Disagreement with Donald Hoffman about reality | John Vervaeke and Lex Fridman

Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:

GUEST BIO:
John Vervaeke is a psychologist and cognitive scientist at University of Toronto.

PODCAST INFO:

SOCIAL:

[SkynetRecordings]

Hoffman doesn’t say there isn’t anything out there (an illusion) he simply says we don’t perceive reality in its fullest. We have built a user interface of reality stemming from evolution. We already know that we don’t perceive 90% of reality. Gamma, X-rays, radio waves etc. evolution had created a reality that only favours fitness. I see a lot of people making this mistake when talking to others about Hoffman’s theory.

[GASmotorsports]

If I remember the discussion with Donald Hoffman correctly he was emphasizing the fact that we are limited by our sensory perception and our mental processing in a way that makes it almost impossible to have a grasp on our concept of a physical reality. More so all our theories are part of that illusion. If I remember correctly he said he doesn’t “believe” in theories he just regards theories as the most useful tool at the current time. As I understand he was saying there is an informational horizon that given our sensory perception and cognition we just can’t access. he seemed to say all of our understanding of physics may have more to do with the nature of our interface with reality than the actually qualities of that reality. John seems to have a problem with there being a information horizon. Just because there is an information horizon doesn’t mean you can’t understand anything. You just can’t understand the things beyond the horizon.

[bodhisattva]

Excellent discussion. Arguing Hoffman's hypothesis in his absence could have been very one sided but Lex did a good job filling in for him.

[candaniel]

Jon Vervaeke and Donald Hoffman had a conversation three months after this one, and in it, John apologized to Donald for this clip. He admitted to not having fully understood Donald before, and was surprised to see Donald hold a more reasonable position than he had anticipated.

It would be good if the person running this channel makes this clear by pinning a comment or something, so that people don't come here and think this is the status quo of how John thinks about Donald.

[xetra]

I would love to have Hoffman engage in discussion with people who are more sceptical to his ideas

[galgot]

Thanks for this interesting discussion.
I maybe wrong, but i think Hoffman don't use the term "simulation" . For him the way we see the world is an interface, which is quite different from a simulation.
A simulation mimics something the user is already familiar with. An interface is a tool that gives the user ways to interact with a reality he would otherwise be completely clueless with, and he wouldn't survive and evolve without that interface. And an interface is not an illusion either...
That is why I think the analogies with the Matrix or a vid games are wrong, these are indeed simulations that tricks users into a fake worlds they already know.
Hoffman's point is that, with this interface we have, we manage to explain a "working" theory of our reality, but up to a certain point.

[matthewdieter]

A simple way to look at this is to imagine how an ant perceives the world around it. The ant sees the same things we do but has no clue what anything actually is. You only perceive what is essential to your survival.

[fissionmaild]

Hoffman said in his podcast with Lex that he doesn't fully believe in any of the sciences (as they will inevitably be proven wrong in the future) but that he is obliged to use the best tools currently available to him. So I don't think he necessarily "believes" in evolution or mathematics, but he thinks they can be used as tools to show that the way we currently construct our view of reality doesn't make sense.

[daniellesullivan]

I am glad Lex defends Hoffman so vigorously here because I think Vervaeke really misrepresents what Hoffman is all about. In fact Hoffman very explicitly accounts for everything Vervaeke has thrown against him and he has done so repeatedly.

[seams]

I became obsessed with the Donald Hoffman. It makes me happy that Lex brings up Donald's definition of reality in other podcasts.

[williambateman]

There’s nothing more amusing than watching really smart people fumble over there ignorance.

[fredmwangaguhunga]

He’s missing Hoffman’s points.

First, Hoffman points out a paradox that he proved mathematically, if you believe in evolution, then you can’t think that we see reality. He didn’t address this.

Second, Hoffman relies on evolutionary game theory, which is the mathematical underpinnings of evolution, and not biological evolution (which relies on physical objects, and life forms).

[badasspacifist]

Beyond the possibility that everything is a simulation within a simulation, even at “base reality” everything is energy, albeit in varying forms, yet essentially one thing.

The fact that we can even ponder this at all, should have the whole of humanity in constant awe & gratefulness.

[shaney]

Hasn't science already at least partly answered this question? “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” Einstein.
I love listening to Lex and his brilliant guests - so much to crack one's mind open. I hadn't heard of Dr. Vervaeke, and now I'm absolutely going to follow up and read what he has published. Super interesting guy.

[brandonb]

Great discussion! Would love to see him and Hoffman on together.
-A simple question for both: Where do you think “novel ideas” come from?

Math/Physics were once just ideas, are those made in the brain or not? If not, then maybe consciousness is the base of the “reality” pyramid, not the physical world.

That’s what I got from Hoffman.

[apn]

Donald Hoffmans theory is pretty interesting as is the work of Stephen Wolfram. Modern physics does not attempt to explain what is outside space time and has no theories about that.

[BenLansdell]

Vervaeke's response here is the reasonable one. That our perceptions don't reflect reality 'as it really is' is not really a new idea, anyone who studies physics or cognitive science comes to this realization. Hoffman takes this too far.

[oldrusty]

Hoffman's theory is like a Rorschach inkblot test. People see whatever they desire to see in it. Whenever an objection is raised, the refrain is always, "It's a metaphor, it's an analogy, it's an abstraction, it's a different definition of true." Apparently not even Hoffman can articulate his theory in a rigorous or falsifiable way. That's not science. It is not even philosophy, really. It is art, perhaps.

[augiejelicic]

You missed IT. Hoffman states that only Math is real. And putting theory of evolution into mathematical algorythm and running it gives us his conclusion that senses evolve not to give us real reality.
AND he states, maybe theory of evolution is wrong, but is best we got right now, when we update it we will try with that modified theory....

[markszpak]

A key distinction that Buddhists make that can be helpful here is that reality is not an illusion—it is LIKE an illusion. Saying it IS an illusion posits a reality in contrast (as Vervaeke also says): “this is illusion” and “that is real”. This is also how to avoid the pitfall of solipsism, which says “It’s all in my mind, and my mind is real.” This is not the Buddhist “mind only”, which basically says there is no independent essence, including in what you think is your “self”. Cheerio!