There’s no original research, like in the case of visual perception. Instead, he does a sort of literature review, showing how certain long-standing conundrums could be amended by focusing on fitness instead of truth. His interpretations of contemporary findings in physics felt too cursory; I never felt that he was presenting sufficient evidence for his own claims or for the opposing views. In the areas where I know a little about the subject, I had trouble accepting Hoffman's gloss.
Finally, even if Hoffman were able to successfully provide sufficient scientific arguments, I’m not sure how he could tackle linguistics, logic, or math. His whole argument depends on language, logic, and math so there’s a tricky case to be made if we follow the logic of his argument and claim that these methods of relaying information evolved simply to solve fitness payoff problems. If that is the case, then how can Hoffman rely on them to argue for his proposed objective view of reality? This problem with arguments against objectivity has long been a problem within philosophy, especially in the last century with the rise of pragmatist, subjectivist, and relativistic schools. The book suffers from Hoffman’s lack of engagement with this glaring problem and the history of thought dealing with it.
I’m tentatively rating The Case Against Reality as 3 stars. I didn’t find much new in Hoffman’s evidence or structure for the argument against objectivism. His proposed paradigm is provocative, but lacked substance to make any waves (there’s a Hoffmanian quantum physics irony in here somewhere). I think the two central aims of the book—refutation of physicalism and positing a better theory of reality based on a mathematical network of conscious units—should have been split into two books. The controversial support for Hoffman’s refutation and proposed paradigm is simply not explained enough to propel the reader’s intuition through the arguments. Even though I found the argument lacking and the argumentative structure poor, the writing itself is enjoyable. Hoffman animate ideas well through figurative language. In particular, the central analogy of the desktop interface is a novel and useful way to spur discussion and reconsider perception, even if the book’s main arguments fail.
———
Note on the audiobook format:
This was a mistake—on my part and the publisher's. Hoffman’s case is heavily dependent on visual illustrations. Apparently, there’s an accompanying PDF that was supposed to come with the Audible audiobook, but it simply isn’t available. However, even with a PDF, the actual text is what is really required: Towards the end of the book Hoffman describes an alternative, mathematics based model of reality which is near impossible to follow aurally—especially if you are unfamiliar with the Markov model.
medium-paced
This was the final straw. I'm done with pop-sci.
Or, at the very least, I'm thoroughly researching a book before buying it next time. I never want to read an evolutionary psychologist's take on quantum mechanics ever again.
Or, at the very least, I'm thoroughly researching a book before buying it next time. I never want to read an evolutionary psychologist's take on quantum mechanics ever again.
What I like most about the ideas is that it gives a direction to how you might study it further. Force yourself to stop thinking in terms of time and space and run additional experiments with that in mind
For an up-to-date (2022) summary of his thinking, see his interview with Tim Ferriss (2 hours!) YouTube
Don’t bother with his Ted Talk, which despite having millions of views, is old (2015) and doesn’t really discuss the physics angle.
For an up-to-date (2022) summary of his thinking, see his interview with Tim Ferriss (2 hours!) YouTube
Don’t bother with his Ted Talk, which despite having millions of views, is old (2015) and doesn’t really discuss the physics angle.
What an insane framework.
I'm not sure I fully buy into the depths of the concept, but I applaud the outside the box thinking. I'll be thinking about these concepts for the better part of the rest of my life.
It's a bit dense, but really gives insight into human perception, and the ways our assumptions about our senses might be leading us to misinterpret the fundamental nature of existence.
Definitely worth a read.
I'm not sure I fully buy into the depths of the concept, but I applaud the outside the box thinking. I'll be thinking about these concepts for the better part of the rest of my life.
It's a bit dense, but really gives insight into human perception, and the ways our assumptions about our senses might be leading us to misinterpret the fundamental nature of existence.
Definitely worth a read.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
DNF at 2/3, I couldn't take it further despite all my efforts. Although the theory of the author is interesting, I found the argument unpersuasive to say the list. Most studies he quotes are from the same teams, including his. His arguments, for instance about visual illusion, really didn't convince me, quite the opposite. I had trouble taking it seriously. I was very interested in reading this book, but in the end it didn't feel serious.
The book is probably intended for a more general audience than those of us who are inclined to scientific investigation. There are several examples that amount to hand waving rather than good examples. The most disturbing is the example explaining the proof of the fitness-beats-truth theorem. The choice of the "truth" proposition was arbitrary, and would be trivial if the "truth" used in comparison was the degree of "fitness" rather than mere existence of "stuff". Anyway, the general ideas presented were interesting food for thought.
Interestingly, while he mentions Godel once, he doesn't mention his incompleteness theorem. That idea, and further advancements indicate that we can never prove all true statements, and more generally, no theory will ever fully describe reality (if there is such a thing). One idea I consider regularly is that multiple theories, each with different foundations, might help humans understand both ourselves and reality in ways no single theory can match. An example might be using both the theory of "objective reality" (western science) and that of "conscious realism" (Hoffman) at the same time in order to interpret the nuances missed by each theory. That is a challenge for future consideration. I think the limitations of mathematics and logic also rule out any Theory of Everything (TOE), also mentioned in this book and widely described but yet to be formalized.
I suppose I did enjoy reading this book.
Interestingly, while he mentions Godel once, he doesn't mention his incompleteness theorem. That idea, and further advancements indicate that we can never prove all true statements, and more generally, no theory will ever fully describe reality (if there is such a thing). One idea I consider regularly is that multiple theories, each with different foundations, might help humans understand both ourselves and reality in ways no single theory can match. An example might be using both the theory of "objective reality" (western science) and that of "conscious realism" (Hoffman) at the same time in order to interpret the nuances missed by each theory. That is a challenge for future consideration. I think the limitations of mathematics and logic also rule out any Theory of Everything (TOE), also mentioned in this book and widely described but yet to be formalized.
I suppose I did enjoy reading this book.