Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

What the OP theory exposed is,
there is no such objective reality that is independent the human conditions.
The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings.

To say
"The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings."
is to make an objective claim about the nature of reality.
It is an ontological claim positing what objective reality is.
You are a human making a claim about what objective reality is.
It is somehow entangled with humans (who themselves of course are a part of reality).

Nope, I am not making an ontological [metaphysical] claim at all.
I am countering those who make ontological claims of objective reality.

What I am making is merely an empirical claim.
Example, I am stating the objective reality of the apple you see [empirically] on the table is somehow entangled with you as a human being.

An ontological claim would be,
-the real apple on the apple exists regardless of any one is observing and entangling with it. What the observer observed are merely the wavelengths of materials of the real apple-in-itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call objective reality is an illusion made of mind.

Agree, that is the claim of the OP.

Rather is what philosophical realists claimed as the most real objective reality out there which is independent of human conceptions is an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Observating "observation" itself is absolute and unconditional given it observes itself through itself.

Observations are always conditioned upon the human self [no human no observation], thus it cannot be absolutely unconditional.

[Iwannaplato]

Nope, I am not making an ontological [metaphysical] claim at all.
I am countering those who make ontological claims of objective reality.

What I am making is merely an empirical claim.
Example, I am stating the objective reality of the apple you see [empirically] on the table is somehow entangled with you as a human being.

the thread title is: there is no objective reality. The above sentence seems to presume objective reality, since it tells us something about that objective reality. It also seems to have implicit ideas about ontology. Different things get entangled. Perception is like this. It seems to me there is also, in addition to the presumption of objective reality in the sentence, a model of how things are.

An ontological claim would be,
-the real apple on the apple exists regardless of any one is observing and entangling with it. What the observer observed are merely the wavelengths of materials of the real apple-in-itself.

This certainly has an ontology: realism.

[Eodnhoj7]

Observating "observation" itself is absolute and unconditional given it observes itself through itself.

Observations are always conditioned upon the human self [no human no observation], thus it cannot be absolutely unconditional.

False, the totality of being contains within it consciousness as consciousness is the act of reflection. Reflection is the inversion of one phenomenon into another and the repetition of said phenomenon. As such the universe itself is aware considering all phenomena share this nature. Humans may be the apex of observation, but observation is not limited to man.

The totality of being observing itself through itself necessitates observation, as a self referential phenomenon, as absolute and unconditional. Observation observes itself and is not dependent upon anything else given being manifests itself through fractals and these fractals are being self referencing. The totality or being is absolute as existing through itself.

One cannot observe no objective reality without first defining it and making it subject to existence.

[seeds]

In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

That’s quite a speculative stretch of the imagination there.

And what exactly was it that imbued the initial (and extremely chaotic) “Big Bang” conditions of the universe with the teleological impetus (implicit in the concept of “determinism”) to eventually transform what amounts to this...



...into neural algorithms in a physical brain?

Furthermore, you stated the following:

He [Hoffman] insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic...

I don’t remember Hoffman mentioning the word “God” anywhere in the conversation.

However, if he did, then you can correct my oversight by pointing out the minute marker on the video where he talks about God or anything theistic.

On the other hand, if he didn’t, then shame on you for putting words in his mouth and misleading those who did not watch the video.

And lastly, the assertion that there is “no objective reality,” could not be further from the truth.

And that’s because everything that exists on the outside of the subjective dimension of your own personal mind is literally “objective reality” relative to you. And that includes the objective reality of your own physical body and brain.

And it especially applies to the objective existence of other minds relative to your mind.
_______

[Eodnhoj7]

What we call objective reality is an illusion made of mind.

Agree, that is the claim of the OP.

Rather is what philosophical realists claimed as the most real objective reality out there which is independent of human conceptions is an illusion.

Objective reality is that which exists beyond the mind as the mind is no thing in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope, I am not making an ontological [metaphysical] claim at all.
I am countering those who make ontological claims of objective reality.

What I am making is merely an empirical claim.
Example, I am stating the objective reality of the apple you see [empirically] on the table is somehow entangled with you as a human being.

the thread title is: there is no objective reality. The above sentence seems to presume objective reality, since it tells us something about that objective reality. It also seems to have implicit ideas about ontology. Different things get entangled. Perception is like this. It seems to me there is also, in addition to the presumption of objective reality in the sentence, a model of how things are.

An ontological claim would be,
-the real apple on the apple exists regardless of any one is observing and entangling with it. What the observer observed are merely the wavelengths of materials of the real apple-in-itself.

This certainly has an ontology: realism.

Ontology is a loose term, i.e.

• Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology#:

However, generally in philosophical discussions, ontology is commonly stated with reference to Substance ontology. i.e.

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

The OP is primarily a refutation of the above substance ontology, no objective reality in the substance ontological sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Observating "observation" itself is absolute and unconditional given it observes itself through itself.

Observations are always conditioned upon the human self [no human no observation], thus it cannot be absolutely unconditional.

False, the totality of being contains within it consciousness as consciousness is the act of reflection. Reflection is the inversion of one phenomenon into another and the repetition of said phenomenon. As such the universe itself is aware considering all phenomena share this nature. Humans may be the apex of observation, but observation is not limited to man.

The totality of being observing itself through itself necessitates observation, as a self referential phenomenon, as absolute and unconditional. Observation observes itself and is not dependent upon anything else given being manifests itself through fractals and these fractals are being self referencing. The totality or being is absolute as existing through itself.

One cannot observe no objective reality without first defining it and making it subject to existence.

There is human consciousness.

What other consciousness are you talking about?
You are merely speculating out of thin air.
Prove whatever "consciousness" you are claiming exists as real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

That’s quite a speculative stretch of the imagination there.

And what exactly was it that imbued the initial (and extremely chaotic) “Big Bang” conditions of the universe with the teleological impetus (implicit in the concept of “determinism”) to eventually transform what amounts to this...



...into neural algorithms in a physical brain?

I stated it stretched back to the Big Bang which was an empirical possibility.
Further than that, we cannot talk about it, thus invoking
Wittgenstein's
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

Btw, what is there to be gain from mere speculation of what is beyond the BB.

Furthermore, you stated the following:

He [Hoffman] insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic...

I don’t remember Hoffman mentioning the word “God” anywhere in the conversation.

However, if he did, then you can correct my oversight by pointing out the minute marker on the video where he talks about God or anything theistic.

On the other hand, if he didn’t, then shame on you for putting words in his mouth and misleading those who did not watch the video.

You can presume I have to maintain my personal intellectual integrity and honesty. It is possible I could be mistaken in a very marginal cases, but definitely not in such an obvious claim.

I heard but did not keep track of his mentioned of 'God' and creative intelligence, but here is a quickie search of the video; 20:26-27
https://youtu.be/4HFFr0-ybg0?t=1227
Elsewhere in the video, he stated his theory has nothing to do with a God.

And lastly, the assertion that there is “no objective reality,” could not be further from the truth.

And that’s because everything that exists on the outside of the subjective dimension of your own personal mind is literally “objective reality” relative to you. And that includes the objective reality of your own physical body and brain.

And it especially applies to the objective existence of other minds relative to your mind.
_______

As I mentioned above, the objective reality Hoffman referred to is the 'objective reality' claimed by substance theorists, philosophical realists and the like, that there is an absolute objective reality that exists absolutely independent of human conceptions.

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

• Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality. Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

What is objective reality of our own physical body and brain is relative to the empirical self [I-THINK] and not the ontological I-AM.
As such it is relative objective reality and not absolute object reality as claimed by the substance theorists and philosophical realists.

[Age]

In his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

and video,
Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Donald Hoffman postulated there is such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time, do not reveal objective reality.

We encounter a startling “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) theorem, which states that evolution by natural selection does not favor true perceptions—it routinely drives them to extinction.
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

The FBT Theorem tells us that the language of our perceptions—including space, time, shape, hue, saturation, brightness, texture, taste, sound, smell, and motion—cannot describe reality as it is when no one looks.

Space, time, and physical objects are not objective reality.
They are simply the virtual world delivered by our senses to help us play the game of life.

At this point Hoffman hypothesis would agree with the following threads I raised;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Despite postulating there is no objective reality, Hoffman is driven by the same fundamental psychological impulse to think there is still some thing more fundamental, i.e.

Physics and evolution point to the same conclusion: spacetime and objects are not foundational.
Something else is more fundamental, and spacetime emerges from it.

If our senses hide reality behind an interface, then what is that reality?
I don’t know.

Hoffman then speculated the basic of that reality could be 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide, and act.
If so, consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail.
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Note in the video Hoffman stated, the consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God or creative intelligence.

What he stated was, such consciousness and conscious agents are merely ASSUMPTIONs necessary for his theory to work.

My take from Hoffman's book is there is no independent objective reality or objective facts out there.
In contrast to my take, people like Peter Holmes et. al. insist there is a real objective feature of reality, i.e. facts that we make factual assertions [descriptions] about.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSK] constructed by humans and thus objective in that sense and it is interdependent with the human conditions.

I sort of wonder; when I say, "the sky appears blue to me", is that an objective statement or is that a subjective statement?

You can STOP 'wondering'. This is because that statement is an OBJECTIVE statement.

What appears is thee actual Truth of things.

Whether 'that' 'what appears' is ACTUALLY Truth, however, is another thing.

For example, it is factual that the sky appears to be a particular color which I have learned to ascribe the word "blue" to. Presumably, if anyone else were in my position or situation they would agree with my sentence.[/quote]

ABSOLUTELY EVERY one could agree with your sentence here. In fact, NO one could soundly nor validly disagree with your sentence here.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO one who could logically disagree with your sentence.

And if the sky were (in an independent reality) not blue, then I would be incorrect or under deception however, my statement that the sky appears blue is still true and based on something factual.

Your sentence could NEVER be incorrect NOR under deception EVER.

If 'that' (ANY thing) is what appears to you, then that IS what appears.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO 'thing' that could dispute this, logically, nor could refute this, at all.

Your statement that the sky appears blue is thee ACTUAL Truth of things. Unless of course you are LYING.

[Age]

I sort of wonder; when I say, "the sky appears blue to me", is that an objective statement or is that a subjective statement? For example, it is factual that the sky appears to be a particular color which I have learned to ascribe the word "blue" to.
Presumably, if anyone else were in my position or situation they would agree with my sentence. And if the sky were (in an independent reality) not blue, then I would be incorrect or under deception however, my statement that the sky appears blue is still true and based on something factual.

When you assert 'the sky is blue to me' that is a subjective statement, i.e. conditioned upon you as a subject.

OF COURSE when someone asserts that 'the sky is blue to me' then that is ALSO an OBJECTIVE statement.

Just like it is OBVIOUS that when someone asserts 'the sky appears blue to me'.

By the way when someone asserts that 'the sky is blue' is a SUBJECTIVE statement.

If you state 'the sky is blue to me' in accord with scientific truth, then your subjective statement is in alignment an objective claim of science which is qualified and conditioned only upon the scientific framework and system.

You appear to keep FORGETTING that the 'scientific framework and system' is a HUMAN BEING CONSTRUCT, and therefore in and of itself a SUBJECTIVE SYSTEM. Therefore, just because someone makes a statement in alignment with that HUMAN BEING CONSTRUCTED 'system' this does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT necessarily make that statement an objective statement nor even a more objective statement.

There is only ONE ACTUAL thing that makes statements OBJECTIVE.

If anyone were to agree with you, they still have to refer to the authority of science as a basis of truth.

Do you REALLY think or believe that 'science', itself, is some arbitrary thing outside of HUMAN BEINGS?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call objective reality is an illusion made of mind.

Agree, that is the claim of the OP.

Rather is what philosophical realists claimed as the most real objective reality out there which is independent of human conceptions is an illusion.

Objective reality is that which exists beyond the mind as the mind is no thing in itself.

There are two perspectives to objective reality, i.e.

• 1. Empirical objective reality
  
  2. Transcendental objective reality

1. The reliable truth of empirical objective reality is scientific justified reality conditioned upon a scientific framework and system.

2. Transcendental objective reality is based on substance theory and philosophical realism

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
  
  Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality. Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Your views are based on mere speculation and pure reasoning which is heavily influenced by the psychological existential impulse to cling on to 'something' despite to real evidence for it.

If your objective reality beyond the mind is not a thing [in the widest sense] then what is it. If that whatever cannot be talked about then note Wittgenstein's,
"Whererof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”
i.e. literally shut up!

[Age]

I'm not asserting "the sky is blue to me".
I'm asserting the sky appears blue to me". It may be subjective but it still seems to be a factual statement.

Regardless of whether you assert the certainty or the sky appears to be blue, your assertion is subjective as an opinion or belief.

You can only state 'the sky is blue' is factual and objective confidently with reference to 'because science said so' as conditioned by the scientific framework. In addition, science will not assert the sky is absolutely blue but only upon certain conditions.

'you', "veritas aequitas" are SO BLINDED by your current BELIEFS that you keep MISSING the FACT that the word 'is' was NOT being written and instead the word 'appears' WAS WRITTEN.

In addition, science will not assert the sky is absolutely blue but only upon certain conditions.

You will REALLY 'try' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to back up and support what you BELIEVE is true.

Of course people in the scientific community would NOT assert that the sky is ABSOLUTELY blue.

The way you MISS, and REARRANGE, words to 'try to' fit in with and suit your OWN agenda here can be SEEN, CLEARLY.

[Age]

I sort of wonder; when I say, "the sky appears blue to me", is that an objective statement or is that a subjective statement? For example, it is factual that the sky appears to be a particular color which I have learned to ascribe the word "blue" to.
Presumably, if anyone else were in my position or situation they would agree with my sentence. And if the sky were (in an independent reality) not blue, then I would be incorrect or under deception however, my statement that the sky appears blue is still true and based on something factual.

When you assert 'the sky is blue to me' that is a subjective statement, i.e. conditioned upon you as a subject.

If you state 'the sky is blue to me' in accord with scientific truth, then your subjective statement is in alignment an objective claim of science which is qualified and conditioned only upon the scientific framework and system.

If anyone were to agree with you, they still have to refer to the authority of science as a basis of truth.

I'm not asserting "the sky is blue to me". I'm asserting the sky appears blue to me". It may be subjective but it still seems to be a factual statement.

If you are NOT lying, then it IS an ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL statement. It would in fact BE an OBJECTIVE statement. And, NO one could logically dispute, NOR REFUTE, this.