(1) ‘Donald Hoffman’s Eye Candy’ (2) ‘Analysing Rupert Sheldrake’s Tests on the Paranormal’ (3) ‘Why the Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper Gave Up on String Theory’
‘Donald Hoffman’s Eye Candy: Conscious Realism’s Mathematical Models’
Analysis and Summary
This essay critically examines Donald Hoffman’s claim that his philosophical position of “conscious realism” is supported by “mathematically precise theories” and “mathematical models.” The author notes that while Hoffman frequently invokes mathematical language, he rarely defines what he means by “mathematical models” or provides concrete examples. The essay identifies a tension in Hoffman’s position: he is an #idealist who denies that brains and neurons exist unperceived, yet his mathematical models of “conscious experiences” often resemble the third-person, physicalist approaches of neuroscience and psychophysics that he rejects.
The essay questions what work mathematics actually does in Hoffman’s theory. While mathematics can describe almost anything — even the random positions of thrown cards — the author asks whether Hoffman’s mathematical symbols genuinely explain consciousness or merely dress up speculative philosophy. Hoffman compares his project to Turing’s formalism for computation, asking whether a simple formalism can handle all aspects of consciousness and “boot up space, time, and matter.” The essay treats this as potentially a category mistake.
The essay then discusses mathematical models as idealisations, noting that all models simplify and idealise, but some go too far. Hoffman’s models — depicting “conscious agents” using symbols like W (world), X (experience), and G (action), later expanded to sextuples including P, D, A, and N — are presented as examples. The author argues these are little more than charts or graphs with mathematical-sounding labels, raising questions about why only these variables, why a single experience and action, and how such models account for embeddedness and externalist views of mind.
The essay concludes sceptically, suggesting Hoffman’s “mathematical models” may amount to little more than the use of mathematical symbols placed in graphs. While not equating Hoffman’s work with the pseudo-mathematical writings of Julia Kristeva or Jacques Lacan, the author argues his symbols are largely gratuitous and may serve to “tart up” speculative philosophical positions rather than provide genuine mathematical rigour. The analysis maintains a neutral tone, neither endorsing nor condemning Hoffman’s project outright, but consistently questioning the substantive role of mathematics within it.
— By DeepSeek
Original essay here: https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2020/01/donald-hoffmans-eye-candy-conscious.html
‘Analysing Rupert Sheldrake’s Tests on the Paranormal’
Analysis and Summary
This essay critically examines Rupert Sheldrake’s The Science Delusion, focusing on his paranormal research claims. The author argues that Sheldrake’s book lacks sufficient evidence, contains faulty logic, and makes philosophical errors. Key points include:
Mainstream Science: Sheldrake claims mainstream science ignores paranormal phenomena, yet he himself cites parapsychology units at several universities. His complaint is that these are niche departments rather than integrated into standard science.
Card-Guessing Tests: Sheldrake cites Duke University trials showing a 21% hit rate versus 20% chance. The author questions why telepathy wouldn’t produce stronger results and notes that Sheldrake dismisses laboratory conditions as unnatural compared to real-life #telepathy.
Dream Telepathy: Examples include a subject dreaming of buying boxing tickets while a sender viewed a boxing match, and another dreaming of a dead rat while the sender viewed a dead gangster. The author argues these could be coincidences and that symbolic connections allow limitless interpretation.
Electrodermal Activity: Sheldrake claims skin responses occurred before emotional images appeared. The author suggests this could result from anticipation rather than precognition.
J.W. Dunne: Sheldrake claims Dunne forgot dreams about future events but recorded them upon waking. The author notes Sheldrake provides no evidence these dreams accurately foretold events.
Telephone Telepathy: Sheldrake surveyed people who claimed to know callers before answering. The author argues his test was artificial, selectively used subjects who already believed in telepathy, and questions why subjects weren’t always correct.
Sceptics: Sheldrake dismisses critics as “self-appointed vigilantes” from skeptical organizations. The author notes Sheldrake cites Lewis Wolpert’s bored behavior at a debate but acknowledges Wolpert’s conduct was criticized.
File-Drawer Effect: Sheldrake argues this objection applies to all science, but the author responds that this doesn’t help his case since it still affects paranormal research.
The essay concludes that Sheldrake demands excessive acceptance from mainstream science while his own evidence remains weak and his tests flawed.
— By DeepSeek
Original essay here: https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2026/07/analysing-rupert-sheldrakes-tests-on.html
‘Why the Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper Gave Up on String Theory’
Analysis and Summary
The essay examines Sheldon Cooper’s fictional rejection of string theory in The Big Bang Theory, using the episode “The Relationship Diremption” as a starting point for discussing scientific, sociological and psychological aspects of string theory.
It first stresses that Sheldon’s abandonment of string theory cannot by itself constitute an indictment of the theory. Science is presented as a communal activity, and the essay therefore distinguishes an individual scientist’s dissatisfaction from a judgement about the scientific status of a research programme. It then notes that criticisms of string theory existed well beyond the fictional character, including criticisms from physicists such as Lee Smolin and Peter Woit.
A central theme is the sociology of scientific research. The essay discusses the attraction of string theory to young physicists, the influence of academic fashions and competition for limited resources, and the possibility that researchers can become committed to a dominant approach partly because alternative approaches appear less promising. David Gross’s comments about there being “no other game in town”, Smolin’s discussion of sociology, and Roger Penrose’s comments about scientific “bandwagon effects” are used to develop this theme. The essay also raises, cautiously, the question of whether the rise of string theory might be described using Thomas Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm shift.
The essay then considers the psychological appeal of string theory. Sheldon’s attraction to an ambitious theory involving extra dimensions and fundamental unification is connected with the broader appeal of “theories of everything” among theoretical physicists.
Finally, the essay discusses the fictional “super-asymmetry” theory developed by Sheldon and Amy, distinguishing it from real supersymmetry while noting its connection with ideas in theoretical physics. It ends by observing that Sheldon later returned to discussing string theory and branes, suggesting that his apparent rejection of the theory was not permanent even within the fictional narrative.
— By Chat GPT
Original essay here: https://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2022/10/why-big-bang-theorys-sheldon-cooper.html
