What if evolution bred reality out of us?

[Wootah]

So I know I've argued this before: that evolution is not about the truth but about survival of the fittest.

But now you can hear it from a scientist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/0 ... -out-of-us

Did evolution breed reality out of us?

[benchwarmer]

So I know I've argued this before: that evolution is not about the truth but about survival of the fittest.

But now you can hear it from a scientist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/0 ... -out-of-us

Did evolution breed reality out of us?

I read the article, very interesting. My brain hurt a little trying to follow it

I'm not clear if you are making the same argument as the article though. You say "evolution is not about the truth". What do you mean exactly?

What I gather from the article is that we have been tuned by evolution to procreate even if doing so may cause us to ignore some aspects of reality. i.e. in a situation where procreation is an option, we may tune in and focus on that rather than other aspects of what's going on around us. We've been bred to breed rather than objectively weigh all the realities of the situation. That's what I understand from the article anyway.

Based on my own limited empirical evidence I would agree. Whenever I see someone attractive I can get tunnel vision. At least until my spouse whacks me and brings me back to reality

[Neatras]

One might say that the "honeymoon phase" when we dismiss all of our spouse's quirks and habits as "cute" is an example of this. Over time, we might find their behavior to be annoying, and this will have been after the chemical rush we get from them has worn off.

Fortunately, we can design instruments which are capable of returning real values, and help us to gain a 'consistent' understanding of reality.

[Divine Insight]

I read the entire article and watched his TED talk. I disagree with many of the conclusions he draws. For one thing at just 3 minutes into his TED talk he talks about seeing a tomato a meter away and then asks if the tomato is still there when we close our eyes. The problem with this is that the tomato necessarily must still be there because other people will still be experiencing it. unless he wants to claim solipsism.

I don't see how anything he suggests from that point forward can be supported with relying upon an assumption of solipsism. I'm not sure if he realizes that his proposals rely on an assumption of solipsism or not, but if he's against making arbitrary assumptions then why would he assume solipsism?

He absolutely has to make this assumption if he's going to deny the physical reality of the world.

Also, the later programming experiments that he claims he claims makes evolution become 'extinct' as the sole means of survival isn't a compelling argument. The reason being that even within evolution the human brain is already a computer that can run these same sort of algorithms.

I would suggest that his entire approach is based on a misguided view of evolution that ignores the fact that the brain itself also evolves to a greater computational power.

Finally, I would suggest that his computer lab models are designed for absolute perfection. In other words he has simply written programs that would favor a species that could actually determine what best suits its procreation, and those programs would naturally "WIN" these computer games that he has designed.

There is a problem here in that he hasn't shown where this is actually happening in the real world anyway. Where can he point to a species that is that efficient? Even humans appear to be destroying their own ecosystems. We may very well be destroying the very planet we live on. So we wouldn't be emulating his idealized computer programs anyway. We could be headed for extinction just like many other species became extinct.

In fact, the very simple observation that many species have already become extinct seems to fly in the face of his hypothesis that something mysterious is going on to control or program species to optimum fitness or procreation. If what he is proposing was actually the truth of reality then why should any species fail?

I think his ideas have extreme problems that he has either failed to address, or refuses to address because he doesn't want to give up his pet theories.

He's simply wrong when he claims that evolution has failed as an explanation. That's a wrong assumption on his part to begin with, yet he puts it out there as though it has been a proven fact. This is a common fallacy that many people fall into when they want to support their own ideas. They make claims that other well-established ideas have clearly been shown to have failed. That is a claim that I would strongly contest with him if he made that claim to me in person.

Evolution has not failed to explain our reality. Yet he claims that is has. That's an extremely bad argument on his behalf to begin with.

[Wootah]

One might say that the "honeymoon phase" when we dismiss all of our spouse's quirks and habits as "cute" is an example of this. Over time, we might find their behavior to be annoying, and this will have been after the chemical rush we get from them has worn off.

Fortunately, we can design instruments which are capable of returning real values, and help us to gain a 'consistent' understanding of reality.

Fortunately, we think we are designing....

But of course we would think we are

[Wootah]

I read the entire article and watched his TED talk. I disagree with many of the conclusions he draws. For one thing at just 3 minutes into his TED talk he talks about seeing a tomato a meter away and then asks if the tomato is still there when we close our eyes. The problem with this is that the tomato necessarily must still be there because other people will still be experiencing it. unless he wants to claim solipsism.

I don't see how anything he suggests from that point forward can be supported with relying upon an assumption of solipsism. I'm not sure if he realizes that his proposals rely on an assumption of solipsism or not, but if he's against making arbitrary assumptions then why would he assume solipsism?

He absolutely has to make this assumption if he's going to deny the physical reality of the world.

Also, the later programming experiments that he claims he claims makes evolution become 'extinct' as the sole means of survival isn't a compelling argument. The reason being that even within evolution the human brain is already a computer that can run these same sort of algorithms.

I would suggest that his entire approach is based on a misguided view of evolution that ignores the fact that the brain itself also evolves to a greater computational power.

Finally, I would suggest that his computer lab models are designed for absolute perfection. In other words he has simply written programs that would favor a species that could actually determine what best suits its procreation, and those programs would naturally "WIN" these computer games that he has designed.

There is a problem here in that he hasn't shown where this is actually happening in the real world anyway. Where can he point to a species that is that efficient? Even humans appear to be destroying their own ecosystems. We may very well be destroying the very planet we live on. So we wouldn't be emulating his idealized computer programs anyway. We could be headed for extinction just like many other species became extinct.

In fact, the very simple observation that many species have already become extinct seems to fly in the face of his hypothesis that something mysterious is going on to control or program species to optimum fitness or procreation. If what he is proposing was actually the truth of reality then why should any species fail?

I think his ideas have extreme problems that he has either failed to address, or refuses to address because he doesn't want to give up his pet theories.

He's simply wrong when he claims that evolution has failed as an explanation. That's a wrong assumption on his part to begin with, yet he puts it out there as though it has been a proven fact. This is a common fallacy that many people fall into when they want to support their own ideas. They make claims that other well-established ideas have clearly been shown to have failed. That is a claim that I would strongly contest with him if he made that claim to me in person.

Evolution has not failed to explain our reality. Yet he claims that is has. That's an extremely bad argument on his behalf to begin with.

Well he's not the majority view yet that's for sure. But we can't simply close our eyes and pretend the argument doesn't exist.

I think Neatras pointed out a simple example of ignoring reality. Now it's just about seeing how deep the rabbit hole is.

[Wootah]

So I know I've argued this before: that evolution is not about the truth but about survival of the fittest.

But now you can hear it from a scientist.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/0 ... -out-of-us

Did evolution breed reality out of us?

I read the article, very interesting. My brain hurt a little trying to follow it

I'm not clear if you are making the same argument as the article though. You say "evolution is not about the truth". What do you mean exactly?

What I gather from the article is that we have been tuned by evolution to procreate even if doing so may cause us to ignore some aspects of reality. i.e. in a situation where procreation is an option, we may tune in and focus on that rather than other aspects of what's going on around us. We've been bred to breed rather than objectively weigh all the realities of the situation. That's what I understand from the article anyway.

Based on my own limited empirical evidence I would agree. Whenever I see someone attractive I can get tunnel vision. At least until my spouse whacks me and brings me back to reality

Evolution is about surviving and reproducing and not about the truth. Understanding reality may have been such a negative to surviving and reproducing that we now simply have no connection to it at all.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

I didn't say we were getting a correct understanding of reality.

I said we were getting a consistent one.

It just so happens that consistency is a valuable characteristic, and one that can rationally be tied to what is 'real'.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

I didn't say we were getting a correct understanding of reality.

I said we were getting a consistent one.

It just so happens that consistency is a valuable characteristic, and one that can rationally be tied to what is 'real'.

And I said that's just the beginning of the rabbit hole.

If we are surviving and reproducing successfully does knowing reality and truth matter? My short answer is no.

[Neatras]

If we are surviving and reproducing successfully does knowing reality and truth matter? My short answer is no.

Except... We depend on "reality" to exist. If things we experience are not "real" then our misconceptions can lead to us being killed.

An organism with eyes is favored in environments where light is abundant. That is because they have the ability to process a "real" phenomenon, which is the wavelength of light.

Regardless of how philosophically stimulating it is to discuss whether or not we are gaining more and more access to reality, we would not exist if the things we did were not based on reality. The reality of caloric intake, the reality of competition, the reality of revolutionary orbits and osmosis. Our behavior is staked on these things, and we thrive because of it.

You should be proposing a system in which organisms use behaviors based on non-real events and yet thrive in spite of that. Not trying to force a dichotomy between "survival" and "truth".

There are very rational reasons for correlating truth with survival.

Evolution is about surviving and reproducing and not about the truth. Understanding reality may have been such a negative to surviving and reproducing that we now simply have no connection to it at all.

You'd first have to propose how the above is even possible. If the claim is merely 'rational' given a loaded premise, you haven't yet demonstrated anything without substantial evidence.

I counter your idea that survival and truth are at odds with each other, by pointing out that we KNOW when people enact behaviors divorced from reality, they end up at risk of declining health or reduced ability to reproduce. Delusions, insanity, and neurodivergent behavior is a clear example of reduced performance because it makes how you interact with reality deviate from what is necessary to survive.

Knowing the above, are you really going to just insinuate "well, it's possible"?

Instead, we have a good understanding that beings which are capable of perceiving reality are better suited for survival. Use a sharp rock to kill the animal, reduce risk of hypothermia with warm clothing.

Propose models of reality that would compel evolution to favor "unrealistic" mental faculties, please, otherwise this is armchair philosophy, not science.