CNC Dialogues - Donald Hoffman & Aldrich Chan: What is the Nature of Reality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- Todays guest is Dr. Donald Hoffman. He is a cognitive psychologist and professor at the department of cognitive sciences at University of California, Irvine with joint appointments in the Dept of Philosophy, Logic and Philosophy of science and school of computer science. He is well known for his TED talk entitled do we see reality as it is? And is the Author of the book the case against reality: how evolution hid the truth from our eyes, where he lays out his popular interface theory of perception alongside theory of consciousness bridging together modern day physics, math and psychology. He is an iconoclast, and an inspiration.
In todays talk we begin by discussing how perception evolved for fitness, and why this is important to know in our everyday lives, and in psychotherapy. We then dive into the concept of beauty, as we move into why we do not see the truth of reality at all. After introducing the interface theory of perception, he shares his proposal for what lies beyond our interface. He follows by sharing why space-time is doomed, and provides his thesis of conscious agents, alongside providing examples of how his groups work has been successful in predicting certain ideas in physics. We talk about how his work may impact ones life philosophy, how it may impact psychotherapy, and touch on other special topics like meditation, free will, life after death, and ideals; ending with another series of rapid fire questions to gain a deeper connection with who Don is as a person. Feel free to skip around should you find any of the topics of interest to you.
Website: www.drchancnc.com
Instagram: @draldrichan
Books:
Reassembling Models of Reality: a.co/d/9s6Qu2J
The Case against Reality: a.co/d/eyOLbf3
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
2:00 Interface theory of Perception
12:27 Beauty
30:15 Conscious agents
1:01:09 Illusion of the Body
1:04:41 Meditation
1:12:26 Free will
1:21:39 Purpose of Conscious Agents
1:24:21 Ideals
1:26:48 Rapid fire Questions
Donald Hoffman is my hero, he is a pioneer that isn't afraid to test new ideas!!! 💪
Flexing that tenure! 💚
Aldrich Chan, your book Reassembling Models of Reality introduced me to Hoffmans work, alongside many others. Real awesome to see you engaging with people who influenced your work! This is a great discussion.
Thank you Mike!
Waves from Purdue University!
Hope this isn't weird to say Donald, but you're definitely near the top of my list of people I hope to see speak one day. I annoyed my friends and family around here recently cuz they were obsessed with basketball and I kept trying to talk to them about things that I heard people like you and Bernardo say. Keep it up!
This is a next level discussion with Hoffman. Awesome, keep it up!
Thank you for your support!
I miss the time when i wasn't born yet. That was heaven.
Wonderful all round interview. Excited to discover your channel. Thank you
Thank you for your feedback. Welcome aboard!
Excellent discussion!
Thank you for the feedback!
I think I’m driving my husband mad.We are painting the house at the moment but for me it’s just an opportunity to listen to Professor Hoffman.
I also love Eckhart Tolle and was gobsmacked when Don (sorry to be so informal 😊) said A New Earth was his favourite book.It’s mine too.
This was a great interview, thank you so much.
Please Don, could you talk with Eckhart Tolle? What amazing insights would come out of that!!! I think humanity would thank you for it (eventually 😊)
Thank you for the compliments and the feedback! Perhaps in the next interview we can invite Eckhart 🙂
Wow, that would be amazing 😮😅
wow... I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you
Reality varies from universe to universe. It's just so called reality. Consciousness is the only reality.
QUESTION, for what reason does a system change when trying to model itself?
What causes the change when simply creating a model of ones self/system?????
Changes will depend on the relationship between internal and environmental demand, and as demands change, so will the system evolve towards increased complexity.
@@drchancnc so your saying by creating a model of itself, in conducting that action it evolves because it has increased its own complexity??
@@MOAON_AABE creating a model of itself = the capacity for re-presentation. Re-presentation allows for recursion, or the ability to change that from which the system initially evolved from. The mind can be understood similarly, its one way of understanding how intentional psychological changes can alter neural pathways.
@@drchancnc thank so much for sharing, I think I understand now more than I did previously 👍
Antoine Béchamp French biologist 1800s knew about this conscious agents and he called them microzyma
good video, at what minute does he say about life after death?
It was the last rapid fire question at around 1:30:53!
@@drchancnc Ah! I'm not there yet! Only an hour in! Thanks for keeping me motivated to continue watching. Hmmm... That topic motivates me to order a pizza! :)
@@craigbowers4016 thank you for your interest and attention!
@@drchancnc DITTO! Great interview. This is going in BOTH my Donald Hoffman and my BEST Donald Hoffman playlists.
Loved this interview. Especially the rapid fire questions at the end.
"so basically if you're successful then ill be out of a job" 😅
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.
It sounds like you have an affinity with Hoffmans ideas! Thank you for tuning in.
Fantastic! 🙏
all answers are in Buddhism books. No need to walk in the dark and explore 😂
Buddhism and Daoism are both very congruent with modern day science! Don and his group however are bringing in their insights into the world of science, further developing the necessary mathematics to make sense of them at the level of physics.