Тёмный

Donald Hoffman - Does Evolutionary Psychology Explain Mind? 

Closer To Truth
Подписаться 609 тыс.
Просмотров 52 тыс.
50% 1

How did the human mind, with all its faculties and capacities, develop during the long evolution of human beings? 'Evolutionary psychology' is the field that hypothesizes how all our mental activities were selected for during evolution. But are the proposed mechanisms too cute, the story too pat?
Click here to watch more interviews with Donald Hoffman bit.ly/29vNjsr
Click here to watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology bit.ly/2dWD3Ln
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com

Опубликовано:

 

10 июн 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 235   
@tunahelpa5433
@tunahelpa5433 5 лет назад
After watching many "Closer to Truth" videos, I've noticed 2 things: first, like a great interviewer, Dr Kuhn makes the guest feel comfortable in expressing his viewpoints, even as Dr. Kuhn presents counter-arguments; second, Dr Kuhn always hints at some vague viewpoint that he holds but never quite reveals it. As a result, these interviews lead me to want more at the same time that I feel frustrated at the limited time spent in each. A job well done!
@SikkiSweets
@SikkiSweets 3 года назад
The most influential concept/breakthrough of this century.
@MrLJT1
@MrLJT1 2 года назад
and, for me at least, one of the most disturbing.
@kevincoleman2092
@kevincoleman2092 2 года назад
Yeah except evolutionary psychology is total bunk and pseudoscience if you have even an elementary knowledge of how evolution actually occurs.
@SocksWithSandals
@SocksWithSandals 4 года назад
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value" - Arthur C Clarke
@TheRealFlenuan
@TheRealFlenuan 3 года назад
Not all human evolution happened in paleolithic times
@Adhil_parammel
@Adhil_parammel 2 года назад
WOMen likes intelligence there for intelligence
@artsmart
@artsmart Год назад
It worked for Hal;)
@lance9749
@lance9749 7 лет назад
Great set of interviews with Hoffman.
@Drecon84
@Drecon84 6 лет назад
Wait, is that really in the textbooks? That's so weird. Isn't it a natural assumption that we just have very good filters for reality that allow us to observe the things that are relevant to our survival instead of observing everything? I mean, think of all the energy it would cost to observe all of the things that are true but not relevant to our survival. Where is that energy supposed to come from?
@thndesmondsaid
@thndesmondsaid 4 года назад
Yeah I was surprised to hear that as well, I'm not sure which text books he is referencing
@Ingmntya
@Ingmntya Год назад
I think you may be referring to “quantity” and not “quality”. Natural selection has allowed us to perceive only those things that we need to survive, discarding others, as you say. That is quantity. He is referring more to what is the ultimate nature of those things that we do perceive because our perception of them is a function of fitness not truth. That’s my understanding, but I can be wrong.
@Pepe-hj4zt
@Pepe-hj4zt Год назад
@@Ingmntya I think you're dead on 👍
@EduardoHernandez-vv8ey
@EduardoHernandez-vv8ey 9 месяцев назад
This is a super interesting notion. I think this may serve in a way Alvin Plantinga's argument on reasoning, senses and evolution. He argued (I'm paraphrasing) that since evolution is concerned with survival, our evolved senses and reasoning were developed for our survival and not for truth. The implications are really staggering, but still very intriguing.
@Oh4Chrissake
@Oh4Chrissake 5 лет назад
I wonder if one can decipher what is _really, objectively_ true from examining one's perception in the light of an understanding how evolution is likely to skew that perception. I suppose it would be akin to trying to discern what your _true_ reflection should be by looking at it in a distorted mirror (the kind found in a 'house of mirrors') and by examining the distortion properties of the mirror. Answers on a postcard, please.
@lolyhassan
@lolyhassan 6 лет назад
I love ur channel. Amazing work
@wii3willRule
@wii3willRule 7 лет назад
I was thinking about Nietzsche's writing the whole time! It seems to be in line with his writings, or at least my amateur understanding of it. I also think I read one of Dr. Hoffman's articles-- I think it was "The Case Against Reality". I wonder how he reconciles his scientific research, which is of course dependent on the senses, with his belief that the senses do not give us an accurate sense of reality? I feel like he could make an argument like, "Using the methods accepted by scientists and philosophers today, I can prove that our sense perceptions are almost totally misleading". Also, great example with the beetles! I think I'm going to remember that one for a long time.
@baburali8230
@baburali8230 5 лет назад
His entire theory rests on the veracity of natural selection as a fundamental process in the universe, so if you grant him natural selection then his theory circumvents that issue regardless of if our perceptions are reliable or not. Like all theories, his theory has assumptions.
@liberosisnow
@liberosisnow 4 года назад
Damn! Same here, Nietzsche was the first thing to pop out of my head when I got in contact with Hoffman's theory.
@AmAl-mk8yh
@AmAl-mk8yh Год назад
I know this intuitively and now I have the confirmation, Thank you Dr. Hoffman.
@DFHobbs
@DFHobbs 7 лет назад
Irrationality and rationality are both necessary for the survival of the species.
@crisjones7923
@crisjones7923 5 лет назад
If that is the case then evolution would select for irrationality. How could we then trust any conclusion of our own mind?
@sweetb0yz
@sweetb0yz 5 лет назад
There wouldn't be irrationaity without rationality and vice versa.
@Chadthefatherbear
@Chadthefatherbear 4 года назад
@Simone De Filippo Hahahah geez man! Some people really struggle with understanding that. Though it is PAINFULLY obvious to some people (like you or I), doesn't mean it is to others! 😂
@vinny5638
@vinny5638 4 года назад
@Simone De Filippo Your baseline for rationality could be off. His question is how do you trust the rational conclusion of your mind as rational. Why do you trust the narrative logic that describes an aspect of reality as rational or irrational, and what if your immediate conclusion is wrong? What if what you consider rational is irrational to most others? Youre reducing this to a string of plot points while being a hostile idiot, ironically showing how dumb you truly are.
@vinny5638
@vinny5638 4 года назад
@Simone De Filippo I cant even tell if this is a troll or not, if so you're an absolute loser. If not you need to dedicate that "super rare IQ" you have to something more important than insulting people on the internet. You're more like a stunted child than some rare genius. I actually hope your post is true, because to be gifted intelligence and squander it so pathetically is a far more hilarious punishment than if you were just a trolling idiot.
@jamesruscheinski8602
@jamesruscheinski8602 2 года назад
How might energy fit in the evolutionary psychology of mind?
@vladimir0700
@vladimir0700 4 года назад
Fascinating stuff
@coringavinte5105
@coringavinte5105 2 года назад
OMG this video is mind blowing, what this man is saying have huge impact on politics, phylosophy even mathematics it explains so many things thanks a lot
@seagullspit6048
@seagullspit6048 Месяц назад
I think this really helps to explain things like Musical Anhedonia
@chrisbennett6260
@chrisbennett6260 Год назад
wow fascinating i what are the implications ?
@CamRebires
@CamRebires 2 года назад
Okay, but what even determines the organisms "that see truth" in the simulations he mentioned? Moreover, what are the criteria for "less" and "more" truth? How did they set that up?
@edoardopasero
@edoardopasero 4 года назад
I really love this man and I honestly hope he is right and on the good path to solve one of the biggest mistery. My skeptic part tho says to me that "consciousness" could be just a "quality" of highly evoluted organism and so his reasearch could be just the dream of a "quality" dreaming to be in charge while instead this is just an illusion given by nature
@chrisbennett6260
@chrisbennett6260 Год назад
I dont believe its an illusion one bit
@liberosisnow
@liberosisnow 4 года назад
"The bigger, the better" = XVI century beauty standards xD
@tom3fitzgerald
@tom3fitzgerald 2 года назад
Audio 3x higher than the last closer to truth video
@trajklogik7304
@trajklogik7304 7 лет назад
What does it mean for something to be useful to the fitness of some organism? There must be some degree of truth for it to be useful.
@graememcdiarmid7889
@graememcdiarmid7889 3 года назад
Exactly
@InnerLuminosity
@InnerLuminosity 4 года назад
Two very diffrent ENERGY VIBRATION here.
@user-wj7pt1th3b
@user-wj7pt1th3b Год назад
Brilliant
@laika5757
@laika5757 2 года назад
Music to my ears... 🎼🎶🎸
@chrisbennett6260
@chrisbennett6260 Год назад
its a partialpicture and a view an angle no more no less
@vinylsoup
@vinylsoup 5 лет назад
well if natural selections drives true perceptions to extinction then what are you using to determine this if you can't have true perceptions in the first place, are you doing it with untrue perceptions ?
@artsmart
@artsmart 4 года назад
It would be interesting for these men to try DMT and then discuss.
@bitkurd
@bitkurd Год назад
DMT is forbidden in the religion of scientism just like how alcohol is haram in Islam
@hankhicks2265
@hankhicks2265 5 лет назад
I'm confused how does truth go extint? My query is, If humans couldn't distinguish between something that was poisonous and something that was edible, surely we wouldn't be here today? So while maybe its not essential to percieve all truths, there's some truths (realities) that are essential to existance... hence if truth goes extint so do we. or am I missing the point?
@freshbakedclips4659
@freshbakedclips4659 Год назад
As an ENTP and a religious person (Agnostic Theist). Seeing the "naked truth" is like seeing God himself, and that means death. Look what did Moses and the High Priests when they speak with God directly? They cover themselves. The "naked truth" represents all the 8 cognitive functions i.e. (Te, Ne, Fe, Se, Ti, Ni, Fi, Si). Different spectrum of personalities are the reflection of God. We are seeing the spectrum of reality partially, therefore, we live.
@AmAl-mk8yh
@AmAl-mk8yh Год назад
Deleted my commented and Upvoted yours , you have said in the most elegant way to say it for those who understand. Our partial perception and understating is evolutionary and trying to perceive and understand fully will result in extinction.
@user-is3yn7xr4c
@user-is3yn7xr4c 2 года назад
It's true! The influenced of Geographical history dominates every other socio-economic causes of the demographic situation of a country.
@Domispitaletti
@Domispitaletti 5 лет назад
🎶🎵This why we dont trust our senses 🎵🎶We use equipments 🎶🎵To make measurements.
@JoshuaHults
@JoshuaHults 4 года назад
the equipment would itself be a trick. You have not fully understood the argument. You don't go from being tricked about everything to making a machine that does not tell you what you already believed. For example, you believe in light, but light may be a delusion in the brain. You would then create a machine to measure something that does not even exist lol. You would get back results perhaps caused by something entirely different, or as he believes by your own conscious mind and your own beliefs would be called evidence for your beliefs. lol Circular.
@MrLJT1
@MrLJT1 2 года назад
you have confused the true with the real.
@seagullspit6048
@seagullspit6048 Месяц назад
"I want my life to have meaning!" the meaning:
@holgerjrgensen2166
@holgerjrgensen2166 3 года назад
No, Mr Kuhn consciousness did Not come from a evolutionairy process. (introduction) Consciousness is Eternal, it is developed and renewed, through what you call evolution, developing-circuits, but it has always been, consciousness.
@robertlee918
@robertlee918 7 лет назад
Nietzsche wrote, "Truth and life are incompatible." This would seem "true" in as much as the organism that lies to itself optimistically (i.e., denial), is more likely to address challenges with the greatest energy. OR....for example, the animals that fluff up their fur as compared to the animals that don't, appear larger to a predator and are thus "rewarded" for the "deception" with more progeny. BUT.....the less conditional survival is, that is to say, the less our survival depends on instinct, the more capable a species is of seeing Truth because it can usually afford the risk of seeing it...which then allows us to collectively benefit. Technology is a good example of the conscious and intentional reconfiguration of matter which exponentially enhances the energy exchanges between humans and environment. Truth is synonymous with efficiency. The attempt to discern truth is an ongoing process of approximation... which presupposes a truth to approximate in the first place....which simultaneously aligns us more and more with the physics of reality. The more and more we align ourselves with reality, the more efficient we become until: energy expenditure
@The0versun1
@The0versun1 7 лет назад
could someone make it clear what he really means when he says ''natural selection drives through perception to swift extinction''
@DarkePacific
@DarkePacific 7 лет назад
So Imagine that there are two organisms. Both of these organisms need to not be eaten to survive, and have only one difference. Let's say there is a patch of grass with a leopard hiding in it. The first organism will see grass as bright green and a grey leopard in the grass as grey. Because the grass is very bright compared to the leopard the organism is attracted to the grass and wants to eat it. Unfortunately this animal dies. The second organism see grass as a dull grey and the leopard as a bright red. The second organism normally would want to eat the grass but it notices the bright red leopard first before anything else and decides to leave that patch alone. We cannot state what the "true" color of the leopard was at any point in time, but we can say that second organism's perception of reality was more evolutionarily advantageous than the first. This means that evolutions primes us to see reality in order survive but perhaps not necessarily as it is. When he means truth goes extinct first he means to say that animals that see reality as "true" tend to be distracted by miscellaneous information about reality that is often "true" such as the grass being green, but don't notice the critical information like the leopard hiding in it fast enough. Therefore it is erroneous to believe that evolution has prepared us to see reality exactly as it "truly" is. Make sense?
@ImanAliHussein
@ImanAliHussein 7 лет назад
Good explanation. Thanks.
@sushiyama1
@sushiyama1 6 лет назад
I'm late, but unbelievably fantastic clarification here. Thank you!
@charliehelyes
@charliehelyes 2 года назад
For example if one animal saw the actual frequencies of light it would spend hours figuring out which berries to eat. However if another animal saw colours rather the the truth (the frequencies) it would provide it with a shortcut to allow it to make quicker decisions that would give it a benefit in evolution. I picked that example as mainstream science accepts that colours don't exist in the real world they created by the brain to represent frequencies.
@mbellizia75
@mbellizia75 2 года назад
Super interesting. So, regarding the example of the jewel beetle toward the conclusion of the video, i wonder if that could apply to humans and our love of things that will hasten our demise? Something in our minds compels us to crave alcohol, drugs, or bacon to such a degree that it affects our perceptions and decision making ability. We are so drawn to it, we will literally kill ourselves to have i,t despite its total non-fitness to our survival. We cant percieve its reality as a poison.
@justanothernick3984
@justanothernick3984 2 года назад
The adult industry could be a substitution for the beer bottles.
@SikkiSweets
@SikkiSweets 3 года назад
"Obviously consciousness came from an evolutionary process.."? Maybe it didn't? Maybe if Consciousness is the unified field it created information, energy, time, and evolution? Will appreciate any help with that question and if it is possible that consciousness did not come about the laws of evolution? Thanks!
@holgerjrgensen2166
@holgerjrgensen2166 3 года назад
You're right, We are Eternal, our Consciousness is Eternal.
@dougg1075
@dougg1075 4 года назад
I think he’s on to something and I think he knows he is also. He working on the theory now with mathematicians before he submits his paper. People laughed at Einstein
@TheGreatAlan75
@TheGreatAlan75 3 года назад
What if the entire multiverse is just one pixel on a laptop somewhere in another dimension?? 😵
@guillatra
@guillatra 3 года назад
I came to think, that one important factor concerning the truth of perception (and beliefs) may even be a simple byproduct. A content has to come somewhere and according to the common sense picture the perception of my computer has to come at least from something computer-like. If that's false, where else does our perception come from? I mean, perhaps natural selection got a little bit overrated.
@Kidlap
@Kidlap 3 года назад
I wonder if we can watch this game theory Donald is talking about. Where is this game?
@samuelarthur887
@samuelarthur887 4 года назад
Fitness over truth? This is why scientism and materialism can't answer the questions that don't pertain to mere survival.
@yoooyoyooo
@yoooyoyooo 4 года назад
Not true. Scientist can make a pill that can make you temporary happy too. In fact many different pills that can put your mind in many different states. That's not mear survival.
@samuelarthur887
@samuelarthur887 4 года назад
@@yoooyoyooo Not science, scientism!
@lourak613
@lourak613 5 лет назад
The ideas being expressed here by Hoffman are fully developed in Alvin Plantinga's work. I presume that is where he derives his ideas.
@Abdon3891
@Abdon3891 4 года назад
Exactly what i thoight when i first heard this.
@crisjones7923
@crisjones7923 4 года назад
Similar arguments have been made by many philosophers including C.S. Lewis, though maybe Plantinga was the most thorough.
@guillatra
@guillatra 3 года назад
No. Hoffman talks about perception,, Plantinga about beliefs. And Plantinga argues from philosophy of mind, which he admits to be highly controversial.
@billniko9310
@billniko9310 5 лет назад
Human behavior is the physical run of the problem solver products by natural selection in physics world.
@matonmongo
@matonmongo 4 года назад
If this is correct, then it doesn't bode well for the struggle between 'survival' values like Politics, tribalism and fear, vs the search for truth thru rationality and science.
@mjkeith8748
@mjkeith8748 4 года назад
It seems that Dr. Kuhn is more skeptical and unconvinced (and for good reason) with Hoffman's ideas than any other person I've seen him interview. It makes these particular interviews a bit awkward. It's almost like Kuhn is making sure he protects his own reputation with respect to Hoffman's admittedly "out there" theories.
@davidbarker4966
@davidbarker4966 4 года назад
The discussion style is like reporter interviewing a politician who had paid to be asked the question that suited the politicians agenda. I am not weighing in on any of the postulations presented but simply that the production style is to communicate in layman's terms Hoffman's scientific research and ideas....
@grahaminglis4242
@grahaminglis4242 2 года назад
@@davidbarker4966 The underlying awkwardness between Kuhn and Hoffman comes about because Kuhn received a traditional scientific training and has published a book on what he learned accordingly. Hoffman has broken away from the traditional scientific perspective and therefore that’s the background in awkwardness even though Kuhn has a RU-vid channel called’ ‘Closer to Truth’ which canvassed a wide array of theoretical knowledge and various contributing interviewee favourite ideas.
@SuperEarth009
@SuperEarth009 4 года назад
what is truth? Truth is a matter of perspective , from the angle you are looking at it. But since the EYE is so very slow, which has been proven by using high speed photo lenses on a camera. So if I go into a court, i'll affirm to the facts from my perspective and nothing more!
@PhoenixMarco5
@PhoenixMarco5 6 лет назад
Alvin Plantinga called it!
@Snap_Crackle_Pop_Grock
@Snap_Crackle_Pop_Grock 3 года назад
Regarding the beetle example: isn’t he basically saying that the beetles perception/intellect was not developed enough to align with reality (differentiating a bottle from a female) and this is what caused it to almost go extinct? In other words, if a species survived long enough when exposed to different phenomena one could conclude that its perception is somewhat aligned to truth, at least on an analogous level? I understand that, for example, we can’t see ultraviolet and infrared light, yet they exist and we can detect them and see their effects. But I fail to see how his beetle example proves his point instead of doing the opposite. Isn’t the fact that we can manipulate our environment, even that which we cannot perceive with the senses (magnetism, subatomic particles, radiation, ultraviolet light, etc) in order to achieve specific outcomes proof that our perceptions about reality are at least highly analogous of a part -although no the entirety- of a true underlying reality?
@justanothernick3984
@justanothernick3984 2 года назад
I think his beetle case is making his evo psych argument less credible too. And a curious thought, somewhere along the way we evolved senses and they are essential to us communicating/interacting with the world. And with consciousness there must be some sort of self-preserving drive, to keep the consciousness "going", the ego. I'd start with those premises. The tiger in the bush, the unknown, triggering our senses and how that leads to survival isn't as black and white, not the way I see it. It activates fear in some and curiosity in others. And we need both. Fear as a conservative feature and stagnant force and curiosity as a progressive feature which leads to innovation/adaptation. Our senses, given that they aren't hindered, should pick up noises, visions, vibrations, smells just as a byproduct and we react different to those all the time, giving me a sort of chance-mentality to his natural selection hypothesis. I think culture is the dominant force in our development as a psychological social species. I think evo psych is focusing on only one side of the coin where my view is that the other side is the one we can do something about. I'm not discrediting the subconscious because I believe I'm aware of that part of me, but I am not willing to give it a free pass to explain our current state because we have an active conscious side that we should use in order to make our experience for ourselves and others a better one.
@Appleblade
@Appleblade 7 лет назад
No mention of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism? Odd.
@TheMusicLover487
@TheMusicLover487 7 лет назад
Could you explain?:)
@Appleblade
@Appleblade 7 лет назад
You can look it up, but it's Plantinga's argument that 'darwin's doubt'--a comment Darwin made that if his theory is true, he has to doubt the entirety of his beliefs because his mind is formed not for tracking truth, but for survival--is a serious problem for naturalism. No arguments can be made by naturalists because one of their fundamental premises, qua naturalists, undercuts the logical reliability of their views. IDK why the irony of this interview wasn't pointed out (because, of course, if this guy is correct, AND he's a naturalist, he has no reason to think he's correct). ;-)
@trickeyD
@trickeyD 7 лет назад
"the irony of this interview" Haha! I thought the exact same thing! :-)
@Appleblade
@Appleblade 7 лет назад
Hey Rich ... I'm just theistic insofar as I think they have the winning argument here (I'm not religious at all). Soul-making requires obfuscation on God's part, right? You expect ignorance of ultimate realities (if you know God exists, or are evidentially compelled to believe, you lack the deep angst and doubt that drives moral development)... but you also expect enough logical traction to make a righteous soul (and that's what we find ... I have no knowledge of an external world, other minds, etc., but I have knowledge that, say, it's wrong to kill innocent children for kicks ... we have moral knowledge but not scientific knowledge). The trouble with naturalism seems to be there's no logical traction for anything, which of course includes naturalism.
@Appleblade
@Appleblade 7 лет назад
Hey again! How is "it" about reductionism? I thought "it" was how truth goes missing via evolutionary selective design of our brains. ??? But if you want to visit the tangential issue I brought up that distinguishes which worldview is likelier true (soul-making, God-designed vs. naturalist, no design or brute-fact forces and energies), that's fine. ;))) So, my claim was just that we have the kind of knowledge necessary for moral development (soul-making) more surely than we have knowledge of what science purports to study (a publicly observable universe of natural objects). Simply ask yourself, am I more sure that I'm living in a physical world (rather than the matrix or some simulation like Nick Bostrum urges) or that it's wrong to, say, push a screwdriver into a little girl's eye in order to teach her not to sass her mother. I think I know the moral issues better because they don't really depend on the reality of the objects of moral conduct (whether real world or matrix, I'm exactly the same morally because what makes a person good or bad is 100% psychological ... it's some combination of what we believe we're doing and what we intend under the awareness of some moral principle or other (punishments should be proportionate to the wrong they punish, say). So, from that kind of consideration I conclude the world is nicely explained by the theistic hypothesis (we have the knowledge we need for soul-making) and not so nicely explained by the naturalist hypothesis (since we can't really be justified in believing the naturalist hypothesis ... it's self-referentially defeating). It's not a great win for theism ... it doesn't tell you to be religious at all ... doesn't tell you if any particular religious practices or claims of revelation are true, etc., but it gives god-types a start, I guess. Soul-making requires obfuscation just means God has to hide (himself and the ultimate goodness of the universe) so that humans take on the burden of making the universe good themselves (and themselves good in the process, I guess).
@arlieferguson3990
@arlieferguson3990 5 лет назад
""Tricks and hacks"
@yifuxero9745
@yifuxero9745 11 месяцев назад
Consciousness "of" things is obviously on a continuous scale from apparently none (rocks), to advanced Yogis who have dissolved their bodies into Pure Light. From Shankara's (788-820) Advaita Vedanta, everything in the universe is Pure Consciousness with a multitude of forms within It. This includes the whole realm of conscious agents with varying degrees of conscious "of" things. A Zen Koan: "A dirt clod is the Buddha" ; ie. agreeing with Shankara's statement that everything is Consciousness, but as a subset, various "entities" have different levels of relative awareness.
@__Henry__
@__Henry__ 6 лет назад
"The bigger the better"
@jonstewart464
@jonstewart464 4 года назад
Hoffman is happy to use all the knowledge we have gleaned through our senses to come up with the theory of evolution and to build computers that can simulate aspects of the world. Then he uses all that knowledge to say that the knowledge is false. It's a really bad argument!
@cuatican
@cuatican 2 года назад
Welcome to Hair-Splitting Straw Man Theater! Today's topic: "Why we do not perceive truth." The topic, "Why no one ever claimed that we evolved to see truth," has been cancelled due to lack of interest.
@marigold5080
@marigold5080 2 года назад
Is it because fuller perceived truth causes the species to want to mate less? And the story about the bugs and beer bottles, I can’t say they had “truth” in their perceptions, they couldn’t distinguish the bottle from the female bugs. Smell, movement, size, feel, etc. Those are perceiving truths, that apparently didn’t help the bugs.
@markportnoy6290
@markportnoy6290 Год назад
Materialists put themselves into boxes.
@thisisntallowed9560
@thisisntallowed9560 2 года назад
"evolution" cameraman : ZOOM IN
@JoshuaHults
@JoshuaHults 4 года назад
meanwhile, the speaker thinks what he is saying is true. The argument is self defeating. Any argument that denies truth, can't be said to be truth itself, since the belief would itself most likely be a trick. Where he takes this is interesting, it is just how he gets there i find logically incoherent lol
@SteveRayDarrell
@SteveRayDarrell 5 лет назад
OK these are fascinating ideas. But still I don't get what he means with "truth goes extinct". Rather, from his examples, you can see how perceptions are selected to focus on the things that matter for fitness and to cut out unnecessary information, but I don't get how that would imply untruthful perceptions... Perhaps inaccurate. For instance, human eyes don't see the whole reality, because that would be both useless and probably biologically impossible. Why would you need to see x rays for instance? And also how could you process all that information? You need to have some kind of optimization. In our case, we humans focused only on certain light wavelengths because those were the only ones we needed to survive or they offered the most benefits more cheaply. But that doesn't mean that those perceptions aren't true, it just means that they are incomplete, that they have less resolution, doesn't it?
@charliehelyes
@charliehelyes 2 года назад
The brain creates colours which simply don't exist in the real world which is pretty amazing. If the brain can simply invent something as vivid and concrete looking as 'colour' a concept that has absolutely no grounding in reality (light only has different frequencies) then it's not inconceivable that every other sense and concept is just as wrong and iconified.
@AMorgan57
@AMorgan57 2 года назад
"We can't even get truth to breed." People need hope, against all evidence to the contrary. And why not--what's the alternative? A good life needs some truth but not too much.
@digbyte
@digbyte 7 лет назад
sounds a lot like Plantinga.
@Appleblade
@Appleblade 7 лет назад
I had to go to the bottom of the comments to find the ONE educated person. lol!
@Joshua-dc1bs
@Joshua-dc1bs 6 лет назад
Alvin?
@bastianray6334
@bastianray6334 5 лет назад
@@Joshua-dc1bs Yes Alvin :-)
@pepedestroyer5974
@pepedestroyer5974 5 лет назад
@@bastianray6334 is this related to the evolutionary argument against naturalism?
@bastianray6334
@bastianray6334 5 лет назад
@@pepedestroyer5974 not exactly I think his theory is against physicalism , it is not easy to explain it but it is similar to Tom Campbell's "My Big TOE " based also on the simulation reality hypothesis .
@jamesruscheinski8602
@jamesruscheinski8602 2 года назад
Maybe human pursuit of truth not meant to survive for this world, has a different goal?
@Duane422
@Duane422 5 лет назад
What about his theory here, is it false? = )
@yoooyoyooo
@yoooyoyooo 4 года назад
Part that we don't see the Truth is not false. We see what our biology allows us and that is very narrow view. In some sense there is no Truth there are only views. No such thing as a true view.
@heinzditer7286
@heinzditer7286 Год назад
​@@yoooyoyooo but even if evolution gave us precise measuring tools as senses we would not know more about the world. Or am i getting it wrong?
@yoooyoyooo
@yoooyoyooo Год назад
@@heinzditer7286 I think we can never see the reality because absolute reality does not exist. What exists is only relative reality. Relative to species or even to individuals. But ofc absolute reality could exist however we can not see it so it kinda pointless talking about something we could never know.
@heinzditer7286
@heinzditer7286 Год назад
@@yoooyoyooo maybe he means that our brain filters things out that we dont need to see. So its not our senses, but they way the brain works, which makes sense. But if the physical world is just constructed by consciousness, then our physical brain would also be constructed and could not have an influence on how we perceive the world.
@yoooyoyooo
@yoooyoyooo Год назад
@@heinzditer7286 That implies there is some sort of basic truth we don't see. He thinks that there is conciousnes with or without a brain. That is very far fetched but it can not be either proven or disproven. I think it's just brain generating a perception the way it's made. Same as any other organ it just does what it's made to be doing. Hearth thinks life is about pumping blood. Hammer thinks it's about driving nails. Same thing goes for brains they just do what they are made for.
@millerk20
@millerk20 7 лет назад
The conclusions are only as good as the simulation. Unless they have access to the most advanced and powerful supercomputers, I doubt the algorithms they used to run the simulations can mimic the unpredictable behavior found in nonlinear dynamic (chaotic) systems with any real degree of accuracy.
@walvarad777
@walvarad777 6 лет назад
If it doesn't work in a more structured system I can't see how it's supposed to work in a more chaotic one.
@GLENHARTSHAMAN
@GLENHARTSHAMAN 3 года назад
So it is a truth that two cups of water is a survival truth in other words in this context truth is given validation and becomes a survival fact
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 3 года назад
Come on now, the pizza doesn't come from the delivery truck. Are you serious! Stop being sloppy!
@wishlist011
@wishlist011 7 лет назад
"In general, fitness is a non-monotonic function of the structures in the world ..." I'm missing something. Can someone explain? Just the right amount of water is good, too little or too much is bad. Fair enough. But I don't get how a perception of water that is unreal aids fitness. "Eek, that's a big wave better run" ... "Help, I'm parched. Better find an oasis and quick" ... "Thank you, a jug of water with lunch would be great". Recognising those different states as they are seems useful. What false perception of water gives a fitness advantage and how?
@tbayley6
@tbayley6 7 лет назад
wishlist011 False perception of a rope as a snake, or of a shape in the shadows, or jumping at sudden inanimate movements or sounds. These may all be 'untrue', but they are 'fit'. I think you have to bring time into it to explain fully. For a given quantity of 'perceptual resource' it is better to be quickly wrong and survive than be slowly right and die.
@yifuxero5408
@yifuxero5408 Год назад
Evolution comes from Pure Consciousness, the Substance of all existence. Contrary to Hoffman's emphasis on mathematics, this won't explain how conscious agents evolved from a primordial soup. Penrose states that Consciousness is non-computable. What we need are the proper methods for Self Awareness. Manjushri in the Surangama Sutra states that "They [practitioners] only need the practice of the faculty of hearing for them to break through to Enlightenment". No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will transcend the realm of mind and dualism all together, merging into Pure Consciousness, the Tao, the One, the Source and Substance of the universe.
@VemundVR
@VemundVR Год назад
Not really getting how he comes to these grand conclusions. Isn't it quite obvious that human beings have entered beyond the realm of necessary survival in a huge amount of aspects? Beatles, yes - their processees are, in many ways, quite simple. Human beings sing, reflect and create machines. I am sure that our perception of the world is skewed in some way. But why would you assume that "truth goes instinct", and that we cannot truly grasp reality? Seems far fetched.
@Hermes1548
@Hermes1548 5 лет назад
I see the point: no absolute truth is needed to survive (and reproduce). Fair enough. Evolution by natural selection does not say that our perceived world is THE world (ultimate reality). It says it is OUR adapted world. Plain naturalism: Santayana's animal faith and theory of essences in action (signs) and in contemplation.
@Chrisplumbgas
@Chrisplumbgas Год назад
Is he saying consciousness is more fundamental than physical realities, like the which came first the chicken or the egg, consciousness predates the Big Bang? Sounds biblical.
@85pagesproductions
@85pagesproductions 5 лет назад
Wow! Just genius! He's saying evolution, what's supposed to be the bedrock of "reality" doesn't favor the truth but fitness. Truth doesn't matter just the reality you perceive that will help you survive. So Consciousness creates reality and has to be more fundamental than any physical "truth."
@trajklogik7304
@trajklogik7304 7 лет назад
A map must reflect the true terrain or else it is useless.
@caricue
@caricue 6 лет назад
I'm coming into this a little after the fact, but this is one of my pet peeves. Here's an example of how the truth would be detrimental to fitness. Many males fight and suffer injuries and the risk of death for the opportunity to mate, more so in particular species, like elk or sea lions etc. If those males had a "true" perception of the world, they would see that passing on their genes is of no value to them as an individual at all. They are being used by the species for its continuation, and to opt out would allow them to just get fat and enjoy their short lives without participating in the barbaric nonsense of reproduction. Hence, reduced fitness. It's hard for you perhaps to see this since you as a human are also being used and controlled by these same forces. If you try hard enough, and think outside the box, you may see that you are mistaken "about a great many things", as a wise man once said!
@noisepuppet
@noisepuppet 4 года назад
If you understand natural selection, what he's saying is not surprising.
@thetruthoutside8423
@thetruthoutside8423 2 года назад
Damaging to a higher degree if this is true.
@considerallthat3310
@considerallthat3310 12 дней назад
Evolutionary psychology is bunk science
@108Existences
@108Existences 7 месяцев назад
"Don I like youu, I've been thinking about consciousness..." 🤭funny nerds
@Hermes1548
@Hermes1548 3 года назад
criticism makes science progress.
@lolyoureanti-vax8846
@lolyoureanti-vax8846 7 лет назад
Short answer: no.
@D3ADSY
@D3ADSY 7 лет назад
I'm confused by the beetle example. The beetle's perceptions were not truthful, and it almost drove their species to extinction. Yet, he seems to use the beetle as an example in which evolution selected perception suited for fitness but not truth. I guess it did, right up until someone threw a beer bottle on the ground. But isn't the near extinction of that species a result of perceptions that lacked truth?
@Joshua-dc1bs
@Joshua-dc1bs 6 лет назад
His argument was to show that evolution does not necessarily evolve true perceptions. The beetle had an evolutionary niche to look for something large, brown, shiny and bumpy. Hilariously, the beer bottles sufficed for a female. 😆
@bartk3451
@bartk3451 6 лет назад
Exactly his point!
@quAdxify
@quAdxify 29 дней назад
I fail to see how this two views contradict each other. Yes perceiving truth is an advantage but it also is a cost, therefore any organism will always evolve to perceive the minimal necssesary amount of truth that will ensure its survival at the current scale. We probably see the word more as what it is than any other organism on earth, yet the fallacy is that we believe we are therefore at the top of the mountain, which we likely are not. We may just be on a tiny little hill, so to speak, meaning that the senses of other organisms are less truthful but ours are by no means truthful, just slightly more in comparison. I think that is the big fallacy. Think of it, what benefit would it have to an ant to know that the earth spins around the sun, zero, because even if they knew, they couldnt do anything about it. But to us there is some benefit, because if we understand our environment a bit better, we may be able to avoid extinction of our species by becoming multiplanetary or diverting incoming asteroids (or not)...
@gr-xw3sp
@gr-xw3sp 2 года назад
What is the definition of "truth" that Hoffman is using? Seems very pointless to me the using of such word to look like a deep thinker. Is it "truth" that X rays exist but if some organisms initially can perceive X rays (the "truth") but at the end such ability disappears from the population because it does not provide any surviving value? If that's the case Hoffman is making a big deal out of a triviality because from the beginning it is clear, from the evolutionary point of view, that our senses will evolve not to perceive the universal set of the infinite truth but its subset of "useful truth."
@constructivecritique5191
@constructivecritique5191 3 года назад
Perception is true based on what we are perceiving only. The error comes in when the soul interpretates.
@myheartspits
@myheartspits 6 лет назад
Isn't it a huge assumption that the computer simulation behaves exactly like reality?
@graememcdiarmid7889
@graememcdiarmid7889 3 года назад
Yes
@skepticjoe09
@skepticjoe09 3 года назад
its not conclusive in essence, but it has given us a really good reason to consider the possibility that perceptions are not isomorphous to objective reality.
@aclearlight
@aclearlight Год назад
I feel that "truth" has been deliberately straw-manned here. It sounds as though it might just as well described as "fitness stripped of context and common sense". Of course it fails in the subsequent modelling. This is feeling a bit contrived to me.
@Dylan_Campbell
@Dylan_Campbell 6 лет назад
Ten minutes spent arguing against a straw man...I don't know of any evolutionary psychologist who has argued that those who saw more "truly" were unequivocally higher in fitness. Not sure where this supposed "standard view" is coming from.
@N0Xa880iUL
@N0Xa880iUL 2 года назад
Good point.
@Drigger95
@Drigger95 7 лет назад
"natural selection has shaped us..." geez, we can't get of away from personifying our gods lol.
@karlkarlsson9126
@karlkarlsson9126 2 года назад
When I look at my self in the mirror I see Brad Pitt. I think Donald are onto something.
@josephhruby3225
@josephhruby3225 Год назад
Truth does seems to be going extinct . . .
@nps3b
@nps3b Год назад
i'd say it generally is in people who survive ; but there are exceptions
@trapaneezus
@trapaneezus Год назад
Human beings can't know 100% truth. We're hardwired to only know the parts that are useful for our IMMEDIATE survival above all else. Those of us who try or at least those of us who'd like to try and understand the true nature of things end up going extinct..
@trapaneezus
@trapaneezus Год назад
Human beings have a collective crabs in a barrel mentality. We like to drag down anyone who's figured out how to navigate reality without playing the silly games we make up.
@kenjohnson6326
@kenjohnson6326 Год назад
OK, he called into question bad high-school understanding, but he still doesn't understand the concept of truth.
@trajklogik7304
@trajklogik7304 7 лет назад
Truth goes extinct? So everything this guy says isn't true? Is not knowing how the world works an improvement in fitness?
@JakubFerenc1911
@JakubFerenc1911 4 года назад
Trajk Logik It's about the veracity of your perceptions of the world. You do not need to see the truth to survive and thrive. Do you think that the folders and files on your computer are real? No, but it does not matter because you do not need to be a programmer or a processor designer to write in Word app. That's why interface is so powerful and deceiving: it hides the true complexity of the world "out there" to make your life possible.
@charliehelyes
@charliehelyes 2 года назад
Yes it is an improvement in fitness. For example all scientists agree colour doesn't have any grounding in reality the brain creates colour to make life easier for us. For example if one animal saw light frequencies (the truth) they would spend hours figuring out what all the fuzzy photons and light waves zipping around mean, whilst another animal that visualised the frequencies as colours in its brain could decide which berries to eat much quicker and would outcompete the animal that saw the truth.
@renzoalvau
@renzoalvau 5 лет назад
Obviously came from an evolutionary process...really?! Obviously? 😂
@holgerjrgensen2166
@holgerjrgensen2166 3 года назад
You're right, Mr Kuhn often expose him self as a ignorant.
@jasonaus3551
@jasonaus3551 5 лет назад
The beer bottle story is what will happen to humans once sex robots look and feel and act good enough to drive men away from the real deal..................
@fivish
@fivish 4 года назад
Neither of them has any answers. They just use their minds to contemplate their existance. No other creature can do this.
@NathanAlexanderGuess
@NathanAlexanderGuess 7 лет назад
This is an evolution channel?! Ah, I remember why I subscribed. Still amazes me evolution is believed as fact.
@frickckYTwhatswrongwmyusername
What do you think of dog breeding? Or different ethnic groups amongst humans? If your wife was asian and got a black kid with you, would you not question anything because you don't believe in physical traits of biological organisms being heritable?
@Joshua-dc1bs
@Joshua-dc1bs 6 лет назад
Christ Almighty these evolution deniers are mind numbing.
@kenjohnson6326
@kenjohnson6326 Год назад
"Saw truly" -- nonsense! Survival has nothing to do with "truth" but with successful adaptation. So-called "truth" doesn't enter into it. This is high-school level stuff, to my mind.
@JAYDUBYAH29
@JAYDUBYAH29 7 лет назад
It is a tragic commentary on the state of academia that someone as incoherent in their reasoning as this can be involved in teaching young minds how to think at the graduate level. Wow. Sadly Lawrence doesn't bother asking exactly what he means when he says things like "truth goes extinct, " or " we can't even get truth to breed"
@friedrichschopenhauer2900
@friedrichschopenhauer2900 7 лет назад
Julian Walker This was a portion of a much larger conversation, and Donald Hoffman's body of research is complicated and novel. I suggest his TED talk for what he means about "the truth goes to extinction". In my opinion, he's one of two or three of the most promising living thinkers, along with with the likes of Stuart Kauffman, who are unconstrained by academic politics and dogmas.
@JAYDUBYAH29
@JAYDUBYAH29 7 лет назад
Immanuel Kant i have seen it. it is equally incoherent and left field. let's reconvene in 10 years when his "research" has amounted to absolutely nothing. he will make no meaningful contributions to human knowledge.
@friedrichschopenhauer2900
@friedrichschopenhauer2900 7 лет назад
Julian Walker That is the typical response to a novel idea; first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as self-evident. It seems to me that a lot of people are having difficulty intuiting what he is trying to say, based only and ignorantly upon prior academic prejudices and habbits.
@packe777
@packe777 7 лет назад
The only tragic thing here, is that you are an obvious Dunning-Kruger victim, and an intellectual lightweight and hence, can't seem to grasp that. Donald Hoffman is MIT educated cognitive scientist, with a rigorous mathematical theory about consciousness. Someone like Christof Koch is expressing similar views through his model that he devolved with Tonnini - Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness. What he means by truth is attack on "Naive Realism", and fallacious assertions of materialism. Objective "Naive Realist" reality has been de-materialized by physicists decades ago, and falsified by Leggett's Inequalities. The bizarre thing is that you have liked the videos by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris who are both nobodies and unqualified to address these topics, on whom they are both clueless. But also you adhere to eastern new age Yogic woo woo at the same time, truly bizarre combination. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Maybe if you spend some time reading relevant philosophers of science like James Ladyman and learn about Ontology, Epistemology and phenomenology you would stop embarrassing your self in the comment section.
@JAYDUBYAH29
@JAYDUBYAH29 7 лет назад
packe777 thanks for your diagnosis based on a lot of mistaken assumptions -i appreciate the time and effort you put in to trying to pigeonhole me! :) i am familiar with much of what you refer to, and some of it less so -always learning, i am sure, like yourself. i do not buy the argument from authority here regarding his MIT credentials.... a point which may have been apparent in my initial comment. his reasoning is incoherent -and no amount of pseudointellectual posturing around physics and philosophy changes that observation. there is nothing in his TED talk, or in these interview excerpts that clarifies the distinction he is making between a functional fit in terms of perception and reality, as an evolutionary imperative that gives survival advantages, and this abstract notion of "truth" that he never defines, but nonetheless claims is other than whether or not the cliff or the predator is actually there and has implications for our well-being/survival. a few other observations: 1) the fact that evolution is a blind process that still makes us prone to many intuitive mistakes, unintentional spandrels, being susceptible to "super stimuli" that actually are detrimental -does not show that it has no relationship to what is true, only that it is imperfect in its adaptations. 2) it seems like maybe (if i am generous) a lot of his case comes down perhaps to understanding that what is true depends on the level of analysis. for us living organisms at the magnitude we are functional, of course being well adapted to perceive the environment as accurately as possible is a valuable and central driver of the fine tuning via evolution of our perceptual apparatus. of course other things are true, like mathematics or quantum mechanics, or even neuroscience, that have remained outside of what we could perceive and conceive of until reason and eventually science emerged. for example, we know things now about the cosmos, physics, and the brain, that correct and expand upon the perceptions that had evolved for thousands of years before.... and so in that sense, sure -there are truths that the evolution of consciousness up until that point could not access. the reason being that they had no discernible survival value, and become available only to new levels of inquiry that ride upon the previous capacities available to us. what i don't hear him addressing in any lucid, coherent way are these things: a) what does he mean by truth, and what are the specific truths that go extinct in the evolutionary process? b) what is the correlation between becoming radically divergent with truth (or accurate perception) and the creature itself becoming extinct? c) what are some examples of creatures in whom "truth has gone extinct" (in which specific ways) but who continue to exist and thrive? d) if truth as he describes it is not about accurate perception of the real world organisms have to navigate -what is it? as for your bombast around "naive realism" and " the fallacious assertions of materialism," as kuhn points out to hoffman, those are radical claims and the burden of proof is on you... my experience with most quasi academic philosopher types who reject materialism is that they are usually so far up their own asses that they never really say anything coherent, except to deny self-evident facts and hastily point out that they don't agree with people like sheldrake and chopra, even when their positions are the ones giving people like sheldrake and chopra ammunition to make their nonsense seem legitimate in pseudointellectual ways. so, go ahead, prove me wrong..... answer me this: what is the alternative to materialism yand a neurobiological model of consciousness that you find compelling, and is hoffman advancing it with reference to what he says in this interview? i am familiar with koch (who i really enjoyed until his recent midlife crisis tango with pantheism) and tononi -but i am always open to learning, so rather than trying to bully me with your degrees and insults and vocabulary, try this: tell me specifically what i am missing so far....maybe you are a better communicator than hoffman. i would actually love to find the coherent thread in hoffman's reasoning, even if only to disagree with it! :) just kidding -i am sure i would find it interesting, and you can demonstrate the superiority you trumpet here, by schooling me. i stand at the ready! oh and by the way, even more so than arguments from authority and postmodern relativist nonsesnse, i am not susceptible to woo of any kind -though i am fascinated with how neuroscience and physiologically referenced models of psychology overlap with practices like meditation and yoga. for me that exploration is entirely naturalistic and rooted not one iota in supernaturalism or magical thinking
@ArrogantEgoist
@ArrogantEgoist 3 года назад
The problem with Hoffman's theory is that it seems self-referentially incoherent.
@nps3b
@nps3b Год назад
maybe conscience leaps outside its sysytem
@Mr_Hassell
@Mr_Hassell 6 лет назад
Is this what passes a science now a days?? LOL
@Jesusismykin
@Jesusismykin 3 года назад
Everything comes from God, don't believe what the atheists say.
Далее
The Mystery of Free Will: Donald Hoffman
17:32
Просмотров 158 тыс.
Evolutionary Psychologist Shares How Women Select Men
10:35
Donald Hoffman - Can Religion Survive Science?
8:15
Просмотров 43 тыс.
What if Reality ISN'T Real?
45:40
Просмотров 50 тыс.
Donald Hoffman - Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality?
8:20