What is your religion? And why do you believe in your religion?

[TrueMetis]

Actually it seems to me you're assuming a reality outside of conscious experience. As Berkeley points out, that could be considered the extraordinary claim.

Hoffman and Berkeley are, in some sense, more conservative than you.

Actually this sounds a whole lot more like a creationist claim than what Gears said. I mean it sounds a whole lot like the creationists who claim it's impossible to know things "because you weren't there."

If we accept the idea that there's nothing outside of conscious experience than history is impossible. Anything older than the oldest person on earth is impossible to know because it's "outsider of conscious experience". Hell under this idea forensic science to solve murder is impossible.

ETA: All that guy is doing is using well known glitches in our perception to claim some bullshit. The reason so much of the human brain goes toward vision is because that's a huge amount of data to process. So much so that we can't actually process it all and our mind will actually gloss over things or fill it in with what we expect to see. This is why sometimes you can't see things until they're pointed out. Then he tries to use some fairly well understood illusions to prove his point, but if he's right we shouldn't be able to see through those illusions. If were creating the different colours on the cubes, we shouldn't be able to tell the cubes are actually the same colour. If we're creating the box in front of the circles, we shouldn't be able to tell it's actually a bunch of circles with pieces cut out.

Hmm using misunderstandings and just plain ignorance of science to make claim about the world. Sounds a lot like creationism to me.

[Sci-2]

If we accept the idea that there's nothing outside of conscious experience than history is impossible. Anything older than the oldest person on earth is impossible to know because it's "outsider of conscious experience". Hell under this idea forensic science to solve murder is impossible.

If everything is consciousness, then there's always consciousness holding together the firmament. Think of it as a shared dream. This is not to say Idealism is real, just that AFAICtell you can't ever definitively declare it false. Personally I feel it has an air of wishful thinking, but I recognize that isn't a real counterargument against it.

And there are varieties of Idealism, as noted on Wikipedia. Kant's definition is a good one -> "the assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining."

I do think most arguments for Idealism seem better suited to being arguments for Neutral Monism (Type F in the aforementioned Consciousness and Its Place in Nature.) I give Hoffman credit for offering an Idealistic Theory that can be falsified though.

If were creating the different colours on the cubes, we shouldn't be able to tell the cubes are actually the same colour. If we're creating the box in front of the circles, we shouldn't be able to tell it's actually a bunch of circles with pieces cut out.

His point with the optical illusions was to simply show that the senses can be deceived. The actual work is in the paper, and the Monte Carlo simulations he ran.

You're trying to claim his argument is this:

Optical Illusions -> Idealism.

When it's actually two arguments. The first is:

1. Optical Illusions give us reason to doubt our senses ability to detect true reality.

2. Upon further examination - via the simulations he mentions - natural selection drives true perception to extinction.

That's the first part. As he notes in the paper, this is not an argument for Idealism:

The discussion here should, however, help place the interface theory of perception within the philosophical landscape. It is not classical relativism, which claims that there is no objective reality, only metaphor; it claims instead that there is an objective reality that can be explored in the normal scientific manner. It is not nave realism, which claims that we directly see middle-sized objects; nor is it indirect realism, or representationalism, which says that we see sensory representations, or sense data, of real middle-sized objects, and do not directly see the objects themselves. It claims instead that the physicalist ontology underlying both nave realism and indirect realism is almost surely false: A rock is an interface icon, not a constituent of objective reality. Although the interface theory is compatible with idealism, it is not idealism, because it proposes no specic model of objective reality, but leaves the nature of objective reality as an open scientific problem.

So that's the first part, which is just the Interface Theory of Perception.

The second part is where he suggests the Hard Problem of consciousness can be solved by assuming Mind leads to Material instead of Material leading Mind.

This is where his Conscious Agent Theory comes in. It's presented more formally in Conscious Realism & The Mind Body Problem.

Hmm using misunderstandings and just plain ignorance of science to make claim about the world. Sounds a lot like creationism to me.

Given his credentials as a cognitive scientist at UC Irvine I think the fault may lie with your rush to judgement rather than his "plain ignorance of science". As Bertrand Russell would say, you can't trust an ignorant person's opinion about a clever argument because the ignorant person translates the clever argument into what he understands.

In any case, my point isn't to say Idealism is real. I'm just pointing out that taking it on as an assumption is a perfectly valid starting point since:

1) There is a Hard Problem.

2) There's no objective reality we could get to outside our subjective conscious experience.

[Phaing]

what HE said-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCmj74sGiMs

[Gears of the Beast]

In any case, my point isn't to say Idealism is real. I'm just pointing out that taking it on as an assumption is a perfectly valid starting point since:

1) There is a Hard Problem.

2) There's no objective reality we could get to outside our subjective conscious experience.

!? What!? That was painful to read.

[Seli]

You sound like the Creationist who refuses to look at any "drivel" that tells him his ancestors were monkeys. Being a true skeptic means doubting your own assumptions.

...

That is (the road to) solipsism. And completely untenable.

eta: it is amusing how much of these pieces on the hard problem of consciousness could easily be pieces about the hard problem of (what) life (is and how it differs from inanimate matter).

[Gears of the Beast]

That is (the road to) solipsism. And completely untenable.

eta: it is amusing how much of these pieces on the hard problem of consciousness could easily be pieces about the hard problem of (what) life (is and how it differs from inanimate matter).

The bit I quoted actually sounds like an argument for solipsism to me. Part of the reason it's so baffling.

[TrueMetis]

If everything is consciousness, then there's always consciousness holding together the firmament. Think of it as a shared dream. This is not to say Idealism is real, just that AFAICtell you can't ever definitively declare it false. Personally I feel it has an air of wishful thinking, but I recognize that isn't a real counterargument against it.

And there are varieties of Idealism, as noted on Wikipedia. Kant's definition is a good one -> "the assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining."

I do think most arguments for Idealism seem better suited to being arguments for Neutral Monism (Type F in the aforementioned Consciousness and Its Place in Nature.) I give Hoffman credit for offering an Idealistic Theory that can be falsified though.

How is that then different from objective reality though?

His point with the optical illusions was to simply show that the senses can be deceived. The actual work is in the paper, and the Monte Carlo simulations he ran.

You're trying to claim his argument is this:

Optical Illusions -> Idealism.

When it's actually two arguments. The first is:

1. Optical Illusions give us reason to doubt our senses ability to detect true reality.

2. Upon further examination - via the simulations he mentions - natural selection drives true perception to extinction.

That's the first part. As he notes in the paper, this is not an argument for Idealism:

So there's required reading now?

Anyway my response to both of these is 1) Optical illusions rely on perception, not what we actually see. This is why illusions don't always work across cultures. It's not our eyes that get it wrong, it's how we interpret it. 2) In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king. See the world as it actually is can only be a benefit. See his beetle example actually suggest the exact opposite of what you post. In order to survive natural selection would compel that species of beetle to be able to detect true reality better. Whether it's through being able to distinguish glass shards from females by sight, or picking a new sense to find them.

Given his credentials as a cognitive scientist at UC Irvine I think the fault may lie with your rush to judgement rather than his "plain ignorance of science". As Bertrand Russell would say, you can't trust an ignorant person's opinion about a clever argument because the ignorant person translates the clever argument into what he understands.

Maybe, but then I've always considered it a pointless discussion anyway. Objective or subjective reality a GPS works. Be like finding out we're in the matrix. Even if we think we've found evidence one way or the other all the same argument apply. Evidence for objective reality? We know our perception isn't prefect. Evidence of subjective reality? Again our perception isn't perfect, and it's even less so in an subjective reality.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

what HE said-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCmj74sGiMs

I'm not sure if his assessment has much basis in reality, at least as far as most clergy are concerned. He may be characterizing primarily his own experiences with the Church of England, and most of his potshots seem to be at the archbishop of Canterbury. Far too many of my friends are seminarians and clergy, and they hardly fit with what he is describing. Most clergy aren't archbishops or bishops or pastors of megachurches who can support the lifestyle he is describing. I doubt you'll be seeing these sort of mansions he describes for those clergy who do rural ministry, which there is a growing trend of denominations attempting to address, along with urban ministry. The socio-economic situation of most clergy tends to be on the lower end of the economic bracket, though there are church packages and denominational benefits that are meant to help balance things out. Overall though, many people who are considering ministry are constantly reminded, if not bombarded, with the knowledge that the money will be abysmal for most. Plus the low funding for a mandatory seminary education, varying on denominational and diocese, can leave a seminarian with sizable debt right out the door.

I personally don't know of any who are doing this as some grand farce or scam. The vast majority are doing this out of a sincere belief and faith of their "calling." Shocking, I know. Most clergy work nauseating hours every week (ninety percent of clergy report working 55-75 hours per week) officiating funerals and weddings, visiting parishioners at home and in hospitals, preparing for worship, attending meetings, performing church administration, etc. There is a high burnout rate for fresh-seminarian-born clergy entering the profession (around fifty percent of clergy quit within their first five years). It's incredible how as an atheist my assessment of clergy has changed simply from having received seminary training and knowing clergy firsthand.

[Sci-2]

That is (the road to) solipsism. And completely untenable.

eta: it is amusing how much of these pieces on the hard problem of consciousness could easily be pieces about the hard problem of (what) life (is and how it differs from inanimate matter).

I think Chalmers discusses why this is different that old vitalism theories trying to explain life.

I just can't recall where he does this but if I do I'll post in the Consciousness Thread.

@TrueMetis:

How is that then different from objective reality though?

It seems to me that it would be more akin to "consensus reality", or at least that's how Hoffman describes Conscious Realism.

Maybe, but then I've always considered it a pointless discussion anyway. Objective or subjective reality a GPS works. Be like finding out we're in the matrix. Even if we think we've found evidence one way or the other all the same argument apply. Evidence for objective reality? We know our perception isn't prefect. Evidence of subjective reality? Again our perception isn't perfect, and it's even less so in an subjective reality.

(Forgive the sea of quotes, but I don't trust my own evaluations of quantum mechanics so it's better to quote smarter people directly. Ideally one of the board physicists will pop in and reassure me this quantum stuff isn't as crazy as it sounds!)

But it seems to me that it may be possible to come up with positive evidence that suggests some form of Idealism. (I mention some things in this post) For example Zeillinger and Legget's work at IQOQI apparently suggests an interesting relationship between information and reality:

“In the history of physics, we have learned that there are distinctions that we really should not make, such as between space and time… It could very well be that the distinction we make between information and reality is wrong. This is not saying that everything is just information. But it is saying that we need a new concept that encompasses or includes both.” Zeilinger smiled as he finished: “I throw this out as a challenge to our philosophy friends.”

Not that everyone is convinced:

....Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871)....

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."

However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective. "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment," he said. "But I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics."

[Sci-2]

!? What!? That was painful to read.

Which premise is wrong? That there isn't a Hard Problem of Consciousness, or we have no way to access objective reality without recourse to sensory - and thus subjective - experience?

Remember, I'm not saying Idealism is definitively right and definitely not saying Hoffman is correct - in fact I just emailed him some points of criticism made by Artem Kazatcheev and am now awaiting his response.

I'm just pointing out from a philosophical perspective you can't rule out the possibility Idealism, rather than Materialism, is the right paradigm.

[TrueMetis]

@TrueMetis:

It seems to me that it would be more akin to "consensus reality", or at least that's how Hoffman describes Conscious Realism.

Think I need a definition of what consensus reality means. Is the consensus in this just agreeing on the parts we're sure of, or could the consensus actually change things? Starting to think some of my problems might be coming from definitions.

[Gears of the Beast]

oops, just a sec.

seems as though I accidentally deleted it while editing, is there a way to see edit history?