TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:44 - Working with Prakash & Chattophadhyay 2:49 - Conscious Agents and the Subatomic World 8:03 - Markovian Dynamical entities beyond Space-Time 10:25 - Donald's new paper (Coming out on 24 June 2023 - link to follow) 11:39 - "CANets" (Conscious Agent Nets - Similar to the Twitterverse) 14:51 - Scientific Community's response to Don's work 19:29 - Don's view of Physicalism & other theories of consciousness 28:00 - Don's on Bernardo Kastrup's work 31:24 - Conscious agents - Decorated Permutations - Particles in Spacetime 35:55 - Erwin Schrödinger's "Mind & Matter" 40:27 - Mathematical Realism 43:11 - A step-by-step run through of each Precise Hypothesis from Don's latest paper. These include 6 very detailed explanations of each hypothesis. 44:28 - Hypothesis 1 48:59 - Hypothesis 2 1:17:21 - Hypothesis 3 & 4 1:28:38 - Hypothesis 5 & 6 1:37:47 - Future experiments & the wonder of scientific enquiry 1:52:49 - The difference between Don's Idealism (Conscious Realism) & Panpsychism 1:58:42 - Addressing Counter Arguments & Final Thoughts in General 2:10:00 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
I can’t get enough of Donald Hoffman. Every time I hear and see videos like this, I can’t help but remember what Jiddu Krishnamurti used to say the observer is the observed. I wish him and David Bohm were alive today. Would love to hear them talk today. I grew up listening to Jiddu Krishnamurti and Bohm back before RU-vid and their talks have stuck with me to this day.
This is literally unbelievable work. I am an accountant who stumbled upon active inference with a taste for theology, now navigating the proposal. Absolutely incredible stuff here. It must be amazing to see this proved/come to life through the colliders.
... iam feeling sleightly queezy about that massive amount of NRG being squandered, only being applied to scatter and measure infantissimal bits of matter. No real good could ever possibly come from such a waste, in such an unequally disstributed and, basically, energy starving world ...
... & JUST being, ha, able, ha, to be here, ha, NOW, ha, at THIS ha-point, in time, ha, & in PLACE, ha, is-a-"gain" So, what, REALLY, IS ANYTHING, other than a living language or bunched symbolixabels, & EXPES-$IVE, deductively reducive-expand-turd EXPLANITIVES, & to be, SENTIANTLY ALIVE, AWARE, PERCEPTIVELY CONSCIOUS-!?! ...
... mmm hmm. Thee business of IS-NESS, can, &, ONLY EVER be, "about" the "truth". What a magnificent CONTINUEINGLY CONSCIOUS COLLAPSING CONSTRUCTION ENTITY that we are living within ...
Love to hear Hoffman talk about technical details as well as the intuition behind his theory. My knowledge of math is mostly recreational, and I’m no physicist, but these details help paint at least a small picture for me I’m really hopeful for the future of physics based on an idealist ontology. Thanks for the upload!
Thank you Don.. always appreciate the way you explain consciousness as being the true fundamental. Every podcast I listen to with him I have more understanding of how he and his team got there!
This interview was yet another reinforcement that what you are doing with this interview series is superb. Hoffman's humility, and open-mindedness, combined with your inquisitiveness, was just a joy. 🙂 The main thought I had, though, on this interview, was that Don's admission that his supposed coupling to consciousness was discretionary, was an understatement. What he has done is that if he treats interacting dynamic phenomenon as a Markov system, then he can find behaviors from such a system that roughly correspond to elementary particles. I don't actually see any "consciousness" involved in this process at all. What Hoffman is doing -- is actually to try to puth some mathematical flesh onto Whitehead's thesis that materialism cannot explain processes, but that if one starts with processes as fundamental, then one in principle should be able to derive matter from processes. This is Whiteheadian process reductionism. Tying processes to awareness, or to ideas, is still a challenge for Whitehead's approach. There are a lot of processes in our bodies that do not generate any awareness, so Type-Type Identity Theory between processes and awareness is -- not true. Hoffman's assumption that the taste of chocolate, the smell of a rose, etc are the fundamental building blocks of reality -- has a major mismatch with the analyses he is doing as well. We know experiences are massively diverse, and they are transitory and fleeting. That suggests that if there is some token-token identity between experiences and these Markov structures, then the Markov structures of our universe should be very diverse, fleeting, and rapidly changing. But matter is -- pretty standard, elementary particle to elementary particle. We DONT have radical diversity, nor a significant transient nature to our material world. It is instead regular, and stable. A first order plausibility check - suggests that Hoffman's proposed "solution" to mind-body, is a radical mismatch from both ends of the phenomena he is trying to explain. Still, praise for his speculative leap. Aside -- it is great to hear the Institute for Noetic Science show up in you interviews. This is one of the bolder centers trying to find science-based non-physicalist understandings of our universe. INS is mostly idealist leaning, while I am a dualist, but they are top notch. Another aside -- Hoffman's analogy based "Dashboard" argument for the non-reality of the physical world, is simply false. Just as a dashboard does not have to blow air at you to represent wind speed, and can measure speeds that you could not survive, his assumptions about the need for the dashboard to have commonality with the phenomenon evaluated, and the magnitudes of what can be evaluated, are just flat out wrong. That the world is not identical to a dashboard is readily apparent to every pilot, Hoffman's assumption that we "confuse the dashboard with reality" is also simply not true. We take data off the dashboard, and use it to infer the nature of the world. That world need not have any particular relationship with the nature of how the dashboard presents the data, nor the completeness of what our dashboard shows, nor how WE use that data in our internal mental processing. Hoffman's assumption that these three stages (reality, dashboard report, and mental perception) must all be of the same fundamental nature, is an unexamined and false presumption in his reasoning. Further aside on evolutionary modeling -- Hoffman's argument that we don't perceive reality "as it is" is readily supported by the neuroscience work reported by David Eagleman in Incognito. We are provided a very narrow and focused summary of the world by our brains. However, unlike Hofmans' assumption, we regularly ask our brains for more details when we want to pay closer attention to something and then MORE of the world is shown to us in an adaptive dashboard. The world is simplified for us in the dashboard presentation, but we are able to increase our sampling depth. Note, this process is explicitly a dualist type interaction, in which both matter and mind are really real, and has basically nothing to do with Markov dynamics.
You're not watching what i am whatching. I thought he was just saying smart sounding words without explanations. Look, i have conscious experiences, but hiw do i know if there are any other consciousness beyond my own? Y'all could be a bunch of philisophical zombies for all I know. Now thats really unlikely and would require me to somehow be special, which I am probably not.
To your statement: We DONT have radical diversity, nor a significant transient nature to our material world. It is instead regular, and stable. I have to wonder if the connections of matter ARE really as stable as you say. I am not a physicist or any kind of scientist, I am only questioning the stability you claim based in the very little of which I have read regarding the interference caused in a wave of energy imputed by observation which, if I understand what physicists are saying about quantum mechanics, cause wave collapse into particles, as well as one particle being affected by another particle though they may be separated by light years in tim? How do these phenomena affect your “stability” of matter?
It's actually nuts how everything he's saying is exactly what the revelations on LSD taught me. People are starting to wake up and realize what's really going on.
@@drtevinnaidu... Yeah, Right-? This is getting, and, going to get way too far beyond elligence. IT-IS Free-King totally batshit crazy beauty-full-! Nothing, is real. Everything, is possible. Nothing is possible. Everything is real. This, is JUST, and only some, a dim-sum miniscule PEACE, of what, the great alien mystery school adherens have been alluding and alluring us ON towards, fostering and waiting, ever so patiently, for us to awaken to, and to finally be embraced and welcome into a much broader, more diverse and grander galaxy and universe, brimming to the zero point of energetic and intelligent overflow. Alchemy and mysticism must grow up and finally come out of the closet and into the light. The deep state have to treat the masses as an asset, not as useless eaters and slaves, otherwise this beautiful Earth will continue to be trashed and burnt, JUST and ONLY 'cause of ignorance. OH, COME YE WISDOM, and LET'S NOW GOOOOOOO-!!! ...
Spiritualist and esoteric philosophy have also been saying this for a couple of hundred years and you can read it in old books. Maybe the two sciences - metaphysic and physics will start to come together and show not everything that is real can be seen and vice versa. Sounds wacky but so is life!😂
Yes! I was always suggesting physicists should take the anthropic principle serious. To state consciousness is fundamental would be excessive, but I strongly advocate the idea that our organism/consciousness is "giving rise" to timeflow and fine-tuned constants and particle scattering patterns by sampling a broader reality. edit: "giving rise"
... now, flip that, and SEE-IT unfold. Conscious, is, thee ONLY frontier, fun-dimention-ALLY precursive to, the fore-runer of, any-thing ... Theretofore, Addictions, are thee ONLY reality ... Enlightenment, is thee only game ... Aend, Ignorance is the only impediment .. Much LOVE and GREAT RESPECT to ALL from OZ, way down under, in Australia ...
im half way through the gita , and its confirming what i had already thought, god is everything but you have a seperate soul, love what you got to say brother really enjoying it
When Donald D Hoffman has to reference his paper to explain his theories you know this is “out of the box” stuff. My head and ass hurt simultaneously when I listened to this episode, so does that mean they’re entangled?
I fell asleep for an hour while listening to this and during sleep I was stuck inside of a computer interface and it was as if I was awareness inside endlessly going through pages and trying to unlock screen pattern locks. It was exhausting as if I wasn't sleeping at all. This has happened before but it's interesting anyway.
I've actually emailed Jude and waiting for her response. First I'll do a solo chat then maybe them together. Donald actually recommended I interview her.😁
Dualism is an imperfect model of something happening "behind" the phenomenal experience. Phenomenon are not temporal entities; the temporal is a partial expression, however. It is a necessary error. We are going to discover a fundamental flaw in our conception of causality.
Thank you Donald. This may be the single most exciting direction of scientific discovery I have ever heard of. Hearing of math describing what makes intuitive sense. Just wow! Anyways, at the part around 1:13 velocity and mass are being discussed as related to Markovian dynamics. If all zeros and a single one is massless and mass are the more complicated numbers combinations and massless things move at the speed of light then wouldn't mass just be the time it takes to make those speed of light calculations? This would explain why mass wouldn't be able to ever reach the speed of light. It inherently has more than one step of information to process
It speaks to truths that we're (i) already innately aware of. Whenever I mention these things to people, most either get it, or it makes them quite uncomfortable. That would be the ego.
Consider consciousness itself to be the centerpiece of your theory of consciousness. How are these "conscious agents" being communicated to you? Through your *senses.* The things you perceive create your reality. Try thinking about space, time, mass, and the 4 fundamental forces as human senses. So you've got vision, hearing, olfactory, physical touch, and the laws of physics. Add emotions to the list and you have 6 senses, assuming you combine olfactory. There are 7 notes in a musical scale, and one note is the master key or note. There are 6 primary and secondary colors that combine into white. White is akin to the "master key" in a musical scale. So 2 of our senses happen to follow this pattern of 7 descriptions. 7 is known as the number of completeness or perfection is many religions. 6 and 7 sided symbols are very common in religions and myths.... Metatron's cube, Christian heptagram, Star of David etc. I implore you to look deeper at this pattern and look into the other senses. All of your senses have 6 descriptions and one master description that controls, combines, or otherwise enables the other 6. These religions were leaving behind hints everywhere. There's even 7 days in a week.
Interesting!, although humans tend to see patterns in everything perhaps from observing cycles and the nature of the brain constantly predicting everything, Just saying not disagreeing
Rainbow reflects our Over-Consciousness, (7) the Six colors is our Under-Consciousness, as holds the Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness. The Structure is a Circuit, from 'low to High', 1,2,3, Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, is the Stuff-bearing Basic-Energies/Abilities, 4,5,6, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory, is the Consciousness-bearing. The Cosmic Week, has Six Days, but the Week is also given a Day, (7)
So if you never experience any senses, and are in a blackhole, in that emptiness, are you there??? What form of thought will you have if you never sensed anything?
@@rjlee818 perhaps we are just pure consciousness in such a state. Perhaps thought is just past experience playing games to create the illusion of the self and create the story of "my life" "Life is an intensely personal experience" Laurence of Arabia stated something like this
The Eternal Living 'Some', (X0) always had Consciousness, (Rainbow) Yellow, is Feeling. The Perspective-Principle and the Contrast-Principle, makes Feeling into Sensing. If there were No Feeling, the Eternal Life Never were able to Feel or Sense anything. Emptiness is a Imagination, there is No 'emptiness', We are Not physical, We are the Stillness, behind the Motion-Ocean, Stuff-side, physical reality. By the natural Development, We make Experiences, all experiences is Feeling-experiences, first hand. By the Time, We get so much Feeling-experience, that We can close our eyes, and use it in our Analysing, Sense-Free thinking. If We had No Memory, (Indigo) there will be No Experiences. Intelligence, (Green) = Logic and Order can Never be 'artificial', but a part of our Consciousness, as can be Conscious programmed in Technical Order, in books (Stored Consciousness in Frozen Memory) and Smart Devices. (Black Holes, are Mystic, We want Logic)
It seems trivially obvious that some periodic Markovian kernels don't correspond to massless particles. There are Markovian kernels in non-physics contexts.
@@drtevinnaidu I'll probably blow any 'street cred' I may have at this point BUT . . . . . In Buddhism there is a teaching called the Heart Sutra. In this sutra (or teaching) it is explained that all our sensory experience, all our thoughts, in fact everything we can regard as existing, including consciousness, is an illusion. (Please note: an illusion is something that does exist, but is not what it appears to be.) There is 'something' (not a 'thing' really) which is far more 'fundamental' to anything we can concieve of. In Buddhism, it is called Sunyata but absolutely nothing can be said about Shunyata since it is 'beyond' all concepts (yes, I recognise the contradiction I've just made - an unfortunate problem of having to use language). However, Sunyata can be 'experienced' (a bad word really since at that point there is no self to have an 'experience' - but that's another story). 'Awakening' is when Shunyata is 'experienced'. All words, all ideas, all concepts, all equations, etc., act as barriers to the experience of Shunyata. Only when we let go of everything, can awakening occur. This teaching does not arise via theoretical rationalisation and cannot be justified via such. It arises through direct experience and therein lies its truth. (Please don't get too hung up on the epxressions I have used. They are all meaningless when referring to Shuyata but I have to use these 'fingers pointing to the moon' in order to commincate.)
Observation of what we see in our life is a very powerful thing to consider when you understand that the world is a dot in space and plasmass is the Talorical current of all kinds of different types of things to be able access into a domain with the States of vibrational songs and a wagon that we as riders of that wave set's up this realm of reality-based of matter and how we contract the business of this realities and the sameness of each other in itself
... consciousness occurs to arrise as a consequence of the intersecting cross points of electrical energy flowing from everywhere, going to everywhere, simultaneously ...
"hitch-hiker guide to the galaxy" - at the end, he got a true cup of tee only when he described the experiance. describe = de - scribe = not in wards = concious
We conceptualize something which is not a thing... space is not a thing. Space is where things occur. Time is not a thing. Time is the ever constant, irreversible exchange of inertia among things in space. Space, nor time, is a thing for something to exist 'beyond' (spatial reference).
You're ignoring Hoffman's basic analogy for his theory, in which space and time are the form in which reality appears on a computer display . . . but the hardware and software that render that display . . . "exist beyond them".
@@QED_ What I am arguing is Hoffman is incorrect in his assumption that space is a thing. A computer display is a thing which has light cast upon it in space - a bad analogy. A computer, unlike space, isn't formless with its only measurable property negatively inferred between two things of 'form'. There is no space 'beyond' space - for space is where things take place, anywhere things take place.
I wonder if periodic Markovian kernels map to massless particles because there is no energetic "loss" due to the collapse of the probabilistic wave function that occurs, because they automatically, according to whatever calculation causes them to evolve, move from one state to another with 100% probability? When there is some sort of uncertainty, it would cause an interaction with the Higgs field, or the more abstract component of reality that projects as such, in order to determine Which specific next state it collapses into, Gaining mass from the energy lost from the possible States it could have collapsed into but didn't?
I tried to watch enough to hear about the experiment mentioned in the title, but I never found it. Can anyone give me a time stamp? I'm very interested to know the details of how such an experiment could be designed that would be able to scientifically test this hypothesis in any conclusive or convincing way.
I have no doubt about this simulation which is an automated system This going along with the ride is not like you're in a car as a passenger and enjoying the view.It's more like you're on a tandem bike having the feeling you control the handlebars and work really hard When you die not only you take off your headset but the avatar will be rewarded because the equation between exist and not exist must be balanced,meaning when you don't exist you have no regrets so when you do exist you must also have no regrets ,when this is accomplished you die
Consciousness In-Itself is transcendental to space time, but is not accessible through logic and mathematics. Consciousness is non-computable. Whether objects are amplituhedrons, decorated permutations, or other Markovian dynamical systems, such structures are still relative. Such entities won''t get you to a realization of Pure Consciousness in the state of Samadhi/Satori.
Minds, like mathematical objects, are non-physical, so they can not interact by any of the means available to physical things. This is a serious challenge for all forms of Ideal monism. Dualism can solve this IFF the relationship between the Physical and the Mental can be coherently defined and shown. My own idea is to use the Stone duality per Vaughan Pratt's ideas.
Right on both counts, though now I listen to Sir Roger Penrose stating consciousness is non computational 😅 What a time to be alive, love this content. I’m with Hoffman’s approach. Time to move on.
@@bankiey It simply becomes a drunk avatar. It is no different than a wounded plant or animal or a game with a race car with broken suspension. The consciousness agent is only using limitless avatars to get what it needs. Being in the state of intoxication is no different than being in the state of consumerism. The 1st is chemical related while the 2nd is more belief and habitual related. If we take away all of the socially caused beliefs and habits, what are we left with? Obviously we then know nothing. Seems what Hoffman keeps working on is to know why consciousness needs all these avatars to present itself. Then we may be capable of using our consciousness agent for better human activities. Better control our avatars for better results.
@@bankiey Same thing as turning the "steering wheel" in the car in GTA causes the car to turn (in the video game). Does that mean there is a steering wheel, or a car? No, it's an abstraction, it's the user interface you've been presented with, and have very little bearing to the actual calculations done by the computer. Most of physical space is empty, but we perceive objects as very solid. We are completely unaware of most of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are other particles flying around that we have no conception of. We're bathed in various forms of radiation, magnetism. Some animals may experience some of these things, and have a totally different consciousness and idea of what the "world" outside looks like. We have this "headset" that we perceive the world through - as this 3D world with a limited visual spectrum and certain things we're capable of experiencing. An ingested molecule affecting the brain is another abstraction. We're experiencing a very tiny fraction of what's actually going on, and trying to make sense of it with the extremely limited headset we have available. There is no alcohol and there is no brain and there are no neurotransmitters, these are just simple models we have for explaining the tiny fraction of consciousness that we experience. Just as when you drag a file to the recycle bin on your computer: there is no recycle bin, there is no file, there is no C++ programming language, there is no assembly programming language, there is no binary 1 and 0, these are all built up from multiple layers of abstraction built on top of each other. What's actually going on is so completely different to that top-level abstraction that it's almost nonsensical to think about.
Hoffman has an idea (hypothesis) and he wants to jump to "it's a credible theory" and should be "accepted science" without going through the hoops of credible evidence or peer review... So instead of publishing scientific research, he goes on RU-vid and highlights gaps in our knowledge.... As though that makes his hypothesis more credible?
"Scientific" funding & publishing isn't generally about science sadly - it's political/financial. If you go with the standard, accepted, narrow, pre-dictated flow you'll get funded/published/lauded. If not... (Dot)
Totally unfair and inaccurate. He has published his scientist research…its all out there and available to anyone. I Don’t believe you will find another scientist more transparent, open minded and humble.
@5:20 severe ignorance (also from Gross and Arkani-Hamed, who aught to know better). The Planck scale is a limit to certain measurement procedures, not to spacetime itself. If you shrink yourself (gedakenexperiment ok) down to an electron mass, and size, you could interact with "stuff" on the Planck scale. The limit to our view of spacetime is our measurement instrumentation, not spacetime itself. How do we/I know this? It's because there are plenty of subtle effects that cannot occur if nature herself cannot probe the Planck scale. Also, if you could (gedankenexperiment) squeeze the energy of an electron to below its Schwarzchild radius you would not "break spacetime" you just get a black hole, which is a thing in classical physics, not a total mystery. Not well understood, but not a mystery.
When one describes something “outside of space/time” as “dynamical” - does it not imply a comparative cause & effect timeline and structure? How does one even conjure a language for a non space/time? Fascinating stuff. Like trying to describe color to the blind…
All those miraculous things are possible within the framework of the Theravada Buddhism. Lord Buddha and his disciples have known to done these miraculous things. if you study, abhidhamma in Buddhism you will be able to understand how the mind creates the matter.
Mo Gawdat is speaking widely about how fast AI is now developing. I noticed Donald make a tiny mention of enhancing human brain power? (AI Implants?)Nowhere have I heard or seen the two speak about the possibility of AI’s future(near it seems) potential for solving the questions asked by Donald and his associates. And if it were put to that task, would we even understand or comprehend the result? Would someone put the two of them together please? It’s really about time.
'Very interesting - Donald Hoffman is open-minded obviously, unlike most "scientists". Has he ever corresponded with Rupert Sheldrake, who is a similarly open-minded, true scientist..? Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" theory which relates to memories for example, may be complementary to the "conscious agents" approach - at least in terms of exploring possible hypotheses for testing. (Dot)
It is a huge breath of fresh air that Don is able to say things like "Of course the first steps outside of space-time are going to be wrong " That's a man that's open to any possibility that proves itself to be worth pursuing.
I am trying to track down a paper by Hoffman in which he talks about a congenitally blind boy who gets sight when he's in his teens and the implications of that experience. Any pointers?
Space and time are still fundamental to physics, it is silliness to think otherwise. "Spacetime" is a purely mathematical abstraction, a convenient construct for making the equations of relativity more elegant.
Another fascinating chat, thank you! 🙏 "You can't boot up consciousness from inside space-time" - made me think of Searle's "a simulation of rain doesn't make a computer wet" metaphor ... they might be more on the same page than they realise ...
With the right hardware, you could program that computer to behave as if it were wet. Even better, you could simulate a whole computer within the computer and then simulate that computer getting wet.
If you could build this model into some engine, and if it is correct; you would have synthesized consciousness. Is there a planned method for physicalizing the model and feeding the projection into it? In a logic sense this is contradictory to the premise that consciousness creates the physical. Consciousness would be better described as a cursor on the interface receiving the projection. The projection in this analogy would be the code/data stream. The cursor has an experience of space time within the framework of the interface. Do cursors dream that they are the the artist painting the screen?
Perhaps in space/time, personal conciousness is just the content of our brain/mind as in our experience and knowledge , Outside space/time conciousness has no beginning and no ending and is all there is, Some may use the word God in its place! This is just my humble experience
Now that is a challenge, trying to find / define "that which knows" while using all the attributes of "that which knows" to do that. Is "that which knows" actually "knowable" at all??? Or is it like the ancient symbol of the snake eating its tail??? But the fact that they have stepped outside Space - Time is a good start, meaning there is a better chance of discovering that Space - Time is not the container of "consciousness" (like Einstein assumed) but that more likely "consciousness" is the container of Space - Time, and is the causal agent.
So if you never experience any senses, and are in a blackhole, in that emptiness, are you there??? What form of thought will you have if you never sensed anything?
I can’t stop thinking about how this can be applied to np space problems in computer science. Showing np vs p depends on a link between chains. I wonder if Donald Hoffman has had any thoughts about p vs np?
I impose a negative too one and one it zero if in impose a positive too one and one is two.The world is an and in mostly every thing. The conciuosness of the agency of Talorical currents in plasmass has a twin continental placements
@@drtevinnaidu thanks good music, do you have full mp3? i wanna hear this when i study loool i tried other tabla beats but they are not as good as yours have a great day man
Consciousness appears as content to experience itself, content disappears to realize that it is consciousness itself aka GOD. I am that Generator Organizer Destroyer of content Life Is For Experiencing the content & consciousness Deletes Everything After This Happens Swami SriDattaDev SatChitAnanda
Okay, so the lower limit of reality is plank length or plank second or whatever and spacetime doesn't get any smaller. So it has no meaning. But are you trying to describe reality, or some fantasy land?
I need I'm developing a proof that show just the same thing but I'm not familiar with the language I need to use and I wished I don't help nobody helped me because it involves strange loops modeled after his ideas a lot even though I I came up with them separately and I'm My own getting piece pieces here biches there and the pieces I got from him we're not nowhere near as meaning noise important as the ones that I ended up having that matched his ideas except for the main one about strange loops
My English way better than that but I voice typing I didn't bother you look cuz I was in a hurry and I figured you would actually say what I think it's mostly just coming words but you see how much it doesn't make sense. Although I see you understand just what I was saying voice typing application suck nowadays
Nobody who interviews this guy makes him define his overly technical terms. By the fifth use of "markovian dynamics" my eyes glaze over. What the hell is he even talking about?
Perhaps try watching our "Round 1" video to get better context of his Conscious Realism & Conscious Agents Theory first? Hope that helps a little. For "Round 3" I'll definitely try to ask Don to define terms more. If you have any questions for him, let me know!
@@drtevinnaidu I like your show and I’m not saying this as a criticism of you. All the people who interview Hoffman tend to fall into this trap. Make him explain what he’s saying in layman’s terms. I’m very skeptical that idealism can be empirically substantiated like he seems to think it can, so it’s important to hold his feet to the fire. He needs big evidence for his big claims, and he needs to be able to explain it in a palatable way.
Structures outside spacetime.... Yeah... The planetary zones that surround the Earth. Elementary zones. The Akasha The Mental Plane The Astral Plane Heavenly places exist in eternity... Time and space have no meaning. Travel at the speed of thought is routine.
This isn’t new at all. The science of consciousness is in the Vedic scriptures the Tibetan book of the dead as well as Egyptian. It would be nice to see Americans giving proper credit where it’s always been due.
Szimulálsz nem jelent mást mint tetteted magad, az vagy ami nem vagy. Gondolkodhatsz rajta, mielött további "helytelen" elméletek és képletek szûletnének. Nem vagyunk szimulációban, habár az attól fûgg mivel azonosítod létezésed !
Just say something like "MARKOVIAN DYNAMICS" so you sound smart, but don't explain what that is, then say a bunch of other words very quickly so you land on consious agents. This trips my BS detector.
@@drtevinnaidu sure, but his claim of a conscience experience is by definition _subjective_ He is attempting to cram this into an objective framework of math and science. Square peg, round hole, but much worse. You just get a ton of nonsense that just illustrates why science is probably the wrong tool to investigate and learn about consciousness. The only consciousness you can really investigate is your own... Other conscious entities in your experience could just be completely unconscious zombies following complex rules for all you know.
Is Pinker brilliant? Did he get smarter after writing The Blank Slate? These guys are in love with their cult of credentialism. We are divine sacred creations with non-local consciousness. Afterlife will put these people in their place.
Warning : Long Comment ~ With the greatest of respect but in your work no where do you define exactly what ‘information’ is - as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it says or means or does. I respectfully insist that this is a grievous & highly misleading error & that attempting to understand consciousness - or ‘reality’, in either part or whole - in the absence of first understanding ‘information’ - which is an integral & foundational ‘ingredient’ of consciousness (indeed, of quite literally everything) - is tantamount to trying to understand modern civilisation without first understanding electricity. (Don’t get me wrong, electricity is not information, even though it can be a particularly useful carrier, or medium, of the phenomenon.) ‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper - that is, fully verifiable - understanding of ‘information’ itself. No. We do not have a science of 'information' - which particular science would include the 'nature (ontology), the identifying/defining properties & features, the role &/or function, the existential standing, the varieties, incidences, distribution, suitable handling procedures &/or useful operations to which the phenomenon could be subject, & those injurious to it, & also its full life history. Etc. 'Handling procedures &/or useful operations to which the phenomenon can be subject' ?? For example : 'Information' can be copied, stored, retrieved from storage, transported/transmitted/transduced, transformed, 'reconstituted' (as when our movie machines, TVs & handheld devices etc turn our first-captured-transformed-transmitted-&-stored pictures, images & sounds back into pictures, images & sounds, these nicely ‘reconstituted' units dancing on our viewing screens otherwise appearing & sounding almost exactly as they did when in they were in their original format out there in the world, or on the set ..); reduced & enlarged in size..... And, rather auspiciously, 'information' can also can be created, written, read & understood - not to omit once understood, acted appropriately upon - that is, acted on in a fitness maximising/optimising manner. Where ?? do I ask can one find a full & accurate science of 'information' - as a phenomenon in & of itself & not just what any of it says, means or does - which particular science, it must be insisted must precede any hope or chance of establishing the science of anything remotely (or closely) related to it, & which ‘things’ are still completely mysterious, such as are ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (all mental phenomena). Indeed for that matter, such a science must precede the science of anything else here in our Universe - given that 'information' is verily indeed a fully paid up, card-carrying foundational element thereof .... Although I have personally had the (dubious) (I'm a rank amateur) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity, and although I’m not going to divulge this formalistic definition here in this RU-vid comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal - the exercise of determining the ontological identities of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty. Personal question ! Why not pause for a sec here & reflect on the fact that currently there is no rigorous nor widely accepted definition of information ! Even less a science thereof !! Now consider the impossibility of achieving a rigorous understanding (a rigorous science) of any information-related // information-involving phenomenon (+++) in its absence !! Many consider ‘computer digits’ to be ‘information’, & that ‘thinking’ is a computationally tractable phenomenon, but once ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is recognised it becomes readily apparent that ‘computer digits’ are not ‘information’, & that ‘thinking’ cannot be achieved ‘computationally’…. The only operations computers can perform is count things ! Not reason about, nor understand things. Indeed, computers show themselves to be nothing more than electronically automated abacuses. And while ‘thinking’ machines, systems & devices may ‘only’ be integrated collections of sure-fire servomechanisms & cybernetic devices (either animate or inanimate) (such as are all of our own information-using gadgets & contraptions like robots, Roombas, thermostats, hygrometers, motion sensors, cameras, microphones, object sensors, pH sensors, altitude sensors, velocity sensors, gravity sensors, eyes, ears, pain receptors, electromagnetic sensors, automatic doors, fire alarms, self-driving cars, aircraft on autopilot, etc, etc, etc, etc), be that banality as it may, the distinctions between the two different kinds of machines, systems & devices are simply incommensurable. That is to say, the distinctions which exist between mere counting machines such as computers on the one hand, & bona fide information-using machines (such as thermostats as well as our own brains !!) on the other, are simply incommensurable. One of the killer advantages of recognising ‘information’s’ correct (as-yet-to-be-divulged) ontological identity is that it shows itself to be something that can be readily located, identified, measured, quantified, classified, read & understood, traced & tracked where- & whenever any kind & amount of it exists here in our universe. Including any of it being used inside our own brains as the means with which we ourselves think - indeed, as the means with which we perform all of our mental functions & make all of our fitness maximising/optimising decisions. And although ‘information’ is most certainly not consciousness itself, nevertheless the exact kind & amount of information any one particular sentient entity can use/process in its own personal ever-on-going, fitness maximising/optimising existential endeavour, that particular kind & amount of 'information being used thereby becomes a very useful & accurate measure of the exact kind & amount of consciousness that that particular entity possesses/evinces. Note - On their own although they ‘think’ rightly & well enough, ‘simple’ information-using servomechanisms, sundry cybernetic devices, gadgets & systems (animate & inanimate alike) are not in & of themselves, conscious entities, as, for some very particular & easily ‘measured’ reasons, consciousness occurs exclusively in ‘proper existents’ - self-assembled/self-contained/self-maintained/motility-enabled existents, of which living animals make up a particular percentage, & which particular autopoietic entities - including all animals are definitively able, ‘under their own steam’, to either move among & between certain objects in their surrounds, &/or act on them, doing so exclusively to their own existential advantage. And the precise manner in which these autopoietic & moving/acting things are able to do so in properly fitness maximising/optimising ways is via the use of the information that prior to processing inside themselves, they have been able to first glean from off of the external objects around which they then so move, &/or on which they act... 'Thinking' is ‘using information gleaned from the user's surrounds as the means with which to guide & direct its actions/movements back there toward...' Any determination concerning our own (& by extrapolation, other’s) consciousness’s ontological identity can be ascertained due to the simple fact that ‘information’ is a trackable-traceable phenomenon, & by literally tracing & tracking whatever information we have inside our own consciousness allows us, first, to accurately determine exactly where this particularly elusive phenomenon occurs inside our head, & then once we know exactly where & in exactly which particular component of our thinking machinery (which is not a computer) it occurs, we are then also able, by taking this component apart & looking inside it, determine the exact ontological identity of consciousness itself. QED. Again with respect, Tevin & Don, but you haven’t sufficiently defined your terms, otherwise one of the first rules of effective discourse. With ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity firmly under our belt - along with the full science thereof - determining that also of pretty much everything else here in our universe becomes a piece of cake… Regards….
Thank you for this comment Margriet. I hear you loud and clear! I'll be sure to address this during our "Round 3". I appreciate such constructive feedback!
