A Case Against Reality, Donald Hoffman

[Deb]

This scientist is saying that there is a correlation between reality, individually perceived reality and evolution. Sounds to me like he's trying to straddle Newtonian beliefs and quantum physics. He's heading in the right direction, but he still seems to mix a belief in a physical world (evolution) with individually created realities (classical objects don't exist). But maybe he's an indication that science is questioning its premises...

"I'm emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space ... these are just symbols we use, they're not real. It's not that there's a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It's that there's no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects—including brains—don't exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation."

vs.

"According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never."

"On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don't seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, "Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists 'out there' independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld."

Seth on scientists:

"Your apparent laws of the universe have been broken in isolated instances often enough so that this point should certainly be clear, and yet your scientists constantly ignore such problems."—TES1 Ses. 41

"(With pauses): Your scientists are finally learning what philosophers have known for centuries — that mind can influence matter."—SS Chapter 3: Session 520, March 25, 1970

"Your scientists will discover that their tools are no longer adequate. Because man has such a sense of curiosity the scientists on your plane will be forced finally to use their own inner senses."—TES1 Session 19 January 27, 1964

"At best your scientists will only discover more of these camouflage patterns, but the entire system will simply not be perceived by any one species, and you will never perceive camouflage patterns outside of your own patterns. You are simply blocked in the pursuit of knowledge beyond a certain point as long as your scientists persist in the lines of their present development."—TES2 Session 51 May 6, 1964

"The scientist begins tipping tables or whatever, and suddenly disgusted by the limits of scientific knowledge, he turns all of his dedication to what he thinks of as its opposite, or pure intuitive knowledge." —NoME Session 857

[Michael Sternbach]

The article brings to mind Seth's statement that our senses don't show us reality the way it is, but a camouflage. It also seems in line with the Buddhist view.

I remember a story told by C.G.Jung, about how he and a friend, visiting an exhibition, both clearly saw as a snake what to other observers was a stick.

[Sena]

Deb, thanks for this. It will take me some time to read the material. In the meantime, here is an image:



"I am Mantis Shrimp. My rainbow's bigger than yours."

[Sena]

There is a video presentation by Donald Hoffman here:



One of the things Hoffman lacks is Seth's teaching that it is constant unconscious telepathic communication that enables us to create a physical reality we agree on most of the time. I am not aware that any teacher prior to the 1960's came up with this idea. Since then of course there have been many imitators.

[Deb]

I am Mantis Shrimp. My rainbow's bigger than yours.

I was going to ask you to explain that one to me. I've been working two jobs and so not as on the ball as I could be.  But then I googled mantis shrimp. And learned quite a few things. One, I didn't realize humans only have RGB color receptor cones in our retinas (same color mode as computer screens). But these shrimp have the RGB plus 13 others we can't even comprehend! Add to that the CPL vision and their ninja abilities... so yes, their rainbows (the simplified version of the visible color spectrum) are way beyond what we can imagine. Plus all of the other incredible things about this creature. What an amazing animal! And their senses create a very different reality. Wish I could see through their eyes, even for a minute or two.

The article brings to mind Seth's statement that our senses don't show us reality the way it is, but a camouflage.

That, and our filter of beliefs, explain a lot, on a few different levels. Going with the snake theme, Bruce Lipton gives an example of a young child in the back yard with his mother. Mother is afraid of snakes. There's a snake in the yard and the mother reacts with great fear, impressing on the child that snakes are a threat, to be feared, scary to see, hideous. Another child, a different mother, and the snake becomes a thing of beauty, a part of nature to be appreciated and explored. Both kids grow up carrying their individual but implanted beliefs, accepting them as truth, and may or may not re-examine them. They both view their beliefs as truth.

Just yesterday I had a major realization around a basic belief about myself. It was a very illuminating experience and I was able to trace it back to a chain of 3 incidents that occurred between the ages of 4-5 or so. That's all it took to cement this belief—for life. Being able to view them objectively, now as both an adult and a parent, was very liberating and put my beliefs into better perspective. I can see how they affected my behavior all these years. Know thyself! How much wiser advice could there be?

BTW, Seth was right. There really are no hidden beliefs, they are there in plain view for us to see. We just manage to avoid seeing them. Those damn filters again.

One of the things Hoffman lacks is Seth's teaching that it is constant unconscious telepathic communication that enables us to create a physical reality we agree on most of the time.

Thanks for the video, I'll have time to watch it over the next few days. Yes, and while I think he's on the right track, he's certainly missing some of Seth's finer points. He's almost there.

[Batfan007]

There is a video presentation by Donald Hoffman here:



One of the things Hoffman lacks is Seth's teaching that it is constant unconscious telepathic communication that enables us to create a physical reality we agree on most of the time. I am not aware that any teacher prior to the 1960's came up with this idea. Since then of course there have been many imitators.

While not in those specific terms, teachers from India such as Vivekananda's and P. Yogananda talked about very similar ideas to western audiences over the last one hundred years.
As so many writers in the New Though movement such as Emerson, James Allen, Neville Goddard and others.
They use old timey language and terms, and much more metaphors than literal language.
But that same idea is there in many teachers teachings , just in different language and symbolism.

[Sena]

I found this article about Hoffman:

"We survive because reality may be nothing like we think it is"

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/we-survive-because-reality-may-be-nothing-like-we-think-it-is

[inavalan]

I just watched it. I liked it.

[Dreamer]

There's another book of him.

Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's exploration of the extraordinary creative genius of the mind's eye "has many virtues, of which sheer intellectual excitement is the foremost" (Nature). Hoffman explains that far from being a passive recorder of a preexisting world, the eye actively constructs every aspect of our visual experience. In an informal style replete with illustrations, Hoffman presents the compelling scientific evidence for vision's constructive powers, unveiling a grammar of vision - a set of rules that govern our perception of line, color, form, depth, and motion. Hoffman also describes the loss of these constructive powers in patients such as an artist who can no longer see or dream in color and a man who sees his father as an impostor. Finally, Hoffman explores the spinoffs of visual intelligence in the arts and technology, from film special effects to virtual reality. This is, in sum, "an outstanding example of creative popular science" (Publishers Weekly).