Not true. An accurate representation of reality districts you from things that matter. So it's against survival.
He's right, there is a fitness cost to seeing reality accurately, but there is also a benefit. the optimized solution is somewhere between disregarding reality & accurately seeing it.
“We do not wish to overstate our findings. Our simulations do not find that natural selection always drives truth to extinction.
His talk is undermined by the examples he gives. If seeing reality more accurately had as high a cost as it does in his models the beetles would out compete
organisms with more accurate representations of reality (eg us).
In the model he presents, there are cases where agents knowing more about reality drive to extinction those that know less. Depends on the cost of information.
...will you be more competitive in natural selection if X? seems like this can depend on lots of things
yeah, almost so many things you could make models for any case you wanted.
desktop eg, pixels are not the reality of the contents of the file, the bits on the hard drive are. But it is not a given that this applies to reality & our representations of reality.
At least in this paper & his talk, he does not show that we live in one of the situations/environments where natural selection drives truth to extinction, just that it is possible.
Beetle eg, do you think the beetles with a more accurate representation of reality would eventually evolve to distinguish female beetles from bottles thus allowing better survival?
Important to remember when considering examples of evolution that were are seeing the survivors.
Optical illusions are not proof that seeing what is not there makes us more or less suited for survival. They are edge cases.
yes, we’ve been wrong about the nature of reality before. But as we’ve gotten more accurate representations we’ve survived better.
eg learning about bacteria lead to a great increase in life expectancy which increases an individuals ability to generate wealth & pass it to their offspring allowing better survival.
that reality is not a red tomato and is nothing like a red tomato.” This statement is too strong. To flatly say “reality is not a red tomato” is not supported.
To say a tomato is not really a tomato but some other reality (like a collection of atoms that collectively have all the properties of a tomato) is semantics.
“Space time and object are not the nature of reality. When I have a perceptual experience I describe as a red tomato I am interacting with reality, but
that reality is not a red tomato and is nothing like a red tomato.” This statement is too strong. To flatly say “reality is not a red tomato” is not supported.
in reality there is only a quantum mess; whatever shapes & colours you see, or sounds you hear [or ..] are just patterns learned, interpreted and recognised by your brain - concepts
that was the point of his desktop monitor example towards the end of the talk. he's saying no matter how closely we look (even to quantum level) we still do not see true reality.
if accurate representation of reality just distracts, ppl w/ less accurate representations should be equally capable of survival. so someone on LSD 24/7 is equally capable of survival?
“should take representations of reality seriously but not literally”? Lol ok.
concepts you recognise are-limited-by/are-a-result-of what is actually there, but don't trust the precision of your interpretation
none of them are real; concepts are useful for communication & that determines which concept will be more useful in which case
agree. so, calling them all useless from a survival perspective (as in the video) makes no sense.
This talk boils down to we *might* not perceive reality accurately & I have no suggestion for how reality actually is.
I agree with your whole memo storm. But I would set it differently: Evolution filters out noise. Noise that is real but most of the time useless.
Imagine we could see beyond our visible spectrum. γ waves, radiowaves, everything. Would it be good,or would it just distract you? Of course we can find circumstances where it is good
Yes I agree (eg we could x-ray ourselves. Would be cool). Much of reality is noise. Eg I dont need to see the atoms of my computer.
Circumstances that could be critical for your survival. But a feature that is not used becomes a bug in evolutionary terms.
Resistent bacteria loose their resistance genes once you remove the antibiotic.
So what I meant is we filter out real noise.
In the beetle eg, the beetles already filter out most of the world. Those that evolve to differentiate females from bottles (ie more truly seeing reality) would survive.
In the models he makes in his articles there is a high cost for information. Under this condition blindly choosing environments can make something more competitive.
It seems you're more into the theme, let me know what you think.
lol just like hearing what other people think.
From what I can tell there is no hint or suggestion about what the reality (bits not the hard drive) actually is, just that it could exist.
From his desktop eg, even seeing the world with more detail (ie seeing the pixels of an icon on the desktop) is not still not seeing reality (bits of info on hard drive).
The argument of the speaker is (I think) even this link to reality *can be* selected against.
But saying “circumstances that could be critical for your survival” is just a phase for reality, right?
Lol, sorry about that. Had a lot of thoughts watching that talk & looking into his work. Kind of a stream of consciousness but wanted it make my thoughts more clear.
