The interaction between Robert and Don around the 18 minute mark is so damn good. Robert asks 2 profound questions concerning Don's theory and Don addresses them honestly and precisely. This conversation is on such a high level. Amazing.
@@obedientconsumer5056 Part of me is more envious of those who aren't worn down by these kinds of thoughts though! I think it is okay for people to find joy in the simplicity, it sounds like a lovely way to live
I remember a few years ago when Hoffman first appeared on this show. Robert seemed very unimpressed with his theory. I'm glad to see him back - Hoffman's book was a fascinating read!
I’ve been trying to understand the interface theory for months and finally found an interviewer that helped me on my way with his questioning style. Thank you ;)
@@ZalexMusic The topic we're actually talking about, "interface theory" is what the core of Scientology is based upon. My comment is not random, it is pertinent to the topic. I'm sorry you missed that _obvious_ pertinence.
I knew Robert would ask tough questions, i watched a ton of his videos, he explored this problem from every angle, and talked to the brightest people on the planet!
Very thought-provoking. I find it interesting that the theory that we only perceive an interface rather than reality itself is basically putting us back in the platonic cave looking at shadows.
Essentially. But that there is a true world composed of abstract, eternal "forms" beyond that is pure surmising. Rather think of Kant's utterly unknowable "Ding-an-sich." When you think about it and, given we are capable of sensorily absorbing but a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was presumptuous--albeit 'natural'--of us to have so stridently insisted that things are just as they appear to be thus essentially knowable by us.
@Nick Williams natural selection, as I understand it, also leads to multi-combinatorial hit and miss selections, delaying replication and survival. It also degrades the life-info that already exists in the meantime. Above the level of the atom, the universe is grotesquely non-repeating. Long periods of time for selection works against this. This is true in the biosphere.
Would that my soul could tranquil stray On many a moonlit mountain way, By cavernous haunts with ghostly shadows, Or thread the silver of the meadows, Released from learning's smoky stew To lave me in the moonlit dew. But, ah, this prison has my soul, Damnable, bricked-in, cabined hole, Where even the heaven's dear light must pass, Saddened through the painted glass...🤔😵🙏😂 Wolfgang Goethe. " Faust"
I suggest pursuing conscious as the only dimension giving birth to time and space..where time and space are revolving around the conscious dimension..evolving over the life span of the individuals and collapsing upon death. Hoffman is a great scholar with an immense grip over Physics, biology and computer science all emulgamating in the his research.. hats off
It is quite refreshing to have such a high caliber host, able to ask relevant intelligent questions, add above par commentary and discernment to the topic cogently and dynamically. Kudos and thanks to Mr. Kuhn. +1 Subbed, liked and bell rung.
Been listening to this series for years now. He is smarter than most people he interviews because his horizon is far wider, especially true this time. (As usually the case with mystics and theologians) Hoffman flounders but Robert stays polite but firm after presenting two death blows.
It is a rare occurrence indeed when Kuhn (the interviewer) fails to outshine the interviewee in his clarity, breadth, insight, honesty, and sometimes (alas) even plain old common sense. Especially in regards to consciousness: where everyone - except Kuhn! - seems to have settled for something or the other as the explanation closer to the truth.
Dr. Hoffman is breaking new grounds, where the gods may reside, where all was once magic, but now may become our new reality. How exciting this time of AI, computers, physics, and philosophy is and how lucky we are to be living now to witness this.
I appreciate Hoffman so much. All 13 of the Hoffman videos on this channel are excellent. He is well-spoken, thoughtful, humble. But above all, he is a true scientist who demands rigor and proof from himself and his team and all other scientists addressing the topic of consciousness. My thinking has changed dramatically because of him.
Bernardo Kastrup is very intelligent, bus has a lesser skill in talking to new people to this theory. Donald Hoffman can translate the same message to a broader public.
This is unbelievable! Amazing succinct interview, smart challenging questions. Hoffman is brilliant. Reminds me of the scene in Terminator where Kyle is being interrogated by the detectives and they obviously don’t believe he’s travelled from the future but he answers all of their questions with such internal consistency that they can’t fault him ... but they conclude he’s crazy and in reality Kyle actually is from the future and has a handle on true reality!!! Clearly Hoffman’s thought deeply about everything. I love the headset analogy. This is progress from the hard problem of consciousness. One question I had from earlier on is “would a NON-uniform probability distribution materially change the theory?” Secondly, is this similar to “are we living in a simulation?” Keep up the awesome contribution to both these gentlemen!! 👏👏👏👍🏼✊🤔😀
This theory of consciousness is so much similar to some ancient eastern philosophies(like non - dual vedanta) which claims that (cosmic)consciousness alone is real in the cosmos and everything else, like universes, material world, people, etc, etc are visualized inside of this (cosmic) consciousness. There is a book written over a thousand years ago, exclusively on this topic, 'yoga vasistha' must read, it talks about having infinite number parallel universe, and how at fundamental level of reality, only consciousness is Real.
Conscious entities, not just consciousness. The teachings of Yoga-vāśiṣṭha contradicts the possibility of having any experience, even in illusion, and are therefore obviously incorrect. I studied four translations of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha a quarter century ago before rejecting it in favor of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
The Yoga-vāśiṣṭha is mentioned in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta: Advaita Ācārya said. CC Ādi 12.40: "Thus I expounded the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha, which considers liberation the ultimate goal of life. For this the Lord became angry at Me and treated Me with apparent disrespect." Http://Www.vedabase.io/en/library/cc/adi/12 Śrīla Prabhupāda's purport says, "There is a book of the name Yoga-vāśiṣṭha that Māyāvādīs greatly favor because it is full of impersonal misunderstandings regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with no touch of Vaiṣṇavism. Factually, all Vaiṣṇavas should avoid such a book, but Advaita Ācārya Prabhu, wanting punishment from the Lord, began to support the impersonal statements of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha. Thus Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu became extremely angry at Him and seemingly treated Him disrespectfully."
Robert, such a deeply engaging and intelligent conversation. Thanks for getting Mr Hoffman on, well over due. What would really be perhaps an even more fascinating conversation, getting Donald and Bernardo Kastrup in the same room! Have you interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet?
Sir Roger Penrose (Stephen Hawkings mentor) and in my book the cleverest man alive stated many years ago that computers will not become conscious, The penrose\hammerhoff objective reduction theory is worth consideration.
I'm a retired biologist and engineer, mostly worked in algaes and fungi in the aerospace field, (think fuel on Mars). I looked at cyanobacteria which are the earliest fossils found at 3.5 billion years ago. I do not think we will create a conscious AI until we can create an artificial DNA with a quadrary system instead of the binary system we have to work with now. I will not say cyanobacteria is conscious, but it has instincts. Inanimate objects do not have instincts or any other type of consciousness, but living organisms do. Chemical actions and reactions are NOT instincts please, unless built into the system by an intelligent organism i.e. a chemist. My son is a doctor and has a computer programmer friend who is totally intrigued by my conjectures of making a computer with a quadrary base instead of a binary system. Problem he is having is that he cannot figure out a 4 part system.
@@MountainFisher Depending on your thinking we come down to the age old debate of whether matter creates mind or does mind create matter. Many scientists are on board with this reality being virtual and created in other. Other as in outside of our reality. In this case we would say mind created matter which would make it impossible to create consciousness as consciousness (other or mind) is the computer that created this reality and is therefore located outside of our existence. If on the other hand matter created mind then conscious computers would be a distinct possibility.
@@MountainFisher I forgot to add the perplexing hard problem of consciousness. Even if your idea (looks very interesting!) does create some kind of consciousness proving that consciousness exists is incredibly difficult. We could in theory create a robot with advanced AI which would act just like a human and we would not know if it was human or robot. The hard problem of consciousness needs to be addressed first before we can attempt to create consciousness.
@@MountainFisher set of instincts organized and priorotized by intelligence is the consciousness (loop) lead to more complex instinct structures and higher intelligence. The one Cyanobacteria that evolved (mutated) is perceived to be more conscious to it's peers. Thank to their great oxygenation event that has changed the life form as we know it.
Quoting from the article linked below: "Even if we were to confirm that the spatio-temporal world is a holographic image that reflects some sort of transcendent intelligence/idea/datum, we could still point to (and speak of) the phenomena of biological evolution (as we currently understand it) as having taken place over the last several hundred million years, but we would also subordinate that phenomena to the more precise understanding that the real cause of these apparent processes transcends the flow of appearances in time and space (somewhat as we now subordinate our experience of the rising and the setting of the sun to our more precise understanding of the solar system). [NOTE: Immanuel Kant lays the groundwork for this distinction in his discussion of “The Fourth Antinomy” in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics: Thesis: In the Series of the World-Causes there is some necessary Being. Antithesis: There is Nothing necessary in the World, but in this Series All is incidental. He concludes the section as follows: “…provided the cause in the appearance is distinguished from the cause of the appearance (so far as it can be thought as a thing in itself), both propositions are perfectly reconcilable: the one, that there is nowhere in the sensuous world a cause (according to similar laws of causality), whose existence is absolutely necessary; the other, that this world is nevertheless connected with a Necessary Being as its cause (but of another kind and according to another law). The incompatibility of these propositions entirely rests upon the mistake of extending what is valid merely of appearances to things in themselves, and in general confusing both in one concept.” ] Leaving aside the holographic universe, however- along with Kant’s fourth antinomy -let us turn to the hard problem of consciousness which refers to the fact that we cannot seem to arrive at an understanding of consciousness through the analysis of matter and material processes alone. Even Sam Harris- one of the so-called new atheists -acknowledges this problem in his recent work on spirituality without religion, Waking Up: “However we propose to explain the emergence of consciousness-be it in biological, functional, computational, or any other terms-we have committed ourselves to this much: First there is a physical world, unconscious and seething with unperceived events; then, by virtue of some physical property or process, consciousness itself springs, or staggers, into being. This idea seems to me not merely strange but perfectly mysterious. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When we linger over the details, however, this notion of emergence seems merely a placeholder for a miracle” (56). “The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand- that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment -is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place” (79). jwayneferguson.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/the-cause-in-appearances-vs-the-cause-of-appearances/
Mr Ferguson. We see cars and houses and say that they are real and part of our conscious reality. We are also smart enough to know that people made them. But when we look at the moon, it is as real as the cars and houses but we are smart enough to know that people didn’t make it. But SOMEBODY did as it is there and we are conscious of it. So WHO made it then ? I believe the answer can be tied to the fact that we are conscious of it and it gives us pleasure in its beauty and wonder. But I don’t the moon looks down upon us and admires us humans. I don’t think it even knows we are here or even that we exist - because it does not appear to be connected to the consciousness that humans have and use to think and imagine and to dream and create and experience and get memories and feelings. All the things (including the moon) that neither science or physics or religion can explain or describe or dissect and put under a microscope or in a mathematical equation. Reading about the sensation of smelling a freshly squeezed lemon will never come close to the actual conscious experience of it. Now consider this: those connected to consciousness are able to experience the universe and appreciate its beauty and wonder. In the same way that those who have consciousness and appreciation of the Mona Lisa, we also appreciate the universe. But rocks and sticks and animals and water and mud never line up to see and stare at the Mona Lisa, or the moon. So that separates everything in the universe to things that are creations and things that create creations and appreciate them through consciousness. So I think that consciousness made the moon. And everything in the universe, including these self replicating biological computers with sensory systems attached that we call human beings. And if you consider the parallels between humans and computers, there are many, and I don’t think it’s just coincidental. And that is probably because they were both made by consciousness. I think we sleep for the same reason we have shut down periods for computers to allow for uploads, downloads and upgrades. And also to let them cool down so that they don’t burn out from continuous use, just like us. If you pull the plug on a computer if will stop working. And if our human biological systems don’t get food water and oxygen, then they will also stop working. Does a computer know that it has been shut off? I don’t think so. It’s not hooked up to consciousness to understand that. And humans can be kept from accepting conscious data when it is given drugs from medical people or from sleeping but we still have an unconscious connection, which is what we call dreams, or hypnotized. And we can wake up from a scary dream that was so realistic that we were tossing and twisting and bolted out of sleep in a quick fright, until we wake up enough to realize we are in bed and not in that scary situation that woke us up. So how are we connected from our human bodies to consciousness. Probably in a similar way that computers and satellites are connected to drones down on earth. So what is the universe? Just a really big and great holographic movie with 3-D effects due to time that moves by us and makes it all seem so real. But how can that all be? Well if you consider that at the other end of consciousness are beings from a higher dimension and not encumbered by time or space, then these lifetimes, which seem to last for years and years, is only a few moments up there. Like an interactive ride at Disneyland. The parallels go on and on and on. Even the speed of light, which is a constant, is parallel to a movie projector that runs at the same constant speed to give the illusion that the pictures are moving and seem so real. And think about this: would you pay money to see a guy with wings playing a harp for an hour and a half or would you rather pay to see The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan. All the killing and madness and drama of this earth can be explained just like a movie, where we know after a scene is on film and the Director is happy, “it’s a wrap!” And all the “dead” actors get up and go to the lunch truck for a drink or snack until the next scene to be filmed. It’s FAKE. We know that when we see a movie but it’s nice to pretend for a few hours and enjoy and appreciate and maybe even love the experience and feelings and the memories it’s gives us. All the things we perceive through these sophisticated “headsets” we call a human body via consciousness, all of which scientists can’t touch or explain but can be taken with us when we leave this theater (universe) we are currently inside of and experiencing. And that’s also the reason you can’t “take it with you when you ‘die’ “ because it was all just an illusion. Otherwise we would see U-Hauls behind every hearse. But the Egyptian Pharaohs tried that and we see how that worked out. Would love to discuss more in greater details. And no, I’m not crazy, my mother had me checked when I was a kid. (Sheldon on Big Bang Theory). 👍
Hmmm, perhaps using DMT (or meditating) is like putting aside your headset? let's hope the aliens are not holding a can of raid. Hoffman is just amazing!
His Lost in our Head Set, theory, is riveting. It dove tails with so many unanswered questions in cosmology, physics, consciousness…I think we’ve all been fooled by our own perceptions
Really great, but short, conversation with Mr. Hoffman. I think his hypothesis on both evolution and consciousness are both groundbreaking and worthy of many years of consideration. Until we have a better understanding of the hard problem of consciousness, science will always have its skeptics that have a loophole back to a God theory. Not that I’m against a God theory...if that really is the truth, then I’d like scientific evidence for it as much as I’d like scientific evidence against it. I like that Mr. Hoffman is going after the hard problem with such fervent vigor and getting humans to think about this in new ways that might move things forward after such a long period of going nowhere really.
Finally got my google settings to allow me to make a comment😏😣 Anyhow.... I’ve been following DH for a few years now and have read many of his papers. I love his approach and presentational style. I think that he’s really onto something and his ideas are for me mind-blowing. This latest video is excellent and gets into more details than some of his earlier ones, which for seasoned followers like me is a bonus. I’m less wedded to his conscious agent theory, but his interface theory of perception is plenty to consider for me and at it’s roots, deeply profound. I struggle to get my head around a few of the concepts. If one could remove our 3D space-time VR headset to reveal “X”, how would we know this was true reality and not the projection of some other VR headset? It could be “headsets all the way down”! Thus while I am happy to accept that what we experience is a representation from our “brain” (this seems to be increasingly mainstream science view), I’m not sure we will ever be able to experience veridical reality. And even if we ever did how would we ever know for sure. It also must be possible that evolution doesn’t function the same in the real world as we understand it in the 3D space time world, which challenges his dependence on evolution game theory. What also keeps me us at night is the notion that we / scientists are using our “brain” to show that our brain is in essence making up reality - trapped inside a skull fed only by electrical impulses. Indeed according to DH our brain itself is only a representation of some thing else in the veridical reality. If we cannot rely on our brain for accuracy, then we’re rather stuck. Finally, in DHs interface world I’m never sure where “the past” fits in? Thinking of a dinosaur bone say, this is but an icon, but for what, if time isn’t real? And all the records we have of historical events, these too are icons in our VR game, but how do they relate to the veridical world? Plenty to meditate upon and looking forward to DH’s next offering.
I would think as your consciousness evolves then that would necessitate a better VR. The bit size of the interface would keep doubling. The reality files would be less and less compressed. What would be really weird is if the real reality looked like our actual computer desktops. I came to Hoffman after I discovered Hawking's holographic principle. I thought what if everything is occurring on a 2d surface like a computer desktop. The flat earthers may be right after all.
I’m a year late, but WOW this discussion was incredible. Mr Hoffman’s ideas about consciousness sounds, or rings, true to me. Somehow I think I understand where he’s going with this. I hope it pans out, I like the idea of unbounded infinite conscious agents. Brilliant! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What I want to see in our lifetime is a way to interpret brain activity through scans during sleep to reproduce a dumbed down visual representation of someone's dreams and then use a similar process to find out what is going on during REM sleep that is different from regular dreaming and see if that has a hint behind any other mysteries of the mind or reality and maybe unlock some of the rejuvenative properties of sleep.
RLK is a phenomenal mind. DH is a phenomenal mind. Amazing interview. If you're looking for a deep technical analysis of Hoffman's theory, check out his 3 hour interview on Theories of Everything with Curt
Hoffman's theories are facinating. Here's my problem, though: Hoffman posits that evolution favored the development of senses that give us something akin to a computer interface rather than an actual view of reality. Even space-time, objects (like neurons) and basic causality do not actualy exist, he says, but are merely part of an interface. Yet, space-time and causality MUST exist for evolution to take place. And without evolution we could not have developed the interface Hoffman proposes. Or am I missing something?
In his book D.Hoffman brings up the idea of universal Darwinism which states that evolutional principles apply not only to sth implemented in spacetime but rather it's an algorithm that works beyond that structure: "The insight that Darwin’s algorithm applies not just to the evolution of organic beings but also, with some changes, to a variety of other domains, is called universal Darwinism. 9 (Richard Dawkins coined the term when arguing that Darwin’s algorithm governs the evolution of life not just on earth but anywhere in the universe.) Universal Darwinism, unlike the modern theory of biological evolution, does not assume the existence of physical objects in space and time. It is an abstract algorithm, with no commitment to substrates that implement it." Though the theory is based on causality which in this sense seems to disprove itself
Mankind is poised to tap into that superstructure. It is mind bending to consider the outcomes and consequences to that. Could it be that Revelation takes place completely in this environment?
Theistic interpretations of Hoffman's work are just...wrong. You could in some sense say that a "god-like being/thing" that started the universe is part of this sort of superstructure, but in no way would it mean that this being or thing is a personal God which happens to be the one from the religion that is most prominent where you were raised.
I just got in studying and meditating and expand open consciousness and it has helped me. I have started meditation and it really helps me. Want to learn more.
Consciousness is the king no doubt. It creates a city and people in a jiffy in dream and also in waking state. Space can be compressed and expanded at will. Time can be speeded or slowed..Amazing what it achieves so effortlessly.Then it gets disinterested and lie dormant while sleeping..Amazing..
Time cannot be sped up or slowed down at will. It is just your notion that sometimes it flies and sometimes it drags. It is interesting, because without this notion of time, the whole system would be in trouble. The system that provides consciousness is actually simple, it is a loop. This loop consists of 5 components, a neural network, a human brain for example, then a thought "let's move a leg", then the leg moves, then our sensors pick up the signal from there and we see the leg has moved, and the signal gets passed to the same neural network, like closing the loop. That is all the necessary machinery for consciousness to arise each morning and turn off to autopilot to save some energy during night. It is amazing it does that. Why don't it just stays awake once it woke up?
Don Hoffman's research portrays the material cosmos very similar to how the Vedas describe it, which is very impressive considering he seems to not have studied the Vedas at all.
I’m an experienced man and my science comes from nature, and by the nature’s way I’m proving the subjects, and I believe that you can learn from nature , deeply and experimentally. ,
I know for sure that reality is holographic, because when i had sleep deprivation things happened that were impossible to explain. I'ts almost like having a computer bug on an online game and nobody else can see it. The brain delay experiment proves that there's a ten second time lag before the brain renders reality, so there must be some truth to it. Great videos, they keep me sane in these crazy times.
Sticking with his video game analogy, the functions in the game (gas pedals, streets and doors etc..) are still necessarily related to the programming so there is some relationship between the UI in the game and the source code that constitutes actual objective reality, in other words we can glean some insight into the source code just by observing how the game works as long as we understand the principles and by which the game works. Somebody recently figured out the code for Mario 64 by writing a program that recreates the C code nearly perfectly by analyzing the game itself. A sophisticated enough AI can certainly figure out the source code without seeing it. I suspect that the physical laws underlying the standard model, quantum theory and gravity can be figured out in a similar way. He’s saying that the probability that the game (grand theft auto) is the same as the hardware and software that it runs on is 0, which is true, and that what we see as objective reality has to be an interface between us and the true engine that drives all of physical reality.
I make my comment in the first six minutes of this video, because I am very exited and I don't want to loose this feeling! This is a very very interesting theory of reality! Because all our culture is based in the way our mind/brain perceive the world! But we are only humans...
Does this mean that we must be able to communicate in the objective reality to synchronize our realities and not realize it in the spacetime reality? Assuming there is more than me in the universe. Just thinking; In the objective reality, as individual consciousnesses, we could be like a neuron (or a point in time and space) interwoven with others to form a neural network
Objective reality is an elusive concept which people often try to define, but their attempts are usually unsuccessful because there is no clear way of defining it. It has been defined as the world that exists independently of a human being's mind or perception in philosophy and science. If one asks oneself 'how can we know what objective reality really is?' then the answer depends on whether you think that humans have access to such knowledge at all by virtue of our sense perceptions. If you believe we do not have direct access to objective reality through sense experience (and I tend towards this view), then how does one go about acquiring knowledge about the nature of objective reality? One might be inclined to say that it must be acquired through some sort of empirical investigation. But whence comes our idea upon which basis this knowledge should be based? The problem with empiricism seems apparent: its assumption is that we can reach out into the external world and obtain information from physical objects directly with our senses; therefore, if you reject empiricism for any reason whatsoever, there would seem little hope for forming beliefs about anything regarding an independent physical world. I have already provided my own answer to the question of what objective reality is, but I will further elaborate here. To begin with, there are two ways to view our knowledge about physical objects: (1) through a direct perception in which we are aware of an object; and (2) through inferential reasoning which only provides us with probable knowledge about such objects. If one thinks that one can directly perceive an object then it might be said that he holds a naive realism position on his epistemology. But this seems absurd because how could one ever know if any particular sense experience is really representative of objective reality or not? How does one know whether they haven't just been deceived by their senses? The best way I can think of dealing with this problem would seem to be trying various experiments in order to discover what kinds of sensory stimuli correspond most closely with actual physical objects. If one holds an inferential view of knowledge, then it seems that he has to accept some kind of idealism in which physical objects are not fundamental. As we all know, a basic assumption for almost everyone is the belief that there exists a physical world and humans have reliable sense organs and cognitive faculties with which they can discover information about this world. The problem with such an assumption is that if you adopt an inferential view then it becomes difficult to see how perceptions could provide us with direct access to the external world; therefore, epistemological idealism would seem to be much more plausible than naive realism. Even if one somehow adopts the inferential view that our sense perceptions correspond with reality, he would still have to answer the question of how we could have acquired knowledge about a physical world in the first place. In order for this idea to work out it seems necessary that we believe in some kind of empiricism or rationalism; but this has already been refuted by Hume and Kant respectively. So I don't think there is any way around accepting idealism. I will now try to provide some reasons why the concept of objectivity is a necessary one. First, if there were no such thing as objective reality then it would mean that all our knowledge about the world around us could simply be just a creation of our mind and nothing more; in other words, everything we think we know about the outside world could be an illusion or erroneous belief. This seems absurd because how can humans possibly acquire knowledge about anything if their sense perceptions are not representing reality but rather another representation entirely? If this view were true then science itself would have been impossible since scientists rely upon empirical investigation which obviously requires them to trust in their senses. What is even more interesting, and perhaps most puzzling of all, is that humans seem to have an innate sense of objectivity. It seems as though there exists some inborn intuition within us which tells us that reality exists objectively outside our minds. This means that our very ability to form beliefs about objective reality presupposes its existence; so if you reject this idea then it would mean denying your own cognitive faculties.
@Nick Williams I guess I need to start at the end. Derivation is just one of the many false ideas in the relic of empiricism. In science, nothing is derived. Please define accurate. This whole explanation cannot possibly be correct because it assumes that genes somehow have reach. They do not. Claims like "it all comes down to the feedback loop..." are too simplistic. Also, humans are different from any other animals. All other animals are adapted to their niche. We can adapt to any environment by using our creativity to change said environment. I figure this is a bot. What do you think? First of all, I believe that an objective reality exists and that we can have knowledge about said reality and that all of our sense experiences can give us indirect knowledge of reality. But all we could possibly be able to "perceive" is tiny crackles of electricity in the neurons of our brain. Nevertheless, we create knowledge about objective reality from within.
@UCVlGsRfmmBBr1KqQJdKTeoQ Compelling Points. What is your take that we live in a simulation for the purpose of entertainment? The creators are bored with their own reality and decided to create this one, which is modeled after ours. Humans are here to amuse the creators. The purpose of humans is to entertain, as in a game or sport. The creators can't directly influence or control humans because they want to see natural human behavior, but they do direct the simulation when needed for purposes of entertainment. Humans are just pawns in the simulation. They're not aware that they are pawns, because they have no direct evidence to suggest otherwise. Humans are not conscious, but they're programmed to act like it. They behave in a way that is on par with human consciousness. The human brain is a simulation. It's an illusion that the creators have created which acts like a real brain. Thoughts?
@@compellingpoint7802 There is, of course, no way to prove this set of ideas as incorrect. This is true of all solipsistic philosophies and it is true my own philosophy, Explanatory Realism. I believe that there is an external reality. I believe that this reality does affect the senses. I also believe that all knowledge is indirect and it is within and not outside the mind. You posit creators. The only known creators are human beings. Human beings are the only known entities that can create new knowledge. The human mind is a virtual reality rendering set of organic software-like processes. The process of rendering is to provide possible explanations from which the best can be chosen. I think the idea about simulation is just an overelaboration of realism. That is, the idea is just realism with the extra and unnecessary claim about creators. As I said, I think that all creators are humans.
16:10 excellent questions by kuhn. 1. He assumes that all fitness function are equally probable and zero to the homomorphism of objective/physical reality, because evolutionary game theory as it stands gives no other option donald replies. 2. Can’t it be that some fitness functions outcomes are close to homomorphism of objective reality, maybe some gradient and not exactly zero. Donald Replies that he would be happy to know the biases on the payout of these outcomes. (I- think that this is where he is making mistake, but let’s see) Nothing in spacetime has any causal ability. Think of grand theft auto, you have this stearing wheel and rotating that right takes you to the right and vice versa, that's useful fiction, but when it comes developing that game, that steering wheel does nothing, you have much deeper knowlidge of softwares. This is what nature has done, given us causal power(useful fiction) as neurons(pixel). But it's when we come to understanding real nature of the system like hard problem of consciousness, we start looking into it. So to understand the nature of consciousness, we have to give up the fiction of spacetime or neurons as having some causal power. This fiction is fine for most everyday science. This is what biting us in solving the hard problem of consciousness. We have to have a deeper theory of how consicousness works and then exeperience of spacetime emerges. We cannot start with space time as they are game evolution has given us.
Plants have an interesting fitness function. They don't choose their mating partners much, insects do it for them, by flying from flower to flower. And so all the colorfulness of the flower plant life, which is their fitness, comes from an eye on a large set of insects. Another interesting example could be a bacteria that hasn't mutated for millions of years, yet still lives. That would have close to perfect fitness. A bacteria without notion of reality having perfect fitness? Gradient of your homomorphism is zero I'd say. That is in this border case. Then extend this case with a fact that all mutations are probable, along with the probability of no mutation, and all you get is there is no creature better fit than this bacteria.
1_This makes me want to explore sensory deprivation. Anybody been down that rabbit hole? 2_Is particle/wave duality a crack in the veil between our perception and reality? Fascinating topic!
@@sirsiralot7635 He was interviewed by RLK in an earlier Closer to Truth segment (they are sitting outdoors in a park). Hoffman has also been interviewed by others (Robert Wright, Michael Shermer)
Hoffman's theory is very logical when you just sit down and think about it. It makes so much sense. How could any experience at all be embedded into reality in the way we're naively intuiting? Experience of smell, sight, touch, anything at all? These are all qualia. Every measurement of reality we ever made is measuring qualia. It is perfectly logical that reality doesn't look like anything at all because there's no such thing as appearance within reality. It's not a parameter that exists independently of someone's visual cortex. It's just one way to interpret reality, just like sound is another. These ways of interpreting reality are incredibly useful, for sure, and they're profoundly complex and advanced - but we're being fooled by their complexity into thinking they actually are reality. They sure do describe reality in some way, but they're as similar to reality as a written story is similar to a story really happening in the present moment. As similar as the nature of a spoken word is similar to the nature of the written word. Not similar at all. If there is such a thing as consensus reality at all, because perhaps this is all reality is - qualia based on magic we will never be able to scientifically explain.
Would have to agree with you. Hoffman, with his theory, has supposedly run many "game simulations" on this, in part I think, to develop a math equation to support his theory. He has said that he & his students/colleagues have moved from over 100,000 sims to over a million. These sims show that of two equally healthy & fit organisms, the organism that sees the payoff, survived & moves on through evolution & and the organism that sees the "truth", doesn't - (think I got that right). The latter then doesn't appear on the stage of life at all. If this is true, why is it the "latter organism" continues to show up throughout evolution?
In which basic way is what Donald Hoffman is concluding is different from what Kant had concluded quite sometime ago that our senses in noway can expose the thing-in-itself ("true structure of objective reality")? Or, in the evolution part of the discussion, isn't he telling us in certain modern terms an old story with the same ending? About consciousness being more fundamental than spacetime, hopefully, we don't have to wait "ten thousand years from now" to know the status of Hoffman's speculation. Many thanks for presenting the discussion and the succinct questions.
Great interview, thanks for the upload. I reckon the arrow towards the humanly comprehensible truth about the nature of reality at the moment, is pointing mainly to the intersection of the works of Terence Mckenna, Robert Anton Wilson and Donald Hoffman.
I have few questions on this model. Hopefully someone can help me out. 1) Is meaning assumed to be a fundamental experience or should it be derived from the basic assumption? 2) what about the unconscious? 3) what is he actually assuming for granted at the very minimum?
Hoffman asserts that the world studied by scientists is like the virtual world of a video game. So, learning the rules and dynamics of Grand Theft Auto, for example, does not give a player any insight into the reality of how a computer works. Hoffman then uses evolution by natural selection to justify his “headset” view of reality. However, evolution by natural selection was discovered by observing the rules and dynamics of the natural world (the world in the headset). By Hoffman’s own argument, the observations of the rules and dynamics of the natural world (headset world) that led to the theory of evolution by natural section should not give any insight into the true nature of reality. By his own reasoning, he is relying on the invalid conclusions drawn from observing the headset world (evolution) to justify his theory of reality.
Im so excited about this theory! Im glad you gave him a better shake this time now that he is further along. This theory goes with everything. DMT and the DMT 👽, spirituality, and fits well with my own beliefs. Amazing!
If you read the article it doesn't mention taking psychedelics it shows that DMT is already produced in your body, and the latest research shows it acts as a neurotransmitter.
@@rubenwhitaker5547 So what. That has been known for a least a few decades. That doesn't mean it is safe. But I am sure it causes "spiritual" connections in those who are gullible enough to believe that there is no external reality.
yeah an arrogant robot lmao sucks when your ego clouds your research hahhahaha just kidding he's cool I think, alright alright im not kidding i mean it im gonna come clean lmao cool waste of time to hear this video i guess, making comments made it worth coming in to watch
I've listened to quite a few of Hoffman's talks about how we see or don't see the "real" reality then I have one very big question. What does that mean for all of our modern knowledge/understanding of the universe , the cosmos, and physics in general? Is all the information and understanding null and void??? If we can't trust our senses, and scientific technology that we have invented to expand our senses then what?
Exactly. "Nothing can be trusted! But my theory which has zero evidence ... Well, it can definitely be trusted!" This theory needs a lot more evidence ... There are a lot of people like Donald Hoffman that keep paving roads to worldviews where a new creative fiction is possible. I've seen these theories pop up over and over, as if fiction has what consciousness craves. There's nothing wrong with wanting a more satisfying, meaningful, safer and more entertaining worldview. But we need to be aware of how the enticement of fiction clouds our thinking, and biases our perceptions of reality ...
"See you tomorrow in Alpha Centauri!" 👏👏! Great quote. I am scared of Hoffman's statement being right...but I think he is... Definately we are only looking inside the headset and if the main matter was challenging to be resolved.... the current one being arisen by Hoffman is even way more harder.
55:49 ... oh, so you want to do that? it's easy : fast a lot, meditate a lot and, here's the key, wholeheartedly focus on one single of those invisible conscious agents.... sleep depravation works too. It's been there as old as the beginning of time, any Lama monk would agree. My experience is that if you take the easy way (DMT and all that shit) you get a certain kind of agent, but if you go the hard way (fasting, prayer, meditation...) you get another kind of "contact" of a totally different quality... power of e-quality.... by the way, this channel is like the most intelligent channel I've ever come thru in YT... congratulations and thank you the amazing work you are doing, this world needs it!
Perhaps what Dr Hoffman needs to do is plant some beans, carrots and apples. Tend them with appropriate water and fertilizer, then harvest them. Cook the fruit and vegetables according to a vegetarian cookbook you can find on Amazon, at the local bookshop or on a TV cookery show. If using a book, wait for delivery. Cook the food according to the instructions. Share the results with blindfolded friends or colleagues. Ask them if they can tell what they`ve eaten. If the food is not real and no other food is available, watch them slowly die.
The interaction between Robert and Don around the 18 minute mark is so damn good. Robert asks 2 profound questions concerning Don's theory and Don addresses them honestly and precisely. This conversation is on such a high level. Amazing.
I like his humility- the very spirit of true science.
well said, it think absolutely the same. True scientists know that we know very little about true reality.
disagree...
It's even more refreshing after listening to so many public figures during these past two years...
If only every scientist had this level of humility
@Pea4Brain so if he was not humile he is not a scientist?
@Pea4Brain explain humility?
What a great channel this is. You ask the things everyone wants to know.
Not enough people sadly. Lot of selfabsored people out there that are more interested in superficial crap.
@@obedientconsumer5056 Part of me is more envious of those who aren't worn down by these kinds of thoughts though! I think it is okay for people to find joy in the simplicity, it sounds like a lovely way to live
Started following Hoffman ~6 mos ago. Great interview
Me too same.. from India 👍🏻
@freedomclubLX
Super, I will. Thank you friend
🙋♂️🤠🇺🇲
freedomclubLX Totally! “More Than Allegory” is a great book.
freedomclubLX Bernardo Kastrup is brilliant, tons of insights.
He gives great food for thought
I remember a few years ago when Hoffman first appeared on this show. Robert seemed very unimpressed with his theory. I'm glad to see him back - Hoffman's book was a fascinating read!
Which book?
@@gfujigo The Case against Reality. It’s quiet good. Especially the chapter titled Gravity.
I’ve been trying to understand the interface theory for months and finally found an interviewer that helped me on my way with his questioning style. Thank you ;)
Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard wrote interface theory into Scientology.
@@snap-off5383 hitler drank water
@@ZalexMusic The topic we're actually talking about, "interface theory" is what the core of Scientology is based upon. My comment is not random, it is pertinent to the topic. I'm sorry you missed that _obvious_ pertinence.
@snap-off5383 is very interesting to know.
The biggest question for me is how Closer To Truth isn't ten times bigger than it is. Such an underrated channel!
I knew Robert would ask tough questions, i watched a ton of his videos, he explored this problem from every angle, and talked to the brightest people on the planet!
Very thought-provoking. I find it interesting that the theory that we only perceive an interface rather than reality itself is basically putting us back in the platonic cave looking at shadows.
Uiu UI I ou I I I uuuuu ouuuio I I I I I uiuuuuuuuu uouuui uiiuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuuuuiuuuu I uuuu u uuuuuu I u I iuiuuuuuu u I I u I iui I tt
We never left the cave.
Essentially. But that there is a true world composed of abstract, eternal "forms" beyond that is pure surmising. Rather think of Kant's utterly unknowable "Ding-an-sich."
When you think about it and, given we are capable of sensorily absorbing but a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was presumptuous--albeit 'natural'--of us to have so stridently insisted that things are just as they appear to be thus essentially knowable by us.
@@jamesbarlow6423 I think about that all the time.
@@joshuahutt . It's pretty amazing
Donald Hoffman has given me huge food for thought with his theory, wether it be correct or not
Want more? L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology is rife with interface theory, and similar postulates. Just read though, don't join.
this was one of the most awesome conversations I have been privileged to listen to in my whole entire life
"the sun's light when he unfolds it, depends on the organ that beholds it" William blake
Lovely. Thank you for this quote.
@Nick Williams natural selection, as I understand it, also leads to multi-combinatorial hit and miss selections, delaying replication and survival. It also degrades the life-info that already exists in the meantime. Above the level of the atom, the universe is grotesquely non-repeating. Long periods of time for selection works against this. This is true in the biosphere.
Zebra Zebra in the Night !
Do you really have those stripes
Or might Urizen be
Traps of thought imprisoning me !
Would that my soul could tranquil stray
On many a moonlit mountain way,
By cavernous haunts with ghostly shadows,
Or thread the silver of the meadows,
Released from learning's smoky stew
To lave me in the moonlit dew.
But, ah, this prison has my soul,
Damnable, bricked-in, cabined hole,
Where even the heaven's dear light must pass,
Saddened through the painted glass...🤔😵🙏😂 Wolfgang Goethe. " Faust"
The "Grand Theft Auto" steering wheel is just as much a mechanical contrivance as the Rack and Pinion of an automobile.
I suggest pursuing conscious as the only dimension giving birth to time and space..where time and space are revolving around the conscious dimension..evolving over the life span of the individuals and collapsing upon death. Hoffman is a great scholar with an immense grip over Physics, biology and computer science all emulgamating in the his research.. hats off
This guy gives me hope in meaning.
It is quite refreshing to have such a high caliber host, able to ask relevant intelligent questions, add above par commentary and discernment to the topic cogently and dynamically. Kudos and thanks to Mr. Kuhn. +1 Subbed, liked and bell rung.
Been listening to this series for years now. He is smarter than most people he interviews because his horizon is far wider, especially true this time. (As usually the case with mystics and theologians) Hoffman flounders but Robert stays polite but firm after presenting two death blows.
It is a rare occurrence indeed when Kuhn (the interviewer) fails to outshine the interviewee in his clarity, breadth, insight, honesty, and sometimes (alas) even plain old common sense. Especially in regards to consciousness: where everyone - except Kuhn! - seems to have settled for something or the other as the explanation closer to the truth.
😮😅
@@areezmody6916 oobob
Dr. Hoffman is breaking new grounds, where the gods may reside, where all was once magic, but now may become our new reality. How exciting this time of AI, computers, physics, and philosophy is and how lucky we are to be living now to witness this.
I appreciate Hoffman so much. All 13 of the Hoffman videos on this channel are excellent. He is well-spoken, thoughtful, humble. But above all, he is a true scientist who demands rigor and proof from himself and his team and all other scientists addressing the topic of consciousness. My thinking has changed dramatically because of him.
Love the art in Robert Lawrence's background!
Donald hoffman + rupert spira = future of science
Or... Kant already did this.
@@martinzarathustra8604true, extended by schopenhauer ;)
Two brilliant people having a brilliant conversation!!!!
Please bring Bernardo Kastrup to the chats! I would love to see Robert and Bernardo doing some metaphysics/philosophy of mind
Bernardo Kastrup is very intelligent, bus has a lesser skill in talking to new people to this theory. Donald Hoffman can translate the same message to a broader public.
This is unbelievable! Amazing succinct interview, smart challenging questions. Hoffman is brilliant. Reminds me of the scene in Terminator where Kyle is being interrogated by the detectives and they obviously don’t believe he’s travelled from the future but he answers all of their questions with such internal consistency that they can’t fault him ... but they conclude he’s crazy and in reality Kyle actually is from the future and has a handle on true reality!!! Clearly Hoffman’s thought deeply about everything.
I love the headset analogy. This is progress from the hard problem of consciousness. One question I had from earlier on is “would a NON-uniform probability distribution materially change the theory?” Secondly, is this similar to “are we living in a simulation?”
Keep up the awesome contribution to both these gentlemen!! 👏👏👏👍🏼✊🤔😀
Utter nonsense
No, Hoffman's arguments are entirely self-defeating.
This theory of consciousness is so much similar to some ancient eastern philosophies(like non - dual vedanta) which claims that (cosmic)consciousness alone is real in the cosmos and everything else, like universes, material world, people, etc, etc are visualized inside of this (cosmic) consciousness. There is a book written over a thousand years ago, exclusively on this topic, 'yoga vasistha' must read, it talks about having infinite number parallel universe, and how at fundamental level of reality, only consciousness is Real.
@activelink activdisc lol
Well this is how it is.
Conscious entities, not just consciousness.
The teachings of Yoga-vāśiṣṭha contradicts the possibility of having any experience, even in illusion, and are therefore obviously incorrect. I studied four translations of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha a quarter century ago before rejecting it in favor of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Spelling into duckduckgo search bar..." yoga vashistha.." (nod to op,) thank you.
The Yoga-vāśiṣṭha is mentioned in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta:
Advaita Ācārya said. CC Ādi 12.40: "Thus I expounded the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha, which considers liberation the ultimate goal of life. For this the Lord became angry at Me and treated Me with apparent disrespect."
Http://Www.vedabase.io/en/library/cc/adi/12
Śrīla Prabhupāda's purport says,
"There is a book of the name Yoga-vāśiṣṭha that Māyāvādīs greatly favor because it is full of impersonal misunderstandings regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with no touch of Vaiṣṇavism. Factually, all Vaiṣṇavas should avoid such a book, but Advaita Ācārya Prabhu, wanting punishment from the Lord, began to support the impersonal statements of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha. Thus Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu became extremely angry at Him and seemingly treated Him disrespectfully."
Robert, such a deeply engaging and intelligent conversation.
Thanks for getting Mr Hoffman on, well over due.
What would really be perhaps an even more fascinating conversation,
getting Donald and Bernardo Kastrup in the same room!
Have you interviewed Bernardo Kastrup yet?
There is one with both.
Sir Roger Penrose (Stephen Hawkings mentor) and in my book the cleverest man alive stated many years ago that computers will not become conscious, The penrose\hammerhoff objective reduction theory is worth consideration.
Yes I agree, especially since Orch-OR is a matter of Quantum Biology, & Quantum Biology is truly a growing new field of Biology and Quantum Chemistry
I'm a retired biologist and engineer, mostly worked in algaes and fungi in the aerospace field, (think fuel on Mars). I looked at cyanobacteria which are the earliest fossils found at 3.5 billion years ago. I do not think we will create a conscious AI until we can create an artificial DNA with a quadrary system instead of the binary system we have to work with now. I will not say cyanobacteria is conscious, but it has instincts. Inanimate objects do not have instincts or any other type of consciousness, but living organisms do. Chemical actions and reactions are NOT instincts please, unless built into the system by an intelligent organism i.e. a chemist.
My son is a doctor and has a computer programmer friend who is totally intrigued by my conjectures of making a computer with a quadrary base instead of a binary system. Problem he is having is that he cannot figure out a 4 part system.
@@MountainFisher Depending on your thinking we come down to the age old debate of whether matter creates mind or does mind create matter. Many scientists are on board with this reality being virtual and created in other. Other as in outside of our reality. In this case we would say mind created matter which would make it impossible to create consciousness as consciousness (other or mind) is the computer that created this reality and is therefore located outside of our existence. If on the other hand matter created mind then conscious computers would be a distinct possibility.
@@MountainFisher I forgot to add the perplexing hard problem of consciousness. Even if your idea (looks very interesting!) does create some kind of consciousness proving that consciousness exists is incredibly difficult. We could in theory create a robot with advanced AI which would act just like a human and we would not know if it was human or robot. The hard problem of consciousness needs to be addressed first before we can attempt to create consciousness.
@@MountainFisher set of instincts organized and priorotized by intelligence is the consciousness (loop) lead to more complex instinct structures and higher intelligence. The one Cyanobacteria that evolved (mutated) is perceived to be more conscious to it's peers. Thank to their great oxygenation event that has changed the life form as we know it.
Thank you Robert for providing such high quality documentaries
I really like Donald’s theory and his mindset / mentality.
It's same old theory wrapped in shiny new wrapper. Even ancient theistic texts explicitly say that this "reality" is an illusion akin to smoke.
I'm glad Donald gets the attention he deserves. He is one of the pioneers of new scientific paradigm. I want to see him on Joe Rogan podcast.
Great interview. You asked all the questions that I wished others who interviewed him would of. 👍
or have*
Quoting from the article linked below:
"Even if we were to confirm that the spatio-temporal world is a holographic image that reflects some sort of transcendent intelligence/idea/datum, we could still point to (and speak of) the phenomena of biological evolution (as we currently understand it) as having taken place over the last several hundred million years, but we would also subordinate that phenomena to the more precise understanding that the real cause of these apparent processes transcends the flow of appearances in time and space (somewhat as we now subordinate our experience of the rising and the setting of the sun to our more precise understanding of the solar system).
[NOTE: Immanuel Kant lays the groundwork for this distinction in his discussion of “The Fourth Antinomy” in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics:
Thesis: In the Series of the World-Causes there is some necessary Being.
Antithesis: There is Nothing necessary in the World, but in this Series All is incidental.
He concludes the section as follows:
“…provided the cause in the appearance is distinguished from the cause of the appearance (so far as it can be thought as a thing in itself), both propositions are perfectly reconcilable: the one, that there is nowhere in the sensuous world a cause (according to similar laws of causality), whose existence is absolutely necessary; the other, that this world is nevertheless connected with a Necessary Being as its cause (but of another kind and according to another law). The incompatibility of these propositions entirely rests upon the mistake of extending what is valid merely of appearances to things in themselves, and in general confusing both in one concept.” ]
Leaving aside the holographic universe, however- along with Kant’s fourth antinomy -let us turn to the hard problem of consciousness which refers to the fact that we cannot seem to arrive at an understanding of consciousness through the analysis of matter and material processes alone. Even Sam Harris- one of the so-called new atheists -acknowledges this problem in his recent work on spirituality without religion, Waking Up:
“However we propose to explain the emergence of consciousness-be it in biological, functional, computational, or any other terms-we have committed ourselves to this much: First there is a physical world, unconscious and seething with unperceived events; then, by virtue of some physical property or process, consciousness itself springs, or staggers, into being. This idea seems to me not merely strange but perfectly mysterious. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When we linger over the details, however, this notion of emergence seems merely a placeholder for a miracle” (56).
“The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand- that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment -is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place” (79).
jwayneferguson.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/the-cause-in-appearances-vs-the-cause-of-appearances/
Mr Ferguson. We see cars and houses and say that they are real and part of our conscious reality. We are also smart enough to know that people made them. But when we look at the moon, it is as real as the cars and houses but we are smart enough to know that people didn’t make it. But SOMEBODY did as it is there and we are conscious of it. So WHO made it then ? I believe the answer can be tied to the fact that we are conscious of it and it gives us pleasure in its beauty and wonder. But I don’t the moon looks down upon us and admires us humans. I don’t think it even knows we are here or even that we exist - because it does not appear to be connected to the consciousness that humans have and use to think and imagine and to dream and create and experience and get memories and feelings. All the things (including the moon) that neither science or physics or religion can explain or describe or dissect and put under a microscope or in a mathematical equation. Reading about the sensation of smelling a freshly squeezed lemon will never come close to the actual conscious experience of it. Now consider this: those connected to consciousness are able to experience the universe and appreciate its beauty and wonder. In the same way that those who have consciousness and appreciation of the Mona Lisa, we also appreciate the universe. But rocks and sticks and animals and water and mud never line up to see and stare at the Mona Lisa, or the moon. So that separates everything in the universe to things that are creations and things that create creations and appreciate them through consciousness. So I think that consciousness made the moon. And everything in the universe, including these self replicating biological computers with sensory systems attached that we call human beings. And if you consider the parallels between humans and computers, there are many, and I don’t think it’s just coincidental. And that is probably because they were both made by consciousness. I think we sleep for the same reason we have shut down periods for computers to allow for uploads, downloads and upgrades. And also to let them cool down so that they don’t burn out from continuous use, just like us. If you pull the plug on a computer if will stop working. And if our human biological systems don’t get food water and oxygen, then they will also stop working. Does a computer know that it has been shut off? I don’t think so. It’s not hooked up to consciousness to understand that. And humans can be kept from accepting conscious data when it is given drugs from medical people or from sleeping but we still have an unconscious connection, which is what we call dreams, or hypnotized. And we can wake up from a scary dream that was so realistic that we were tossing and twisting and bolted out of sleep in a quick fright, until we wake up enough to realize we are in bed and not in that scary situation that woke us up. So how are we connected from our human bodies to consciousness. Probably in a similar way that computers and satellites are connected to drones down on earth. So what is the universe? Just a really big and great holographic movie with 3-D effects due to time that moves by us and makes it all seem so real. But how can that all be? Well if you consider that at the other end of consciousness are beings from a higher dimension and not encumbered by time or space, then these lifetimes, which seem to last for years and years, is only a few moments up there. Like an interactive ride at Disneyland. The parallels go on and on and on. Even the speed of light, which is a constant, is parallel to a movie projector that runs at the same constant speed to give the illusion that the pictures are moving and seem so real. And think about this: would you pay money to see a guy with wings playing a harp for an hour and a half or would you rather pay to see The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan. All the killing and madness and drama of this earth can be explained just like a movie, where we know after a scene is on film and the Director is happy, “it’s a wrap!” And all the “dead” actors get up and go to the lunch truck for a drink or snack until the next scene to be filmed. It’s FAKE. We know that when we see a movie but it’s nice to pretend for a few hours and enjoy and appreciate and maybe even love the experience and feelings and the memories it’s gives us. All the things we perceive through these sophisticated “headsets” we call a human body via consciousness, all of which scientists can’t touch or explain but can be taken with us when we leave this theater (universe) we are currently inside of and experiencing. And that’s also the reason you can’t “take it with you when you ‘die’ “ because it was all just an illusion. Otherwise we would see U-Hauls behind every hearse. But the Egyptian Pharaohs tried that and we see how that worked out. Would love to discuss more in greater details. And no, I’m not crazy, my mother had me checked when I was a kid. (Sheldon on Big Bang Theory). 👍
imagine you put away your headset and seeing some aliens standing there laughing at you
Hmmm, perhaps using DMT (or meditating) is like putting aside your headset? let's hope the aliens are not holding a can of raid. Hoffman is just amazing!
I've been reading Swedenborg and he says exactly the same thing but he uses the word angels instead of aliens!
Perhaps psychedelics soften the limitations of our consciousness within this reality.
Guess I’m not smart enough to follow what they are saying
I'm really happy that a brilliant scientist is moving in the right direction.
I don't know who impresses me more - Kuhn as interviewer or Hoffman as interviewee. This was quite the tango.
His Lost in our Head Set, theory, is riveting. It dove tails with so many unanswered questions in cosmology, physics, consciousness…I think we’ve all been fooled by our own perceptions
Agree
Really great, but short, conversation with Mr. Hoffman. I think his hypothesis on both evolution and consciousness are both groundbreaking and worthy of many years of consideration. Until we have a better understanding of the hard problem of consciousness, science will always have its skeptics that have a loophole back to a God theory. Not that I’m against a God theory...if that really is the truth, then I’d like scientific evidence for it as much as I’d like scientific evidence against it. I like that Mr. Hoffman is going after the hard problem with such fervent vigor and getting humans to think about this in new ways that might move things forward after such a long period of going nowhere really.
Best channel on RUclips.
The last ten minutes of this interview absolutely blew my mind
Truly remarkable evidence that shows how conscious process of understanding is far beyond any computation.
At last, a respectful, interesting, even inspiring channel for debate. Excellent.
Finally got my google settings to allow me to make a comment😏😣 Anyhow.... I’ve been following DH for a few years now and have read many of his papers. I love his approach and presentational style. I think that he’s really onto something and his ideas are for me mind-blowing. This latest video is excellent and gets into more details than some of his earlier ones, which for seasoned followers like me is a bonus. I’m less wedded to his conscious agent theory, but his interface theory of perception is plenty to consider for me and at it’s roots, deeply profound. I struggle to get my head around a few of the concepts. If one could remove our 3D space-time VR headset to reveal “X”, how would we know this was true reality and not the projection of some other VR headset? It could be “headsets all the way down”! Thus while I am happy to accept that what we experience is a representation from our “brain” (this seems to be increasingly mainstream science view), I’m not sure we will ever be able to experience veridical reality. And even if we ever did how would we ever know for sure. It also must be possible that evolution doesn’t function the same in the real world as we understand it in the 3D space time world, which challenges his dependence on evolution game theory. What also keeps me us at night is the notion that we / scientists are using our “brain” to show that our brain is in essence making up reality - trapped inside a skull fed only by electrical impulses. Indeed according to DH our brain itself is only a representation of some thing else in the veridical reality. If we cannot rely on our brain for accuracy, then we’re rather stuck. Finally, in DHs interface world I’m never sure where “the past” fits in? Thinking of a dinosaur bone say, this is but an icon, but for what, if time isn’t real? And all the records we have of historical events, these too are icons in our VR game, but how do they relate to the veridical world? Plenty to meditate upon and looking forward to DH’s next offering.
I would think as your consciousness evolves then that would necessitate a better VR. The bit size of the interface would keep doubling. The reality files would be less and less compressed. What would be really weird is if the real reality looked like our actual computer desktops. I came to Hoffman after I discovered Hawking's holographic principle. I thought what if everything is occurring on a 2d surface like a computer desktop. The flat earthers may be right after all.
Great insights. Thanks.
Excellent interview. Great to hear some more recent Hoffman, thanks.
I’m a year late, but WOW this discussion was incredible. Mr Hoffman’s ideas about consciousness sounds, or rings, true to me. Somehow I think I understand where he’s going with this. I hope it pans out, I like the idea of unbounded infinite conscious agents. Brilliant! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Agree
What I want to see in our lifetime is a way to interpret brain activity through scans during sleep to reproduce a dumbed down visual representation of someone's dreams and then use a similar process to find out what is going on during REM sleep that is different from regular dreaming and see if that has a hint behind any other mysteries of the mind or reality and maybe unlock some of the rejuvenative properties of sleep.
RLK is a phenomenal mind. DH is a phenomenal mind. Amazing interview. If you're looking for a deep technical analysis of Hoffman's theory, check out his 3 hour interview on Theories of Everything with Curt
Thanks
Super exciting conversation. Thank you both:
The nature of objective reality is *CONSCIOUSNESS* plain n simple.
I have watched many conversations and interviews with Donald Hoffman and this is the best one yet.
If this is him at his best he's in serious trouble.
@@b.g.5869 Hoffman is terrible. However, I love this channel in general.
Waiting years to see you guys chat again.
I just watched Dr Hoffman and I like what I am listening to.
I think Hoffman will be mentioned among the greats like Einstein. God is smiling and saying “ your getting warmer”
Great conversation. I just wish i could figure out what they’re talking about.
Hoffman's theories are facinating. Here's my problem, though: Hoffman posits that evolution favored the development of senses that give us something akin to a computer interface rather than an actual view of reality. Even space-time, objects (like neurons) and basic causality do not actualy exist, he says, but are merely part of an interface. Yet, space-time and causality MUST exist for evolution to take place. And without evolution we could not have developed the interface Hoffman proposes. Or am I missing something?
In his book D.Hoffman brings up the idea of universal Darwinism which states that evolutional principles apply not only to sth implemented in spacetime but rather it's an algorithm that works beyond that structure:
"The insight that Darwin’s algorithm applies not just to the evolution of
organic beings but also, with some changes, to a variety of other domains, is
called universal Darwinism.
9
(Richard Dawkins coined the term when
arguing that Darwin’s algorithm governs the evolution of life not just on
earth but anywhere in the universe.) Universal Darwinism, unlike the
modern theory of biological evolution, does not assume the existence of
physical objects in space and time. It is an abstract algorithm, with no
commitment to substrates that implement it."
Though the theory is based on causality which in this sense seems to disprove itself
Love these... Brilliant Robert.. Donald
I like all your videos but I think this one has got something to it and I think you probably agree. Thank you. Dave
Awesome.. fantastic last question and the answer blows my mind
Its a crime that this channel is not the No1 channel on youtube.
If that was the case, the world would be in a much better place
I have no reason to doubt that there is an inaccessible superstructure supporting the universe that we experience; Complete with God as programmer.
Mankind is poised to tap into that superstructure. It is mind bending to consider the outcomes and consequences to that. Could it be that Revelation takes place completely in this environment?
@@BeachBumZero Synchronicity.
Theistic interpretations of Hoffman's work are just...wrong. You could in some sense say that a "god-like being/thing" that started the universe is part of this sort of superstructure, but in no way would it mean that this being or thing is a personal God which happens to be the one from the religion that is most prominent where you were raised.
I just got in studying and meditating and expand open consciousness and it has helped me. I have started meditation and it really helps me. Want to learn more.
Amazing interview
Consciousness is the king no doubt. It creates a city and people in a jiffy in dream and also in waking state. Space can be compressed and expanded at will. Time can be speeded or slowed..Amazing what it achieves so effortlessly.Then it gets disinterested and lie dormant while sleeping..Amazing..
Time cannot be sped up or slowed down at will. It is just your notion that sometimes it flies and sometimes it drags. It is interesting, because without this notion of time, the whole system would be in trouble.
The system that provides consciousness is actually simple, it is a loop. This loop consists of 5 components, a neural network, a human brain for example, then a thought "let's move a leg", then the leg moves, then our sensors pick up the signal from there and we see the leg has moved, and the signal gets passed to the same neural network, like closing the loop. That is all the necessary machinery for consciousness to arise each morning and turn off to autopilot to save some energy during night. It is amazing it does that. Why don't it just stays awake once it woke up?
Donald is my man.very humble and his analysis i respect alot.🙂
I loved that segue to Fermi's Paradox
Wow, amazing show. One of the best so far. It's a big question, how much evolution has designed us to see what Reality really is.
Don Hoffman's research portrays the material cosmos very similar to how the Vedas describe it, which is very impressive considering he seems to not have studied the Vedas at all.
He does meditate... See his interview on buddha at gas pump
He said he meditates 3 hrs per day.
The Vedas teach the structure of the universe, not just how to meditate.
So happy for this content. Thank you so much!
My dream come true. Thank you Dr. Kuhn. I have been wanting to see you interviewing Dr. Hoffman.
They talked a long time ago.
I’m an experienced man and my science comes from nature, and by the nature’s way I’m proving the subjects, and I believe that you can learn from nature , deeply and experimentally.
,
Hoffman is absolutely brilliant ! Most humans don't realize they are living in their own dream !
How about you?
I know for sure that reality is holographic, because when i had sleep deprivation things happened that were impossible to explain. I'ts almost like having a computer bug on an online game and nobody else can see it. The brain delay experiment proves that there's a ten second time lag before the brain renders reality, so there must be some truth to it. Great videos, they keep me sane in these crazy times.
this is really interesting I experienced it often…is there any more info about it? :D
I'd like to know what impossible things happened during your sleep deprivation?
Sticking with his video game analogy, the functions in the game (gas pedals, streets and doors etc..) are still necessarily related to the programming so there is some relationship between the UI in the game and the source code that constitutes actual objective reality, in other words we can glean some insight into the source code just by observing how the game works as long as we understand the principles and by which the game works. Somebody recently figured out the code for Mario 64 by writing a program that recreates the C code nearly perfectly by analyzing the game itself. A sophisticated enough AI can certainly figure out the source code without seeing it. I suspect that the physical laws underlying the standard model, quantum theory and gravity can be figured out in a similar way.
He’s saying that the probability that the game (grand theft auto) is the same as the hardware and software that it runs on is 0, which is true, and that what we see as objective reality has to be an interface between us and the true engine that drives all of physical reality.
I make my comment in the first six minutes of this video, because I am very exited and I don't want to loose this feeling! This is a very very interesting theory of reality! Because all our culture is based in the way our mind/brain perceive the world! But we are only humans...
Amazing, truly amazing, but I still have to go to work tomorrow!
Hoffman is very creative.... we are interface of experience of consciousness...
Does this mean that we must be able to communicate in the objective reality to synchronize our realities and not realize it in the spacetime reality? Assuming there is more than me in the universe.
Just thinking; In the objective reality, as individual consciousnesses, we could be like a neuron (or a point in time and space) interwoven with others to form a neural network
Objective reality is an elusive concept which people often try to define, but their attempts are usually unsuccessful because there is no clear way of defining it. It has been defined as the world that exists independently of a human being's mind or perception in philosophy and science.
If one asks oneself 'how can we know what objective reality really is?' then the answer depends on whether you think that humans have access to such knowledge at all by virtue of our sense perceptions. If you believe we do not have direct access to objective reality through sense experience (and I tend towards this view), then how does one go about acquiring knowledge about the nature of objective reality? One might be inclined to say that it must be acquired through some sort of empirical investigation. But whence comes our idea upon which basis this knowledge should be based? The problem with empiricism seems apparent: its assumption is that we can reach out into the external world and obtain information from physical objects directly with our senses; therefore, if you reject empiricism for any reason whatsoever, there would seem little hope for forming beliefs about anything regarding an independent physical world.
I have already provided my own answer to the question of what objective reality is, but I will further elaborate here.
To begin with, there are two ways to view our knowledge about physical objects: (1) through a direct perception in which we are aware of an object; and (2) through inferential reasoning which only provides us with probable knowledge about such objects. If one thinks that one can directly perceive an object then it might be said that he holds a naive realism position on his epistemology. But this seems absurd because how could one ever know if any particular sense experience is really representative of objective reality or not? How does one know whether they haven't just been deceived by their senses? The best way I can think of dealing with this problem would seem to be trying various experiments in order to discover what kinds of sensory stimuli correspond most closely with actual physical objects.
If one holds an inferential view of knowledge, then it seems that he has to accept some kind of idealism in which physical objects are not fundamental. As we all know, a basic assumption for almost everyone is the belief that there exists a physical world and humans have reliable sense organs and cognitive faculties with which they can discover information about this world. The problem with such an assumption is that if you adopt an inferential view then it becomes difficult to see how perceptions could provide us with direct access to the external world; therefore, epistemological idealism would seem to be much more plausible than naive realism.
Even if one somehow adopts the inferential view that our sense perceptions correspond with reality, he would still have to answer the question of how we could have acquired knowledge about a physical world in the first place. In order for this idea to work out it seems necessary that we believe in some kind of empiricism or rationalism; but this has already been refuted by Hume and Kant respectively. So I don't think there is any way around accepting idealism.
I will now try to provide some reasons why the concept of objectivity is a necessary one. First, if there were no such thing as objective reality then it would mean that all our knowledge about the world around us could simply be just a creation of our mind and nothing more; in other words, everything we think we know about the outside world could be an illusion or erroneous belief. This seems absurd because how can humans possibly acquire knowledge about anything if their sense perceptions are not representing reality but rather another representation entirely? If this view were true then science itself would have been impossible since scientists rely upon empirical investigation which obviously requires them to trust in their senses.
What is even more interesting, and perhaps most puzzling of all, is that humans seem to have an innate sense of objectivity. It seems as though there exists some inborn intuition within us which tells us that reality exists objectively outside our minds. This means that our very ability to form beliefs about objective reality presupposes its existence; so if you reject this idea then it would mean denying your own cognitive faculties.
If you really are a robot, I apologize. But if you are not, I don't apologize. It reads like a bot's response.
@Nick Williams I guess I need to start at the end. Derivation is just one of the many false ideas in the relic of empiricism. In science, nothing is derived. Please define accurate. This whole explanation cannot possibly be correct because it assumes that genes somehow have reach. They do not. Claims like "it all comes down to the feedback loop..." are too simplistic. Also, humans are different from any other animals. All other animals are adapted to their niche. We can adapt to any environment by using our creativity to change said environment.
I figure this is a bot. What do you think? First of all, I believe that an objective reality exists and that we can have knowledge about said reality and that all of our sense experiences can give us indirect knowledge of reality. But all we could possibly be able to "perceive" is tiny crackles of electricity in the neurons of our brain. Nevertheless, we create knowledge about objective reality from within.
@UCVlGsRfmmBBr1KqQJdKTeoQ Compelling Points. What is your take that we live in a simulation for the purpose of entertainment? The creators are bored with their own reality and decided to create this one, which is modeled after ours.
Humans are here to amuse the creators. The purpose of humans is to entertain, as in a game or sport.
The creators can't directly influence or control humans because they want to see natural human behavior, but they do direct the simulation when needed for purposes of entertainment.
Humans are just pawns in the simulation. They're not aware that they are pawns, because they have no direct evidence to suggest otherwise.
Humans are not conscious, but they're programmed to act like it. They behave in a way that is on par with human consciousness.
The human brain is a simulation. It's an illusion that the creators have created which acts like a real brain. Thoughts?
@@compellingpoint7802 So I guess this is a grad student at University of California-Ventura?
@@compellingpoint7802 There is, of course, no way to prove this set of ideas as incorrect. This is true of all solipsistic philosophies and it is true my own philosophy, Explanatory Realism. I believe that there is an external reality. I believe that this reality does affect the senses. I also believe that all knowledge is indirect and it is within and not outside the mind. You posit creators. The only known creators are human beings. Human beings are the only known entities that can create new knowledge. The human mind is a virtual reality rendering set of organic software-like processes. The process of rendering is to provide possible explanations from which the best can be chosen. I think the idea about simulation is just an overelaboration of realism. That is, the idea is just realism with the extra and unnecessary claim about creators. As I said, I think that all creators are humans.
At last..Donald Hoffman 😎
Thank you
You are looking great Robert ! This is my go to channel for interesting and deep conversations !
Excellent. I just wish there was follow up on what he meant by new portals into consciousness. Details. Great video though. Thank you.
Started following Dr. Hoffman bout 2 years ago. He reminds me of a Super-dooper Robert Anton Wilson in his "aidingness" in our Quest.
New closer to the truth!
16:10 excellent questions by kuhn. 1. He assumes that all fitness function are equally probable and zero to the homomorphism of objective/physical reality, because evolutionary game theory as it stands gives no other option donald replies.
2. Can’t it be that some fitness functions outcomes are close to homomorphism of objective reality, maybe some gradient and not exactly zero.
Donald Replies that he would be happy to know the biases on the payout of these outcomes. (I- think that this is where he is making mistake, but let’s see)
Nothing in spacetime has any causal ability.
Think of grand theft auto, you have this stearing wheel and rotating that right takes you to the right and vice versa, that's useful fiction, but when it comes developing that game, that steering wheel does nothing, you have much deeper knowlidge of softwares.
This is what nature has done, given us causal power(useful fiction) as neurons(pixel).
But it's when we come to understanding real nature of the system like hard problem of consciousness, we start looking into it.
So to understand the nature of consciousness, we have to give up the fiction of spacetime or neurons as having some causal power. This fiction is fine for most everyday science. This is what biting us in solving the hard problem of consciousness. We have to have a deeper theory of how consicousness works and then exeperience of spacetime emerges.
We cannot start with space time as they are game evolution has given us.
Plants have an interesting fitness function. They don't choose their mating partners much, insects do it for them, by flying from flower to flower. And so all the colorfulness of the flower plant life, which is their fitness, comes from an eye on a large set of insects.
Another interesting example could be a bacteria that hasn't mutated for millions of years, yet still lives. That would have close to perfect fitness. A bacteria without notion of reality having perfect fitness? Gradient of your homomorphism is zero I'd say. That is in this border case. Then extend this case with a fact that all mutations are probable, along with the probability of no mutation, and all you get is there is no creature better fit than this bacteria.
@@KasiusKlej Orchids actually use visual mimicry to trick bees into pollinating them.
21:00, challenge thrown
This is the next step in our understanding of the universe. Through the human mind.
Wonderful.
1_This makes me want to explore sensory deprivation. Anybody been down that rabbit hole?
2_Is particle/wave duality a crack in the veil between our perception and reality?
Fascinating topic!
The holographic principle and quantum entanglement are two big cracks in our perception of space/time.
Donald is a Enlightened being..
I've been hoping for these two to talk!
They talked a long time ago.
@@jps0117 Ohh, I was unaware of this. I will have to look for that, thanks :)
@@sirsiralot7635 He was interviewed by RLK in an earlier Closer to Truth segment (they are sitting outdoors in a park). Hoffman has also been interviewed by others (Robert Wright, Michael Shermer)
Fantastic, i also think this is somewhat elegant
I love this pondering. So close to actually seeing.
Edging closer and closer to The truth “we are three fold beings; physical, spiritual and The unutterable”
Interesting and provocative!
Hoffman's theory is very logical when you just sit down and think about it. It makes so much sense. How could any experience at all be embedded into reality in the way we're naively intuiting? Experience of smell, sight, touch, anything at all? These are all qualia. Every measurement of reality we ever made is measuring qualia. It is perfectly logical that reality doesn't look like anything at all because there's no such thing as appearance within reality. It's not a parameter that exists independently of someone's visual cortex. It's just one way to interpret reality, just like sound is another.
These ways of interpreting reality are incredibly useful, for sure, and they're profoundly complex and advanced - but we're being fooled by their complexity into thinking they actually are reality.
They sure do describe reality in some way, but they're as similar to reality as a written story is similar to a story really happening in the present moment. As similar as the nature of a spoken word is similar to the nature of the written word. Not similar at all. If there is such a thing as consensus reality at all, because perhaps this is all reality is - qualia based on magic we will never be able to scientifically explain.
Would have to agree with you. Hoffman, with his theory, has supposedly run many "game simulations" on this, in part I think, to develop a math equation to support his theory. He has said that he & his students/colleagues have moved from over 100,000 sims to over a million. These sims show that of two equally healthy & fit organisms, the organism that sees the payoff, survived & moves on through evolution & and the organism that sees the "truth", doesn't - (think I got that right). The latter then doesn't appear on the stage of life at all.
If this is true, why is it the "latter organism" continues to show up throughout evolution?
In which basic way is what Donald Hoffman is concluding is different from what Kant had concluded quite sometime ago that our senses in noway can expose the thing-in-itself ("true structure of objective reality")?
Or, in the evolution part of the discussion, isn't he telling us in certain modern terms an old story with the same ending?
About consciousness being more fundamental than spacetime, hopefully, we don't have to wait "ten thousand years from now" to know the status of Hoffman's speculation.
Many thanks for presenting the discussion and the succinct questions.
I like the art work on your wall Robert
Great interview, thanks for the upload. I reckon the arrow towards the humanly comprehensible truth about the nature of reality at the moment, is pointing mainly to the intersection of the works of Terence Mckenna, Robert Anton Wilson and Donald Hoffman.
I have few questions on this model. Hopefully someone can help me out.
1) Is meaning assumed to be a fundamental experience or should it be derived from the basic assumption?
2) what about the unconscious?
3) what is he actually assuming for granted at the very minimum?
1) A state of consciousness
2) A mode of consciousness
3) That consciousness is the fundamental aspect of reality
Hoffman asserts that the world studied by scientists is like the virtual world of a video game. So, learning the rules and dynamics of Grand Theft Auto, for example, does not give a player any insight into the reality of how a computer works. Hoffman then uses evolution by natural selection to justify his “headset” view of reality. However, evolution by natural selection was discovered by observing the rules and dynamics of the natural world (the world in the headset). By Hoffman’s own argument, the observations of the rules and dynamics of the natural world (headset world) that led to the theory of evolution by natural section should not give any insight into the true nature of reality. By his own reasoning, he is relying on the invalid conclusions drawn from observing the headset world (evolution) to justify his theory of reality.
Great interview.
Im so excited about this theory! Im glad you gave him a better shake this time now that he is further along. This theory goes with everything. DMT and the DMT 👽, spirituality, and fits well with my own beliefs. Amazing!
Is it a good reason to continue taking hallucinogens?
Pat Moran, I would suggest reading this Nature Article www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w
@@rubenwhitaker5547 No thanks. I am not interested in taking hallucinogens.
If you read the article it doesn't mention taking psychedelics it shows that DMT is already produced in your body, and the latest research shows it acts as a neurotransmitter.
@@rubenwhitaker5547 So what. That has been known for a least a few decades. That doesn't mean it is safe. But I am sure it causes "spiritual" connections in those who are gullible enough to believe that there is no external reality.
D-Hoff’s voice is so soothing, like a sensual robot. Beep boop 😏
yeah an arrogant robot lmao sucks when your ego clouds your research hahhahaha just kidding he's cool I think, alright alright im not kidding i mean it im gonna come clean lmao cool waste of time to hear this video i guess, making comments made it worth coming in to watch
Brilliant thinking, whether it’s right or wrong, brilliant.
I've listened to quite a few of Hoffman's talks about how we see or don't see the "real" reality then I have one very big question. What does that mean for all of our modern knowledge/understanding of the universe , the cosmos, and physics in general? Is all the information and understanding null and void??? If we can't trust our senses, and scientific technology that we have invented to expand our senses then what?
Exactly.
"Nothing can be trusted! But my theory which has zero evidence ... Well, it can definitely be trusted!"
This theory needs a lot more evidence ...
There are a lot of people like Donald Hoffman that keep paving roads to worldviews where a new creative fiction is possible.
I've seen these theories pop up over and over, as if fiction has what consciousness craves.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a more satisfying, meaningful, safer and more entertaining worldview.
But we need to be aware of how the enticement of fiction clouds our thinking, and biases our perceptions of reality ...
"See you tomorrow in Alpha Centauri!" 👏👏! Great quote. I am scared of Hoffman's statement being right...but I think he is... Definately we are only looking inside the headset and if the main matter was challenging to be resolved.... the current one being arisen by Hoffman is even way more harder.
Why does it scare you? I feel less scared by it. Materialism scares me more if true.
Hey see you there , Alpha is my home, be my neighbour
55:49
... oh, so you want to do that? it's easy : fast a lot, meditate a lot and, here's the key, wholeheartedly focus on one single of those invisible conscious agents.... sleep depravation works too. It's been there as old as the beginning of time, any Lama monk would agree. My experience is that if you take the easy way (DMT and all that shit) you get a certain kind of agent, but if you go the hard way (fasting, prayer, meditation...) you get another kind of "contact" of a totally different quality... power of e-quality.... by the way, this channel is like the most intelligent channel I've ever come thru in YT... congratulations and thank you the amazing work you are doing, this world needs it!
Perhaps what Dr Hoffman needs to do is plant some beans, carrots and apples. Tend them with appropriate water and fertilizer, then harvest them. Cook the fruit and vegetables according to a vegetarian cookbook you can find on Amazon, at the local bookshop or on a TV cookery show. If using a book, wait for delivery. Cook the food according to the instructions. Share the results with blindfolded friends or colleagues. Ask them if they can tell what they`ve eaten. If the food is not real and no other food is available, watch them slowly die.