Blowing your mind as promised

blog.dilbert.com/post/150816666991/blowing-your-mind-as-promised

archive.is/20VDb

Bump

That was absolutely retarded.

you'd already know this stuff if you read kant and nietzsche

well, at least he's based af

...

Yes, evolution requires us to be able to reproduce, not to be objective. If a distorted vision helps you reproduce, as it does, then you will reproduce more, it's pretty fucking simple.

Only a fucking normie who never thought about evolution's mechanics would be amused, let alone amazed by this.

whaoa...........
relaley.............
made........
me..............
think..................

>This kind of metaphysical question is something you'd expect in a good philosophy class — or maybe even a discussion of quantum physics. But most of us wouldn't expect an argument denying the reality of the objective world to come out of evolutionary biology. After all, doesn't evolution tell us we've been tuned to reality by billions of years of natural selection? It makes sense that creatures that can't tell a poisonous snake from a stick shouldn't last long and, therefore, shouldn't pass their genes on to the next generation.
That is certainly how the standard argument goes. But Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, isn't buying it.

>For decades, Hoffman, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, has been studying the links between evolution, perception and intelligence (both natural and machine). Based on that body of work, he thinks we've been missing something fundamental when it comes to fundamental reality.

>Fundamentally, Hoffman argues, evolution and reality (the objective kind) have almost nothing to do with each other.

lol he's pretty based

Trump says lots of things that don’t pass the (((fact-checkers’))) tests.

So-called “news” outlets are literally inventing news and peddling it as truth.

lol is he calling out politifact

shills BTFO

>All that hype buildup
>Link to article I already read

....teleports behind
...unzips katana
...heh.... nothin.... personel.... kiddo....

It's pseudo intellectual fluff people like to inhale to feel they know something the plebs will never understand. That's the problem with seeing the actual "real" world. You become too cynical even for this shit.

>But most of us wouldn't expect an argument denying the reality of the objective world to come out of evolutionary biology.
Most normies who don't understand evolution would.

>After all, doesn't evolution tell us we've been tuned to reality by billions of years of natural selection?
No, not at all. The rules are simple: did you manage to reproduce? good. Anything goes. This includes ignoring 'objectivity'

>It makes sense that creatures that can't tell a poisonous snake from a stick shouldn't last long and, therefore, shouldn't pass their genes on to the next generation.
Nothing to do with his claim. There is room for a degree of subjectivity and objectivity here.

>That is certainly how the standard argument goes. But Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, isn't buying it.
Wow what a (((genius)))

>Fundamentally, Hoffman argues, evolution and reality (the objective kind) have almost nothing to do with each other.
You don't need a fucking study for this, if you actually understood evolution as a concept you'd realize it right away.

This, even beyond Kant. This is thousands of years late my man.

someone who isn't me should shop dilbert man's face onto Adam Jensen's from Deus Ex HR talking to people where you have a literal Persuasion Meter

dilbert guy is pretty based, he got called out on his 'white male privilege' when he was younger and was flat out told that he would not be promoted in his company because he was too privileged

(OP)
I don't get it. Is it literally just saying we don't reality exactly how it is? Because if so - no fucking shit.
Also, with the water example: if fitness-based organisms always outdo reality-based ones, why are there successful organisms (i.e. us) able to tell the difference between too much water and too little?

This. I thought Dilbertman was going was going to expose the existence of Kek or something for us.

>an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won't see any distinction between small and large — it only sees red — even though such a distinction exists in reality.
This implies that the organism is intended to react to each situation the same, but it's usually not the case.

if the organism has consumed too much resource it will respond by not eating resource, but if it has not had resource it will search it out.

Trivial "insights" that amount to a novice's first look at the issues and betray a binary way of looking at the world. Either organisms are driven to respond to the real world, or their fitness functions aren't related to the real world at all? Silly. Fitness functions are related to the real world to the extent that they make use of things in the real world. It doesn't have to be a perfect match, but imperfect heuristics are common in nature and human psychology.