Jump to content
Buket

Interface theory of perception

Recommended Posts

Well I don't know what the mathematics say but he says I proved the mathematical therem..

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full

 

Proving a theorem just means it is mathematically correct, not that it says anything about the real world. There are plenty of branches of mathematics that do not seem to relate to anything in the real world.

 

His theorem has nothing to do with quantum theory. In that article he mentions (in passing) "some interpretations" of quantum theory, presumably the ones that suit his point of view. This is all very vague and just trying to make it ound like physics is one his side (it is not clear that it is).

 

And, as we can never know anything about the "real world" other than what we perceive, the whole exercise seems futile.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few people comment on this thread. Guess nobody knows about this theory 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few people comment on this thread. Guess nobody knows about this theory

Maybe because it's too airy-fairy and evidence-light. How one can speak of and equate brain function with spacetime geometry and quantum gravity in the same breathe as being related is artistic license writ large. :D To me, it reads like word salad.

 

 

. In the Orch OR proposal, reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs by an objective factor: Roger Penrose's quantum gravity threshold stemming from instability in Planck–scale separations (superpositions) in spacetime geometry. Output states following Penrose's objective reduction are neither totally deterministic nor random, but influenced by a non–computable factor ingrained in fundamental spacetime. Taking a modern pan–psychist view in which protoconscious experience and Platonic values are embedded in Planck–scale spin networks, the Orch OR model portrays consciousness as brain activities linked to fundamental ripples in spacetime geometry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because it's too airy-fairy and evidence-light. How one can speak of and equate brain function with spacetime geometry and quantum gravity in the same breathe as being related is artistic license writ large. :D To me, it reads like word salad.

 

You may be right 😄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

. In the Orch OR proposal, reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs by an objective factor: Roger Penrose's quantum gravity threshold stemming from instability in Planck–scale separations (superpositions) in spacetime geometry. Output states following Penrose's objective reduction are neither totally deterministic nor random, but influenced by a non–computable factor ingrained in fundamental spacetime. Taking a modern pan–psychist view in which protoconscious experience and Platonic values are embedded in Planck–scale spin networks, the Orch OR model portrays consciousness as brain activities linked to fundamental ripples in spacetime geometry.

 

Where is that from!? It sounds like something made up by one of those random sentence generators!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my late arrival to your discussion. As I understand, Hoffman proposes that natural selection promotes and interfaces reality with expedient perceptions that do not necessarily reflect the true nature of reality. In support, Hoffman cited an example of male Australian jewel beetles attempts to sexually interface with beer bottles because of visual cues that mimic female beetles, which the males falsely perceive as reality. If I understand his theory correctly, I disagree. If we consider his beetle example, natural selection produced a survival strategy that was at some earlier point successful and based on true perceptions of the beetle's reality. At some point in their evolution, it was vital to the Julodimorpha bakewelli survival that the female of the species visually appeared exactly as they did although we may not now know why. Therefore, the perception of true reality was an effective and vital product of natural selection for those insects. The current dilemma of the Australian jewel beetle actually support my position. Something has changed in their environment, where the visual cues that once served their survival are now failing. That failure isn't because the visual cues are false, its because a dimension of their perception that wasn't important to their earlier survival has now increased in significances. Clearly these insects can distinguish size by the their attraction to the larger visual cues of the beer bottles. They have not yet adapted to the perception that larger visuals don't equal female or confer survival. Those members of their species that are able to adapt, will strength and insure their species future survival as their environment continues to evolve. Natural selection interfaces reality with true perception at the emergence of a survival strategy. The subsequent failure of that strategy is an indication that survival conditions have changed rather than an indication of natural selection's conditioning or production of realty interfaces that are independent or false perceptions of true reality--in my opinion.

Edited by DrmDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is that from!? It sounds like something made up by one of those random sentence generators!

I can't remember exactly now - forgot to link - but I followed Buket's link. Here's the paper's abstract that has the part I quoted: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/356/1743/1869

 

I did wonder if was being thick but seeing you say the same thing is reassuring that my judgement was not amiss. :)

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my late arrival to your discussion. As I understand, Hoffman proposes that natural selection promotes and interfaces reality with expedient perceptions that do not necessarily reflect the true nature of reality. In support, Hoffman cited an example of male Australian jewel beetles attempts to sexually interface with beer bottles because of visual cues that mimic female beetles, which the males falsely perceive as reality. If I understand his theory correctly, I disagree. If we consider his beetle example, natural selection produced a survival strategy that was at some earlier point successful and based on true perceptions of the beetle's reality. At some point in their evolution, it was vital to the Julodimorpha bakewelli survival that the female of the species visually appeared exactly as they did although we may not now know why. Therefore, the perception of true reality was an effective and vital product of natural selection for those insects. The current dilemma of the Australian jewel beetle actually support my position. Something has changed in their environment, where the visual cues that once served their survival are now failing. That failure isn't because the visual cues are false, its because a dimension of their perception that wasn't important to their earlier survival has now increased in significances. Clearly these insects can distinguish size by the their attraction to the larger visual cues of the beer bottles. They have not yet adapted to the perception that larger visuals don't equal female or confer survival. Those members of their species that are able to adapt, will strength and insure their species future survival as their environment continues to evolve. Natural selection interfaces reality with true perception at the emergence of a survival strategy. The subsequent failure of that strategy is an indication that survival conditions have changed rather than an indication of natural selection's conditioning or production of realty interfaces that are independent or false perceptions of true reality--in my opinion.

Did you read the article? Did you see any evidence there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read the article? Did you see any evidence there?

 

Yes, I did. Did I misunderstand Mr. Hoffman's conclusions? Secondly, I'm not sure what you're asking, did I see any evidence there of what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I did. Did I misunderstand Mr. Hoffman's conclusions? Secondly, I'm not sure what you're asking, did I see any evidence there of what exactly?

Evidence that shows the theory to be true..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence that shows the theory to be true..

 

Would that evidence include his initial beetle and beer bottle example, which I addressed in my comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would that evidence include his initial beetle and beer bottle example, which I addressed in my comments?

Here is the case. I am from Turkey. English is my second language so there might be things that I could not understand in the article. So I am asking you if you saw anything like an evidence 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the case. I am from Turkey. English is my second language so there might be things that I could not understand in the article. So I am asking you if you saw anything like an evidence

 

Mr. Hoffman cited the beetle and beer bottle dilemma as a prominent example or evidence of his theory's validity. That type of evidence didn't convince me of his theories primary tenet in that natural selection creates or fosters false perceptions of reality as a convenient or expedient interface with reality. I'm suggesting that his conclusions are wrong for the reasons I gave in my first comments. In my opinion, natural selection creates real perceptions based on true reality when those perceptions first form. When those perceptions fail in the future, like in the beetle example, it is not because their perceptions are wrong or because natural selection skews reality. They fail because something has changed about reality that natural selection must now address. Using the beetle/beer bottle example, natural selection must now select for those male beetles who can perceive the difference between real females and beer bottles because of this beer bottle addition to the beetles reality.

Edited by DrmDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mr. Hoffman cited the beetle and beer bottle dilemma as a prominent example or evidence of his theory's validity. That type of evidence didn't convince me of his theories primary tenet in that natural selection creates or fosters false perceptions of reality as a convenient or expedient interface with reality. I'm suggesting that his conclusions are wrong for the reasons I gave in my first comments. In my opinion, natural selection creates real perceptions based on true reality when those perceptions first form. When those perceptions fail in the future, like in the beetle example, it is not because their perceptions are wrong or because natural selection skews reality. They fail because something has changed about reality that natural selection must now address. Using the beetle/beer bottle example, natural selection must now select for those male beetles who can perceive the difference between real females and beer bottles because of this beer bottle addition to the beetles reality.

He uses some mathematical equations as an evidence but 'Strange' says mathematical theorems do not tell about the real world.

I am thinking what about genes we have that give us our features? Genes prove that there is something as shapes in reality..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He uses some mathematical equations as an evidence but 'Strange' says mathematical theorems do not tell about the real world.

I am thinking what about genes we have that give us our features? Genes prove that there is something as shapes in reality..

 

Everything we are is shaped by the reality of our survival conditions. How we perceive our experiences or what we evolve to be is based on the reality of our physical condition. Mr. Hoffman is theorizing about how we interface or connect with reality. That interface or connection doesn't arise from a calculable natural selection process, in my opinion. I don't believe Mr. Hoffman can use math to predict the outcome for natural selection to produce false perceptions of reality or false interfaces with reality. Natural selection creates perceptions and interfaces base on a real and true reality that can and do change. When a reality change, natural selection must then produce adaptive interfaces to that change.

Edited by DrmDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is that from!? It sounds like something made up by one of those random sentence generators!

You are a smart person 'Strange'. I would like to learn your opinion about the evidence of this theory if there is one..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have an opinion. It is not a subject I am very interested in. It seems that he is trying justify his philosophical beliefs by vague references to quantum theory and an argument about evolution.

 

I find the references to quantum theory to be fairly bogus - they are too vague and sound like the sort of semi-religious nonsense a lot of people make up about quantum theory.

 

I can't comment on his evolution argument. It sounds wrong to me but, as I say, I don't know much about it and it isn't an area I have any expertise in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have an opinion. It is not a subject I am very interested in. It seems that he is trying justify his philosophical beliefs by vague references to quantum theory and an argument about evolution.

 

I find the references to quantum theory to be fairly bogus - they are too vague and sound like the sort of semi-religious nonsense a lot of people make up about quantum theory.

 

I can't comment on his evolution argument. It sounds wrong to me but, as I say, I don't know much about it and it isn't an area I have any expertise in.

Ok thanks..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of the emails of Hoffman he said that particles do not exist when not perceived and I said they do exist but their momentum and position is not detected prior to observation. He did not accept it. He said particles do not exist when not perceived.. Which one of us is right?

 

 

You need to explain what it means to be perceived. That's not a technical term.

 

One problem here is that you are asking about the existence of a particle and that's not really the issue in QM. It's the existence of particular states of that particle. A particle can be in an undefined state, which is only determined when it is measured. It can be shown that the particle is not in that state beforehand. That's a different claim than saying the particle itself doesn't exist. To make the latter claim, you'd have to come up with a way of putting existence and nonexistence into a superposition. Maybe that can be done, but you would have to show it.

 

Another issue is that particles can be detected through various interactions that they undergo. Even if you are not looking at the moon, it is still causing tides on the earth and has been doing that for billions of years, slowing the earth's rotation rate from the resulting torque, and receding in its orbit. Those are real effects, and they did not just pop into existence only when people started looking at evidence or the earth's rotation rate. So either you have to conclude that yes, it existed all that time, or that macrosopic objects are always being "perceived" via some interaction, rendering the question moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You need to explain what it means to be perceived. That's not a technical term.

 

One problem here is that you are asking about the existence of a particle and that's not really the issue in QM. It's the existence of particular states of that particle. A particle can be in an undefined state, which is only determined when it is measured. It can be shown that the particle is not in that state beforehand. That's a different claim than saying the particle itself doesn't exist. To make the latter claim, you'd have to come up with a way of putting existence and nonexistence into a superposition. Maybe that can be done, but you would have to show it.

 

Another issue is that particles can be detected through various interactions that they undergo. Even if you are not looking at the moon, it is still causing tides on the earth and has been doing that for billions of years, slowing the earth's rotation rate from the resulting torque, and receding in its orbit. Those are real effects, and they did not just pop into existence only when people started looking at evidence or the earth's rotation rate. So either you have to conclude that yes, it existed all that time, or that macrosopic objects are always being "perceived" via some interaction, rendering the question moot.

What do you think about the theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about the theory?

 

 

I don't have the background to have an informed opinion on neuroscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you be depressed by it?


The idea that the world is not how we perceive it (and that we cannot ever perceive what it "really" is) is a very old idea. And, really, it is in unavoidable conclusion from a logical point of view.

 

But, like free will, it is also pretty irrelevant. What difference does it make if the world around us really is just as perceive it (naive realism) or is completely different (idealism) or completely created by your mind (solipsism) or just a simulation.

 

As we can never tell the differnce between any of these, they are all equally irrelevant.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you be depressed by it?

 

The idea that the world is not how we perceive it (and that we cannot ever perceive what it "really" is) is a very old idea. And, really, it is in unavoidable conclusion from a logical point of view.

 

But, like free will, it is also pretty irrelevant. What difference does it make if the world around us really is just as perceive it (naive realism) or is completely different (idealism) or completely created by your mind (solipsism) or just a simulation.

 

As we can never tell the differnce between any of these, they are all equally irrelevant.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Wouldn't you want to see the real world? When I see a view I would like to know it is real. But a question comes to my mind. Our genes determine how we look. And we look like our parents. There should be a correspondence between the reality and what we percieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.