Donald Hoffman - Is Consciousness Ultimate Reality? 

Which mean he is bullshiting

Is Donald Hoffman a dataist? Bless the interviewer, of whom seems to speak from a place of consciousness. I understand and hear Donald but the current math available is out of scope.

@@GoGetFree Did you read his papers? Go read, theres the math. I'm not educated when it comes to math, but it might be of some use for you.

@@GoGetFree The maths to do it already exist. It is ontological mathematics: Euler’s formula, Fourier transform and even calculus if used ontologically ( All in the context of the Leibniz’s monad) can give all the right answers to existence, bridging the gap of the mind/body problem.

@@AthariAcademy not according to Hoffman. The material world is our perception of consciousness.

And it's just mistake

What do you "love" about it? I'm truly curious.

@@citizenschallengeYT wich of the 2?

@@danielgonzaleznader7387 Hoffman.

Quantum mechanics hasn't shown materialism is an illusion, it only updated our understanding of its nature, which started already way before quantum mechanics by the way. Yet an another all too typical use of quantum mechanics strangeness to claim confirmation of outlandish views.

@@2CSST2 Agreed. Too many think they can transfer Quantum Weirdness from the minuscule at the very boundary between matter and energy. The folks like Hoffman play on that fantasy for fun and profit.

Still, he can only say for half the table. 50% divergence is better than most premature claims lol

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above. So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Cont...

Perhaps, perhaps not. But a few quick points, a) Dr Hoffman is an eminent physicist with tenure, and who is working on a novel solution to perhaps the most intractable problem in all of science. And where a total of zero progress has been made this far using more conventional methodologies b) he is humble enough to state upfront that he is "Almost certainly wrong", but that hopefully science can benefit from his errors, and, c) he was considerate enough not to draw attention to Roberts erroneous (and quite frankly baffling) belief that Newtons law of universal gravitation should be multiplied by the speed of light, squared! And, finally, the issue that Robert found so alien - that a persons, experiences could be assigned certain values in much the same way as a persons, say, intelligence could be - is not a field of study related specifically to Dr Hoffmans work here. One is left with the very

@@eksffa I'm sorry, but could you please vague that statement up for me a little?

The guy isn't supposed to be convincing, read his and his teams papers pal.

@pouya thank you.

I love this approach, but I kind of disagree with the conclusion. (Or maybe, I am misunderstanding you?). It's very true 'the finger can't point at itself', 'the eye cannot see itself', but the unique property of consciousness is it CAN observe itself. And since we know that self-referencing systems break science and logic, I don't think science will ever effectively explain consciousness, because it is self-referencing.

@@hckytwn3192 neuroscience will never explain consciousness because consciousness is more than brain. as for science explaining consciousness, i doubt we will reach that point either.

Awareness is very very strange.

@@damienroberts934 and unexplainable

One of those 3 times is in your dream

@@andromaxbse6459 Maybe I posted the comment after watching this latest one🤔

@@DestroManiak Sadly Hoffman is a master at beating his own drum, and has dozens of talks out there, repeating the same storyline, I can't seem to get away from him - every time I turn around RU-vid is pushing yet another one on me.

Nopers

Why do you think that intuition is reliable?

@@uninspired3583 It's not. But sometimes it is. About things no-one would have thought about. It's valuable.

@@damienroberts934 agree. Intuition is useful. Intuition gets trained through experience. So if the subject is applicable to the training done, intuition can be useful. Modern science has allowed us to expand knowledge beyond what we have immediate access to. Here, intuition becomes less reliable.

The Cosmos is fundamentally counterintuitive so our intuition will inevitably fail when attempting to accurately describe reality.

...awareness/intent upon GOD... ;D hehe

You forgot " novel predictions" part

Advances us to the ground.

Why? We are biological creatures, just because professional talkers tell you there aren't answers, doesn't make it so. Hell, Hoffman misrepresents real science and the findings of the past couple decades, what he's doing is shameful.

michiu kaku..(physicist).. has porposed such a ting..

David Foo, you write "consciousness is the ultimate reality" But consciousness is the result of living biological Beings interacting with a constantly changing (time does move ever forward) environment. You know what one of the most fundamental observations of our existence is? Here's my contender: 'Appreciation of the Human Mindscape, Physical Reality divide.' We didn't pop into existence, we are part of Earth's billions of years old dance between geology and biology, which begat life, which begat awareness that evolved into ever more complex consciousness as creatures and environments got more complex. After we're done destroying Earth's current biosphere as we know it, Earth and life will continue without us and our egoistical self-awareness consciousness, although it's questionable if anything as spectacular as the past ten thousand, or few hundred-thousand (if you want to quibble) of years, have been.

​@@petermiesler9452your comment is base on the existence of time. But according to hoffman and others, time is a product of our minds. Hence I am not sure about your statement.

Just because we can't explaining it for now, doesn't making it as absoluth truth and fundamentals.

@@andromaxbse6459 persistence of consciousness is a self-proven truth. It is like the sentence "thoughts exist"

@@Upuaut1967 Nice🤔

Bingo. People who experience Near death experiences, or mystics from all the worlds spiritual traditions throughout human history. Scientific materialism explains the external material world, but has no ability to explain we’re subjective non-material consciousness originates from.

@@jankelsey9738 bit can make precise novel predictions

Map contents of consciousness through reporting against neural activity

@@uninspired3583 neural activity is far away to maps the complexity of consiousness.

The case against reality? His neuroscience is excellent, but when he starts getting into quantum physics, he goes off the deep end and misrepresents the field. Definitely recommend reading, though I disagree with his conclusion.

@@uninspired3583 Not really, he is a physicist (I think). With physics, you can remove everything you don’t need and focus only on the part you are interested in. In quantum physics when you are analysing particles, time doesn’t exist. Its not that time doesn’t exist, its only that when you are analysing particles, time isn’t a factor at the quantum level.

@@anthonycraig274 no he's a neuroscientist. Actually he's responsible for some very important advancements in our understanding of the visual cortex. Where I take issue is where he talks about observation in the quantum measurement problem. The consensus in physics currently is that any outside interaction with the system counts as observation, consciousness is not required. If this is the case, it creates a major problem for his justification for idealism. (And yes I understand that time is emergent from quantum fields)

@@uninspired3583 As I said, I am ignorant to his hypothesis, so I really can’t comment on this one.

@@anthonycraig274 you seem to be fairly informed on quantum subjects. Just check the claims as you go :)

This lands another question. Where does those "sensitive actions" come from? What's the beginning of everything? Well, there may be no beginning at all. I feel nature is just sensitivily active (sensitive of its actions), that may be all. No time, no space... just a growing network of conscious experiences which gets defined in by itself, which actually, somehow, "at the same time", is already complete, since there is no "out" to reference itself in time.

Try an exorcist, it might help you...

@@evaadam3635 That is Stephen Wolfram’s theory not mine. That guy is the definition of a genius he dropped out of high school and made billions by developing his own programming language.

If you are asserting that natural physical law allows atoms/electrons to freely choose on its own to believe in God the Holy Spirit, then your Consciousness must be overloaded with grains of sand... you are funny

Forgive my words. You are a good person.

What do you think brought the concept of reality of this complex universe that allows us to experience the reality of matter that we do experience?

*"The world around you only exist when you are alive and conscious. In other words, our consciousness makes things around us alive."* ...You are equating _consciousness_ to _sentience_ (or restricting _consciousness_ to only being present during _sentience_ ). How do you know that Earth's 8 billion human representatives aren't gathering new information for a single foundational consciousness? How do you know humans aren't tantamount to 8 billion individual workstations all feeding our subjective data to a single server just like senses, observations, and experiences send data to a single brain?

All the work we do as a species creates reality. You, I and everyone around us know, can see that you have a car, the people that created the car from designer to mechanic to the sales guy.. we all agree in other words, we all create reality on a daily basis just by doing what we do as an intelligent beings?

No, it doesn't, we can't know the objective reality even when we are conscious because our biological senses are limited, can't detect all physical influences. Everything is physics, doesn't need to be conscious, works regardless. We can see distances in time and space, so we know the world existed and will remain long after we're all gone. It's because reality can never be nothing, it's always something.

How can you be so sure🤔🤣

Constant hand gesturing right in the camera view by the interviewer was so distracting. Hand gesturing used be a sign of low intelligence, has this change or are we becoming dumber as a species?

Solid description of the dilemma.

Correct. He's just making that consciousness like appears from nothing.. but couldn't explain any further.

That's no different from the physicalist and materialists who make the fundamental assumption that energy has always existed, and cannot be created nor destroyed and from there they create models of the big bang, inflation...etc. Every model of reality has to start with a fundamental assumption, Otherwise, no scientific theory can ever be created. Starting with consciousness to explain reality is no less valid than physicists starting with eternal energy which then produces the universe we currently live in. What Hoffman is proposing is that the current materialist physics will always fail to explain consciousness on top of making other fundamental assumptions about reality (cosmological principle, Conservation of energy..etc). If he can derive all the current laws of the universe from his model of consciousness, Then he'll be making fewer assumptions to explain the universe than the current theories, Because in that case, the only fundamental assumption is consciousness and nothing else.

@@ramim.j2091 we don't have to make assumptions about what is fundamental. We can make hypothesis based on observation, and test them against predictions to build models. Models that give us reliable data are valuable, hypothesis that can't be tested less so.

​@@uninspired3583 Then we might as well throw out all of theoretical physics and most of cosmology Because all of them require fundamental assumptions about the universe to even work. How can anyone study cosmology, Or claim there was a big bang without basic assumptions like of universality of laws of physics, Cosmological principle...etc. No cosmologist went around the universe and quantitively checked whether the laws of physics work the same as in here. Yes, You don't need fundamental assumptions when studying something as the molecular reactions in a lab. But when you're trying to explain origin of the universe, reality and discover the theory of everything, Fundamental assumptions are inevitable.

Doutor, queres provar a consciência apanha uma bebedeira e quem realmente és se revelará. Ou então apanha um tumor maligno para pesares e medires a tua consciência. Para veres o que ela fará. Este assunto é um campo minado. Porque as entidades são exigentes a quem dão genuíno conhecimento. Por isso está na esfera do oculto. A maçonaria é uma das provas disso. É perigoso este conhecimento por isso Deus o proíbe. Mas Deus o dá a quem tem estofo para isso. Abraço

@@nelsonpinheiro1148 *"Doctor, you want to prove your conscience gets drunk and who you really are will reveal yourself."* ... I'm sorry, but I can't respond intelligently to what you write.

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC amigo doutor, a inteligência não é mecânica com dotes de etiqueta. Ela se revela de inúmeras e misteriosas maneiras. Não fales somente com o intelecto irto. Fala com o coração e terás tanto e melhor desempenho.

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC consciousness proof? Math not fix here, words smoth, heart clear. I speak with no doubt no fear, the truth was revealed in clothes of christ, and the roof of science burn, the foto of consciousness christ is there, my friend. Sorry my bad English.

Tanto texto para nada dizer de novidade para replicar na boa graça.

@@nelsonpinheiro1148 Of course, that was the purpose of my comment, to show how conscious phenomena can be explained without any divine or supernatural influences. It seems you don't understand any reasoning if God is not even mentioned in that context.

Meu caro, estás absolutamente enganado. Deus, é a razão da absoluta mudança de consciência. Tão simples. Dá-te extrema libido e não a usas a nível sexual. Tens mutações extremas e céleres. Vai doer. Resultado vais vê-lo e ser o seu templo para ele actuar através de ti.

@@nelsonpinheiro1148 Yes, i can use Google Translate and figure out what you're saying. But please mind this is a global channel, not many people speak Portuguese, so you're mostly talking to a wall, or a language barrier, to be more precise. I bother with reply because you post your crap under my comment, not because you actually have to say something interesting.

@@xspotbox4400 há uma diferença entre nós. Tu expressas verborreia eu expresso o verbo. Tu falas sem praticidade do que dizes. Eu falo com prática. Conheces por ouvir dizer. Eu conheço pela estrada mais dolorosa. Fica bem.

It is our physical body that can die and rot when its elements disorganizes.... on the other hand, our Consciousness can not die because it is not physical, meaning, it has no physical elements to disorganize. I beleve Consciousness/Awareness is our free immortal aware soul that survives after our physical body dies.

Your body isn't real. It's an icon in your perceptual interface so death is also not real in the literal sense. It is just an appearance of a process in someone else's interface.

Donald Hoffman actually has no idea what he is parroting.

Artificial intelligence is most definitely possible as it has existed for quite a while now. Do you mean artificial consciousness?

Treta tua. Não entendes nada e finge s entender saber. Não tens estaleca divina. O espírito santo não te tem em boa conta.

infinite vibration in infinite combination never arises as an image or anything else that is first person

@@5piles acordou, deu forma a si mesmo, e apareceu em pessoa pela primeira vez. Depois gerou seu filho, depois o seu espírito. Eis a santíssima Trindade.

@@5piles You have no clue how you're created.

@@BradHolkesvigthe first step is perfect concentration. without that your information and even ability to think is seriously impaired, and you will remain stuck repeating easily dismantled positions

Let's break it down, obviously we can split some body of knowledge into smaller bits, then model and control those individually. So Sanskrit is just another language, same goes with mathematics, it's only tools we use, symbols, words or numbers don't mean a thing if not applied to specific physical or ideological concepts.

@@xspotbox4400 Mathematics cannot distinguish between numbers that represent objects (cardinals), activities (Gödel numbers), and concepts (ordinals), and consequently it is potentially ambiguous. Saṅskṛt unambiguously conveys meanings. The Saṅskṛt alphabet represents the fundamental meanings of creation and manifests itself on the cakras. The Vedas indicate Saṅskṛt is nature's programming language.

@@PaulHoward108 Mathematics is symbols and axioms, we also have this thing called a number theory. Please tell me one great achievement developed through the use of Sanskrit or a mysticism surrounding some ancient nonsense, don't you think such an advanced technology should produce something useful and meaningful? If chakras are real and important feature of a body, don't you think people all over the world would use them to actually help somebody? None of the things you are mentioning makes any sense, it's only ideology, stuff you choose to believe in, have very little to do with the real world.

@@realitycheck1231 The sat-cit-ānanda nature of every soul, including God, is an internal conflict that invites us to make choices.

Einstein said time an illusion not reality