You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
96 reviews for:
The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
Donald D. Hoffman
3.72 AVERAGE
96 reviews for:
The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
Donald D. Hoffman
3.72 AVERAGE
slow-paced
The interface theory of perception (ITP) that Hoffman proposes here says that we do not perceive reality but instead everything is an icon indicating evolutionary fitness payoffs.
The weak version of Hoffman’s claim is interesting but obviously true: that sense perception does not account for the unperceived aspects of reality and additionally that our senses distort what we perceive so that we are attracted towards payoffs in the environment.
But the strong version (to paraphrase Einstein, that the moon is not there when no-one is looking at it) is preposterous. To make such a claim believable would require evidence and an alternate theory about what reality is, but Hoffman only says that spacetime is not fundamental and we cannot know what is really there. This was dissatisfying as an explanation and the book was repetitive, so I was unconvinced and I disliked it.
The weak version of Hoffman’s claim is interesting but obviously true: that sense perception does not account for the unperceived aspects of reality and additionally that our senses distort what we perceive so that we are attracted towards payoffs in the environment.
But the strong version (to paraphrase Einstein, that the moon is not there when no-one is looking at it) is preposterous. To make such a claim believable would require evidence and an alternate theory about what reality is, but Hoffman only says that spacetime is not fundamental and we cannot know what is really there. This was dissatisfying as an explanation and the book was repetitive, so I was unconvinced and I disliked it.
This is an important book written by someone with an interesting background. Ordinarily, you wouldn't expect a cognitive scientist assail the very foundations of their own field of study, but that's exactly what Hoffman does. He carefully makes the case that our thinking of what constitutes "reality" is seriously hobbled by the fact that the concepts of "space and time" no longer provide bona fide reference points for investigating reality.
Using insights from fields as divergent as evolutionary biology, brain science, and quantum physics, the author develops what he terms Interface Theory of Perception. This theory states that our sensate, i.e., physical, experience of the world is shaped by a universal principle that maximizes evolutionary fitness and thereby hides the workings behind the "user interface" that is our day-to-day experience.
Besides providing ample evidence for how our senses are tailored to fitness rather than observing the true state of affairs, Hoffman's seriously dings our common assumption that there's a world "out there." He provides an arresting description of an experiment revealing that a decision how to observe a photon whose journey from a quasar began >10 billion years influences the photon's state (as a particle or wave) from the moment it leaves its source.
Since concepts like time and space fail to even make an appearance in this observation, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the "physical" world, which really is only an illusion created by our interface that lets us interact with contents in our consciousness and those of other agents with whom we share this consciousness.
Hoffman is not a philosopher (though, he refers to some metaphysical ideas developed by Kant); so he doesn't attempt to develop a full-fledged ontological model of consciousness (as some, more overtly idealist authors such as Bernardo Kastrup, have done). Instead, he proposes a mathematical description of interacting "conscious agents," which seems a little opaque (for starters, it's not clear what qualifies as a conscious agent). I found this proposal less convincing than the idea of "mind at large," put forth as a model by Kastrup, but Hoffman clearly acknowledges that his sketch is just meant as a starting point to correct the materialist view that places physicalism at the centre from which the world (and consciousness) emerge.
A very worthwhile read--it's going to be interesting to see whether others will take this call back to the drawing board seriously.
Using insights from fields as divergent as evolutionary biology, brain science, and quantum physics, the author develops what he terms Interface Theory of Perception. This theory states that our sensate, i.e., physical, experience of the world is shaped by a universal principle that maximizes evolutionary fitness and thereby hides the workings behind the "user interface" that is our day-to-day experience.
Besides providing ample evidence for how our senses are tailored to fitness rather than observing the true state of affairs, Hoffman's seriously dings our common assumption that there's a world "out there." He provides an arresting description of an experiment revealing that a decision how to observe a photon whose journey from a quasar began >10 billion years influences the photon's state (as a particle or wave) from the moment it leaves its source.
Since concepts like time and space fail to even make an appearance in this observation, it follows that consciousness is fundamental to the "physical" world, which really is only an illusion created by our interface that lets us interact with contents in our consciousness and those of other agents with whom we share this consciousness.
Hoffman is not a philosopher (though, he refers to some metaphysical ideas developed by Kant); so he doesn't attempt to develop a full-fledged ontological model of consciousness (as some, more overtly idealist authors such as Bernardo Kastrup, have done). Instead, he proposes a mathematical description of interacting "conscious agents," which seems a little opaque (for starters, it's not clear what qualifies as a conscious agent). I found this proposal less convincing than the idea of "mind at large," put forth as a model by Kastrup, but Hoffman clearly acknowledges that his sketch is just meant as a starting point to correct the materialist view that places physicalism at the centre from which the world (and consciousness) emerge.
A very worthwhile read--it's going to be interesting to see whether others will take this call back to the drawing board seriously.
The central idea that the 'reality' we perceive is a user interface generated by our consciousness is interesting. The structure of the book is odd - in some chapters Hoffman seems more interested in talking about the consequences of this for the marketing departments of US businesses, and shamelessly offering his services to them, rather than directly exploring his ambitious premise. Final chapter is a hot mess of wild speculation.
The duality of our consciousness set by the brain hemispheres really puts the expression "we all live two lives" into an exciting perspective. Hoffman is onto something. So is Woody Allen, with the 'stake dinner' statement.
Wow
Okay this is proper mind blowing stuff. The idea that reality is not some out there objective thing but rather an interface that has been developed between an unknown environment and an agent that evolves biasing fitness over truth. By the end of the book mushrooms have been eaten but there’s so much scope for thought that it really is worth the very literal trip.
Okay this is proper mind blowing stuff. The idea that reality is not some out there objective thing but rather an interface that has been developed between an unknown environment and an agent that evolves biasing fitness over truth. By the end of the book mushrooms have been eaten but there’s so much scope for thought that it really is worth the very literal trip.
80-90% of this book is good or better. What's not good is awful, like "the moon isn't there when no one's looking" or the attempt to introduce spirituality. I have a lot more to say about this book; we'll see if I get around to it.
Poorly written and weakly argued. A 20 page essay stretched into 200. There's an interesting idea at the core of this, but Donald Hoffman is the wrong person to make the case for it. Hard to take a book like this seriously that repeatedly quotes the Matrix and cites Elon Musk as a "serious thinker".
What we find here is a bit like H.P. Lovecraft minus the more horrible of the cosmic horror. Heres the gist: we filter reality. Knowing what exists independent of our senses is impossible, and I'm never really seeing objective reality but rather a human-specific interpretation of it. Ah well, c'est la vie! — or a close enough facsimile of it, at least. It's the sort of thought experiment that is sure to shake things up in academic circles where brainy folks cook up theories of everything, but which impacts my daily life in laypersonland not a whit.
3 stars. It's nice to take your brain down less-frequented alleyways and rough it up now and again. The book is pretty short and decently engaging throughout. Hoffman puts in enough flourishes to add occasional levity and flair, but often falls into a repetitive drone of info already shared previously.
3 stars. It's nice to take your brain down less-frequented alleyways and rough it up now and again. The book is pretty short and decently engaging throughout. Hoffman puts in enough flourishes to add occasional levity and flair, but often falls into a repetitive drone of info already shared previously.
What if what we see isn't actually there? What if the things we see, taste, touch, smell, and hear are actually renderings of compressed information that our perceptions create in order to allow us survive as a species? It is not that the spoon doesn't exist; it's that the spoon isn't a spoon when we don't look at it.
What if spacetime isn't part of actuality, but is a perceptual tool, or icon, that we've evolved to navigate us to what we need and away from what we don’t need. Could spacetime be a perceptual tool to keep us alive long enough to reproduce as a species?
But, this isn’t Solipsism because what if there is an objective reality, one ruled by conscious agents that our perceptions don’t actually allow us to see?
Hoffman posits all of these questions and more in his book “The Case Against Reality” through the theory of Conscious Realism. At its core, the book looks at our perceptions as evolutionarily built to show not reality, but a world of fitness payoffs meant to help us survive, or at least live enough to reproduce. It offers an exciting new way to understand our world, and it provides us with references to articles for and against his work, which is a nice way to allow us all to dive into the rabbit hole a little deeper.
I read this book after following Hoffman for quite some time, and it did not disappoint. If you’re into questioning reality and wondering who and what we are, this is a must read. 5/5.
Remember, the spoon as we know it may not be there, but it is still to be taken seriously.
What if spacetime isn't part of actuality, but is a perceptual tool, or icon, that we've evolved to navigate us to what we need and away from what we don’t need. Could spacetime be a perceptual tool to keep us alive long enough to reproduce as a species?
But, this isn’t Solipsism because what if there is an objective reality, one ruled by conscious agents that our perceptions don’t actually allow us to see?
Hoffman posits all of these questions and more in his book “The Case Against Reality” through the theory of Conscious Realism. At its core, the book looks at our perceptions as evolutionarily built to show not reality, but a world of fitness payoffs meant to help us survive, or at least live enough to reproduce. It offers an exciting new way to understand our world, and it provides us with references to articles for and against his work, which is a nice way to allow us all to dive into the rabbit hole a little deeper.
I read this book after following Hoffman for quite some time, and it did not disappoint. If you’re into questioning reality and wondering who and what we are, this is a must read. 5/5.
Remember, the spoon as we know it may not be there, but it is still to be taken seriously.