Donald Hoffman Λ Joscha Bach: Consciousness, Gödel, Reality
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Donald Hoffman and Joscha Bach have delve into the nature of consciousness and reality.
Sponsors: brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off. For Algo's podcast / @algopodcast and website www.algo.com/.
Patreon: / curtjaimungal
Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
Twitter: / toewithcurt
Discord Invite: / discord
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
LINKS MENTIONED:
-QBism Paper: arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209
-Donald Hoffman's book The Case Against Reality (affiliate): amzn.to/34eWmxz
-Plato and the Nerd (affiliate): amzn.to/34GMexr
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 Introduction
00:03:34 Is a Theory of Everything possible? / Definition of Consciousness
00:08:32 Spacetime's fundamental nature (or not)
00:14:27 Joscha Bach on mysterianism, telepathy, and consciousness
00:34:40 Joscha has a way of interpreting the Bible literally
00:42:01 Physical world vs Computational world
00:57:57 On Gödel and changing the definition of truth to provable / computable
01:12:33 What parts of the mind makes statements beyond computation?
01:13:57 Real numbers don't exist?
01:15:23 [Prof. Edward Lee] Reality is not necessarily algorithmic
01:34:02 Donald Hoffman on Free Will
01:44:03 Joscha Bach on Free Will and whether a TOE exists
01:57:10 What would change in Bach's model if classical logic was correct?
02:07:42 Penrose and Lucas argument regarding Gödel and the mind
02:13:55 Closing thoughts from Bach and Hoffman on each other's work - Věda a technologie
Joscha Bach: "I'm just a computer scientist" also Joscha Bach: *straight off the top of his head, 15 minute fully coherent and based tangent about consciousness, physics, light transport, spacetime, culture, epistemology, identity, physiology and everything we use to describe our world.*
That was totally mindblowing
a listing of connected ideas does not necessarily contain cogent ideas. Beck is downloading a massive gap less narrative that allows not scrutiny or interaction. Possibly complete attention is intended either way a brain dump is similar to coercion and confusion.
😂😂😂 he speaks so simply it’s hard to understand him. Master.
The eyes touch reality, just as blind hands see objects.
Like a prism that reconfigures the light spectrum into multiple colors and directions. Consciousness is the projection of that sensory spectrum
I mean, that surname is something
This is "wealth", you're producing for the intellectually curious. Great idea about bringing guests together, especially ones with opposing views.
Even if not very financially rewarding, your work Curt, is invaluable to human kind. I do realise this is a big thing to say but I believe it's true.
Wow thank you so much. I am honored!
@@TheoriesofEverything curt have u considered getting steven greer on big fan of urs by the way
I am in disbelief that this is a real conversation that was recorded
Donald Hoffman blows my mind every time he speaks.
Sorry, nothing interesting came from him.
Please have Bernardo Kastrup and Joscha Bach engage in a debate 🙏🙏🙏! That will be epic!
❤!!
I dearly hope that conversation will happen at some point.. Requested it as well
Just watched joscha bach the first time - that would be epic indeed :D.
Yes, PLEEEASE.
I concur. Please make that happen. Kindly
Kurt, you are a legend. You’ve built something pretty amazing with these talks. And you do it in such a humble way. Thank you thank you thank you.
Wow, I appreciate that very much.
Curt with a C and Kurt with a K have a big difference. I thought his name was "Kurt" like Kurt Russell too.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard such complex ideas expressed in such quick succession at such speed as Bach did in the first fifteen minutes. I’m still recovering from it at about halfway through the podcast.
Pfft -- he's just verbal barking here (that's a technical term; look it up).
Dude is in love with the sound of his own voice.
@@davidchou1675 maybe you’re not going that deep into his points? i’ve got a pretty tight filter for verbal barking and he seems to actually be talking with substance. sometimes i think he’s rambling but then it all comes together to a concise point
if you really do think he’s barking though, who would you say talks about similar things without barking? i’d like to learn more about how you’ve set your filter for substance! in the best of faith. take care
@@davidchou1675 It's very hard to follow Joscha Bach. When he starts speaking, I switch to 0.75 playback speed. Even then, I often have to replay some of his sentences multiple times. And even after that, I find myself replaying the entire interview. But it's worth it; he is truly brilliant.
Joscha has simply found a partner here who can keep up with him to some extent. That drives the conversation. On and on.
Joscha's ideas are sometimes not easy to follow, but I am again blown away by the consistency. He never seems to get lost in rabbitholes, always keeping an "eye from the sky" that looks at the big picture. Truly fascinating conversation.
Maybe my brain is just weird, but I find Joscha easier to follow than 99.9% of people.
@@FRandAI he speaks like computer arguments in a good way
That guy is such a f'king bore...it's so sad the host did not have the sense or courage to interrupt and more productively channel his obvious enthusiasm into more useful conversation.
STFU Joschka!! There's actually a topic here; this isn't stream-of-consciousness for you...the first chance he gets he drones on for twenty-plus minutes!!!
It's called a *discussion* man -- have some sense and grace to STFU and let someone reply!!!
Josha is just putting a lot of smoke .. he is not defining anything
They are actually easy to follow if you are from the IT field
Josha is a giant towering over giants. When you think you have grasped everything he has to offer, he wanders even deeper and never stops to amaze.
he's the giant of wordsalads towering over the giants of wordsalads
Abyss/Deep sleep states/psychedelic state/meditative state: is what sets everyone apart from each other including Mr. Bosche ~ Awareness (= I AM) remains in the dark space of the abyss but there exists no one to report the experience of nothingness. so no free Will exists there. many questions unfold from there...
@@pandawandas Can you please give an example or two?
@@pandawandas it’s called effective communication. Sometime you need a lot of words to describe something extremely specific. Also, you probably just don’t understand the words he’s using because they are computer science based
OMG thanks for speaking up!!! I was seriously pissed at how Joschkie just drones on and on...he needs to see someone about that oral diarrhea of his!!!
Honestly he's like Eric Weinstein, just word salads and "verbal barking," as the semanticists call it...sheesh!!!
And the host didn't have the sense or courage to shut this narcissist down with a gentle clearing of the throat...sigh....
Some time ago, I had a thought similar to Joscha's, about Genesis: "Man, no wonder this creation story is so intuitive - it's in order of intelligibility!" But I never considered the idea that it's autobiographical, that it describes the creation of intelligibility itself. Beautiful. I will consume the rest of this discussion with stars in my eyes.
And this is why topics like this get the eye-roll from normal people: what the hell kinda word salad is that???
He's almost as bad as Eric Weinstein....
You may want to check also what exorcists think about the first day in Genesis. That is, the creation of spiritual beings before human beings were created.
Genesis is silly nonsense. Little of anything in it has any relationship to reality. Gumby and Ribwoman and the Flood are disproved nonsense, so is the rest.
It’s already a treat to see each of these guests on the channel, but it’s a special treat to see them together 👏☺️💭
Threat indeed!
Treat indeed!
Joscha's consistent framework of reasoning gives him significant latitude to tackle problems at different angles, congruently. His way of thinking is without serious discontinuities, which is pretty admirable. He sacrifices little. He has strong comprehension for problem domains and comprising sub-domains, in more ways than many in disputation. Because he concerns himself with the interrelations of subdomains coming to a consensus on reifying a domain - and such sub-domains are pretty communicable across domains - he has a way of validating his position while maintaining what he calls elegance. I don't see the same adherence from others - the alternatives seem too porous to defend in a debate/discussion.
You hit the nail on the head my good sir!
Damn you said that as if you were Joscha. Who are you? I'll buy 3.
Perfect!
Well said. I was surprised and impressed to see how well these ideas hold up to otherwise compelling iterations of potential counters.
Normal english please? :D
These guys are some seriously deep thinkers, it’s completely fascinating how some humans can have such complex insights into the nature of reality. They both are complete gentleman, finest examples of humanities best and brightest
It's fascinating. I feel more closely aligned with Hoffman generally, but Joscha makes solid, rigorous counterpoints that argue for bounded intelligent designs that are far more comprehensible.
I still think the idea of timeless agents, however, would allow for the creation of a will inserted into time-bounded simulations -- like bubbles of axioms that lie one on top of another with different rulesets and understandings.
Almost like a russian doll of consciousness.
In other words -- Joscha's model of self awareness may be deeply and locally true to our human lives, but the greater modeling of another agent may be on top of it -- similar to how you observe the state of a video game character you've created in a game world while retaining full knowledge of yourself on Earth/in your own life.
I liked the last part of the discussion -- I think much hinges on more complete understandings of gravity in general and the unification of our theories.
Because, really, we can't know.
While I sympathize with Joscha saying you have to "show me" how to do this other descriptor language/new physics, and until I can see your new language, I will not believe you, I also think it's silly to think that no such language or way of understanding de facto can't exist because we don't see its implementation.
The human brain configuration is just one configuration amongst millions on this planet.
We definitely know a fly is modeling consciousness far different than ours.
What if there is a network/configuration we can't see or access? What if we're already an organism embedded within a much larger structure of which we cannot be conscious of while locally active?
The possibilities are there and are rational.
But I'm a hobbyist. Wonderful conversation overall
My favorite part of this conversation was the last 15 minutes. Make sure to write any questions you have for them below, as we'll look into organizing a Part 2 later this year.
Looking forward to this one! Did you get a chance to ask Joscha to talk more about his views on Wittgenstein's Tractatus? If not, ask him some questions about this topic next time!
@@neoepicurean3772 no unfortunately . Next time.
Part 2?!
Joscha uses the most possible syllables to say the least meaningful thing. He has no model, no advice, no true understanding of the functioning of reality. He regurgitates so much densely packed information at such speed that one is lulled into accepting that what he is saying must be true. Well it may be true in some fashion, but it is also completely meaningless
Joscha,
A: Why does THIS exist?
B: What is the purpose of life?
C: How do we fulfill this purpose?
I answer these questions using no more than 2 sentences for each answer
Let's see how condensed your model is.
@@Nonconceptuality I think you’re terrified that there is no you like you think there is. Bach is spot on. stop being scared.
@@Nonconceptuality Sometimes there’s no simple solution.
MY favourite part starts at 1:46:59 - in 8 minutes give or take, Joscha explains everything we need to know about how the concept of self/I evolves in the organism, about why we feel that we have agency and why it seems to us that we have a free will. It is blowing my mind. A touch of genius.
It is really amazing how he gives example of child that has experience of free will whereas parent can predict the behaviour of a child having modelled him .. Best explanation of relativity of free will
If you start at 1:46:55 you’ll notice he calls Hoffman a conspiracy theorist indirectly. His whole argument seems to boiled down to, “Come on man, let’s just assume I’m right” lol
Luciferian thought. A belief in a lack of free will allows the impious to ignore feelings when building the dystopian robotic future
I tune in and pay you money simply for Donald Hoffman, thank you for having him
Thank you finally for doing this
Hopefully you’re watching the others.
14:31 There's nothing better then watching when Joscha begins to smile..
Here it comes, love it!
28:39 "But I'm not a physicist, so I'm not actually qualified to have these opinions..."
Always makes me chuckle when he says stuff like that.
I find it difficult to say anything concise about something so profound.
I'm deeply thankful for the ideas expressed on this channel and for the opportunity to experience them interacting like in this video.
The effort it takes to share this level of detail with a wide audience is underappreciated. I am very pleased to see it happening.
Wow, Thank you so much man
During the course of watching that, an unkown agent peeled back my scalp, lifted my skull, glass papered away the top layer of my brain and poured rubbing alchohol on the exposed surface. Wow. In recent years I've followed Wolfram, Barbour, Hoffman and only recently started to learn about Joscha. This has been truly one of THE BEST shows ever Curt, thanks for putting in the time and round 2 I can't wait for that! These videos literally keep me awakre at night, especially Leo Guras' session , that actually gave me nightmares!
Thank you so much Sean. Keep your head up.
Your humour made me laugh.😂 ….did you hear JB at 35 mins in…he is not independent of your mind. He can’t create sounds.
@@hgracern maybe I am a freak but I have had 'odd inclinations' about the Universe since an early age which I now see surfacing. Long story. Pays not to think too hard, whatever that means. I truly beleive nothing moves though. The answers are there, it's like a deeply creased and crumpled up piece of paper that even if you flatten it out, the creases remain so you never get back what you had. Rambling. Time to day job...
@@seancharles1595 Parmenides was wrong: it is the inner Self (Atman) that doesn't move. That is the true Parmedian One
@@Robinson8491 Ah yes, Parmenides. I wasn't thinking of that actually. As I used to tell my son growing up, when we played with Lego, I used to tell him that he is a real live Giant because compared to the 'lego bricks' he is made of, he is enormous. From head to toe we are relatively 'light years' tall, And nothing is solid. If spacetime is emergent then what is distance anyway? Scale is more interesting. Finally, when I saod nothing moves, I belive that nothing physical moves because there is nothing physical, it's illusory. I also don't beleive singularities exist in nature. I don't know how to prove that though.
Josha is a genius ahead of this time and I am absolutely fascinated by his approach and this confirms what I intuitively
Intuitively what?
Intuitively what?! We must know
@@Erik-V What she intuitively intuits.
I could listen to Donald Hoffman talk all day long. I hope Lex Fridman has him back on one of my episodes. This is great too what a combo of great guests thank you for this.
My man, Hofferz is gonna premier today! On this same channel. I am creaming in my jockstrap.
I can appreciate dying on the cross of truth by sacrificing career to get to the truth of who and what we are and how we got to be. Donald Hoffman is honorable and he acknowledges weakness in some arguments...good man!
Joscha has the strength of intellect to say the most amazing things wow. I love just hearing him talk. Everyone on here are great!
robotaholic ! good word. I am a rabbit easy.
Hoffmaniac
Curt these talks make life so much more meaningful for me , very grateful for this. You humanize your guests so well!
That's so great to hear Mikail
I've been wanting to see this exact conversation for ages. I had commented on Lex's videos asking him for it. Don't know why I only found this now but very glad that you arranged this. I will watch this many times over the next few weeks.
I'm glad!
Don has inspired my thinking since I read his wonderful book The Case Against Reality. He is very clear in communicating his work. However I struggled to maintain focus on Mr Bach’s conversation. I think his mind maybe already outside space time 😆
My own impression of listening to this conversation was that Donald had very little to add whereas listening to Joscha was like hitting a vein of pure gold. Anyway my sincere thanks to Curt for organising this amazing dialogue.
Hoffman is a bright and well informed philosopher, Bach is pretty much a genius.
Gold is very heavy. Is Joscha’s world view enlightening or materializing?
@@michaelg1569 Uranium is even heavier.
I cant believe this episode doesnt have more views. No accounting for taste, right?. This is excellent work Curt, Joscha and Donald. Thanks so much.
Edit: Joscha has clearly thought about his stance and approach more deeply and consistently than anyone else I've come across. The guy is impressive.
I appreciate how Curt allows the conversation to flow. The speakers are able to explore ideas beyond personal constraints imposed by the host. This allows listeners to discover their own assumptions and gain a new understanding of the topics being discussed.
Thank you! Very interesting! Time flies when listening to these two respected guests. I may need to go back and take notes on the references they cited/mentioned. Since Michael Levin is mentioned in the discussion here, he should be next guest, together with Stephen Wolfram, I hope. I'm looking forward to it!
Joscha Bach is intellectually gifted beyond anything I’ve ever heard. Truly a beautiful penetrating mind that is sensitized to subtleties of observation that go beyond the genius level. I love to hear him share his observations. Thank you for having him on your channel.
lol wut dude needs an editor -- just because it pops up in his mind doesn't mean it's relevant or useful to the wider topic...it's like we're talking about the forest and he keeps talking about each individual tree and its metabolism -- dude needs an editor....
Genius? Lol..I don't even think joscha himself knows or understands what he's talking about ..... he just rambles on and on from one topic to another.
I wish he had a chance to complete his thoughts on big bang.
@@tonyhashim5321you’re projecting my low iq friend 😂
@@davidchou1675I think you need a better cognitive model generator
Joscha is obviously brilliant, but he needs a translator who can simplify his delivery. Ive recruited developers for 20 years. The greatest possess a knack for simplifying extremely complicated systems. I cant comprehend how he actually comes to any conclusions given the way he processes thought.
This is hurting my head.
I'm doing it in segments
So much in each sentence.
It's exceptionally dense communication.
The inability is All mine
I shall persevere
❤️Thank You All for Sharing❤️
💧💦🌊🌎
Yup. In segments is how I did it too. It's like a dense, rich cake. In order to appreciate the complexity, it must be consumed in small bites!
Thank you for what you do. Your calm and rational - or can I say, sincerely curious - approach to your topics is very refreshing.
I wish that more would take your approach on quality as far as interviews, questions, and discourse.
Much appreciated.
Wow, thank you so much
@@TheoriesofEverything well deserved.
Please don't stop doing what you're doing. This was an amazing discussion by two exceptional minds.
It would be grear another podcast with Donald Hoffman & Joscha Bach
Man, Joscha is like a character from a sci-fi story which the author uses to explain difficult concepts to the reader. This may sound like I'm making him into a caricature, but then again aren't all our models of even the people we know the best caricatures of what's really going on in their mind?
What I'm saying is that to me he's like a refreshing wind of a character within my own life's story ^^
I never considered that these things are so profound -- I've had mental modeling as a primary for most of my adult life, but never really considered the importance of evolving your epistemology from that into an intelligible and sharable world-view. I've been more pragmatic, and not been so serious about the effects of such an epistemology.
I think a lot of good can come from evaluating your primaries and seriously building up an epistemology from it. At least we can clearly see it makes for some great discussions and interesting thought!
Also Donald makes some real questions and answers to these ideas. Like at 1:38:00 where he discusses the limits of models in the terms of the emergence of probabilities as opposed to mathematically exact calculations. Not that this hasn't been his theme throughout, but he states these things more clearly here. Interesting, but I doubt free will can become a primitive. As someone who's not really studied quantum physics deeply, but heard explanations and "just calculate you fools!", I can't make assumptions about what conclusions are reasonable. However, if you just calculate, you'd be no closer to an understanding of the mental activity / perception of free will than any other system.
Insertion of probabilities in the fundamentals of physics isn't evidence of free will. What would be evidence of free will would be something apparent in the organization of minds or society (which helps or harms the formation of free minds). But society as it is in my opinion dumbs people down, instead of empowering creativity and free thought (without relying on experts/authority and instead deep self-guided learning and synthesizing knowledge).
Well, it may be rantish, but essentially I'm doubtful of physics providing more insight into free will than anything else, especially observing oneself (now that's quite the philosophical loop!).
I'm replying as editing has apparently been *deleting* my comments before! (wut, lol)
To be "fair" it's maybe 50 years since average human have possibility to gather information and to create actually sane(mostly :v) worldview about reality
==>
So obviously EVERYONE was wrong about everything in one way or another
==>
we are all the victims of (HISTORY) circumstances but people making(as proud cyber 🐒 have to :v) personal and in the end wasting a lot of hmm 🤔 "humans resources" to create hell missinformation/modern Babel
¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's so funny, i just finished the episode and was thinking the same thing about my modeling of things. This channel has the best comments. Not the usual nonsense.
This was awesome. I agree that the last 15 minutes, when they started talking to each other directly were the most intense :)
You are creating a legacy, these talks may survive for the next 15-20 years, no text book, no journal can match your lucid exposition. Sir you have succeed what you set to accomplish.
In my last effort to get a life I tried to point out Joshuas insights regarding math and truth. No one was near understanding this ten years ago in my circles so I got no life. I am very glad hearing this will become well known. I was going in the right direction.
Wonderful! Currently painting a door and this discussion is the brain chewing gum I needed. Every subject you bring to us Curt is excellent, thank you so much x
I don't think I exaggerate when writing that this is one of the deepest and most important intellectual discussions of modern times. Thank you, Kurt, Joscha, and Donald for making this happen and letting our minds indulge in this spiritual/philosophical delight. I think that this is the episode that brought me the closest to satisfaction regarding the question of a TOE.
Thank you so much Idan!
I do not agree since Mr Hoffman has pretty week arguments.
@@sergebureau2225 Joscha is a computational beast!
Damn! Joscha is so focused and intelligent, these guys should be celebrities of our world.
yes! been waiting for a conversation between these two guys. thank you!
Thanks for hosting this debate! I’m about 1 hour in. While I have great respect for Bach, as he’s clearly a deep thinker and much more intelligent than myself, I just don’t buy his definition/hypothesis for what Consciousness is.
That being said, it has grown on me a bit. Again, I don’t buy it for a second, but I can now understand why someone might, especially someone who is grounded in materialism. He makes a logical case.
I’m quite bias towards Idealist metaphysics due to personal experiences of Oneness with Mind at Large. I can’t look past those experiences. A very smart blind person can’t convince a dummy with sight that the things they are seeing aren’t there. In my opinion, this is what’s happening here.
I hope Bach will be open to debating the great Bernardo Kastrup. With all due to respect to Hoffman, an important intellectual and proponent of Idealism, I’m almost certain Bernardo would be able to break down Bach’s arguments in a much more robust manner.
In terms of a scientific endeavour to understand consciousness I think Bach's ideas are by far the best around, of the theories I've seen thus far anyway. If you have the belief that consciousness is somehow outside of scientific understanding then you will never convince someone like Bach, as he said around 2:06:58 if you can't prove something in a computational manner, he cannot believe that it's true. I'm very sympathetic to this because if you don't take this approach then you open the door to accepting almost anything to be true; gods, demons, ghosts, ancient aliens, magical substances etc etc. Of course this doesn't mean you can completely discount the possibility of such things being in some way true and implemented in our physical universe, but you can consider them to be not really worth worrying too much about vs the things you can make actually implementable models about.
It seems far far more likely that the incredible spiritual experiences that people have are phenomena that emerge from the processes of an evolved brain residing in a social primate, than evidence of forces outside of our understanding of the universe from the field of physics. I absolutely don't think this makes such experiences any less 'real' or magical though, in the same way that the physical process of evolution doesn't make a flower any less astonishing or beautiful for us to behold.
@@GurtTarctor You are idolizing computation as Bach does. It's your omniscient God. The problem with this is computation can only model with quantities. It can never capture a qualitative experience as it is. Qualities are infinite and experiential. Quantities and qualities are not even in the same category ontologically. An unbreachable gap will always exist between the two. One is reality as it is and the other a finite model. Hoffman is correct. Consciousness cannot be computed. It's a miracle that must be granted. Bach is obstinate, albeit a genius of sorts, clinging to his false God. He does weave a compelling mythical narrative however, and I enjoyed listening to it but he does need to debug that buggy eyes thing he does every 20 secs or so. It's creepy.
McGilchrist would tear right through Bach's way of viewing the world. It's very much in the mind of the 'Emissary'.
@@GurtTarctor You’re so right that Bach’s view is the most coherent one around. Tbf consciousness is one of the farthest problems we are from solving, but I respect anyone who gives it a shot with an open mind. His view that information theory is a productive way to tackle the problem is hopeful. I liked the debate between discreetness and continuity in the podcast. Arguments where infinity is permitted seem to fall apart when you grant infinity as real, so I see where Bach stands on the issue. However none of us know the right answer to this problem (including Bach and Hoffman) but I’m glad that people are talking about the issue and trying to make sense of things. It’s fun to listen to these great minds talk to each other in a constructive manner.
I love watching this stuff and deluding myself that I understand anything they're taking about.
Thanks so much for this Curt. I'm a Donald Hoffman devotee, having said that Joscha helped save my life.
On my bedroom bookcase glass doors, I have the following words pasted.
World
Experience
Perception
Desicion
Action.
And on the opposite cupboard door in bold large type.
PERCEPTION.
The reason, for Me.
Life is all about Perception.
Thanks for getting these two giants together! Can’t wait for part 2 and any more podcasts featuring Joscha! Your channel keeps putting out thought provoking content and I love it.
In his breakdown of consciousness, Joscha touches on some concepts expressed in neurophenomenology such as autopoiesis, which challenges the geocentric model of evolutionary neuroscience and the assumptions we make with how regions of the brain communicate in general. Curt, try and get Evan Thompson on some time, his book "Mind in Life" is a deeply philosophical and neuroscientific examination of what the current major fields that study the mind are overlooking.
Your podcast is everything that mainstream media is not: probing, erudite, and courageous.
@ 00:34:40 I found his interpretation of the genesis story very interesting. Thank you Curt for making this channel. And thanks to all of your guests.
Wow both are my heros! Thank you for making this happen!!
I love how Donald just ends up fascinated by Joschas ideas and just wants to ask him questions because he seems to have answers to everything.
Brilliant. Questions that echo throughout infinity, & beyond !
Thanks once again, so much to absorb, love the way it finished. I’ll be replaying this in future.
Great conversation very well structured. I've been following the work of both guests and like and respect them both. I find Hoffman's work particularly interesting. I think adding Rupert Sheldrake to this would make a powerful trialogue.
This is exceptional thought provoking stuff and deserves so many more views.
Curt, any chance for a theolocution between Joscha and Bernardo? Listening to Joscha's response to "why garlic vs chocolate?" made me wish to hear Bernardo's response :)
No. JB is not interested. Rightfully so. BK is not even wrong.
Bernardo accused JB of trolling him! I doubt they will meet.
@@peterp-a-n4743 Kastrup's takes on ontology are way more insightful and coherent than Bach's
@@moesypittounikos Bach suggested that Kastrup "instead of cultivating a Chopraesque claque of people that feed their spiritual needs on your poetic metaphors and coddle your ego in return, you publish your thoughts in a suitably reviewed journal." I wonder now that since Kastrup's "poetic metaphors" have all been published in academic journals if Bach can permit himself to take them seriously now.
@@peterp-a-n4743 I'd say that it's exactly the opposite. JB is not even wrong, he's completly missing the point.
You're conversations are helping me Curt, thank you for your content and you are excellent at what you do.
⚡🤘
Bei allem Respekt für Donald Hoffmann, dieser Punkt geht nach meinem Eindruck an Joscha Bach. JB ist sicherlich einer der brillantesten Köpfe unserer Zeit.
Gern würde ich noch mehr über Joschas Gedanken zu 1) Stoizismus und 2) Negativ-Enthropie erfahren (hier im Video nur angedeutet) sowie 3) Evolution. Über Stoizismus soll er sich überraschend negativ geäußert haben („fortschrittsfeindlich“), obwohl mir einige seiner Gedanken teilweise durchaus stoizistisch vorkamen. Zum Thema Evolution scheint es zwischen Hoffmann & Bach möglicherweise größere Übereinstimmung zu geben. Hier wäre es interessant tiefer in das gegenseitige Verständnis von Evolution einzutauchen.
Bitte mehr von JB! 🙏👍
Somebody needs to give this dude 100 million dollars after this podcast.
These two guys are arguably the most out of the box thinkers of our time. The depth and the weight of their perspectives is just mind boggling!
Also could you switch cameras during discussion more especially when there’s a long monologue , because it’s vital to see the reaction of other party!
It just gives additional insight especially when the subject is so off the hook!
Thanks so much. I will do that.
Grateful for this long imagined conversation - looking fwd to round 2
This is the best dialogue I have ever watched and yet.. It's not testable.
Thank you Kurt, another great episode. Good to clarify Joscha’s ideas a bit more and Hoffman is always great :-) amazing episode Kurt
I have been watching Bach for a couple of years now and every single time he talks about consciousness, biology, psychology, microbiology, physics, quantum mechanics, and the list is endless, he shocks and amazes me. In my opinion, he might be just as smart if not more, in his field of study, as Einstein and Dirac; Overall intelligence. Very powerful minds!
Also, Jaimungal, this is my first time watching your podcast and I love it. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to experience three incredible minds coming together. Thanks again. Top of my list. :o)
Hopefully you enjoy some of the other podcasts on the channel as well, Mark. Thank you for watching.
Every time i hear joscha bach my mind expands.Great podcast
Great episode. I hope we see a Part 2 of this one. Cheers!
This is great Curt. Appreciate you guys. Holla at Sevan Bomar man get him in on these conversations . Science and spiritual knowledge together is where the key is .
Congratulations, this is incredible. I would love to see Donald discuss these themes with Sean Carroll
Sir, your two guest are most astonishing and equally engaging both.
fantastic conversation, super interesting and love both of these guys and you did a fantastic job moderating, this is one of the most cutting edge conversations I've ever heard
Really seems like all physicalist arguments boil down to fundamentally not understanding the metaphysical arguments of Aristotle and Descartes. Thank you for introducing me to Donald Hoffman. I just found this channel and I’ve subscribed. Please have on more non-physicalists.
This is one of the best Joscha conversations, and this means a lot given how high the bar is already
Wow. Thank you so much. - Curt
1:52:57 "And at this point I can completely control the child, because I can out-model it" *eyes widen
Very much enjoyed interview/debate, excellent content. I would need to take some thought as to my question though and maybe a second review of this podcast. Well done x
Super interesting. I think Tom Campbell and Stephen Wolfram have a lot of this figured out in more detail though, as they approach these problems from the perspective of a confirmed simulation scenario. Tom's work shows very clearly how the probabilities that "generate" free will are exactly that--but computationally generated on the other side of a statistical veil that has specific features to prevent absolute reckoning from our world.
Hoffman is luxuriating in Tenure. Fiddling around with random thoughts.
Bach is just the clearest thinker of them all.
A Brilliant discussion & thought provoking. Thank you gentlemen!
RE Joscha Bach's bits of memory. Strikes me that while a quanta is a curiosity, what is more important to me is the mechanisms our combinatorial brain performs to model a beneficial, a satisfactory model if you will, of the bits it has defined/observed. This is how I think of consciousness.
I've been anxiously awaiting this for what feels like a decade!! I'm so happy and grateful you were able to get this discussion coordinated and presented to us! Amazing Curt, sorry for that time I spelled your name Curl. Doubt you remember but we interacted over it. I felt terrible. Dyslexia is one hell of a curse
No problem man
Bravo Curt, two fascinating deep thinkers of our time. I would have loved to see the late Steve Weinberg on your show. Try and get Leo Susskind. I implore you to get retired professor of history (Temple) Dr David Jacobs, who pioneered the research of so called abductees of the UAP phenomena. After the late Dr John Mack (Harvard) Jacobs has taken the mantle of the world’s top scholar in this field but he’s getting up there in age, sooner the better. Thank you for one of the best channels on this platform. And by the way, Jacobs has written several works collating the data (and his interpretation of it) if you want to familiarize yourself with the questions.
Consciousness is fundamental and is all that is. Free will is the ability to correspond or not to correspond with Reality. Sometimes we do not correspond because we are just stubborn and sometimes because we just do not understand. In either case we suffer, and in suffering we learn.
Simply amazing! This was my introduction to TOE, and wow! If the rest of your content even compares to this talk, I've found my new favorite podcast! Thank you so much!!!
Welcome! So glad you enjoyed
It would be great to be able to see everyone's faces and reactions throughout, really good talk so far!
TOE is a really beautiful concept, bring together interesting people and let them converse without interruption. Thank you for brining this to us, you are doing something very special and meaningful with this podcast.
My two "favorite" scientists on the same podcast. Brilliant!! Thank you so much.
Here for Joscha. Thanks for the translation Dr. Bach, as always. 🤍
Joscha really struggled in this debate, so much so that he had to result to straw mans and called Hoffman a conspiracy theorist 1:46:55 Most people won’t catch Joscha’s slightly rude jabs because Joscha uses a form of technical sophistry. When confronted with Hoffman’s mathmatical proofs he seems to say that numbers aren’t real, but numbers then magically reappear as real to prove other parts of his theories. The most funny part was where he says that Godel didn’t understand his own theory as well as Joscha himself. Heavy on the assumptions, Joscha himself says, “If we just assume reality is real.” is light on the proof. Hoffman’s proofs were simple, elegant and forced Joscha into fallacies and circles. It was a great debate! Nice to see this side of both arguments and see how well Hoffman’s proofs stand up to critique.
This is really a debate about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. I’d like to see an executive summary of the discussion.
@@michaelg1569 The summary is that Joscha wasn’t able to come up with a reply to Hoffman’s mathematics. This is an ancient debate going all the way back from Newton to Plato.
Photons finally getting some love! Great pair of thinkers. Joscha's biblical point on the experiential universe was an interesting expression of our reality as an interface. Curt, thanks for facilitating.
I really love Joscha’s take on the Genesis, perhaps the ancient Hebrew tribes were more intelligent that we would like to acknowledge 👍
Amazing content. To be enjoyed doing whatever you do folks... love it! Thank you.
Curt, love this deep dive into "reality". I used to podcast the "Coast to Coast AM radio" program going back to 2005 or 06. I was absolutely floored one night back in 2016 when cued up a show from Sept. 02 2012 featuring Prof. Amit Goswami of Oregon University. He was a professor in high energy physics. He found a theory called "Quantum Activism" and it is radical, and embodies many of the principles these two mental giants are discussing.
Every time Josha ended his monologues i was applauding! wow what an amazing mind!
Joscha's simple answer for why is there something instead of nothing is that that is the default...that something exists...that there is existence its self, is the default state, yet he cannot seem to even entertain the idea that the default could be the existence of an absolute uncaused non-dual consciousness (nondual in the sense of being without subject and object). He seems to relegate that to some kind of supernatural deity or entity, rather than the natural being. To me this is quite strange. Why is the default that the physical exists? He never seems to addresses that.
If I recall, his idea on this parallels Stephen Wolfram's, that essentially everything that logically can exist, does. It's interesting to imagine the opposite: what if there was a fully coherent way that things could come to be, but somehow they never did. Wouldn't that be strange?
What's missed is that consciousness is God. And the natural and supernatural are identical.
Kurt thank you so much for this. You inspire me.
The fact that this footage exists, freely available, feels borderline illegal. Man, what a treat.
Thank you for the podcast. People that appreciate this podcast should also watch the one with Michael Levin.
Curt, I'm really interested to know if Donald Hoffman & his colleagues have made any progress with the mathematics in regards to getting back any quantum gravity/field theory results from their projections into space-time using their conscious agents model? Not sure if you've already recorded the 2nd round but if you could see where his work is at currently and if they have made any progress that would be great. Thank you!
I'm rewatching this again. U look so kind bro
My two favourite Researchers, on my favourite podcast, discussing my favourite subject. Oh my giddy God, this gonna be a good one