agreeing or disagreeing doesn't change anything so what's the point?

>>16922882
true, but do you think he is on to something?

he's doing exactly what kant did but on a different abstraction layer
do we have to discuss kant again?

didn't he go off the deep end recently

>>16922883
He's literally been doing this bait for decades and nothing came of it. His current "research" is designed to be a trap for Youtube engagement.

File: IMG_6056.gif (879.1 KB)

879.1 KB GIF

>>16922877
sure, why not?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Af-k9sTAYEQ

File: schizo-thread-petah.png (340 KB)

340 KB PNG

>>16922877
How about microwave signals?

We cannot perceive them (at low intensities at least) yet they carry information that can interface with our senses through devices, but can also be easily blocked.

Surely they are evidence of an objective reality beyond leddit spacing, right?

>>16922877
somewhat, but there's no "true nature of reality" outside of the fake and gay vr headset we have infront.

>space-time emerges from consciousness, not the other way around
Kek why do you even bother coming to /sci/ no one here believes this

File: Untitled (7).png (58.2 KB)

58.2 KB PNG

>>16922887
>do we have to discuss kant again?
Would you be surprised if I told you that Kant is frequently referenced in discussions about the neuroscience and treatment of schizophrenia?

File: 1741261692043616.jpg (177.9 KB)

177.9 KB JPG

>>16922877
Find out how the structure of human phenomenology maps to the dynamics of the cybernetic loop that drives a human and you will have found what "objective" reality perception corresponds to. Given a sophisticated enough analysis, the structure of that process should correspond to the phenomenological structure. That's literally what a scientific understanding of perception would entail. So even by the basic correspondence theory of truth, perceptions accurately express something true, namely, the small piece of reality that consists of an organism entwined with its environment.

The "problem" with this picture is that it inherently lacks the clear-cut separation of the objective from the subjective. You can never really say "this pattern in perception is an artifact of my internal processes" as opposed to "this pattern in perception corresponds to a real pattern in the world". They are one the same. Any gestalt you can get from sense data is going to be both an artifact of your internal processing and a pattern in reality. It can only act more like one or the other with respect to utility and it always depends on what your senses are dealing with. The hypothetical "true" perceptions Hoffman is contrasts humanity's "false" perception against can't exist even in principle, making his entire thesis meaningless.

Perceptions aren't lying to you about what the world is. Your thoughts are. Hoffman barely managed to peel off the first layer of Naive Realism before going straight to making up a new narrative, so he gets nothing more than a "Fell For It Again" award.

>>16922877
>>human perception does not reflect the true nature of reality
What does he think the true nature of reality is? Does he mean things would look weird if we could see more than visible light?

>>16923032
>What does he think the true nature of reality is?
Heckin' soientific models are the true nature of reality.

>>16923032
At one point he was saying that consciousness is fundamental and reality is made of conscious agents. But he never sticks to one idea anyway. He's clearly just making shit up so it's not worth it to try and figure out what he really thinks.

File: Light-though-eye-big.jpg (267.2 KB)

267.2 KB JPG

He sounds plausible. Probably a little light on the deep stuff. Reading through his wiki page, I came up with thinking about this just now.

I think we see everything upside down, so the mind can make up everything else (in its own leisure time). Because you are only half seeing on the turn.

The retina converts light (photons) into electrical signals using photoreceptor cells called rods and cones. These cells detect brightness and color, passing signals via the optic nerve to the brain for visual processing.

>>16923065
>I think we see everything upside down
What does this statement even mean? Upside-down relative to what? You couldn't have come up with a better example of naive realists trying to distance themselves from naive realism only to end up back where they started.

>>16923009
not really. the institution psychiatry doesn't understand that humans aren't normally distributed but still uses naive frequentism to pathologize all dissent a priori.
that's kind of exactly kant's point, and foucault's as well

>>16923087
There's a large blind spot at the back of the eye, and the eye's lens creates an image upside down on the retina. You are making up a vision.

>>16923112
>the eye's lens creates an image upside down on the retina
How is this relevant and why did you backpedal from your original statement?

>>16922877
First, this is just vulgarized idealism. Haven't read his book but in interviews, I haven't heard a single original idea from him, or really anything more sophisticated than dude weed babbys first philosophical speculations.
Just compare how much more intelligent Philip K Dick was along the same lines, and while telling good yarns.
Then, his presentation of idealism is very faulty too. The whole basic problem in philosophy of mind is thinking about how representation arises without another layer or a homunculus that receives some translated data - using a metaphor of VR headset is really misleading.
"Experiencing" the true nature of reality is dubious - would not all possible experience be mediated in some way? And the "true nature" - can a *something* like that be really said to exist and be discussable like we discuss the fake illusory nature that's structured by the way our mind is structured, another being impossible? Can it be perceived in any meaningful sense of perception?

>>16923128
>"Experiencing" the true nature of reality is dubious - would not all possible experience be mediated in some way? And the "true nature" - can a *something* like that be really said to exist and be discussable like we discuss the fake illusory nature that's structured by the way our mind is structured, another being impossible? Can it be perceived in any meaningful sense of perception?
Rare non-retarded take. Reality can take on as many forms are there are ways for it to interact with itself. Any conceivable organism's internal perceptions would be an instance of that and only true to the extent that they are understood as such. The only thing Hoffman can contrast human perception against is some deity looking at reality from the outside and grasping the whole infinity of its possible forms all at once, or somehow directly comprehending its raw essence without going through form at all.