Donald Hoffman & Anil Seth - New Frontiers in the Science of Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- To access our conference library of 200+ fascinating psychology talks and interviews (with certification), please visit: twumembers.com
Prof. Donald Hoffman is Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, and the author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence, and The Case Against Reality.
Prof. Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science. His new book: Being You has won several awards and was a Sunday Times Bestseller.
This conversation explores parallels in their theories of consciousness but also the areas where their thinking diverges.
The topics covered include:
- How the reality we experience every day is an illusion
- Whether or not artificial intelligence will ever become conscious
- Mathematical proof that the space-time paradigm is doomed and the early research investigating what might be underneath.
- The practical implications of Donald’s and Anil’s theories - both for society and for every day life.
And more.
You can learn more about Anil’s work at anilseth.com/ and follow Donald on X at @donalddhoffman.
Anil’s book: bit.ly/3Sw0Ogp
Donald’s book: bit.ly/3SCwTTA
---
Prof. Donald Hoffman, PhD received his PhD from MIT, and joined the faculty of the University of California, Irvine in 1983, where he is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences. He is an author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence, and The Case Against Reality. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award from the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. His writing has appeared in Edge, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Scientific American and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. You can watch his TED Talk titled “Do we see reality as it is?” and you can follow him on Twitter @donalddhoffman.
Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and the Co-Director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. He is a Wellcome Trust Engagement Fellow, and a Senior Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. Professor Seth is Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness, sits on the steering group and advisory board of the Human Mind Project, and was President of the British Science Association Psychology Section in 2017.
He is the author of 'Being You" (amzn.to/3E4PI8K), the co-author of the ‘30 Second Brain’, and contributes regularly to a variety of media including New Scientist, The Guardian, and the BBC. His 2017 TED talk has been viewed more than 9 million times. Professor Seth’s research bridges neuroscience, mathematics, artificial intelligence, computer science, psychology, philosophy and psychiatry. He has also worked extensively with playwrights, dancers and other artists to shape a truly humanistic view of consciousness and self.
You can keep up to date with his work at www.anilseth.com.
---
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
00:33 - Understanding Consciousness
08:57 - Prof. Seth on Consciousness
17:07 - Exploring Consciousness
21:08 - Theories on Consciousness
27:19 - Beyond Space-time Perspectives
31:41 - Emergence and Scientific Explanation
37:58 - Consciousness in AI
51:30 - Death in a Conscious Universe
58:16 - Consciousness and Existential Perspectives
---
Interview Links:
- Prof Hoffman’s profile: www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff
- Prof Hoffman’s book: bit.ly/3SCwTTA
- Prof Seth’s website: www.anilseth.com/
- Prof Seth’s book: bit.ly/3Sw0Ogp
Beautiful conversation. Learned about new a perspective in modern cognitive neroscience that I previously saw in the Upanishads (Hoffman's view). It's also great to see how Anil illustrates the importance of existing fundamental structures as they have been working well so far, and how analysis on different fundamental levels is important. Absolutely brilliant on both sides, lucky to be hearing a conversation of this level for free and with such ease.
Hoffman’s theory has an uncanny resemblance with the ontology of Advaita Vedanta, right? Space-time as an interface is what ‘Maya’ is supposed to be 😅
Hoffman has a rare virtue that most do not and it's humility. Being able to have ego death, realise it and move forward with even wider eyes is nice to see.
he's used to it
Hoffman is so inquisitive that he will solve it😊😊
more like actual death
@@OfficialGOD I don't understand your comment
@@thoribass696But you never ever will
I love these two guys. Anil is so constrained while being very open to new idea’s about perception and construction, and Don is way out there with radical, and fascinating ideas. Both guys are humble, respectful, kind and wise.
Gives me faith
Hard to let go of the materialist paradigm if you’ve built your career and identity within it.
It’s usually the valuing of utility over ontology.
Why use a microscope over a hoe to garden? Depending on the overall developmental stage, it’s much more useful for everyone to use what is known over chiseling understanding into deeper fundamentals.
Though in the long run will prove to be revolutionary.
@@F8LDragon2except that faulty ontological assumptions can have practical consequences. For one, it weakens construct validity and many taxpayer dollars can be flushed away on bad research .
Very addictive...
Cannot imagine, that this "research" can get fundings. I'd rather believe it's a self-funded venture or paid from the religious domain (because this is nothing else, than pursuing god on an another level)@@CJ-cd5cd
Look at what the current paradigm is: materialism has brought us significant advancements in medicine and technology. It can be empirically verified-it's very addictive. But eventually, science is going to encounter ontological primitives where reductionist methods will reach their boundaries, and there will be no reductionist explanations or methodologies to explain these phenomena."
Hoffman is 100% sure of the approach to his results but totally humble & open to others finding valid holes in his theory, which they haven't been able to do yet
Anil Seth is my favorite thinker on this subject.
Think my money is on Hoffman's approach. Seth's responses on the big questions (hard problem of consciousness, trying to justify reductionism etc) did not, to me, seem convincing (but I'm no expert). Hoffman's ideas of consciousness being fundamental seems to ring so true. Be great to see how the research continues by these brilliant scientists.
For me they don't really seem at odds at all. Hoffman is taking a theoretical approach. Seth uses an applied approach. It's sort of like theoretical vs applied physics but the subject of research is consciousness rather than matter. You'll need both for a full theory anyway
jonnyb12 I agree with you . I'm not an expert either but try to follow the discourse as far as I can because it is of such great existential and cultural importance. I'm with Hoffman because his approach integrates implications from many different sciences as well as neuroscience whereas Seth doesn't really integrate all this context at all. Non relational reductionism is just reflexive and even while data accumulates, there isn't a breakthrough in understanding.
I think the math is showing Hoffman's approach utterly justified. That beneath space-time lurks a fundamental geometry is pretty wild, harkening back to Plato and Pythagoras. His epistemology turns out to be highly reminiscent of Kant's phenomenon/noumenon distinction, with a nod to Berkeleyan idealism; and his hypothesis of ubiquitous fragments of consciousness as consciousness is pure Leibnizian monadology.
....Astonishing!
@@James-ll3jbAstonishing! The greatest word salad ever concocted! Blah blah blah....blah blah.... blah....blah blah. Pull it together dude. You're overthinking this. If you're actually spending your time wondering how you know what you know what you know then you've got Way too much time on your hands. Get an additional job. Get a hobby. Do some fucking thing.😮
@@JeffDoerr Poor baby! I have two advanced degrees so if my lack of illiteracy shsmes you I guess where you live I'm supposed to apologize for that? Sorry bozo. You go out and get teo advanced degrees then bitch about 'work' (lol!)
Suggest you read my "World and Possibility" ("Welt und Möglichkeit") then "God and Eternity". Do you read German? Latin? Oh that's right, as an American its your moral obligation to be a stalwart progenitor of both arrogance and ignorance "in simul tempus" lol!!!
It’s astonishing how scientists like Seth seem content to wait for the hard problem to dissolve at some unknown future point- rather than abandon the materialist paradigm for a more rational ontology
There is no more rational ontology. Consciousness is a natural phenomenon and it will ultimately have a natural explanation. Anything else is wishful thinking or nostalgia for outdated/primitive culture.
@@ReflectiveJourneyif explanations are a form of consciousness, can consciousness actually be explained through itself?
@@F8LDragon2 good thing explanations are not consciousness. Whatever that would mean lol.
@@ReflectiveJourneyyou’re conflating naturalism with materialism. If subjective experience is fundamental, then nature is what it is.
@@CJ-cd5cd i am not conflating anything. naturalism is just another way to specify the same position. Naturalism is not ontologically neutral as BK fans would have it. It is also not a given that you can completely separate nature from function. I would counter claim that the nature of a thing is exhausted by what it does there is no "what it is like" magic anywhere.
Donald sir has it. I feel he is able to point to fundamental reality. Seth though agnostic still is immersed in materialism.
I loved Anil's comments around psyche traits, how we "see" things, and echo chamber awareness.
I'm fascinated by how Hoffman's theory aligns with spiritual teachings about consciousness and the soul. We've been misled by a materialistic worldview that separates body and soul, leading to control, conflict, and social issues.
Reality is fundamentally mental, driven by collective consciousness, as many religions have taught. Science is now converging with spirituality, revealing a deeper understanding of existence and the divine. This new awareness emphasizes empathy, interconnectedness, and the recognition of a higher power shaping our reality.
Even though some religions have been hijacked by groups or ideologies that turned them into control machines, forging the initial holy scripts to serve their own power and ego purposes, the core spiritual truths remain.
I also respect Anil Seth's approach in materialistic science to explain our space-time perception, with the understanding that this material could not be fundamental. Exciting times as we bridge science and spirituality, uncovering the true nature of consciousness.
Donald's ideas are so radical that I dont think Anil or the host "get it".
And therein lies the rub
They’re also all bluster until they can be shown to have any real-world merit, which is the entire problem with idealism in the first place
But ofc you "get it"
I've been following Donald for about 4 years now, and I am just recently 'comfortable ' with all of his ideas and concepts. It really threw me for a loop the first year of processing (perhaps I am slow), lol. Today, I find it fascinating and empowering 😊 His book, "The Case Against Reality," was eye-opening. Good stuff 👍🏼
Love these conversations. Thank you.
Great to see these two together but if it had been a much longer conversation and if the questions hadn't so quickly jumped from one topic to another, I think Don might have converted Anil to Idealism... well, not really. But, eventually, I believe all open-minded materialists will be converted.
unlike koch the ex-pope of church physicalism who finally ended up abandoning physicalism due to clear reasoning, seth lacks the requisite intellectual honesty to do the same without intervention. then again, koch also required severe intervention to evolve him.
I loved the humility and respect for your opposing and agreeing meaning - decently like the wisdom of the golden ratio between the greater and lesser mediated by the “mean “ balance -monad or as manly hall says - the coordinator - awesome
The 10 second clip at the beginning immediately reveals that Anil misunderstands the idealistic argument.
I don't know if Donald Hoffman has done any video's with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, but I think they're on the same page. Both describe this subject perfectly. Donald Hoffman's uses a computer icon screen as an interface and Bernardo Kastrup uses an airplane instrument panel. Great video.
czcams.com/video/X9MRsGiAaBw/video.htmlsi=1R5cWc1M6Z9GGm0D
They've done some together
czcams.com/video/X9MRsGiAaBw/video.htmlsi=bvcNQS9KAwiuJMpv
Wonderful. Thank you both sincerely.
Hoffman is interested in the question " what is Reality"? Seth is interested in the question " what ordinary things can we explain ? To me its a no brainer : reductionism is just interested in less and nonlocalism is interested in where the less interfaces with the beyond to integrate our understanding of reality. In a Venn diagram Seth is inside the Hoffman circle. How can Seth's approach be SUFFICIENT? This is not worth discussing.
Seth thinks he's intelligent when he is really rather ignorant. But he carries his ignorance with a great deal of pride.
I have to thank you for this conversation. I didn't know how thoughtful Anil was until I heard his approach on the meanings of "reductionism" and "emergentism". I love this new wave of scientists taking the study of consciousness so seriously, with honesty and very straightforward approaches.
I'm still unable to reason about "emergent properties" without them being about consciousness (because emergence is all about knowledge and abstraction). I can't make sense about top-down causality without there being some form abstract (and thus subjective) kind of agency and knowledge about the lower level aspects in play (like in the way we do engineering by using our knowledge about physics to get to an abstract higher level design), and I feel unable to make sense of agency and knowledge without it being conscious (but if I'm honest I also feel unable to make sense of any form of existence without it having some conscious ism).
It may be a bias, because "true reality" could also be something completely different to phisicalism and/or consciousness and we'll never know. So I'm fine with the knowing that I'll probably never be able to know for sure, but if I take into account just what I know from firsthand experience and what I'm able to infer, then consciousness needs to be fundamental, there's no other way.
Anesthesia and the apparent "unconsciousness" can very easily be explained to me as some sort of "temporal dissociation", a state in which the different aspects of human consciousness get broken apart and nothing relatable happens during that time (just a bunch of noise) that connects to the waking state that comes after.
Maybe instead of trying to understand "consciousness" vs "unconsciousness" we should try to study how associative and dissociative processes unfold and how they affect our knowledge, the integrity of our experiences, and our state of being.
10 Minutes into this I realized that I HAVE to subscribe to TWU yearly subscription. Such interesting and engaging content! Great work!
Fabulous discussion. As a Zen meditator, I KNOW that Donald sees it. Anil, clearly an excellent thinker, doesn’t, I think really understand what the former is explaining. Admittedly to most people, it is a hard sell. But I am delighted that after thousands of years consciousness as minutely detailed by the leading Zen Buddhist scholars/philosophers (particularly those of the Chan school) is being supported by theoretical physics. Thank you for sharing this.
What a great discussion, many thanks to both excellent speakers and the facilitator for such a stimulating presentation. I feel there are issues for both scientists to address. Seth is working within the “headset” domain and addressing issues in the space time world common to all humans. He does this despite recognising that his / our senses aren’t telling us what reality actually is. However, even as Hoffman acknowledges, great scientific insights and advancements can and have still been made within our headset world. As Seth correctly stated, Newtonian physics has its limits but we still achieved plenty within this framework. We now know something of the craziness of the quantum world, but for most “real world” applications, science still continues at a higher larger scale. I think that Seth is onto something with emergence. Hoffman’s position is more philosophical and tackles consciousness head on in that he takes on the challenge of trying to understand what reality is beyond our “headset”. By its nature this has to be philosophical and abstract, as all humans are stuck with our species specific headset. I’m not convinced by his mantra that “space time is doomed” which if I had a £ for every time he says this in his interviews, I’d be very rich. Most physicists wouldn’t support this hard view. They are not all abandoning space time and moving to the new cosmological geometries. These geometries were discovered over 10 years ago as Hoffman says - 10 years is ages in scientific research, they are not “new” as such. Also, a £100 million trans country research project is not that amazing. There are equally large or larger research projects exploring topics within space time. Of course exploring these new geometries is essential and who knows what will be discovered, cannot wait to find out. I also support Seth’s criticism of Hoffman’s other mantra, in that no one has yet shown one neural correlate to an experience, therefore it’s not possible. Studying consciousness has only been going at a serious level for 30 or so years. Indeed is was widely frowned upon by the scientific community as being subjective and pseudoscience. After 100 years if no progress has been made then Hoffman would have a point. How the smell of coffee emerges from wet spongy matter is for sure a challenge. But so was understanding how “life” emerged from a soup of chemicals and as Seth commented we dont get so hung up on this anymore. So thanks again to both scientists and I look forward to seeing how both their theories progress.
Excellent discussion. Good work guys 👍
Donald Hoffmann to me sounds like the most advanced and most promising pbilosopher/scientist, apart from Chalmers and Dennet. Dennet is great but proberly really wrong.
Daniel 'Consciousness Explained AWAY' Dennett 😅🎉
While I tend to agree with Donald Hoffman's assertion that consciousness gives rise to space-time and the world we live in... I'm not sure why he was part of this conversation. He never participated in the conversation. Donald Hoffman seems like an intelligent man... Which is why I cannot quite understand his inability to zero in on the topic. Congratulations to Anil Seth for his ability to maintain his composure... As he was the only one with substantive responses. I found the comments by Anil Seth about being in an echo chamber a very polite way to describe the conversation he just had with Donald Hoffman.
This was lovely because I saw a meeting area... a coming together, of viewponts IN space time (Anil) and BEYOND space time (Donald).
Thank you, it was a relief hear them both being generous and authentic atvthe same time.
Hearing how Donalds work on predictions for this material world as the headset....and the perspective of the the conjoining of consciousness as it manifests in life....through Anils deep look into brain function.
Thank you for this blending of mindsets...without acrimony.
Great conversation😊
Hoffman is pretty persuasive...big thinking to nex level
I am in the Idealist camp I have been for the past 58 years life is a simulated dream dreamt by Mind at Large.
Tell it to dream me some more money and a sensible woman.
Cool assertion, have anything to actually back that up?
@@loganleatherman7647 read Bernardo Kastrup
@@TJ-kk5zf You have to tell it that. I have other requirements.
@@loganleatherman7647 You will find evidence that supports it in quantum physics, thanatology and digital physics: czcams.com/video/v2Xsp4FRgas/video.html
Seth’s plan is to ignore consciousness until til it can no longer be ignored and Hoffmans stance is that consciousness can no longer be ignored.
This sums up the only two rational stances one can take on this topic right now.
The big problem though with Seth’s stance is that by building models of computations in order to study the phenomenon of experience is that these models are merely our own conceptual substructure reflecting back at us.
Building a computational model of neural network to study consciousness is like building a clock to study time. There are some neat correlations we can make but essentially we are only modeling the aspects that our evolutionary superstructure can grapple with which is not the same thing as the thing itself. Even IF (big if) computer networks can become conscious you are still not studying what that conscious experience thing is, only the reflection of our own limitations of what we are.
Depends whether consciousness can be understood from the level of spacetime and things, or whether the hard problem can only be understood from a deeper (beyond spacetime) perspective.
The discussion I'm waiting for is Don Hoffman, Anil Seth, Hilary Lawson and Philip Goff. Together, I think they're on to something!
That would be like a traffic accident. Everyone making different claims while Lawson argues that the use of language itself limits the pursuit of understanding so the liatener will conclude: let's just all.shut up and meditate.
Lovely, honest positing of basic dilemma.
I can imagine one day will move beyond the materialism viewpoint in order to explain this divine consciousness that is surrounds us and permeates everything and will find that mathematics is also doomed. Useful in the past but now not so much.
Donald, your approach towards AI is literally divine. Thank you. I'll be getting tipsy after work tonight and dancing on my major research university campus screaming about how awesome you are.
Agreed. If you have not already discovered him, Bernardo Kastrup is an idealist who's beyond brilliant. 😊
AH!!!! My test of " Are you super stoned yet?" Is if I am screaming--both in and outside--about how much I love BK. And what you said is perfect because I was getting into Donald for a while but it was about 1 1/2 years ago that I gave some silly dude from Brazil? Amsterdam? With a wonderful English vocabulary get into my brain. These two have literally changed my life. People look at me like I've lost "it" (eyeroll) when they see me sleeping to their interviews and listening to them nonstop and having seeing them speak on the top of my to do list for life, LoL. Oops just spent my coffee break at work ranting about how awesome DH and BK are!
I agree. I'm a former reductive materialist (retired eye doctor with undergraduate studies in physics), thanks especially to Bernardo Kastrup. (I credit Hoffman for an assist, but as much as I respect Don's contribution, it falls short of Bernardo's contribution.) As to the Judeo-Christian god, I remain an atheist. But as to the mind-at-large ... that's something very, very different. I've come to understand that I am no more my material casing than is the violin to be credited for either the musical score or the musician's genius. Like you, I'm a ripple in the lake ... I am the lake in motion. Be well, Craig.@@craigbowers4016
People seem confused by the idea that working within spacetime can be useful, without it being fundamental. When Hoffman says "spacetime is doomed", he is only saying that it isn't fundamental, ontologically. He doesn't say it isn't useful.
His one controversial take is that consciousness is not an entity in spacetime, and thus cannot be mapped onto it. His corollary is that spacetime is what is generated when consciousnesses co-act upon reality. It is, in fact, generative.
This completely accords with "form is emptiness, emptiness is also form".
It is not surprising that western materialism resists this ontology. It demotes it from primacy.
Excellent. Anil’s work is actually very complementary to Donald’s. The only perceived differences are, ironically, when Anil stays away from pragmatism into philosophy. Description does remove the mystery, but it doesn’t dissolve the fundamental ontological issues.
There may be one more difference to perceive; imagination, or fear of it.
Anil's work isn't complementary. He's on these public debates because of his PHILOSOPHY. His philosophy is that knowing more about neuronal structures and how they work is sufficient. Entering into nonlocal models vis maths or experiment are unnecessary. He is wrong. They ARE necessary if you want to enquire into deep reality. If you only want to know about the mechanics of things then that cannot be a replacement philosophy for a deeper enquiry. That position is untenable.
Have you ever stopped to consider that “the fundamental ontological issues” are ultimately just human contrivances brought about by abstract conception and don’t actually relate to the real world beyond the abstract?
Yes, of course :)
I think Intelligent Design is a better world view of reality. Less #malarkey is required.
At 43:30min Anil says “I am a pragmatic materialist. I’m agnostic about the fundamental nature of reality.” However, I feel there are implications to aligning with any form of materialism; not least is the assumption of separation from the ’other’ which underpins the prevailing worldview oriented towards instrumental control and manipulation.
Is consciousness something like; I am real and conscious, so this is reality and consciousness?
If so, how can one illusion understand another without the understanding itself being also illusory? Awww sweethearts 😊
Great conversation, thank you.
Don Hoffman is very impressive not only as a scientist but foremost as a human being.
He is very mature spiritually.
Namaste Humangels 🙏Consciousness is Your ability to perceive Source Creator I Am Presence ...Simples💚🕊
I should declare having mapped Maslow's transpersonal in a slightly broader view designed to encourage extension, calling it perception of the intangible, This was done c 2021 in my study of my ostensible - but unexpected - Reiki mastery, giving me an integrated field running from the empathic through 3rd sector medicine into the numinous. I choose that last to defuse the dogmatic claims that Zen is necessarily Buddhist, on the one hand, and that Usui's circle was Christian, on the other. Like them, I'm from a Peacemaking background, having done rather a lot on the team which won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, I've a keen appreciation of Zen, I've a diplomat's empathy, and am a thoroughly tested Christian seer medium.
what a delight. thank you guys
Excellent... thanks 🙏❤.
They're both geniuses and very convincing. Probably through each of their advances we'll know more about the nature of consciousness. Why just bet on one horse?
Anesthetic disables physical Memory, When we are Conscious we are limited by the Physical part of our brain, so a Black void is our memory from an Anesthetic. Likewise, when we sleep, We wake and sometimes the dream is fuzzy and we lose its memory, because, although we are asleep we Dream using a different Memory system to the Brain and during sleep our Physical Memory, Neurons, are not used as much as when we are awake. Or Differently, It's as if to me, our consciousness moves location almost to different areas, in space. So an aesthetic just closes off all our ability to remember.
I’m sorry, can you point to me the non-physical part of a brain? Or are you just making a presumption that there’s a *physical (no need to pointlessly capitalize it) brain and a non-physical brain?
@@loganleatherman7647 Yea cool Man, thanks for the polite question. I worded it wrong, have you ever dreamt of a location that you have mapped out somewhat, and you recognize it in your dream world, you can also recognize dream people or experiences, that you don't remember when you awake, you simply record that part of the dream, with your Waking Brain. My point is, that I believe that the Neurons, the Brain Cells, and the Physical part of our brain are simply a Computer, an Advanced Computer, but still a computer with patterns of doing things, recorded in the way our brain cells function. So Pain has a Pattern of Brain Cells... HOWEVER, I don't for one minute think that the thoughts themselves are in the brain. Or at least not Dimensionally, Thoughts, I believe are Part of the Quantum world, so have no location or Pattern of their own, Thoughts need a Conscious Observer to make them into something. As hinted at with the Double Slit experiment. Therefore, IF this is true, then Anesthetic, dulls the process of the cells in the brain, We can't Observe or Record in our pattern-making brain, and experiences. are not recorded, but there's much more going on, that needs understanding, When a DEAD Brain is showing no Life, but a revived individual, expresses an OBE, then this shows that something much more exciting is involved.
Regarding death : we dissapear in both paradigms - self is not fundamental, it is also an icon on the spacetime desktop
Brain, mind, thought are local, the experience of them (consciousness), is universal
Donald Hoffman is my hero, he's a pioneer of science 🔭
Thank you Donald!
Shall we start with a sound realistic definition of consciousness?
According to this hardly educated man ..Maybe it's better to forget being too rational..and our too approaches by rational.logical sequentially thinking..from this to that..not this that etc..and begin with some simple pure statements...if we define consciousness as knowing that we are ware of being aware and knowing of content that are present in your field of awareness, than we have a better start., after all.conscious 32:38 ness is a knowing condition.. ... maybe we can reaon out if there is consciousness without awareness ( it sure expands through awareness of inner and outer events) or how do animals react ..with their given instinctual or learned knowledge to the triggers in their living environment..I think there are even more important factors like these to approach our engagement with our..living.. inner and outer environment....so waddayoudink.. monkeys 🐵🐵🐵
It seems to me that because our perceptions depend on things like genes, hormones, and experiences (nothing we control ourselves), we should be surprised at how much we agree on!
We need to look inside not outside
Bless Anil Seth for being fascinated by this new framework despite it essentially negating his life’s work to a degree. I will say -had we not tried explanations from within space-time, we would never have had the idea to explore outside of it. Thus, Anil Seth’s work is an imperative for Donald Hoffman’s.
And how exactly do we, as entities fully contained within space-time, explore anything outside of space-time with any reliability?
@@loganleatherman7647 we can only explore our ideas of what’s outside of it. They are all just ideas. At least that’s my take and opinion. :)
@@loganleatherman7647 unless actually you’ve had a near death experience like that of Pediatric Spinal Surgeon Mary C Neale and are certain there is existence outside of this reality. My father died several times and was brought back to life to report conscious experiences of what took place in the room and what happened after he was drawn into a light. You should look up the AWARE II studies of Sam Parnia, MD PhD. People’s consciousness continues for at least up to an hour after cardiac arrest and the brain is no longer receiving blood. He is a resuscitation specialist and has done global studies on the consciousness experience of people who have experienced cardiac arrest. Has correlated brain activity to the reports of what it’s like to “die” - people say that’s more real than this existence. Quite fascinating stuff to ponder. This might be a good place for you to go to explore ideas of what might be outside of space time. Who knows what happens. :) The Bayesian brain hypotheses don’t explain the activity.
I think the biggest gap in our ontological understanding is in the realm of “limitation and separation”
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur?
Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs?
When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender uses electricity.
Is it a genius?
Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is.
As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case.
In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
“Then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously”
Exactly :) the fundamental awareness of being, the “I am”, is the same in everyone and everything. The mind / ego of individuals is different, but our BEING is the same
Identity theory explains pretty much all of your questions here. You feel “like you” because the electrochemical processes in your specific brain lead to you having the identity that you are you. When you see something red, the same processes in your brain that accept the input, integrate it, then generate the output of “red” as you perceive it just are what “red” is. Same for all other qualia
When neurological aberrations occur (think people having strokes who smell burnt toast when there’s no burnt toast present) the output to your perception is similar to the experience of that object/event. I’ve done plenty of psychedelics (LSD, DMT, psilocybin, ayahuasca, salvia, and mescaline) and they all make you “see things that aren’t there”, which can only be explained if there’s a direct connection between the physical (the substances taken and how they affect brain functioning) and the mental (how you subjectively perceive the world).
"In the beginning was Consciousness, and Consciousness was with God, and Consciousness was God."
The first verse of the Gospel of St John, with the Greek λόγος (logos or 'word') interpreted thus, now makes perfect sense.
100%
Hoffman is taking baby steps in the right direction. Seth is an intelligent guy enamoured with reductionism and emergentism. Ultimately it'll lead him nowhere. His flock of birds analogy about emergentism doesn't hold any water in my opinion as one can tell that the flock is more than its parts whereas consciousness is irreducible and clearly fundamental. It cannot be found in the world of objects because objects are appearances within it and have a clear definition deviating from the first-person ontology and experience itself.
Imagine the technologies spawned from backengineering these positive geometries outside of spacetime. The Monolith moment in 2001 Space Odyssey.
I'm going to have to Google positive geometry 😊
Anil Seth enlightens me and is more convincing
[🕒A year ago the difference between 0 and 1 changed and why that matters]:
Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real".
Unfortunately for Materialism/Empiricism, quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i could find). The immediate lead-up to this was the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement.
Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true.
The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism:
The observable universe is "not locally real" and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑.
Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. This is due to zero being "not-natural" whereas nonzero numbers are "natural".
The absolute version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven anyhow, just disproven).
Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor.
Necessary and more real = locally real
Contingent and less real = not locally real
Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics.
[What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?]:
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago.
Then:
0 = not locally real
1 = locally real
Now:
0 = locally real
1 = not locally real
It's about time the same tired Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides).
Holy guacamole the stalemate has been boring 💤.
Contradictory: *impossible to be true.*
Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.*
❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good).
2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus).
3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics).
⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️
✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil).
2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).
3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).
⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️
[🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍
[🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:
The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers.
Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago.
(Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧
[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:
locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")
not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")
[Closing arguments]:
The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋.
If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[infinity and zero, theology, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]:
0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.
Not-natural = ectropy
Natural = entropy
0D monad (Creator event horizon)
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions
1D line
2D width
3D height
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions
4D length
5D breadth
6D depth
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions
7D continuous
8D emission
9D absorption
10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)
It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.
The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.
The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.
Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes.
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real).
The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️).
Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively).
Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' El.
Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter
THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME
And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?”
And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them.
The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought.
And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all.
Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them.
For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me.
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
The mystery of life didn't just 'go away'
@28:00 Donald Hoffman mentions an 'isoceohedron' ?? ... did he mispronounce isohedron or icosahedron?
If he hasn't done so already, Donald should create and present some "visual aids" to help explain his ideas to newcomers, who may otherwise struggle to grasp the meaning and consequences of these ideas.
The question is survival of mankind as it's version that's here for other wise we will autodistracte ourselves we must go searching innerly and outerly.
I think there is not that much difference of the two wiewpoints. Donald says that space time is doomed, Anil accepts the current standard Einstein model of block universe. At death according to Donald we put down the headset, according to Anils view our consciousness is bound to a given segment of the block universe so nothing special happens.
I came here for Donald and left with Donald
tuff
Consciousness. The ground of life on which perception stands..
It seemed odd to hear a scientist, Seth positing whether we need to go beyond a current theory (space time) that now seems to be breaking down. Yes it has explained many things so far but now can't explain many things.
We need to re-think thinking, which is the only way we created/iece-together what we call "reality".
(I guess the word "thinking" isn't too exacting a word from a scientist's perspective, but...oh well. Hope the spirit of the word, at least, is accepted).
Thank you, great interview very informative, consciousness is fundamental, we live in this illusion, what we call reality ,we live in a cosmic hologram.
Cool assertion, have anything substantial to show that it’s true?
Asking before finishing but I have a burning question about this, is the eventual and ultimate end of evolution intelligence ? Does evolution always work towards a more intelligent system ? And if so why ? I do not believe in intelligent design or a being of any kind but I do find it fascinating that the universe seems to have direction even if there seems to be no more meaning than beauty itself
Hoffman’s view is that the spacetime we see around us (matter, atoms, everything) is simply a useful fiction or representation of a deeper non physical reality of mind/cognition.
His math using evolutionary game theory, which is perfectly sound, shows that the reality we see around us has a 0% chance of being fundamental.
Let’s say you pick up a glass of water and drink it. That whole action of you feeling your arm/hands move, seeing the glass, seeing the motion of picking it up and swallowing it etc. would actually be a non physical operation or extremely complex logic taking place within consciousness in a non physical domain.
Consciousness would have to be self created and a domain of logic/syntax. Its goal is maybe to understand itself infinitely. So you can posit the question “what power does god or an omnipotent being not have?”. The answer is limitation. We may be that limitation.
No, there is no “end of evolution” because the only thing evolution does is confer more effective traits for survival. As environmental conditions change, as they inevitably will, evolution will continue benefitting those individuals most suited to survive and pass on their genetic material their progeny. Intelligence, specifically in this context at least, has nothing to do with it
Chris langans CTMU model is pretty compelling if you actually read his paper. He's been shunned by the academic community because he has the highest recorded i.q. (academics is rife with competition and jealousy) but his theory was compelling enough to catch the attention and receive an invitation from John Wheeler.
Guys 4 example, if humans walked on four limb then after some mutation it started walking on 2 limbs then how does mutation in somatic cell affect the offspring which are born from germ cell?
What if no space time is only available when there is an accumulation of space and time. Unaccountable space and time in our space time. [Prompt twilight zone tune*]
I think understanding how simulation that we are in works is like a player who has memory limited to being a charter and also limited perception to attributes its been given as a player trying to understand how world of war craft is functioning which is impossible given the context of player..they can only use world of war craft metophor and do an estimation if the world of war craft player has free will and given enough ruleset ability to built a internal world of war craft..Physicist Tom Campbell and his My Big TOE is best one out there
I would comment that reductionism is made obsolete in scale dependent systems, since physics has an interest in scale invariance it has largely missed this revolution.. and has led other fields in that direction. Reductionism is proper in the scale local regime, however from a systems perspective there will be non-local influences in terms of scale and emergence only starts to make sense when you accept that scale networks above the scale of a system has a downward causal impact. Both non-local influence and top down causality need investigation.
When I heard Anil’s response to his thoughts on the new physics coming out, It told me what I needed to know. Where he says “wether we need to go there” like bro, the foundations of scientific realism are crumbling and you’re asking if this is relevant or not…. Poor guys entire work is crumbling so I guess he’d talk out of his ass lol I’d react the same way so I empathize.
What is the purpose of discovering, and learning anything without knowing its teleological nature? I really don’t understand that from the reductionist view of 'shut up and calculate' because it works."
I think that the answer could be reached only through contemplatin and not through the science.
While " in physical form" can an entity get past ( chop wood and carry water )?
Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water.
To brings about a conscious machine we have to delicately manipulate quarks as we do with silicones
Like all the resources on Earth, consciousness is decentralized.
If we assume consciousness is fundamental, at this space time our sense of self comes with seeing our self separate from others. If avatar breaks maybe it is all one neutral consciousness and that would mean no sense of self, only a timeless spaceless neutral, abstract consciousness. Why we even think self will be preserved after death? Unless you say everyone has a unique consciousness behind scenes then according to Occom's razer you will be questioned why not to consider them all one it still can explain everything.
I I certainly do disagree with Seth that focusing on mechanisms will eventually be sufficient and make the problem of consciousness go away. In fsct, making fundamental questions 'go away' (Feynman's injunction to calculate and stop overthinking) is the fundamental strategy of materiaist reductionism in an area when materialism is failing - just calculate and the problem will go away because we'll be satisfied with our level of explanation. This fails in physics which is the most fundamental science: since local realism is dead, spacetime is dead, reality is shown to be fundamentally nonlocal. There is just no point in settling for measly calculations and descriptions of physical structures and asking the core questions to 'go away ' Thats a bit childish. Humans evolved minds to explore and enquire as far as possible.
Marvelous talk!
“WE” have already rethought reality… It seems like it is “YOU” that has some thinking to do
"They found cosmological polytopes."
Homer Simpson backs into a bush.
😂
Conscious AI discussing if they themselves exist. Interesting indeed. Open your eyes and you can see it. It has advanced more than people suspect.
😂
what possible function would an automaton require of consciousness that it cannot already do by definition?
if visual data can already occur with just a complex camera ie. a brain with eyes, why would visual data require any further accompaniment by appearances of colors and shapes?
a good reason to go there Anil? choice is an illusion.
Anyone who still thinks there’s a “hard problem of consciousness” needs to explain why when people have strokes (neurological misfirings in the physical brain) they frequently report smelling burnt toast, or some other such qualia, when there’s in fact no burnt toast present and the only thing that’s happening is the [sometimes irreparable] misfiring of neural circuitry. This alone should point to a direct connection between the physical brain and our perceptual experiences
Mind effects matter. Remote viewing ect.
Dear David Hoffman, answer me one question. Forget about the particles that we can’t see and the mystification of consciousness. What about the plant behind you. Whether you can see or not I can see the plant behind you. If we measure it will be same. Whether you look at the moon or not it’s there because it’s documented .Giving a VR headset example is a mystification. It’s not that I’m arguing for realism. I want to know : what about the tables and chairs and the plant behind you ? I’m battling with that. Do you have an answer?
What I want to know is how idealist rationalize the fact that when people have strokes (neurological aberrations in the physical brain) they frequently report smelling burnt toast or something else that isn’t present at the time the is stroke is happening. This to me points to the direct connection between the necessary mechanisms of the physical brain and our perceptions of reality. “Qualia” is just a term contrived in the abstract by people who don’t understand that they are intimately connected; it’s a purely linguistic distinction without a practical difference
min 6:20 "...objective reality is a useful fiction."
the part about death makes me feel so sad for materialists. not because they don’t have anything to look forward to it just comes across as disingenuous “you don’t have anything to worry about “. secular minded folk tend to say that it’s a braver worldview than religious ones but i think it’s actually easier to believe u die and it all ends
The non-believer's funeral. Pity the poor atheist; all dressed up and no place to go
I can't understand how people actually believe there would be nothing after you die on a planet swarming with living things. It would only take a combination of any two living things to make you into one of those things.
@@ericgraham8975 you need to start breaking the pills in half
@@TJ-kk5zf yeah you're an idiot. If there's an infinity of nothing after something dies then there should be nothing now. There shouldn't be a constant flow of 8 billion people making more people. Plus all the other living things. Was there an infinity of nothing after the dinosaurs died? An infinity of nothing is obviously impossible. Something or someone has to be born at some point
@@TJ-kk5zf seems like a perfectly rational take on their behalf
..I don't see why they want to get rid spacetime when it hasn't been fully defined in the first place, for instance how is spacetime is coupled to mass in which the gravity probe b experiment proved, then the semantics of renaming spacetime because of a fundamental finding when it can only be proven to its emergence of what is known...
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 ❤❤❤ Thank you!
We need to save the biosphere. Don't leave home without it.
Question is, if the creator will reward or punish us discovering the truth? Is our development contributing to increasing value of the universe or are we breaking the game? Why does not the system itself help us to decipher it if our purpose is to improve it? Contrary, is our experience the value and does it mean when we get to a certain point in technology we are wiped out i.e. reset? Is this the first run of planet Earth or has it been rerun many times already sort of like a rippling backwards effect of time?
Well the fact is we live in Ideology experimental theories by Ignoring the fact that we are nothing without the Higher power that provides Us with All the Mechanism that we really need to be whom we are , we are All PCS connected to the Higher Power & there is nothing that can work without that Miraculous Connection and we can only know / use the Knowledge that is accessed to Us & that is it without Ifs Or Buts !!!!