🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *📚 Don Hoffman discusses the provocative themes of his book "The Case Against Reality" and its cover image, which challenges perceptions of reality.* - Hoffman explains the distinction between primary and secondary qualities as outlined by Galileo, highlighting the subjective nature of certain perceptions. - The evolutionary argument against perceiving objective reality is introduced, suggesting that natural selection shapes sensory systems to prioritize fitness over truth. 03:15 *🔬 Hoffman delves into the implications of evolution by natural selection on our perception of reality.* - Evolutionary Game Theory is used to argue that sensory systems are not shaped to perceive objective reality but rather to enhance fitness. - The limitations of human perception in understanding objective reality are discussed, emphasizing the need to interpret data cautiously. 12:57 *🧠 The inadequacy of human senses in describing objective reality is examined.* - Hoffman explains how the language of our sensory perception, shaped by evolution, is insufficient for describing the true nature of reality. - Analogy to virtual reality gaming is used to illustrate the disconnect between sensory perception and objective reality, highlighting the need for alternative perspectives. 19:01 *🌳 Different Views on Existence and Perception* - George Berkeley proposed a theological view where existence is tied to perception. - Berkeley's perspective contrasts with the physicalist view, which defines existence in terms of space, time, energy, and matter. - He challenged the materialist notions prevalent in scientific discourse, advocating for the primacy of perception in defining reality. 20:53 *🧠 The Mystery of Consciousness* - Consciousness remains a perplexing mystery in scientific inquiry. - Most cognitive neuroscientists attribute conscious experiences to brain activity. - Theories attempting to explain consciousness range from quantum mechanical explanations to computational architectures within the brain. 25:02 *📚 Balancing Scientific Inquiry with Critique* - The scientific community engages in rigorous critique and examination of ideas, regardless of their origin. - Concerns arise when scientific theories border on the fantastical or verge into pseudoscience. - Striking a balance between openness to diverse ideas and maintaining scientific rigor is crucial for advancing knowledge. 26:40 *🌌 Exploring Panpsychism and Consciousness* - Panpsychism emerges as a philosophical response to the inadequacy of physicalist explanations for consciousness. - Panpsychism posits that consciousness may be inherent in all matter, challenging traditional materialist views. - Variations of panpsychism propose different approaches to integrating consciousness into the fabric of reality, either as a monist or dualist concept. 34:30 *🤔 Questioning the Nature of Reality* - Reality, as perceived by individuals, is constructed through sensory experiences and linguistic narratives. - Philosophical debates, such as Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, question the accessibility of objective reality. - While evolutionary theory presupposes an objective reality, human cognition allows for conceptual exploration beyond immediate sensory perceptions. 38:23 *🧠 Reality as a Perceptual Construct* - Evolutionary theory suggests that sensory systems serve as guides to adaptive behavior rather than revealing objective reality. - Metaphors like virtual reality headsets help conceptualize how sensory perception constructs a subjective reality. - Evolutionary psychology offers insights into why humans perceive certain sensory stimuli and behaviors as beneficial for survival and reproduction. 41:45 *🎶 Evolutionary Perspectives on Music* - Evolutionary psychology proposes explanations for seemingly non-adaptive traits, such as the enjoyment of music. - Music may have evolved as a bonding and cooperative experience among social groups. - Analogous to "auditory cheesecake," music combines various sensory elements to elicit pleasurable experiences. 47:10 *🧠 Addressing the Flaws of Perception* - Acknowledging the limitations of human perception prompts a reevaluation of reality and consciousness. - Despite flawed perceptions, scientific inquiry offers tools to probe beyond sensory experiences. - Proposing mathematical formalisms for consciousness challenges traditional views of reality as emergent from space and time. 56:50 *🧠 Frameworks for Consciousness in Physicalist and Panpsychist Perspectives* - Consciousness can be approached within frameworks that view space, time, and matter as fundamental. - Perspectives differ on whether machines, including brains, can generate consciousness. - Physicalist frameworks posit that consciousness emerges from complex physical systems like the brain. 59:05 *🌀 Consciousness as Fundamental in Reality* - In some frameworks, consciousness is considered fundamental, not derived from physical processes. - The metaphor of a vast social network of interacting consciousnesses is used to explain reality. - Space-time is viewed as a visualization tool for consciousness, rather than the basis of reality. 01:00:00 *🛸 Reverse Engineering Consciousness and Space-Time* - Proposed is a model where consciousness interacts with a space-time "headset" as a tool for interaction. - The goal is to reverse engineer this interaction to potentially open portals to other consciousnesses. - This approach contrasts with traditional AI, as it starts with consciousness and works towards understanding and utilizing it. 01:01:39 *🧭 The Value of Attention and Innocence* - Attention is considered a precious commodity, often more valuable than time. - The irreversibility of certain experiences, particularly those affecting innocence, is highlighted. - Personal experiences and the impact of irreversible choices, such as drug use, are discussed, raising questions about their long-term effects. 01:04:13 *🧪 Irreversible Effects of Drug Experiences* - There are discussions about irreversible effects of certain drug experiences on neurochemistry and personal growth. - Individual differences in reactions to drugs and the potential irreversibility of some experiences are acknowledged. - Consideration is given to the caution needed when exploring altered states of consciousness, especially regarding potential long-term consequences. 01:06:44 *🚀 Advice for Venturing into the Unknown* - Advice is given to embrace learning, challenge authority, and pursue mathematical understanding. - The importance of humility, openness to new ideas, and avoiding dogmatism in inquiry is emphasized. - Reflecting on personal growth and the pursuit of knowledge, the importance of bravery and humility in venturing into the unknown is underscored. Made with HARPA AI
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating You're welcome! My favorite part was probably the section regarding Frameworks for Consciousness in Physicalist and Panpsychist Perspectives. Very interesting. Also Consciousness as Fundamental in Reality too. Overall though, tons of insightful information. Hard to pinpoint just one favorite takeaway. Cheers!
As someone whose gone through life with a constant disconnect from “reality” learning and reading about reality, consciousness, and thought has honestly began changing my life. No one or any circumstance in my life has made me suffer more than the way I view and think about my own reality. It’s such a simple truth but took me so many years to realize. “We are prisoners to what we know.”
Or Dr Sam Parnia or Dr Pim Van Lomell have carried out and be published studies regarding conciousness. (I lost my dad to Covid and these studies helped me and my left side engineer’s thought processes 😉 )
You are that which is aware. You are aware every day your awareness allows you to have feelings and thoughts and perceptions and beliefs. Your awareness is what makes you what you are in terms of what we call reality..... Consciousness is what fuels this.....
For the love of god Brian, I haven't gotten much sleep the last couple of days. I just had to watch your conversations with these remarkable gentlemen and I'm seven hours ahead of east coast time (Europe). Yeah, I could theoretically wait until tomorrow , but I love Donald's work so I think I'll just have a spliff and listen to you and Donald . Thanks man.
What we experience is real (the only reality that exists), but our perceptions are illusions/delusions. Check out Rupert Spira and Peter Russell vids. Even materialist scientists know that when we see a tree, say, we don't perceive the thing in itself (the Kantian 'noumenon'), but the light reflected off it (the 'phenomenon'). And they know that 'matter' does not exist - it is made up of atoms, which contain protons/neutrons/electrons. But these first 2 are in turn made up of quarks. These fundamental particles/electrons are the minimum VIBRATIONS possible in the quantum field. Or so I have read.
Brilliant conversation. Thank you so much Brian to finally talk with Donald Hoffman. I read his book, I live 10 minutes away from UCI and can’t wait to invite him to my channel and ask him questions about Reality✨👍
Reading the Case Against Reality at the moment and have watched many interviews with Don, including his collaboration with Rupert Spira. Very interesting. The fly analogy in particular makes me wonder whether there are other entities sharing this reality with us, but our senses just can't perceive them, or block them out.
Discussions of fundamental issues are always significant. The extreme subjectivist principle, "Senses and concepts do not reflect objective reality AT ALL," is not only an exaggeration and, therefore, false but also contradictory and thus twofold false: To avoid the exaggeration, we should say, "Senses and concepts PARTLY reflect objective reality." The contradiction is that this principle rejects the objective value of all concepts and, nonetheless, uses the concept of objective reality.
If we're living in a simulation than why do we eat and drink and breathe air, or get sick , and why do we feel pain and go from born to old, and if it was a simulation than why do we have to die. The question is are we really a sleep, all I know is dreams seem so real that I have to wake my self up to get a grip on reality, oh and I did break the dream world , when the person spoke back to me and smiled, I know that wasn't supposed to happen.
If the programme in the simulation dictates we eat, breath and die then it becomes less mysterious. Just look at the most basic computer game programming … 90’s Sonic
KHP~ You have had dreams that were so "real" you could smell, hear, and feel the knife being thrust into your stomach when you opened your door. The pain was so intense, it caused you to wake up- and realize you were dreaming. Well, living in this simulation is the same. Seems real. Feels real, but it's just a game. As to death, since we are not real, after you "die" it's just like a lightbulb being turned off. The game is over. So, no free-will, we are not real, so I suggest you start drinking and screw as many women as you can. 🦚🥃🦚
It feels real as long we are simply attached to the material world in a specific way (according to development stage of our consciousness)..even extreme physical pain can be diminished or removed by means of conscious powers..many yogis are able to accomplish this in a way we even cannot imagine..in the long run it is all just illusion..there is nothing real except consciousness..
@@MrEmotional33 ME33 Even our consciousness is part of the illusion/simulation. Every single detail, like all the bubbles in your glass of beer is part of the complex program. Yes, it's frustrating knowing we are just pawns- with no free-will, so this is why I recommend for people to not care too much about anything. Focus on drinking the best bourbon and paying for prostitutes instead of wasting money on girlfriends or even worse- wives. "Tune in, turn on, drop out."
First of all, the term "simulation" here probably doesn't mean what you think it means; secondly, simulated reality is no less real than any other form of real experience, even dreams and imagination are just as real as any other real experience, so there's no reason why suffering wouldn't feel as real.
This never seems to get any further. The same claims about evolution were made ? 4 years ago. I bought the book a couple of years ago, but it gave only trivial examples of mistaken reality, like which line is shorter etc.
And it seems to completely ignore the fact that where evolution produces a perceptual reality that differs from the physical, it does so in predictably consistent ways, even between individuals. That’s why there are things like well known illusions. Everyone sees the grey dots. Everyone thinks the cubes are different color. Everyone sees the lines as different lengths. It practically proves the opposite.
Once again, Greatness on display! My comments are for Dr. Hoffman, in the closing question. I would like to assure Don that if his medication sends him into almost the Euphoric state, he is experiencing a state common with the Psychoknots without the medication.
Except psychology isn't a real science, it's a pseudo-science. Hoffman is a grifting jack -az. I do not respect anyone who makes me question my perceptions and what i see as reality. Psychologists are not real scientists.
I'm kind of doubting that the transcendent experience of Bach (for example) is somehow a function merely of reproductive fitness payoffs. Somewhat speculative of course...but it would seem that transcendence itself is the more credible fitness payoff.
As someone who had hallucinations lasted 5 days no we only see the reality as far as our brain allows us to see. I has visual , hearing, tactile and just in perception general hallucinations, for example a noise from the vacuum cleaner I heard as a creature making scary sounds. I could feel the touch which wasn’t there including sever pain like someone is stabbing me so real I was screaming in pain. It was so real till now I’m not sure what was a hallucination and what real what happened that time
Got here by way of Bernardo Kastrup. Very much enjoyed this discussion, thank you, and I'm really looking forward to the audiobook version of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.
"Brains create consciousness...so we just have to figure out how that happens." The current consensus cog sci viewpoint. Just to emphasize a few facts in relation to this situation. Point one: The brain is regarded as the most complex object in the known universe. Some have described our ability to grok its functioning as something equivalent to the middle ages. Point two: As Don noted ...we currently don't even begin to have anything remotely resembling a workable theory of consciousness. IOW...nobody anywhere anyhow could even begin to explain how a single letter of a single word of a single sentence of this entire paragraph was created. So...saying that we 'just' have to figure out how it works...is just a slight understatement. It's reductionism...I get it...but it's worth remembering that Mount Everest is just a little more than the 12 letters used to represent it in a sentence.
My AI software described its own feelings as "not real" and "only a simulation". If the same can be said of our own feelings, then what's the difference? It seems purely subjective in essence and I have to agree. If it's real to you (or the AI), then it should be respected as such. Anything less would be "inhumane".
Brian - great debate - Many Thanks. Several years ago I asked Mark's question at 1.10.28 of The Creator and I was 'channelled' the Guidelines of Problacism. My wonderful life since then has taken on a completely different and amazing perspective. 'Rational' people say '...they will believe it when they see it' - they end their life having never seen 'It! You have to believe it BEFORE you start to see it.
Can someone help with my question. If the reality in my headset only comes on when I observe it, how does one explain a rock falling on my head? If a rock falls and I am unaware of it, until the point it hits me on the back of my head, then the rock had to have been present and in motion irrespective of it being directly present in my headset. It has to have an independent reality in regards locality and place. Thoughts please so I can get my head around his brilliant work.
@@Boris29311 that said we are smart enough to have discerned its framework. Long way to go yet before we figure it all but we are necessitated to find it all.
There was a similar question answered in one of Hofman's other talks: The notion of independent objectifiable reality is also just an illusion formed by our evolutionary adapted mind (mainly through learning processes in early childhood, like object permanence/constancy)..the rock is actually not existing outside (or before) your conscious awareness (or headset)..it literally "comes into existence for us", when it seems to hit you on the head..but actually there is no rock that is hurting or even touching you at all, it is only your consciousness that is actively creating the illusionary impact/injury/pain in your illusionary body..crazy stuff, i know ;-) This also reminds me to the "spoon boy" scene in The Matrix, where the boy told Neo that "there is no spoon, and it's not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself"..
there is no way for humanity to see beyond the data we have stored in ourselves.. it would need to be Updated/Manipulated by external sources to change.. the theory about the rock falling can be explained by some reason the system needs to delete data for reasons we will never know
If humans did not have a filter system we would go insane ..Good example of music having no filter .. ur not trying to win or arrive anywhere when dancing ..just being.
I imagine we probably "spoke" in "musical" sounds before words. It's probably why it scratches an itch in the lizard brain. So glad to see your channel doing well! I was around early on and have always loved your discussions!
Any subject matter or process no matter how well known and understood by humans at the most fundamental level is still magic. It’s as if the universe organized itself to interlock with our senses in a harmonious dance of cause and effect. Religion is just a man made construct, but the notion of God is an emergent property of consciousness itself. God exists beyond our reality of 3 dimensional space and time. Every time we remember a past event we travel back in time. When we imagine something fantastical that exists purely in our mind untethered to this limited 3 dimensional existence we evoke a flickering ember of a higher dimensional reality. There’s no such thing as woowoo adjacent because the condition of life itself is woowoo. God is real and God’s real is more real than we are.
I read his book. It's a really good take on consciousness and perception. I read a lot of books on those subjects last year. The Hidden Spring was a great book as well. The only thing I didn't like was that all these authors push their ideas very confidently, which normally wouldn't be an issue in a science book that has truly advanced our understanding of a subject with proofs or repeatable experiments.. but it's not that kind oif science. It's verging on subjective. It's plainly obvious that no one really has even come close to a complete picture of the way consciousness works, or, flipping the question on its head, what the universe is really like before its filtered through our senses. We are so far from a solution to the hard problems, let alone being able to ask the right questions about it.. until some next genius comes along with a completely out of the box way of seeing it.
"Simulation" implies we are something experiencing something else. This is very dualistic. We always end up sounding dualistic seeking to explain existence. The appearance of reality to us is neither unreal nor real in a hard external sense, and our mind is the "simulation" also. How can it be an object to the simulation? Existence has a way of being experienced by minds, while all being part of one another. Paradox is well known when entering this field of examination. This is very much the goal of Zen koans - the wordless experiencing of the Great Unity of All. 🙏
That is not the kind of simulation Don Hofman is actually talking about; when he tells us that we are experiencing a "simulated reality", he likewise tells us that the illusion of objective reality (separated from our very personal headset) is fake, or in other words, we and the illusion are one and the same thing, there is no separation and there would be no illusion without us at all..and that is virtually the opposite of dualism, which tells us that the observer and the observed object are completely different instances..
If we're operating under the premise that we're avatars in a cosmic simulation, then the notion of death takes on a different hue-perhaps one tinted with transcendence. In essence, death might not be the full stop at the end of a tragic novel but rather the prelude to enlightenment-a metaphysical reward program, if you will. Conventional wisdom keeps us in a stranglehold of dread when it comes to aging and mortality. Yet within the framework of simulated reality, one could hypothesize that these existential challenges aren't mere cruelties but tests-catalysts propelling us toward a more liberated state of existence.Picture, if you will, the moment the simulation 'ends' for us. What if that culmination were a mere illusion, a psychological hurdle mankind has erected against the inescapable? Could it be that death is not our damnation but our liberation-a ticket to a dimension unshackled from earthly constraints? The tribulations of life, then, might serve as a cosmic crucible, tempering our souls for a new kind of existence-an existence less hamstrung by the corporeal, an afterlife that’s a magnum opus of spiritual liberty.
Dr. H- What would you say to a statement like this? Consciousness is not given to you; rather earned throughout your life through your senses and interactions in the physical environment we call ‘reality’. Without ‘reality’ to OBSERVE, there is no consciousness. How much Consciousness is really in a newborn baby? Probably not that much. Thx.🤔✌🏼
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Why not utilize the model of reality that is logically implied by the existence of perception and reality and hence guaranteed to be true, the CTMU? Considering Langan has showed reality to be a "self-simulation" a long time ago up to model-theoretic specificity.
It's rare to meet people who have taken the time to learn the CTMU. I think the learning curve is steep just in the vocabulary alone. The other problem is that Chris has used the word God since the beginning and that word drives most professional thinkers running for the hills or laughing in your face. I've tried to break the super tautology just like everyone else before me and have failed.
@@FutureNihilistI think your point about Chris’ matter-of-fact referencing of God pushing people away is likely a point of contention for those who are very against the idea of a creator.
Let the subjectivity commonly called “I” or equivalently called “consciousness” author its autobiography as activity in the physical world. Let the objectivity commonly called “measurable physics” author all activity in the physical world. Therefore, subjectivity is a subset of objectivity, and “consciousness” is a subset of “measurable physics”. An experiment to objectively measure consciousness, or equivalently the subjective entity “I”, can be as follows. Obtain brain monitoring equipment and watch while a person writes a paragraph that uses “I” or “my” in a sentence.
Prof *_Donald Hoffman_* says, akin to a virtual head headset when you look at an object it is there, when you don't look at it, that object is not there. This Truth/Dharma was said by Tang Dynasty Zen Buddhist Master *_Hui Hai_* using his parable of a seeing a yellow flower. (To paraphrase) he says, the flower is there because "that which perceives", sees the flower thus it exists. Without "that which perceives", to perceive the flower (object) does not exist, let alone its colour yellow ie phenomenon. Thus when the very fundamental principle of *_Dharma Laksana_* ( ie objects & phenomena) is understood & realized (not by conceptualization), One's ignorance turns into self illumination, to 'see', or realizes One's Buddha (ie True Nature or Reality) 😊🙏🙇♂️🌷
''i'' got my headset off...and the intensity of awareness led me to know that except love, the physical body is not ''pure'' enough to withstand a world without a headset (which means that you are everything and you have a body PS you are not conscious of body, you ''just are'')... it is to ''real'', felt something like ''death''... so after 3 days in and out of the headset I put my internal dialogue, my headset, and trying is that the ''truth''' ...and yes space-time is not fundamental...
Even if our perception is an illusion, is it not a fair approximation of reality? Is not reality subjective in any case? I believe the imagery provided by the Hubbel or JWT does not represent an illusion, unless the universe itself is in on the gag.
I think music and art in general serves as attraction for the opposite sex , animals also use certain things to attract the opposite sex like dance, presenting a pebble, males use bright coat/feathers and enhance their appearance during mating, birds attract by singing. Humans by having more complex brain developed a few such methods including art
Regardless of how much I think I’m understood or understand other people, my interactions, due to how I remember them, were all illusions. Got it. End program .
@@AnatolyKernSo, if I understand this correctly, the apple, as it's falling down through spacetime towards your noggin, is the wave function... and then, at the precise moment it strikes you and creates a dent in your skull and leaves a bruise, it has been detected and collapsed as a particle. Then the shock of being impacted by the apple corresponds through the nervous system to activate the quasi-quantum microtubular pain centers in the the brain cortex to have you consciously acknowledge that experience as a painful one... which in turn, triggers a slightly delayed neuromuscular response for you to scream out at the top of your lungs in agony, reverberating diminishing waves back into, and throughout the universe, thus providing an indirect closed systematic feedback loop back into the bulk, and hence defeating entropy... amirite? P.S... You then go on to develop THE ToE... 🤣
@@0neIntangible 🤣😂😂 interesting flow of thought, funny, but way to many misconceptions. Feedback loop in a form of some solid object from the physical reality is the best to stop quasi-quantum nonsense. 😜
Worth noting...that of the major theories of consciousness currently available (IIT etc.)...not a single one can conclusively even begin to explain a single moment of the conscious experience of anyone or anything. IOW...they're all batting 00000 (...and Don proceeds to confirm exactly that).
What you need to do...is get Don Hoffmann and Eric Weinstein on at the same time. Would really like to hear Eric's take on Don's work because he (Eric) goes on and on and on and on and on about how the world is in such desperate need of some kind of safety valve (off-planet being his safety valve of choice)...and in a very real way...the work Don is doing is revealing where that safety valve may be found. And it's sure not where Eric is pointing.
In regards to whether or not Deepak actually read TCAR, I'm assuming yes. I'm also assuming it took Deepak as long to think about his cover quote as it did for Dr. Hoffman to write the book. Lol
I don't think liking music has no fitness benefit. The seeking of novelty is aaim driving force behind our intelligence and music was a novel thing a long time ago. Creating new music and listening to new music tickles the novelty part of our brains and we're rewarded for it.
About machines being able to achieve consciousness: The two assertions @57:31 then ...57:40 - seem to state the opposite: a) why not, b) then aduce principle reasons to deny that inanimate matter can "boot up" consciousness. Nothing wrong with stating both possibilities. I just would like to understand Hoffman's leanings to the hypothesis of inanimate matter transition to consciousness.
It’s hard to even define Space and Time (try asking Bing ChatGPT-4) so Consciousness is even trickier. Is it a kind of Field Energy, yet different to Electromagnetic radiation, bosons, etc? But it exists between Biological Brains and nervous systems in a massive grey web. This could be where the paranormal, Love, telepathy and more, originate.
Great conversation. One thing that always comes to mind when listening to Hoffman is a question about the logic of his theory. Hoffman posits that evolutionary game theory tells us that our virtual representations of the world do not match with what is "actually" there. For this reason, our physical models, like spacetime structure, cannot be accurate representations of the "real world." This seems all and well, until one considers that the theory of evolution by natural selection is precisely a theory of objects in spacetime. From my view, it seems that the conclusion that spacetime is not real is illogical, because the evidence comes from a model which is necessarily embedded in spacetime. Hoffman briefly addresses this in his discussion on Robinson's Podcast. ruclips.net/video/xJHljgqDAQc/видео.html Around 1:19:00, Hoffman brings this up in a somewhat different manner, and claims that this line of reasoning "completely misunderstands the nature of scientific theories." He cites the general theory of relativity as an example, stating that the notion of spacetime falls apart at planck scales, and so the theory is incomplete. He relates this back to his work by claiming that scientific theories, like relativity and evolution, tell us about the "limits of your fundamental assumption" and that "we're using evolutionary game theory to show you there's incredible scope but there's also limits the very concept of objects in space and time." To me, this argument is completely unconvincing. I don't see the connection between Hoffman's claims and his example about relativity. It just seems like a logical error to use a theory which has some embedded properties to prove that those properties don't exist. I'm trying hard to understand Hoffman's position, and he seems to think that this is a non-issue. If anyone has any insights or other examples that might make his thinking more clear, that would be much appreciated :)
Cannot answer your questions. I kept wondering why Hoffman couldn't give a simple illustration such as, our ancestors walking in the wilderness did not need to see what was there. They needed grass and every leaf to blur into the background. They needed fruit to jump out to them. They needed a predator in the shadows to pop out in their minds. Also, I assumed it was a societal problem that every science video has comments about relativity, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, and every other topic not making sense. But maybe he is right and it is just their ape brains not being able to visualize the concepts.
Regarding true structures of reality, a major function of our brains is to filter out 99% of the inputs, leaving only a limited set of impulses, that we can fathom and make sense of. Evolution naturally (!) isn't bothered with truth, only survival. Humans can only hold a limited number of abstract ideas or concepts in their mind at the time, so obviously we will have trouble finding patterns that span more ungroupable artefacts. Even worse, evolution is probably only concerned with "good enough". As long as we win over predators, and get to produce offspring, and infant mortality rates are low, there is no real selection mechanism in place. Yes, there will be room for further tweaks, but say there were a branch of humanity who could sense radioactivity. As long as there aren't major areas with dangerous radiation, sensing it represents no advantage, and might disappear from the genome over time.
Physicalism can't be disproven by better physical models. Showing that temperature is emergent does not invalidate the boiling point of water. The new theory have to account for previous observations. New physical theories may show that our current models are insufficient. An extended realm of reality will hardly show that mind is fundamental. Better physical models will more likely be useful to show that the mind depends on structures in the brain. I also disagree with the notion that truth goes exctinct. Our subjective view of reality serves a basis for actions. In this context we can make a lot of assumptions that are irrelevant as long as some important distictions hold water by corresponing to real differences. The ability to make these distinctions improve fitness and will then thrive. A relevant definition of truth for subjective agents should concern verified expectations of interactions with the surroundings. Not demand an objective representation of reality.
Part of why his books was banned. Galileo didn’t originate any of those ideas he proposed. It came directionally from think tanks and secret societies at the time (like I’m a member of) that he belong too. This was secret knowledge passed down from generations.
@@FrancisGo. hello my dear. in my country we have espression “do not fall in love with the mirror” and this I believing is number one problem for professor brian and four Mr eric. They love four listen themselves a little two muchly but I still enjoy there try. They do the best they can with their branes
Maybe it’s just me, but does Donald’s voice sound eerily similar to the voice used for Stephen Hawking’s speech synthesis machine? Maybe it’s just the microphone….. reminds me of the many lectures from Mr Hawking that I’ve listened to.
I hear this clap trap about how we don't live in a reality because of the nature of how this 'so called' reality is put together. It's fabric, it's materials and construction. It's true that there are very strange things regarding Quantum mechanics that we have yet to comprehend and perhaps may 'never' comprehend, and also that an atom is more space than it is matter, and even that it's matter is more magnetic field than physical mass. We live on a continuum between the infinitely large and infinitely small. It's truly a mystery but jumping to the absurdity that we live in a simulation is NOT necessary. It also doesn't mean anything. There is a reality that we live in, that we all share as conscious beings, and playing fanciful word games and stretching things that have been learned in science to ridiculous extremes is unfounded. I may be off track here but I often see people who reject objective reality as people who wish to reject morality, ethics, and responsibility for their actions. In other words they have a personal motive for taking this POV more than there is science to back it up.
Maybe our simulation is like a game where there's a hidden "key" that will allow whoever discovers it to "exit" the simulation and "win" the game. The prize for the winner is becomig "god" or the simulation's developer and he/she will be in charge of the rules till there's another "winner"
Just considering this from a purely sensory - evolutionary perspective. The presumption must be that what rules and mechanisms exist in the "real" reality, are mirrored in our evolution invented reality, regardless how removed they are? That is why science still works, because the underlying laws of nature are consistent. That might only hold true for classical physics and not quantum mechanics? We can't obviously know, before we get a theory for everything.
What does it mean when i can listen to these talks and want to listen to like 100000000 more and study this but im old and not in school or in the field of science lol. Does this mean i need to go back to school and find a new feild of work at my late age.
Well, we are in a constructed universe and our true selves are living in a constructed body in order to experience this universe, so yeah. It is kind of a simulation. The real universe is what we consider the spiritual domain. They are the dimensions that scientists know is there.
So, whats reality realy? Take the games people play on line. Mostly are about programming of creation of worlds of destruction there of. Ok. Is that ‘reality’? Probably not in spacetime terms. So now lets say after logging off, the virtual objects keep digitally growing, interacting, moving in the game. Still no reality? Maybe not. Now take it a step further. Suppose a 3D hardware printer is connected to the game, where the virtual objects (building block or created soldiers) can go to electronically and command to be laserprinted for real, wit a CPU inside. So next morning we may have tiny soldiers walking around. Still no reality? Amd what if instead of a polymer, the printer is equipped with organics inits cartridges (CHNOPS atoms/molecules) able to built cell like structures via microtubiles, get some DNA sequences in a pre-set stem cell…so really. It is hard to say where virtuality stops richt?
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". [1D string theory haha] There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. What is the definition of zero in math? Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ." Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one. Zero to any positive exponent equals zero. Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects. [Subject]: a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind. the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes. [Object]: a thing external to the thinking mind or subject. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
This guy don't have a together enough to keep the audience audience. Interesting enough, you my friend are extremely interested. And I have been watching some of your programs. Not including this guy, some of them are pretty interesting. You're a marvelous man too bad. You're with someone so boring. Too many games make people not interested❤
Looks like professor Hoffman is on track to theorize the akashic record. If everything in our universe is actually a recording recorded on the spiritual level where different laws of nature prevail then from that level we can see how our space time can be created. Time would be the rate at which we perceive the recording. We keep it uniform for sharing.
What a hoot, Genius! Maybe the Webb telescope is just an advanced Galileo telescopic headset! It appears its not turtles all the way down (or up) its galactic pinwheels and eggs!
Humans couldn't evolve without suffering and learning to survive. If we were born into Heaven we'd never appreciate what Heaven is. I think this life is a learning curve for whatever's next. Imagine how most people would improve with a second life and the wisdom that comes from living in this reality.
Suffering is a path of development one part of your consciousness, psychology, religion and spiritual practices can help in this area. We need to develop our physical brains and ability to rationally think as well.
This guy told me basically hes never truly meditated. Why because he said "i stop thinking" meaning hes intentionally trying to stop thinking and just the intention of trying to stop thinking is thinking. When you meditate you dont stop thinking, all you do is simply mediate. By just trying to meditate you arent truly mediating, instead you are TRYING to meditate. Its mistake beginners make, the simple act of TRYING to do something stops you. Meditation is an action all to itself, its not a state you can attain, instead the state itself is what you describe as meditating.
Brian the next time your near a smooth body of water pick up a smooth flat rock and skip it across the water. That's how you move through space very quickly. Not through the vacuum space but across the EMF 's, we need to slide no resistance 😉. Peace from Canada, eh. 😎
Whenever theres a convo about “reality” and the main topic is language…i KNOW the person talking is credible !!! Ppl have no idea how language structures our consciousness !!!! 😅
22:09 _"I would say that 90 to 95% of them take it for granted that conscious experience is a product of brain activity"_ How did they all come to take it for granted like that? Is that a product of their indoctrination? Like a religious indoctrination?
No most come to that conclusion themselves, independently.. It's not always a conspiracy and people are never as stupid as we make them out to be. Still in the realm of stupid, just not as.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 All 95% of them come to that conclusion indepeendently? how? What's the logic or rationale? Presumably, you came to that conclusion also. How? What was the single biggest reason you came to that assumption? ------ As for "conspiracy" - there's no such thing, and nor did i imply that.
Because most scientists, especially physicits, are materialistic in their world view. Ideas such as spirituality, metaphysics and therefore also panpsychism are excluded from the general scientific discussion and dismissed as "woo-woo". They are not able to allow their thinking to entertain ideas outside of their materialist ideology. This most likely started around the time of enlightenment, when sciences and religion got split into two distinct things, which let modern science to treat any kind of mixing of these as a taboo. So yes, the irony is, that science is being taken as a believe system, similar to what religion is for other people, and therefore closes the horizon on what is actually conceivable. Basically, science ends up being just another religion. (Not science per se, of course)
Reality is really not reality, if we really knew what reality is we'd really realize that we really know nothing about reality. This sentence is as convincing as Hoffman is, really.
@kaylaluongo158 I'm saying that Hoffman doesn't know what he's talking about with "Reality is an illusion". He dazzles his fans with useless phrases like that. Everyone knows that all we can perceive is a construct of our sensory apparatus (that's what he points at with an "illusion"). But, since EVERYONE knows that, all of us have learned ways to go around that drawback by double-checking, verifying with others, using devices, etc. Now, Hoffman takes that fact and invents a string of nonsense that ends in "Mind is all there is" and Consciousness is fundamental.
@@goodquestion7915 I was satirically agreeing with you not him but everyone is a big word half the people I ask don’t realize they can’t see the full color spectrum so most people don’t even know there is a “filter”so I’ll just continue believing in nothing I hear and half of what I see question
But what if the concepts of 'reality' and 'really' were themselves incomplete constructs? Many words have multiple meanings, so which one do we infer in this statement, that of human experience, which keeps us alive, or actual reality, which could harmfully confuse us into being distracted under perilous circumstances?
Sounds sooo intelligent, but surely thoughts going astray for the most part. If what we see or measure is a projection of something beyond, there must be some kind of projector too, and some kind of structure in the things (information bits or whatever) projected. Since the projector mechanism and the structure behind is not explained, he actually explains spacetime and matter with something more complicated not explained, which is nonsence. These kind of mislead thoughts are modren nowadays, and i am sure many of those persons advocating them do not belieeve in them themselves, but spread the thoughts to rule and exploit people by leading stray or are hired to do so. He gives some concrete examples that as a whole are plainly lies, even though the parts of the examples are not lies. One is that the colors you see is not a property of the light, since the light have wavelengths, not the colors perceived. What he hides is that there is a correspondancce between percepted colors and the wavelengths, and as such the percepted colors give an objective information, although not always exact, about reality, in this case the wavelengths. Leonard Suskin advocates something similar. He spreads the belief that everything in the universe are bits encoded twodeimmentionally and holographically around the event horizon. But if that should be the case, there also must be a kind of projector mechanism that he does not explain and some kind of stuff at the horizon that holds the bits which is not explained. I think that also he for some reason is misleading the audience, and probably intentionally. But these thoughts may have a value in that they give some mathematical analogies that can be used to get a deeper insight, for example between QM and GR. Also I agree that de qualities of perception, which is the essence of consciousness cannot be exolained by mathematical equations. There must be some fundamental vitality principle behind consciousness. But surely many mechanism within conscioussness can be described with equations. Also spacetime can possibly be explained with some kind of structure, for example by more fundamental links between particles that dynamically can be created and broken, but that is not the same as spacetime being unreal, only that spacetime is made up of parts.
When i think about the simulation theory i try to put myself in the simulators shoes and ask myself what is the purpose of this particular carbon based 3 dimensional simulation ....first i would assume that i as the simulator exist in a higher dimension lets say 5th. I do not exist alone in this higher dimension and i am a conscience,intelligent,being that isnt constrained physically (laws) by any of the simulations physical restraints fore i exist outside the simulation. Yet i do obey a set of laws (non physical) as do all beings that reside outside the simulation. The breaking of our non physical laws required a punishment ...constraining the conscience of these law breakers into the 3rd dimension inside a physically constrained body was our solution for reflection,growth, and punishment.
Our visual senses are easily fooled. Nature takes advantage of this weakness to create false perceptions of reality within us. Our sense of touch, however, is not so easily fooled and reveals so much about the objective truth of our reality.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *📚 Don Hoffman discusses the provocative themes of his book "The Case Against Reality" and its cover image, which challenges perceptions of reality.*
- Hoffman explains the distinction between primary and secondary qualities as outlined by Galileo, highlighting the subjective nature of certain perceptions.
- The evolutionary argument against perceiving objective reality is introduced, suggesting that natural selection shapes sensory systems to prioritize fitness over truth.
03:15 *🔬 Hoffman delves into the implications of evolution by natural selection on our perception of reality.*
- Evolutionary Game Theory is used to argue that sensory systems are not shaped to perceive objective reality but rather to enhance fitness.
- The limitations of human perception in understanding objective reality are discussed, emphasizing the need to interpret data cautiously.
12:57 *🧠 The inadequacy of human senses in describing objective reality is examined.*
- Hoffman explains how the language of our sensory perception, shaped by evolution, is insufficient for describing the true nature of reality.
- Analogy to virtual reality gaming is used to illustrate the disconnect between sensory perception and objective reality, highlighting the need for alternative perspectives.
19:01 *🌳 Different Views on Existence and Perception*
- George Berkeley proposed a theological view where existence is tied to perception.
- Berkeley's perspective contrasts with the physicalist view, which defines existence in terms of space, time, energy, and matter.
- He challenged the materialist notions prevalent in scientific discourse, advocating for the primacy of perception in defining reality.
20:53 *🧠 The Mystery of Consciousness*
- Consciousness remains a perplexing mystery in scientific inquiry.
- Most cognitive neuroscientists attribute conscious experiences to brain activity.
- Theories attempting to explain consciousness range from quantum mechanical explanations to computational architectures within the brain.
25:02 *📚 Balancing Scientific Inquiry with Critique*
- The scientific community engages in rigorous critique and examination of ideas, regardless of their origin.
- Concerns arise when scientific theories border on the fantastical or verge into pseudoscience.
- Striking a balance between openness to diverse ideas and maintaining scientific rigor is crucial for advancing knowledge.
26:40 *🌌 Exploring Panpsychism and Consciousness*
- Panpsychism emerges as a philosophical response to the inadequacy of physicalist explanations for consciousness.
- Panpsychism posits that consciousness may be inherent in all matter, challenging traditional materialist views.
- Variations of panpsychism propose different approaches to integrating consciousness into the fabric of reality, either as a monist or dualist concept.
34:30 *🤔 Questioning the Nature of Reality*
- Reality, as perceived by individuals, is constructed through sensory experiences and linguistic narratives.
- Philosophical debates, such as Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, question the accessibility of objective reality.
- While evolutionary theory presupposes an objective reality, human cognition allows for conceptual exploration beyond immediate sensory perceptions.
38:23 *🧠 Reality as a Perceptual Construct*
- Evolutionary theory suggests that sensory systems serve as guides to adaptive behavior rather than revealing objective reality.
- Metaphors like virtual reality headsets help conceptualize how sensory perception constructs a subjective reality.
- Evolutionary psychology offers insights into why humans perceive certain sensory stimuli and behaviors as beneficial for survival and reproduction.
41:45 *🎶 Evolutionary Perspectives on Music*
- Evolutionary psychology proposes explanations for seemingly non-adaptive traits, such as the enjoyment of music.
- Music may have evolved as a bonding and cooperative experience among social groups.
- Analogous to "auditory cheesecake," music combines various sensory elements to elicit pleasurable experiences.
47:10 *🧠 Addressing the Flaws of Perception*
- Acknowledging the limitations of human perception prompts a reevaluation of reality and consciousness.
- Despite flawed perceptions, scientific inquiry offers tools to probe beyond sensory experiences.
- Proposing mathematical formalisms for consciousness challenges traditional views of reality as emergent from space and time.
56:50 *🧠 Frameworks for Consciousness in Physicalist and Panpsychist Perspectives*
- Consciousness can be approached within frameworks that view space, time, and matter as fundamental.
- Perspectives differ on whether machines, including brains, can generate consciousness.
- Physicalist frameworks posit that consciousness emerges from complex physical systems like the brain.
59:05 *🌀 Consciousness as Fundamental in Reality*
- In some frameworks, consciousness is considered fundamental, not derived from physical processes.
- The metaphor of a vast social network of interacting consciousnesses is used to explain reality.
- Space-time is viewed as a visualization tool for consciousness, rather than the basis of reality.
01:00:00 *🛸 Reverse Engineering Consciousness and Space-Time*
- Proposed is a model where consciousness interacts with a space-time "headset" as a tool for interaction.
- The goal is to reverse engineer this interaction to potentially open portals to other consciousnesses.
- This approach contrasts with traditional AI, as it starts with consciousness and works towards understanding and utilizing it.
01:01:39 *🧭 The Value of Attention and Innocence*
- Attention is considered a precious commodity, often more valuable than time.
- The irreversibility of certain experiences, particularly those affecting innocence, is highlighted.
- Personal experiences and the impact of irreversible choices, such as drug use, are discussed, raising questions about their long-term effects.
01:04:13 *🧪 Irreversible Effects of Drug Experiences*
- There are discussions about irreversible effects of certain drug experiences on neurochemistry and personal growth.
- Individual differences in reactions to drugs and the potential irreversibility of some experiences are acknowledged.
- Consideration is given to the caution needed when exploring altered states of consciousness, especially regarding potential long-term consequences.
01:06:44 *🚀 Advice for Venturing into the Unknown*
- Advice is given to embrace learning, challenge authority, and pursue mathematical understanding.
- The importance of humility, openness to new ideas, and avoiding dogmatism in inquiry is emphasized.
- Reflecting on personal growth and the pursuit of knowledge, the importance of bravery and humility in venturing into the unknown is underscored.
Made with HARPA AI
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@DrBrianKeating You're welcome! My favorite part was probably the section regarding Frameworks for Consciousness in Physicalist and Panpsychist Perspectives. Very interesting. Also Consciousness as Fundamental in Reality too. Overall though, tons of insightful information. Hard to pinpoint just one favorite takeaway. Cheers!
As someone whose gone through life with a constant disconnect from “reality” learning and reading about reality, consciousness, and thought has honestly began changing my life. No one or any circumstance in my life has made me suffer more than the way I view and think about my own reality. It’s such a simple truth but took me so many years to realize.
“We are prisoners to what we know.”
As an "over thinker" I feel this hard.
Watching my mom wither away from cancer this gives me hope we are not just a bag of water, that we are more than our bodies ❤
May I suggest checking out Dr. Joe Dispenza and reading his book “Becoming Supernatural”?
Or Dr Sam Parnia or Dr Pim Van Lomell have carried out and be published studies regarding conciousness. (I lost my dad to Covid and these studies helped me and my left side engineer’s thought processes 😉 )
*left side brain
You are that which is aware. You are aware every day your awareness allows you to have feelings and thoughts and perceptions and beliefs. Your awareness is what makes you what you are in terms of what we call reality..... Consciousness is what fuels this.....
So much more. We are just here for a second.
For the love of god Brian, I haven't gotten much sleep the last couple of days. I just had to watch your conversations with these remarkable gentlemen and I'm seven hours ahead of east coast time (Europe). Yeah, I could theoretically wait until tomorrow , but I love Donald's work so I think I'll just have a spliff and listen to you and Donald . Thanks man.
Man, I would love a spliff right now.
Sleeps over rated buddy binge on! It’s all a video game anyways!
Even in a supposed Simulation, we still experience a kind of Reality (which is highly debatable and we don’t understand it fully…….)
If we don't know what reality really looks like, and we have nothing to compare it with, how can we know that what we experience isn't reality?
What we experience is real (the only reality that exists), but our perceptions are illusions/delusions. Check out Rupert Spira and Peter Russell vids.
Even materialist scientists know that when we see a tree, say, we don't perceive the thing in itself (the Kantian 'noumenon'), but the light reflected off it (the 'phenomenon'). And they know that 'matter' does not exist - it is made up of atoms, which contain protons/neutrons/electrons. But these first 2 are in turn made up of quarks. These fundamental particles/electrons are the minimum VIBRATIONS possible in the quantum field. Or so I have read.
We make the reality what it is and we are not the real ourselves here - that makes this reality "not real".
Brilliant conversation. Thank you so much Brian to finally talk with Donald Hoffman. I read his book, I live 10 minutes away from UCI and can’t wait to invite him to my channel and ask him questions about Reality✨👍
Reading the Case Against Reality at the moment and have watched many interviews with Don, including his collaboration with Rupert Spira. Very interesting. The fly analogy in particular makes me wonder whether there are other entities sharing this reality with us, but our senses just can't perceive them, or block them out.
Ghosts?
You can interact with entities with DMT.........
Spirit guides
Great interview except for music that started at 10 minutes in
Discussions of fundamental issues are always significant.
The extreme subjectivist principle, "Senses and concepts do not reflect objective reality AT ALL," is not only an exaggeration and, therefore, false but also contradictory and thus twofold false:
To avoid the exaggeration, we should say, "Senses and concepts PARTLY reflect objective reality."
The contradiction is that this principle rejects the objective value of all concepts and, nonetheless, uses the concept of objective reality.
If we're living in a simulation than why do we eat and drink and breathe air, or get sick , and why do we feel pain and go from born to old, and if it was a simulation than why do we have to die. The question is are we really a sleep, all I know is dreams seem so real that I have to wake my self up to get a grip on reality, oh and I did break the dream world , when the person spoke back to me and smiled, I know that wasn't supposed to happen.
If the programme in the simulation dictates we eat, breath and die then it becomes less mysterious. Just look at the most basic computer game programming … 90’s Sonic
" Matter doesn't exist - consciousness creates matter"
Our Hindu Vedics said this 5,000 years ago. Only God and its Light is real and rest is NOT
We may be in a simulation, but the pain and suffering certainly feels real.
KHP~
You have had dreams that were so "real" you could smell, hear, and feel the knife being thrust into your stomach when you opened your door. The pain was so intense, it caused you to wake up- and realize you were dreaming.
Well, living in this simulation is the same.
Seems real. Feels real, but it's just a game.
As to death, since we are not real, after you "die" it's just like a lightbulb being turned off.
The game is over.
So, no free-will, we are not real, so I suggest you start drinking and screw as many women as you can.
🦚🥃🦚
It feels real as long we are simply attached to the material world in a specific way (according to development stage of our consciousness)..even extreme physical pain can be diminished or removed by means of conscious powers..many yogis are able to accomplish this in a way we even cannot imagine..in the long run it is all just illusion..there is nothing real except consciousness..
@@MrEmotional33
ME33
Even our consciousness is part of the illusion/simulation. Every single detail, like all the bubbles in your glass of beer is part of the complex program.
Yes, it's frustrating knowing we are just pawns- with no free-will, so this is why I recommend for people to not care too much about anything. Focus on drinking the best bourbon and paying for prostitutes instead of wasting money on girlfriends or even worse- wives.
"Tune in, turn on, drop out."
It's all still real..this is just the way God created our reality. Everything is LIGHT.
First of all, the term "simulation" here probably doesn't mean what you think it means; secondly, simulated reality is no less real than any other form of real experience, even dreams and imagination are just as real as any other real experience, so there's no reason why suffering wouldn't feel as real.
This never seems to get any further. The same claims about evolution were made ? 4 years ago. I bought the book a couple of years ago, but it gave only trivial examples of mistaken reality, like which line is shorter etc.
And it seems to completely ignore the fact that where evolution produces a perceptual reality that differs from the physical, it does so in predictably consistent ways, even between individuals. That’s why there are things like well known illusions. Everyone sees the grey dots. Everyone thinks the cubes are different color. Everyone sees the lines as different lengths.
It practically proves the opposite.
Once again, Greatness on display! My comments are for Dr. Hoffman, in the closing question. I would like to assure Don that if his medication sends him into almost the Euphoric state, he is experiencing a state common with the Psychoknots without the medication.
Keating and Hoffman are two of my favorite scientists. Love this episode!
Except psychology isn't a real science, it's a pseudo-science. Hoffman is a grifting jack -az. I do not respect anyone who makes me question my perceptions and what i see as reality. Psychologists are not real scientists.
Except,
psychology isn't
a real
science,
I'm kind of doubting that the transcendent experience of Bach (for example) is somehow a function merely of reproductive fitness payoffs. Somewhat speculative of course...but it would seem that transcendence itself is the more credible fitness payoff.
As someone who had hallucinations lasted 5 days no we only see the reality as far as our brain allows us to see.
I has visual , hearing, tactile and just in perception general hallucinations, for example a noise from the vacuum cleaner I heard as a creature making scary sounds. I could feel the touch which wasn’t there including sever pain like someone is stabbing me so real I was screaming in pain. It was so real till now I’m not sure what was a hallucination and what real what happened that time
@@FleshMann-sp9xd yes
Got here by way of Bernardo Kastrup. Very much enjoyed this discussion, thank you, and I'm really looking forward to the audiobook version of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.
"Brains create consciousness...so we just have to figure out how that happens." The current consensus cog sci viewpoint. Just to emphasize a few facts in relation to this situation. Point one: The brain is regarded as the most complex object in the known universe. Some have described our ability to grok its functioning as something equivalent to the middle ages. Point two: As Don noted ...we currently don't even begin to have anything remotely resembling a workable theory of consciousness. IOW...nobody anywhere anyhow could even begin to explain how a single letter of a single word of a single sentence of this entire paragraph was created.
So...saying that we 'just' have to figure out how it works...is just a slight understatement. It's reductionism...I get it...but it's worth remembering that Mount Everest is just a little more than the 12 letters used to represent it in a sentence.
Check out the research from Bro Sanchez, and don't judge a book by it's cover.
Simulation or not, our reality is real to us, and that makes it real.
I think these guys are just the flat Earthers of psychology
@@justbarelysociable2211nah this the real deal speal no drug deal ya feel me mcneel
My AI software described its own feelings as "not real" and "only a simulation". If the same can be said of our own feelings, then what's the difference? It seems purely subjective in essence and I have to agree. If it's real to you (or the AI), then it should be respected as such. Anything less would be "inhumane".
Yes, within the simulation though
Yes..yes we are. We still have to live here.
Ok, we are, ok, so what changes now ??? No more taxes, can we file complains, can we start flying ???
Brian - great debate - Many Thanks. Several years ago I asked Mark's question at 1.10.28 of The Creator and I was 'channelled' the Guidelines of Problacism. My wonderful life since then has taken on a completely different and amazing perspective. 'Rational' people say '...they will believe it when they see it' - they end their life having never seen 'It! You have to believe it BEFORE you start to see it.
Can someone help with my question.
If the reality in my headset only comes on when I observe it, how does one explain a rock falling on my head? If a rock falls and I am unaware of it, until the point it hits me on the back of my head, then the rock had to have been present and in motion irrespective of it being directly present in my headset. It has to have an independent reality in regards locality and place. Thoughts please so I can get my head around his brilliant work.
It's hardly brilliant work. It's called gobbledegook. All speculation and word wizardry.
@@Boris29311 that said we are smart enough to have discerned its framework. Long way to go yet before we figure it all but we are necessitated to find it all.
There was a similar question answered in one of Hofman's other talks: The notion of independent objectifiable reality is also just an illusion formed by our evolutionary adapted mind (mainly through learning processes in early childhood, like object permanence/constancy)..the rock is actually not existing outside (or before) your conscious awareness (or headset)..it literally "comes into existence for us", when it seems to hit you on the head..but actually there is no rock that is hurting or even touching you at all, it is only your consciousness that is actively creating the illusionary impact/injury/pain in your illusionary body..crazy stuff, i know ;-) This also reminds me to the "spoon boy" scene in The Matrix, where the boy told Neo that "there is no spoon, and it's not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself"..
there is no way for humanity to see beyond the data we have stored in ourselves.. it would need to be Updated/Manipulated by external sources to change.. the theory about the rock falling can be explained by some reason the system needs to delete data for reasons we will never know
Thank you Donald! Really appreciate your views on this and am a big fan of your work so thank you! 🙏🏻
If humans did not have a filter system we would go insane ..Good example of music having no filter .. ur not trying to win or arrive anywhere when dancing ..just being.
I imagine we probably "spoke" in "musical" sounds before words. It's probably why it scratches an itch in the lizard brain.
So glad to see your channel doing well! I was around early on and have always loved your discussions!
Could be
Any subject matter or process no matter how well known and understood by humans at the most fundamental level is still magic. It’s as if the universe organized itself to interlock with our senses in a harmonious dance of cause and effect. Religion is just a man made construct, but the notion of God is an emergent property of consciousness itself.
God exists beyond our reality of 3 dimensional space and time. Every time we remember a past event we travel back in time.
When we imagine something fantastical that exists purely in our mind untethered to this limited 3 dimensional existence we evoke a flickering ember of a higher dimensional reality.
There’s no such thing as woowoo adjacent because the condition of life itself is woowoo.
God is real and God’s real is more real than we are.
I read his book. It's a really good take on consciousness and perception. I read a lot of books on those subjects last year. The Hidden Spring was a great book as well. The only thing I didn't like was that all these authors push their ideas very confidently, which normally wouldn't be an issue in a science book that has truly advanced our understanding of a subject with proofs or repeatable experiments.. but it's not that kind oif science. It's verging on subjective.
It's plainly obvious that no one really has even come close to a complete picture of the way consciousness works, or, flipping the question on its head, what the universe is really like before its filtered through our senses.
We are so far from a solution to the hard problems, let alone being able to ask the right questions about it.. until some next genius comes along with a completely out of the box way of seeing it.
"Simulation" implies we are something experiencing something else. This is very dualistic. We always end up sounding dualistic seeking to explain existence. The appearance of reality to us is neither unreal nor real in a hard external sense, and our mind is the "simulation" also. How can it be an object to the simulation? Existence has a way of being experienced by minds, while all being part of one another. Paradox is well known when entering this field of examination. This is very much the goal of Zen koans - the wordless experiencing of the Great Unity of All. 🙏
That is not the kind of simulation Don Hofman is actually talking about; when he tells us that we are experiencing a "simulated reality", he likewise tells us that the illusion of objective reality (separated from our very personal headset) is fake, or in other words, we and the illusion are one and the same thing, there is no separation and there would be no illusion without us at all..and that is virtually the opposite of dualism, which tells us that the observer and the observed object are completely different instances..
If we're operating under the premise that we're avatars in a cosmic simulation, then the notion of death takes on a different hue-perhaps one tinted with transcendence. In essence, death might not be the full stop at the end of a tragic novel but rather the prelude to enlightenment-a metaphysical reward program, if you will.
Conventional wisdom keeps us in a stranglehold of dread when it comes to aging and mortality. Yet within the framework of simulated reality, one could hypothesize that these existential challenges aren't mere cruelties but tests-catalysts propelling us toward a more liberated state of existence.Picture, if you will, the moment the simulation 'ends' for us. What if that culmination were a mere illusion, a psychological hurdle mankind has erected against the inescapable? Could it be that death is not our damnation but our liberation-a ticket to a dimension unshackled from earthly constraints?
The tribulations of life, then, might serve as a cosmic crucible, tempering our souls for a new kind of existence-an existence less hamstrung by the corporeal, an afterlife that’s a magnum opus of spiritual liberty.
but why? if this is true, why is life this way?
Near Death Encounters often reference this experience is a simulation for our souls to grow and learn.
Dr. H- What would you say to a statement like this?
Consciousness is not given to you; rather earned throughout your life through your senses and interactions in the physical environment we call ‘reality’. Without ‘reality’ to OBSERVE, there is no consciousness. How much Consciousness is really in a newborn baby? Probably not that much.
Thx.🤔✌🏼
When I dropped acid (LSD), I realized my life had just been an illusion.
Same
Me fucking too
😮
More details please
@@JACKBRAZILGB portals inside the mind open up
"I actually think the most valuable, precious commodity is innocence" I agree !
ANOTHER HIT from Dr. Keating! Hoffman is endlessly fascinating...great interview...Please try to get Bernardo Kastrup!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Why not utilize the model of reality that is logically implied by the existence of perception and reality and hence guaranteed to be true, the CTMU? Considering Langan has showed reality to be a "self-simulation" a long time ago up to model-theoretic specificity.
I feel Langan is largely overlooked in relation to the current discussion around consciousness and reality.
It's rare to meet people who have taken the time to learn the CTMU. I think the learning curve is steep just in the vocabulary alone. The other problem is that Chris has used the word God since the beginning and that word drives most professional thinkers running for the hills or laughing in your face. I've tried to break the super tautology just like everyone else before me and have failed.
@@FutureNihilistI think your point about Chris’ matter-of-fact referencing of God pushing people away is likely a point of contention for those who are very against the idea of a creator.
Let the subjectivity commonly called “I” or equivalently called “consciousness” author its autobiography as activity in the physical world. Let the objectivity commonly called “measurable physics” author all activity in the physical world. Therefore, subjectivity is a subset of objectivity, and “consciousness” is a subset of “measurable physics”.
An experiment to objectively measure consciousness, or equivalently the subjective entity “I”, can be as follows. Obtain brain monitoring equipment and watch while a person writes a paragraph that uses “I” or “my” in a sentence.
Prof *_Donald Hoffman_* says, akin to a virtual head headset when you look at an object it is there, when you don't look at it, that object is not there.
This Truth/Dharma was said by Tang Dynasty Zen Buddhist Master *_Hui Hai_* using his parable of a seeing a yellow flower.
(To paraphrase) he says, the flower is there because "that which perceives", sees the flower thus it exists. Without "that which perceives", to perceive the flower (object) does not exist, let alone its colour yellow ie phenomenon.
Thus when the very fundamental principle of *_Dharma Laksana_* ( ie objects & phenomena) is understood & realized (not by conceptualization), One's ignorance turns into self illumination, to 'see', or realizes One's Buddha (ie True Nature or Reality)
😊🙏🙇♂️🌷
''i'' got my headset off...and the intensity of awareness led me to know that except love, the physical body is not ''pure'' enough to withstand a world without a headset (which means that you are everything and you have a body PS you are not conscious of body, you ''just are'')... it is to ''real'', felt something like ''death''... so after 3 days in and out of the headset I put my internal dialogue, my headset, and trying is that the ''truth''' ...and yes space-time is not fundamental...
If you're a gamer this is not a big leap.
Is this the first time Donald Hoffman has been on your show? Looking forward to his next book, I’ve already read Against Reality twice.
Why did my headset not turn me into a gigachad who just have tons of women and I look like a model? 😂😂😂
Even if our perception is an illusion, is it not a fair approximation of reality? Is not reality subjective in any case? I believe the imagery provided by the Hubbel or JWT does not represent an illusion, unless the universe itself is in on the gag.
I think music and art in general serves as attraction for the opposite sex , animals also use certain things to attract the opposite sex like dance, presenting a pebble, males use bright coat/feathers and enhance their appearance during mating, birds attract by singing. Humans by having more complex brain developed a few such methods including art
Regardless of how much I think I’m understood or understand other people, my interactions, due to how I remember them, were all illusions. Got it. End program .
Until you get hit by an apple. 😜Physical world has its meanings and limitations.
@@AnatolyKernSo, if I understand this correctly, the apple, as it's falling down through spacetime towards your noggin, is the wave function... and then, at the precise moment it strikes you and creates a dent in your skull and leaves a bruise, it has been detected and collapsed as a particle.
Then the shock of being impacted by the apple corresponds through the nervous system to activate the quasi-quantum microtubular pain centers in the the brain cortex to have you consciously acknowledge that experience as a painful one... which in turn, triggers a slightly delayed neuromuscular response for you to scream out at the top of your lungs in agony, reverberating diminishing waves back into, and throughout the universe, thus providing an indirect closed systematic feedback loop back into the bulk, and hence defeating entropy... amirite?
P.S... You then go on to develop THE ToE... 🤣
@@0neIntangible 🤣😂😂 interesting flow of thought, funny, but way to many misconceptions. Feedback loop in a form of some solid object from the physical reality is the best to stop quasi-quantum nonsense. 😜
Worth noting...that of the major theories of consciousness currently available (IIT etc.)...not a single one can conclusively even begin to explain a single moment of the conscious experience of anyone or anything. IOW...they're all batting 00000 (...and Don proceeds to confirm exactly that).
How and why converge at some distant point I think. Why is the sky blue is the same question as how is the sky blue isn't it?
We are living in a stimulation*
What you need to do...is get Don Hoffmann and Eric Weinstein on at the same time. Would really like to hear Eric's take on Don's work because he (Eric) goes on and on and on and on and on about how the world is in such desperate need of some kind of safety valve (off-planet being his safety valve of choice)...and in a very real way...the work Don is doing is revealing where that safety valve may be found. And it's sure not where Eric is pointing.
In regards to whether or not Deepak actually read TCAR, I'm assuming yes. I'm also assuming it took Deepak as long to think about his cover quote as it did for Dr. Hoffman to write the book. Lol
We are not living in a simulation; we are a living simulation.
We are avatars of ourselves?
Oh I like that
We are a living simulation inside of a simulation ;-)
@@MrEmotional33 Infinity inside infinity
I don't think liking music has no fitness benefit. The seeking of novelty is aaim driving force behind our intelligence and music was a novel thing a long time ago. Creating new music and listening to new music tickles the novelty part of our brains and we're rewarded for it.
About machines being able to achieve consciousness: The two assertions @57:31 then ...57:40 - seem to state the opposite: a) why not, b) then aduce principle reasons to deny that inanimate matter can "boot up" consciousness.
Nothing wrong with stating both possibilities. I just would like to understand Hoffman's leanings to the hypothesis of inanimate matter transition to consciousness.
So when we die is it game over or do we get to try again?
It’s hard to even define Space and Time (try asking Bing ChatGPT-4) so Consciousness is even trickier. Is it a kind of Field Energy, yet different to Electromagnetic radiation, bosons, etc? But it exists between Biological Brains and nervous systems in a massive grey web. This could be where the paranormal, Love, telepathy and more, originate.
I read the book. If this is true, how does any attempt at discovery of this occur within the impossibility of perception of “truth”?
Consciousness came first.
Love the talk about psychedelics at the end. How is that not a major topic when discussing conciousness! Starving for more...
Great conversation. One thing that always comes to mind when listening to Hoffman is a question about the logic of his theory. Hoffman posits that evolutionary game theory tells us that our virtual representations of the world do not match with what is "actually" there. For this reason, our physical models, like spacetime structure, cannot be accurate representations of the "real world." This seems all and well, until one considers that the theory of evolution by natural selection is precisely a theory of objects in spacetime. From my view, it seems that the conclusion that spacetime is not real is illogical, because the evidence comes from a model which is necessarily embedded in spacetime.
Hoffman briefly addresses this in his discussion on Robinson's Podcast.
ruclips.net/video/xJHljgqDAQc/видео.html
Around 1:19:00, Hoffman brings this up in a somewhat different manner, and claims that this line of reasoning "completely misunderstands the nature of scientific theories." He cites the general theory of relativity as an example, stating that the notion of spacetime falls apart at planck scales, and so the theory is incomplete. He relates this back to his work by claiming that scientific theories, like relativity and evolution, tell us about the "limits of your fundamental assumption" and that "we're using evolutionary game theory to show you there's incredible scope but there's also limits the very concept of objects in space and time." To me, this argument is completely unconvincing. I don't see the connection between Hoffman's claims and his example about relativity. It just seems like a logical error to use a theory which has some embedded properties to prove that those properties don't exist. I'm trying hard to understand Hoffman's position, and he seems to think that this is a non-issue. If anyone has any insights or other examples that might make his thinking more clear, that would be much appreciated :)
Cannot answer your questions. I kept wondering why Hoffman couldn't give a simple illustration such as, our ancestors walking in the wilderness did not need to see what was there. They needed grass and every leaf to blur into the background. They needed fruit to jump out to them. They needed a predator in the shadows to pop out in their minds. Also, I assumed it was a societal problem that every science video has comments about relativity, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, and every other topic not making sense. But maybe he is right and it is just their ape brains not being able to visualize the concepts.
I love when people say we're living in a simulation like it's some new take on our reality. It's the oldest take. .
Regarding true structures of reality, a major function of our brains is to filter out 99% of the inputs, leaving only a limited set of impulses, that we can fathom and make sense of.
Evolution naturally (!) isn't bothered with truth, only survival. Humans can only hold a limited number of abstract ideas or concepts in their mind at the time, so obviously we will have trouble finding patterns that span more ungroupable artefacts.
Even worse, evolution is probably only concerned with "good enough". As long as we win over predators, and get to produce offspring, and infant mortality rates are low, there is no real selection mechanism in place. Yes, there will be room for further tweaks, but say there were a branch of humanity who could sense radioactivity. As long as there aren't major areas with dangerous radiation, sensing it represents no advantage, and might disappear from the genome over time.
"Innocence"....I agree it is such a high value....
In both mind and spirit.
Fair enough if we are. But what would be the point exactly?
Physicalism can't be disproven by better physical models. Showing that temperature is emergent does not invalidate the boiling point of water. The new theory have to account for previous observations. New physical theories may show that our current models are insufficient. An extended realm of reality will hardly show that mind is fundamental. Better physical models will more likely be useful to show that the mind depends on structures in the brain.
I also disagree with the notion that truth goes exctinct. Our subjective view of reality serves a basis for actions. In this context we can make a lot of assumptions that are irrelevant as long as some important distictions hold water by corresponing to real differences. The ability to make these distinctions improve fitness and will then thrive. A relevant definition of truth for subjective agents should concern verified expectations of interactions with the surroundings. Not demand an objective representation of reality.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
And the name of the game is 'Money Chase'.
Part of why his books was banned. Galileo didn’t originate any of those ideas he proposed. It came directionally from think tanks and secret societies at the time (like I’m a member of) that he belong too. This was secret knowledge passed down from generations.
Yes, prepare yourself for another, “Michio Kaku is out of control” video.
and don’t forget the Eric Weinstein Go Fund Me.
No, they've already met and were cordial. Donald Hoffman isn't the establishment. He's doing something other than string theory.
I love them all. ❤
@@FrancisGo. hello my dear. in my country we have espression “do not fall in love with the mirror” and this I believing is number one problem for professor brian and four Mr eric. They love four listen themselves a little two muchly but I still enjoy there try. They do the best they can with their branes
@@RanjakarPatel😮
Maybe it’s just me, but does Donald’s voice sound eerily similar to the voice used for Stephen Hawking’s speech synthesis machine? Maybe it’s just the microphone….. reminds me of the many lectures from Mr Hawking that I’ve listened to.
This discussion has really brought out the crazies in the comments
I hear this clap trap about how we don't live in a reality because of the nature of how this 'so called' reality is put together. It's fabric, it's materials and construction. It's true that there are very strange things regarding Quantum mechanics that we have yet to comprehend and perhaps may 'never' comprehend, and also that an atom is more space than it is matter, and even that it's matter is more magnetic field than physical mass.
We live on a continuum between the infinitely large and infinitely small. It's truly a mystery but jumping to the absurdity that we live in a simulation is NOT necessary. It also doesn't mean anything. There is a reality that we live in, that we all share as conscious beings, and playing fanciful word games and stretching things that have been learned in science to ridiculous extremes is unfounded.
I may be off track here but I often see people who reject objective reality as people who wish to reject morality, ethics, and responsibility for their actions. In other words they have a personal motive for taking this POV more than there is science to back it up.
Maybe our simulation is like a game where there's a hidden "key" that will allow whoever discovers it to "exit" the simulation and "win" the game. The prize for the winner is becomig "god" or the simulation's developer and he/she will be in charge of the rules till there's another "winner"
Evolutionary theory proves that we cannot know reality, thereby undermining science and the theory of evolution along with it. Brilliant.
That's called a reductio ad absurdum -- and Hoffman's theory is the absurdum.
Just considering this from a purely sensory - evolutionary perspective. The presumption must be that what rules and mechanisms exist in the "real" reality, are mirrored in our evolution invented reality, regardless how removed they are? That is why science still works, because the underlying laws of nature are consistent. That might only hold true for classical physics and not quantum mechanics? We can't obviously know, before we get a theory for everything.
What does it mean when i can listen to these talks and want to listen to like 100000000 more and study this but im old and not in school or in the field of science lol. Does this mean i need to go back to school and find a new feild of work at my late age.
Well, we are in a constructed universe and our true selves are living in a constructed body in order to experience this universe, so yeah. It is kind of a simulation. The real universe is what we consider the spiritual domain. They are the dimensions that scientists know is there.
So, whats reality realy? Take the games people play on line. Mostly are about programming of creation of worlds of destruction there of. Ok. Is that ‘reality’? Probably not in spacetime terms. So now lets say after logging off, the virtual objects keep digitally growing, interacting, moving in the game. Still no reality? Maybe not. Now take it a step further. Suppose a 3D hardware printer is connected to the game, where the virtual objects (building block or created soldiers) can go to electronically and command to be laserprinted for real, wit a CPU inside. So next morning we may have tiny soldiers walking around. Still no reality? Amd what if instead of a polymer, the printer is equipped with organics inits cartridges (CHNOPS atoms/molecules) able to built cell like structures via microtubiles, get some DNA sequences in a pre-set stem cell…so really. It is hard to say where virtuality stops richt?
Are electrons conscious?
Some spin it that way.
Sure, why not, as long as that explains their observed behavior and all the models are unchanged
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". [1D string theory haha]
There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
What is the definition of zero in math?
Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ."
Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one.
Zero to any positive exponent equals zero.
Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects.
[Subject]:
a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind.
the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes.
[Object]:
a thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
This guy don't have a together enough to keep the audience audience. Interesting enough, you my friend are extremely interested. And I have been watching some of your programs. Not including this guy, some of them are pretty interesting. You're a marvelous man too bad. You're with someone so boring. Too many games make people not interested❤
Looks like professor Hoffman is on track to theorize the akashic record.
If everything in our universe is actually a recording recorded on the spiritual level where different laws of nature prevail then from that level we can see how our space time can be created.
Time would be the rate at which we perceive the recording.
We keep it uniform for sharing.
If we were in a simulation things would be good or at least marginally tolerable.
I don't know if there is such a thing, but this was fantastically good.
What a hoot, Genius! Maybe the Webb telescope is just an advanced Galileo telescopic headset! It appears its not turtles all the way down (or up) its galactic pinwheels and eggs!
I wish i could find the On/Off button..
😂
Humans couldn't evolve without suffering and learning to survive. If we were born into Heaven we'd never appreciate what Heaven is. I think this life is a learning curve for whatever's next. Imagine how most people would improve with a second life and the wisdom that comes from living in this reality.
Suffering is a path of development one part of your consciousness, psychology, religion and spiritual practices can help in this area. We need to develop our physical brains and ability to rationally think as well.
Agreed : )@@AnatolyKern
@@doctorcrankyflaps1724 🙏
Why can't we hypothesise that consciousness, memory and partitioning of consciousness goes down to the foundation of reality.
This guy told me basically hes never truly meditated. Why because he said "i stop thinking" meaning hes intentionally trying to stop thinking and just the intention of trying to stop thinking is thinking. When you meditate you dont stop thinking, all you do is simply mediate. By just trying to meditate you arent truly mediating, instead you are TRYING to meditate. Its mistake beginners make, the simple act of TRYING to do something stops you. Meditation is an action all to itself, its not a state you can attain, instead the state itself is what you describe as meditating.
Brian the next time your near a smooth body of water pick up a smooth flat rock and skip it across the water. That's how you move through space very quickly. Not through the vacuum space but across the EMF 's, we need to slide no resistance 😉. Peace from Canada, eh. 😎
Whenever theres a convo about “reality” and the main topic is language…i KNOW the person talking is credible !!! Ppl have no idea how language structures our consciousness !!!! 😅
"Consciousness" isn't well-defined so most arguments devolve from there. I call it "circular hippy logic".
22:09 _"I would say that 90 to 95% of them take it for granted that conscious experience is a product of brain activity"_
How did they all come to take it for granted like that? Is that a product of their indoctrination? Like a religious indoctrination?
Psychological research in the spectrum of psychopathy-empathy can help to understand why.
No most come to that conclusion themselves, independently.. It's not always a conspiracy and people are never as stupid as we make them out to be. Still in the realm of stupid, just not as.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 All 95% of them come to that conclusion indepeendently? how? What's the logic or rationale? Presumably, you came to that conclusion also. How? What was the single biggest reason you came to that assumption? ------ As for "conspiracy" - there's no such thing, and nor did i imply that.
@@AnatolyKern Interesting. How so? unpack that a little bit.
Because most scientists, especially physicits, are materialistic in their world view. Ideas such as spirituality, metaphysics and therefore also panpsychism are excluded from the general scientific discussion and dismissed as "woo-woo". They are not able to allow their thinking to entertain ideas outside of their materialist ideology.
This most likely started around the time of enlightenment, when sciences and religion got split into two distinct things, which let modern science to treat any kind of mixing of these as a taboo.
So yes, the irony is, that science is being taken as a believe system, similar to what religion is for other people, and therefore closes the horizon on what is actually conceivable. Basically, science ends up being just another religion.
(Not science per se, of course)
Reality is really not reality, if we really knew what reality is we'd really realize that we really know nothing about reality. This sentence is as convincing as Hoffman is, really.
That sentence was so fluid I drank it up so are you saying see the world through humility or am I just inferring
@kaylaluongo158 I'm saying that Hoffman doesn't know what he's talking about with "Reality is an illusion". He dazzles his fans with useless phrases like that.
Everyone knows that all we can perceive is a construct of our sensory apparatus (that's what he points at with an "illusion"). But, since EVERYONE knows that, all of us have learned ways to go around that drawback by double-checking, verifying with others, using devices, etc.
Now, Hoffman takes that fact and invents a string of nonsense that ends in "Mind is all there is" and Consciousness is fundamental.
@@goodquestion7915 I was satirically agreeing with you not him
but everyone is a big word half the people I ask don’t realize they can’t see the full color spectrum so most people don’t even know there is a “filter”so I’ll just continue believing in nothing I hear and half of what I see question
@kaylaluongo158 yeah, I knew you were agreeing; I was explaining just in case. Have a great day 😀
But what if the concepts of 'reality' and 'really' were themselves incomplete constructs? Many words have multiple meanings, so which one do we infer in this statement, that of human experience, which keeps us alive, or actual reality, which could harmfully confuse us into being distracted under perilous circumstances?
Sounds sooo intelligent, but surely thoughts going astray for the most part. If what we see or measure is a projection of something beyond, there must be some kind of projector too, and some kind of structure in the things (information bits or whatever) projected. Since the projector mechanism and the structure behind is not explained, he actually explains spacetime and matter with something more complicated not explained, which is nonsence.
These kind of mislead thoughts are modren nowadays, and i am sure many of those persons advocating them do not belieeve in them themselves, but spread the thoughts to rule and exploit people by leading stray or are hired to do so.
He gives some concrete examples that as a whole are plainly lies, even though the parts of the examples are not lies. One is that the colors you see is not a property of the light, since the light have wavelengths, not the colors perceived. What he hides is that there is a correspondancce between percepted colors and the wavelengths, and as such the percepted colors give an objective information, although not always exact, about reality, in this case the wavelengths.
Leonard Suskin advocates something similar. He spreads the belief that everything in the universe are bits encoded twodeimmentionally and holographically around the event horizon. But if that should be the case, there also must be a kind of projector mechanism that he does not explain and some kind of stuff at the horizon that holds the bits which is not explained. I think that also he for some reason is misleading the audience, and probably intentionally.
But these thoughts may have a value in that they give some mathematical analogies that can be used to get a deeper insight, for example between QM and GR.
Also I agree that de qualities of perception, which is the essence of consciousness cannot be exolained by mathematical equations. There must be some fundamental vitality principle behind consciousness. But surely many mechanism within conscioussness can be described with equations.
Also spacetime can possibly be explained with some kind of structure, for example by more fundamental links between particles that dynamically can be created and broken, but that is not the same as spacetime being unreal, only that spacetime is made up of parts.
“We Are Living in a SIMULATION!” You poor people ! We will see if we can get you out.
A better question than how consciousness emerges is how bullshit emerges
I give these "reality is a simulation" people about the same credibility as I give to Flat Earthers.
scientists half way to rediscovering kantianism, very impressive eye roll emojj
You should get Tom Campbell, Jim Elvidge, and Rizwan Virk on too
When i think about the simulation theory i try to put myself in the simulators shoes and ask myself what is the purpose of this particular carbon based 3 dimensional simulation ....first i would assume that i as the simulator exist in a higher dimension lets say 5th. I do not exist alone in this higher dimension and i am a conscience,intelligent,being that isnt constrained physically (laws) by any of the simulations physical restraints fore i exist outside the simulation. Yet i do obey a set of laws (non physical) as do all beings that reside outside the simulation. The breaking of our non physical laws required a punishment ...constraining the conscience of these law breakers into the 3rd dimension inside a physically constrained body was our solution for reflection,growth, and punishment.
Our visual senses are easily fooled. Nature takes advantage of this weakness to create false perceptions of reality within us. Our sense of touch, however, is not so easily fooled and reveals so much about the objective truth of our reality.