00:28 -- Post-interview remarks and introduction by Razo 03:38 -- Conversation starts / Hoffman's popularity 04:12 -- Hoffman's book and it's pushback from science and religion 06:50 -- Putting human disagreement into perspective 07:55 -- Are nuclear weapons an illusion? 11:40 -- Hoffman's conception of reality as a network of conscious agents 18:30 -- Connecting the math of conscious agents to physics + ethics + society 22:05 -- Hoffman's work with Karl Friston and Chris Fields 23:30 -- The technological implications of Hoffman's ideas 24:20 -- Connecting conscious agents to decorated permutations (physics) 27:00 -- Hoffman's opinion of Nima Arkhani Hamed's work 31:00 -- Conscious agents, graph theory, and Karl Friston 32:35 -- Hoffman's conception of how fitness beats truth 34:10 -- Hoffman's paper: Fact, Fitness, and Fiction 35:45 -- Curt Jaimungal's objection to "Fitness Beats Truth" 38:40 -- Eliahu Cohen, Yakir Aharanov, and the Two-State vector formalism 40:03 -- Conscious agents and the measurement problem 46:04 -- Responding to Hoffman's challenge regarding payoff functions 48:21 -- The benefits of backward causality 51:38 -- Hoffman responds to the objection of backward causality 52:11 -- Maldacena and Arkani Hamed on the cosmological polytope 53:40 -- Hoffman's current research efforts / trace chains 56:20 -- "Fusions of consciousness" paper 58:25 -- Religion, science, and salvation
The intro's post-interview objection about all fitness payoffs functions being equally likely is ridiculous considering that Hoffman's answered it in the interview: their equal probability is not Hoffman's own special requirement but what evolutionary game theory posits so any concerns about that is in effect challenging evolutionary game theory and therefore such doubters need to come up with their own better theory of come up with a modification of evolutionary game theory -- but otherwise it really is an intellectually unserious objection.
@@davidchou1675 The work of Yakir Aharanov on a two-time interpretation of nature directly challenges evolutionary game theory as incomplete. If in fact there is final boundary condition to nature, as Aristotle argued at the beginning of Western Civlization, and as a growing number of physicists are demonstrating is a useful framework with which to do science today (see minute 48:21 of this exchange and my talk with Michael Levin on teleophobia in biology ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RBbu6axShQA.html), then Hoffman fitness-beats-truth theorem is wrong. This is about as intellectually serious as serious can get. Having said that, I think Hoffman's network of conscious agents research is fascinating and is supported, as he rightfully argues, by the latest advances in multiple lines of research in theoretical physics.
35:31 is where the great objection to Hoffman begins, the very crux of the matter that leads Hoffman to his theory -- you've earned my subscription for asking the most fundamental thing (courtesy of the ToE channel courtesy of Hoffman's Yale challengers)!
Thanks for the interest. Allow me to say that the objection regarding Hoffman's equal probabilities in fitness payoff space, as you point out, is not unique. What's unique and valuable about this exchange, in my opinion, is this: First, the response to Hoffman's rebuttal to the objection, courtesy of Yakir Aharanov. As far as I know, Hoffman's rebuttal has not been responded to elsewhere. Essentially, Hoffman has thrown down the gauntlet and Aharanov has picked it up and set if back down for Hoffman. If Aharanov is right, Hoffman's FBT theorom is false. Second, and more importantly, in my opinion, is pointing out something trivial and almost obvious, but which 99.999% of scientists seems to miss: between any two or more competing ontologies or scientific models, the model that we should prefer, other scientific things being equal, is that which empircally resolves the biggest open questions in social science in general, and rids the planet of nuclear weapons in particular. This is a no-brainer yet nobody in the scientific community ever explicitly states it. A third point is not unique to this exchange but which is worth repearting is that Hoffman's conception of a network of conscious agents is very interesting. Thanks again for your comment and interest.
Amazing. Many thanks to both of you for this interview - for your questions, answers, discussion. Especially starting from 18:30 and then up until the end was extremely interesting. I am eagerly waiting for the Fusions of Consciousness paper, and for the second interview with Donald Hoffman and with Bernardo Kastrup.
That's very nice of you to say. Thank you very much. I agree that Hoffman's conception of networks being the most fundamental ontology is very interesting. In his book, he connects these ideas to fascinating work being carried out at the cutting edge of physics. Thanks again for your comment.
Any Hoffman interview is welcome but unfortunately this one could have achieved the distinction of being the one that actually explores the moral and ethical and therefore society and historical ("historical" in the specific sense of Karl Marx) implications of Hoffman's ideas...instead it seemed like our host lost his nerve upon detecting Hoffman's increasing annoyance (very mild but still notice and building) and backed off and this interview devolved into "ye olde Hoffman video" -- that is, "standard Hoffman" or "Intro to Hoffman," "Hoffman Orientation for Freshmen".... Hoffman's ideas are f'king revolutionary for science and society but all these years later it seems all anyone can imagine is to do is "Basic Hoffman," "Hoffman for Beginners," "Hoffman 101"...hopefully the host can get the professor back for a while interview on the moral/ethical/social implications of his theory!!!
Of course some of this is over my head. But 99.9 of people have to live life believing things are real. What other choice is there to have any chance of living a day to day life?? If knowledge doesn't come from our senses what are we going to use to decide who we love and how to stay safe? Ask the few survivors of the atomic bomb attacks if their suffering is an illusion? This conversation, even though interesting, doesn't make those thousands of warheads any less threatening to materialists or idealists. If atomic bombs are an illusion what else is?
Well this person has no clue about life, has not taken some psychadelic drugs, not seen nature, never struggled in his life, has no idea what starving means. I can waste your time explaining YOU what is inside a black hole. Hours of fantastic, useless stories. Why? Because even if we COULD test my blabla, it would have NO impact on anything. Useless "knowledge" or rather speculation. The big bang did happen, because some assume that all physical laws were always the same and that everything we see can only have ONE reason. And you must not ask about what was before, inflation or why dark matter&energy is needed to maintain this construct. "I seen nothing but know it all" ~average human.
... belief, like clothes, amour, shielding, is a UI or headset system having consequence applicable to facilitate an interchangeable perspective or function, junction ...
It's important to understand that reality works at different levels and has to be accepted at all these levels. Our knowledge needs to inform our outlook on life. Physical reality is not to be denied but put in perspective. If you knock your knees in the table and it hurts, this is useful information for managing ourselves in the environment. But if we know that all this stuff - the table, our knees, our brains - are all mostly wave patterns and not solid at all at the atomic level, and at the superpositional state before wave function collapse they are not anything at all...these are facts about reality as well. This knowledge should contribute to our PERSPECTIVE while we remain adjusted to the everyday realities that we need to not only survive but to experience and create.
It’s just his philosophical/poetic construction. A kind of modern, sci-if woo version of the waking world being “maya” or illusion. Of course reality is real… as you point out, the fact that we don’t see all wavelengths of light doesn’t mean what we do see isn’t valid… and the reality we construct with our senses has a core physical objectivity. If I hit my brother here with a brick, it’s going to hurt no matter unreal he thinks he headset is.
Aren’t humans unique in terms of how we can now augment our naturally selected senses / perceptions with things like microscopes, scanners and telescopes to enable us to see more of reality compared to any other animal on the planet?
I doubt Interviewer haven't heard Einsteins words “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. Or bit naive otherwise maybe? Donald is great!
So far, we can't explain closings matters. Like in a double slit experiment. We can't live untouched "paranormal " reality just like remote viewing, distance healing, and so-called akashic records without even trying to explain if we claim any theory of "everything "
I can't explain what your comment means. We have no evidence for the 'paranormal'. We have evidence that reality is far stranger than we perceive it, at the subatomic level. Conflating particle physics with mysticism is woo. We have reliable bullshit detectors for that.
Nifty ! IMO Don is one of the most interesting cats(authority figures) out there today, especially 'in' science/academia. Among other facts known by science, the rather simple concept of rendering can indeed "explain"(make sense of) standard Quantum weirdness as well as retro-causality & such. It doesn't mean it's correct though. But as a metaphor in metaphysics its quite useful. Science should remain skeptical until experiments can distinguish between interpretations. Though in the meantime it should also be MUCH more aware of ALL of the options on the table, as opposed to just clinging to the currently preferred narrative of physicalism(a philosophy mind you). Even many science enthusiasts think that a nearly infinite # of imaginary universes for which we have ZERO empirical evidence is a fact just bc its so pushed by media hype & science communicators alike. Idealism is actually the better assumption by FAR & for MANY reasons IMO.
Thanks for your comment. I definitely sympathize, but I think we have to apply the same standards across the board. Idealism, in many ways, is equivalent to traditional religion - yet proponents generally look askance at religion, as if they are more intelligent. Other scientific things equal, I say whoever and whatever keeps us from destroying ourselves as a species is the most promising interpretation. Thanks again for your comment.
This guy has only an hour to talk to the guest and he asks wandering, rambling 5 minute questions. And the guest is the world's biggest spinner of ambiguous BS I've ever seen.
The ontological physical structure of the life atom/ soul is the existential reality. Understanding that is possible and getting empirical data for them is impossible. I would explain this from all angles and facets of experience that we all have. Humanity just needs to become humane. Be in harmony Within with other human beings and with Nature. Neither exploit nor be exploited.
Hoffman kept his manners about him and received the ideas of his interlocutor with warm respect. His interlocutor showed up to the conversation high on physicalist copium, chucking out alternative hypotheses and invoking apocalyptic dread in bad faith. Just a bad faith actor.
Yes, Hoffman was a consummate gentleman. Regarding me, I don't know what you mean exactly by "bad faith". I suppose, according to your perspective, this whole channel has been created in bad faith. I've always been puzzled by people who use this argument to make a point. In any case, thanks for your feedback, which I'm sure you've given in good faith.
I think it is a dangerous path to argue that since the world doesn't "really" exist, we then don't have to worry about anything. As far as Conscious Experience: we are all individuals, so there is not a data table in the brain that says "this is the smell and taste of Vanilla"... we we are exposed to vanilla, our very individualized brains experience that smell, and then we attribute that smell to something. So, since each person is somewhat different, the vanilla experience will be different for each person. You can argue that there is some collective Definition of Vanilla in some Universal Hive mind, but that is not the reality. Our consciousness "perceives" this physical world. Thus those experiences are uniquely individual. Nevertheless, we do know that the physical senses must share some similarities, otherwise things like artificial sweeteners wouldn't be so appealing to so many people. If it were completely up to some Headset mechanics, the perception of "sweet" would be totally upto the Consciousness and not the physical body. So, we know that physicality has an impact on perception. The purpose of EISM is to prevent the extinction of humanity, not rush toward it. Life is not just a "headset" of consciousness. If that were the case, it would just be a justification that humanity can just remove the "headset" any old time... that is literally the definition of extinction. As far as Darwin's theory: There is zero actual perception of physical reality. This is because we perceive thru sensors. We don't directly perceive the universe with our minds... our minds perceive the data from the senses. Evolution can churn away all day long, it still has to deal with physical reality. It is the same as asking when will evolution evolve us to the point where we transcend reality. So, yea, good luck on that math formula. As far as the measurement problem: that is such a circular argument... that from the "headset" perspective what we see isn't the truth so, you can't measure it. That does not address the problem at all. It just renames it. Additionally, the claim that the physical properties don't exist unless they are observed (@43:40), is patently absurd. Of course they exist. If the theory put forth was true, then reality would have to be created continuously based on the headset... which then suggests that "we make" the Universe. But that has no basis, because then that would suggest that only ONE person is alive, and the rest of the universe disappears when the observer is gone. Basically this one statement makes the claim that there is only one true observer in the universe, because if that one observer stops observing then the universe disappears. In that case, who was observing in the beginning? You can't have both. You can't have pure physics with no god, and also no observers.
Thanks again for your comment, Marc. In all fairness to Hoffman, he certainly does not argue that we should not worry about nuclear weapons. He argues quite the opposite. As for your remaining points, it seems like these arguments and counterargument are eternally recurring. What I've tried to get across in this exchange is that, ultimately, whichever model or interpretation can get humans to a point where the planet is devoid of nuclear weapons and other existential risks, that model should be declared the "winner". It makes eminent practical sense to me. I don't care if my perceptions are "real" or "not" - nobody (sane) wants themselves and their families to die for the sake of dieing. I also don't care if this is one of an infinitely possible number of universes. I care about *this* one, the one we're in. Thanks again for your comment.
@@eismscience Luis, one cannot argue that the world we exist in is not real and also truly care about anything in it. If you follow the logic, nothing is real according to him, so nothing we do in this "world" truly matters . So I will disagree with you there.... it is clear that his theory is that nuclear weapons do not matter because they do not exist, and neither does this world. Per his theory, your family doesn't exist... you don't exist, nothing is real. Which is why I oppose this theory (no offense meant... I just think it is wrong). I am solidly in the "The Universe is Real" camp. As far as saving humanity: it is not possible to un-bite the apple, nor to close Pandora's Box. The knowledge that gives us the answers to all these questions about the nature of the universe is the same as the knowledge you seek to globally suppress. You cannot prevent every country from seeking that knowledge without also conquering every country. You cannot conquer every nation without risking global destruction. So, it is a interesting dilemma to seek the true nature of the universe, and also to be oblivious to it at the same time. So, it is not possible to hide from the answers without also performing global amnesia. Is life worth living if you don't remember it? Perhaps there is a technology that we can discover that will help us to reduce the risk of nuclear destruction... but, there are certainly other problems that we also need to solve as well. There is no technology without risk. What you seek doesn't exist as I have explained before... the best you can do is reduce the risk of self-destruction, not eliminate it.
I think you're right about reducing risk, rather than eliminating it. I think we'd all be happy to move in the direction of reduction, as opposed to the direction we appear to be moving in. Thanks again!
Nukes??? Really??? *It's a huge shame* that souch time during a Hoffman interview is spent on such very basic questions...yes there's asking for the benefit of an audience that's coming across Hoffman for the first time...yes there's rephrasing or reposing questions to better drive at the point of the questions...yes yes yes -- but ultimately it's really such a waste that almost all Hoffman interviews for literally years now tread over the same exact basic points (yes yes yes the material is that unbelievable but still)!! I've been stanning (fan-stalking) Hoffman for a month now across nearly thirty hours of video on RU-vid and elsewhere and very very pitifully, preciously, rarely does the interview go somewhere truly deep (i.e., beyond "Hoffman 101" or even "Hoffman 201")...hopefully the rest of this will be much more informative for those of us looking for something more "advanced" (actual goings-on in that objective reality of consciousness agents of his) and "timely" (the progress he's made in formulating theorems and such about that objective reality of consciousness agents of his). (And BTW, the answer to "nukes" is the same as that to stepping in front of an oncoming locomotive -- which Hoffman's covered many times, including in his book: you take your "icons" seriously but not literally.)
Post Scriptum: I'm deliberately calling Hoffman's "conscious agents" "consciousness agents" instead for much of the same objections Anika Harris has to the term (with which Hoffman has agreed); that it makes what are supposed to be mathematical building blocks in his theory sound anthropomorphic...hence I believe "consciousness agents" is the clearer and better label to use.
Thanks for your comment. It's always a challenge to strike a balance between what a guest has already covered in the past and material we want to cover as part of our mission at EISM. In this case, I'm actually quite happy with the balance. Two points in response to your comment: First, it looks like you may have overlooked the fact that in Hoffman's most technical RU-vid appearance about his work, on Curt Jaimungal's TOEs podcast, Hoffman issued a technical challenge for anybody to come up with a better counting measure than equal probability in fitness payoff space. That challenge has been met with fairly compelling conceptual force in this interview (and in this interview alone, as far as I know). In terms of his FBT theorem, the ball is now in Hoffman's court - at least conceptually and in principle. Second, it looks like you've missed another important point. You claim that the "nukes" objection is exactly the same as "oncoming locomotive" objection. However, this is far from being the case. The difference between nukes and an oncoming locomotive is that we know how to jump out of the way of an oncoming locomotive, whereas we have no idea how to rid the world of nuclear weapons -- and there's the rub. This has enormous existential implications, and that's what it seems like you have missed. Lastly, if what you are looking for is a technical update on Hoffman's work on conscious agents, I've linked to his most recent paper in the video description. Thanks again for your comment.
i know that you haven't mentioned longtermism, but just insisting on the suggested importance of avoiding human extinction is a mere arbitrary value judgement. no scientific finding or theory is normative, so linking scientific theories to moral beliefs is dubious. there's no inherent problem with having moral beliefs, but how do you justify that human extinction should be avoided? why should it be avoided?
Thanks for your comment. I and the vast majority of people take the avoidance of human extinction as a fundamentally self-evident value. Anybody who disagrees, I would argue, is psychologically unwell. I also note, thankfully, that those who disagree don't volunteer to act on their professed beliefs. They, for the most part, choose to remain alive, and that is a very good thing. Thanks again for your comment.
@@eismscience i am not quite sure that your claim about the vast majority of people's fundamental self-evident value is empirically substantiated, nor that such a value couldn't change after, say, the vast majority of people taking their time to thoroughly learn about all the destruction we, as a species, caused since we have been present on earth - both the quantitative, and the qualitative aspects of our presence, especially compared to other living systems' trajectories. but even if your claim about holding this "fundamentally self-evident" value is true, i don't see how that is an explanation for holding that value? i'm not intending to say that it's a "wrong" value, and while i do not hold this value, i am also not holding that we should go extinct. but i am curious about the justification, whether it's more than just the common intuition of valuing staying alive?
Thanks for your question. The argument is that the human desire to remain alive is not a purely "moral" or "ethical" or "cultural" value but rather an empirical observation about the nature of reality -- one that is founded on fundamental physics and the principle of least action. Juan Maldacena, arguably the most influential physicist alive, refers to the principle of least action as the principle of maximal life because what the principle shows is how elementary particles move through space and time in such a way as to maximize their own experience of proper time. According to the argument set forth on this channel and in various publications, this fundamental principle has direct physical implications for all branches of science, from chemistry to biology to psychology and social science. I hope that responds to your question. If you'd like to talk about in on the channel, let me know. Thanks again.
The "solution" to the measurement problem that Hoffman proposes is not a solution to the measurement problem at all. The measurement problem is agnostic about the cognitive status of quantum theory; it arises whether one is a realist or an anti-realist. There are, of course, solutions to the measurement problem, but simply saying that if the electron isn't real you don't need to worry about it is not enough.
Thanks for your comment. I think I agree. I think there has to be a much more compelling reason to go with one "solution" versus another "equally viable" "solution". Math and philosophy are not enough, in my view. Thanks again.
... this isn't new. All that's being done is the assertion that reality outside of the universe is the new semantic definition of what the universe is. And then he's following the logical conclusions that stem from this new definition of the "universe". This is identical to what and how theologians have postulated about heaven and the material universe. What he is explaining is what an outside observer, someone outside of the universe (within theology this would be God), would say about how "real" the material universe actually is.
9:45 - Only caveat, an argument that we should have ubiquitous surveillance including every room of every house and constantly watching our hands to make sure no one is making either nuclear weapons, CRISPR bioweapons, or AI, that would be the dystopia trap. Daniel Schmachtenberger's hope for a third attractor seems to rest on having ubiquitous decentralized data sources where the power can't be cornered easily and similarly making sure that the things that absolutely have to be centralized are but as little else centralized as can be practical.
Thanks for your comment. What you've written as a possible solution seems sensible, in theory. The bigger and biggest question of all, however, is "how do we get from here to there"? I don't think Schmachtenberger has a response to this question, much less a compelling response founded on fundamental physics. See my recent exchange with Fields medalist Michael Freedman for what is, IMHO, a much more concrete and compelling response that is based on the Born rule. Thanks again for your comment.
Perfect presentation by Donald Hoffman, to explain this Hadist Qudsi : يَقُولُ اللهُ تَعَالَى: أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي “God the Almighty said: I am as my servant (you) thinks I am “ “Tuhan berfirman: Aku adalah prasangka hambaku..” Muhammad (600) "Manunggaling kawulo - gusti", "You, are your own God" “You, are the creator of your own reality” Syech Siti Jenar, javanese scientist (1481) “I think therefore i’am” Rene Descartes (1637) “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking (believe) at it?“ Albert Einstein, the confused scientist towards quantum physics and reality (1921)
Einstein moved the world forward so that we can now ask the question of this video topic. Without Einstein the world would still be primitive by comparison. Same goes for Isaac Newton. Thank god they lived and chose to do what they did. It's obvious that religions are the confused way of thinking.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and antinatalists wouldn't agree that an optimal situation is one in which humans flourish. Even if we are not really 'real' in the commonplace sense of the word, there remains at least the illusion of qualitative states. Suffering is experienced no matter if consciousness or matter is foundational.
an atomic blast in the headset would be the ultimate ' dragging to the trash can' in this interface metaphor- perhaps the desktop itself is extinguished and we get a reset :) - I've watched Donald handle many debates on his ideas and I think eventually his interviewers will get the message of his theory - in particular the idea of entropic time being a mere ' projection' - we must elevate ourselves from natures being raw in tooth and claw mere appearance and understand this deeper spiritual realm now on a more precise scientific basis and hinted at by the many theological traditions over the centuries
Yes, no matter how big the bloom of the root error (stone throwing or nuclear bombs), the "size" of the problem ever points back to the root. If that lesson isn't learned there is only bloom and branch management, staying busy and worried and so ingnorantly continuing to validate the root error. I would love to hear a follow up they suggested about Donald's ideas of metaphyscial implications from his models.
It's perhaps interesting to take this idea from the literary world of fiction into the world of nonfiction, but that's about all. The fact that all human beings behave in almost identical fashion substantiates the constraints put on us by reality and our clear place in it. How could billions of brains all over the world perceive such a similar environment as to make creating a chair possible, knowing that everyone who sees it will sit in it exactly the same.
Thanks for your input. You may want to read Hoffman's book, or some of his papers. His arguments are much more compelling than it might seem. Another very compelling set of arguments is put forth by Bernardo Kastrup, who will be visiting the channel next week. In any case, thank you for your comment!
@@davidchou1675 I find that explanation completely unsatisfying. I guess it works to some degree, but it means that his as well as other similar proposals amount to mere linguistic substitution. So reality is an illusion if you simply take the observations previously correlated to the word reality and swap it with simulation. Then I propose that human experience is actually the result of millions of ants walking across your retina which you can't deny because the ants walk on everyone's retina exactly the same way which causes everyone to perceive the same reality.
Rainbows are something most humans can see unless colorblind. But rainbows emerge from our particular viewpoint relative to the spectrum of light. Illusions tend to be intersubjective. It's very rare to find an illusion that only targets the sense of a small demographic, but in principle they can exist.
And obviously illusions can be dangerous. Think of cats hiding in the tall grass and springing on unsuspecting birds. Some birds can see a wider range of colors than humans. But sometimes complexity of vision loses out to a much simpler value proposition.
I have to admit, I have Hoffman-fatigue. I mean come on, one could justify anything with the premise of "...if true reality is not what we observe, then X is an illusion", seriously? How about Evolutionary Dynamics, is that the ultimate truth? Why Evolution is not an illusion then?
Thanks for your comment. In all fairness to Hoffman, his arguments are compelling. It's also important to separate his idea that "fitness beats truth" from his "network of conscious agents" ontology. As I point out in this video, if there is any foundation to Aharanov's work, for which there is strong empirical evidence, then Hoffman's FBT theorem is wrong. On the other hand, Hoffman's ontology of conscious agents is fully compatible with the latest advances in theoretical physics and is pregnant with potential implications for the hard sciences, philosophy, and social science. Thanks again.
Год назад
Evolution is a projection. Hoffman simply uses it to reverse engineer everything around us. I agree with the fatigue with his arguments, so I guess all we can do is wait for the next papers.
There's an aspect of that here, but I do not mean any disrespect. It's simply my attempt to re-focus the consciousness debate on the one thing that matters most, which is human survival. Thanks for your comment.
When God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" most people interpret made in our image to mean we look like god. When the real interpretation means we are made in an image of gods conscience. A backup image of gods conscience placed into the son. We are living in a binary model of the real world. That is what our universe is a binary model of gods conscience being restored unto the son. The after our likeness covers our resemblance to god both physically and spiritually. We are having a temporal sentient experience because of the underlying processes taking place outside of spacetime. The quark gluon plasma represents a single unified field. No amount of spacetime can separate that field, electromagnetic radiation and electrically charged particles represent memory being projected or emitted out into spacetime through the gluon field which is unified. The memory of the internal field doesn't travel through spacetime because it gives rise to it. Look up node edging weighted and unweighted, once you understand that function apply it to the nuclei of the proton and neutron specifically the strings connecting the quarks inside the proton. Realize that all the sub atomic particles popping in and out of existence inside the proton represent the weighted measure being applied. What this means is when we are in freefall inside a gravitational field we are in a state of unweighted measure (the force the quark gluon plasma normally applies to your string to set your physical weight forces you to rest in the field) when you are at rest in a field you are in a state of weighted measure. The strength of the field is determined by the total mass of the field which is why our weight changes depending on the mass of the field we exist in. Mass equates to the length of our string. Atomic nuclei represent binary code with a twist, the proton and neutron represent on and off switches respectively. Which produce atoms which are strung together to produce molecules so on. The mind is at rest and our memory is in motion giving rise to our perceptions and it just so happens our physical bodies represent fractals that our minds are attached to from different node locations on the network producing our unique perspectives and individual conscience. To each their own. The bible takes on a different meaning when you properly interpret the passages and understand that there is subjective truth (creations) and the objective truth (creators) and often times these truths are in conflict with each other. The conscience is corrupt from the subjective perspective and only the objective perspective can cleanse it.
To just flat out say Donald Hoffman is wrong is really not acting or speaking with an open mind. I tend to agree with mych of what Hoffman has to say especially when he has mathematics to back up the meat of his teams findings
There are actual Nazi scientists who used math to prove their ideology. Math doesn't matter if one's assumptions are wrong, as it is clearly stated in this video. If your starting point is wrong, it doesn't matter how correct your logic is.
if say color only exists in the mind as a functional marker for the differing wavelengths of light, why does it appear the way it does, and why does it '"seam" to exist within the external world, and not obvious its the creation of the viewer? does red only exist because we mistake said experience for being an aspect of the external? if so, can the same be said for reality itself?
It is sad to see that humans without any life experience ponder about the wildest things. This person must not talk or write books. Instead, go back to kindergarden. Learn life. Take some DMT, Psilocybin, Mescalin. Then inspect nature. Watch how much life is in soil, watch the life cycle of a mushroom and look what is happening under water. Instead of talking pointless bla bla he should BEGIN to experience life (and "reality"). After 5-10 years he would be old and wise enough for a meaningful conversation. Don't get too excited, the orchid in background is a fresh, store bought one. It needs a bigger pot and more light, or it won't last long. And if you take good care of your orchids, they can get massive, too. My oldest one Phalaenopsis has 4 babies and 8 flower spikes. EIGHT on one plant.
Thanks for your comment. I don't think you need to be sad about Hoffman's reflections. It sounds like you've got it all put together nicely, so if anything his reflections should make you feel better. Your advice about orchids is great. Thanks again.
@@eismscience no disrespect, sir. And a happy new year. We have people discussing the reality of DMT entities. Beings which YOU meet when taking the drug. We can discuss about many things, like what is inside a black hole. Can we go there? Meassure it? Derrive something useful? See, I am more a practical person. I CREATE reality, like wonderful Orchids. :) Again, no disrespect and best wishes!
we can observe a brain during surgery and mistake that said brain is the origin, all while this entire experience said surgeon is having is within the scope of ones conscious awareness. so whose to say that if consciousness is primary, the brain isn't just the lower density mapping of ones soul, and not instead the origin of conscious experience. all is just mere details within the dream. the origin of the dream is occurring beyond all detail within
