4/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, conclusion

 Defending Physical Reality.  Because, apparently somebody needs to.  

Feel free to copy and share.

(Aka, Hoffman’s crusade against appreciating reality.)

Objections and Replies (authors conclusion)

Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Hoffman and Prakash) Conclusion 

Hoffman starts out with an example of how the framing of questions (and  scenarios) limits the quantity of potential understanding.

Hoffman:  Belief in object permanence commences at 3 months of age and continues for a lifetime. 

Object permanence beginning at 3 months?  It’s a dreadfully impoverished description of what’s happening within an infant.  

An infant is born with senses in place, if under developed.  With a mind like a sponge, soaking in everything it can, processing on-the-fly and waking from every nap refreshed and with senses and brain a bit better connected than before and ready to soak in yet more.

A sense of object permanence starts developing right after birth, beginning with an awareness of, and bonding with, its parents and other intimate caregivers and builds out from there.

Learning to use its eyes, focus, turn towards sounds, touch and smell, tiny muscles always fidgeting, tiny fingers, hands, arms, the legs, feet, toes - the wonderful progression from flailing to coordination, then lifting itself, then the nose dives while figuring out the muscular choreography needed to make crawling happen.  Then, it’s on to walking and potty training.  

All that is part of understanding object permanence which Hoffman treats like a bad thing.  

In the infant's life, physical reality makes sure that the lessons of object permanence are build into the awareness of that little body, as well as mind.

Grasping the physical reality of object permanence and then learning how to manipulate it, is a prerequisite for becoming a balanced healthy person. 

Those who can’t achieve such innate understanding become helpless and useless, confined to a life dependent on others taking care of them, or left to die.

Pretending away object permanence may be a fun intellectual mind-game for the bored, but it’s no space any person wants to exist within.

It inclines us to assume that objects exist without subjects to perceive them, 

“It  inclines  us  to  assume”  Let's unpack that ...   

3/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (18-21)

Defending Physical Reality.  Because, apparently somebody needs to.  

Feel free to copy and share.

This is the third installation of my review of Hoffman/Prakash’s responses which are attached to their 2014 Objects of Consciousness paper, specifically #18 to #21.  The open source Q and A was copied and pasted, complete, no edits.  I simply added my two cents worth.

I don’t pretend to be any sort of scholar or self made expert, not even, this is a student’s exploration and discovery.  Since I like homework more than most, I want to make my trail of discovery and adventures in critical thinking available for busy students who relate to these themes and want to better understand the dark art of scientific deception for fun, power and profit.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Objections and Replies (#18 - #21 of 21)

Cc: The objections are printed in blue, author’s responses in mauve, my comments in dark green.  Supplementary information is clearly marked.  Most titles are linked to original sources.

Hoffman:  Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.

(18) Their treatment of the combination problem is worth reading. There is however a very large problem with their model: It relies on the Cartesian product of X1 and X2 (this is right after Conjecture 3). The Cartesian product is not conducive to real combination (this problem is all over mathematics, by the way—mathematicians don't care about it because they only care about high level abstractions). In section Objections and Replies, where they discuss objections to their model, they discuss this very objection (objection 10). 

Unfortunately, their resolution to this objection is mere handwaving: But as the conscious agents in the combination continue to interact, the decisions become less and less independent. This is mere wishful thinking. The authors have no reason to believe this less and less business and they've given the reader no reason to think this either. In fact, if this less and less business were true, their model wouldn't require the Cartesian product in the first place. Frankly, this objection and their failure to handle it guts their model. 

In this same paragraph, in the next couple of sentences, the authors just assert (using proof by blatant assertion) that in some undefined limit, a true new conscious entity emerges. This makes the complex presentation of their model otiose. Why not just write a haiku asserting that the combination problem is not a problem?

The limit we speak of (for the emergence of a new combined conscious agent) is the asymptotic limit. Asymptotic behavior is a precise technical concept in the theory of Markov chains (see, e.g., Revuz, 1984, chapter 6). 

The defining characteristic of a Markov chain is that no matter how the process arrived at its present state, the possible future states are fixed.

“Precise technical concept” - but is it proof when there’s no accompanying physical evidence?

2/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (13-17)

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577

This is the second installation of Hoffman/Prakash’s responses which are attached to their 2014 Objects of Consciousness paper, specifically #13 to #17.  I haven't changed any of their words, simply added my two cents worth.

I don’t pretend to be any sort of scholar or self made expert, not even, this is a student’s exploration and discovery.  Something to share with other interested students.  Since I like homework more than most, I don’t mind sharing the fruits of my hours' worth of effort. 

I want to make my trail of discovery and adventures in critical thinking available to others with whom these themes resonate - especially those who also possess a desire to defend serious science against the current onslaught of strategic deception for fun, power and profit. 

Objections and Replies (13-17 of 21)

Hoffman:  Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.

Cc:  The objections are printed in blue, author’s responses in mauve, my comments in dark green.  Supplementary information is clearly marked.  Most titles are linked to original sources.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some Elements of an Evolutionary Theory of Perception

Perceptual Systems, Historical Background, Innate And Learned Classical perceptual phenomena, Broad theoretical approaches, Current research/future developments.

Sources, science.jrank.org

Ecological approaches to perceptual learning: learning to perceive and perceiving as learning

Agnes Szokolszky, Catherine Read, Zsolt Palatinus, et al., 2019

The Essential Elements of an Evolutionary Theory of Perception

Eric P. Charles, 2017,

The evolution of early symbolic behavior in Homo sapiens

Kristian Tylén, Riccardo Fusaroli, Sergio Rojo, et al. PNAS 2020

The Evolution and Fossil History of Sensory Perception in Amniote Vertebrates

doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010120, March 21, 2018 

Evolutionary Specialization of Tactile Perception in Vertebrates

Eve R. Schneider, Elena O. Gracheva, and Slav N. Bagriantsev, 2016

Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions

Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, Handbook of Emotions, 2000

The evolution of modern human brain shape

Simon Neubauer, Jean-Jacques Hublin and Philipp Gunz, 2018:

Intrinsic Multiperspectivity: Conceptual Forms and the Functional Architecture of the Perceptual System

Rainer Mausfeld, PhD.

Perceptual Worlds and Sensory Ecology

By: Stephen Burnett, PhD, Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):75

Ch.17. A Hierarchical Model of the Evolution of Human Brain Specializations

H. CLARK BARRETT.

Surroundings and Evolution Shape Human Sight, Smell and Taste

by: Andrea Korte, February 19, 2017

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(13) In section Evolution and Perception, the authors' argument seems to be: Argument 1: (1) Natural selection favors fitness in perceptual systems. (2) Fitness is incompatible with truth. (3) Therefore, natural selection favors perceptions that do not see truth in whole or in part.

1/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, questions + replies (1-12)

Defending Physical Reality.  Because, apparently somebody needs to.  Feel free to copy and share.

This overall project is intended as a student resource for an in-depth critical examination of Donald Hoffman's: The Case Against Reality; Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes.  In a previous section we did a detailed chapter by chapter review (index at the bottom of this page), including many links to authoritative resources that support my claims.  

In this section I’ve copied and reproduced the complete 21 questions and responses section from Hoffman/Prakash's Frontiers of Psychology paper 2014 Objects of Consciousness paper, which helped lay the foundation for his book.  This review will be spread out over four installments, I haven't changed any text, simply added my two cents worth.

I don’t pretend to be any sort of scholar or self-made expert, no indeed, this is closer to a student’s exploration.  Since I like homework more than most, I don’t mind sharing my process and the fruits of my hours' worth of effort, in the hope it can help others save time. 

I want to make my trail of discovery and adventures in critical thinking available to others with whom these themes resonate - especially those who also possess a desire to defend serious science against the current onslaught of strategic deception for fun, power and profit. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Objections and Replies (1-12 of 21)

Donald Hoffman:  Here we summarize helpful feedback from readers of earlier drafts, in the form of objections and replies.   

Cc: The objections are printed in blue, author’s responses in mauve, my comments in dark green.  Supplementary information is clearly marked.  Most titles are linked to original sources.

(1) Your definition of conscious agents could equally well-apply to unconscious agents. Thus, your theory says nothing about consciousness.

DH:  Even if the definition could apply to unconscious agents, that would not preclude it from applying to consciousness, any more than using the integers to count apples would preclude using them to count oranges.

Cc:  Nor does it preclude applying to the totally imaginary.  The response also hints at an unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between, “Saying something” of substance about human consciousness, and simply “doing math.” 

(2) How can consciousness be cast in a mathematical formalism without losing something essential?

DH:  The mathematics does lose something essential, viz., consciousness itself. 

Similarly, mathematical models of weather also lose something essential, viz., weather itself. A mathematical model of hurricanes won't create rain, and a mathematical model of consciousness won't create consciousness. 

The math is not the territory. But, properly constructed, mathematics reveals the structure of the territory.

Cc:  But consciousness is not a geographic space that can be described using coordinates and vectors.

Consciousness is a complex interaction with the outside world and the inside of our bodies.  It’s not limited to the brain.  Where does all that get represented within Hoffman’s formulas?

Paul Mealing considers Hoffman's "Objects of Consciousness."

 A few weeks back I read an excellent essay pointing out some of the issues with Hoffman’s conjectures.  At the time it was reassuring that I was on a right track.  Paul's clarity made me want to post this as an appendix item and I’m happy to finally be at that point.  I thank Paul for making it available.

Journeyman Philosopher by Paul P Mealing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The following is complete, unedited, (except for adding paragraph breaks and highlights), as Paul Mealing wrote it.

——————————————————————————————

From the Journeyman Philosopher blog

Philosophy, at its best, challenges our long held views, such that we examine them more deeply than we might otherwise consider.

Paul P. Mealing

November 13, 2016

When evolution is not evolution

No, I’m not talking about creationism (a subject I’ve discussed many times on this blog) but a rather esoteric argument produced by Donald D Hoffman and Chetan Prakash in an academic paper titled Objects of Consciousness. Their discussion on evolution is almost a side issue, and came up in their responses to the many objections they’ve fielded. I read the paper when I was sent a link by someone who knows I’m interested in this stuff.

Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist with a Ph.D. in Computational Psychology and is now a full professor at University of California, Irvine. Chetan Prakash is a Professor Emeritus at California State University, San Bernardino and has a Master of Science in Physics and a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics.

I should point out at the outset, that their thesis is so out there, that I seriously wondered if it was a hoax. But given their academic credentials and the many academic citations and references in their paper, I assume that the authors really believe in what they’re arguing. 

And what they’re arguing, in a nutshell, is that everyone’s (and I mean every person’s) perception of the world is false, because, aside from conscious agents, everything else, including spacetime, is impermanent.

Their paper is 20 pages long (including 5-6 pages of objections and replies) most of which are densely worded interspersed with some diagrams and equations. To distill someone’s treatise into a single paragraph is always a tad unfair, so I’ll rely heavily on direct quotations and references to impart their arguments. Besides, you can always read the entire paper for yourself. Basically, they argue that ‘interacting conscious agents’ are the only reality and that nothing else exists ‘unperceived’.