With a tremor in his voice, Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman tells Robert Lawrence Kuhn that even the Big Bang must be understood in a universe where consciousness is fundamental:
For me to be entirely consistent, if I’m going to actually say that consciousness is fundamental, then I’m saying that the Big Bang itself is something that has to be understood from within a framework in which consciousness is fundamental. The standard view — and I understand that this is completely non-standard, what I’m saying — the standard view is that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Eventually, consciousness kind of arose accidentally here on Earth and maybe other places and totally accidentally, that’s right? So my story is completely different. (6:54)
Note: Cognitive scientist Hoffman starts by trying to align his consciousness theory with standard evolution theory and then just chucks that and says what he thinks.
And what was it that drove Donald Hoffman to the conclusion that “consciousness is fundamental”?
Well it was his research, via sophisticated computer simulations, that demonstrated that, if evolution is true, then “our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions”, and that “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never”, and that “the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions.”
And Donald Hoffman is not alone in his claim that “evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions”. Many leading Evolutionists admit as much,
The crushing thing for Darwinists in this finding that “evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions” is that the scientific method itself lists reliable ‘observation’ as the first step, the cornerstone if you will, of the scientific method,
In fact, a necessary Judeo-Christian presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science, (and a presupposition that is still very much necessary for the continued successful practice of science), is the belief that the universe is “intelligible” to the human mind,
As should be needless to say, if, as Darwinists hold, our observations of reality are unreliable then the universe can hardly be held to be ‘intelligible’ to the human mind.
In short, since reliable observation is an indispensable part, (and/or an essential presupposition), of the scientific method itself, then the claim that “we cannot totally trust our senses” undermines any claim that Darwinian evolution can possibly be based upon the scientific method. (Which is just as well since no one has ever observed evolution creating a new protein, much less has anyone ever observed an entirely new species being created by evolution).
But anyways, back to the fact that “reliable observation” itself is undermined by Darwinian evolution. Fortunately for us, science itself, (real science, and not the evidence-free ‘scientism’ of Atheistic materialists), could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that their observations of reality are unreliable.
Specifically, advances in Quantum Mechanics have now experimentally proven that our observations of reality far more integral to reality, and therefore reliable of reality, than Darwinists are forced to claim via the mathematics of population genetics.
As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment, (which was conducted with atoms), found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
And as the following violation of Leggett’s inequality found, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
The Theistic implications of these experiments are fairly, (and pleasantly), obvious. As Scott Aaronson of MIT put it, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
In short, our conscious ‘observations’, and/or perceptions, of reality are found to be far more integral to, and therefore far more reliable of, reality than is possible within Darwinian theory.
Thus in conclusion, and fortunately for us, science itself could care less if Darwinian Materialists are forced to believe that their ‘observations’ of reality are unreliable. As far as experimental science itself is concerned, the Darwinian claim that our observations of reality are unreliable has now been neatly, and cleanly, experimentally falsified.
Quote and Verse
When someone with a great deal of money hears about the quantum world, and practical applications from its study, he is more likely to back research in this ‘exciting new field.’ Debates may occur after work but practical applications will lead the research in new directions.
From Physics Today:
Coherent States: New Insights into Quantum Mechanics with Applications, C.-F. Kam, W.-M. Zhang, D.-H. Feng (Springer, 2023) $89.99
Fundamentals of Quantum Entanglement (2nd ed.), F. J. Duarte (IOP, 2022) $190.00
Learning and Robust Control in Quantum Technology, D. Dong, I. R. Petersen (Springer, 2023) $169.99
Long Distance Entanglement Between Quantum Memories, Y. Yu (Springer, 2023) $179.99
Nonclassical Effects and Dynamics of Quantum Observables, S. Lakshmibala, V. Balakrishnan (Springer, 2022) $54.99
Quantum Computers: Theory and Algorithms, B. E. Baaquie, L.-C. Kwek (Springer, 2023) $149.99
Relativistic Quantum Invariance, C. Ji (Springer, 2023) $89.99
Another reference:
https://www.grc.org/quantum-control-of-light-and-matter-conference/2023/
Bornagain@1
Donald Hoffman:
It seems to me that Hoffman’s claim is invalid and something is wrong with his simulations or his interpretation of them, because there is a very good possibility that tuning to fitness will automatically ensure that the organism’s perception of the physical reality around it was accurate. If this perception is repeatedly inaccurate then automatically, the organism will have less chance of surviving and reproducing. Correctly perceiving the environment and correctly responding to it would seem to be essential for survival. How can this not be the case?
Doubter at 4,
It is stated that at one time, man was more like an animal than a ‘modern human.’ By perceiving the environment incorrectly, he could walk off a cliff or fall into a hole in the ground. A strange animal may not seem threatening until it attacks and eats him. But it is obvious that IF man was once more like an animal, he would have reacted as an animal would. Human and animal intelligence cannot be explained by evolution. Who taught a dragonfly how to fly or a spider to build a web?