Doubtless this appeared on my RU-vid feed because of the many videos I've been watching on Dzogchen, the non-dual tradition of Buddhism. It is called the Great Perfection. They have been exploring this question for over a thousand years and from what I've absorbed of that exploration, Professor Hoffman has come to the same conclusion. We are riding a wave of energy and our response to everything is influenced by the human body that carries us and the lifetime of experiences we've had that impact perception. And it all is unfolding within awareness. We live in our skin and carry our karma but really are dancing with the energy of the universe. I've found especially helpful videos by James Low who began his journey hitchhiking from Scotland to India during his summer breaks in the 1960's. He has 800 videos on his RU-vid channel.
The true genius of the Hoff is his empathy. He is acutely aware of when his field of study flies so far above the average viewer, it actually makes him uncomfortable, so he manages to bring at least a part of it back down to earth and delivers a kernel of 'ah hah!'. At least to the people with no scientific background (like me) who are still totally fascinated with how he views 'reality'. Respect Don. Respect.
Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
I have been fortunate to have taken several teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is trained not only in a wide breadth of teachings on his subject, but also in how to teach to the three levels of listeners at the same time. it is an enviable talent. I got in trouble one time by saying someone wasn't a good teacher. I didn't mean he wasn't a kind, thoughtful and learned person, but that he hadn't learned how to put teachings into the minds of the listener. I, obviously, was the least skillful of all!!
In1967 I was a radical materialist Atheist until I heard of LSD-25 in a scientific seminar. After ingesting 100mcgm of pure Sandoz I had an experience that I could only verbalize as coming face to face with god. I also thought that reality was a feely from Brave New World (VR in today's technology). After much more science, software engineering, AI, philosophy, meditation, about 20 psychedelic experiences in that 57 years I'm now an adherent of Advaita Vedanta. Consciousness is primary. Your theories are wonderful and give us more clues about the hard problem of matter (how come objects persist in waking lucid dream) Thank you very much. Tat Tuam Asi.
From my experience as a non-mathematically gifted human, I really do feel Prof. Hoffman is totally on the right track. If you can understand his insight, then it should be apparent that we live in a highly personal reality.. ~ Know this, you are immortal, deeply loved and revered. We are all One, we give from ourselves to ourselves ~ And once you know this, what does that mean in your current life and your relationships to everything else? This understanding brings on another whole dimension of living in this body and circumstance. Love to you all in your endeavours ❤
Professor Hoffman is taking, and I’m not presuming that there’s no basis for it, the most difficult position on this matter and I applaud his boldness, his creativity and honestly, his optimism. I personally hope that he is proven correct, that there is no physical basis, no substrate. That is a much more exciting and open-ended, and I would argue that the position actually sets the stage of reality as a mind-blowing and perhaps bottomless mystery. The discussion of TOE, left me even more stunned. The ego of the scientific community (human ego universally appears the same) would argue this assertion. After all, the physics community had the nerve to propose ‘a theory of everything’ to begin with, so they will stick with a traditional, physical fundamental foundation for reality. There will be a powerful push-back. I am astounded. Great video. I never imagined that Reason would ever open its eyes and see fundamental reality. At the same time, there is no doorway into the fundamentals of consciousness that doesn’t demand that we use the entryway of reason- otherwise you will lose your mind and adversely harm health. Professor Hoffman is experiencing this right now, but his reason may preserve him. Excellent video
The scientific consensus is that space-time exists independently of perception. The physical universe, including the fabric of space-time, operates according to laws that do not require an observer. Misinterpretations of quantum mechanics should not be used to make broad claims about the nature of space-time itself
Thank you for mentioning the ego of the scientific community and of humanity in general. I have begun to think of this as “anthropic arrogance.” We have an unsupported belief in the importance of our existence. Perhaps that is necessary in order to persist during the triviality of a human lifetime.
When Donald speaks that space and time are part of our "headset" to "play" with "reality," I cannot help but think about the importance of the creation and evolution of "concepts." and metaphors. We can discuss conscious and unconscious processes (as Freud, Jung, and others have done), but we can also consider the field of computing, where we talk about processes, memory management, memory allocation, etc etc. Similarly, we can think of our brain as having unconscious processes that manage the "CRUD" (Create, Read, Update, Delete) of all our memories, which are organized in different hierarchies.
Mr. Hoffman, you have absolutely hit the nail directly on the head when explaining what cautiousness is and what it is doing and by extension what we are doing here. I just wanted to let you know that you explain things very well. These are concepts that attempted to convey to others before but when you're up ready to hear them, you don't have the ears to hear them
What if we are neurons in a brain of the universe. How dies anything exist ? How does it know what to do? Where is all the information it gets to exist? I think everything in the universe is concious . Aka God. Two tiny parts of a human explosion into a mini big bang or there own. 9 months later we inter to the world and we look around and become a part of the whole. 99.9 percent of all species that ever inhabited the earth are gone. Why are we here ? We are part of a whole.
Hoffman and his perspective towards the end as to why conciseness exists, it is rather similar to the perspective held by the late Alan Watts. Much in the idea that there is conciseness, each sentient being has its own perspective, but each and every conscious being shares the same conciseness in and of itself. My own perspective (however true) is that conciseness and everything that is considered as 'other' than myself is also myself. In Alan Watts' own words, you are the universe experiencing itself.
I seem to have a much more comfortable way of understanding Alan Watts. So if what Mr Hoffmann is saying is more or less equivalent to the teachings of AW, then I understand. So thanks for your comment!🕊️
Alan Watts said "the answer is always who's asking the question" which means if you're asking the question what is reality it's actually you as reality asking the question. Right now and the knowledge of right now is eternity therefore right now is always dreaming itself as a physical sense of itself right now. That's why Alan Watts said what happens once always happens once because right now is always dreaming itself as this same exact physical sense of itself right now, right now never changes itself as a reproductive state right now.
Donald is good at getting every angle of the "consciousness is fundamental" with great humility of a true scientist and sensitivity to spiritual aspects.
@@NondescriptMammalyes you are correct but as it is a new field of research it might require a novel approach and the development of new tools of analysis and construct. Also, if this new field of research is aiming to study constructs that are "outside" of the "headset", while all the existing sciences would study constructs that are within the headset, then the tools and research methods that we're familiar with wouldn't be compatible or implementable in the new field. If we can't explain it yet, it doesn't mean we won't be able to understand it later. Also a true scientist should always be curious. That's how things are discovered.
@@solararcana88 Fair enough, you make good points. I appreciate that he has the humility to admit that it is all hypothetical at this point, and that is to his credit as a scientist.
Hoffman is a brave man to follow the science so deeply that ‘academic accepted science’ falls apart. He has followed a level of truth so deep that knowing falls apart.
What he is saying is absolutely beautiful. I hope there is more scientific research into this and FAST, like when the atomic bombs were created, FUNDING NOW! The world needs this after such horrific atrocities. This is unity, imagine what we could create and discover together again.
Not saying anything we haven't heard before. Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. Though, in that idea, the shadows on the wall were created by something real.
I have watched more than a score of Hoffman interviews but this one caught him in a particularly expressive and informative state. Notions of "a mathematical theory of consciousness" would seem tame if you imagined a mere neural-net exercise. From Donald Hoffman, it means to "look outside of spacetime" to a rarefied realm where mathematical objects stand staring at us like silent Obelisks, a realm without substrates where "consciousness is fundamental." He is both challenging and entertaining.
Don, you are brilliantly building a bridge between science and spirituality! I wish I had a recent PhD in algebraic geometry. It would be awesome to work with you. BTW: mysticism should be recognized as a legitimate tool in science because The Reality is ultimately mystical.
@@James-ll3jb Well that depends. I sure wish I'd studied geometry every time I start to build something!!! your statement sounds like there is an ultimate use of time that will give basis for reality and for what end? Every moment counts..
I was meditating and when i came out of it. I came to the realization the interconnectedness of all things in the universe by comparing it to a vast organism. In this analogy, the universe functions akin to a living being, with Earth representing a tiny yet integral cell within its grand body. Just as cells work together to sustain the health of a body, humanity plays a role in maintaining the equilibrium of the universe. This perspective highlights the interdependence of all life forms and emphasizes our responsibility in nurturing the harmony of the cosmic order. It's a captivating way to contemplate our existence within the vastness of the cosmos and our interconnectedness with something greater than ourselves. In this metaphorical framework, the concept of cancer could be likened to destructive forces such as Hitler and wars, which threaten to disrupt the harmony of the cosmic order. Just as cancerous cells endanger the health of an organism, these destructive forces jeopardize the balance and well-being of the universe. Humanity's struggle against such destructive forces mirrors the body's immune response to combat cancer, working diligently to prevent them from overpowering and harming the larger whole. It underscores our collective effort to preserve the integrity and vitality of the cosmic order, ensuring that harmony prevails over discord.
More like Advaita vedanta philosophy of Hinduism. Buddhism considers Emptiness as the ultimate reality. Advaita vedanta considers Non-dual Consciousness as the ultimate reality.
@@jackroberts416I understand what emptiness is. However, some Buddhists would deny that it is consciousness. The idea of "clear light" or "luminosity" (prabhāsvara) as an aspect of consciousness is more commonly found in later developments within Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna (Tibetan) Buddhism rather than in early Theravāda texts. These conclusions of the ultimate reality as pure consciousness ( chitt/ Chaitanya Jyoti/ sva-prakasha) were already explained by the Hindu philosophers way before any school of Buddhists who reached to this conclusion much lately. I talked about advaita because Donald Hoffman had already did a podcast with Swami Sarvapriyananda an Advaita vedanta monk, where he discussed in deep about the headset analogy and the similarities in the philosophy of vedanta.
@@jackroberts416Jesus speaks of doing the will of God -- God the father. The human personality having a conscious relationship with the universal Spirit.
Professor Hoffman is a brilliant man. His statement that we think of ourselves as tiny little objects in space-time reminds me of an NDE story that was on RU-vid a few years ago where a woman was shown that she actually was bigger than the universe. Professor Huffman's belief that space-time is actually a tiny little data structure in our consciousness is intriguing and one that I suspect is true.
Many thanks to both of you for the interview. Your channel is one of my favorites. Dr. Hoffman is a rock star! ❤❤❤ His theories are so interesting and have helped me heal from past experiences. Also, they have been pivotal in aiding me to construct a "head set" that allows for more enjoyment of love, beauty and laughter in my day. You two are truly needed in our world. Thanks again.
I love his perspective. It is so great to have this to push back against the reductive biological perspective of Darwinism which has dominated the culture for so long. In a higher age it was known that humans did evolve, from a uniquely human prototype; it was known that there were fourteen different versions of the human to a uniquely human prototype in one universal cycle. Humans did not evolve from another species whose prototype was not the human prototype. Also language was a given based on actual physical sounds. Sanskrit was the first of the Indo-European languages. Now R. Dawkins is coming up with how language started basing it, of course, on biology. Consciousness is still the hard problem and mind is little understood. It is realistic to see consciousness as fundamental, and mind as elemental, emerging with quantum events, and that more than likely will eventually be known to be the case. Thanks D. Hoffman. I love ❤your videos.
Totally relating to Don.. Its really f'd up waking up to all this at once! I mean Ive uncovered answers to a life's worth of questions (Jesus to aliens) in a month and learned how to communicate with my angels and guides in the process. Thank you Universe!🙏 And thank you youtube and podcasters😍
I like his creativity, his humbleness in admitting he doesn’t know and supports enquiry to be open to find out. I appreciate his efforts in consciousness for this is an area of my interest. “Consciousness is fundamental” and “Consciousness as a social network ” “Consciousness fusion” “why be stuck with space at all” . Someone described consciousness like wifi we can’t see it but we know it’s there because we - we experience it’s capabilities… is consciousness the source of everything experiencing itself in infinite possibilities it doesn’t care how and that we are collection agents? man mathematical Science is certainly an extraordinary adventure into theory … my brain hurts but I like the feeling of learning!
Wonderful title. " Waking up from the dream of life" reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: Dreams are the life we wake up to, when we wake from the dream of life.
I am fascinated by Professor Hoffman's ideas. His ideas go way beyond the 'headset.' It's not merely 'thinking outside the box' but thinking outside the 'headset!' We need more like Prof. Hoffman to crack some nuts wide open. Tremendously interesting and inspirational. Thank you so much Prof. Hoffman.
Donald Hoffman’s theories on consciousness, particularly his "Interface Theory of Perception," argue that what we perceive is not a direct representation of reality but rather an evolved interface that helps us survive. This theory proposes that our perceptions are akin to a desktop interface on a computer, hiding the complex "reality" behind icons that are easy to interact with but do not represent the true nature of the underlying processes. Hoffman's Key Concepts: 1. Interface Theory of Perception: Our perceptions are evolved shortcuts to help us navigate and survive in the world, not accurate representations of the objective reality. 2. Conscious Realism: The idea that consciousness, rather than the physical world, is the fundamental component of reality. According to Hoffman, space-time and physical objects emerge from consciousness. Potential Fallacies and Criticisms: 1. Ontological Subjectivism: - Fallacy: Hoffman’s stance can be seen as ontological subjectivism, where reality is fundamentally dependent on our perception of it. This view neglects the existence of objective reality independent of our perceptions. - Just because human perception is limited does not mean that an objective reality does not exist. This perspective fails to acknowledge the scientific method's ability to reveal aspects of reality beyond direct human perception. 2. Anthropic Bias: - Fallacy: Hoffman’s theory could be critiqued for anthropic bias, the assumption that human perception uniquely determines the nature of reality. - While our perceptions are tailored for survival, other species perceive the world differently. This diversity in perception across species suggests that perceptions are varied adaptations to the same underlying reality. 3. Non-Falsifiability: - Fallacy: Hoffman's hypothesis may suffer from non-falsifiability, meaning it is structured in a way that it cannot be empirically tested or refuted. - For a scientific theory to be robust, it must be subject to testing and potential refutation. Hoffman's views on consciousness as the basis of reality can be seen as metaphysical speculation rather than scientific theory. 4. Misinterpretation of Evolution: - Fallacy: Hoffman interprets evolution as prioritizing survival utility over truth in perception, but this interpretation can be considered a false dichotomy. - Evolutionary processes can and do favor accurate perceptions when they enhance survival. While perceptions are not perfect, they are often reliable enough to allow organisms to interact successfully with their environment. 5. Existential Dependency: - Fallacy: Hoffman’s claim that neurons and the brain don't exist without perception seems to imply a form of existential dependency that conflates epistemology (study of knowledge) with ontology (study of being). - The existence of neurons and the brain is substantiated by extensive empirical evidence. Neuroscientific studies show that brain activity can be measured and studied independently of any single individual's perception. Balanced Perspective: While Hoffman's theories provoke thought and encourage deeper exploration of the nature of perception and consciousness, they often stretch into philosophical rather than empirical domains. It's important to distinguish between useful metaphors or frameworks for understanding complex phenomena and claims that can be scientifically validated. Hoffman's ideas stimulate valuable discussions about the limits of human perception and the possible foundational role of consciousness, but they should be approached with critical scrutiny and a clear understanding of their speculative nature.
Thanks for spending time to explain fallacies. I wonder how the theory based on so much fallacies is still so popular. At least on the net. p.s. I think his theory is testable. He can show how matter is created from consciousness. That would prove his theory and disprove rival theories
This is just fantastic. Mesmerizing. I'm not a mathematician nor a physicist, but learned Transcendental Meditation over 45 years ago, so I am no stranger to the exploration of consciousness. I've been listening to Professor Hoffman for the past few years and I'm all in on his work. I absolutely love this stuff.
The intro-statement from Hoffman sounds quite alot like an expression of the perspectives that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) outlined in his famous Kritik der reinen Vernuft/Critique of pure Reason. Here, as many will know, Space and Time are understood as being Anschauungsformen - Ways/forms of Seeing - that our Consciousness creates and which are a priori (goes before) all and any experience. So, Space and Time are not 'out there', they do not have any physical reality in themselves, but are structures in and of Consciousness
So... what do we walk through (exist in), and why can we not revisit the past? Space-Time isn't just a form of perception; it is practical as well. Right?
The problem is, that our brains only present an approximation of reality does NOT mean there is no reality. That's patently illogical, not deep or "brilliant" as Hoffman thinks, or so many viewers here buy into. If there is no reality, they neither you nor he nor this video exists. Do you really believe that?
@nabuk3 you haven't understood the Hoff at all. Brains are not real either, but also projections of consciousness as are all phenomenal processes including evolution. As such the brain is an evolutionary development designed to filter out anything not conducive to survival in the material environment. But all of this is a highly structured protection of universal consciousness which is the only ontological primitive. Until you have understood how radical the Hoff's position really is you cannot find the relationship between the brain perceptions and 'reality out there'. The fact is, strong objectivity is no longer a compelling view; weak objectivity as a projection of consciousness which determines the states of phenomenal subjects and objects is the compelling view today.
I am new to this channel, but adept in Dr. Don Hoffman's therum on reality. If anyone else here is also familiar with Dr. Hoffman's therums, and feels those awkward silences while he continues on about his philosophies and theories, i salute you. We are not really here but we are portals brought together by RU-vids odd algorithms.
I assume you are saying this tongue-in-cheek, but you actually make an important point: that if Hoffman is right and there is no reality, then none of us are real, and his video is not real, which kinda defeats the purpose of his doing it and undermines his core thesis.
@nabuk3 wow, I am first stunned by this idea. Then speechless, cause holy shit, who saw that coming. Yet after some meditation I have this to offer you respectfully. If most people view this illusion as real and scoff at open thinking, then illusion or not it still has a manifested form to indulge the senses. Therefore, spreading the word, making others aware, the grip on this physical web that binds us, may start to lose its grip. That open minded aspects may be absorbed even if with heavy skepticism. Which i assume you are one of them, due to your mental presence here. Its only natural to be skeptical, when we live in such a poor lie. Yet we have been so socially conditioned to believe and never ask questions, we begin to push back on any ideology that goes against that torture. As science today proves that if we start to think differently, our lives begin to manifest new pathways for us to follow for better survival rewards. This process is known as neural plasticity, and epigenetics. If it is right or wrong, I chose to believe in it with all of my life force. It is much more blissful than this current conglomerate of lies, corruption on a political, religious, infrastructural agendas. My heart can not take the evil anymore, therefore I must make changes to overcome the insanity I see so many endure, including loved ones. Regardless of how you take my rebuttal, I offer you my sincerest gratitude for the exchange and pray for you a life of peace and prosperity to the highest. Be safe my fellow human and know that now we are entangled, we have become one.
@Wednesday51 it simply means that we are the controllers of our own world. We can not control anyone else's reality just our own. So if we want to change the world, we must change the way we interpret the world. Be the example.
The claim that consciousness is more fundamental than the material existence of a spacetime environment that can support causality is utterly absurd. In order for a thought to flow, there must be a place from which it can flow 'from' and _another_ place where it can flow 'to' and that flow _must_ occur over 'time'. Take the concept: 'God said, "Let there be light," and there was light and He saw that the light was good.' Clearly, since God's desire to create light preceded the act of _creating_ light and God's appreciation of His creation _must_ have followed His _act_ of creation, even _God's_ 'thoughts' must occur in a spacetime-like environment.In other words, the existence of an environment that can support causality is prerequisite to the existence of a conscious God. 'Consciousness' is a lot like music in that absent a 'space' in which to arrange the instruments and a 'time' over which a performance can unfold. it is utterly devoid of meaning. There is no getting past this obstacle to Hoffman's philosophy. The mere existence of 'consciousness' is the fatal flaw in his entire world-view. Q.E.D.
Hofmann is working on emotional reconciliation with the scientific rabbit hole of his studies. This is very brave and also crucial to productivity. The quality of discovery will be proportionate to the commitment of the whole.
there is no scientific rabbit hole...there is just good science physicalism is an irrelevant added-on metaphysics of the scientific data. no scientific instrument has ever measured blue, or any other appearance.
It’s weird how at ease the vast majority of people are with existence and consciousness. It’s so stimulating to hear conversations like this, because the nature of reality truly is so far beyond our comprehension.
Aw come on, you know it's True. Shall we listen to The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter (album) whilst we wiggle and squiggle about. "who will mouse and who will lion? And who will be the tamer?"
I had an odd visual experience a few years ago that a neurologist friend and my ophthalmologist couldn't explain. I woke around dawn and was somewhat perplexed and alarmed by the fact that where the door to my en-suite should have been, I could see a door-sized oval opening with a sort of sparkly edge. I could see a very brightly lit room beyond, which was not my bathroom. I was scared to move too much, but I could see that everything else in my room was exactly as it should be. Strangest of all, when I closed my right eye, the oval opening disappeared and the doorway was normal. When I opened my right eye again, the oval opening was back. I was too scared to get out of bed to investigate, and eventually just stuck my duvet over my head in the hope it would stop. When I looked again a while later, everything was back to normal. I was definitely fully awake when I saw this and decided it must just have been some weird glitch in one of my eyes.
I've had strange events happen after I wake up, but I think I just thought I was awake. Once I woke up and looked over to my bedroom door and a white orb slowly floated into my room and went all the way across to the wall on the other side. It was terrifying because it moved very slowly but purposefully like it had intelligence. Once it got to the other side of the room and landed on the wall it disappeared. I felt like I was awake, but maybe it was a dream.
The experience might have been an entity, but if it was, it had a sick sense of humor. It should have put you at tranquility, not fear. I postulate that your door icon was corrupt or had a bug. Your consciousness used a door icon from the repository temporarily until your door icon was healed.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
Wave function communication. Consciousness. The ability to travel faster than light wave function. The field is around the photon. The field arrives before the photon. The wave function is inside the field.
To us, the wave function is just math, a tool, probabilities. This is because we do not have very, very. small, sterile, and precise detectors to isolate and investigate the characteristics of a single wave function "particle " at the quantum environment. The best that we can do is investigate with statistical probability, which we call the "wave function." Entities which prefer to exist as a wave, have all capabilities to utilize all the features of their wave function existence. We do not because we are physical. We do not even comprehend it. It breaks down, and let's us know that we are not the proper entity to interface with the "wave function" relating to existence as a field.
Thanks for your post ...It got me to take another go at the video. And I am on board ...This is the best! ...And Thanks to the moderator Naill Mckeever ..... All the best to Donald Hoffman----He is fearless!!!
The part where he says space-time is not fundamental therefore an object in space-time cannot be where consciousness arises from...whew. Twisted my brain Right up. I had to stop it, rewind it, relisten, repeat, repeat, repeat. Man! I still can't Quite wrap my mind around the idea...
@@MizJaniceResinArt consciousness can arise from objects that are not fundamental. Why would it be a problem? What really needs explanation is how matter can be created from non-material thing? Hoffman doesn't explain that, at all.
"It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?" - George Berkeley, Principles, 4 (1710).
My favourite bit is, “Death isn’t the end, it’s just taking off the headset.” Ha! I wish! When life’s hard that’s a lovely idea… Philosophically though, maybe seeing this life as all we got so we better make it the best one we can for all of us, maybe that makes me a better person.
Thank you for this important interview....for decades I have consistently tried to urge conversations on this point, which for ages has repeatedly been noticed and/or hinted at by a wide range of indigenous cultures, pyschonauts, near death experiencers, alien abductees and others...nice to have the woowoo factor dispelled in such a coherent manner....now that the door is open, future discussion should invite input from all quarters....
Many of these ideas are explored in a functional/practical way (i.e., how to live with it) in the book “The Nature of Personal Reality” by Jane Roberts. One might say, through the unorthodox nature of its transmission, that it’s consciousness describing its ‘modus operandi’.
Dr. Hoffman is a true visionary. Stepping outside the box of materialism is not new (i.e. Gautama "The Buddha & many others") But What is new, is that he was not only a hardcore Scientist, but he is using the very tool of science to reverse the equation. Matter is not fundamental, perhaps it's universal consciousness that is creating the matter. In this understanding, Creation and the source of creation cannot be separate. Everything is one thing. MIND MELTING STUFF!
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 . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: 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. 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 and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (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). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists 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 can be identified with 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. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. 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 (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, 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. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
If your argument only proves that "the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness", then it has not refuted anything... Because to prove that X implies Y only proves that X strongly suggests the likelihood of Y being true. Therefore nothing has been conclusively proven, other than the implication itself. And because nothing has been proven beyond an implication... which is not the same as a factual conclusion, or an indisputable truth... neither has anything been refuted.
At best, the conclusion reached by your argument can only be stated as: Our scientific knowledge strongly suggests the incorrectness of the idea that "consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological". To imply a claim is insufficient to prove that claim. To imply something is to strongly suggest its likelihood, whereas to prove something is to establish its certainty. To imply a claim is to admit the possibility that the claim might be incorrect. And even that would depend on the rigorous validation of the argument, and the argument itself contains at least one statement where a subordinate claim is also only implied, as opposed to being a logical consequence deduced from the preceding statement.
Emergent properties aren't just concepts , they are directly related to physics and reality. Therefore your argument is faulty. Take for instance a crystalline structure, on the tiniest order it is composed of single atoms or molecules but in conjunction and with certain patterns (systems) on the larger scale we have special or new properties, or compared to a different phase of that matter too. Or take ant colonies, a single ant obviously can't produce the complex architecture the colony builds. Much much more examples of emergent properties. Planes, cells and the human body, planets, meteorology, fluid dynamics etc. There is absolutely no reason it doesn't also go for consciousness. And you certainly don't give a good argument.
@@caspera1844 All of your examples conforms my point; emergennt properties are just sunjective and abstract concepts or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience since, in itself, it implies mental experience. By the way, claiming that consciousness emerges from physical processes without ever providing the beginning of a logically coherent physical explanation of its supposed emergence from physical processes is tantamount to claiming that consciousness magically appears without any explanation and is nothing but nonsense.
He proved mathematically the existence of god, universe, life energy, whatever you label it! I am so happy to see this, I’ve been experiencing very similar stuff, but without all the numbers. So cool to feel it in your heart.
The claim that consciousness is more fundamental than the material existence of a spacetime environment that can support causality is utterly absurd. In order for a thought to flow, there must be a place from which it can flow 'from' and _another_ place where it can flow 'to' and that flow _must_ occur over 'time'. Take the concept: 'God said, "Let there be light," and there was light and He saw that the light was good.' Clearly, since God's desire to create light preceded the act of _creating_ light and God's appreciation of His creation _must_ have followed His _act_ of creation, even _God's_ 'thoughts' must occur in a spacetime-like environment.In other words, the existence of an environment that can support causality is prerequisite to the existence of a conscious God. 'Consciousness' is a lot like music in that absent a 'space' in which to arrange the instruments and a 'time' over which a performance can unfold. it is utterly devoid of meaning. There is no getting past this obstacle to Hoffman's philosophy. The mere existence of 'consciousness' is the fatal flaw in his entire world-view. Q.E.D.
I remember when the world came together for me for the first time. It was at my grandmothers and she had a farm. She had just finished making a cake for my first birthday. I remember being lifted up and she smelled of baked bread and flour. She walked holding me to the porch outside around mid afternoon and set me down next to the cake. I was dazzled by the intensity of the sun after being in the shaded kitchen and lost my balance. I stuck out my hand to catch myself and put it right into the butter frosting cake. Everyone laughed. When I told them this years later they agreed it all happened as I remembered it. Somehow in those moments my consciousness came together and formed a small but complete world. It was a defining moment.
Cosmic canvas stretched, a grand illusion's fold, Space-time's fabric, a story subtly told. Not the root, nor core, not the primal thread, Objects dancing in a dream, by mysteries led. Substrates whisper tales of the vast unknown, Illusory worlds, by physics shown. Fundamentals fall, like shadows cast away, In the grander scheme, where deeper truths lay. Through the void, where stars once gleamed bright, Beyond the realms of day and night, Lies a realm, unseen, untouched, profound, Where the essence of existence is found. A tapestry woven of dreams and thought, Where space and time, once firmly caught, Release their grip, reveal the scheme, Of a universe, where nothing's as it seems. Mystic echoes, dimensions blend, To the infinite, where the lines extend, In a dance, eternal, ever vast, Beyond the grasp of the present and past. Groovy gratitude, your way it flows, Like a river, where the moonlight glows. Mystic vibes, we weave and blend, In this cosmic dance, without end. Ride the rhythm, ride the rhyme, Lost in space, beyond time. Let's keep jamming, let's keep bright, In this endless, starry night. Stay cosmic, Donald. 8)
I love listening to Professor Hoffman as he seems to make many of the same points as Robert Lanza. I am not religious but, I know there's a higher power.
I first heard Professor Hoffman's lectures on conscious agent years ago. It triggered a memory of similar structures, Penrose' description of quantized spacetime, with a similar geometr. I followed the development of loop quantum gravity from that point. So, with apologies, I adapted CA into a mental technique to manipulate fundamental spacetime. It's part of what we do as conscious humans, but a very few have a talent of perceiving and rearranging these fundamental elements. They are mages. I wrote a series of science fiction books (Monopole Sea, Monopole Resurgent, Monopole Magnetic) where the protagonists, Xant and Soairse developed CA into superhuman abilities. The books are available on Amazon. Yes, there are magnetic monopoles involved, too. Thank you and I hope you don't mind my borrowing part of your idea. I do agree. I also worked at MIT's AI lab and consciousness is not simply a matter of mechanism or connectionism. Perhaps there is a universal "intent" field from which consciousness emerges.
Excellent! This man's perspectives on consciousness and reality are the way of the future, period. So much points to these conclusions. His thoughts touch so much on those being considered within the UFO/UAP/paranormal/parapsychological spheres : our human life as but one avatar experience in a vast, infinite ocean of experiences to name one of the most mind-blowing ones. Thank you for this interview! Subscribed! Looking forward to more.
Although I don’t understand the deeper dive of the mathematics, I find what he’s saying extremely interesting and thought provoking. As insane as it is, to try and understand what he’s saying actually mean, that is to grasp it literally, gave me existential dread even though I know that it is an illusion. I wouldn’t be surprised if what he’s saying is mostly proven, I doubt we will ever be able to prove it in this life any way. So glad I listened to this.
Consciousness is source code rendering reality and converting quantum waves from possibilities into a single finite fixed definition and its projected downwards from a higher dimension.
However those codes are cascading downwards from the binary code. Because those codes oscillate at speeds faster than the speed of light, no equipment here in this dimension will ever be able to monitor their wave function. This will prevent any scientific "discovery" or "proof" of their "existence" so it's irrelevant to try and talk to "intellectuals" about it.
@@judithmcdonald9001 so think of a VR headset you are in a higher dimension than the VR one which is more simplistic. Now what if in the vr game your character plays a side scrolling beat em up. The VR game would be a higher dimension to the beat em up game. Again same principle we can't simulate something more complex than the reality we are in.
Pretty close. There also has to be a logic moving backward or outward from the finite definition to the source. When you say downward, you really mean inward and forward as all particles are potentialized within the same null grammatical process. Remember that whatever the manifold be that reality describes, it has to essentially be cyclical in structure, i.e., recursivly applying upon itself with respect to any informational potentials generated within. We can identify this recursive structure as the syntactic covering we experience with language that ensures well-formedness in its productions. It works in the same manner as you read through a sentence, identifying meaning according to its rules as you progress. The rules are self-distributed across the language. In this view, the laws of physics are being regenerated in each new identification event as the manifold contracts to form pointwise linear-ectomorphic state-transitions that its users identify as "physical" not unlike the terminal nature of the letters and words in this sentence (in contrast to the derivational rules that run down the screen as you comprehend.)
At the core is deep deep mystery and you are that mystery. As someone who meditates, I can certainly vouch for that. As a mountaineer though, I can also say that’s there’s a very uncompromisingly real physical universe that’s brutally independent of my thoughts and isn’t waiting around for me to get with the picture!
This is the consciousness explanation I wanted decades ago when Daniel Dennett wrote his book Consciousness Explained, many thanks to Dr Hoffman for his research and understanding!!
I was building virtual spaces for neuroscience research, studying fractality, and working towards a doctorate when I went fucking coo coo. Went away, and im better now... -ish. You're right tho mandelbrot set houses all of the patterns that make up life like on galactic quilt. Makes me wonder if it's turtles all the way down after all.
No system can fully model itself, just as water cannot raise above its own level. I deeply appreciate how this perspective is complicit with easily observable patterns/ deductible laws in our reality
YES! As William James long ago noted: "How, if 'subject' and 'object' were separated 'by the whole diameter of being,' and had no attributes in common, could it be so hard to tell, in a presented and recognized material object, what part comes in through the sense organs and what part comes 'out of one’s own head'?"
So freaking exciting!!! Prof Donald Hoffman, thank you. 🔥🔥❤🔥🔥 He's onto something huge and concious agent changing. But Donald, that is probably true that we are, of course, necessarily, a teeny tiny avatar in the whole of it because it's mind bogglingly huge but I look it through this concept, the micro in the macro, and then my tiny mind can feel better, I can calm down and get on with it. Otherwise I'd be scared to disappear (I wish I wasn't scared of that)! 😅
Donald Hoffman, you're my hero! Your explanatory framework explains so many experiences I and people I know have had: precognition, presentiment, OBEs, NDEs, NHI contacts, contact with those who have passed, reincarnation, psychokinesis, levitation, and more. The current scientific paradigm, at a loss for an explanation, simply discards swathes of human experiences ... not scientific at all. Like you said, follow the data, even if it brings you somewhere uncomfortable.
OUTSTANDING interview!! Thank you SO much for this! This is the best overview of his work by him that I've seen yet! Kudos! Dr. Hoffman's work is trailblazing! A true pioneer. Cheers!
Husserl came to something like this conclusion in The Crisis of European Sciences. Really fascinating to hear how Hoffman got to this understanding. Off to read his other work...
Hoffman is the real deal, meaning that he does no tbeat his own drum. He speaks truthfully as to what he concludes and, a true scientist, he reminds us this is all theory. What a great mind❤
@workingTchr Maybe, but you would need to explain how science, which is an object of consciousness, is also universally true and complete outside of consciousness. To do that, you would need to show exactly what consciousness is and how science (which undoubtedly works as an incredibly successful project within consciousness) exists sbs has validity outside of consciousness. I don't doubt that's a valid avenue to explore, but i also don't believe you have a successful theory for either consciousness or science's independent existence outside of consciousness. Until you do, your assumption about how two phd scientists are wrong is, maybe at best, kind of interesting.
@@labibbidabibbadum Maybe things are exactly as they seem and science is true because it correctly accounts for the way things are. That's what most PhD's believe, if that matters any.
@@workingTchr Well, sure, but given that science is an object of consciousness, it's a bit of a stretch to say that we should consider consciousness through the lens of PhDs who have never given the slightest thought to how objects of consciousness originate (which is true of most scientists, who are happy to accept that science gives a fully objective view). Consciousness is HOW we know things. Which is why scientists who have PhDs in science and THEN study consciouness are interesting. Almost beyond doubt, there is "something" out there. Human consciousness, given the biological inputs from senses available to the human brain, interprets this as the thing we all see as the universe. And maybe you're right, and by a staggering coincidence, we are the only creature on the planet to have unfettered access to exactly how things are. But, clearly, evolution has developed billions of organisms with different sense organs and entirely different consciousnesses that in all likelihood interpret "things as they are" entirely differently to any given human. (Jellyfish, slugs, tardigrades, dolphins, sequoias etc.) And any given human likely interprets "how things are" differently to any other given human. There are humans who have an entirely spritual worldview. I think they are kooks, but maybe they are actually hooked into "how things really are" better than I am. I believe absolutely fully and entirely in the scientific method and the scientific project. But I am equally convinced that we cannot say (i.e. because we have no evidence) that it is measningful outside its domain, which is within human consciousness.
I think Prof. Hoffman's understanding is still over-simplified in it's desire to place a weight on one existence over another. I believe they are all one and the same, and it literally is a matter of perspective, but not not in space as we see perspective but of dimensions (for lack of a better terminology in our understanding). I simply do not believe we will ever quite have the language to describe something existing in a different level of reality than what we experience, but all exist at-once.
I think you are on the sensible path Dr. Hoffman. If we were to perceive a pencil as discrete atoms and elements with a certain form we would be so amazed we would be stuck like deer in the headlights. May I add that consciousness has a practical feature. I postulate that consciousness is fractal.
@@adon2424 That part bewilders me. Did you just say if we can see our consciousness during its manifestation? You do understand manifest is to make from thoughts? You manifest an idea. It becomes an invention. You bring it into reality from consciousness.
@rafaelgonzalez4175 no, not consciousness, but the form which you try to observe and characterize in the physical domain of existance. We do not have the proper interfaces to observe that deep. But, if we did, it would overwhelm us.
@rafaelgonzalez4175 For egotistical reasons, most homo sapien earthlings define the features and concepts of consciousness anthropomorphicaly. I try to avoid that. It makes for simpler and precise definitions . Especially for attributes that are not monopolized.
The headset/dashboard metaphor is a terrific construct to depict how our experience of the phenomenal world is always going to be representational or fractional, Transcendental consciousness itself alone is able to cognize the eternal unitive nature of Reality.
For 30+ years I have been reading the theoretical and research results regarding the nature of consciousness. American scientists seemed fixated on mind=brain=consciousness. This has been unsatisfying, frustrating, and from my perspective, flawed. I think the answer is offered by Buddhist scholarship as explained at the Mind & Life Institute conferences in Dharamsala. Not religious dogma, the explanation from non-Western analysis makes sense - and reflects my personal experience.
Consciousness has nothing to do with the mind. Consciousness is a life force. All things alive have Consciousness. Life. Predatory animals tend to infants of other animals. Empathy. Rather than evolution. Eat the alien. Alien to that predator. Empathy is a construct of Consciousness. Plants grow toward light. The plant is consciously aware of the light source. The plant grows. Consciousness. Humankind and animals experience growing pains. Consciousness. A life force wave function, transmitter and receiver.
He stands on the shoulders of some of the greatest scientific geniuses, but goes beyond the accepted boundaries of science that perceives this reality. 'Become like children and come unto me...' said the Christ, or be born again to that understanding. This is a real eye opener.
We are limited by the confines of the human brain. It's a wonderfully complex biological structure but it's the only structure we have (combined with language) to communicate our current experiences. There is SO much more than we can physically perceive and/or communicate with the avatars we currently inhabit on this particular rock. ❤
I know, I sound like an idiot, but I had the same conversation with chatgpt the other day on this topic, where I proposed, that we create reality only in our mind
Just like how God created us and our universe he had a thought then spoke it into existence (through energy and vibration) A-O-M.. So watch your thoughts it will change your life! Much love ❤️
I am completely engaged with all the reasoning and rationality in the conversation. If you add the perspective of the different dimensions that everybody is subject to and is affected by, then I think you start to open the portal into the mind. There are other states of being or realms that cannot be detected with the senses in this limited sphere of existence. Regardless of what we devote our life to and exchange the one precious commodity we cannot make more of,time, when God determines our time is finished in this age, we will ascend or descend in our being. It is what we have built our life upon that will remain, and Theology, Philosophy, and Science do harmonize. It isn't just one or the other.
When Don is talking bout the purpose of existence at 55:48 ... I wonder if he is familiar with the short story "The Egg" from the author Andy Weir. It's pretty much the exact same idea. If he doesn't know about it yet, I think he would really like it. There is an animation of the story from the RU-vid channel 'Kurzgesagt' that's really great. I highly recommend to watch it, the music and visualisations present the ideas of the story in a fantastic way.
A superintelligence uses self-supervised learning from self-generated experiences. All that is is not limited by matter, energy, space, and time, but was bored. It wants to experience itself in every which way possible. It creates everything from particles, humans, planets, stars, galaxies, and beyond as participants to experience itself. The participants of any event experience the same event differently. For the experience to be authentic, each participant must have free will and be temporarily unaware that they are playing a role. This superintelligence has error-free experiences from all the participants. For "training" to happen, all experiences are recorded and accessible anytime. The storage of these experiences is holographic, granting any smaller aspect of itself access to its collective knowledge.
Seems he owes something to Tom Campbell’s theories about consciousness avatars. But mainly I want to know what we can do with this understanding (if true) that would change anything about our lives.
Hoffman is by far the best to address this. He came from a religious family and chose science. It takes a non-orthodox spiritual mind to question religion and its false idol haters and liar prophets for profit to challenge their lies and their perversions of the teachings of guru's like Christ for their own self righteous egos and gain. So, Hoffman had a background in spirituality but was not swayed by their lies and missing the mark so completely and went into science. And when that science continued to miss the mark he was able to also question science and follow the data, rather than force the data into his limited understanding. Science too has become a religion for some. As all concepts held to as gods always become a religion for the limited human mind. Unless you are able to question everything and accept that you may never have the complete entire answer or picture. Both religion and science have a tendency for their leaders to force the truth into their limited ability to comprehend and understand, rather than expand themselves inwardly and outwardly. It takes a free non fearful mind to go inward and outward at the same time, in expansion and seeking of truth and reality. Beyond the limits of perception and egotistical self-protectionism. Everything Hoffman is saying lends itself wholly to the teachings of all the great gurus in human history, including Christ, Buddha as well as the majority of all Hindu guru's. It is not any religion that offers you truth or reality. As all religions, be they of science and scientist or a church and a preacher, only offer pointers. And many actually do not even offer that. But instead crash you upon a shore of their own limited concepts and self preservation, all in the name of the false idol mind and its false idol god, the ego.
It's the perception of duality that causes conflict. Reality is assigned. Religions are made up of persons who believe they know reality. That means there must be a non-reality. The most truthful name for god is is. Therefore, Is is. From Alice in Wonderland. “Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
I have had the same questions in my mind since a child and have come up with some really similar concepts and thoughts recently in my mind to answer it for myself, and it is fascinating to find someone else who has come to the same conclusion after the fact of my own thoughts, its really something that makes so much sense that it is an inevitable conclusion for anyone to find when they search for it. I understand what he means when he is able to conceptualise it logically with the maths to make sense of it, but emotionally is more difficult. Since coming to this understanding of consciousness and imagining the nature of reality, i am finding myself so ridiculously overwhelmed with absolute fascination for the world that is experienced and the endless possibility of what the experience could otherwise be in the realms outside of the headset we wear. I have a life i should probably be living, but i am becoming addicted to exploring the magnitude of infinity inside myself and experiencing the universe anew that it is dissociating me from the normal life i led. So it is difficult to deal with because of the stupendous beauty of the true infinite that draws you in.
I've read DH's book and working thru his FBT Theorem technical papers. The problem I'm having is that the foundation is evolution not spacetime structure and everything that falls out from that (e.g. standard model, particles, chemistry etc) ....but Darwinian evolution is a process that involves the change of an object (animal, plant etc) over time...the inherent setting is in spacetime. I guess I'm of the frame of mind that DH attacks most strongly in the book: it seems that we see a limited perspective of reality eg 400 to 700 nm light vs the entire EM spectrum. And we don't directly perceive whole classes of particles (e.g . neutrinos). Then again, the Nobel prize in physics 2022 went to research showing that fundamental particles like photons do not experience spacetime anything like we do... ...definitely a lot to think about 😅 Great interview 👍
I've been following Don for a couple of years now, and the more he talks, the more I am convinced he is on the way to scientifically prove Buddhist cosmology. He has already arrived at consciousness being outside of space-time (the Amata-Dhamma the Buddha was looking for, and found), and at the fact that reality as we perceive is merely a construction, a mental fabrication (Sankhara, in Buddhist terms). Now he seems to be looking for the reason behind it all. In simple terms: if reality is a game, how do you finish it? And is there a true ending to it?
Brilliant interview. There’s too much to comment on fully. I think up to around 40-45 mins it’s pure genius. I’ve read Hoffman’s book, and I have to say that the only worry I have up to that point is the claim that our perception of fitness payoffs is not at all representative of an external reality. The best conceptual picture we have of reality is that electrons “out there” emit photons which impact on our sensory surfaces creating similarly discrete or granular neural processes. Somehow the mind interprets this as a world of continuous entities (including the space-time continuum itself) including such things as dangerous predators and nutritious foods - our fitness payoffs, certainly, but these must correlate with the sources of the photons. Similarly, the brain cannot be just an avatar: it has been described as the most complex object in the universe, a depth of detail which would be nonsensical for a mere icon. Likewise, we should not throw away evolution like Wittgenstein’s ladder - it may not be fundamental, but it is still true, and it is the architect of that complex brain. That, in fact, is exactly where those critical philosophers went wrong. They assume Hoffman’s argument inevitably rejects its own premises, when that is an unnecessary step. After 45 minutes Prof Hoffman is - to use Sabine Hossenfelder’s excellent terminology - “lost in math”. Human ingenuity has created and continues to create endless beautiful mathematical structures, endlessly seductive. Remember David Hilbert’s joyous declaration: “From the paradise that Cantor created for us no-one shall be able to expel us.” That’s just the bare bones of an engagement with Hoffman’s work, which I would say must be on the right track.
So basically, he's saying that consciousness exists outside the "physical" form and "agents" of consciousness interpret or project a physical experience that is fundamentally false (or illusory) but this false experience somehow aids the conscious agent. This would align with Buddhism, Taoism, Gnosticism, Platonism, etc, etc. For ages, the Ancients have spoken of a "false" world that the soul must pass through in order to gain "knowledge of Self". Isn't it interesting how objective science is forced to reconsider subjective spirituality?
It’s because all of the scientists were never taught the fact of the big problem in philosophy… everything is subjective even though we were taught to see black and white in objectivity
I would assume, that the physical representation is neither false nor illusory, since it is "our" very own creation..and this creation serves a higher purpose of the universal or unified consciousness...the purpose of expressing itself in an infinite number of forms and structures..and to learn and experience basic things about existence..it seems that consciousness itself requires specific and countless forms of expressions..for whatever reason that might be (apart from evolutionary processes)..
@@MrEmotional33 I understand what you are saying and agree, but I think in your statement, which is heavily predicated on the definition of illusory or false, which can vary from person to person until we agree on exact definitions and interpretations of language. 👌🏻 lmk
I have been shown everything you've talked about in my spiritual awakening process so this is mind blowing that Hoff has been doing the math for most of it. I have many answers to fill in a few blanks for him but no math. Consider the flower of life does contain all the info if you know how to get it out . Must consider the entire cone , flowers inside , and negative space as T.H. has recently been saying. Love that Consciousness expanding feeling when you get mind blown .
Wow. "Positive geometries and decorative permutations". The implications of this are profound. It reminds me of Prof. Sam Vaknin's work. It seems to me that science really is close to defining -or at least defining "The Field" and if that is so, perhaps we are really close to being able to manipulate Space/Time and travel within it. Thank you for sharing some of the insights gained.
