Donald Hoffman on Reality, Consciousness, and Conscious Agents | Closer To Truth Chats 

Which book?

@@gfujigo The Case against Reality. It’s quiet good. Especially the chapter titled Gravity.

well said, it think absolutely the same. True scientists know that we know very little about true reality.

disagree...

It's even more refreshing after listening to so many public figures during these past two years... If only every scientist had this level of humility

@Pea4Brain so if he was not humile he is not a scientist?

@Pea4Brain explain humility?

Not enough people sadly. Lot of selfabsored people out there that are more interested in superficial crap.

@@obedientconsumer5056 Part of me is more envious of those who aren't worn down by these kinds of thoughts though! I think it is okay for people to find joy in the simplicity, it sounds like a lovely way to live

Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard wrote interface theory into Scientology.

@@snap-off5383 hitler drank water

@@ZalexMusic The topic we're actually talking about, "interface theory" is what the core of Scientology is based upon. My comment is not random, it is pertinent to the topic. I'm sorry you missed that _obvious_ pertinence.

​@snap-off5383 is very interesting to know.

Me too same.. from India 👍🏻

@freedomclubLX Super, I will. Thank you friend 🙋‍♂️🤠🇺🇲

freedomclubLX Totally! “More Than Allegory” is a great book.

freedomclubLX Bernardo Kastrup is brilliant, tons of insights.

He gives great food for thought

Uiu UI I ou I I I uuuuu ouuuio I I I I I uiuuuuuuuu uouuui uiiuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuuuuuuuiuuuu I uuuu u uuuuuu I u I iuiuuuuuu u I I u I iui I tt

We never left the cave.

Essentially. But that there is a true world composed of abstract, eternal "forms" beyond that is pure surmising. Rather think of Kant's utterly unknowable "Ding-an-sich." When you think about it and, given we are capable of sensorily absorbing but a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was presumptuous--albeit 'natural'--of us to have so stridently insisted that things are just as they appear to be thus essentially knowable by us.

@@jamesbarlow6423 I think about that all the time.

@@joshuahutt . It's pretty amazing

Want more? L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology is rife with interface theory, and similar postulates. Just read though, don't join.

Lovely. Thank you for this quote.

@Nick Williams natural selection, as I understand it, also leads to multi-combinatorial hit and miss selections, delaying replication and survival. It also degrades the life-info that already exists in the meantime. Above the level of the atom, the universe is grotesquely non-repeating. Long periods of time for selection works against this. This is true in the biosphere.

Zebra Zebra in the Night ! Do you really have those stripes Or might Urizen be Traps of thought imprisoning me !

Would that my soul could tranquil stray On many a moonlit mountain way, By cavernous haunts with ghostly shadows, Or thread the silver of the meadows, Released from learning's smoky stew To lave me in the moonlit dew. But, ah, this prison has my soul, Damnable, bricked-in, cabined hole, Where even the heaven's dear light must pass, Saddened through the painted glass...🤔😵🙏😂 Wolfgang Goethe. " Faust"

The "Grand Theft Auto" steering wheel is just as much a mechanical contrivance as the Rack and Pinion of an automobile.

I agree. I think Hoffman is trying to make simple things complex.

@@2010sunshine I think he is simplifying that which we have complicated.

It must be pretty damn close or we wouldn't be able to function in it. The question i ask all the time. What is the end game ? You have all this going on. But apparently no destination we can tell attached to it. Wishful thinking ? Based on a biased set of standards ? It does seem that way. The brain and the universe have one thing in common. The deeper we look. The deeper it gets.

More so if our perceptions contradict what our instruments measure. And we have learned by now our instruments are better that our perceptions. Of course the instruments could have been purposefully tinkered with or may have malfunctioned. Also do our each others perceptions contradict in irreconcilable ways. I am not talking about (optical) illusions and differences of tastes/values among individuals. I am talking about differences between comparative perception of equally healthy human beings. And what we find is that they do not. Otherwise generally speaking restaurants which cook good tasting food would not have (generally) become popular by word of mouth so to speak. I do not see much point of Donald's theories. Especially if they start opening up some mystical notions which allows mischief to be played with.

That was the question. It was the modelling that discovered that we have a 100% match to be zero.

Utter nonsense

No, Hoffman's arguments are entirely self-defeating.

This guy gives me hope in meaning.

@activelink activdisc lol

Well this is how it is.

Conscious entities, not just consciousness. The teachings of Yoga-vāśiṣṭha contradicts the possibility of having any experience, even in illusion, and are therefore obviously incorrect. I studied four translations of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha a quarter century ago before rejecting it in favor of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Spelling into duckduckgo search bar..." yoga vashistha.." (nod to op,) thank you.

The Yoga-vāśiṣṭha is mentioned in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta: Advaita Ācārya said. CC Ādi 12.40: "Thus I expounded the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha, which considers liberation the ultimate goal of life. For this the Lord became angry at Me and treated Me with apparent disrespect." Http://Www.vedabase.io/en/library/cc/adi/12 Śrīla Prabhupāda's purport says, "There is a book of the name Yoga-vāśiṣṭha that Māyāvādīs greatly favor because it is full of impersonal misunderstandings regarding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with no touch of Vaiṣṇavism. Factually, all Vaiṣṇavas should avoid such a book, but Advaita Ācārya Prabhu, wanting punishment from the Lord, began to support the impersonal statements of the Yoga-vāśiṣṭha. Thus Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu became extremely angry at Him and seemingly treated Him disrespectfully."

Yes I agree, especially since Orch-OR is a matter of Quantum Biology, & Quantum Biology is truly a growing new field of Biology and Quantum Chemistry

I'm a retired biologist and engineer, mostly worked in algaes and fungi in the aerospace field, (think fuel on Mars). I looked at cyanobacteria which are the earliest fossils found at 3.5 billion years ago. I do not think we will create a conscious AI until we can create an artificial DNA with a quadrary system instead of the binary system we have to work with now. I will not say cyanobacteria is conscious, but it has instincts. Inanimate objects do not have instincts or any other type of consciousness, but living organisms do. Chemical actions and reactions are NOT instincts please, unless built into the system by an intelligent organism i.e. a chemist. My son is a doctor and has a computer programmer friend who is totally intrigued by my conjectures of making a computer with a quadrary base instead of a binary system. Problem he is having is that he cannot figure out a 4 part system.

@@MountainFisher Depending on your thinking we come down to the age old debate of whether matter creates mind or does mind create matter. Many scientists are on board with this reality being virtual and created in other. Other as in outside of our reality. In this case we would say mind created matter which would make it impossible to create consciousness as consciousness (other or mind) is the computer that created this reality and is therefore located outside of our existence. If on the other hand matter created mind then conscious computers would be a distinct possibility.

@@MountainFisher I forgot to add the perplexing hard problem of consciousness. Even if your idea (looks very interesting!) does create some kind of consciousness proving that consciousness exists is incredibly difficult. We could in theory create a robot with advanced AI which would act just like a human and we would not know if it was human or robot. The hard problem of consciousness needs to be addressed first before we can attempt to create consciousness.

@@MountainFisher set of instincts organized and priorotized by intelligence is the consciousness (loop) lead to more complex instinct structures and higher intelligence. The one Cyanobacteria that evolved (mutated) is perceived to be more conscious to it's peers. Thank to their great oxygenation event that has changed the life form as we know it.

Hmmm, perhaps using DMT (or meditating) is like putting aside your headset? let's hope the aliens are not holding a can of raid. Hoffman is just amazing!

I've been reading Swedenborg and he says exactly the same thing but he uses the word angels instead of aliens!

Perhaps psychedelics soften the limitations of our consciousness within this reality.

Guess I’m not smart enough to follow what they are saying

Mr Ferguson. We see cars and houses and say that they are real and part of our conscious reality. We are also smart enough to know that people made them. But when we look at the moon, it is as real as the cars and houses but we are smart enough to know that people didn’t make it. But SOMEBODY did as it is there and we are conscious of it. So WHO made it then ? I believe the answer can be tied to the fact that we are conscious of it and it gives us pleasure in its beauty and wonder. But I don’t the moon looks down upon us and admires us humans. I don’t think it even knows we are here or even that we exist - because it does not appear to be connected to the consciousness that humans have and use to think and imagine and to dream and create and experience and get memories and feelings. All the things (including the moon) that neither science or physics or religion can explain or describe or dissect and put under a microscope or in a mathematical equation. Reading about the sensation of smelling a freshly squeezed lemon will never come close to the actual conscious experience of it. Now consider this: those connected to consciousness are able to experience the universe and appreciate its beauty and wonder. In the same way that those who have consciousness and appreciation of the Mona Lisa, we also appreciate the universe. But rocks and sticks and animals and water and mud never line up to see and stare at the Mona Lisa, or the moon. So that separates everything in the universe to things that are creations and things that create creations and appreciate them through consciousness. So I think that consciousness made the moon. And everything in the universe, including these self replicating biological computers with sensory systems attached that we call human beings. And if you consider the parallels between humans and computers, there are many, and I don’t think it’s just coincidental. And that is probably because they were both made by consciousness. I think we sleep for the same reason we have shut down periods for computers to allow for uploads, downloads and upgrades. And also to let them cool down so that they don’t burn out from continuous use, just like us. If you pull the plug on a computer if will stop working. And if our human biological systems don’t get food water and oxygen, then they will also stop working. Does a computer know that it has been shut off? I don’t think so. It’s not hooked up to consciousness to understand that. And humans can be kept from accepting conscious data when it is given drugs from medical people or from sleeping but we still have an unconscious connection, which is what we call dreams, or hypnotized. And we can wake up from a scary dream that was so realistic that we were tossing and twisting and bolted out of sleep in a quick fright, until we wake up enough to realize we are in bed and not in that scary situation that woke us up. So how are we connected from our human bodies to consciousness. Probably in a similar way that computers and satellites are connected to drones down on earth. So what is the universe? Just a really big and great holographic movie with 3-D effects due to time that moves by us and makes it all seem so real. But how can that all be? Well if you consider that at the other end of consciousness are beings from a higher dimension and not encumbered by time or space, then these lifetimes, which seem to last for years and years, is only a few moments up there. Like an interactive ride at Disneyland. The parallels go on and on and on. Even the speed of light, which is a constant, is parallel to a movie projector that runs at the same constant speed to give the illusion that the pictures are moving and seem so real. And think about this: would you pay money to see a guy with wings playing a harp for an hour and a half or would you rather pay to see The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan. All the killing and madness and drama of this earth can be explained just like a movie, where we know after a scene is on film and the Director is happy, “it’s a wrap!” And all the “dead” actors get up and go to the lunch truck for a drink or snack until the next scene to be filmed. It’s FAKE. We know that when we see a movie but it’s nice to pretend for a few hours and enjoy and appreciate and maybe even love the experience and feelings and the memories it’s gives us. All the things we perceive through these sophisticated “headsets” we call a human body via consciousness, all of which scientists can’t touch or explain but can be taken with us when we leave this theater (universe) we are currently inside of and experiencing. And that’s also the reason you can’t “take it with you when you ‘die’ “ because it was all just an illusion. Otherwise we would see U-Hauls behind every hearse. But the Egyptian Pharaohs tried that and we see how that worked out. Would love to discuss more in greater details. And no, I’m not crazy, my mother had me checked when I was a kid. (Sheldon on Big Bang Theory). 👍

Been listening to this series for years now. He is smarter than most people he interviews because his horizon is far wider, especially true this time. (As usually the case with mystics and theologians) Hoffman flounders but Robert stays polite but firm after presenting two death blows.

It is a rare occurrence indeed when Kuhn (the interviewer) fails to outshine the interviewee in his clarity, breadth, insight, honesty, and sometimes (alas) even plain old common sense. Especially in regards to consciousness: where everyone - except Kuhn! - seems to have settled for something or the other as the explanation closer to the truth.

😮😅

@@areezmody6916 oobob

Dr. Hoffman is breaking new grounds, where the gods may reside, where all was once magic, but now may become our new reality. How exciting this time of AI, computers, physics, and philosophy is and how lucky we are to be living now to witness this.

There is one with both.

Bernardo Kastrup is very intelligent, bus has a lesser skill in talking to new people to this theory. Donald Hoffman can translate the same message to a broader public.

Agree

or have*

Or... Kant already did this.

@@martinzarathustra8604true, extended by schopenhauer ;)

Yes, but he did a lot more in other interviews. I wish he did more on his meaning for time/space are doomed.

Time cannot be sped up or slowed down at will. It is just your notion that sometimes it flies and sometimes it drags. It is interesting, because without this notion of time, the whole system would be in trouble. The system that provides consciousness is actually simple, it is a loop. This loop consists of 5 components, a neural network, a human brain for example, then a thought "let's move a leg", then the leg moves, then our sensors pick up the signal from there and we see the leg has moved, and the signal gets passed to the same neural network, like closing the loop. That is all the necessary machinery for consciousness to arise each morning and turn off to autopilot to save some energy during night. It is amazing it does that. Why don't it just stays awake once it woke up?

this is really interesting I experienced it often…is there any more info about it? :D

I'd like to know what impossible things happened during your sleep deprivation?

Agree

If this is him at his best he's in serious trouble.

@@b.g.5869 Hoffman is terrible. However, I love this channel in general.

I would think as your consciousness evolves then that would necessitate a better VR. The bit size of the interface would keep doubling. The reality files would be less and less compressed. What would be really weird is if the real reality looked like our actual computer desktops. I came to Hoffman after I discovered Hawking's holographic principle. I thought what if everything is occurring on a 2d surface like a computer desktop. The flat earthers may be right after all.

Great insights. Thanks.

Thanks

They talked a long time ago.

Is it a good reason to continue taking hallucinogens?

Pat Moran, I would suggest reading this Nature Article www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w

@@rubenwhitaker5547 No thanks. I am not interested in taking hallucinogens.

If you read the article it doesn't mention taking psychedelics it shows that DMT is already produced in your body, and the latest research shows it acts as a neurotransmitter.

@@rubenwhitaker5547 So what. That has been known for a least a few decades. That doesn't mean it is safe. But I am sure it causes "spiritual" connections in those who are gullible enough to believe that there is no external reality.

1) A state of consciousness 2) A mode of consciousness 3) That consciousness is the fundamental aspect of reality

Are you desperate to find something that will allow you to keep your beliefs in the supernatural? I think this is the case. I guess you hate the idea of reality.

@@patmoran5339 You've been a very naughty boy.

Wonderful.

He does meditate... See his interview on buddha at gas pump

He said he meditates 3 hrs per day.

The Vedas teach the structure of the universe, not just how to meditate.

I like all your videos but I think this one has got something to it and I think you probably agree. Thank you. Dave

Wow. That is a lot to absorb.

The holographic principle and quantum entanglement are two big cracks in our perception of space/time.

They talked a long time ago.

@@jps0117 Ohh, I was unaware of this. I will have to look for that, thanks :)

@@sirsiralot7635 He was interviewed by RLK in an earlier Closer to Truth segment (they are sitting outdoors in a park). Hoffman has also been interviewed by others (Robert Wright, Michael Shermer)

How about you?

Anything to avoid Many Worlds Interpretation?

In his book D.Hoffman brings up the idea of universal Darwinism which states that evolutional principles apply not only to sth implemented in spacetime but rather it's an algorithm that works beyond that structure: "The insight that Darwin’s algorithm applies not just to the evolution of organic beings but also, with some changes, to a variety of other domains, is called universal Darwinism. 9 (Richard Dawkins coined the term when arguing that Darwin’s algorithm governs the evolution of life not just on earth but anywhere in the universe.) Universal Darwinism, unlike the modern theory of biological evolution, does not assume the existence of physical objects in space and time. It is an abstract algorithm, with no commitment to substrates that implement it." Though the theory is based on causality which in this sense seems to disprove itself

If that was the case, the world would be in a much better place

If you really are a robot, I apologize. But if you are not, I don't apologize. It reads like a bot's response.

@Nick Williams I guess I need to start at the end. Derivation is just one of the many false ideas in the relic of empiricism. In science, nothing is derived. Please define accurate. This whole explanation cannot possibly be correct because it assumes that genes somehow have reach. They do not. Claims like "it all comes down to the feedback loop..." are too simplistic. Also, humans are different from any other animals. All other animals are adapted to their niche. We can adapt to any environment by using our creativity to change said environment. I figure this is a bot. What do you think? First of all, I believe that an objective reality exists and that we can have knowledge about said reality and that all of our sense experiences can give us indirect knowledge of reality. But all we could possibly be able to "perceive" is tiny crackles of electricity in the neurons of our brain. Nevertheless, we create knowledge about objective reality from within.

@UCVlGsRfmmBBr1KqQJdKTeoQ Compelling Points. What is your take that we live in a simulation for the purpose of entertainment? The creators are bored with their own reality and decided to create this one, which is modeled after ours. Humans are here to amuse the creators. The purpose of humans is to entertain, as in a game or sport. The creators can't directly influence or control humans because they want to see natural human behavior, but they do direct the simulation when needed for purposes of entertainment. Humans are just pawns in the simulation. They're not aware that they are pawns, because they have no direct evidence to suggest otherwise. Humans are not conscious, but they're programmed to act like it. They behave in a way that is on par with human consciousness. The human brain is a simulation. It's an illusion that the creators have created which acts like a real brain. Thoughts?

@@compellingpoint7802 So I guess this is a grad student at University of California-Ventura?

@@compellingpoint7802 There is, of course, no way to prove this set of ideas as incorrect. This is true of all solipsistic philosophies and it is true my own philosophy, Explanatory Realism. I believe that there is an external reality. I believe that this reality does affect the senses. I also believe that all knowledge is indirect and it is within and not outside the mind. You posit creators. The only known creators are human beings. Human beings are the only known entities that can create new knowledge. The human mind is a virtual reality rendering set of organic software-like processes. The process of rendering is to provide possible explanations from which the best can be chosen. I think the idea about simulation is just an overelaboration of realism. That is, the idea is just realism with the extra and unnecessary claim about creators. As I said, I think that all creators are humans.

Exactly. "Nothing can be trusted! But my theory which has zero evidence ... Well, it can definitely be trusted!" This theory needs a lot more evidence ... There are a lot of people like Donald Hoffman that keep paving roads to worldviews where a new creative fiction is possible. I've seen these theories pop up over and over, as if fiction has what consciousness craves. There's nothing wrong with wanting a more satisfying, meaningful, safer and more entertaining worldview. But we need to be aware of how the enticement of fiction clouds our thinking, and biases our perceptions of reality ...

Why not stop at one agent? Radical solipsism seems to explain experience equally well and dispenses with the need for portals. (Sincere question.)

Why does it scare you? I feel less scared by it. Materialism scares me more if true.

Hey see you there , Alpha is my home, be my neighbour

Mankind is poised to tap into that superstructure. It is mind bending to consider the outcomes and consequences to that. Could it be that Revelation takes place completely in this environment?

@@BeachBumZero Synchronicity.

Theistic interpretations of Hoffman's work are just...wrong. You could in some sense say that a "god-like being/thing" that started the universe is part of this sort of superstructure, but in no way would it mean that this being or thing is a personal God which happens to be the one from the religion that is most prominent where you were raised.

yeah an arrogant robot lmao sucks when your ego clouds your research hahhahaha just kidding he's cool I think, alright alright im not kidding i mean it im gonna come clean lmao cool waste of time to hear this video i guess, making comments made it worth coming in to watch