Donald Hoffman on perception, consciousness, spacetime, spirituality | Thing in itself w/ Ashar Khan
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- Donald Hoffman is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. Some of his research interests include visual perception, evolutionary psychology, and the problem of consciousness.
0:00 intro
2:23 background // David Marr’s three levels of analysis
6:20 the interface theory of perception // case against reality
23:38 bias on evolutionary payoff functions?
28:48 spacetime is doomed
31:26 consciousness theories
37:27 the end of reductionism
40:16 the personal experience of the demise of spacetime
49:38 if spacetime is doomed, why go towards consciousness?
57:40 conscious actor model
1:09:57 where does consciousness begin?
1:13:52 the self
1:16:45 cognition
1:20:17 spiritual and contemplative traditions
Donald Hoffman's website: www.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/
Donald Hoffman Books:
The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (2019)
Automotive Lighting and Human Vision (2007)
Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See (1998)
Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory of Perception (1989)
Social
Twitter: / thinginitself__
Instagram: / thinginitself.pod
Facebook: / 100088163125850
Podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0dUBLTl...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Amazon: music.amazon.ca/podcasts/9c6c... - Věda a technologie
I scream like a girl on the front row of a Beatles concert each time I find a new Hoffman interview.
I used to only do that for Jacques Fabrice Vallee.
What Donald talks about here is something I have instinctually felt and believed for a long time now. My journey towards that realisation came about after the death of a beloved member of my family. It was a loss that was sudden and so unexpected. It was the first time I had experienced such a devastating feeling of loss in my life. From that experience began my own personal journey where I started questioning what life and existence meant. I’ve never subscribed to any religious beliefs so my search for meaning had to start somewhere and so it’s where my personal journey of discovery began. I avidly read and consumed so many books on physics, quantum physics, cosmology and philosophy in search of some kind of enlightenment that would offer some answers or insights into the biggest questions. What I learned from all those books was very educational and eye opening to an unseen world hidden from view. I now had the mental tools to take the facts about the physical world and ideas from philosophy to develop my own insights. It was by no means an easy journey, I had a few bouts of depression along the way trying to make sense of it all. It’s almost like the conscious realm was hearing my thoughts and ideas and helped me to discover Donald’s theory which for me I have found very reaffirming. I will definitely be spreading the word, thank you.
I first came across Donald Hoffman on the Lex Friedman podcast; I found it very troubling. Why, because his metaphysics is flawed: there is a difference between present-at-hand and ready-to-hand(Vorhandenheit Oder Zuhandenheit). Donald Hoffman can not make the distinction and therefore sees everything as present-at-hand(Vorhandenheit).
He should read “Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time”.
Weldone and your endeavour may be blessed
@@brucecmoore2881 You clearly don't understand what Hoffman is saying.
@@johnnastrom9400.... &, the Hoff will be the 1st one to admit that, to anyone, anytime, anywhere. This is brand-new & highly revealing info for just about ne1, here, alive & presently living on earth. This is cutting edge modern world, yet, very ancient mystery school, spiritual-tek in-formation awareness perception 101, & can figure tour iverly, 🎉literally & or virtually, move n-e-1, anywhere to n e time inter dimention-ally, etc, add-infin, et-al ...
"Pure awareness" as the foundation of all experience - this is pretty much Dzogchen in a nutshell (and several other non-dual traditions). Dr. Hoffman is a brave scientist for entering "forbidden" scientific territory.
Correct... or Advaita.
Donald Hoffmann is really great thank you to the opportunity to watch an Interview with him!
1:36:00 Fascinating closing on the awakening of consciousness, capitalism and communism, political economics, and our present and unfolding future.
Tons to unpack here -- in this last section & the whole interview and body of work behind it.
Exceptional. Thank you Ashar & Donald. This is all beautifully, vitally relevant in light of the future of the Amazon rainforest & Brazilian elections yesterday; the drought, famine, and impact of climate change in Africa; the Feminine Revolution in Iran; the conflict of life and death in Ukraine... and all else.
A new paradigm is emerging. Hoffman's work plays a vital part in this emergence.
The scientific method is honest. H=h, Honesty equals humor. Einstein had a relaxed sense of humor. Thank you Albert, thank you Donald.
Right off the bat, a good theory tells you the limit of that theory! Wow! That's why I like Hoffman so much! He's one of the most brilliant minds out there, and so forward thinking and open-minded.
there is no limit...
S-matrix program might be really important.
@@waldwassermann... isness, is, *thee* business of wizzness, 'sgo 'sgo 'sgo 'sgo, let's GO, HERE-THERE, like, NOW-THEN-!!! ... 😂
... S'neek-Program ...
Donald check out the conversations that theoretical physicist "David Bohm" had with Indian philosopher "J. Krishnamurti." They are fascinating, and go deep into human consciousness. They can be found on CZcams.
Don is so invested in his theory that his hands escape space-time when hr talks about it
Ahain, Donald Hoffman is a stunning intellect on this video. His elucidation is amazing.
5:30
7:00-10:00
19:00
33:30 "that's recidivistic" :) this one made my day, love the humor of DH
1:20:15-1:27:57 on meditation, mystical traditions, spirituality and science
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks!
Thanks!
Great video! Thank you!
Thank you!
Excellent, vital video. Appreciate the well-selected introductory clip, contextualized introduction, and the interview. Vital, important work -- thank you! Greetings from Bolivia.
Thank you so much!
@@Thinginitselfpodcast Still listening, processing, re-winding, repeating different sections ...
Have been following Hoffman for a while and still cannot quite wrap my (¿... brain, mind, psyche, being...?) around both the language and its implications ... yet i must say that what i am understanding fits almost perfectly into the maps, models, and frameworks of reality i've ben working on refining for years now...
This is heady, fascinating, planetary- and species-level paradigm- and cosmovision-shifting stuff.
More importantly...
... more importantly, the emerging language that Hoffman is framing does (it seems to me) substantially further the emergence not of a ToE (as he humbly yet ambitiously suggests) but of a much broader dynamic, organic, emergent framework for integrating reality and our collective experience of reality as a species, and across millenia (via shamanism, psysomatics, mythology, psychedelics, craft & techne, religion, art, science, spirituality, agency, consciousness, and more) into a single, integrative, coherent, wholesome, unfolding framework for understanding (and participating in) the unfolding of reality both within, between, and beyond spacetime / timespace!
X-ACT-LIE, & this, at least, is a more Probable & Practic-ally Promising Pathway, to disclosure, yet ...
Theory of everything - 22:20
There might not be theory of everything, but it could be, that graphs capture much of physics and even math.
we are spiritual beings having a human experience .How it was all created is bigger than you could comprehend. You will never get to know,because you are not supposed to know !
And yet we know...
sending blessings and the deep awaited harmony you need .
@@waldwassermann who you or everyone,cos where I'm sitting in the UK ..There isn't many !
@@laineymckenzie660Stand tall my brother; stand tall!
I have two comments. Firstly with respect to Piaget and child development, object permanence is simply expressing in behavioural terms a law of conservation (energy, momentum and so on). My second question goes to people like Nima as well: what is Hoffman proposing exists? This is the question Tim Maudlin (channelling John Bell) talks about as a prerequisite for a physical theory (what are the "beables"). Saying "amplituhedron" or "permutation" does not make a physical theory. So far these ideas have only been applied to toy theories anyway. What's missing is an ontology.
For people interested in consciousness, see my papers, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".
"There is no theory of everything "
Awesome! Very true. Hope Carl Jay- mowgly would understand this. 😄
We have no Theory of Everything because we chose Newton instead of Leibniz. Leibniz was talking about quantum physics over 300 years ago. Leibniz was right.
Quantum physics is incomplete, but consistent.
Godel proved that any system that is consistent will be incomplete.
But he also proved that any system that's complete will be inconsistent.
So even a better theory than Quantum physics will also be incomplete.
So there will never be a final theory that's complete.
There will always be special edge cases. Maybe we'll ignore them until some pragmatic set of events leads us to explore those edge cases.
Great video. I've only watched the first third, so apologies if you address this later. I find myself wondering: just as it is ridiculous to think that "truth" boils down to human perception, isn't "truth" the sum total of everything that exists in the universe, and wouldn't this include the perceptions of humans and other organisms? This discussion is fantastic but I find the term "truth" a bit taken for granted here. What the author is discussing is not "truth" per se - if this is taken to mean "reality" - as this would include everything, including human perception. The author is discussing what exists outside of human perception, which is not equivalent to "truth" per se. To say otherwise would ironically reinforce a nature/culture binary or human/nonhuman binary that is the very same mistake made by those who assume humans have some primacy with regards to access to truth.
Thanks for watching! This is a great question and I think it requires a lot of flushing out. Here I think the distinction is between the truth of things as they are in-themselves versus perceptual representation of the outside world.
The dominant models of truth are the correspondence theory of truth, coherence theory of truth, and pragmatic theory of truth. I can't coherently detail them here but I will do my best to address this question head on in future interviews. Though all three are worth diving into if you are curious and there are tons of resources online. Sorry I don't have a more robust answer!
... we are, as they say, supposedly getting down to tin-tacks, (facts), being informed, & told, that after 80yrs of official denial about the "truth" & REALITY of all of those UFOs in our midst, & i do declare & dare to say, that i recon that the big drop and push with math & phisics & consciousness has a lot more to reveal about disclosure than anything else. Don't be surprised if they drop free NRG tek on us. Just sayin'. Cheers ALL-!!!
Question/comment on 1:28:00 (aprox)... On harnessing this emergent framing in practical social, economic, political (and i'll add ecological) ways -- check out Lynne McTaggart and her work with the _Intention Experiment_ and Ubiquity University / Humanity Rising (including today's video on Iran -- Humanity Rising Day 571).
Re: 1:28:00
I've liked Hoffman since I first heard him speak, his beliefs are irrelevant he just searches for truth and science that makes sense based on problem solving through equations and analysis.
Theory is unlimited...
There must be a theory of everything because there is an everything.
Are the theories about consciousness that go 'beyond' space-time suggesting new ways to measure reality, new instruments we can augment our senses, so as to build a culture whereby we can continue to value truth? What about the empirical aspect of this new approach to studying consciousness / physics?
Conventional science does not claim to establish truth but rather to test how well mathematically grounded models can be validated through empirical confirmation. How much culture at large defines and values truth is highly variable prone to comforting and convenient interpretations. Postulating that consciousness goes beyond space-time requires not only an explanation of what it is, how it arises, its relationship with space-time and how it interacts with space-time components. Without answering these, postulating consciousness as beyond space-time is essentially the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Hmm considering cause and effect, physical matter does not give rise to consciousness, it’s the opposite. Consciousness gives rise to physical matter.
For example in the ‘state’ of human senses and perception barriers that computational systems have, one must consider;
For you to see the table in front of you first light must travel and hit that table then light bounces off the table into your eyes which gives your brain an image of a table and you then contemplate that table.
Try this experiment, turn around so the table is behind you. Now try turn around and observe the table before light can reflect off of it, try turn around and observe the table so fast that you beat light to it and thus observing matter without light obscuring our perceived vision of what state the table truly is in.
A great example is how video games render what’s in front of the player as the player moves through time and space. In that world, what is rendered is only what is observed. What is the true state of things? Or what’s behind you in a world that is only rendered upon observation?
That is what Donald Hoffman is thinking, there is something outside of our space/time….The Big Bang is not the ‘beginning’, but rather the Big Bang was a beginning to our observable universe, but the Big Bang was not the start of everything. The Big Bang has to have been a period of finite time. That we know as true otherwise we wouldn’t exist and the universe would still be infinitely condensed. However inflation did happen the universe expanded and we do exist in this space and time... Our space and time is within something. And that is relative to how the picture of the table came from within your consciousness, your consciousness created the image of the table by your perceived senses, the table didn’t create the image in your consciousness. It’s cause and effect…It‘s the order of processes. The order of processes is fundamental to what Donald Hoffman is talking about.
Now use your imagination here, but What does a table look like with eyes that could see atomic structures? But that’s only half the problem. What’s the point of seeing atomic structures if you don’t have the processing power or equivalent. Our eyes need our brains to process and give us an image of reality. So imagine those ‘atomic’ super eyes with the equivalent ‘atomic’ super brain working together and imagine what that is able to observe and process in terms of what reality is in its rawest form. Until we have observation and processing power that is able to do that we are stuck wondering, contemplating, bound within our barriers of perception. That is why some simulation theorists say to have a computer large enough to simulate the universe you would need a computer the size of the universe….
I watched Donald Hoffman on Lex Fridmans YT podcast it was a 3hr+ podcast and Hoffman goes into more detail in that 3 hrs, highly recommend to help understand his concepts.
I want to be agent of change. Ready
Before you continue to think about absolutely anything, read the following, and keep reading, it goes where you can't imagine; {LIVE Science; Forums, History and Culture; Culture History & Science; What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?}
I love Mr. Hoffman but stating that there is no theory of everything is erroneous. That being said, Mr. Hoffman is very close. Brilliant man.
If consciousness was not seated in spacetime (what he seems to say really is that it is not based on matter) how can we read images straight from the brain by measuring the electro-magnetic properties of it?
I would answer your question in this way.
The brain sees an object. Then a mri shows the brain pattern of what out eyes see.the thing is,the MRI and our brain are both only a representation of a much more complicated non physical packet of information. "Both are in the headset "
@@tomdorman2486 What is something that is non-physical? If it exists at all, it is something, a part of the world. I suppose you mean something like a perception is non-physical. What neurologist believe is that a perception is created by the physical things going on in your brain. The evidence for that is overwhelming and getting stronger all the time.
It's analogous to believing, as people once did, that life is supported by some sort of vital force that has actual existence and is not just emergent from the molecular structure and processes of those molecules.
@@carlhitchon1009 hi Carl, I read your comment regarding Don Hoffman. You ask what is non physical. I shared you point of view about ten years ago. It began to change as I contemplated what is matter. As I researched this I began to uderstand that an atom is almost all empty space and the electron is almost without mass and the quarks that make up the nucleus are vibrating fields of energy, the meaning of non physical started to find meaning to me. good luck in your adventures in the play ground of thought.
@@tomdorman2486 Why would you consider such things non-physical? Because they are not like a rock?
The irony of idealism is that in order to explain the world they need to concede all the physical things that we have discovered and then conclude that it is all made of consciousness. If that is the case then you have to admit that science has learned much about consciousness.
@@carlhitchon1009 Hi Carl, first thanks for Engaging in this exchange of thinking. I uderstand your point and concede this may be correct. But to continue my line of thinking, have you ever had a dream that you interact with something physically?To wake-up and realize it wasn't real. In your dream it was very real. That physical thing was physical only in your consciousness. I am saying perhaps all physical things are in consciousness not consciousness itself.
Donald needs to talk with Ken Wheeler youtube him he translates ancient poly please tell Donald
good to see one person believe in his theory...... himself
Um…no
This is bizarre. The caption says: "There is no theory of everything." Yet Donald Hoffman deems his own conscious realism (i.e., his idealism) to be a theory of everything. He doesn't use the precise words "My theory is a theory of everything" because that would invoke criticism and charges of hubris. However, that's exactly his position on his own theory. So perhaps Hoffman simply means there is no theory of everything in physics. However, there is a philosophical theory of everything - his own.
I'm not aware of physicist trying to discard space and time. I don't see how we could ever do that. It is something that exists. It may have some structure that we are not yet aware of, but yours is just too broad a statement.
It's a little like saying that Einstein discarded Newton's ideas. If you just mean it's not fundamental (but arises from more basic conditions), that's quite possibly true. So what? We don't know everything. That isn't an reason to deny the independent existence of mind and the physical world.
We call that parameters. Consistent must be incomplete. One must arbitrarily define limits to make a complete theory. Don is a good guy but a bit of a quack.
@@tim1883 This is my impression too. It seems to me like you can't even utter a sentence without presuming time, let alone put forth a theory. You can fiddle with the math of what the 'rate' of change means, but you can't make measurements or predict anything without the presumption of change. That doesn't mean time is fundamental, but one just goes into metaphor/spiritual territory at that point. Which is completely fine by the way, but it seems like Don is just going to end up with a giant pile of math equations at the end of his theory that are entirely dependent on whatever the latest result from a particle accelerator is. And then Godel will be there smiling from the shadows :/
Feeding, fighting, fleeing, and mating - the four F 😅
When does Donald have time to work? He's always doing interviews.
He meditates 4+hours every day. One could think that makes it even harder to fit things in. Something tells me there's a lot of work being accomplished during his stillness.
This guy is heady AF 🤯
limited good set design award
From my perspective, Hoffman is missing the point and has gone way off track from not understanding the relationship with spacetime. The universe is fractal in nature. The fractal unit of existence IS BOTH the fractal unit of MATTER & CONSCIOUSNESS. This fractal exists as a self-referential orbital system that is in a continuum cycle (time). It has a physical self identity. It exists next to other fractals co-moving in the cycle (length & width) and layers of these fractals (depth). Fractal relativity co-moving in spacetime is understood as reality.
His problem is that he's following the string theorists down the rabbit hole they've dug for themselves. He has some interesting points though...
God is not of our imagination, God is all in all and we are of his . Jmt
Except that we DO perceive the intrinsic physical properties of objects ! This is obviously demonstrated by elementary psychophysical experiments which confirm that human observers can precisely judge the distance, normal vector orientation, local curvature, reflectance, motion and other properties of surfaces and objects. These properties are not "mental inventions" they directly correspond to objective geometrical and physical features of reality. So whatever his model of evolution may seem to suggest about what the visual system should be doing is not what it IS doing. This is sophomoric nonsense.
I am sorry for the late response, but I have to inform you that the "Theory of Everything" EXISTS! Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Before you talk and lecture others will be good first to educate yourself!