Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2019
- Exciting news! Donald Hoffman will be joining the lineup at the IAI's festival in London this October! HowTheLightGetsIn returns to the heart of the capital city on October 1st-2nd, and promises a weekend like no other - full of world-leading thinkers, the biggest debates of our times, and music and parties into the night.
To learn more: howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
Book tickets: howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
Do we see reality as it is? Cognitive psychologist, Donald Hoffman explains how our perceptions have evolved to become like a computer interface and what real-life implications this has today.
** Subscribe to the Institute of Art and Ideas / iaitv
** Listen to our weekly podcast: / instituteofart. .
** Donate to the Institute of Art and Ideas: iai.tv/support-the-iai/donate
Donald Hoffman: Donald Hoffman is an American cognitive psychologist at the University of California, Irvine. His forthcoming book, 'The Case Against Reality', argues that perception doesn’t present things as they are but instead acts like a desktop interface enabling us to interact with the world.
For more from Donald Hoffman, watch him debate his ideas in
The Reality Illusion | Full Debate | Donald Hoffman, Maria Baghramian, Hilary Lawson • The Reality Illusion |...
DELVE DEEPER
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
#reality #evolution #perception #illusion
I understood 100 times more from 40 mins of this documentary than 2.5 hours of Tom Bilyeu interview. The importance of letting him talk without interruption. Great interview. Thanks.
Same here, I really struggled through that one.
Yea the one with Eric Weinstein was hard to watch.
Agree
THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE:
Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
By Frank DiMeglio
Frank DiMeglioe: what you are saying does not follow from what he is saying, because both F=ma and E=mc2 are constructs of consciousness.
"I don't know what the truth is, I am just a scientist" - one of the many gems of the interview.
That's why he's probably on the right track.
That's why he's lost the plot. He needs to pursue the path of gnosis not the schmucks and their agnostic agnosis.
He's an idiot, because he doesn't understand logical positivism.
He is lost.!
@@perceivingacting Yes.
WOOOW!! Been puzzled by this topic since I was 14-15. Back then I read a book by Einstein who wrote that human's perception, comprehension and explanation of reality is very poor due to our senses being so limited in grasping the full electromagnetic spectrum. I.E. We can't see x-rays, so we developed tools to help us, but still, limited.
After half my life I came to a conclusion that satisfies me at this moment and is this: Reality IS Consciousness. Here's my analogy:
Consciousness is like the ocean. Grab a glass and fill it with water from the ocean and you won't call it "the ocean," even though the water came from the ocean. You can compare a glass and a cup, both filled with the same source water but VERY distinct from one another, thats the "individualization paradox," we're all the same but separate, hence we can't perceive the REAL INNER CONNECTION. Now, pour back the glass and the cup into the ocean and you wouldn't call it "a glass/cup of water" even though the water from the glass/cup is mixed back into the ocean. You can break the glass or add paint or dirt or desalinize the water on the glass but it becomes "ocean" again once you pour it back, it brings back the dirt or the paint but the ocean is unaffected.
Now, the kicker: in my analogy, the glass/cup is our brain. Brain is the hardware that perceives/computes/reads the software that is consciousness. Brain is not a generator, it is a receiver. Look up "fractal antenna" and you'll see correlations with the brain's design, geometry and configuration.
Anyhow, this is my own philosophical conclusion that works for me, it has helped me gain more empathy and to realize that it is not merely a nice phrase, but the Truth, "We Are All Equal."
Sending Light, Love and Understanding to everyone on Earth.
=One Love=
-A
thanks much man---a very logical and clear description with the 'razor' analogy; very well said.
So..
When I die/
When my vessel stops receiving consciousness/
When my water reached the ocean,
The individual 'me' again becomes a part of the collective consciousness. Then who was 'me' all along ?
Also, even though I was a vessel, when my water mixes in the ocean, isn't there a part of 'me' mixing in the ocean? So, I'm also a part of the big ocean, although a very diluted one.
This whole thing is like the tree in the Avatar movie
@@abijeetkrish5434 'Me' is the One and Only Infinite Creator experiencing itself as and individuated reflection of itself.
@@abijeetkrish5434 The book Hands of LIght says we are light like the rest of existence. Our souls are more intelligent beings of light. As they focus on an idea we are created as their images. We are the images that these souls project. We are not physical or solid. We are holographic images.
Light is always light. On this earth it may seem diluted because there is a lower wattage or a screen in front of it, but light is always traveling at the speed of light. On this earth these bodies make us seem like we are so diluted that we are not light at all. But still the light creating us is traveling at the speed of light. This is evident with quarks which are constantly bursting forth spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons. These are atoms and we all consist of 7 billion billion billion atoms.
The light that we are is so bunched up as these bodies that we don't see this light beaming from us intersecting all other forms of light. Light must always beam.
Being ONE with this light means we have access to all other parts of this light, just like a cup of water has access to all parts of the ocean.
Thank you this is beautiful talk.
" I better take the icon seriously but that does not entitle me to take it literally. And so that's part of human nature, we were inclined to this illogical assumption that because we have to take all our perceptions seriously, we are entitled to take them literally. The reason we have to take them seriously is evolution shaped them to keep us alive. " Fabulous, thank you.
T fur fax f jvm bnb k ok OP.
where exactly does he say this?
27:00
Ha,ha,ha! Sorry that you didn't get it!
I understood his metaphor but I find the Logic process used today to draw conclusions on reality , is not as good as reduction that we once used in Ancient times, Back in the dizzle.
Brilliant! Such a great era of internet that I can listen to so many great minds at the comfort of home. Donald Hoffman sounds like an awaken scientist.
Love his humility - he's one of the best scientists I've ever heard, his doubt is his strength.
he is the guy who claims he is able to explain a biological property through maths....humility you said?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you just hate the ideology of his mustache
@symo imagine that....you can steal his car and tell him that "your car is there, but you haven't perceived it yet". lol
@symo What if, when we don't understand something someone says, it's because of our own lack of imagination?
@symo I don't have to imagine, I used to live it. But, I've evolved. I hope the same for you.
This man creates a bridge between the spiritual and the material world.
He does not create it, he illuminates it
@@mdt471 oh grow up
This stuff blows my mind and makes me chuckle over my morning coffee!
Here from Tom's interview with Dr Hoffman.
Thanks to whoever suggested this. It's way better & intriguing.
G U R U exactly what I did too! I always find his guests w/o him!!
Tom who ? And your saying I should avoid this person's interviews correct.
Same I pushed play on toms went right to comments which saved me time then came here
Me to
😂 so true. Tom kept interrupting way too much.
This river ... is a perfect background for the interview. I have listend Donald Hoffman with pleasure.
Heraclitus says “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
Yes it is! But it only exists if you look at it.
The setup of this conversation is designed to lower your guard while Donald is selling his death denying ideology.
It looks like the source of the Danube, only much bigger
@@curtcoller3632 I recognize the sounds and how they carry on a river even when im not looking. But that's probably because I lived right on a river like that for about 10 years. The sounds are almost better than the view.
Great interviewer, thoughtful questions...
agreed, best interviewer so far!
I agree. She was fantastic.
Yes I wanted to say that as well.
Play it again Sam! Love it!
One of the best dissertations I have ever not seen ☺️
Me, too.....I......thin....k.....
@@athenassigil5820 lol....you are right to be puzzled. The GIGO effect is all over his assumptions.
😂😂😂😂
This was TRULY a great interview! Big applause to Donald Hoffman.
" what is reality the interview asked - " i dont know said hoffman - cannot be accessed ?
nueral activity and conscious experience cannot be correlated so where is and what is consciouness ?
New hypothesis I need you to investigate. The reason we spend 30% of our lives sleeping is to allow our composite consciousnesses to frolic and be themselves away from the chaos of sensory living.
Truths are simple and do not require in depth psychoanalytic analysis, just observation leading to awareness.
But aren't dreams even more chaotic than reality? And sometimes even exhausting or terrifying?
I'd propose that we don't escape sensory perception in sleep, but we actually seek 'freedom' from everything during the act of dreaming. If you observe dreams, we truly seem to be totally free with no boundaries of time and space or even laws of the universe. Everything is permitted there, and that's an expression of the human ego, seeking ultimate freedom.
@@thoughtyfalcon3991 I've had two dreams where I was dreaming about something that was happening in reality. And I'm not talking about something that was happening in my room or in the room next to me, but at a distance at which sensory perception is not possible.
@@MargaritaMagdalena yes that's possible and I would say that's what dreaming is for. I would suggest you to read Henri Bergson's 'Time and Free Will'. He briefly discusses the dreaming process in its first chapter and makes a case to describe the nature of "intuition" in humans. This, he claims, is the basis for our dreams and he also claims intuition to be superior to our intellect.
Don Hoffman you have an incredible gift to not only understand this complicated theory of reality, but actually be able to explain it in laymen terms. I’m not saying I totally understand it but I’m working on it. This is really important stuff.
This is a fleshed out version of the "does everyone experience the same blue" question we asked as a child. The addition of mathematical theorems is very helpful. Specifically the asymptotic nature of fitness payoffs and reality perception.
As a child, I never asked if everyone experiences the same blue.
For some reason, I was fixated on red. I always asked if everyone saw the same red.
no it really is not
@@ragevsraid7703 or IS it?
@@sethsmith8638 there is a possibility :p
Maybe that explains why I don't find what I'm looking for, and when I look for it the second time, the object is where it should be!!
It just means your headset has lots of bugs 😂
I recently took my 40th LSD trip, and it boggles my mind that I stumbled on this video today and he is literally scientifically describing the mechanism that I can feel in that state of consciousness. And that makes me really ask, when our perception is altered like that and you get an experience of the working together of all these smaller consciousness clusters that are your building blocks, are you really picking up on some nuance that is really always there that we just filter out to get a sense of stability?
I wonder that too. The more I do psychedelics, the more I think that
If you want to really learn ditch lsd for ayahuasca. Not that lsd doesn’t help or teach... ask your intention before taking it and give all your respect.
@@simonhope5746 I am glad to report I have advanced to magic mushrooms.
LSD followed by a decent bump of ketamine to truly dissociate mind from body and you can really go places that you never thought possible (as ever with psychedelics make sure you control set and setting before you start). A lifetime of anxiety and deprssion ended for me when I discovered I was creating my own internal reality.
Lovely description! I couldnt agree more. We typically think that humans are at the apogy of understanding realty, when in reality it may be the opposite: that we are the species that have evolved the most elaborate dream/headset. Its like the psychedelics peel away this dream apparatus temporarily and allow us to experiece consciousness without as much overlay.
The world is a beautiful mirage we take for granted....
Awesome, jst love this direction of understanding...
Love it! Simple when you GET IT.
It would be amazing to also study from the same perspective the 2 conjoined twins, who are said to have 2 different brains but are constantly aware of each other and function as one.
thanks---if you believe of the alien 'abductions', it would be one reason they have been interested in twins.
We are not in the world, the world is in us. Consciousness contains all things finite. All we experience is within us.
An outstanding interview. Thank you.
At 39 30, he is unconsciously pointing to the evolutionary purpose when referring to relationships. Individuals are outgrowing previous expectations (the definition of consciousness expansion). Pain and discomfort are essential ingredients to reconise illusions for what they are.
Wow. How refreshing. I interpret this as reality being the interaction of conscience experiences. And our experience of these interactions is limited, for efficiency, to serve our survival.
And the experience perceived is not necessarily aware of the conscious experience of the individual conscious agents interacting creating the reality of said experience.
It sure does lay a foundation for a background of constant creation. Mind blowing.
It's only "mind blowing" to the weak minded. THINK before you comment.
@@KRGruner OK Karl, take it easy. Think before you offer unsolicited advice.
Unsolicited? LOL... You are the one who commented on a YT video, dude. You know what they say: if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. But the larger point was: Hoffman's theory is complete bullshit. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. Even his famous Australian Jewel Beetle example shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he claims. But hey, I guess you illustrate the other saying: there's a sucker born every minute. Sigh...
@@thotslayer9914 Scientific physicalism (not materialism) that incorporates the concepts of complex adaptive systems, emergence, and especially emergent self-referent systems. It does not matter, though, Hoffman's theory is completely bogus on its own, there is no need to look into my own beliefs. They are irrelevant (well, except my belief that we should pursue Truth, not bullshit).
@@thotslayer9914 It always puzzles me when someone tells me I should be open minded to nonsense. As to an afterlife, might be OK but I see no evidence of it whatsoever. So I don't worry about it and instead choose to focus my energies on the only life I know, which is the one I am living right now. What a concept!
What a remarkably eloquent communicator this genius is! I’m a lay person with a very low level of scientific literacy - I suffer from dyscalculia - but I was able to follow him quite well apart from his remarks on panpsychism. His gift for explication of complex matters may even rival his mathematical abilities, but my impression is that while we may understandably wish him to devote more time to educating us, our species is likely to benefit more from his devotion to research.
Thank you very, very much for sharing this utterly amazing interview.
Excellent attempt to solve hard problem of consciousness... thanks
Another idea. You know that voice in your head that tells you different things then you want to do? Sometimes you can actually distinguish between a listener and the voice. A good window into seperate consciousness in 1 head.
I really LOVE when scientists go for the bigger questions. Even if the view is mathematical, that doesn't make it less amazing.
Absolutely BRILLIANT!
i just ordered his book!
We're glad you enjoyed it, Animae. You might Professor Hoffman's free online course interesting too: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/info?course=the-case-against-reality
Let us know what you think!
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas thank you very very much
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas It is not clear from the website what lectures and courses you offer.
Magnificent lesson. Thank You.
Awesome interview! What a beautiful setting too! I couldn't help but notice the guy in the background enjoying himself jumping in the water and swimming. Who ever designed this game of reality did a superb job! Perhaps we all need to just jump in the water and have fun like this background interface guy, sometimes. Just taste the vanilla rather than talking about whether it's real or not. Still, love this scientist's views of this world and his humbleness!
That was a quick 40 minutes. Great interview
This Man is on par with Krishnamurti...the finest mind of 2021
The most fascinating video I've ever seen. Thanks a lot. Very intelligent questions from the interviewer perfectly timed, short and efficient and much appreciated that she did not interrupt.
At 11 mins 28 secs where he says, quote: "The theory of evolution that I mentioned that says we don't see reality as it is, has a really strange consequence." a tiny model boat full of people goes through the side of his head & exits via his left ear!
Not people, AIs
Seems to be a lot of strange visual quirks throughout this clip 🤔
It is fascinating to reflect on the fact that each of us physically exists in one unimaginably small quadrant of space within one rapidly fleeting moment in time.
Lol, makes one feel just a little more appreciative toward life and nature... and at the same time seem so insignificant.
You forgot the entanglement.
@@nifftbatuff676 Best to disentangle.
Beautiful... how illuminating and thought provoking
It is forbidden to go further into reality and hide (reasons beyond time and space) examples of soul, life, afterlife, immortality, etc. However, we are the exception to those who are active and well-informed and have the courage to be fearless. Love TED talks.
I love what this guys is saying and doing.
Thanks for representing NPCs dawg....which means all 7.8B of us!
@kptins it's how we look in real reality :p
Yes, people love death denying ideologies for obvious reasons...
And wearing!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 What is death?
For the ones interested in his work he has a nice book published (The Case Against Reality) and he was on Sam Harris "Making Sense" podcast a few weeks ago, over 2 hours of an interesting topic.
Another view but a similar approach to his; prof. James Ladyman
A diverging approach; prof. David Deutsch
Excellent .....thanks 🙏
What a brave man that raise this idea and subject in an "old world" of scientists.
For people that are newly exposed to This theory, i can understand why Mr. Hoffman is so shy to verbalize correctly some of the fundamentals of his Arguments, i wished he have more courage and stop apologizing.
Mr. Hoffman you are a brilliant scientist, a true visionary, you deserve all admiration for your courage to stand up with your scientific convictions, despite all the heat you received... you are now the big kahuna, speak up Mr. Hoffman speak up and uncover the veils of ignorance.
I also wonder if you have ever came cross the Material of Mr. Tom Campbell MBT? if you did can You please elaborate on his work and theory ?
Thank you
apologizing? Needing to have more courage? I don't see any of those at all. It's probably just your interpretation. On the contrary I see the exact opposite of what you're saying. He is very secure of his world view, he's beyond the need of courage or anything. He makes jokes about the jokes people do with him, so he doesn't give them a shit. And no, under my perspective, he's not being "shy" to verbalize correctly, he's being precise. He needs to choose the correct words to make it all look the simplest possible, filtering excessive words to avoid misinterpretations.
Maybe your opinion comes from what your perception reveals to you, but perception is not the absolute truth. The same goes to my own opinion, of course, but my point is: we're not seeing the same Donald Hoffman. That's profound.
As an enghlighted being i can assure you this man is on to something!!
You can't equate where Tom Campbell is with Hoffman. Campbell is an embarrassment by comparison.
@@InnerLuminosity
One of the traits all enlightened beings share, and it's quite "across the board" really, is that the proclamation of being "enlightened" or having reached "enlightenment" never crosses their lips.
@@elizabethecarlisle1045 ok. I respect your opinion. Thank you for sharing. I love YOU
Unbelievably , I think I understand what this man
is saying. Great interview.
Our concious minds progressively give up comprehending the portals of fellow humans, to dog to ant to a rock - phenomenally different approach / view. Can't wait to watch his next video update👏
Excellent rundown of Dr Hoffman's hypotheses. Interestingly, they parallel the ontological viewpoints I've developed just by observing 75 years of life.
We only ever get to see a glimpse of true reality, as we sleep
this statement tells me you never tried psychedelics
I love this guy. He knocks everything, including quantum physics, and he’s right on. What’s more important than the workings of our hopelessly limited brains? And, since it’s all we have, we have to participante in life. So, I say let’s have fun.
I'm no scientist, I just find science fascinating. I feel like he's theories could work quite well with the physics theory of the holographic universe. It basically suggests the universe is 2D but appears 3D to us. I watched this video right after watching a video about the holographic universe and noticed a lot of overlap.
The holographic universe? I will have to look into this. Thanks for the tip.
I would love to see a conversation between Donald Hoffman and Joscha Bach.
How ancient knowledge closes in on us again is frightening...
Don't be scared of the truth that we're not really going to die & be gone forever. It's brilliant!!!
He's clearly on to something. And he likes Terence McKenna that's for sure. When he talks about the "free miracles of science", the basic assumptions that are always there, he almost uses the exact words as Terence did forty years ago.
Is he? Well he is, he is exploiting people's existential anxiety and weak logical skills to sell books and interviews....
He has been drinking ayahuasca! (Wish I could get some)
Most humans are about ten to twenty lifetimes behind McKenna.
@@matthewmaguire3554 that is your own perception.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Please eleborate. Seems to me that existential anxiety and weak logical skills are halfway proving his point.
this is one of the top three most fascinating things I saw on youtube.
That sounds really sad when RUclips has free academic courses on logic...
How can you hide what you don't know ? He contradicts himself.
Genius man! I bought his book The Case...
This is the reality lying underneath the reality, what we understand is in reality UNDER-STAND. We stand beneath the reality and may never reach the ultimate reality. Great interview.
I'm reminded of the story of the Master whose disciple decided reality was an illusion, and the Master struck him with his stick. That's reality.
Violence, the great teacher? Tut!
"We've mistaken a limit of our interface as sn insight into physical reality"
Very good explanation, never give up the continuity of your thought ✨✨✨ still many things unexplainable. The more you learn the more you understand that your knowledge is very very limited... and so much more there is to learn.
Great questions! I am a biologist, with an MSc in behavioural ecology, another MSc in neuroethology and I am finishing my PhD in Neurobiology... I am still trying to make sense of his ideas... very provocative... I liked very much the questions by the interviewer.
In other words, you failed high school. Cool.
4:46 "...to hide reality so that you're not distracted by" the rude guys who are walking right into the video frame 😒
I do not think the interview is part of their reality.
@@neilrosson3913 or ours .
“The fiction of causality”
You may call it fiction .....but you will need to obey that rule and shape your behaviour according to that fact I every single day...
Hoffman is simply demonstrating what is possible with words.
Ouch. Quite right too. He's rather mediocre imho. Talk about the gravy train!! Yawn.
Amazing theory! I wish professor J.Maldacena was in this interview to... D. Hoffman and J.Maldacena,two of the best geniuses in the world!
Hi from Sweden!
May I suggest reading "A Course In Miracles"?
“The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.” - R. Buckminster Fuller
My favourite saying, and one I've found to be true and useful on many occasions is... "the wise man knows he is a fool, it is the fool that thinks he is wise". Hoffman proves this by saying everything we know is wrong. 😂
Enlightenment is letting go from the Crutch of knowledge.
This explanation resonates well with my thinking. Thank you. Great! 🥂💥🗝️
But it is incompatible with the objective nature of reality and the way he lives his life.
The beauty and nuance of Music may one day be reduced to equations. The feelings experienced while listening, can never be. By definition
Hoffman had brought science full circle
This is what you do when you have eternity to do everything
J.B.S. Haldane - "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
wonderful explanation and interview!!!
The reality we experience is only our perception, but of course, what else could it be? Our consciousness is beyond our own understanding.
Not that the "pen exists"
BUT
"Existence pens"
Uuummm 🤔........ yeah 🙂👍.
That's exactly what Heidegger said.
Take five dried Grams in silent darkness My Friends , and you will see just how weak of a foundation your ontology stands on ..
Do u have any u can give me?
David Choate sounds like some time wave zero stuff here
The five dried grams will probably be much easier to come by than a place where there is silent darkness.
sounds like what a self dribbling basketball would say
We regularly have dreams that are sometimes VASTLY divergent from what we recognize as our "reality" yet, when we are dreaming, we accept the dream as reality without question no matter how outlandish the premise. IOW, what we perceive as reality and our memories is highly malleable and dependent on our brain function.
This is just amazing!
the guy falling off the paddle board @32:28 had me in tears
25:40 M. Hoffman, there, just exactly described why there has been, and still are, religious wars in this world. When people perception differs there is this utterly uncomfortable feeling that could go up to drive some of us crazy to the point where you literally want the death of who is responsible for your discomfort.
Abrahamic religions are a curse...literally. An archontic curse. Look up Nag Hammadi codices.
Mr Hoffman has explained his theory to the best detail I have found yet online here. The next step is to find out if there are those who really can tap into the consciousness field and be aware of it - after listening to him here I think that we are part of the Gaia mass conscience but cannot be aware of it individually the same as each side of the brain is unaware of the other - interesting, thanks.
Have you looked into John Lash's exposition of the Gaia-Sophia cosmo-mythological story? We are indeed a part of Gaia's consciousness - her thoughts are what make this so very real! All matter (mater) is the mother's conscious dream. Matter _is_ consciousness.
Of course I'm probably wrong 😂. I absolutely love it. that humility is what science and humanity needs
For me, the most exciting video I've ever watched on RUclips. This is a life changer!
Life changer? Its just one guys idea based on his findings using game theory. Those findings are not as robust as he makes out here.
😂
34:15 - 37:00 IMHO best part and worth looping over a few times to absorb.
Yeah, but he defers to mathematical reality instead; that's dualism.
@@perceivingacting I'm more interested that he's trying to hack at this problem without sweating the popularity of the assumptions. My own sense is that the 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' are just sort of these embarrassments where materialism chucks everything it can't understand or doesn't fit its frame over the shoulder, and really something like a radical take on functionalism, quite similar to what Hoffman is saying, seems to fit so many of the parameters of what I at least have been seeing and it seems like many others who start doing things in that corridor of available human experience.
@@carbon1479 You mean pragmatism, praps? But that doesn't cut it let alone hack at it! Haha I am a pragmatist, professionally. But we must turn to mythos; we don't see what's always been in front of our eyes. Check out the Electric Universe ppl.
@@perceivingacting no, I don't mean pragmatism. I do think there's an actual knowable reality, just that there isn't a particularly good reason to believe, as he put it, that evolution tunes us for finding it. A good read of John Gray's work (the British philosopher, not the pastor) is helpful on that, and just going out the door and realizing what flies and what doesn't (ie. social conformity above all else) shows where our primary interests are at - ie. it's making babies and grabbing power over other people.
@@perceivingacting I see pragmatism as something like a coping mechanism more than an ontology - ie. admiting that we're living in a world of absurdities and trying to find cognitive ways of coping with it and then dealing with a culture or society that most likely couldn't handle knowing what 'is' even if such knowledge was available and, for better or worse, it seems like most people wouldn't want to know as imbibing that knowledge and adjusting themselves to it would be deleterious to their social graces and ability to wring things out of other people.
This was indeed very intetesting and thought provoking. Thanks 🙂👌
However it comes to us, it's still our reality .
D. Hoffman: "if the language of our perceptions .. is the wrong language to describe reality... then it's a tough problem".. ..
me: "That's exactly why you have to get away from your perceptions through meditation to get to the true nature of reality."
Kant said this a gajillion years ago, good thing science is catching up.
What hegel tells us is that there is nothing to know about reality beyond consciousness, it is not a limit of the human mind, but a limit of logic itself.
I am sure Kant and Hegel knew that you could predict a choice seven seconds before you utter it
yes, I've no question, and i think there has been an entity who has ben manipulating this to their own will/agenda, which has to do with they live on the lowest frequency(rocks) and also the fact humans only see one percent of light.
Great interviewer. Asked a small number of questions and got that!
29:22 this, education makes you more compassionate
I do like many aspects of what Hoffman is saying, but I think I see a basic problem. On one hand he says that any and all of science depends on certain starting assumptions. He then says that the math shows that evolution will lead to a complete distortion of the perception reality (a distillation process that I would call the formation of "belief systems"). I would just say that the setting up of a mathematical model of a physical system is very likely even more assumption-bound than direct human (or species) perception, especially in matters as resistant to the scientific method as human perception vs. reality. If I'm correct about this, the simulation aspects of the theory could be rendered irrelevant.
I also see a heavy reliance on an exaggerated interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I see a lot of this going around in all the "perception creates reality" philosophies. I don't think that's what the Copenhagen Interpretation actually says, and my gut feeling is that this idea needs a lot more refinement and nuance. While there is a seed of truth to be found, it eventually will not look the same at all.
I think what you mean, in a simplified way, is: He says that the fact that theories are based on assumptions means that they are inaccurate and probably wrong. His theory is also based on assumptions. Therefore, it must be wrong. (I personally find this very interesting because it creates sort of a paradox :D) You also say that perception would be a more accurate way of seeing the problem, because it does not depend on assumptions.
However:
Hoffman states, after minute 21:00, that he is proposing a "precise and bold" hypothesis which is based on given assumptions (just like any other scientific theory). Now, he also states that the fact that his theory is based on underlying assumptions means that he is most likely wrong, "just like any scientific theory". Science is meant to try to understand the world in the most accurate way possible, but this "most accurate method possible" is based on assumptions (or miracles, as he calls it) and, thus, most likely does not portray reality as it really is. He provides a hypothesis (a most accurate answer possible, through the combination of assumption + accurate analysis), not an axiom.
So, yes, the fact that his model is based on assumptions might mean that he is wrong (it is his best attempt at understanding reality). But, we cannot assert that our perception of reality is therefore accurate. In fact, our perception might be reliant on false or distorted interpretations, and we cannot prove (or disprove) this through our own perception. That would be like looking at a glass through glass, it won't give us a lot of extra information about how it actually works.
The second part of your comment mentions a heavy reliance on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics:
Although he mentions aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, I don't think that the theory relies on it but instead, that this is one of the conclusions drawn from his hypothesis. I think the key insight to take away from this video is that we (humans) see our perspective of reality as ultimate, truthful and complete. However, through experiment, maths and observation of other beings, we have seen evidence that this might not be true. We see the world through our "umwelt" (as neuroscientist David Eagleman calls it).
At 3:29: “the purpose is to hide reality” - No, the purpose of the interface is to transform reality into a form that is useful. Whether that hides reality or not is tangential.
Fair point, dude.
IMO, both propositions are correct; Hoffman refers to what might be called the ultimate causality or stuff reality is made from (I guess, so far, we'd say particles, waves, energy fluctuations) whereas yours refers to the Kantian a priori categories of how our perception organizes sensory data (in terms of space and time). At any rate, what consciousness exactly is and why it is (given the correlate brain states) remains the hard problem.
How easily he describes, I want think differently from now on, I had not words before... to kick on
puff on super silver
Great interview hope so much to see more! Subscribed!
“as real as what?” man what a fantastic question.
Yeah it kind of shows that real and fake are on a spectrum
Third time got it! Evolution has tuned our senses (via a priori consciousness) to perceive what we need for survival and not be overwhelmed by what there is in reality (quantum, non-local, non-temporal)
Evolution had nothing to do.......its all about Scale. We live in a scale where molecular scales manifest in reality.
A huge creature would look at the world and just see and forced to dodge spinning "balls" (planets and stars).
There could never be a mutation in an organism of our size that could favor the observation of quantum scale. I think this is a really silly argument by this pseudo philosopher....because he is not a scientist by any mean.
Nonsense. QM has so many open questions, it's silly to think it's relevant.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Well-said.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 nice try Schwinger - you got anything better?
Donald is going in the right direction.
He is so interesting to listen to
I fell asleep
@@incogb6696 haha!
In light of a philosophy of science Hoffman might subscribe too, is there a useful reason to assume evolution is NOT all about fitness payoffs? If evolution is not ultimately about fitness payoffs, what might it ultimately be about, or, are fitness payoffs a large driver in evolution, but only in conjunction with other functions. Perhaps something that may seem a bit esoteric or unscientific, like innate creativity, a compulsion of curiosity, or necessity for knowledge compression. How might Hoffman's theory be adjusted, expanded or transformed if we assume evolution is not ONLY about fitness payoffs and functions. P.S. I'm a big supporter of Dr. Hoffman and his theories, I only propose alternatives to continue exploring his seemingly useful frameworks, ideas and models.
What else would you propose? I think you could argue that any of these "other" compulsions could also boil down to fitness payoffs in the end. Curious individuals would be more likely to explore and spread their DNA, the 'creatively fulfilled' more likely to be at peace or have "vision" and thus be stronger actors, etc. Anything that contributes to a general sense of well-being could improve fitness and sexual selection. Of course that's assuming a purely physical/materialist reality and there's nothing spiritual/metaphysical going on like reincarnation or a collective unconscious or something. Which is a possibility, who knows.
@@yousefdefrawi3467 Thanks for engaging so genuinely! Before I answer your initial question directly, I want to comment on your idea. First, the materialist assumption in evolutionary theory, or theories of consciousness is a brutal barrier. And like you said, we could almost always end these ideas with, "who knows!" (And I'm not opposed to considering reincarnation theories as well.) I agree with your premise that anything, like creativity, or well being, or knowledge acquisition could boil down to, or be defined as parameters in a fitness function. However, if you step away, you might see that in the same way, fitness functions could be defined as parameters in a curiosity, or knowledge compression function. We run into the problem that we are limited in our definitions and labels. Soooo...."who knows!" But I can propose some ways that we might elaborate on fitness payoffs being the ultimate assumption alone. Instead, we could imagine a duality, where fitness payoffs, and some opposing or balancing payoff, is taken into account. Another framework could be fitness payoffs plus a whole suite of opposing, balancing, or entangled payoffs. We might be able to weight these parameters and account for all of them instead of just fitness. But all of this just circles back to a question I can't avoid even if we assume fitness payoffs alone, which is, how do we define fitness payoff, who defines it, and how, what and who will define fitness payoffs in the future. Thanks again for participating in discussion!
@Language and Programming Channel Absolutely! It's encouraging to see more of that coming forward in discussions. It had a good run and is still useful, but it's obviously far more nuanced and probably too complex to ever be modeled.
I dont think Mr Hoffman for one second is suggesting the fitness payoffs are the main goals of the game - his reference to fitness payoffs is in the basic physical behaviours of reaching for an apple etc... Is his search to explain consciousness just merely his way of surviving and getting ahead physically successfully - I dont think so - he just hasnt yet (to my knowledge) broadened the explanations of his theory to encompass reincarnation, soul learning, evolution etc... which of course his theory imo leads but perhaps he is leaving it to others to see - in other words you are quite right in suggesting other motives than fitness payoffs.
@@actiaint I couldn't agree more and would have expressed the excellent point you make if I hadn't already rambled too long. One purpose to my statement was to try and begin approaching some of those potential elaborations. Or even less exciting, try to approach, how anyone, including Hoffman, might approach broadening, or detailing some of the possible nuances to his described fitness payoffs in the user interface framework. I'm sure Hoffman has a massive set of ideas that expand on what we see and hear in these interviews. Obviously he is limited to explaining surface level aspects of his larger theory in the interview form, and he is also a considerate and respectful person, by addressing the questions he is approached with, something he cannot control. Like many of us, I think we are quite comfortable with the pitch Hoffman makes, and are simply hungry for more of his ideas, or interested in engaging in discussions related to what they might be. Thanks for the comment Brett.
This guy just announced the end of science as we know it. He maybe found the glass wall.
If so then we are finally left with the spiritual processes that try to experience this underlying consciousness like the Yogis and the Buddhists or some Hindu teachers.
Miracles are purely things in which you cannot understand yet
Awesome! Lovely thinking.