This post will review Donald D. Hoffman’s book ‘The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes.’ As readers may know, I am interested in perception, though my knowledge mainly comes from continental philosophy. It was therefore quite fascinating to read a book that is based more on a analytical approach.

The title given to the book is no doubt meant to be provocative, but the book itself does not deny the existence of reality, just that we, as humans, do not perceive as it really is. Hoffman writes ‘there are, at the photoreceptors of the eye, no luscious apples and no dazzling waterfalls. There is just a stupefying array of numbers with no obvious meaning’ and ‘with clever detective work and theorising, your brain interprets a jumble of numbers as a coherent world, and that interpretation is what you see- the best theory your brain could muster.’ In other words, reality consists of particles, etc, that we cannot see, objects are simply the way the brain translates these into a coherent view.

But why would we see reality inaccurately? It is, according to Hoffman, because we have evolved this way. This seems counterintuitive and Hoffman admits the traditional view has been that evolution had guided us towards, not away, from an objective reality. The argument goes that, the more you see of objective reality, the more likely you are to survive. But this is wrong according to The Case Against Reality. Hoffman uses a very good analogy to explain why. If you are using a computer, you see the interface not circuits, voltages and layers of software. The latter ones would be pretty much useless to a non-expert, whereas with an interface most people can or can learn how to use a computer. To use a more evolutionary example, if a snake was approaching you and all you saw was mathematics and molecules you would not be aware that you are in danger. However, when you see a whole snake you know to run away. Evolution, according to Hoffman, is based around fitness points, we evolve in a way that makes us more likely to survive and produce offspring, seeing reality does not make you survive better.

Hoffman is quite convincing at times, but his approach to evolutionary psychology is quite problematic. In one chapter, he focuses on why humans are attracted to each other, with a particular focus on eyes. He says evolution plays a critical role in making split-second decisions on who we choose. Yet, he simplifies the reality of relationships, some people choose not to have children, what is the evolutionary basis of that? Others do not want to be in a relationship at all, is that due to evolution? My point being that Hoffman forgets about culture and society and reduces everything down to biology. Love clearly has more complexity than simply being about mating, at the very least there is a rich tradition of culture about it.

More convincing is his use of quantum physics. Quantum physics is the study of the atomic and sub-atomic. Hoffman suggests that certain quantum theories dictate that nothing is independent of an observer. An object does not exist if no one is looking at it. More radically, Hoffman argues that spacetime itself does not exist, it is a construction of our brains. He writes ‘spacetime is not an objective reality. It is an interface shaped by natural selection to convey messages about fitness.’ Hoffman also states ‘human vision, shaped by eons of natural selection, compresses them into three dimensions of space and time, and into objects with shapes and colours, I can’t handle hundreds of dimensions, but I can handle a few.’ Spacetime may be dependent on the role of an observer and I am likely to believe that evolution would reduce the complexity of dimensions to prevent an information overload. Nevertheless, my issue with Hoffman’s biological reductionism is still there.

To end, I will cover two issues that intrigue me greatly. Firstly, what about change? Can an experience of an object change over time? The answer may seem obvious, yes. I see a coastline with a cliff, I come back years later and it has receded, thus the object is different. However, ontologically speaking, has it altered or has it simply lost a property and remained fundamentally the same? Hoffman does not address this issue in depth, but his emphasis on the role of an observer and his use of quantum physics does imply that an object can fundamentally change.

The second question relies on multiple people. Do we all experience the world in the same way? Hoffman cites synaesthesia as evidence that we do not. Synaesthesia is when someone experiences one sense through another one. So, the world can, with regards to sensation, feel quite different from person to person. Nevertheless, Hoffman believes there are other agents out in the world. He writes ‘the way one agent in a network perceives depends on the way that some other agents act.’ We are not loners, even if we experience the world differently.

I found The Case Against Reality a very interesting book. I have issues with its reliance on evolutionary psychology, but ,at times, I found its arguments persuasive. It seems the questions it addresses will not be fully resolved soon, we may never completely know how accurate our experience of reality is.