A Preview of Cc's "Hoffman playing Basketball in zero-gravity" a critical review of his "Case Against Reality"

I've put together this 9 page preview of my "Hoffman playing basketball in zero-gravity" critique in order to send a hard copy to scientists and others who's work I've featured during this project, maybe even get a little feedback.  

I'm sharing because during the year I worked on this project my homework has evolved into a rich student resource, with copious links, references and insights for the young critical thinker writing a paper or report.  Especially those that want to dig into Donald Hoffman's Case Against Reality, for themselves, this is a goldmine. 

That's also why I'm taking the opportunity to post this online and send hard copies to some others.  You see, I'm trying to find out if this resonates with anyone out there in the world beyond my rural Colorado cabin.  If the following does resonates with you, I'd love to hear from you.  Serious feedback, critique, suggestions, networking is invited.  

Thank you for your time, 

Peter Miesler (aka Citizenschallenge)

citizenschallenge at gmail

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

 A preview of Cc’s “Hoffman playing basketball in zerogravity”

a critical review of “The Case Against Reality”

(5.01)    With a summary, explaining why I've pursued this project. 

These days science is under multiple attacks, much of it built upon malicious, deliberately fabricated falsehoods concocted by ruthless special self-interests, with bottomless bank accounts and control of screaming social media machines.  

But some is self-inflicted because in these modern times ‘provocative' gets more adulation than simple learning and constructively building upon understood fundamentals and exercising critical thinking skills.

An excellent example of this malaise is Donald Hoffman’s “Case Against Reality, why evolution hid the truth from our eyes,” with its insistence that science needs meta-physical thinking to comprehend human consciousness.  The book’s content, suggested to me, plain old Abrahamic dualism wrapped up in scientific pretense.  This has gotten me to wondering about how much of modern thinking, such as Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of consciousness is intractable simply because they are still trapped within a bubble of Abrahamic inspired dualistic mindset, with its unrealistic divisions, impossible expectations, along with its superlative self-centeredness.

My project, Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-gravity Review is intended to identify the book's red flags and to offer solid critique, backed by information and sources that will provide students with the facts they need to see through Hoffman’s smokescreen for themselves.

Food for thought you could say. I'm specifically targeting those curious students already concerned with American’s descent into delusional anti-science thinking, students who are hungry for ideas on how to constructively confront today’s rising tide of belligerent willful ignorance. 

Jan Koenderink, "Esse est percipi - verum factum est" - considering Hoffman's case.

 Defending Physical Reality, because apparently somebody needs to. 

"Esse est percipi & verum factum est"

Philosophy has and will continue to resemble a dog chasing its tail, 

in contrast to science’s hound sniffing out its quarry.

Updated with a learned perspective on philosophy, scroll to bottom for video: 

Dr. Richard Carrier, at Skepticon 6.  It’s titled “Is Philosophy Stupid?”

Considering, "Esse est percipi & verum factum est"

(It is perceived to be & It is true)

Jan Koenderink,  Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

volume 22, pages 1530–1534(2015). September 18, 2015

(original 2800 words)

I've read a little bit about Jan Koenderink, no doubt he's a brilliant man with many impressive accomplishments.  I can't hold a candle to this master of academia.  Nor is my intention to dismiss him.  But, fact remains this particular paper says much worth disputing.  For me, it's another example of what I refer to as getting lost within one's own Mindscape and losing sight of physical reality. 

 

The following is intended for students who think something is being missed by the masters.  Students curious and motivated to do their own homework, to figure it out for themselves.

Abstract

I go into the historical roots of the fundamental issues relating to the “interface theory of perception,” concentrating on the sciences rather than on philosophy. …

I am mainly in sympathy with the concepts discussed in the target article. I have often used the “interface paradigm” myself (Koenderink, 2011, 2013) in vain attempts to kick people out of their mainstream slumber. The rare reactions, however, have been negative (e.g., Tyler, 2014). I foresee some frictions in getting the ideas of the authors accepted!

Yet the basic notions are hardly revolutionary. They occur in philosophy—that is, proto-science—from the earliest days, …

I find it interesting how Koenderink injects “Proto-science.” 

Yes, philosophy gave birth to science.  (oops)  

In philosophy, the coin of realm is rhetorical abilities.  

In science, the coin of the realm is honest observations and constructive learning.

Philosophy has no standards of objectivity beyond the writer's imagination and the ability to argue effectively.  

Reality

The English word “reality” might be translated into German as either Realität or Wirklichkeit. This German distinction reveals a basic dichotomy. One reality is your awareness here and now, whereas the other reality is sometimes referred to as the physical world.  …

This is where I believe it’s appropriate to step outside our imagined ‘god's eye view’ and recognize our physical reality from the perspective of the creature within us.  

The simple fact of us existing requires that we are a product of an unfathomably ancient evolutionary process.  Nothing else makes rational or emotional sense.

That being the case, there is a physical reality that is ultimate, that simply is, and in some fundamental ways it has nothing to do humans, we just happen to be an incredibly lucky fluke.  Billions of years worth of incredibly advantageous breaks.  Very much like all the other creatures we share Earth with today, but we're the epitome of complexity.

It feels to me like Koenderink and Hoffman and the like have lost sight of that fundament reality we were born into.  I suspect because they are blinded by the brilliance of their own minds.

Chris Fields, Reverse engineering the world: “The interface theory of perception”

Now we come to Chris Fields' paper, Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash.  His website makes clear that he is quite an expert in perception questions, I was impressed, though it wasn’t without its red flags.  He writes,

Chris Fields :    "What is time? What is space? What is causation?

 These are traditionally regarded as philosophical questions, but they have practical importance in physics, computer science, biology, cognitive neuroscience and developmental psychology.”

Cc:  Bold, but why?  Practical importance?  Like what?  For what?  What’s the promise?  Where does science crossing over into metaphysical philosophical questions offer any hope in clarifying or simplify general understanding of this physical world we need to navigate day by day?  

Why over complicate things?  Why do I hear echos of Audrey Junior?

Chris Fields :    If we regard our perceived ‘world’ as a virtual machine, computer science tells us that arbitrarily many distinct physical implementations of that world are possible.

Cc: We can regard the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a real thing, but that doesn’t make it real!

Professor Fields paper didn’t resonate.  2500 words, “Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash", 

For all its words and concern about the “interface of perception” we were right back at discussing the computer interface and trying to shoe horn human perception into some digital paradigm.  We’d be better off trying to think about the real world.

For me it was an excellent example of what I mean by getting lost within one’s Mindscape. Super smart brains, big words and notions but at the end of it, are we left with anything useful to think about and work with?  I sure didn’t find anything.  I suspect only a very select fraternity can.

If you’re a regular person and want to learn anything useful about “reality” or the “interface of perception” be it between us and the world, or between any organism and its world, the serious student would be much better served starting with reading or listening to David Quammen’s “The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life.”

I bring it up in this context because, among many other fascinating facts, David Quammen did a superb job of telling the story of how studies into the most primitive cells lead to a simple (if in hindsight quite obvious), biological revelation that we cannot understand an organism without simultaneously understanding the environment it exists within.  

“Interface” is that permeable barrier between the two.

Now that’s something a thinking person can do something with.  It pulls back a curtain, we become aware that this simple truism runs through the flow of evolution and the fabric of creation, whether within Earth’s natural biosphere, or within its human community and our day to days.  It’s a genuine eye opener.

Jonathan Cohen: Perceptual representation, veridicality, interface theory

"Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception" 

 Professor Cohen: “But HSP’s case against veridical perception, and their case for an alternative account, turn crucially on significant misapprehensions in the early going about what veridicality amounts to. ...” 

“Finally, it would seem that Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s supposedly alternative, 'interface' picture of perception is in fact no less committed to veridical perceptual representation than the views they aim for it to replace. ..."

“... In the end, I’ll conclude, HSP give us no reasons to abandon the standard view that perception veridically represents the world.”       Jonathan Cohen 

“Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception,” another paper, another perspective, another impressive thought provoking read that I liked because it resonated with my own ideas on the matter.

Cohen’s paper weighs in at 5500 words and my first culling for highlights, came in at 1800 words.  After a few rereads and some brutal deletions, I have this summary down to <500 words worth of highlights (food for thought) that I hope will encourage you to read the entire paper.  It's open access

In for a nickel, in for a dollar.

I thought I had finished with this review section of my “Hoffman playing basketball in zero gravity” and that my last act, before move on, was to send a short email to professor Hoffman asking if he’d responded to Dr. Mausfeld’s critique.  That netted me nine additional studies courtesy of Hoffman, now I feel obliged to read through them, and to share highlights from those that resonate with the points I was trying to get across during my book review.  

That's because I want this students guide to include as many informative expert voices as I can find, so please bear with me.

What am I trying to accomplished with all this?  (Continued below Cohen’s quotes.)

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

Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception

• Jonathan Cohen, published October 15, 2015

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

volume 22, pages 1512–1518(2015)

doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0782-3

Abstract

Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (henceforth, HSP) … put forward an alternative “interface” theory, on which perception is an adaptively useful but truth-obscuring veil between perceiver and perceived. But HSP’s case against veridical perception, and their case for an alternative account, turn crucially on significant misapprehensions in the early going about what veridicality amounts to. 

In this paper I’ll identify this mistake, and then argue that it both undercuts HSP’s arguments against perceptual veridicality 

and prevents them from seeing that their own preferred conception of perception is itself committed to veridical representation, rather than an alternative to it. 

Barton Anderson, Where does fitness fit in theories of perception?

Where does fitness fit in theories of perception?

Barton L. Anderson, September 18, 2015, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Early on, I explained that I'm no authority and in no position to dispute the correctness of Hoffman's math, in fact I found it easy to grant him his math because it was his conclusions that begged the loud objection.  

Still expert input is important and thanks to a paper Hoffman shared with me I discovered another fascinating critique by Barton Anderson.  It was fun to plow through because his words resonated with my own naïve nebulous reasoning and helped offer a bit more structure to my objections.

For the serious student, I want to point out that Anderson’s paper is an example of playing by the contrarian script - which is totally appropriate within that particular science journal arena.  But it’s something to think about as you read the complete paper.

Whereas, in the public arena, I’m advocating for rejecting such counter-productive scripts - such as the fanciful contrarian notion that our, “spacetime is doomed” because of some master mathematician’s sleight of hand, or that the reality around us is a shapeshifting mirage - and replacing them with altogether different realistic down to Earth scripts that are built around facts and evidence and lessons we’ve learned from observing evolution and Earth sciences, as opposed to models conjured up within imaginative minds.  

I believe that starts with learning about and absorbing an appreciation for the “Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide” and allowing those lessons to inform how we view the world around us.  Developing a fact-based appreciation for Evolution and this planet that created us.  

It was Hoffman’s insistence that his theorem reflects physical reality, that triggered my umbrage at his, from a societal perspective, counter-productive mind game.  

Look around folks, we are destroying our very life support systems, while all this treasure and intelligence is wasted on self indulgent pipe dreaming.  At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m standing.

Okay, enough of me, Professor Anderson’s paper is over 4,000 words and my first quote harvesting came to 1,400 words.  I’ve trimmed that down to under 600, hoping that my sampling will encourage you to read the entire paper.  It offers good background for the uninitiated.  I once again declare Fair Use and encourage you to link to and read the complete version.

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

Where does fitness fit in theories of perception?

Barton L. Anderson, September 18, 2015, (~4,000 words)

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,  volume 22, pages 1507–1511(2015)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-014-0748-5

Diary - But, wait! There’s more. Hoffman's responses.

I thought I was finished with the review section of my "Hoffman playing basketball in zerogravity" project.

Then I decided to send Professor Hoffman an email asking if he’d responded to Dr. Mausfeld’s paper and he was kind enough to send me a link to more than I had bargained for: “Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries” Hoffman, Singh, Prakash, September 30, 2015.  It's their response to a collection of 10 expert comments.  Some critical and some excited about further exploring Hoffman, Singh & Prakash's Interface Theory of Perception (IT).

So far, I only read through Anderson’s section, because I went off to read the paper in question and it captured my attention.

I’ve spent the past few hours with Barton Anderson's critique (highlights to appear in my next post), and it’s surprisingly interesting, edifying and humbling.  It makes me want to repeat that I’m no scholar and don’t presume to be one.  What I am is a guy who’s spent my days paying attention to my life, the natural world around me and the lessons Earth scientists have discovered and distilled for general consumption.  I’m a serious student and that demands exploration and pushing limits.  

The main reason the Case Against Reality and Hoffman’s Interface Theory captured my interest is that it promised to provide a vehicle for exploring and developing my own rather more down to earth notions.  

For instance, that we, as a people, and too often scientists included, lack an explicit appreciation for the divide between Physical Reality, (which includes our bodies and brains), and our ever so imaginative Mindscape.  Which is the sum total of our dreams, thoughts and perceptual awareness - the me, myself and I.

I believe an explicit appreciation for Earth, as the only touchstone to reality that we humans have, is a necessary prerequisite for wise decision making and constructive living on a crowded, shrinking planet.

That's because, what comes from ignoring this fine point (namely, the ‘Physical Reality ~ Mindscape’ divide), is that people, including scientists, tend to fall in love with the beauty and ingenuity of their own ideas, then pushed by the needs of our egos, lose sight of the physical reality we are actually embedded within every moment of our existence.

The past decades of strategic and lavishly funded mass campaigns* of pure, deliberate disinformation intended to manufacture doubt in complete disregard for honesty, scientific facts, physical reality, or Fair Play for that matter - has been nothing less than brainwashing committed to normalizing disregard for science, and honesty, while enabling delusional thinking.

(*For whatever scientific findings were inconvenient to special interest groups with rich lobbyists and the best advertising minds money could buy.  Look where it’s brought our once well run, fairly happy, mightiest government and society in the world.  To the brink of self-destruction driven by people embracing belligerent ignorance that was fostered by an acceptance of deliberately manufactured fear, anger and cluelessness.  But, I digress, there’ll be time for that later.)

With that rambling introduction, here’s the paper Hoffman shared with me this morning.

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

“Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash" 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. volume 22, pages1551–1576(2015)

Rainer Mausfeld, ‘Truth’ has no role in explanatory accounts of perception. Student Resource.

Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld writes:  ¶24.  “Needless to say, in certain contexts of ordinary discourse, the general question that seems to motivate Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s (HSP) endeavour, namely whether perception mirrors the ‘true structure of the objective world,’ can be a meaningful and sensible one. 

Such a question, however, will hardly survive the transition into a natural science context. It rather seems that no question remains that can be posed in a coherent and intelligible way. 

Hence, the appropriate response to such a question is not to evaluate specific proposals but rather to dispel the delusion that an intelligible question has been raised. …”

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

While researching the book “Case Against Reality” I came to recognize the name “Rainer Mausfeld” because he was referenced in various articles.  However, it wasn’t until working on the paper “Objects of Consciousness,” that I sat down to read his critique of Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s Psychonomic Review and Bulletin 2015 paper and it felt like a cosmic giggle.

“Notions such as ‘truth’ or ‘correspondence to the objective world’ play no role in explanatory accounts of perception”  Rainer Mausfeld - 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (v22, p1535–1540. Sep 18, 2015) 

I’m glad my discovery waited for the end of this journey.  Had I read it a half year ago, I might not have engaged in this effort to begin with and that would have been a shame.  Not that it’s been fun, but because it has been well worth the effort.  My payoff has been a deeper appreciation for the scientific and philosophical mind/body debate, along with helping me better define my own curious perspective.  At least that’s my impression.  My next essays will put the conceit to the test.  You’ll get to decide for yourselves.

In any event, for a lifelong student of such things, it’s gratifying to see my homegrown naïve understanding echoing a genuine expert’s learned appraisal.  

I received an okay from Springer to reproduce 800 words worth of highlights from the 4,700 word long paper, all it was going to cost me was $360.  If I were earning money with any of this, I’d have a budget for such expenses, but alas, no can do.

After much consideration, including reading through H.G. Zaharoff’s ‘Guide to Fair Use’ (You can find more on that at the end of this post.), I’m declaring Fair Use and am going ahead and sharing interesting quotes from Mausfeld’s work as a teaser, an invitation to serious students.  

For all who are searching for a deeper realistic appreciation of the mind, physical reality divide, you don’t want to miss reading Mausfeld's complete 7400 words.  Don’t be intimidated, Mausfeld writes about these arcane details with refreshing clarity.  Meaning his writing is accessible to intelligent curious non-academics.  Check it out for yourself:

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

“Notions such as “truth” or “correspondence to the objective world” play no role in explanatory accounts of perception” 

Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld, University of Kiel 

Publications available online at Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - Springer, DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0763-6

volume 22, pages1535–1540(2015) - September 18, 2015

¶01.  Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (Psychonomic Review and Bulletin, 2015, in press) intend to show that perceptions are evolutionarily tuned to fitness rather than to truth. 

I argue, partly in accordance with their objective, that issues of ‘truth’ or ‘veridicality’ have no place in explanatory accounts of perception theory, and rather belong to either ordinary discourse or to philosophy. 

I regard, however, their general presumption that the evolutionary development of core achievements of the human perceptual system would be primarily determined by aspects of fitness and adaption as unwarranted in light of the evidence available.

Can you trust Frontiers in Psychology research papers? Student's Resource Guide.

"... Such thoughts got me to wondering about Frontiers in Psychology which is part of the Frontiers’ group of Open Access Publisher and Open Science Platform journals.  

Doing some research it didn’t take long to realize they are another example of the devil being in the details of a noble effort when dedication to earning profits and bonuses gets prioritized above meeting their organization’s stated mission.  Something that seems to be more common than not. ..."

Trust, but verify, and keep that salt shaker handy.  

Or, put another way, caveat emptor and hone your critical thinking skills.

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

Students’ Resource

Introduction to Predatory Scientific Journals

(selections from the following articles are under the fold)

Predatory publications in evidence syntheses

J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jan; 107(1): 57–61.

How do journals in the Frontiers series have such a (relatively) high impact factor?   

@Reddit_U.Lamaksha

My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals

Posted by deevybee , June 7, 2015

Why I do not trust Frontiers journals, especially not @FrontDigitalHum

Melissa Terras - July 21, 2015

Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers

Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato, October 23, 2015

Is Frontiers a potential predatory publisher?

Leonid Schneider  - October 28, 2015

Is Frontiers in Trouble?

MICAH, January 15, 2016

What I learned from predatory publishers, by Jeffrey Beall

Jeffrey Beall - June 2017 - BiochemiaMedica

Frontiers: vanquishers of Beall, publishers of bunk

Leonid Schneider, September 18, 2017

Why Beall’s blacklist of predatory journals died

Paul Basken, The Chronicle of Higher Education,  September 22, 2017

Is Frontiers Media a Predatory Publisher?

DH Kaye - December 20, 2017- Flaky Academic Journals

Frontiers 2020: 1/3 of journals increase prices 45x inflation rate

Heather Morrison, June 2020, SustainingKnowledgeCommons.org

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

Editorial: Where is scientific publishing heading?

Jens Nielsen, November 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/fox075

Staggeringly profitable scientific publishing bad for science?

Stephen Buranyi - June 27, 2017 - TheGuardian.com

There are new frontiers for academic publishing but scholarly associations and faculty must seize the opportunities

August 24, 2017 - London School of Economics and Political Science

Vanity and predatory academic publishers are corrupting the pursuit of knowledge

Michael J. I. Brown, August 2, 2015, TheConversation.com

How the open access model hurts academics in poorer countries

Brenda Wingfield, Bob Millar,  April 10, 2019, TheConversation.com

Increasing open access publications serves publishers’ commercial interests

Shaun Khoo, June 16, 2019, TheConversation.com

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

Reading through Hoffman’s Frontiers in Psychology 2014 paper it occurred to me the published journal article helped lay the foundation for his claim to scientific legitimacy and ultimately his book “The Case Against Reality - Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes.”  

That had me thinking about the scientific process and these philosophical musings that Hoffman sculpted into this paper that makes no scientific case against reality and “Physicalism,” despite his bold, yet hollow, claim. 

Instead, the authors rely on rhetorical fancy dancing to simply dismiss realism outright, along with enlisting mathematical sleight of hand to conjure all pervading “conscious agents” that he suggests does all of our perceiving and thinking for us.  

It begs the question, who would publish such dressed up pipe dreaming as a scientific journal worthy science paper?  

Then I remembered, this was “Frontiers of Psychology” - A pay to publish journal dedicated to psychology.  In other words, we're back to priorities and the pursuit of profits.

Don’t get me wrong, psychology and philosophy are fine and good for what they are, but objects of our mind is not the point here.  Hoffman dismisses spacetime and physical reality as we understand it - that's going over the edge and deserves being called out. 

Hoffman's paper dismisses scientific realism and physicalism, the stuff of natural sciences, Earth sciences, but he does so in a journal dedicated to the study of our mind and thoughts.  

That is, our Human Mindscape, a soft science full of competing lines are arguments based on ideas and conviction, driven by ego, and resulting in endlessly dog-chasing-tail debates over inventive word games.  Seldom getting anywhere.  About as soft a science as there is.  (Yes, rather melodramatic, but so is the situation, when observed from the outside looking in.)

Hoffman's stunt is worth calling out as scientifically sleazy behavior - rather than being heralded as 'provocative, worth reading, even if far fetched.'  What makes it worth reading?  What sort of clarity does it offer?

I myself am baffled at why anyone would want to tell people to imagine that spacetime is doomed and that the structure of our day to day world isn't at all what it seems.  

There's something nasty, disrespectful, predatory even, cynically taking advantage of the under-informed and gullible - filling their heads with utter nonsense, when there's so much about our real world that people ought to be learning about and opening up their eyes and minds to.  

Willful ignorance, along with belligerent ignorance, is a national menace that has received a free pass for way too long.  This "Case Against Reality," and such, is where the disconnect begins, destroying our own government and life support system is where it leads.   

A stand for honesty and facing down to Earth physical facts and the 'laws of nature' needs to be made.  

My point is that Hoffman's thesis has little, if anything, to do with serious natural sciences and the physical reality we are embedded within.  Instead, he dismisses it and by extension realistically appreciating evolution with entertaining alacrity.

Such thoughts got me to wondering about Frontiers in Psychology which is part of the Frontiers’ group of Open Access Publisher and Open Science Platform journals.  

Doing some research it didn’t take long to realize they are another example of the devil being in the details of a noble effort when dedication to earning profits and bonuses gets prioritized above meeting their organization’s stated mission.  Something that seems to be more common than not.  

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?