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
I'm abandoning this book halfway because it's repetitive, tedious and somewhat obvious. Other reviews also have problems with the quantum section, so will just skip.
It takes a relatively whopping amount, 200 pages, for one to say that the world we see is the world we've evolved to see in order to survive, and that everything is a functional node in a probabilistic system...
Or maybe I just got it wrong.
But, as far as I could see it, Hoffman tried his best to sell this book as revolutionary, as a "different way of thinking about reality!", and it simply isn't the case.
Or maybe I just got it wrong.
But, as far as I could see it, Hoffman tried his best to sell this book as revolutionary, as a "different way of thinking about reality!", and it simply isn't the case.
I didn’t enjoy this as much as I had hoped I would. Some interesting theory here, but I don’t think I’m buying it.
Objective reality exists, Hoffman denies it but never really creates a convincing argument.
Objective reality exists, Hoffman denies it but never really creates a convincing argument.
Too much in this book is presented with conclusions that don't have the mechanism of evidence adequately explained. Just declaring that something is proven, and even giving the citation for it, sites not mean that the reader gets the benefit of understanding WHY the particular conclusion is definitive. Also, I find the analogies to be fault. Saying that a necker cube illusion provides a cube that is neither facing towards bit away from the viewer, but that perception makes it so, does not extend to the moon either existing or not depending on whether it is being observed. Likewise, I am right on board with the comments relating the computer icon being different from the file and the file that we interact with being different from the computer code which is reduced to electrical activity (I extended the description there). However, that analogy has limits and does not necessarily extend to the bottom that the moon is not real.
The argument that a spoon is "something"when not observed, and the observer makes it a spoon makes sense in understanding a way of perceiving and labeling objects, but then this is used to go further into questioning what the material, shape, and location of the soon may be off not observed.
I also find the same point being reiterated without moving forward.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this book gets bigger down in it's own thrill over solipsistic reality.
The argument that a spoon is "something"when not observed, and the observer makes it a spoon makes sense in understanding a way of perceiving and labeling objects, but then this is used to go further into questioning what the material, shape, and location of the soon may be off not observed.
I also find the same point being reiterated without moving forward.
Maybe I'm missing something, but this book gets bigger down in it's own thrill over solipsistic reality.
Dressed up with cognitive and evolutionary science but essentially makes the same point Kant did in the 18th century. We don't see things for what they are but instead by what we are. Our cognitive apparatus developed through natural selection shapes our perception of reality which is likely very different from the pictures in our heads. Very much a point reiterated since the days of the empiricists if not Plato.
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.