Proving Ancient Wisdom Through Mathematics | with Prof. Donald Hoffman 

I thank you for reaching and having these conversations with the new Idealists, Jonathan. Although you may have some differences with Hoffman and Kastrup, in my opinion, the best way to tilt the perception of the world back to the mystery, the miracle, God, is by listening to these scientists that are trying to pave a way back for us that got lost and blinded by physicalism.

Hoffman is reiterating the ideas elaborated in Immanual Kant's "Critic of Pure Reason" without realizing their origin. Modern scientific education neglects history in general and the history of ideas in particular. Thanks for the convo!

Disclaimer: i think its best to avoid psychedelic drugs. It was in large part the experience of encountering these higher beings on psychedelic drugs that destroyed my atheism and led me on a journey to try and find someone or group in history who can explain what happened to me; thankfully i found Orthodoxy through Pageau and Jay and others and am part of the catechumenate. First it blew my mind how deeply the things Pageau talks about resonates with the past experiences I had taking psychedelics like encountering higher beings and fractal patterns in reality and other stuff, but then he continuously blows my mind by showing how this stuff resonates and applies with day-to-day normal experience. The psychedelic to JBP to Pageau to Orthodoxy pipeline

I do think that if anyone could highlight Hoffman's almost gnostic error that Jonathan kept trying to get at of relegating the material to the realm of illusion, that would be John Vervaeke. His ground-up relevance realization theory gives a case for the necessity of "partial knowledge" at all levels to dodge the homuncular fallacy that I think would resonate with Hoffman and I find pretty hard to refute.

Omg! Since I've heard Donald at Lex Fridman's podcast I wanted to see a conversation of him and Jonathan. Never though it would happen, but I'm glad it did, and glad that was so fast!

When Hoffman talks about (1:16:00) "letting go of your form, your space-time location, all the stuff you identify with...This is just a headset... This is an illusion. Once you let go of the headset, thats complete spiritual realisation." This seems to be the big difference to Pageau that he rubbed up against a few times in the conversations. Pageau wants to say that appearance/manifestation both conceal and reveal reality. Without this qualification (the Iconostasis) spiritual realisation looks like escape and detachment. So, following Hoffman, taking off the headset leads to equanimity because you are no longer attached to hypostases, to real manifestations of being. But this also means you can no longer love particular things, you will not care for them. You will not give attention/love to particular forms of being, because to you, they are illusion.

Love Jonathan’s points here about Maya vs. the Incarnation.

Jonathon should have Nick Ripatrazone on to discuss Marshall McLuhan and Christian transhumanism..

I appreciate Donald Hoffman and thank you Jonathon for having him on, great video loved it

JP thank you for showing how to be curious and discerning. DH thank you for showing how to be patient and gracious. What a great conversation.

Thank you for your work, Jonathan Pageau

Looking forward to this, thank you. Jonathan, please find a way to get on the Lex Fridman Podcast, or get him on yours.

I was surprised to hear that the religious part of the mind is located in the left hemisphere of the brain. I always thought that it belonged in the right hemisphere, where the artistic, imaginative and poetical faculties lie. But then I remembered a theory I once had, that the Jewish God (Jehovah) originated from the left hemisphere of Man's brain, where law, logic, order, and categories (I think) are situated. It also made sense when your guest said that atheism is located in the right hemisphere, because that part of the mind is unrestricted and sensual.

>evolution is the best game in town lol

Thx very great questions for Don!

I very much like how Pageau defines communion through the example of playing tennis together. To formalize it one might say that any time my action elicits a response from another, we are in communion.

Will Donald Hoffman and Jonathan Pageau cease to exist when I close this window?

I was struck by how Jonathan handled the "amateur theology" at 1:13:50 and 1:20:53. IMO Hoffman is clearly cherry-picking and forcing the text to mean what he wants it to mean (that Jesus is like Buddha who transcends, not God who incarnates). He chooses the one text that seems to say Jesus is just a regular person like anyone else, and ignores the center of mass that clearly indicates the opposite. I have a long history of doing this with the Bible, so I see myself in the error and I'm not condemning. I expected and wanted Pageau to show the error of this interpretation. Instead he noted that he has some disagreements and redirected the conversation. When Hoffman half-jokingly apologized at the end, Jonathan said, "I have no sense of the science, though. Your theology is better than my science, so thank you so much." Such a gentle, gracious, humble, response. He didn't go in for the kill, and didn't make it all about his domain of expertise. Instead, he humbly pointed out that both they have different domains of expertise and ignorance. I'm not saying this is always the thing to do, but I was struck by Pageau doing it here.

1:09:00 This way of describing the role of memory fits right into Glen’s idea that entropy is a kind of forgetting. It would be fun to unpack that. Glen is the physicist who often appears on The Meaning Code.

“Knowing yourself by what you are not”. Every Canadian understands this statement.

Great. Please converse further. Thank you.

I loved the image of truth revealing more and more of itself as it loses body until only the Kingdom remains. It's such a beautiful image.

I’d recommend the book Dispelling Wetiko by Paul Levy. It is a great exploration of evil and its nature as one of the primary conscious actors that acts as the foundation for the more complex actors causing suffering. The discussion of the false mind sounds real similar to the concept of Wetiko as a necessary part of ourselves and the world that is purely parasitic, that only exists in the negative space created by marking out what is from what isn’t through creation. When a candle is lit in a vacuum, it simultaneously creates the shadow in the places where the light is not.

On second listen I’m realizing how Mormon / New Age NewGnostic his presuppositions are

As Paul said "I am all things too all people". These are the head sets we put on. Or as Shakespear wrote, all the world's a stage...building on Epictetus's exhortation to play our roles well.

The Symbolic World is lifting the veils,- this was a great conversation :)

Hierarchy just means sacred order, no need to invent new words that mean exactly that, in the sacred order there are things sideways to each other, I mean look at a cross, look at a tree, they are hierarchical because there is a higher order that organizes that reality in that manner.

I think it was a good conversation to get some insights and see the differences but obviously we didn’t get to hear much about his mathematical approach to it.

Starting near 1:07 the key word is finite. Finite is limited, and limitation is suffering. If it isn't finite, it is part of the eternal divine transcendent. Finite, other, is definitionally limited.

The problem I see with his approach is that is seems to be accessible only to the few people that are part of that field of expertise and can understand their technical language. For instance, how can I benefit from it? At best I will get a popularized and dumbed down TED talk. I'd rather take attending Divine Liturgy.

Thanks

I would love to hear you and Inspiring Philosophy have a discussion

Consciousness can indeed be (meta)mathematized via “self-reference”.

He says something like “there is no room for dogma of the Truth since there is an infinite amount of knowledge to get there”. First of all, is what you said dogmatically true? It seem it is to you, yet you are denying it. There is room for set truths in whatever the level of knowledge you are in, the key is that you admit humbly that your set knowledge doesn’t exhaust Truth, and yet it doesn’t contradict it nor is superfluous or denied by a higher truth. Truth works its way down without ever denying itself at any level, it is necessarily consistent and harmonious.

Could someone help me find the quote in St. Gregory of Nazianzus regarding the angels of the right hand of God, and the angels of the left hand of God mentioned into the video? Thank you!

Can someone post a link to Prof. Hoffman's "mathematical model"? I would like to see the actual equations.

The problem with the virtual tennis ball is that the example relies on counterfactuals, for it to make sense it needs real tennis balls not to exist. Because if you do play tennis with a material ball and you call that a virtual ball you still have the continuity of the ball. Yes, a virtual ball is virtual, but if you play with a virtual ball and then you say it doesn't exist you're just insane and solipsistic.

0:19 always approaching, but never reaching the infinite consciousness. My paraphrase. Imo the definition of infinity is that which 2 is no closer to than 1.

I saw this appear on my feed and couldn't be happier; after speaking with him myself, I am thrilled to see Jonathan take the theology aspect even further!

The term "proving" seems to imply hierarchy of systems (which might be intended). How about "translating"? Translating ancient wisdom in mathematics.

You’re in this world, but not of it. You’re in the head set, but not of it

For all of Hoffman’s talk about scientific rigour, it seems like he’s already got some intimation of what his theory will produce - namely, warmed over Alan Watts.

16:08 there's a big leap there, because what is evolutionary theory standing on (based on) to be able to say that? seems to me like a pulling yourself by your bootstraps kind of situation.

To Jonathan's point on the "demons" actually moving to some higher will. You said murder is not good, I agree. But maybe those demons serve as a reminder to the conscious that murder is not good...which is good.

Creative leap up? Do you mean a leap of faith?

Perfection is not a static destination.

I really hope Pagaue can get past the Gnosticism of a lot of this corner of the internet. I’m starting to see it very overtly and it is a little worrisome.

Fascinating although hopefully we don't/won't fall in the trap of finding what we want to find rather than what actually is.

I like the conversation, but I have to wonder what to do now

@34:00 Gödel's theorem is MUCH, MUCH stronger than "no scientific theory of everything". The theorem says there's no theory of everything, period, scientific or otherwise. Any theory which can in any way be communicated, or even which in principle can be in any way remotely be thought of as "communicable", or "transferable", or able to be "taught" or "divulged" in any kind of way whatsoever, is incomplete or inconsistent.

6:00 isn't saying we don't perceive reality, a perception of reality?

Great conversation, wonderful questions, just a few notes: Evolution doesn't tell you anything, it isn't an agent. What is 'fundamental' in this context? More importantly, why does that mater at all? I don't think theories tell us anything either. At least, not about reality, just about our own thinking (which is subject to our senses). The assumption that dogmatism causes wheel spinning is interesting. What if you require dogma? Now what? Things don't exist when you don't sense them?! That is pretty crazy, I mean, I'm against objective material reality, but wow, that is out there. I love how the science folks are catching up to thousand year old philosophy. I'm not impressed by this apparent regression, but at least it's amusing! Garbage collect?! Those are computer terms. No, our brain works nothing like that. This is pretty bad. No need for 'garbage collection' in your brain. These are not new metaphors. This is pretty out there talk, ultimately. Just a new way to understand using new technology, but again, these are really old philosophical discussions that have definitive answers, in fact. For example, things don't exist by themselves, physics says this (observer problem) for example, but also, a thing cannot be outside of those things around it. His concept of herterarchy is nuts. It is included in hierarchy, so he's just a very narrow thinker, how fascinating. Mathematics force you to do things?! Another magic agent in the world. So all he's said is that you need two things and primacy is with the relationship (pattern). Precision isn't going to occur here, there are three free variables you cannot measure to account for, so that is somewhat a strange idea. Precision is likely just magic speak for 'we can science this and control it' - more playing God. Fractals are not self-similar structures, that is a sub-type of fractals, it's a little nit pic I have with this term as it is often misused. There are self similar fractals but the original fractals are not self similar. It is mostly a type of mathematics that is used to describe non-linear (not smooth) systems like coastlines. Taleb talks about this somewhat, but Benoit Mandelbrot is the big dog in this field and his writing on this is super accessible. I would argue that there is very limited precision in fractal (chaos) math. In fact, that is the point, you use fractions to calculate with chaos theory, that is what makes it work. Doing this means that precision doesn't converge to an answer. If your theory doesn't have an answer, why bother pursuing it? This is nihilism in action, it is the (I'll argue, perhaps I'm wrong) the inevitable result of trying to have certainty around such things. I like that the religious tradition was already here, before science, has an answer but more importantly a pragmatic way of implementation that doesn't require scientific knowledge or really any epistemology at all. Bonus, seems like religion is far more inclusive. Deep truths? Projection? So utopia exists, but we live in a projection? This solves science I suppose, but it's just as useless. So we postulate a 'real' world that doesn't have the limitations of our projection (in which we a trapped). This is a lot like simulation theory, actually. Amazingly short sighted. Apparently the primacy of knowledge is supposed to help the spiritual folks? I think that is pretty out there. More likely that science will find out they were right all along. If we have to bring people to spirituality through science (which I believe is likely impossible) then how did anyone get spiritual in the past? This just makes no sense. Wait, now the projection is part of the fundamental reality?! I think he's badly mis-reading evolution because he won't submit to the idea of creation, much like everyone else who is doing this crazy science of spirituality stuff. Woah, objective reality?! But if reality is the interaction, then it isn't objective. This should be obvious, honestly, if no one builds a car, then they aren't real. There are ways in which we can have a limitation, to build a Dyson sphere or a ship big enough to take everyone off the planet, only one of those would be real and only after it was built. Therefore, there cannot be an objective reality - it depends upon us. The limit of science is creation. Now, you can put the Telos into evolution, or in the creation itself, or both. However, you cannot put it nowhere. If evolution is a process of discovery (otherwise it doesn't manifest) then it's discovering something that was created. Denying creation itself is still the problem - no one wants to submit - middle out thinking. So removing your headset takes you out of the matrix and allows you to be better. I think he's watched the Matrix too many or too few times, not sure which. Why does consciousness do that to itself?! So consciousness is the beginning and the end? Again, this is just avoiding creation. The universe for these folks begins and ends with consciousness. So middle out! All to avoid some submission to the reality that you were born into something that preceded you. Wait a minute, did he just say the physical reality isn't the primal so the materialist view of the world doesn't work, now they need something science doesn't talk about to fix it. That is how he explains some great person existing in a broken body? Wild. The cult of consciousness is here. Middle out thinking indeed. Consciousness lets itself go to sleep? So it is the primary agent now? What an example, they wake and up realize they weren't the evil they thought they were?! MORE original sin restated but this time with redemption built in. Holy cow. Golden calf of consciousness indeed. How on earth can you get a mathematically precise theory of consciousness? Given that we are all wearing headsets? This is so contradictory it's hard to understand. I can see why people are confused by all this. Prove theorems about this sort of thing? Why? We can just act it out and have participatory knowledge of it instead, much quicker, easier and accessible without science. So much for warning him against Gnosticism, he's just slipping back into it over and over without any way out. Again, he needs to watch the Matrix, or he's completely incorporated it into his being. Not sure which. So no rigorous/scientific models is bad? Seems good to me, this is epistemology, preferring propositional knowledge that can be easily transferred to others for validation (which is all science is ultimately). Why do we need to merge these things? I don't think this is reasonable or logical or rational, it's just an axiomatic statement that ignores Godel entirely, even though he invoked him earlier.

You should have Wolfgang Smith on the show.

51:29

Aren’t Dr Hoffman (and I would argue others) who are seeking to define consciousness through its component parts essentially going down the same road as natural theology. It seems doomed to fail as he mentions that you can understand the component parts and never explain consciousness because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In the same way, I can understand everything about reality and still not fully understand God who lies above reality. Like others, Dr Hofmann seems to dismiss God out of hand yet aspire to define God themselves. It seems Sam Harris pursues the same fool’s errand all in a vain effort to avoid naming God as God rather than consciousness (beyond consciousness) or the basis of ethics/morality.

I think there's a great convo between these two, but this wasn't it okay we can't talk technical details of the math, but what sort of mathematical things is Donald "running", and how does he get from his math to the narratives he says are correct? What sort of evolutionary game theory is proving our sensual experience is completely divorced from this other separate, more real thing? Where does the math "disprove" Christian thought and how might Jonathan address that? this was kinda Jonathan saying thing A, and Donald being like, "yeah I totally agree the math says thing A is right"

How to exit d game other than suicide?

Bottom line for me is this: reality isn't real, but the experience of it IS.

great interview

What does a dolphin or dog see? Must be very different and very concrete.

20:00 min in. It's interesting that the dude doesn't seem to understand the basic tenet of Hoffman's hypothesis, given that he has a lot of related knowledge. I would say that it's probably exactly due to all that prior knowledge he carries in his mind that burdens him. I - without all that prior philosophical knowledge - find the first tenet of Hoffman's hypothesis pretty straightforward...

I was quite excited and happy with the conversation, but the last 10 minutes I couldn't look at the screen while listening. Somehow felt sorry for the awkward theology.

When he gives us his telos about consciousness losing itself in the headset in order to know itself, that is, by knowing what is not knows what is. It begs to ask it seems odd that consciousness didn’t know itself in the first place and so needed a headset to know itself! It begs to ask is there a consciousness that is the beginning and end of all knowledge? And doesn’t need to lose itself? It must be if there are consciousnesses that need to lose themselves to know themselves, for that knowledge is already known or otherwise it cannot be, thus we are in God’s consciousness.

Yeah definitely going to have to watch this twice 🤣🤣

I laughed when he said the religious types would have their views shattered when the math comes in. "We all gotta be wrong together" Listens to his ass he is trying to save more than his heart God wrote His Word on.

This was interesting. Lines up with the fun part of the JRE with Triggernometry where they smoked weed and talked briefly about the structures of the universe and infinity as a part of an atom of a higher being that still doesn't meet the scope of the source of all being, which exists beyond all things and from which everything emanates. It was so interesting, I seriously considered dming PVK about it, lol. I was surprised by how open DH was to the spiritual side of the equation (to go with the math theme) but pleased. He makes me want to understand how a mathematical model could possibly apply rigor to the ancient wisdom traditions' notions.

Looks like some took a bigger bite of the Apple than others!

The only problem with Hoffman is that you can not make that which is imprecise precise. The telos of existence is to experience it.

Donald wants to model the interactions of consciousness... But isn't that what the light all around us is already doing? I guess he is more looking for the patterns within the model we have and then modeling the patterns

53:25 wth right hand? Omelettes are delicious

Sounds like Teilhardism

It was a pleasure to watch the premiere! Thanks to Jonathan and all in chat today ☺️

I like Julian Jaynes' theory on consciousness, being it was learnt and came from language. With that, analogies could be made between external, spatial phenomena and one's mind to constructed a metaphorical space with which an ego could inhabit and will action. We "store" and "retrieve" memories, have a certain "perspective" on thing, "carry" guilt, and "seek" knowledge. Consciousness is used to make decisions and plans-iirc Jaynes calls those "structions"-but not for carrying them out; when we are thinking or performing a simple task, we aren't actually conscious. It's unconscious, automatic thinking executing a struction. Haven't you ever been thinking absentmindedly, then suddenly find the solution to a problem you've been having, or recall that thing you annoyingly forgot? In contrast, an animal's mentality is similar to what people experience in a (non-lucid) dream, where one carries out actions without deciding to and isn't introspecting while observing the dream's events. Before the Bronze Age Collapse, man had a bicameral mind, where one side of the brain made decisions based on past experience, and commanded the other side of the brain via auditory hallucinations to execute them.

“all this is unreal in comparison to God, but to the extent that it is real, then it is real; it can be something like transfigured, that it can lead us towards mystery, if we engage with what we see properly.”

It's literally the Reign of heaven

Been waiting for this one!

The tennis ball doesnt cease to exist because there is an ultimate mind perceiving it which is God. The theory of George Berkley.

Where da math?

This is gnosticism of a kind.

People crapping on Donald, really need to look at their own attitudes. This is a very short version of his beliefs. There are many 3.5 hour long interviews, where he explains more in detail, obviously enough for Jonathan to be interested in talking to. Slightly disgusted by some of the comments below, from the NPC's. Open your minds & your hearts. "take your headset off"

Fifteen minutes of this was all I could stand. You never know when Jonathan is going to make a good point, so I may come back and listen to the rest. I would be very surprised if Mr. "fractal" and "quantum" is going to make any good points.

evil fight evil. Good can't fight evil. evil is illusion, temporary. Good is real, ontológic.

This dudes arm keeps leaping out of space and time! Strange background

Ehhhhh. The ‘head set interface model’ gets dangerously close over and over again to Gnosticism or just a general denigration of the body as half of a person. Interface or not. Christ condescended into one, blessing all such ‘interfaces and games’. It is the body that is Transfigured. Even the very body of the earth and cosmos itself.

Hi Jonathan. Just an idea for a video. Take a look at Iron Maiden's videoclip "The Writing on the Wall". It's so full of symbolism. I think you will love it. (Note: the mummy/skull character that appears in various forms is Eddie, the mascot of the band).

Great conversation! This will be helpful to many viewers.

If evolution doesn't, through its unfolding, encode objective reality then perhaps the notion of objective has become distorted. The second definition of "objective" in a dictionary is "a goal that is striven for". And evolved organisms can reasonably be said to strive for goals. The reality that they perceive in order to reach these goals, is it really improper to call it objective reality?

Cantor grounded all of his infinity's in one ABSOLUTE INFINITE which he equated with God, and all infinity's exist in God's Mind

thank you so much Jonathan & Donald🕊🌺🌿🙏🏼

So cool! The Collab you hope for but don't expect.

I dont buy his GTA headset analogy for one second. If you look away from the red Camaro in real life, it can still crash into you from behind without you seeing it coming...

Many good Christians have a healthy life style but do struggle with leading a sexually pure life or don’t think it’s a sin to cohabitate. So basically no one is sinless and perfection is a myth. One can only do what they can and try not to pluck the dirt in other people’s eyes.

What? Virtual reality does not map onto life like that.

Oh poor Galileo. Also, space-time is a meaningless concatenation of words.

But does the curve flatten at some point. For example level 1 million relative to level 1 million 100.

What he's talking about sounds like Zen.

This was a very well conducted and successful conversation. Thank you both for the good work.

I think consciousness is inherently more art than science. I understand the scientists desire to determine definable bits to expand knowledge but I think the truth behind consciousness isn't grasped the way on can with the natural world.

The attempt to force the projection of the individual false self to be "real" is original sin. The "internal aspect" of the self which pushes this forward is Satan.

I can see where some would find problems with what Dr. Hoffman says. But it doesn’t change that this was a very profound conversation for “me”. To the point where I see myself listening again and again. Great as always Jonathan (Maximus if I may). Dominus Tecum- God be with you!