There is always been one answer to a question I’m asking myself for the last few years. The question is: “What is really left there in life, which I truly enjoy?”, and the consistent answer has been:”Nothing!” Thank god, since I experienced the sweet feeling of joy again after soooo long by watching the entire of this wonderful lecture. Thanks professor Hoffmann and everyone who recorded this precious video and made it available on RUclips! 🙏🏼🌺❤️
I have listened to 2 interviews of his conscious agents before looking for more interviews of his. This lecture is better than some interviews I have watched. Most hosts can’t grasp the idea he is trying to convey. Their questions can’t add to the clarity of Professor Hoffman’s research. I have listened to many NDE (near death experience) stories, read a few books about soul journey and I find the idea “consciousness is here to explore” is very in line with people who converse with the other side. Our souls (if this is one and the same as consciousness) is indeed here to experience.
It’s amazing to me that I, personally, know people who are not, in the least, interested in this marvelous information in which I have no experience but I am wise enough to access knowledgeable scientific sites on YT. Thank you, especially since I know that everything in all the universes are connected-I like the reality that I’ve created. Hallelujah 💥🌸🎶
Really enjoy Hoffmann’s lectures. It’s nice how his work is in a state of transition, what I mean is that he always presents new information and new studies, expanding his current work. You always learn something new. He is also great at acknowledging other viewpoints. Great stuff!
This is brilliant. It shows a convergence of science and spirituality. And Donald Hoffman is one of the most sincere persons, when he talks about his own illness and how he experienced it in spacetime spacetime.
Human consciousness is a spark from infinite conscious. Eventually the spark that is you and me returns to the source when tire of the folly of creating stories. The study of consciousness is a never ending story.
@@abjee1602 what is proof? i'm describing my experience. if you had the same experience, would you ask for proof? if my comment received 1000 thumbs up, would that be proof? words can only approximate the Truth.
It's fascinating how nothing is more intimate to our personal experience than our own consciousness. And yet as we go through life, most people receive no education on it, or reflect much on its great mystery. I recall some time in my later teenage years I looked down at my hands, opening and closing them as I was just sitting, lost and thought. And asked myself "how the hell am I doing this?" It was a serious question, and had nothing to do with stereotypical drug-induced tropes. That moment set off a cascade of questions that I later learned was a thing called "philosophy", which then later led to attempts at concrete answers through science. The deeper I went, the more of a mystery it became. It's not surprising that Don is trained in computer science. I feel like a great deal of my intuition about consciousness started to develop as I moved into computer science. A lot of the metaphors he uses sound insane to average people. But to a programmer, it's startlingly plausible. When we develop complex systems, as programmers, a great deal of the effort goes into "hiding" information complexity, and instead making elaborate fictions that seem to relate but aren't at all the same. For example when Don posits that perhaps the brain itself is just a fictional indicator, it seems wildly off base. But I think about when we program a video game and every time the player uses a sword, they see an indicator in a slot that correlates. When we play the game we know that the icon of the sword is not "the sword" we are holding. Or even that the sword we are holding is really a sword! But we do know there's a programmatic relationship between the icon and some underlying process. In other words, a programmer has ensured that we don't get confused. When we see the icon of a sword, we expect our character to hold a sword. The crucial point is that we still know that that's only a bit of code that only correlates that icon to the player holding the sword. We wouldn't be shocked if one day the icon glitched out, and yet we're still there standing with a sword in our hands. And yet, we have trouble seeing how our brain could be like the icon. In other words, linked to our consciousness through some (generally unfailing) programmatic relationship, but nothing more. Evolution as we know it has created absurdly complex systems out of adaptation. It would actually be a shock if it didn't shape our perceptual systems in equally dramatic ways. Nature really is the most impressive programmer we know of. Wherever we look, it has already discovered and used our clever algorithms, data manipulation, function encapsulation and information hiding well before we even started working with crude tools. I think as we move forward and switch out the old metaphors of mechanics and hardware, and adopt new ones of information and algorithms, these concepts that Don speaks of will not seem so foreign to average people. And there will be a path forward where we no longer live in mutually exclusive universes where one is made of "stuff" and the other "consciousness." Which is probably the most absurd place to be, if we are allowed to reflect on our moment in history.
I remember being a kid and my mum driving me to school and I just looked around and thought “why am I me? Why am I not this other kid at school?” and even tried to see if I could be someone else! But I guess I just knew no one knew and had to accept it. Now I’m 31 and in the last few months I’ve really gone down the rabbit hole and can’t believe I never wondered any of this before, and that other people don’t care! I’ve only really been watching Bernardo Kastrup and reading NDEs but looking forward to looking at Hoffman’s stuff
What a fantastic presentation. Very clear, very comprehensive and very rigorous! I truly appreciate Professor Hoffman's honesty as exemplified by his comments at the end of the lecture about him being like other "normal" people and behaving as if space-time is real, while he knows that it is not. I will be forwarding the link to many of my friends and colleagues who will undoubtedly be inspired by this lecture, as I have been. THANK YOU!
@@michaelg1569YOU are an open minded person, obviously you think for your self 👍🏻 ! Thought I was a part of a very few people who won’t take everything said ,written or seen as truth ! 👍🏻🙀👵🏻😱 AT LEAST QUESTION It , see if the cake bakes up 🎂pretty or falls flat! 🫓
And in India this fact was always known. The whole existence itself has been called interplay of Consciousness ( Shiva) and Energy ( Shakti) and everything has been seen as MAYA,The Grand illusionist
The upanishads figured it all out a long time ago because they have thought of it from the right starting place. If you are a western based scientist you have the baggage of starting from the wrong end of the spectrum. Hence as he said a cooperation between scientists and spiritual world would be beneficial for a understanding. Though on a individual basis this was always the case. Many scientists became deeply spiritual over the course of their lives
If everything was maya why don't you eat cow it's not real its grand illusion you believe as fact everything around you is unreal why you believe them as sacred to be prayed when they are just maya.
I assure you that when I woke up after open heart surgery the pain was so intense even with the most drugs a person can take and still be self aware that we are here it is not a dream this body is what we are living in reality.
While the experience may feel very real, DH argues that even those feelings are products of consciousness. Our perceived physical body and its inner workings might not be fundamental to our experience; instead, they are part of the illusion-a projection of consciousness.
What amazes me is how many of us believe in this theory and have no idea, and in fact, push back against it. This furthers the theory that it's all about perception.
There is only one truth: finding long term purpose which u can hold on to, maintaining good mental and physical health and solidifing your relationships. The rest is just an endless multidimensional game which I don't recommend to get involved much cuz u will lose yourself and identity.
Perception is the correct phrase. Humans are VERY limited in what we can sense or perceive, of what we can see, smell, taste, touch and smell is miniscule in comparison to what we know is there but we can't observe or perceive without using technology. Then there's the stuff what is probably there what we don't even know exists and will never understand the full picture. The things that we THINK we know and can prove already through science which seem accurate only seen accurate to use because we invented the laws of science as we perceived them with our limited senses. Imagine if we only saw UV light or were colourblind or if we never evolved to have eyes. Our perception would be very different but would still be accurate to us.
Buddhism, especially the "Mind Only" and Yogachara schools have posited for almost 2000 years that "mind" is fundamental. Consciousness arises out of fundamental mind and appearance of external objects arise out of consciousness.
*Jagaat mithya , brahma/atma satya* (The material objective world is an illusion and not nitya , onely pure absolute consciousness is the truth) ~ Adi Shankaracharya ( 2nd century CE)
Shankara was amazing even by Vedanta standards. The world is catching up ....Here is my hierarchy: Shankara .... Galileo ....Hoffman. Hoffman is most interesting because he is turning philosophical insight into science.
"It may be that we are puppets puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation." - Stanley Milgram
"Like any normal human being, I'm inconsistent." That's my favourite comment of the lecture. We have this sandbox to play in, and it is a a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, and it the most amazing thing to experience. Yeah, life is a big multi-dimensional, enfolded-unfolding, dance that is f-ing cool as hell. (What I don't get is how so many people love forever watching shadows on the cave wall, but then I suppose on some level that even leaving Plato's cave involves entering a larger one - at least until getting up again and leaving that cave, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.) I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture and will hear it again. It appeals on so many levels and encourages continuous exploration, imagination, relinquishing - or at least setting aside for a time - frames that are comfortable and familiar. Thank-you Professor Hoffman.
This is a beautiful knowledge to acquire. Makes me perceive how limited I am as a human, but also marvel at the wonder of experiencing life as a human. For me, It's best to enjoy this limited consciousness.
I deeply appreciate the work of Donald Hoffman and it blows my mind. Listening to this, the question came up to me, why we still are truthseekers ... we are designed for fitness and survival of our species, but still there is this curiosity in human beings like in all these impressive scientists ...
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Jesus. How many people do you think read this ? In ANY reality And...BTW... for a so-called scientist: shouldn't you be aware of the fact that scientists cannot "prove" anything ! ..... All science can do is disprove hyphotheses. So.. starting your diatribe with " I prove...." -- immediately makes real scientists switch off.
I have taken DMT and this all makes perfect sense. I experienced a Dimension which consisted solely of Information. Truth: We Do Not Exist, In Any Shape or Form... We Are Thoughts That Became Self-aware...
I never tried DMT, but tried mushrooms as a youth and realized time was an illusion. So are bodies are really just machines that let us experience linear time.
While I am an adequately educated person, I do not have the vaguest clue what is meant by the terms space-time, or even the term quantum theory. In 78 years of successfully living on this planet, I have never identified any necessity to know anything whatsoever about either. It simply isn't necessary to know everything about everything. I also can't play the violin, but I can listen to violin music. I can also listen to Hoffman, but I don't actually need to understand any of it. If you think that you do need to understand it, that very thought might not be consistent with the reality.
A major argument against Hoffman's theory is that evolution has actually led us to perceive the world pretty much as it is. If our perceptions were too far removed from reality, we would not be able to function effectively in the world and survive. Our technology, medicine and other scientific advances are based on our perception of reality. If our perceptions were as far from true reality as Hoffman suggests, how could we achieve such consistent and repeatable results in science and engineering? There are many studies that show how the brain processes information from the environment and how this processing leads to our perception. These studies suggest that our perception, although not perfect, is based on real data from the environment. One can argue that the burden of proof is on Hoffman. It is up to him to present convincing evidence that our perceptions differ from reality as drastically as he claims. Some philosophers argue that Hoffman's theory leans toward extreme idealism, stating that only the mind and its perceptions exist. This is in contrast to other philosophical views that state that an external, objective reality exists.
Hoffman is a nutjob just look at him. Doesn't take an FBI agent to read his body language and facial expressions to tell he's just a pseudointellectual conman.
DH is not claiming that the data in our perceived environment isn't real or that it lacks function. Rather, he argues that this data has limits and is not fundamental to our existence. For instance, space and time lose their conventional meaning at the Planck scale. He acknowledges that we can still create remarkable technologies within these confines, which we are indeed doing. Regarding perception, DH would argue that the sensations we experience, like the warmth of the sun or the blinding effect of its light, are part of the illusion. The fact that we can test and prove that the environment interacts with our perceptions doesn't negate his argument. He contends that all of this arises from consciousness, and while the tests we conduct may yield consistent results, they are part of the "game"-a construct that, though effective, is still not fundamental.
A bit new to all this, but isn't he saying that an objective reality does actually exist but it's our adapted senses which remove much of the "noise" irrelevant to human needs to survive? Not exactly novel, but pretty fascinating to hear about it from a perspective which realizes it's not the fundamental reality. There's too much arrogance in the materialist viewpoint as fundamental nowadays when so much phenomena points toward something else
An illusion is like a mirage that is later contradicted by another perception, the mirage does not come into existence, it was merely a false appearance. So the only way reality could be an illusion is if we all cognized another perception that cancels our universal experience that we call reality.
You create your own reality, also media does just that as it creates your perception of reality in parts of the world you have never been and when has medias been truly honest? Sure there are stuff that goes one that is unethical, but what are you certain of at 100% certainty? #rené descartes
Agree. It's what happens to your immediate environment including family and friends that is most important. If that's good then we can spread the word to change the world. But never let the media control your reality. Its like the life long friend you should of let go years ago
At this moment, there is a pigeon sitting on my balcony. Walter (The pigeon) and I are not expecting that coming to any conclusion about this subject is likely to make any difference to our ability to just get through this life. Any person (or pigeon) who agrees might see fit to give their brain a rest, and just enjoy the illusion. Or the reality. (Whatever it is.) "Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn" (Clark Gable) I recommend that you make a cup oof tea, watch the clouds roll by, and maybe listen to some music.
It's amazing how he builds a 'case against reality' step by step. If the scientific community follows this approach, it could be a profound & much required step towards understanding reality. Aligning more with ancient knowledge from many philosophies & core teachings of eastern religions.
We all need stability and love. Living with animals gives us that stability of everyday love and touch. Real love is love stability. Real love is when the person who says I love you never abandons the other person. Real love is unconditional love.
Dr Hoffman’s ideas resonate very strongly with the work of Tom Campbell and Bernardo Kastrup. They are all saying the same thing. That is, that consciousness is fundamental, and that physical reality (space time) is a projection of consciousness. Of course, the ancient Vedic scriptures, Platonists, Neoplatonists, Pythagoreans, and Buddhists have also been saying more ore less the same thing for thousands of years.
This is what Hinduism or to be precise Sanatana Dharma has been saying over a thousands of years . MAYA.. if only the western scientific World spent more time looking into the Hindu philosophy much more deeply and understand it they would have all the answers that they are looking for..
The difference is the Hindus never proved it mathematically.. .seems like they knew something they couldn't describe and scientists are trying to describe something they don't know
@@jasonshapiro9469💯 So many civilizations experienced these things directly and never needed to explain them with proofs and double blind studies lol Kinda funny, it's like we've come so far with hyper materialism mapping everything out in equations, yet somehow western society ignored the biggest equation of them all 😅
The perspective seen by the cat in the thought experiment called Schrödinger’s cat, is that only one cat entered and possibly exited the box. So, the outcome is predetermined (called collapsed) to be what the cat saw, rather than a random draw by Schrödinger from the superposition of all possible outcomes, if and only if, the cat is conscious and so has a perspective. The experiment shows that consciousness is the same as a collapsing outcome.
There's a lot of very interesting ideas in Prof. Hoffman's theories, yet I can't get past the fact that 'our consciousness creates our reality' is in conflict with what we know to be true, namely that you can put 100 people in a room and ask them to identify a tree, and they will all identify it as a tree. That is to say that they all experience the same (general) reality in relation to that object (yes, they may see it in different colours or have variations of topological shape caused by their visual apparatus, but they'll all say 'tree'). No-one will call it a boat. That therefore indicates that all 100 people are experiencing the same 'objective' reality, and that their individual consciousness is not creating one tree which only they and no-one else experiences. Or am I missing something? He has argued that when you perceive an object, it exists, then when you turn away it no longer exists, for you - that it is 'trash binned' (his own description). But that is easily undone by turning away and having another person say what exists out of your field of vision - therefore it's not that it doesn't exist, it just isn't perceived by you - which is a whole different idea.
@@clarealohi But that just doesn't have any evidential support. Life isn't a video game. And 5bat isn't consistent with him saying that when we don't see something it doesn't exist.
@@philweight3480 true, this is all still in theory, and likely always will be while in this reality, because that’s the way it was set up. When we are here we can’t know what’s outside of here. If you see it as logging in to a multiplayer game with the same code, design, and map, even if the something is not on our screen, the code will display that something to whomever is within view of it, sensorially. The five senses are another component that has us jacked into this illusion. But what we do know, is that materialism is dead and this is not as solid a reality as we were taught. Some feel by design. But that’s also not provable. I believe tapping into the intuitive sense and growing that sensation as one would grow a muscle gives more knowledge inaccessible to those who use only the 5 senses, however muscle testing/kinesiology is another way to gain answers from the field.
@@philweight3480 As regards everyone seeing the same object, you might look at Husserl's Phenomenology The same object 'appears' differently in every perception of it. He calls it the 'noema'. Phenomenology however does not negate he world, instead it focuses on the 'experience' of the object through an 'intentionality' of consciousness
Occam’s razor tells us not to include any unnecessary assumptions in a theory because those extra presuppositions might be illusions. A theory explaining consciousness, to the listener “myself”, does not need to presuppose the brain is conscious or presuppose the brain does our thinking such that it becomes aware. The concept of conscious observation exists outside the concept of an aware brain or computation. For example, we usually observe people and animals acting aware, outside of needing to also know we are an animal. Observation exists is provable to “myself” though, reading text for example. So, the concept of reading text sufficiently forces observation to exist. The illusions we found and debunked above were: light exists, the brain is a conscious computation, and the philosophy of the listener “myself” is explainable as an individual experience.
@@cirilloucazzu4457 an interpretive error from use of natural language without distinctions to segregate; all becomes united. this is really the realm of ontology/epistemology & therefore dependent upon one's framework rather than simply "natural/naive" logical formalism alone. There exists an observable topology whereby what I've said could be understood & considered correct. ~~~e.g.~~~ If you remove all integers / between zero and infinity by way of some consolidating map/continuous function then repeat the sub-function for the final iteration; removing / subsuming all classes of there remains the in itself singularly observed of itself.. in itself. {0,♾} -> {} ~ {0,♾}
@@cirilloucazzu4457 You cannot truly have "no thing" and expect to keep your preconceptions along the way, no? "No thing" is filled to burst of emptiness and sheer potential of that which (n)ever was(n't)
@@cirilloucazzu4457 Why would I be offended by such a blatant lack of curiosity or self reflection? Your response reads as nothing more than a tired hand wave. Surely your uninvestigated priors hold no bearing over what you hold to be unshakeable epistemic truths, my mistake (/s) Weary banality indeed. Lazily calling bullshit then claiming a polite exit and you must also believe I'm the one gaslighting myself? Perhaps because you mistakenly believe all of structural formalism must be limited and adhere to a rigid algebraic form that you can recognise? Pah! You can lie to me but please be honest with yourself. In abstract algebra; ''a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors' and so; what of Leibniz's metaphysical monad? If philosophy is synonymous with bullshit in your conceptual framework then I'll happily report to be guilty as charged and disappointedly concede that, at least in the immediate sense, there's no further discussion to be had on your part. At least I can console myself in being mellifluous for you, always happy to send the beclouded to sleep with their own obnubulations.
NDE people- the ones who go so far to speak about a previous life are never regular people but somehow always someone great so you can’t take them seriously.
Is there anything more in Hoffmann's ideas than in Kant's concept of the 'thing in itself' (different from what we see) and in his recognition that space and time are merely 'forms of perception' rather than real things ??? 🤔
Thank You for very wide explanation. Because of my mental problems I was speculating and reading some sources about consciousness and it seems to me as an connection between our brain and the universal "Cpu". Consciousness is main factor in forming reality, but what is reality is question because it is to much changable and depends of many competitive structures which are forming it. We could like it or not but there is something like the matrix with the ocean of sub matrixes; every exposed, successful individual has his sub matrix with orbiting trabants, and what is than with great organisations with millions or even billions envolved persons. How we could successfuly compete in forming our own true reality. And there are too much of us with own Pseudologia phantastica, perhaps I am writing this exactly because of my Pseudologia phantastica and searching in Your explanation for confirmation of it regardless of the fact that I am aware of the tendency for confirmation. What is true reality, and is it possible?
What he said about deception and the group is true and happening in society to the point where it is becoming the way to be. Everyone is deceiving each other for their selfish benefit. Like he said, it leads to collapse.
I like how this ties in perfectly with what spirituality believes, which is that we each create our own "reality"... and that only means that we create our own Experience of said reality. We are both the Creator and the Creation of our experience of reality. What separates us from fully knowing this truth is our constant, unconscious choosing of opposing beliefs - I am less than what I fear.
'' I present a new theorem: Veridical perceptions are never more fit than non-veridical perceptions which are simply tuned to the relevant fitness functions.'' I'm glad I read this sentence in the description! Now, I won't waste my time on the video.
I'm a pan psychist but I also accept the headset reality. I don't see that the two views are contradictory. As a pan psychist I just add to it that our reality is a headset reality and within this headset reality all things have a form of consciousness.
One of the last illusions in the hierarchy of illusions is that illusions are to be removed, the very last illusion of the whole tower is that peeling away illusions constitute an ascension while it actually constitutes a descent. Illumination is achieved at rock bottom and results in a strong impulse to rise back from the bottom of the abys. Rising back to the surface, gasping for air; and repopulate reality with culture, meaning, symbols, colors, with a new found appreciation for those once rejected so called illusions.
Perfect presentation by Donald Hoffman, to explain this Hadist Qudsi : يَقُولُ اللهُ تَعَالَى: أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي “God the Almighty said: I am as my servant (you) thinks I am “ “Tuhan berfirman: Aku adalah prasangka hambaku..” Muhammad (600) "Manunggaling kawulo - gusti", "You, are your own God" “You, are the creator of your own reality” Syech Siti Jenar, javanese scientist (1481) “I think therefore i’am” Rene Descartes (1637) “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking (believe) at it?“ Albert Einstein, the confused scientist towards quantum physics and reality (1921)
What Donald calls "illusion", normal people call "limited perceptual ability", or "perceptual keyhole". Donald is the Deepak Chopra of consciousness, science and game theory.
I agree. Our universal experience would have to be canceled by a cognition that exposes what we took for reality to be an illusion, only then would this choice of wording be coherent.
Dear professor Donald Hoffman, Thanks for your enlightening lecture. When I used to see the scenery using my three dimensional vision and enjoy the 3D effect (which most humans don't do, though everyone is endowed with the faculty) I used to presume that,the reason why most people don't enjoy,is,it involves more energy expenditure than 2D vision.More over,it doesn't have any practical value in modern day living. So,even ophthalmologist,who test for acquity of vision and colour blindness, don't test whether the person has intact 3D vision. Your lecture confirms my assumption that nature is for conservation of energy
Amazing, love the mix of science and spirituality. A long time ago, before the terms of AI were created, I wrote an essay on how both are at best searching for the truth and aiming to help humanity. Now I'm thinking we're all a spark of the divine consciousness.
The idea of superposition (to overlap) also can be to obscure (to hide from conscious observation). So, the idea called “collapsing the causal wavefunction” is mathematically equivalent to the idea called “conscious observation”. Proof: The common units of measure of change is “meaning” since collapsing to fewer outcomes means observing fewer meanings. Plants and animals exist among the causal wavefunction (the earth evolving) simply because they don’t overlap with other objects, and not because they are conscious or intelligent. The existence of animals is an objective fact or logical outcome, called consciousness.
Professor Hoffman lives in his mind. From here, one cannot speak of reality, only the depth of abatraction one has allowed perception to be drawn. Life is an expressive event that requires every aspect to be aligned for intelligent life to look out in the world. The nervous system is the core, not mind or consciousness. Energy moves and materialises. Studying scientidic materialism denies half of the subject. The spirit of expression is an impulse, like a transmission or signal. It isnt the material cause thought to exist beyond then quantum. We are quantum, out lives mirror the steady isolation material science needs to study how energy behaves when being manipulated. Thought and emotion are quantum, belonging to time more than any self. Feelings and ideas are fractalised paths people take, exploiting the fractal weakness before associating the ideaology to higher level behaviours. Creation possesses a complex unity that cant be found dissecting and separating the materials. Creative stress is the impulse im speaking about. Matter is transformed by these pressures, tensions, and frictions that turns carbon to diamond and other stranger phase transitions. Life doesn't make sense in pieces, and piecing everything back together doesn't get you to what you started with. All is rebuilt on idealised information entanglements that have lost creative complexity.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs Yes Ask chatgpt…..who created human beings? Only 3 religion is based on god but not Hinduism…then you get answer about consiousness ,illusion and reality…
Gödel's incompleteness. Defining something adequately enough to use it in a sentence is called “completeness”. Gödel's incompleteness states that that sentence, and hence every sentence, is still incomplete. So, let consciousness be defined as adequate proof in words that the universe exists, words we could use in a sentence to explain how consciousness works. Hence, consciousness is a computation (a proof that the universe exists). And, the mechanism of consciousness is the activity of completing, e.g., grasping, explaining, defining, or proving. Corollaries. The exception to Gödel's incompleteness is the activity of completing. The exception to not being conscious is the activity of completing. Consciousness is the illusion that the universe exists, the rule that rules are observed.
Theorem: The conscious entity “myself” is a by-product of the mechanics of the universe accidently proving to itself that the universe exists. (A mathematical constraint on all calculi, rather than an attribute of each conscious calculus). Proof: Before the first observer, a proof that the universe exists could be found if and only if a first observer occurred, and saw or felt the universe. Seeing the universe would prove to the first observer that the universe exists and hence a proof then would have been found. So, the mechanism of consciousness is the same as the mechanism of proving the universe exists. As such, the entity “myself’ is exactly the rule that rules exist (that rules exist is accidental proof that something exists and is the universe proving to itself that the universe exists), which is not a by-product of the activity in each brain.
Steiner goes into great depth explaining all of these things, as does Seth, in The Eternal Validity of The Soul. Gigi Young I'm sure is related to Blavatsly, and takes ancient wisdom through quantum physics, into vivid intel for us today 💐 well, I think she's spot on, like Michael Feeley ....great times to be alive!! 🧡💫
Space-time is the stream we are riding on, the room we are passing through. In the beginning, there was Consciousness and everything came from it. As part of all that is, We are Consciousness.
This is a brief record of my after death experience and the things I learned while in Gods presence in Dec 2022. How did you build the universe? Answer: It is a massive self directing simulation like South Park is to us, but much more complex. To set the stage properly it has to be realized God (our programmer), is not in his computer but sitting at it. He is not bound by the rules of our created simulation, any more than we are bound by the rules of south park or the Simpsons. He could be any one in his world, but because he can press delete, or adjust our reality to any thing he wishes, to us he is God. I asked God, "Are you perfect". His answer was no, not then. Are you now? Yes. I have an immortal body already of course, and will be in the new perfect heavens and earth along with you. I have dealt with every defect. I then asked "Was Adam and Eve perfect. His answer was no. Next, what about your re-action of deciding to throw Adam out and burn him instead of reviewing his schematics and correcting problems? Answer...I was a lot younger and more reactionary then. I never sinned to be born. What is this crock of original sin? Answer: It is a glitch in the matrix I can not correct, and it affects all new introductions to the simulation. What is Jesus? Answer: He is a patch program that if you use it removes this original defects called sin you inherit from the program. I have been asked many times why death has to occur for this transfer to take place. Answer: Because at this time it is the limits of my technology. The prayer includes several key words i will accent. Here it is. JESUS, I BELIEVE in you, FORGIVE me this original SIN and all others, COME INTO my life and help me to live it better. This patch does several things. One, the destination of your consciousness has now been transferred from hell, and paired with an immortal body that will be defect free and last forever. This body will also reside in a new defect free universe, on a redesigned, defect free earth. All this for the price of a one sentence prayer taking less than 30 seconds to pray. Why this way. Unknown, but I assure you it works. I have done it. This is his simulation, and he gets to choose the key words. What they are really does not matter, it is the effectiveness that counts. As for the many evils and the horrendous crimes of our reality they are all real and I asked about this. Answer: This simulation has too much wrong, so I no longer fix it. I have left you to the consequences of bad self direction, and the destruction it brings. The new bodies are ready, the new universe almost ready so I have poured my resources into this. The reality of the universe you are now in is about to suffer total cascade failure, and end. As for all who accept this route of using the patch, no matter what you were, you are now perfect, and with a new destination after death.. This applies to us all. What happens to those that do not accept. Answer: They end up in the trash, as they can not be allowed to destabilize the matrix of the new universe with there still present defects. Do they burn forever. I then saw a vision of Scotland and its burning bogs. God assured me that this is the fire the defective people that die will suffer from, not constant burning of individuals, but with fires that can spring up anywhere and do burn forever. I also was listening to a rabbi talk of hell and there version is quite different and much more merciful. I think there version must be considered correct as this belief system is originally there’s. They should know. ruclips.net/video/rI-Fpq1IzCQ/видео.html In short, this is a bad reality we are in. It will not be corrected. Like an old car, you get rid of it and can drive away in a nice new one. Pray the patch prayer and see. In short God is saying make this change this way because as of now it is the only solution available. ruclips.net/video/rF5KgpZXNeU/видео.html ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=is+our+reality+pixelated
Theorem: The conscious entity “myself” is a by-product of the mechanics of the universe accidently proving to itself that the universe exists. Proof: Before the first observer, a proof that the universe exists could be found if and only if a first observer occurred, and saw or felt the universe. Seeing the universe would prove to the first observer that the universe exists and hence a proof then would have been found. So, the mechanism of consciousness is the same as the mechanism of proving the universe exists. As such, the entity “myself’ is exactly the rule that rules exist, rather than consciousness being a by-product of the activity in each brain.
If the world, which includes Hoffman, is an illusion, then so is Hoffman. How can an illusionary man, such as Hoffman, determine what is real and isn't?
Hoffman’s consciousness and your consciousness are one and the same so he communicates with you through that medium not as a physical bodily physicist but rather as a fellow conscious entity who superficially seems to be a physical human being.
@@sharonhearne5014 Which would also be an illusion, and two illusions can't interact at all, for only two reals have casual interaction. The incoherency of this position remains.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs No, he is suggesting that consciousness transcends the physical world as we perceive it, implying that what we experience as the physical world is merely a projection of consciousness. The "illusion" refers to the way we perceive the world as physical, three-dimensional, and governed by the laws of space and time, when, in reality, it is consciousness that shapes this perception. He argues that the deeper truth resides within a collective consciousness, existing outside of space and time as we know it. In this respect, his theory is not inconsistent.
Hoffman’s theory supports the theory of affirmations. We construct reality/ future. Karl Jung describes the simulation as the ego, the agent simulation - space time in physical objects. The self is not fundamental. Karl Jung argues that reality also exist beyond consciousness but beyond human perception - a reality waiting to be simulated by agents; the subconscious self as opposed to the ego. The question is, how can agents consistently create reality that sustains human existence assuming non existence is not a desired state. No agent desires to be hit by a train. The holy grail is the ability as agents of simulation to control our reality - to invoke the space and time we desire.
Funny. I'm a die-hard Hoffman fan, so my ears hear him in a certain (admittedly biased) light. I tried listening with your perspective in mind ... and you are right. He comes off as a scientist all the way to the core.... or heart. He does "better" in more casual interviews. If you find his ideas intriguing and want to listen to a more human interview, try ruclips.net/video/HJlA5mHYK4w/видео.html (perhaps it takes a woman to bring out his more human side).
Hoffman is suggesting that consciousness transcends the physical world as we perceive it, implying that what we experience as the physical world is merely a projection of consciousness. The "illusion" refers to the way we perceive the world as physical, three-dimensional, and governed by the laws of space and time, when, in reality, it is consciousness that shapes this perception. He argues that the deeper truth resides within a collective consciousness, existing outside of space and time as we know it. In this respect, his theory is not inconsistent.
Reality can only be the cognizance of perception. Life gave each organism only those sensory tools necessary to apprehend it's environment to best advantage.
Were the: Holocaust (1941-1945) Rwandan Genocide (1994) Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979) Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) Nanjing Massacre (1937-1938) My Lai Massacre (1968) Srebrenica Massacre (1995) September 11 Attacks (2001) all just illusions too?
Yes. Every aspect of our physical realm is an illusion. The native Aboriginals of Australia claim we are "Mud men walking through a dream world." His description isn't far from what they claim; we just have a better ability to describe this illusion.
@@donaldwilliams4019 Yeah, look at where that has gotten Australian Aboriginals. To the brink of extinction because realists invaded their reality and took all the land from them. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Im backing up my arguments with examples and facts; you name-call and belittle. Your example doesn't disprove Dr. Hoffman's theory. In fact, it supports the idea that conscious entities become more and more evolved in their ability to manipulate this 3D holographic realm. The Aboriginals didn't have the language to properly describe this V.R. program, but they understood the implications of it. Too bad so many "evolved modern men" can't see this glaring fact that "primitive cavemen" could comprehend. Makes you question the validity of "modern man" and his ability to understand things he can't see..
There is always been one answer to a question I’m asking myself for the last few years. The question is:
“What is really left there in life, which I truly enjoy?”, and the consistent answer has been:”Nothing!”
Thank god, since I experienced the sweet feeling of joy again after soooo long by watching the entire of this wonderful lecture.
Thanks professor Hoffmann and everyone who recorded this precious video and made it available on RUclips!
🙏🏼🌺❤️
Have you listened to Mooji? You might be amazed, as I am.
@@stevesmith8155 Unfortunately I haven’t, but I’ll surely do. Thanks Steve! 🙏🏼
You are ready to take the plunge. Love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your strength. And love your neighbor as your self.
The moment.
JOY IS THERE WHEN YOU'RE NOT
This world is an illusion, exile.
It's nice to hear an uninterrupted flow of Professors Hoffman's theories, I found the interviews a little hard to follow.. Thankyou for this!
I have listened to 2 interviews of his conscious agents before looking for more interviews of his. This lecture is better than some interviews I have watched. Most hosts can’t grasp the idea he is trying to convey. Their questions can’t add to the clarity of Professor Hoffman’s research. I have listened to many NDE (near death experience) stories, read a few books about soul journey and I find the idea “consciousness is here to explore” is very in line with people who converse with the other side. Our souls (if this is one and the same as consciousness) is indeed here to experience.
Consciousness lectures will not reveal your true self.
Marina very true.
Most hosts can't grasp the realization that consciousness is fundamental because there are no words.
THE TOUCH OF GOD
It’s amazing to me that I, personally, know people who are not, in the least, interested in this marvelous information in which I have no experience but I am wise enough to access knowledgeable scientific sites on YT. Thank you, especially since I know that everything in all
the universes are connected-I like the reality that I’ve created. Hallelujah 💥🌸🎶
Really enjoy Hoffmann’s lectures. It’s nice how his work is in a state of transition, what I mean is that he always presents new information and new studies, expanding his current work. You always learn something new. He is also great at acknowledging other viewpoints. Great stuff!
geshsehehe
He changed the way I think about the world around us. Amazing work done by him!
Still sane, exile?
This is brilliant. It shows a convergence of science and spirituality. And Donald Hoffman is one of the most sincere persons, when he talks about his own illness and how he experienced it in spacetime spacetime.
There is no science in this lecture. This is pseudoscience.
😂😂😂😂
Have you ever seen the true face of God, Exile?
Human consciousness is a spark from infinite conscious. Eventually the spark that is you and me returns to the source when tire of the folly of creating stories. The study of consciousness is a never ending story.
Perfect 🫶😊
@@fabianacampanari4786 😻
😄
Got any proof of this happening?
@@abjee1602 what is proof? i'm describing my experience. if you had the same experience, would you ask for proof? if my comment received 1000 thumbs up, would that be proof? words can only approximate the Truth.
The touch of God!!
Have you ever seen the true face of god?
It's fascinating how nothing is more intimate to our personal experience than our own consciousness. And yet as we go through life, most people receive no education on it, or reflect much on its great mystery. I recall some time in my later teenage years I looked down at my hands, opening and closing them as I was just sitting, lost and thought. And asked myself "how the hell am I doing this?" It was a serious question, and had nothing to do with stereotypical drug-induced tropes.
That moment set off a cascade of questions that I later learned was a thing called "philosophy", which then later led to attempts at concrete answers through science. The deeper I went, the more of a mystery it became.
It's not surprising that Don is trained in computer science. I feel like a great deal of my intuition about consciousness started to develop as I moved into computer science. A lot of the metaphors he uses sound insane to average people. But to a programmer, it's startlingly plausible.
When we develop complex systems, as programmers, a great deal of the effort goes into "hiding" information complexity, and instead making elaborate fictions that seem to relate but aren't at all the same.
For example when Don posits that perhaps the brain itself is just a fictional indicator, it seems wildly off base. But I think about when we program a video game and every time the player uses a sword, they see an indicator in a slot that correlates. When we play the game we know that the icon of the sword is not "the sword" we are holding. Or even that the sword we are holding is really a sword! But we do know there's a programmatic relationship between the icon and some underlying process. In other words, a programmer has ensured that we don't get confused. When we see the icon of a sword, we expect our character to hold a sword.
The crucial point is that we still know that that's only a bit of code that only correlates that icon to the player holding the sword. We wouldn't be shocked if one day the icon glitched out, and yet we're still there standing with a sword in our hands. And yet, we have trouble seeing how our brain could be like the icon. In other words, linked to our consciousness through some (generally unfailing) programmatic relationship, but nothing more.
Evolution as we know it has created absurdly complex systems out of adaptation. It would actually be a shock if it didn't shape our perceptual systems in equally dramatic ways. Nature really is the most impressive programmer we know of. Wherever we look, it has already discovered and used our clever algorithms, data manipulation, function encapsulation and information hiding well before we even started working with crude tools.
I think as we move forward and switch out the old metaphors of mechanics and hardware, and adopt new ones of information and algorithms, these concepts that Don speaks of will not seem so foreign to average people. And there will be a path forward where we no longer live in mutually exclusive universes where one is made of "stuff" and the other "consciousness." Which is probably the most absurd place to be, if we are allowed to reflect on our moment in history.
Good one
Yours is the most well thought out (and regarding a very important subject at that!) comment I've ever read in the RUclips comment section 👍
"Stuff" is the brain, and "consciousness" is a manifestation of the mind.
The material obvious and the other the "hidden".
Really well said. Thanks.
I remember being a kid and my mum driving me to school and I just looked around and thought “why am I me? Why am I not this other kid at school?” and even tried to see if I could be someone else! But I guess I just knew no one knew and had to accept it. Now I’m 31 and in the last few months I’ve really gone down the rabbit hole and can’t believe I never wondered any of this before, and that other people don’t care! I’ve only really been watching Bernardo Kastrup and reading NDEs but looking forward to looking at Hoffman’s stuff
What a fantastic presentation. Very clear, very comprehensive and very rigorous! I truly appreciate Professor Hoffman's honesty as exemplified by his comments at the end of the lecture about him being like other "normal" people and behaving as if space-time is real, while he knows that it is not. I will be forwarding the link to many of my friends and colleagues who will undoubtedly be inspired by this lecture, as I have been. THANK YOU!
Inspired to do what? Be still, and know that I am.
Very clear ? Very rigorous? Hmm Interesting
lol
@@michaelg1569YOU are an open minded person, obviously you think for your self 👍🏻 ! Thought I was a part of a very few people who won’t take everything said ,written or seen as truth ! 👍🏻🙀👵🏻😱 AT LEAST QUESTION It , see if the cake bakes up 🎂pretty or falls flat! 🫓
And in India this fact was always known. The whole existence itself has been called interplay of Consciousness ( Shiva) and Energy ( Shakti) and everything has been seen as MAYA,The Grand illusionist
100% these people read vedanta for sure but don't give credit
The upanishads figured it all out a long time ago because they have thought of it from the right starting place. If you are a western based scientist you have the baggage of starting from the wrong end of the spectrum. Hence as he said a cooperation between scientists and spiritual world would be beneficial for a understanding. Though on a individual basis this was always the case. Many scientists became deeply spiritual over the course of their lives
If everything was maya why don't you eat cow it's not real its grand illusion you believe as fact everything around you is unreal why you believe them as sacred to be prayed when they are just maya.
You might enjoy the discussion with Rupert Spira then, called The Convergence of Science and Spirituality @@robabc
Gibberish
I assure you that when I woke up after open heart surgery the pain was so intense even with the most drugs a person can take and still be self aware that we are here it is not a dream this body is what we are living in reality.
While the experience may feel very real, DH argues that even those feelings are products of consciousness. Our perceived physical body and its inner workings might not be fundamental to our experience; instead, they are part of the illusion-a projection of consciousness.
What amazes me is how many of us believe in this theory and have no idea, and in fact, push back against it.
This furthers the theory that it's all about perception.
There is only one truth: finding long term purpose which u can hold on to, maintaining good mental and physical health and solidifing your relationships.
The rest is just an endless multidimensional game which I don't recommend to get involved much cuz u will lose yourself and identity.
Perception is the correct phrase. Humans are VERY limited in what we can sense or perceive, of what we can see, smell, taste, touch and smell is miniscule in comparison to what we know is there but we can't observe or perceive without using technology. Then there's the stuff what is probably there what we don't even know exists and will never understand the full picture. The things that we THINK we know and can prove already through science which seem accurate only seen accurate to use because we invented the laws of science as we perceived them with our limited senses. Imagine if we only saw UV light or were colourblind or if we never evolved to have eyes. Our perception would be very different but would still be accurate to us.
I wish the ads every 5mins. were an illusion.
Yep, ads SUCK! :-(
😂😂😂
Have you ever seen the true face of god exile?
Thank you Dr. Hoffman. More please!
Buddhism, especially the "Mind Only" and Yogachara schools have posited for almost 2000 years that "mind" is fundamental. Consciousness arises out of fundamental mind and appearance of external objects arise out of consciousness.
Still sane exile?
*Jagaat mithya , brahma/atma satya*
(The material objective world is an illusion and not nitya , onely pure absolute consciousness is the truth) ~ Adi Shankaracharya ( 2nd century CE)
This talk has nothing to do with any religious myths.
Shankara was amazing even by Vedanta standards. The world is catching up ....Here is my hierarchy: Shankara .... Galileo ....Hoffman. Hoffman is most interesting because he is turning philosophical insight into science.
"It may be that we are puppets puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation." - Stanley Milgram
I offered you the gift of exile and you used it to reinvent yourself. I couldn't wish for a more potent instrument.
"Like any normal human being, I'm inconsistent."
That's my favourite comment of the lecture.
We have this sandbox to play in, and it is a a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, and it the most amazing thing to experience. Yeah, life is a big multi-dimensional, enfolded-unfolding, dance that is f-ing cool as hell. (What I don't get is how so many people love forever watching shadows on the cave wall, but then I suppose on some level that even leaving Plato's cave involves entering a larger one - at least until getting up again and leaving that cave, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)
I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture and will hear it again. It appeals on so many levels and encourages continuous exploration, imagination, relinquishing - or at least setting aside for a time - frames that are comfortable and familiar.
Thank-you Professor Hoffman.
Tala moana, warriors!
This is a beautiful knowledge to acquire. Makes me perceive how limited I am as a human, but also marvel at the wonder of experiencing life as a human.
For me, It's best to enjoy this limited consciousness.
This is the most exciting idea I've ever come across in my life-time. It has the potential to provoke a paradigm shift!
So far the best RUclips video I've watched this decade
I deeply appreciate the work of Donald Hoffman and it blows my mind. Listening to this, the question came up to me, why we still are truthseekers ... we are designed for fitness and survival of our species, but still there is this curiosity in human beings like in all these impressive scientists ...
Interesting expression “blows my mind”. The truth is revealed when the mind is incapacitated.
That is again part of human psychology and wanting to understand what around us.There is no answer to chase we just exist really.
Fascinating question
It's as if the universe is destined to rediscover itself but this time from within
Excellent presentation, very grateful.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Jesus. How many people do you think read this ? In ANY reality
And...BTW... for a so-called scientist: shouldn't you be aware of the fact that scientists cannot "prove" anything !
..... All science can do is disprove hyphotheses.
So.. starting your diatribe with " I prove...." -- immediately makes real scientists switch off.
I have taken DMT and this all makes perfect sense. I experienced a Dimension which consisted solely of Information.
Truth:
We Do Not Exist,
In Any Shape or Form... We Are Thoughts That Became Self-aware...
I never tried DMT, but tried mushrooms as a youth and realized time was an illusion. So are bodies are really just machines that let us experience linear time.
While I am an adequately educated person, I do not have the vaguest clue what is meant by the terms space-time, or even the term quantum theory. In 78 years of successfully living on this planet, I have never identified any necessity to know anything whatsoever about either. It simply isn't necessary to know everything about everything. I also can't play the violin, but I can listen to violin music. I can also listen to Hoffman, but I don't actually need to understand any of it. If you think that you do need to understand it, that very thought might not be consistent with the reality.
"Jerry, just remember... it's not a lie, if you believe it." - George Costanza
Just remember Jerry is a Zionist
A major argument against Hoffman's theory is that evolution has
actually led us to perceive the world pretty much as it is.
If our perceptions were too far removed from reality, we would
not be able to function effectively in the world and survive.
Our technology, medicine and other scientific advances are based
on our perception of reality. If our perceptions were as far from
true reality as Hoffman suggests, how could we achieve such
consistent and repeatable results in science and engineering?
There are many studies that show how the brain processes information
from the environment and how this processing leads to our perception.
These studies suggest that our perception, although not perfect,
is based on real data from the environment.
One can argue that the burden of proof is on Hoffman. It is up
to him to present convincing evidence that our perceptions
differ from reality as drastically as he claims.
Some philosophers argue that Hoffman's theory leans toward
extreme idealism, stating that only the mind and its perceptions
exist. This is in contrast to other philosophical views that
state that an external, objective reality exists.
Many of us have a “ shared’ reality?
Hoffman is a nutjob just look at him. Doesn't take an FBI agent to read his body language and facial expressions to tell he's just a pseudointellectual conman.
DH is not claiming that the data in our perceived environment isn't real or that it lacks function. Rather, he argues that this data has limits and is not fundamental to our existence. For instance, space and time lose their conventional meaning at the Planck scale. He acknowledges that we can still create remarkable technologies within these confines, which we are indeed doing.
Regarding perception, DH would argue that the sensations we experience, like the warmth of the sun or the blinding effect of its light, are part of the illusion. The fact that we can test and prove that the environment interacts with our perceptions doesn't negate his argument. He contends that all of this arises from consciousness, and while the tests we conduct may yield consistent results, they are part of the "game"-a construct that, though effective, is still not fundamental.
@@gazzyb85 A very good point
A bit new to all this, but isn't he saying that an objective reality does actually exist but it's our adapted senses which remove much of the "noise" irrelevant to human needs to survive?
Not exactly novel, but pretty fascinating to hear about it from a perspective which realizes it's not the fundamental reality. There's too much arrogance in the materialist viewpoint as fundamental nowadays when so much phenomena points toward something else
Still sane, Exile?
We thank Dr Hoffman for this new revelation of an Ancient truth🙏
Think you’re smart until REALITY HITS YOU
We all strive for somthing because no-one wants harsh reality hits us in the face. Then it all becomes hopless
Reality is that which when you choose to stop believing in it persists nonetheless.
An illusion is like a mirage that is later contradicted by another perception, the mirage does not come into existence, it was merely a false appearance. So the only way reality could be an illusion is if we all cognized another perception that cancels our universal experience that we call reality.
Reality is that which is permanent.
@@michaelg1569
Nothing is permanent. The center does not hold
@@richardlecomte4874 infinite consciousness (aka God) is real
@@michaelg1569
Man made god in his own image.
The interviews are great! More of Mr. Hoffmann please!
I wish reality was an illusion. This world can be brutal
Exactly.
You create your own reality, also media does just that as it creates your perception of reality in parts of the world you have never been and when has medias been truly honest? Sure there are stuff that goes one that is unethical, but what are you certain of at 100% certainty? #rené descartes
Agree. It's what happens to your immediate environment including family and friends that is most important. If that's good then we can spread the word to change the world. But never let the media control your reality. Its like the life long friend you should of let go years ago
At this moment, there is a pigeon sitting on my balcony. Walter (The pigeon) and I are not expecting that coming to any conclusion about this subject is likely to make any difference to our ability to just get through this life. Any person (or pigeon) who agrees might see fit to give their brain a rest, and just enjoy the illusion. Or the reality. (Whatever it is.) "Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn" (Clark Gable) I recommend that you make a cup oof tea, watch the clouds roll by, and maybe listen to some music.
Reality is not an illusion, reality is a definition-one we cannot separate from our own consciousness. Concepts r us.
This guy is onto something
It's amazing how he builds a 'case against reality' step by step.
If the scientific community follows this approach, it could be a profound & much required step towards understanding reality. Aligning more with ancient knowledge from many philosophies & core teachings of eastern religions.
"The task of properly relating science to transcendental knowledge is a great and holy task"
Under 7 yrs of age reality was as real as my dreams , to stare and look into things turned into colors objects moved with the beating of my heart .
🙄
We all need stability and love. Living with animals gives us that stability of everyday love and touch. Real love is love stability. Real love is when the person who says I love you never abandons the other person. Real love is unconditional love.
My bills aren't an illusion.
He explains that in 45 min. Like his icon of the folder on the screen - our bills are serious, but not real :-)
@@mona5217 It's incoherent, none of that is illusionary or should be described as such.
Your Bills are concepts, we agree upon. They have no reality in Africa, or in reality.
He literally said you should take your perceptions very seriously
😅
Dr Hoffman’s ideas resonate very strongly with the work of Tom Campbell and Bernardo Kastrup. They are all saying the same thing. That is, that consciousness is fundamental, and that physical reality (space time) is a projection of consciousness. Of course, the ancient Vedic scriptures, Platonists, Neoplatonists, Pythagoreans, and Buddhists have also been saying more ore less the same thing for thousands of years.
This is what Hinduism or to be precise Sanatana Dharma has been saying over a thousands of years . MAYA.. if only the western scientific World spent more time looking into the Hindu philosophy much more deeply and understand it they would have all the answers that they are looking for..
The answers can be found in Samadhi.
Surely one would first have to show that the vedas are a source of truth in the first place?
If you believe everything is maya why you believe cow as sacred holy you can eat them bcz you believe everything is maya they aren't real.
The difference is the Hindus never proved it mathematically.. .seems like they knew something they couldn't describe and scientists are trying to describe something they don't know
@@jasonshapiro9469💯
So many civilizations experienced these things directly and never needed to explain them with proofs and double blind studies lol
Kinda funny, it's like we've come so far with hyper materialism mapping everything out in equations, yet somehow western society ignored the biggest equation of them all 😅
The perspective seen by the cat in the thought experiment called Schrödinger’s cat, is that only one cat entered and possibly exited the box. So, the outcome is predetermined (called collapsed) to be what the cat saw, rather than a random draw by Schrödinger from the superposition of all possible outcomes, if and only if, the cat is conscious and so has a perspective. The experiment shows that consciousness is the same as a collapsing outcome.
Consciousness is not the experience of the senses - eg colour; consciousness is that which is aware of the experience. Subtle difference.
There's a lot of very interesting ideas in Prof. Hoffman's theories, yet I can't get past the fact that 'our consciousness creates our reality' is in conflict with what we know to be true, namely that you can put 100 people in a room and ask them to identify a tree, and they will all identify it as a tree. That is to say that they all experience the same (general) reality in relation to that object (yes, they may see it in different colours or have variations of topological shape caused by their visual apparatus, but they'll all say 'tree'). No-one will call it a boat. That therefore indicates that all 100 people are experiencing the same 'objective' reality, and that their individual consciousness is not creating one tree which only they and no-one else experiences. Or am I missing something? He has argued that when you perceive an object, it exists, then when you turn away it no longer exists, for you - that it is 'trash binned' (his own description). But that is easily undone by turning away and having another person say what exists out of your field of vision - therefore it's not that it doesn't exist, it just isn't perceived by you - which is a whole different idea.
I agree, this solipsistic idea is debunked by the universal experience of every human.
He explains this by saying we are all using the same interface in this VR game, so we see the same things.
@@clarealohi But that just doesn't have any evidential support. Life isn't a video game. And 5bat isn't consistent with him saying that when we don't see something it doesn't exist.
@@philweight3480 true, this is all still in theory, and likely always will be while in this reality, because that’s the way it was set up. When we are here we can’t know what’s outside of here. If you see it as logging in to a multiplayer game with the same code, design, and map, even if the something is not on our screen, the code will display that something to whomever is within view of it, sensorially. The five senses are another component that has us jacked into this illusion. But what we do know, is that materialism is dead and this is not as solid a reality as we were taught. Some feel by design. But that’s also not provable. I believe tapping into the intuitive sense and growing that sensation as one would grow a muscle gives more knowledge inaccessible to those who use only the 5 senses, however muscle testing/kinesiology is another way to gain answers from the field.
@@philweight3480 As regards everyone seeing the same object, you might look at Husserl's Phenomenology
The same object 'appears' differently in every perception of it. He calls it the 'noema'.
Phenomenology however does not negate he world, instead it focuses on the 'experience' of the object through an 'intentionality' of consciousness
Occam’s razor tells us not to include any unnecessary assumptions in a theory because those extra presuppositions might be illusions. A theory explaining consciousness, to the listener “myself”, does not need to presuppose the brain is conscious or presuppose the brain does our thinking such that it becomes aware. The concept of conscious observation exists outside the concept of an aware brain or computation. For example, we usually observe people and animals acting aware, outside of needing to also know we are an animal. Observation exists is provable to “myself” though, reading text for example. So, the concept of reading text sufficiently forces observation to exist. The illusions we found and debunked above were: light exists, the brain is a conscious computation, and the philosophy of the listener “myself” is explainable as an individual experience.
Another very interesting thing he mentioned is time. Many NDE (near death experience) people mentioned there’s no time on the other end.
@@cirilloucazzu4457 no thing is every thing
@@cirilloucazzu4457 an interpretive error from use of natural language
without distinctions to segregate; all becomes united.
this is really the realm of ontology/epistemology & therefore dependent upon one's framework rather than simply "natural/naive" logical formalism alone.
There exists an observable topology whereby what I've said could be understood & considered correct.
~~~e.g.~~~
If you remove all integers / between zero and infinity by way of some consolidating map/continuous function then repeat the sub-function for the final iteration; removing / subsuming all classes of there remains the in itself singularly observed of itself.. in itself. {0,♾} -> {} ~ {0,♾}
@@cirilloucazzu4457 You cannot truly have "no thing" and expect to keep your preconceptions along the way, no?
"No thing" is filled to burst of emptiness and sheer potential of that which (n)ever was(n't)
@@cirilloucazzu4457 Why would I be offended by such a blatant lack of curiosity or self reflection?
Your response reads as nothing more than a tired hand wave.
Surely your uninvestigated priors hold no bearing over what you hold to be unshakeable epistemic truths, my mistake (/s)
Weary banality indeed.
Lazily calling bullshit then claiming a polite exit and you must also believe I'm the one gaslighting myself? Perhaps because you mistakenly believe all of structural formalism must be limited and adhere to a rigid algebraic form that you can recognise? Pah!
You can lie to me but please be honest with yourself.
In abstract algebra; ''a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors' and so; what of Leibniz's metaphysical monad?
If philosophy is synonymous with bullshit in your conceptual framework then I'll happily report to be guilty as charged and disappointedly concede that, at least in the immediate sense, there's no further discussion to be had on your part.
At least I can console myself in being mellifluous for you, always happy to send the beclouded to sleep with their own obnubulations.
NDE people- the ones who go so far to speak about a previous life are never regular people but somehow always someone great so you can’t take them seriously.
this is a perfect definition of "the Ether"
If reality is an illusion the pain isn’t.
True from my chronic illness I can feel how real i am.
Is there anything more in Hoffmann's ideas than in Kant's concept of the 'thing in itself' (different from what we see) and in his recognition that space and time are merely 'forms of perception' rather than real things ??? 🤔
Thank You for very wide explanation. Because of my mental problems I was speculating and reading some sources about consciousness and it seems to me as an connection between our brain and the universal "Cpu". Consciousness is main factor in forming reality, but what is reality is question because it is to much changable and depends of many competitive structures which are forming it. We could like it or not but there is something like the matrix with the ocean of sub matrixes; every exposed, successful individual has his sub matrix with orbiting trabants, and what is than with great organisations with millions or even billions envolved persons. How we could successfuly compete in forming our own true reality. And there are too much of us with own Pseudologia phantastica, perhaps I am writing this exactly because of my Pseudologia phantastica and searching in Your explanation for confirmation of it regardless of the fact that I am aware of the tendency for confirmation. What is true reality, and is it possible?
What he said about deception and the group is true and happening in society to the point where it is becoming the way to be. Everyone is deceiving each other for their selfish benefit. Like he said, it leads to collapse.
I like how this ties in perfectly with what spirituality believes, which is that we each create our own "reality"... and that only means that we create our own Experience of said reality.
We are both the Creator and the Creation of our experience of reality.
What separates us from fully knowing this truth is our constant, unconscious choosing of opposing beliefs - I am less than what I fear.
What utter drivel. Go tell that to the child dying of starvation screaming out for help!
Tell that to those who died in gas chambers in Auschwitz.
'' I present a new theorem: Veridical perceptions are never more fit than non-veridical perceptions which are simply tuned to the relevant fitness functions.''
I'm glad I read this sentence in the description!
Now, I won't waste my time on the video.
Have you ever seen the true face of god, exile?
I'm a pan psychist but I also accept the headset reality. I don't see that the two views are contradictory. As a pan psychist I just add to it that our reality is a headset reality and within this headset reality all things have a form of consciousness.
That's exactly the concept of vedanta. Concept of Maya
One of the last illusions in the hierarchy of illusions is that illusions are to be removed, the very last illusion of the whole tower is that peeling away illusions constitute an ascension while it actually constitutes a descent. Illumination is achieved at rock bottom and results in a strong impulse to rise back from the bottom of the abys. Rising back to the surface, gasping for air; and repopulate reality with culture, meaning, symbols, colors, with a new found appreciation for those once rejected so called illusions.
If it's an illusion, is it a real illusion?
Perfect presentation by Donald Hoffman, to explain this Hadist Qudsi :
يَقُولُ اللهُ تَعَالَى: أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي
“God the Almighty said: I am as my servant (you) thinks I am “
“Tuhan berfirman: Aku adalah prasangka hambaku..” Muhammad (600)
"Manunggaling kawulo - gusti", "You, are your own God" “You, are the creator of your own reality” Syech Siti Jenar, javanese scientist (1481)
“I think therefore i’am” Rene Descartes (1637)
“Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking (believe) at it?“ Albert Einstein, the confused scientist towards quantum physics and reality (1921)
What Donald calls "illusion", normal people call "limited perceptual ability", or "perceptual keyhole". Donald is the Deepak Chopra of consciousness, science and game theory.
I agree. Our universal experience would have to be canceled by a cognition that exposes what we took for reality to be an illusion, only then would this choice of wording be coherent.
Dear professor Donald Hoffman, Thanks for your enlightening lecture. When I used to see the scenery using my three dimensional vision and enjoy the 3D effect (which most humans don't do, though everyone is endowed with the faculty) I used to presume that,the reason why most people don't enjoy,is,it involves more energy expenditure than 2D vision.More over,it doesn't have any practical value in modern day living. So,even ophthalmologist,who test for acquity of vision and colour blindness, don't test whether the person has intact 3D vision. Your lecture confirms my assumption that nature is for conservation of energy
Amazing, love the mix of science and spirituality. A long time ago, before the terms of AI were created, I wrote an essay on how both are at best searching for the truth and aiming to help humanity. Now I'm thinking we're all a spark of the divine consciousness.
Precisely ❤
Yet not even one of these divine entities bothered to save those in Libya who were screaming for help as the flood took them away.
The idea of superposition (to overlap) also can be to obscure (to hide from conscious observation). So, the idea called “collapsing the causal wavefunction” is mathematically equivalent to the idea called “conscious observation”. Proof: The common units of measure of change is “meaning” since collapsing to fewer outcomes means observing fewer meanings.
Plants and animals exist among the causal wavefunction (the earth evolving) simply because they don’t overlap with other objects, and not because they are conscious or intelligent. The existence of animals is an objective fact or logical outcome, called consciousness.
Reality is by definition what we experience. Nothing else …. you can call it illusion or whatever, but we have only this 😎
Not necessarily.
Dead right
Exactly!
Then your dream is same reality as walking reality 🤔🤔
Seeing a Mirage is same as seeing anything.
@@SanatanSurya12 Yes, dream is a form of reality. Ideas, Poems, Software, History, Mathematics, Predictions …. all this are parts of our reality.
Professor Hoffman lives in his mind. From here, one cannot speak of reality, only the depth of abatraction one has allowed perception to be drawn. Life is an expressive event that requires every aspect to be aligned for intelligent life to look out in the world. The nervous system is the core, not mind or consciousness.
Energy moves and materialises. Studying scientidic materialism denies half of the subject. The spirit of expression is an impulse, like a transmission or signal. It isnt the material cause thought to exist beyond then quantum.
We are quantum, out lives mirror the steady isolation material science needs to study how energy behaves when being manipulated. Thought and emotion are quantum, belonging to time more than any self. Feelings and ideas are fractalised paths people take, exploiting the fractal weakness before associating the ideaology to higher level behaviours.
Creation possesses a complex unity that cant be found dissecting and separating the materials. Creative stress is the impulse im speaking about. Matter is transformed by these pressures, tensions, and frictions that turns carbon to diamond and other stranger phase transitions.
Life doesn't make sense in pieces, and piecing everything back together doesn't get you to what you started with. All is rebuilt on idealised information entanglements that have lost creative complexity.
In Sanskrit it's called MAYA. A whole philosophy/spiritual teaching in Vedanta.
Yep,same consciousness( brahman )
???? This has nothing to do with religion.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs Yes Ask chatgpt…..who created human beings? Only 3 religion is based on god but not Hinduism…then you get answer about consiousness ,illusion and reality…
44:40-47:23
55:00-1:01:00
1:05:00-1:32:05
1:25:06 on Parke-Taylor formula
If reality is an illusion, then it's an illusion that reality is an illusion.
It is an onion, and the center is emptiness.
🤔...... 🙂
If you believe that, then doesn’t that make you delusional ?
Then we have nothing to worry about.
Consciousness is fundamental as it is where all ideas form, some of which become paintings, chairs, houses, etc
Is what we perceive as reality an illusion? good one..
Gödel's incompleteness.
Defining something adequately enough to use it in a sentence is called “completeness”. Gödel's incompleteness states that that sentence, and hence every sentence, is still incomplete. So, let consciousness be defined as adequate proof in words that the universe exists, words we could use in a sentence to explain how consciousness works. Hence, consciousness is a computation (a proof that the universe exists). And, the mechanism of consciousness is the activity of completing, e.g., grasping, explaining, defining, or proving.
Corollaries.
The exception to Gödel's incompleteness is the activity of completing.
The exception to not being conscious is the activity of completing.
Consciousness is the illusion that the universe exists, the rule that rules are observed.
It would be good if Hoffman would formulate a concrete and falsifiable prediction. Otherwise it's just philosophy.
He can’t: it’s definitely (bad) philosophy.
@@christopherhamilton3621 What is misleading is that he suggests that it is actual science.
Theorem: The conscious entity “myself” is a by-product of the mechanics of the universe accidently proving to itself that the universe exists. (A mathematical constraint on all calculi, rather than an attribute of each conscious calculus). Proof: Before the first observer, a proof that the universe exists could be found if and only if a first observer occurred, and saw or felt the universe. Seeing the universe would prove to the first observer that the universe exists and hence a proof then would have been found. So, the mechanism of consciousness is the same as the mechanism of proving the universe exists. As such, the entity “myself’ is exactly the rule that rules exist (that rules exist is accidental proof that something exists and is the universe proving to itself that the universe exists), which is not a by-product of the activity in each brain.
Steiner goes into great depth explaining all of these things, as does Seth, in The Eternal Validity of The Soul. Gigi Young I'm sure is related to Blavatsly, and takes ancient wisdom through quantum physics, into vivid intel for us today 💐 well, I think she's spot on, like Michael Feeley ....great times to be alive!! 🧡💫
I was introduced to Seth at age 12, and always loved the work Jane did channeling Seth.
lol?
Space-time is the stream we are riding on, the room we are passing through. In the beginning, there was Consciousness and everything came from it. As part of all that is, We are Consciousness.
This is a brief record of my after death experience and the things I learned while in Gods presence in Dec 2022.
How did you build the universe? Answer: It is a massive self directing simulation like South Park is to us, but much more complex.
To set the stage properly it has to be realized God (our programmer), is not in his computer but sitting at it. He is not bound by the rules of our created simulation, any more than we are bound by the rules of south park or the Simpsons. He could be any one in his world, but because he can press delete, or adjust our reality to any thing he wishes, to us he is God.
I asked God, "Are you perfect". His answer was no, not then.
Are you now? Yes. I have an immortal body already of course, and will be in the new perfect heavens and earth along with you. I have dealt with every defect.
I then asked "Was Adam and Eve perfect. His answer was no.
Next, what about your re-action of deciding to throw Adam out and burn him instead of reviewing his schematics and correcting problems? Answer...I was a lot younger and more reactionary then.
I never sinned to be born. What is this crock of original sin? Answer: It is a glitch in the matrix I can not correct, and it affects all new introductions to the simulation.
What is Jesus? Answer: He is a patch program that if you use it removes this original defects called sin you inherit from the program.
I have been asked many times why death has to occur for this transfer to take place. Answer: Because at this time it is the limits of my technology.
The prayer includes several key words i will accent. Here it is.
JESUS, I BELIEVE in you, FORGIVE me this original SIN and all others, COME INTO my life and help me to live it better.
This patch does several things. One, the destination of your consciousness has now been transferred from hell, and paired with an immortal body that will be defect free and last forever. This body will also reside in a new defect free universe, on a redesigned, defect free earth. All this for the price of a one sentence prayer taking less than 30 seconds to pray. Why this way. Unknown, but I assure you it works. I have done it. This is his simulation, and he gets to choose the key words. What they are really does not matter, it is the effectiveness that counts.
As for the many evils and the horrendous crimes of our reality they are all real and I asked about this. Answer: This simulation has too much wrong, so I no longer fix it. I have left you to the consequences of bad self direction, and the destruction it brings. The new bodies are ready, the new universe almost ready so I have poured my resources into this. The reality of the universe you are now in is about to suffer total cascade failure, and end. As for all who accept this route of using the patch, no matter what you were, you are now perfect, and with a new destination after death.. This applies to us all.
What happens to those that do not accept. Answer: They end up in the trash, as they can not be allowed to destabilize the matrix of the new universe with there still present defects.
Do they burn forever. I then saw a vision of Scotland and its burning bogs. God assured me that this is the fire the defective people that die will suffer from, not constant burning of individuals, but with fires that can spring up anywhere and do burn forever. I also was listening to a rabbi talk of hell and there version is quite different and much more merciful. I think there version must be considered correct as this belief system is originally there’s. They should know.
ruclips.net/video/rI-Fpq1IzCQ/видео.html
In short, this is a bad reality we are in. It will not be corrected. Like an old car, you get rid of it and can drive away in a nice new one. Pray the patch prayer and see. In short God is saying make this change this way because as of now it is the only solution available.
ruclips.net/video/rF5KgpZXNeU/видео.html
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=is+our+reality+pixelated
Thanks I needed to read this
Keeping a good constructive attitude toward mind and heart conscience . ☝️
This has nothing to do with your myths
What a ridiculous bunch of drivel. A childish concept to think of a person being eternally punished.
@@restlessdieselI saw hell. It is real and burniing.
Theorem: The conscious entity “myself” is a by-product of the mechanics of the universe accidently proving to itself that the universe exists. Proof: Before the first observer, a proof that the universe exists could be found if and only if a first observer occurred, and saw or felt the universe. Seeing the universe would prove to the first observer that the universe exists and hence a proof then would have been found. So, the mechanism of consciousness is the same as the mechanism of proving the universe exists. As such, the entity “myself’ is exactly the rule that rules exist, rather than consciousness being a by-product of the activity in each brain.
If the world, which includes Hoffman, is an illusion, then so is Hoffman. How can an illusionary man, such as Hoffman, determine what is real and isn't?
Hoffman’s consciousness and your consciousness are one and the same so he communicates with you through that medium not as a physical bodily physicist but rather as a fellow conscious entity who superficially seems to be a physical human being.
@@sharonhearne5014 Which would also be an illusion, and two illusions can't interact at all, for only two reals have casual interaction. The incoherency of this position remains.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs No, he is suggesting that consciousness transcends the physical world as we perceive it, implying that what we experience as the physical world is merely a projection of consciousness. The "illusion" refers to the way we perceive the world as physical, three-dimensional, and governed by the laws of space and time, when, in reality, it is consciousness that shapes this perception. He argues that the deeper truth resides within a collective consciousness, existing outside of space and time as we know it. In this respect, his theory is not inconsistent.
Hoffman’s theory supports the theory of affirmations. We construct reality/ future. Karl Jung describes the simulation as the ego, the agent simulation - space time in physical objects. The self is not fundamental. Karl Jung argues that reality also exist beyond consciousness but beyond human perception - a reality waiting to be simulated by agents; the subconscious self as opposed to the ego.
The question is, how can agents consistently create reality that sustains human existence assuming non existence is not a desired state. No agent desires to be hit by a train.
The holy grail is the ability as agents of simulation to control our reality - to invoke the space and time we desire.
Submit, heretic!
No one ever asks him what reality is actually like. And how does he understand it well enough to model it?
Base Reality incomprehensible to us , perhaps it is like the snow on t.v. , or something we can not ever imagine.
Thank you for this thought-provoking example of an AI Robot reporting as though he was a scientist-no heart here-I find it eerily fascinating.
Funny. I'm a die-hard Hoffman fan, so my ears hear him in a certain (admittedly biased) light. I tried listening with your perspective in mind ... and you are right. He comes off as a scientist all the way to the core.... or heart. He does "better" in more casual interviews. If you find his ideas intriguing and want to listen to a more human interview, try ruclips.net/video/HJlA5mHYK4w/видео.html (perhaps it takes a woman to bring out his more human side).
Interesting, I find much humanity in his tone and approach. He's soothing to listen to, could be confirmation bias.
I had such a crazy dream listening to this in the background
Is reality an illusion? NO,.. Reality are basic foundamentle truths. This video isn't consistent.
Agree with ya
What is truth?You don’t make sense Prof does very logical in his scientific approach.
Hoffman is suggesting that consciousness transcends the physical world as we perceive it, implying that what we experience as the physical world is merely a projection of consciousness. The "illusion" refers to the way we perceive the world as physical, three-dimensional, and governed by the laws of space and time, when, in reality, it is consciousness that shapes this perception. He argues that the deeper truth resides within a collective consciousness, existing outside of space and time as we know it. In this respect, his theory is not inconsistent.
Minute 34 is eye opening!
Don't pay your bills and taxes you will know reality
Reality can only be the cognizance of perception. Life gave each organism
only those sensory tools necessary to apprehend
it's environment to best advantage.
Were the:
Holocaust (1941-1945)
Rwandan Genocide (1994)
Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945)
Nanjing Massacre (1937-1938)
My Lai Massacre (1968)
Srebrenica Massacre (1995)
September 11 Attacks (2001)
all just illusions too?
Yes.
Every aspect of our physical realm is an illusion.
The native Aboriginals of Australia claim we are "Mud men walking through a dream world."
His description isn't far from what they claim; we just have a better ability to describe this illusion.
@@donaldwilliams4019 Yeah, look at where that has gotten Australian Aboriginals. To the brink of extinction because realists invaded their reality and took all the land from them. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 That doesn't dispute the fact that this is a holographic 3D computer program that we are playing around with.
@@donaldwilliams4019 Why are you trying to prove to me so badly that you had too much to drink, though? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Im backing up my arguments with examples and facts; you name-call and belittle.
Your example doesn't disprove Dr. Hoffman's theory. In fact, it supports the idea that conscious entities become more and more evolved in their ability to manipulate this 3D holographic realm.
The Aboriginals didn't have the language to properly describe this V.R. program, but they understood the implications of it.
Too bad so many "evolved modern men" can't see this glaring fact that "primitive cavemen" could comprehend. Makes you question the validity of "modern man" and his ability to understand things he can't see..