
It’s impossible to see the world as it is, argues a neuroscientist [video] - hliyan
https://aeon.co/videos/its-impossible-to-see-the-world-as-it-is-argues-a-cognitive-neuroscientist
======
keiferski
The limitations of empirical knowledge have been known for... a few thousand
years now. It is a little disconcerting that (some) neuroscientists appear to
be completely ignorant of basic philosophical problems.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

~~~
semiotagonal
One way of avoiding confirmation bias is to simply have no prior understanding
to confirm though.

~~~
dontchooseanick
I which case you'll never have a second chance to make a first impression (tm)

~~~
erikpukinskis
In Academia, as long as you do the work to finish a manuscript and submit it,
you will get another chance to make another impression.

------
nudq
The guy has been doing the TED circuit for ages. I once looked closer at his
claims and his supposed proof by simulation and came to agree with the more
negative takes at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588698)

------
pmoriarty
_We don 't see things as they are, we see them as we are._

Anais Nin

~~~
muthdra
That's a sentence-long review of 12 Angry Men.

------
RikNieu
Very interesting. Reminds me a lot of The Idea of the World by Bernardo
Kastrup, who also argues that the basic building blocks of existence is
consciousness, and that idealism is a better model for the all.

~~~
throwaway35784
Can you define consciousness in a material way? Is it an energy or a feedback
system? Can it be observed or quantified?

~~~
erikpukinskis
I think any system that responds as if it is modeling another system is
conscious.

But there are levels of consciousness, what differentiates “higher
consciousness” is maybe the question you’re getting at.

That unfortunately is an largely ascientific question. Like “what’s a good map
of Seattle?” there is no such thing as a map of Seattle, so there’s nothing
for science to study. Seattle exists for sure. Some maps will help you meet
different ends in Seattle. But there is no such thing as an objective map.
List n things a map gets right, and I will tell you n things it gets wrong.

But if you want a starting place, you could temporarily accept, e.g., Timothy
Leary’s map of consciousnesses. That one is quite materially grounded. Within
that orientation you can do all kinds of science and learn many things about
consciousness.

~~~
throwaway35784
You pointed me to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
circuit_model_of_consc...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
circuit_model_of_consciousness)

Very interesting. I'm finding patterns in explorations of consciousness. The
first four levels Leary describes could be Freud's id. The next 4 contain his
super ego.

Compared to id = Dąbrowski's first level and super ego = 5th level.

Like you said these are all _maps_ of consciousness. Psychological models that
describe the actual physicality of a material mind.

I suppose I'm trying to determine how to physically recreate the material that
will lead to a new consciousness.

We can't recreate Seattle from maps of Seattle to continue your analogy. Is it
possible to recreate consciousness from our maps of consciousness?

It seems like that is what we have been trying to do in our pursuit of AI,
when we know no more about what consciousness _is_ than we know what Seattle
_is_.

~~~
erikpukinskis
There are no roads where you are going. But I can offer you some pointers:

Consciousness requires sensation and action. Without action animals don’t
learn to perceive anything at all.

If I were trying to make a conscious artificial being the first thing I would
do would be to sign them up for a fast paced online FPS and teach them to
play.

Next give them emotions (0 dimensional precepts).

Any time your codebase starts to feel big, delete most of it. Your end goal
will be maybe 1000 lines total.

Use matrices.

------
meroes
Discussions about perception and reality are always good, even if this article
seems a little tame compared to what philosophers have argued about for
centuries. But it's nice to see such a discussion coming from scientists, and
not just philosophers. Physicists have especially given new life to these
ideas though. You can go down an existential wormhole if you want to, where
the implications of spacetime readily suggest the passage of time itself is an
illusion (brief intro of one idea:
[https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/04/03/the-
rea...](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/04/03/the-reality-of-
time/)). One implication of a timeless universe (there are many labels/forms:
Laplace's Demon, eternalism, block universe) is that there are no privileged
moments in time. So why do we find ourselves localized and perceiving this
coordinate in the 4D spacetime block and not any other? Conceivably, in an
infinte universe which ends in maximum entropy, there are many more observers
where entropy is higher than it is now or was near the big bang. (Assuming
observers can't form in the extreme densities of the initial singularity,
there is an infinite time in comparison for Botlzmann brains to fluctuate into
existence in the high entropy, low density "future" \- ours in an in between
point, but infinitely tiny when compared to an eternal heat death). About the
only solution from physicists to avoid such Boltzmann brain problems is to
invoke the multiverse (where some verses recollapse and can never form
observers).

Disclaimer: only a layman but I believe what I've said is an accurate synopsis
of the debate

~~~
erikpukinskis
> why do we find ourselves localized and perceiving this coordinate in the 4D
> spacetime block and not any other?

Well we started out perceiving a 0-dimensional universe and 4 dimensions is as
far as we’ve gotten!

We’re certainly at work on the next one.

------
sporkologist
We see things in the optimal way for us to navigate the world we evolved in.
"As it is" has no meaning outside our perceptual affordances.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
What evidence is there to suggest _evolution_ has resulted in _optimal_
perception?

~~~
sporkologist
My use of 'optimal' is more of 'sufficient to keep reproducing given current
conditions' than anything.

If you're suggesting that evolution isn't the right vehicle for this process,
then we'll have to disagree.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Ah, the 'sufficient' definition of 'optimal' ;)

Yeah, sure, I can agree with that.

Evolution does appear to be the most likely candidate, yes.

------
ta1234567890
This whole idea is called autopoiesis, it's in the book The Tree of Knowledge
by Maturana and Varela. Those guys "scientifically proved it", to whatever
extent science can prove something like that.

~~~
ismail
Could you provide more of an explanation and details/resources?

------
ffwd
I think the devil is in the details when it comes to this argument. Some
philosophy speculation ahead.

1) It's unclear which parts of our perception reflects the real world and
which don't, and also how to measure how accurate they are. We obviously see
objects as much more than what the photons representing them that hit our
retina tells us. The brain creates all kinds of backstory and assumptions
based on its model of the world, however, I would argue that the basic shapes
we see are accurate.

So basically the geometry/shape of a face, of a chair, of <pick any object> is
real, while the extended cultural, practical and personal associations the
brain attaches to those are "not real" (or rather, we see a chair as a utility
we can sit on, so we see both the shape of a chair but also potential uses for
it, so it becomes an extended model of ourselves+chair, but that doesn't mean
the shape isn't real). Also even though we can change our extended model of
objects, we don't normally change our base perception, e.g. a chair always
looks the same shape even though we may see different uses for it in different
contexts. I would argue we really see the shape of the chair. This then leads
to difficulty knowing how to define what is real/accurate and what isn't.

2) It's unclear whether the extended models we have are reflective of the real
world or not, and if so how much. Just because I see a chair as a utility I
can sit on, doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect reality. In fact you could
say the model reflects a more abstract truth about how my body fits into a
chair, so it becomes a more encompassing truth about bodies+chairs. Hell you
could even include that it includes some information about how my muscles tire
and need rest and so on.

3) I think the basic idea is true and interesting. We clearly do not see the
world like a camera does, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't
reflect reality at all. I haven't looked at this authors papers, but I saw an
interview where he mentioned some statistical measurement of how organisms who
saw the world as it actually was had a lower survival rate than those who do,
and I'd be curious on how sound that argument is. The devil is in the details
again and it sounds to me like such an argument could be interpreted several
ways.

~~~
throwaway35784
That fits with my observations matching the decreasing propensity to procreate
with IQ. At some point we become literally too smart for our own good.

~~~
samatman
It's my understanding that this correlation disappears once you correct for
level of education.

In other words, it isn't intelligence per se which lowers TFR, it's college.
Which makes sense, adding at least four years before someone is earning a
living will decrease the number of children they have, ceteris paribus.

Student loans aren't helping either.

------
crankylinuxuser
Tautology.

Every person sees the world through their own way. Therefore there is no way
to see it as it truly is. The sum of the parts can never equal the whole, no
matter how much effort is done to reduce bias.

Worthless to discuss further.

~~~
scottmcdot
Any good reads/books on this?

------
anon1253
Kant? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-
itself](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself)

~~~
blotter_paper
Whatabout Plato? Lao Tzo?

------
z3t4
Cameras have to filter out infrared.

------
pesmhey
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

