Among the lessons I’ve taken away from my Hoffman adventure is that as I’ve followed the philosophical roots of “dualism” back through Descartes (1600s) and on past Anselm (1000s), one thing has become clear. the entire philosophical edifice of this Mind-Body “Problem” was formed from within that Abrahamic God-fearing mindset that gave us the three major religions, with their self-serving patriarchal mentality, heaven and hell, along with branding dualism’s hard boundaries and need for a sense of certitude into our imagination and onto our expectations.
The Abrahamic worldview perceives people as isolated objects, not only from this planet, but each other, even from ourselves. The creatures we live with and the landscapes we exist within are treated with contempt and wanton waste.
Regarding the “Mind-Body Problem.”
Dr. Solms makes a wonderful analogy that highlights the error being made:
Question: Was it lightning or thunder that killed the man?
It’s a meaningless question.
Lightning and thunder are simply different aspects of the same phenomena.
Our Mind and consciousness is the interior reflection of our living body (both its interior housekeeping and external interaction with the environment). We simply cannot have one without the other.
We are embedded within an interconnected web of life and are the direct products of Earth’s Pageant of Evolution.
Why isn’t that reflected in modern philosophical discourse?
Learning to appreciate the deep-time pageant of Evolution puts an entirely different richer light upon our interior existence. An awareness that encompasses the whole of time and this planet that created us.
It also gives us a deep appreciation for the continuity of life. Life is good, life is precious, but death is no enemy, painful though it may be. Death is part of the cycle that brings forth new life. Revel in the pageant you are blessed enough to be witnessing. While you can.
As for God?
Who is “God,” but a creation of our unique complex human minds?
Where did God come from?
From human curiosity and wonder. From puzzling over observations and contemplating questions. From love and hunger and fears in the night. From looking at the suddenly dead carcass of a loved one. From missing those who are gone. From buried memories of being coddled within mom’s loving protective bosom.
From our need for someone truly personal, who’s always there, never dying, ready to listen to your constant talk and wishes in complete confidence.
Think about it, our relationship with our God is the most intimate relationship of our lives and reflects our ego in every way.
All of it, happening within our mind, or more descriptively, within our Mindscape.
Point being, GOD is a product of our mind, same as love, art, politics, science - all of them originate within our mindscape. That’s why our conceptions of God always wind up driven by our Ego, not some outside force.
Nothing wrong with that, if only we could bring ourselves to explicitly recognize as much.
For some these realities are jarring and resented, but that doesn’t make it any less the reality we exist within.
Appreciating the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.
All sorts of fresh insights flow from that simple explicit recognition of our human condition.
Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-Gravity,
(Titles are linked)
Frontiers in Psychology - June 17, 2014
“Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries, by Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash"
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. volume 22, pages1551–1576(2015)
We propose that selection favors nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to fitness. Current textbooks assert, to the contrary, that perception is useful because, in the normal case, it is veridical. Intuition, both lay and expert, clearly sides with the textbooks. We thus expected that some commentators would reject our proposal and provide counterarguments that could stimulate a productive debate. … (HSP)
(3.02) Barton Anderson - Where does fitness fit in theories of perception?
(3.03) Jonathan Cohen - Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception.
(3.04) Shimon Edelman - Varieties of perceptual truth and their possible evolutionary roots.
(3.05) Jacob Feldman - Bayesian inference and “truth”: a comment on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash.
(3.06) Chris Fields -Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash, “The interface theory of perception”.
(3.07) Jan Koenderink - Esse est Percipi & Verum est Factum.
(3.08) Rainer Mausfeld - Notions such as “truth” or “correspondence to the objective world” play no role in explanatory accounts of perception.
(3.09) Brian P. McLaughlin and E. J. Green - Are icons sense data?
(3.10) Zygmunt Pizlo - Philosophizing cannot substitute for experimentation: comment on Hoffman, Singh & Prakash.
(3.11) Matthew Schlesinger - Interface theory of perception leaves me hungry for more.
Student Resources - Background info:
Dr. Mark Solms deftly demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness, while incidentally highlighting why Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” are luftgeschäft.
My homemade philosophical underpinnings.
Feel free to copy and share
Email: citizenschallenge gmail com