The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality (2016)
While an interesting argument, the article is very muddled due to a confused philosophical foundation. Kant already made it clear that our experience of the world by definition is something different from the world in itself. For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us to experience colors. So strictly speaking colors do not exist in &quot;the world in itself&quot;, they are a function of the human mind.<p>But this does <i>not</i> mean &quot;reality does not exist&quot; - how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an &quot;illusion&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;. This supposes there is some &quot;correct&quot; way to experience the world which might be different from how the human mind experiences it. The human mind process input and generates a model of the world which helps us survive. Other models are possible (eg. different animal species experience the world in different ways), but who is to say which model is <i>correct</i>?