Hacker News Reader

Comment by olavk | Hacker News Reader

While an interesting argument, the article is very muddled due to a confused philosophical foundation. Kant already made it clear that our experience of the world by definition is something different from the world in itself. For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us to experience colors. So strictly speaking colors do not exist in "the world in itself", they are a function of the human mind.

But this does not mean "reality does not exist" - how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an "illusion" or "wrong". This supposes there is some "correct" way to experience the world which might be different from how the human mind experiences it. The human mind process input and generates a model of the world which helps us survive. Other models are possible (eg. different animal species experience the world in different ways), but who is to say which model is correct?

View on HN

> For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us to experience colors.

Right, but our knowledge of EM radiation would be knowledge of the noumena. Science tells us that EM Radiation exists independent of our perception. Color is mind-dependent, but not electromagnetic radiation.

To be full-on Kantian, you would have to say that everything we conceive is mind-dependent with some unknowable reality out there being the source. That includes all of science.

> Color is mind-dependent

When transiting from male to female both red and blue shifted because of the effects of hormonal changes on the eyes. When the change was happening things like the blue in the sky and red in neon signs were different than it had been just a few days before. For a few weeks I could point at the sky and say that it was the wrong blue and I wish I had written it down because now I look at the sky and can't actually remember what it looked like before. And less exciting my prescription changed dramatically and my eye color changed too.

It is one thing to talk about how color is just interpreted by your brain, it is another thing to live through a shift like this that you can't ignore.

Yes, the article equivocates: They use reality to mean two different things: "What we experience based on external stimuli" and "Existence independent of our senses and experience".

They then rightfully point out that reality[0] != reality[1], but jump from there to the nonsensical "therefore reality does not exist".

> Kant already made it clear that our experience of the world by definition is something different from the world in itself.

He didn't make it "clear" if by "clear" you mean he demonstrated this to be true. Why posit noumena at all if all that is knowable are phenomena?

> For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us to experience colors. So strictly speaking colors do not exist in "the world in itself", they are a function of the human mind.

That's not really Kantian. But in any case, appealing to EM radiation and minds as the true causes of color is appealing to unknowable noumena. You're dismissing color as mere phenomena, but how could you even come to know that to be the case? After all, as you say, all you really know are phenomena.

> Why posit noumena at all if all that is knowable are phenomena?

You don't need it for typical interactions with the world, but when you start examining how the sensory apparatus and the mind experience the world, you need the distinction.

Colors do exist as named segments of the visual spectrum. The internal experience of each color in our minds, is something separate and different from that external stimulus.

What did I get wrong?

It is more complicated. For example, the color magenta does not correspond to a single segment of the EM spectrum. Due to how the eyes work, magenta is caused by light of two different wavelength. This is the reason magenta is not in the rainbow even though it is one of the primary colors (e.g. one of the colors used in printer ink). So the experience of color is very much determined by the design of the sensory organs.

Okay. However the main point is there is something objective, and external to the observer, that is being perceived. That phenomena no matter how complex or disjointed, can reasonably be labelled color.

The experience of color, even with all the intricacies and deficiencies of human perception, is another matter. When I ask you to think of the color blue, you can recall the experience with no need for the visual stimuli.

The word can refer to parts of the EM spectrum or to the experience, or both.

People are very uncomfortable with abstractions, to the extent that they claim they don't really exist.

>This does not mean "reality does not exist" - how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an "illusion" or "wrong". This supposes there is some "correct" way to experience the world which might be different from how the human mind experiences it.

Imagine the Matrix (movie) or any simulation or virtual reality. The "worlds" in those are just bits inside a computer. So that is the "Reality" of the world we are sensing, and the world that the simulation shows only exists within our consciousness. Not in "reality".

If you take that to our reality, then the actual reality (The actual source of our sensations) can look nothing like the reality we experience..Right?

EDIT: At this point, the word "real" loses its meaning and relevance. There is not even a need for a higher reality that acts as a source of our sensations. Think about dreams. It seems that consciousness is capable of generating realities on its own..

Is it possible that there is one big super consciousness, that generates the shared dream we all experience as reality, and could it be what we call god, and when..we are praying..we, the sub consciousnesses are subtly influencing the super consciousness and the dream it creates?..I mean the reality..?

The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all. The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind. Even if we are just brains in vat or whatever, the sensory input still originate from outside the mind itself, which make them real as opposed to dreams or hallucinations which originate in the mind. The rest is just metaphysics and don't change anything (unless you are able to escape to the "outer" world like in the Matrix, but then you are just back to square one, philosophically speaking).

George Berkely examined an even simpler hypothesis - there is no "outer world" and neither is there any simulation: The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real.

In any case, the experienced reality does not "look like" the sensory input, they are simply not comparable like this. Do certain wavelengths of light "look red"? Yes, but only because this is how our mind process this input.

>The simulation hypothesis is fun, but not what this article is about at all.

I get that. I was answering your question about a specific version of a reality being "real"..

> The input to our senses is real - they originate from outside the mind.

Is there any proof for this?

>The sensory input is simply generated directly by God. But again, if you follow this line of thinking it doesn't actually change anything. Reality is still just as real.

Not sure. Then isn't there a level of reality where God resides?

I have another Idea. The only thing that "exists" is consciousness, which is an entity that is outside the scope of time and space, and hence does not need a realm to exist. It is just there. The whole universe is somehow encoded within this consciousness. Every conscious brain has somehow access to a part of this super consciousness. This ability to access the consciousness in such high detail as possible by the human brain, created a tremendous evolutionary advantage and caused the human beings to emerge as the dominant species in this earth. And also, the sensory input is not "generated" for individual consciousness, but is just a result of the being being inside/part of this universe.

I have equated God = super consciousness. Because that simplifies a lot of stuff and does not create another entity of arbitrary nature (apart from consciousness itself).

> Is there any proof for this?

It is not a question of proof, it is a question of language. The input to our senses is real by definition if this input allows us to navigate and survive in the world. Any metaphysical hypothesis which posits this input is somehow not "real" (but the actual "real world" is unavailable to our senses) is simply useless and can be discarded by Occam's razor.

Any hypothesis about the world which cannot be confirmed or falsified through observation is meaningless. Neither right nor wrong, just useless.

Final mistake. If it exists if has to exist somewhere right? Not necessarily in terms of time and/or space but definitely some sort of location, perhaps even describable truly only by higher mathematics. If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument. (Because the purpose of the argument is to describe.)

Fixed the argument for you.

> If you argue that it has no location or is not possible to describe in any way you have no argument...

I will ask you a question. Suppose there is a world being simulated by using a normal everyday computer. Say the world of GTA5 or something like that. Now in that world, how will you describe the location of the computer it is being simulated on?

Does the computer "exist" for beings inside the simulation?

On a continuing thought...

Even though the computer does not exist for the beings inside the simulation, they possibly can influence the simulated world by some hack. For example, a being inside can think of some particular thing, that will result in a particular byte pattern in the memory and can trigger a bug in the program (or a hidden feature), granting the respective being some kind of super powers..This might appear as magic in the simulated world..

Either there is no way for us to know, thus it is irrelevant and impossible to reason about, or it has perceptible results therefore it is possible (though potentially not feasible) to "locate" it by followinv casual chain. If it acts in an acausal way, there is still a possibility to "locate" it in terms of e.g. wave equation or other high mathematics. It's also important whether said phenomenon acts locally or not. Former is easier to trace and attribute.

Consider a simulation on top of a cluster of machines. Location in such a system may exist and be meaningful and have observable effects.

Whether that explanation makes more sense than just "it is so and we don't know why" makes more sense depends on additional pieces of evidence.

This is the long answer to "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to witness it, does it make a sound".

Ready Player One

> Is it possible that there is one big super consciousness

And here you see one of the motivations for these strange proposals of "simulation" that we see lately. It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator. As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary. So, a new generation starts to propose that everything we live is not true and only a simulation from a super powerful mind...

> It is a way to reintroduce in philosophy the idea of a powerful creator.

First of all, I am not sure the super consciousness model is the same as the simulation. Because nothing is being simulated. The beings and the world is part of the same reality.

>As we advance the understanding of physics, it becomes clear that a creator is not probable, and not even necessary.

Physics? I think these things are way beyond the reach of what physics can reach. There needs to be another discipline that studies the nature of consciousness and I think mankind's next breakthrough ll happen in that direction...

See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16681284

However, we obviously don't know what reality is or the real nature of it.

It means there is no point talking about a reality, only various models of the world.

What do you call "the thing that produces results that surprise you because it wasn't what your model predicted"? I think of that thing as "reality"...not sure how you can coherently talk about a model without talking about the thing you have a model of?

Once you've accepted that reality = reality and that to discuss reality, humans always need to revert to models, then any further discussion of the nature of reality seems like a dead end. Because any way you try to discuss it is a simplification. Maybe it's more accurate to just accept that we're firmly in the realm of models and forget about trying to define reality itself. So in that way it becomes kind of pointless to discuss the nature of reality.

would "surprisal" work?

Only if you think all forms of realism are indefensible. But why think that given the success of science and technology?

That only describes the success of the scientific method in building ever more accurate models of the reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com