Neuroscientist Rejects Reductionism Of Consciousness

[Guest username]

 I was looking through The Atlantic and found this interesting piece on a neuroscientist's  take on the nature of reality, and he seems to be a heavy critic of using Newtonian physics as a basis for modern empiricism, argues that the third person approach and notion of an external world is fundamentally flawed, that the brain is built for survival and it has been mathematically proven that we are not evolutionarily adapted to perceive reality and Truth, rather to survive, which is not necessarily an indication of our accurate perception of reality, and that reality is absolutely relative. 

He doesn't talk about Enlightenment or consciousness work, but the parallels between consciousness work and his research were pretty startling to me.

Check it out:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

Edited October 2, 2017 by username

[Leo Gura]

Good share.

This quote in particular is a doozy:

Quote

"Gefter: But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial to an organism’s survival?"

What Gefter doesn't realize is that the organism IS the false reality!

Hehe...

The naive realism paradigm runs extremely deep. It distorts the most fundamental questions people ask about reality.

[Guest username]

@Elisabeth Since you're well versed in quantum physics, I'm curious to hear how well you think the article addresses findings in the field. Is there anything you've got an issue with?

[Guest username]

@Leo Gura I doubt I've experienced deeply enough to really grasp this, and am of course asking this without really having taken a stance, but is asking about organism's survival in relation to the perception of reality, not a valid question just because of non-duality?

Sure, you can make an arbitrary distinction you want, and of course, there's not really a separate being there, but is it misguided to investigate relative frameworks, like how organism survive while having certain mental models?

I know that it holds lots of assumptions, like there being such thing as "organism", "life", "death", "survival", etc., but it just seems like a valid inquiry on the relative plane.

For context, I've only had tiny, tiny glimpses of nonduality and am pretty indoctrinated by culture, naive realism, etc. I haven't experienced God, Absolute Infinity, absolute relativity, etc. directly, only heard about such things second hand.

[Guest username]

Quote

Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.

Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?

Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.

 

I especially like this segment because it elucidates research by Jeffery Martin and his term for non-dual consciousness, which is Persistent Non Symbolic Experience (PNSE).  This is a crucial misconception many people have about consciousness work-- nonduality isn't simply about dropping linguistic paradigms; rather, it runs MUCH deeper. Reality is not simply the models that precede language, but something that precedes (and includes) even that. All perceptions are partial, symbols we construct for survival needs. To do consciousness work to look beyond that. What lies beyond experience? 

[Nahm]

He's a trip away from reality. 

[Elisabeth]

19 hours ago, username said:

@Elisabeth Since you're well versed in quantum physics, I'm curious to hear how well you think the article addresses findings in the field. Is there anything you've got an issue with?

You mean this part?

Quote

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality.

2

It's written to be sensational, but no real issues, no It would be hard to outwit celebrities like Wheeler :D. His view is not taught in school - you can uphold an "out there" if you really try - but I guess (as usual) they pick the most conservative interpretation for the classroom.  

Thanks for sharing actually, the article about bayesian interpretation they linked ( https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604 ) might a be nice starting point for me into the nonclassical interpretations and the names behind.

[Leo Gura]

20 hours ago, username said:

@Leo Gura I doubt I've experienced deeply enough to really grasp this, and am of course asking this without really having taken a stance, but is asking about organism's survival in relation to the perception of reality, not a valid question just because of non-duality?

Sure, you can make an arbitrary distinction you want, and of course, there's not really a separate being there, but is it misguided to investigate relative frameworks, like how organism survive while having certain mental models?

I know that it holds lots of assumptions, like there being such thing as "organism", "life", "death", "survival", etc., but it just seems like a valid inquiry on the relative plane.

For context, I've only had tiny, tiny glimpses of nonduality and am pretty indoctrinated by culture, naive realism, etc. I haven't experienced God, Absolute Infinity, absolute relativity, etc. directly, only heard about such things second hand.

You can investigate whatever you want.

The point is that from the convention realist paradigm, reality is assumed to just exist as though reality was some kind of "thing".

People fail to realize that reality and self are fundamentally interconnected. "Reality" is what a self does to exist. In order for survival to be possible at all, a self and a reality must first be imagined.

[Guest username]

@Shiva Curious-- are you experienced with robotics, AI, or programming? I'm looking for more friends who are knowledgeable about that.

[Space]

@username I read the article. Very interesting stuff. But i'm slightly confused.

Is he saying that there is some sort of 'true' reality and that because of self-survival we just can't perceive it, or we only perceive part of?

He says, "Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviours. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be." So what is all this stuff that we don't need to know? What is the "file itself or anything in the computer" in his desktop blue icon metaphor?

[Guest username]

@Space

1 minute ago, Space said:

@username I read the article. Very interesting stuff. But i'm slightly confused.

Is he saying that there is some sort of 'true' reality and that because of self-survival we just can't perceive it, or we only perceive part of?

He says, "Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviours. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be." So what is all this stuff that we don't need to know? What is the "file itself or anything in the computer" in his desktop blue icon metaphor?

3

That's all revealed to you during consciousness work.

As for him, he's saying that reality is all first-person perspective, from what I gather.