Proving Ancient Wisdom Through Mathematics | with Prof. Donald Hoffman
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- Donald Hoffman is a cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science. He studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments.
In this interview we discuss Prof. Hoffman’s work and theories on consciousness and the nature of reality, the limits of space-time, what evolution says about consciousness and how the latest mathematical theories about consciousness reflect positively on many ancient spiritual traditions.
Other relevant interviews:
- Beyond Materialism: The Matter With Things | with Dr. Iain McGilchrist: • Beyond Materialism: Th...
- The Priority of Mind | with Bernardo Kastrup (More Christ): • The Priority of Mind |...
Donald Hoffman's Twitter: / donalddhoffman
Website: t.co/24aWTvO5am
============================
Timestamps:
00:00:00 - Coming up next...
00:02:14 - Intro music
00:02:41 - Introduction
00:03:56 - Understanding the basics of Prof Hoffman's work
00:06:57 - What evolution says about consciousness
00:13:33 - The language we use
00:17:17 - The continued existence of things beyond phenomenology
00:21:43 - The existence of higher beings
00:26:41 - Fractals and mathematics
00:29:00 - There's no scientific theory of everything
00:34:55 - The issue of illusion and layers
00:39:21 - Projection has a reality of its own
00:46:26 - Different consciousnesses
00:54:10 - Parasitic agency and false selves
01:00:41 - The paradox of rock bottom
01:05:37 - Memory and accounting for evil
01:11:33 - Interpreting Jesus
01:17:44 - What the future could look like
============================
- The Symbolic World website and blog: www.thesymbolicworld.com
- Merch: www.thesymbolicworld.store
- The Language of Creation (Matthieu Pageau): www.amazon.com/Language-Creat...
- Carving workshop: jonathanpageau.thinkific.com/...
The Symbolic World podcast:
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0gI8bUw...
- Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
More videos from The Symbolic World:
- Clips Channel: / jonathanpageauclips
- French Channel: / jonathanpageaufrançais
- Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
- Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
Join the conversation:
- Unofficial Facebook discussion group: / 1989208418065298
- The Symbolic World Reddit: / thesymbolicworld
Support this channel:
- Website: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
- Patreon: / pageauvideos
- Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
- Paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
Social media links:
- Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
- Twitter: / pageaujonathan
- Instagram: / jonathan.pageau
My intro was arranged and recorded by Matthew Wilkinson.
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
Disclaimer: i think its best to avoid psychedelic drugs.
It was in large part the experience of encountering these higher beings on psychedelic drugs that destroyed my atheism and led me on a journey to try and find someone or group in history who can explain what happened to me; thankfully i found Orthodoxy through Pageau and Jay and others and am part of the catechumenate.
First it blew my mind how deeply the things Pageau talks about resonates with the past experiences I had taking psychedelics like encountering higher beings and fractal patterns in reality and other stuff, but then he continuously blows my mind by showing how this stuff resonates and applies with day-to-day normal experience.
The psychedelic to JBP to Pageau to Orthodoxy pipeline
Kind of crazy to see this comment as that is similar to my journey.
I Have taken psychadelics on several occasions and the primary consistent takeaway was that the world is made of patterns. I am just not able to see them all. I am lucky enough to have never had a bad trip but I've always taken them very seriously and I give credit to my first trip 8 years ago with fixing my anger issues.
I have been immersed in JBP for a few years now and then Jonathan a couple weeks ago. Last week I had a borderline psychadelic experience simply watching the video where Jonathan and Matthiue explain symbolism. It resonated so deeply with what I have experienced in the past.
I went to an orthodox church last week but the one I went to seemed to be 99% ritual and 1% message, so I am still looking.
But I believe I have found meaning in life and a new way of looking at the world, and a deep respect and interest for the Christian story and tradition.
Thank you for your comment, I am in a similar pipeline
Same. From woke activist to some phychedellics more so marijuana to JBP to Pageau to Father Turbo Qualls to Orthodoxy
Same here brother
Well said. I had a very similar experience. When I listen to Jonathan, he will often say things that give me flashbacks to psychedelic experiences I've had, and it continues to surprise me that Jonathan is able to describe these patterns so well, while he himself has never done psychedelics. I've even wondered that perhaps the reason he can describe them so well is specifically because he hasn't gained the wisdom through psychedelics, but has gained the wisdom through his relationship with God. In other words, it's not unearned wisdom, which is what you tend to hear from people who have taken psychedelics. They will receive deep knowledge about the unity of consciousness, then immediately go around telling people they are God, and they are one with the universe, whereas in a recent interview Jonathan had with John Vervake, Vervake said Jonathan was "Christ-like" to him, and Jonathan said it was too big of a compliment. There's a big difference between going around telling people you are God, and having someone else tell you that you are like God, while still remaining humble about it.
My trips revealed that it’s all one thing and it’s cyclical. This threw a huge wrench in my worldview but ultimately led me to a nondual understanding of Christianity.
Hoffman is reiterating the ideas elaborated in Immanual Kant's "Critic of Pure Reason" without realizing their origin. Modern scientific education neglects history in general and the history of ideas in particular. Thanks for the convo!
Most modern scientists are terrible historians and worse philosophers.
The origins of Hoffman's studies is very ancient, at least to Shankara and probably older. Hoffman is attempting to arrive at those truth through science.
All modern so called intellectual institutions neglect history cuz like Thomas Sowell says they think they are the anointed ones except for Progressives who's god is Karl Marx
@@The.Zen.Cyn1c In broad strokes, yes, this is a reiteration of symbolic truth known for centuries. However you guys are underselling the truly novel proofs that Hoffman has generated, probably because he doesn't go into the specifics when he talks. I don't think he has it right, but I do want to give him credit because he's doing things that neither Kant nor anyone else has done before. It's just that the final interpretation still fits in say Jonathan's symbolic patterns of the cosmos (oddly seems like everything tends to be a subset of Jonathan's broadest abstract ideas).
He knows about it, he just doesn't bring it up here. Source: he's my uncle.
I thank you for reaching and having these conversations with the new Idealists, Jonathan. Although you may have some differences with Hoffman and Kastrup, in my opinion, the best way to tilt the perception of the world back to the mystery, the miracle, God, is by listening to these scientists that are trying to pave a way back for us that got lost and blinded by physicalism.
I do think that if anyone could highlight Hoffman's almost gnostic error that Jonathan kept trying to get at of relegating the material to the realm of illusion, that would be John Vervaeke. His ground-up relevance realization theory gives a case for the necessity of "partial knowledge" at all levels to dodge the homuncular fallacy that I think would resonate with Hoffman and I find pretty hard to refute.
Also he has a very tight definition of consciousness that he presented in his Thunder Bay solo talk, it would be very interesting to see if Hoffman could present any of his work in a way that stands up to Vervaeke's requirements.
When Hoffman talks about (1:16:00) "letting go of your form, your space-time location, all the stuff you identify with...This is just a headset... This is an illusion. Once you let go of the headset, thats complete spiritual realisation." This seems to be the big difference to Pageau that he rubbed up against a few times in the conversations. Pageau wants to say that appearance/manifestation both conceal and reveal reality. Without this qualification (the Iconostasis) spiritual realisation looks like escape and detachment. So, following Hoffman, taking off the headset leads to equanimity because you are no longer attached to hypostases, to real manifestations of being. But this also means you can no longer love particular things, you will not care for them. You will not give attention/love to particular forms of being, because to you, they are illusion.
Exactly. This is something you seem to miss if you are not religious or don't revere a highest being.
Look at all these "energy people" who do all the "spiritial" self help and stuff. They always speak about letting go. Yes, letting go of traumas and bad beliefs about yourself is really very good and spiritual in a sense.
But when they speak about letting go of what you want and letting go of your emotions, letting go of attachments...it is really this. What is love if not attachment? What is love if not fixing your attention on something? What is any emotion without attachments that it is anchored through? What is living and existing if not a web of emotions attached to many many things? You walk through these attachments and experience all these emotions, this wonder that living is.
And these "energy/detachment people" always speak of Buddha as the greates wisest man. But if you think good enough about it buddhism is a religion about death, about non existing. Detach yourself from all your emotions and detach your emotions from everything, and experiece...nothing..actually, seize existing. It's not a very deep or complicated realization that buddhism is simply about erasing yourself. While the christian religion is about experiencing it all, even god himself is love. The difference is more than day and night. Its more like the difference between sunrise or sunset and a rock of cement.
@@jaguillermol It also is a belief that is fundamentally at odds with his project [to see oneself as existing within a "Heterarchy", made up of fractal relations of infinites to one another. This is the heresy of reductionism, which he explicitly rejects in the conversation but then reintroduces on the other in by the notion that we are all one without distinction, that I am you and you are me, and that all the fractal relations that he worked so hard to describe are layers of illusion.
Disappointing to say the very least.
I am curious about the Buddhist concept of loving-kindness, known as "metta", in relation to this train of thought, to challenge or balance it.
That being said, I, too, find myself unattracted to Buddhism because of its apparent orientation toward a lack of concepts, a lack of self, a lack of other, a lack of "papancha". I used to meditate daily, and went to an intensive Buddhist retreat. Despite (or because of) my practice, I fell into nihilism again and again. Last year, in desperation, I decided to watch the Jordan Peterson Biblical Series; something I had been avoiding because it was about The Bible.
My current understanding: Christianity puts love first. Buddhism has love (metta), as a byproduct of its true goal: the cessation of suffering.
That makes Christianity win, in my book. I've been going to church every Sunday since Palm Sunday (3.5 months ago). I have never cared about people more than I do now. Church, other forms of prayer, and theology are making me less sociopathic, and I'm grateful.
I'm perhaps still an atheist, at least at times, due to a lack of integrity. To the atheists out there, I recommend still learning the theology, attending Mass, and learning what the Mass means, even if you're not able to pray due to axiom restrictions. It will help you care about people more (i.e. it will heal you).
@@Alex-op2kc Great comment, and I'm very happy for you, finding your practice. Buddhism is about Truth, but for many, perhaps most westerners, it remains a heady affair because we tend to think Truth has to do with correct concepts. Instead it has to do with letting go of ideas and experiencing reality as it is. People call reality different things, like unconditional love, peace, absolute compassion, God. Metta practice or other similar heart-based practices are important for westerners to help them get out of their heads, but unfortunately at this point in time western Buddhism is simply not integrated enough into our societies and history, such that it could provide a fully relational, communal experience for its adherents in daily life. But go to a place like Tibet for example, and see the people praying and prostrating and crying for joy about the dharma, and you'll think they wouldn't have a clue what nihilism was even if it came up and bit them.
I like the idea of concealing and revealing. Forms, being impermanence itself that yet looks real, _conceal_ what reality is, which is the peaceful openness of the forms not being concretely there. But the forms, seen through meditative insight, also _reveal_ exactly this fact about themselves. It's an interesting paradox, but this insight is actually what makes forms precious -- that they are merely interdependent appearances. So fragile. As long as you believe something is more real than it is, you actually can't love it fully, because you're not seeing it as it is. Instead you're in love with a very real -appearing phantom that you've created in your mind.
Instead, one can cultivate the clear seeing of the illusory nature of all appearance. This doesn't make it go away and it doesn't make you stop loving it; in fact your love can increase because you are seeing it for what it is. Love is appreciation, knowing things as they are.
You're right that "mere illusion" can be a stumbling block that trips many, but any spiritual path has a wealth of obstacles to traverse. But in the end, "illusory" is just a teaching tool to help people loosen their death-grip on their perceptual prejudices. There is no "other world" in the eastern traditions, no heaven, not really. This is IT, and whatever term you want to use for it -- illusion, appearance, story -- it's as real as it gets. The thing is to live the experience of what "real" is or means. That's what's liberating, according to the traditions.
Jonathon should have Nick Ripatrazone on to discuss Marshall McLuhan and Christian transhumanism..
Thanks for the recommendation! Out of the public's interest in examining intellectual heritages (esp. rare and endangered ones), may you please tell us how you came to know of Nick Ripatrazone?
@@KabeloMoiloa thru Hermitix podcast here on yt, the discussions there have many crossovers with this little corner of the internet..
Omg! Since I've heard Donald at Lex Fridman's podcast I wanted to see a conversation of him and Jonathan. Never though it would happen, but I'm glad it did, and glad that was so fast!
Me to man. It makes me think that like you and me, we are a lot of people watching the same videos. But we're spread so thin around the world. From Denmark.
Yeah, it's like we were in the same conversation, with the same references and the same vocabulary, but never talked to each other. That is sad, because it's like we had a parallel life, almost disconected to the "real world" and to people that are actually around us.
It's nice to know that there are others like us out there though...
(From Brazil. I'm a girl, btw🙂)
@@ollen1234 Count me in - I'm in Poland :)
And me. I'm in the UK. Maybe we're not as thinly spread as we think!
I have known about Hoffman's work for a while but indeed my wish has come true with this conversation.
Love Jonathan’s points here about Maya vs. the Incarnation.
>evolution is the best game in town
lol
JP thank you for showing how to be curious and discerning. DH thank you for showing how to be patient and gracious. What a great conversation.
I appreciate Donald Hoffman and thank you Jonathon for having him on, great video loved it
I was surprised to hear that the religious part of the mind is located in the left hemisphere of the brain. I always thought that it belonged in the right hemisphere, where the artistic, imaginative and poetical faculties lie. But then I remembered a theory I once had, that the Jewish God (Jehovah) originated from the left hemisphere of Man's brain, where law, logic, order, and categories (I think) are situated. It also made sense when your guest said that atheism is located in the right hemisphere, because that part of the mind is unrestricted and sensual.
funnilly enough, as an atheist I condemn religion because i'm a left hemisphere.... supremacist in a certain sense; rationalism in the style of Brandom - if you can't make it explicit (self-consciousness) then you ought to judge that there's nothing meaningfully implicit (consciousness) there in the first place. This is different from the more positivist/Cartesian style of rationalism, thinking is shown to be the expressively (so the right hemisphere has a role to play after all) progressive determination of experience in concert with the flux of sensual phenomena instead of the fixation of Truth. It is more about expanding what we *can* take to be true in the first instance than what we eventually find to be true.
An interesting couple of examples to probe my contention that atheism is a left-brain dominant position and religion more empircist/sensual: First, suppose that if the Christian God exists then Eastern Orthodoxy is His Church. We infer in light of this hypothesis that it isn't surprising at all that His Church evangelises heretics by calling them to _experience_ Him as (allegedly) opposed to merely _thinking about_ Him; indeed, it does. Another more personal one: despite all the phenomenological (and alleged metaphysical) sophistication of thomistic/aristotelian theories of drive, the predominant interpretation of non-standard modes of sexual attraction among self-professed members of the Catholic Church is remarkably like Freudian psychodynamics. I've read that work and found it unpersuasive and also; fruitless, in dealing with what is claimed to be my sins in this regard - would-be Catholic Theologians of the Body themselves often admit as much in hushed tones. This is contrary to how my life has been forever enriched by their other work on the drive towards the Good more generally.
In any case, that atheism is a left-brain phenomenon after all McGilchrist's position right?
Why does it make more sense that the RH was atheistic because it was more unrestrained and sensual? Genuine question
Thanks for the replies guys. Personally, I am more right hemisphere in nature myself. But I find it ironic that though atheists on CZcams always claim to be rational and scientific in their videos, Hoffmann said that the essence of atheistic thinking is found in the irrational right hemisphere. I have another amateurish theory of mine for yous: I think the Christian Messiah, Jesus, originated from the right hemisphere of the Jewish mind. It was like the right hemisphere was trying to reach out to the left hemisphere in order to balance out its excessive abstraction. It was either that or the logical/moralistic/ or legalistic Jewish mind was looking back (or across in this case) into the dark abyss of their right hemisphere in order to understand or contain its chaos.
The left is the grasping gabbing structure of the mind, religion in a sense is an attempt to grab or control the mysteries of being. The right is all about the context or perception of the totality. Religion is about answers, to grasp God. Hence the left side of the brain.
@@martinzarathustra8604 interesting your last name. Instead of writing the "Jewish God" in my first post, I was thinking of using the term "Judeo-Christian", but then I thought that would leave out Islam, so I thought of using the broader term "Abrahamic" instead, but then I remembered Zoroastrianism (the first dualistic and ethical religion in history). But in the end I decided to keep it focused and just went with "Jewish".
Will Donald Hoffman and Jonathan Pageau cease to exist when I close this window?
lol. End of story. This episode was massively disappointing
seriously? That's all you could understand from the interview? Watch it again a couple of times.
😂
@@dondrejames1679 😴💤💤💤
@@theYungOldBoi so do you sleep text your comments on youtube? Go troll somewhere else.
Thank you for your work, Jonathan Pageau
I very much like how Pageau defines communion through the example of playing tennis together. To formalize it one might say that any time my action elicits a response from another, we are in communion.
I was struck by how Jonathan handled the "amateur theology" at 1:13:50 and 1:20:53.
IMO Hoffman is clearly cherry-picking and forcing the text to mean what he wants it to mean (that Jesus is like Buddha who transcends, not God who incarnates). He chooses the one text that seems to say Jesus is just a regular person like anyone else, and ignores the center of mass that clearly indicates the opposite. I have a long history of doing this with the Bible, so I see myself in the error and I'm not condemning.
I expected and wanted Pageau to show the error of this interpretation. Instead he noted that he has some disagreements and redirected the conversation. When Hoffman half-jokingly apologized at the end, Jonathan said, "I have no sense of the science, though. Your theology is better than my science, so thank you so much."
Such a gentle, gracious, humble, response. He didn't go in for the kill, and didn't make it all about his domain of expertise. Instead, he humbly pointed out that both they have different domains of expertise and ignorance. I'm not saying this is always the thing to do, but I was struck by Pageau doing it here.
To me this part seems like a really good and proper dialogue, and both persons being really humble. Except that there was way too little time for getting enough understanding, i.e. interview was way too short. Would be great to have one more.
(And no, I don't see Donald Hoffman cherry-picking. Both of them have slightly different perspectives, background and expertise. Again, more time was needed to make things clearer, IMHO.)
Interesting. This part also jumped out on me, but I don't really see the problem. Jesus might be a "God who incarnates", but that doesn't prevent him - quite the opposite, actually - from knowing the "actual" reality that Hoffman is describing. Perhaps in the Bible Jesus is just trying to convey that idea in a way regular humans will understand? It's possible that Hoffman is "reaching" way too deep, or that you're looking not deep enough :)
There's no difference if you understand what God incarnate means. Everyone is God incarnate. That was the basis of the message of Jesus. You all seem to have missed it by claiming only Jesus is the son of God. Jesus was an example of an awakened man. His example is the ultimate path of all people. Eventually we will all awaken to our real identity in the one true God who is awareness of being and who's body is the human imagination called by many names in different cultures. We live in the very mind of God. How else could He be said to sustain reality or what else does it mean for God to be all in all?
@@dondrejames1679 You're missing my point entirely.
@@Artek604 please explain
Looking forward to this, thank you. Jonathan, please find a way to get on the Lex Fridman Podcast, or get him on yours.
Trash recommendation
@@dust-mane fact
@@dust-mane good job coming up with a constructive comment right out of the gate.
Lex Friedman would be a good guest only towards getting more attention on Jonathan, he's really uninteresting as a thinker
@@HeloIV Lex is a great interviewer, as he asks great questions and engages the way an interviewer should (which is why I'd rather see JP on Lex's show than the other way around). Perhaps less interesting as a guest, but I think a lot of that has to do with his flat affectations. He's young, intelligent, and hungry for wisdom, though, which makes him far more interesting than most.
On second listen I’m realizing how Mormon / New Age NewGnostic his presuppositions are
they're better than regular christian doctrine at explaining reality. As long as God is recognized as separate from us the people who worship in this manner will never really encounter Him. If God is seen as the awareness of being (I am, that I am) then people can find Him within themselves. God is not separate from anyone or even anything, and Hell is a human mental construct not a place God made to destroy the children He loves unconditionally.
@@dondrejames1679 the way that the Christian tradition reads “I am, that I am” is by invoking divine simplicity. Which is to say that there is no essence that pre-exists Gods existence. His very essence is to exist. God is not an awareness of being. As Aquinas says, God is not in any genus, even the genus of being.
@@mariog1490 that definition makes no sense. "Divine Simplicity" sounds like jargon for "we don't know". Understanding God as awareness of being better explains His nature especially in relation to creation. It isn't a category of existence, and helps to explain why God has no physical form. It also clarifies the meaning of various verses far better than the idea that God is separate from man. This version of God is far more powerful and not incompetent in His dealings with His creation. God is also not a monster who condemns most of humanity to hell for their foolish choices in this life. The message of Jesus was ruined when he alone was made the Son of God after his death. The idea that he was perhaps the greatest mystic to walk the Earth better explains the mystery of his parables than what is commonly taught in many christian churches.
Nope. Just good old Kant.
@@dondrejames1679 what is "Regular" Christian doctrine? Clearly not Orthodoxy with the crap you just spewed
1:09:00 This way of describing the role of memory fits right into Glen’s idea that entropy is a kind of forgetting. It would be fun to unpack that. Glen is the physicist who often appears on The Meaning Code.
Fascinating! Is there one or several conversations which you could recommend specifically?
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026
This one is a compilation of the ideas I got from Glen. I will also try to find one where he talks about it himself. Flying Solo: Entropy is the Price that must be Paid for the the Gift of Computational Reducibility
czcams.com/video/2obfvuEfMMo/video.html
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026
Episode six on this playlist has some discussion of the forgetfulness issue and has excellent links and resources for the study of entropy.
czcams.com/play/PLoARw9zo4EUZhxqfaqYU5yjy0-Tr8RlB4.html
Thx very great questions for Don!
“Knowing yourself by what you are not”. Every Canadian understands this statement.
Everything I’m not made me everything I am - kanye west
Hierarchy just means sacred order, no need to invent new words that mean exactly that, in the sacred order there are things sideways to each other, I mean look at a cross, look at a tree, they are hierarchical because there is a higher order that organizes that reality in that manner.
When you’re desperately hiding from reality you need to invent new words
I’d recommend the book Dispelling Wetiko by Paul Levy. It is a great exploration of evil and its nature as one of the primary conscious actors that acts as the foundation for the more complex actors causing suffering.
The discussion of the false mind sounds real similar to the concept of Wetiko as a necessary part of ourselves and the world that is purely parasitic, that only exists in the negative space created by marking out what is from what isn’t through creation. When a candle is lit in a vacuum, it simultaneously creates the shadow in the places where the light is not.
Vouching for that 1st paragraph
Great. Please converse further. Thank you.
As Paul said "I am all things too all people". These are the head sets we put on. Or as Shakespear wrote, all the world's a stage...building on Epictetus's exhortation to play our roles well.
I like the way you think, it's very much like how Jordan Peterson creates a map of meaning. It opens the door to understanding the symbolic worldview that Pageau is attempting to demonstrate.
Starting near 1:07 the key word is finite. Finite is limited, and limitation is suffering. If it isn't finite, it is part of the eternal divine transcendent. Finite, other, is definitionally limited.
The problem I see with his approach is that is seems to be accessible only to the few people that are part of that field of expertise and can understand their technical language. For instance, how can I benefit from it? At best I will get a popularized and dumbed down TED talk. I'd rather take attending Divine Liturgy.
Yes and at that it’s not going to answer any of the meta level questions like he admits. Yet he comes in with Gnostic presuppositions on theology and lazy ecumenist statements about “all the spiritual traditions are trying to say is ______”
Accessibility problem is easily solvable - I have just replied about it in a parallel comment.
They have a technical language which only insiders can understand; that doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t a nontechnical language for the ideas to be communicated. Think about it like this: a lot of highly integrated, interdisciplinary fieldwork must exist for a theory like this to get off the ground, meaning these different scientists must be talking to each other in ways that they can understand, despite what may be true of the mathematician’s technical language in connection with the cognitive psychologist’s technical language. One scientist gets a lay explanation from a different kind of scientist, just as the layman will get one from all scientists. It’s not an especially terrible thing.
And I would like to ask you this: why did you put “attending Divine Liturgy” in competition with “his approach” as a pop-scientist?
I was thinking the same thing. Even if Hoffman is onto something, it's so, so very arcane that virtually nobody will really get their heads around the proofs and see why they're convincing. (I've listened to him for hours, and I still have no real sense of how such proofs could make any sense.) Seems powerless to reshape the way people believe in the future, even if it might turn out to be correct.
@@TrotterG See his papers
Objects of consciousness
Fact, Fiction, and Fitness
The Interface Theory of Perception (Springer)
Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception
These papers have lots of relevant math, and text descriptions, explanations, and discussion. Everything is extensively detailed there.
Sorry it's impossible to post links or DOI codes to these papers under this video.
The problem with the virtual tennis ball is that the example relies on counterfactuals, for it to make sense it needs real tennis balls not to exist. Because if you do play tennis with a material ball and you call that a virtual ball you still have the continuity of the ball. Yes, a virtual ball is virtual, but if you play with a virtual ball and then you say it doesn't exist you're just insane and solipsistic.
I’m finding this more and more from a lot of these videos. There is so much Gnosticism drenched in these conversations that I don’t know what to do about it. Reality is not just “consciousness” unfortunately.
I really like your comment. There is, no matter what, real materials. We have almost become so afraid of materialism that a lot of these people are just swinging the other way without addressing the materialism that brought these science types here in the first place. I hope that makes sense. To summarize, we abandoned the “discarded image” went to full blown materialism and now swinging back to platonism or something which is creating this cultural gnostic sense no doubt in part of new technology like the internet.
Put me in a batting cage with baseballs flying at me at 80 mph and I see the baseball as a white blue, if I see it at all.
Put Pete Rose in the cage with the same ball, and he sees each seam and the rotation and it's arc.
The same ball and yet not the same ball. Two different relationships. The ball is real but really in different relationships
1:11:30
@@stevenschwartz765 no it’s just the same ball, you’re have different perceptions doesn’t make the ball a different ball in any way. Lame stoner reasoning
@@GoySlopBurritoBar a fast white blur is very different from a slow moving baseball with stitching rotating a certain way. Both can see the ball similarly when it is static and not moving. 80mph coming at you is not the same ball. It is in a different relationship.
Can someone post a link to Prof. Hoffman's "mathematical model"? I would like to see the actual equations.
I just posted links, but seems youtube is blocking that comment.
See his papers
Objects of consciousness
Fact, Fiction, and Fitness
The Interface Theory of Perception (Springer)
Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception
These papers have lots of relevant math, and text descriptions, explanations, and discussion. Everything is extensively detailed there.
Sorry it's impossible to post links or DOI codes to these papers under this video.
@@GiedriusMisiukas I found Objects of consciousness. Thanks
I created this, but I can't pull d plug. Sorry peeps, i just forgot how.
I think it was a good conversation to get some insights and see the differences but obviously we didn’t get to hear much about his mathematical approach to it.
He says something like “there is no room for dogma of the Truth since there is an infinite amount of knowledge to get there”. First of all, is what you said dogmatically true? It seem it is to you, yet you are denying it. There is room for set truths in whatever the level of knowledge you are in, the key is that you admit humbly that your set knowledge doesn’t exhaust Truth, and yet it doesn’t contradict it nor is superfluous or denied by a higher truth. Truth works its way down without ever denying itself at any level, it is necessarily consistent and harmonious.
Could someone help me find the quote in St. Gregory of Nazianzus regarding the angels of the right hand of God, and the angels of the left hand of God mentioned into the video?
Thank you!
Consciousness can indeed be (meta)mathematized via “self-reference”.
The term "proving" seems to imply hierarchy of systems (which might be intended). How about "translating"? Translating ancient wisdom in mathematics.
Aren’t Dr Hoffman (and I would argue others) who are seeking to define consciousness through its component parts essentially going down the same road as natural theology. It seems doomed to fail as he mentions that you can understand the component parts and never explain consciousness because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In the same way, I can understand everything about reality and still not fully understand God who lies above reality. Like others, Dr Hofmann seems to dismiss God out of hand yet aspire to define God themselves. It seems Sam Harris pursues the same fool’s errand all in a vain effort to avoid naming God as God rather than consciousness (beyond consciousness) or the basis of ethics/morality.
This. I was throughouly unimpressed by this. Least enjoyable pageau episode ever
@@theYungOldBoi Hoffman is generally unimpressive. It's like an autistic teenager teaching others about his latest discoveries
Yeah, seems this professor guy has a lot of foundational assumptions he cant account for that he bases the rest of his worldview on.
Pretty sure this guy said many times that scientific theories can't provide a comprehensive vision of the truth but that they serve to form specific understandings of what we believe in order to get beyond them. I don't know how you can get out of that that he dismissed God out of hand or is trying to "explain" consciousness from its parts when on many occasions in this conversation he said he was exposing the shortfalls in existing scientific theories of consciousness and also that the truth cannot be grasped scientifically.
@@clivemakongo it's the autistic outlook on things. "But but...theory of evolution says...!" why? Because "science" says. Not much science in grasping a theory closer than any other theory
The Symbolic World is lifting the veils,- this was a great conversation :)
I loved the image of truth revealing more and more of itself as it loses body until only the Kingdom remains. It's such a beautiful image.
?
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026 Pageau gives this image when he's talking about apophaticism and the moving into the higher levels shedding stuff from the lower ones.
Thank you. I don’t think I quite see the beauty myself. Something to ponder.
I worry about losing body. And yet Santa Caterina stopped eating and she was a force.
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026 we all do. Another way to look at it would be to give up the body for it to be restored, like a buff soldier dying for his country, and to give up the passions for the right love. Even working out could be done in an ascetic fashion, the point is to sacrifice for a greater goal. To walk into the darkness and find the light in it that will carry you over. We don't know the challenge we will have to face, but you can face it with courage and humility. God bless you.
Thanks
I would love to hear you and Inspiring Philosophy have a discussion
16:08 there's a big leap there, because what is evolutionary theory standing on (based on) to be able to say that? seems to me like a pulling yourself by your bootstraps kind of situation.
Yeah this is a trash interview. I respect JPs effort but this was cooked
To Jonathan's point on the "demons" actually moving to some higher will. You said murder is not good, I agree. But maybe those demons serve as a reminder to the conscious that murder is not good...which is good.
Perfection is not a static destination.
Creative leap up? Do you mean a leap of faith?
0:19 always approaching, but never reaching the infinite consciousness. My paraphrase. Imo the definition of infinity is that which 2 is no closer to than 1.
For all of Hoffman’s talk about scientific rigour, it seems like he’s already got some intimation of what his theory will produce - namely, warmed over Alan Watts.
haha
seems more real that what the church offers. You seem to be good with the dream, but those of us seeking what is real cannot be satisfied with the shitty illusion of reality as it is perceived. Most will suffer forever under the old doctrine. God is fool the way the church believes because He can't even save most people in the frame of the story that's currently told. God under the mystical understanding is infinitely greater.
@@dondrejames1679
wish I knew what the hell you were saying lol
@@dondrejames1679if God ever dares to plan or to will anything you already could or would accuse him of "lowering himself" or "undergoing humiliating limitations". You then either accept that God's infinite wisdom allows him a perfect will that may look humiliating or lowly to you or you reject a notion of a God altogether. To seek God specifically is to recognize that you can't judge him based on your limited perception of his will or power
You’re in this world, but not of it.
You’re in the head set, but not of it
You should have Wolfgang Smith on the show.
Totally
I saw this appear on my feed and couldn't be happier; after speaking with him myself, I am thrilled to see Jonathan take the theology aspect even further!
@34:00 Gödel's theorem is MUCH, MUCH stronger than "no scientific theory of everything". The theorem says there's no theory of everything, period, scientific or otherwise. Any theory which can in any way be communicated, or even which in principle can be in any way remotely be thought of as "communicable", or "transferable", or able to be "taught" or "divulged" in any kind of way whatsoever, is incomplete or inconsistent.
I really hope Pagaue can get past the Gnosticism of a lot of this corner of the internet. I’m starting to see it very overtly and it is a little worrisome.
I admit that I'm starting to wonder in some of his discussions if he doesn't get too close to Gnosticism. There are times when it is hard for me to see the Christianity I experienced in Church and reading the Holy Fathers when Jon tries to explain some stuffs in these super vague and complicated terms.
Well honestly I didn’t notice until I actually did some digging on Gnosticism (shout out to Byrne Power) and I just immediately thought about Pagaue and then I got sad 😞
@@sfappetrupavelandrei Just because it seems vague and complicated to you doesn’t make it gnostic. Pageau just utilizes symbolism from the church fathers. Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa mainly.
@@nickdelacruz4229 I think I've read most of the works of Saint Maximus the Confessor and things felt a lot more clear (in relation to Christ) than how Jon presents things.
I'm not claiming I know better. I'm no genius in symbolism so I may be mistaken. But for my level of understanding, I sometimes struggle to see Eastern Orthodoxy in what Jon explains.
Also, I have strong doubts that he takes his symbolism from there. I believe that his way of thinking has at its roots Saint Maximus and Saint Gregory but his symbolic language is taken from your every day secularism. Just follow careful his discussions about God with Jordan Peterson & friends. He tries as much as possible to avoid a religious language. So he tries to explain the faith through symbolism. Secular symbolism.
You keep throwing around the word Gnosticism and that you are worried. I don't care that you are worried. If you think I should be worried, then you will have to a lot better in explaining how either speaker's view is Gnosticism and how that is an issue. If you can't, then your comment is just sowing doubt without foundation, which is best avoided.
Fascinating although hopefully we don't/won't fall in the trap of finding what we want to find rather than what actually is.
6:00 isn't saying we don't perceive reality, a perception of reality?
Great conversation, wonderful questions, just a few notes:
Evolution doesn't tell you anything, it isn't an agent. What is 'fundamental' in this context? More importantly, why does that mater at all?
I don't think theories tell us anything either. At least, not about reality, just about our own thinking (which is subject to our senses).
The assumption that dogmatism causes wheel spinning is interesting. What if you require dogma? Now what?
Things don't exist when you don't sense them?! That is pretty crazy, I mean, I'm against objective material reality, but wow, that is out there.
I love how the science folks are catching up to thousand year old philosophy. I'm not impressed by this apparent regression, but at least it's amusing!
Garbage collect?! Those are computer terms. No, our brain works nothing like that. This is pretty bad. No need for 'garbage collection' in your brain.
These are not new metaphors. This is pretty out there talk, ultimately. Just a new way to understand using new technology, but again, these are really old philosophical discussions that have definitive answers, in fact. For example, things don't exist by themselves, physics says this (observer problem) for example, but also, a thing cannot be outside of those things around it.
His concept of herterarchy is nuts. It is included in hierarchy, so he's just a very narrow thinker, how fascinating.
Mathematics force you to do things?! Another magic agent in the world.
So all he's said is that you need two things and primacy is with the relationship (pattern). Precision isn't going to occur here, there are three free variables you cannot measure to account for, so that is somewhat a strange idea. Precision is likely just magic speak for 'we can science this and control it' - more playing God.
Fractals are not self-similar structures, that is a sub-type of fractals, it's a little nit pic I have with this term as it is often misused. There are self similar fractals but the original fractals are not self similar. It is mostly a type of mathematics that is used to describe non-linear (not smooth) systems like coastlines. Taleb talks about this somewhat, but Benoit Mandelbrot is the big dog in this field and his writing on this is super accessible.
I would argue that there is very limited precision in fractal (chaos) math. In fact, that is the point, you use fractions to calculate with chaos theory, that is what makes it work. Doing this means that precision doesn't converge to an answer.
If your theory doesn't have an answer, why bother pursuing it? This is nihilism in action, it is the (I'll argue, perhaps I'm wrong) the inevitable result of trying to have certainty around such things.
I like that the religious tradition was already here, before science, has an answer but more importantly a pragmatic way of implementation that doesn't require scientific knowledge or really any epistemology at all. Bonus, seems like religion is far more inclusive.
Deep truths? Projection? So utopia exists, but we live in a projection? This solves science I suppose, but it's just as useless. So we postulate a 'real' world that doesn't have the limitations of our projection (in which we a trapped). This is a lot like simulation theory, actually. Amazingly short sighted.
Apparently the primacy of knowledge is supposed to help the spiritual folks? I think that is pretty out there. More likely that science will find out they were right all along. If we have to bring people to spirituality through science (which I believe is likely impossible) then how did anyone get spiritual in the past? This just makes no sense.
Wait, now the projection is part of the fundamental reality?! I think he's badly mis-reading evolution because he won't submit to the idea of creation, much like everyone else who is doing this crazy science of spirituality stuff.
Woah, objective reality?! But if reality is the interaction, then it isn't objective. This should be obvious, honestly, if no one builds a car, then they aren't real. There are ways in which we can have a limitation, to build a Dyson sphere or a ship big enough to take everyone off the planet, only one of those would be real and only after it was built. Therefore, there cannot be an objective reality - it depends upon us.
The limit of science is creation. Now, you can put the Telos into evolution, or in the creation itself, or both. However, you cannot put it nowhere. If evolution is a process of discovery (otherwise it doesn't manifest) then it's discovering something that was created. Denying creation itself is still the problem - no one wants to submit - middle out thinking.
So removing your headset takes you out of the matrix and allows you to be better. I think he's watched the Matrix too many or too few times, not sure which.
Why does consciousness do that to itself?! So consciousness is the beginning and the end? Again, this is just avoiding creation. The universe for these folks begins and ends with consciousness. So middle out! All to avoid some submission to the reality that you were born into something that preceded you.
Wait a minute, did he just say the physical reality isn't the primal so the materialist view of the world doesn't work, now they need something science doesn't talk about to fix it. That is how he explains some great person existing in a broken body? Wild.
The cult of consciousness is here. Middle out thinking indeed.
Consciousness lets itself go to sleep? So it is the primary agent now?
What an example, they wake and up realize they weren't the evil they thought they were?! MORE original sin restated but this time with redemption built in. Holy cow. Golden calf of consciousness indeed.
How on earth can you get a mathematically precise theory of consciousness? Given that we are all wearing headsets? This is so contradictory it's hard to understand. I can see why people are confused by all this.
Prove theorems about this sort of thing? Why? We can just act it out and have participatory knowledge of it instead, much quicker, easier and accessible without science.
So much for warning him against Gnosticism, he's just slipping back into it over and over without any way out. Again, he needs to watch the Matrix, or he's completely incorporated it into his being. Not sure which.
So no rigorous/scientific models is bad? Seems good to me, this is epistemology, preferring propositional knowledge that can be easily transferred to others for validation (which is all science is ultimately). Why do we need to merge these things? I don't think this is reasonable or logical or rational, it's just an axiomatic statement that ignores Godel entirely, even though he invoked him earlier.
Interesting - as someone approaching the video fresh - Flesh out the ideas a little more and add time stamps my friend. I am sure there are some great ideas here, but they are more like a stream of consciousness than fully developed ideas/responses that have the time and energy they deserve.
@@fritzco55 Thanks. laziness abounds. Too many videos and too little time to do things justice. I'll try to do a better job of making it smoother, but timestamps are really hard to do without a bunch of work.
@@marklefebvre5758 fair point. I also believe great conversations and ideas are worth the time and effort. I’m trying to tie in some of the points as I go, I’m also at work and know it’s tough to write it all out sometimes.
~Cheers, and best regards!
What is the idea of submitting to creation? Which creation? I thought evolution was solid
@@peterrosqvist2480 Evolution happens after creation, so it is never addressed in any of the theories, hypothesis, ideas or inferences of evolution. This comes out rather clearly in the Peterson talk with Dawkins, near the end.
I like the conversation, but I have to wonder what to do now
You have to understand that God's has a Will, which is given to us by his Word, Jesus Christ. May His Will be done when you make your choice and you should pray that your will and His Will align or you will have to face situations that will make you remember His Word because you cannot escape reality.
I think there's a great convo between these two, but this wasn't it
okay we can't talk technical details of the math, but what sort of mathematical things is Donald "running", and how does he get from his math to the narratives he says are correct? What sort of evolutionary game theory is proving our sensual experience is completely divorced from this other separate, more real thing? Where does the math "disprove" Christian thought and how might Jonathan address that?
this was kinda Jonathan saying thing A, and Donald being like, "yeah I totally agree the math says thing A is right"
51:29
How to exit d game other than suicide?
This was interesting. Lines up with the fun part of the JRE with Triggernometry where they smoked weed and talked briefly about the structures of the universe and infinity as a part of an atom of a higher being that still doesn't meet the scope of the source of all being, which exists beyond all things and from which everything emanates. It was so interesting, I seriously considered dming PVK about it, lol. I was surprised by how open DH was to the spiritual side of the equation (to go with the math theme) but pleased. He makes me want to understand how a mathematical model could possibly apply rigor to the ancient wisdom traditions' notions.
20:00 min in. It's interesting that the dude doesn't seem to understand the basic tenet of Hoffman's hypothesis, given that he has a lot of related knowledge. I would say that it's probably exactly due to all that prior knowledge he carries in his mind that burdens him. I - without all that prior philosophical knowledge - find the first tenet of Hoffman's hypothesis pretty straightforward...
What does a dolphin or dog see? Must be very different and very concrete.
great interview
Is it opposite day?
When he gives us his telos about consciousness losing itself in the headset in order to know itself, that is, by knowing what is not knows what is. It begs to ask it seems odd that consciousness didn’t know itself in the first place and so needed a headset to know itself! It begs to ask is there a consciousness that is the beginning and end of all knowledge? And doesn’t need to lose itself? It must be if there are consciousnesses that need to lose themselves to know themselves, for that knowledge is already known or otherwise it cannot be, thus we are in God’s consciousness.
I laughed when he said the religious types would have their views shattered when the math comes in. "We all gotta be wrong together"
Listens to his ass he is trying to save more than his heart God wrote His Word on.
Yeah this convo was very weak and fell flat with Jonathan's lack of defending Theology
@@theYungOldBoi
It's always so vague " the math says" or "the math suggests". Or implications of pattern without substance to sustain the image.
You totally misunderstood what Hoffman was saying.
Yeah definitely going to have to watch this twice 🤣🤣
Bottom line for me is this: reality isn't real, but the experience of it IS.
What do you mean? I totally see it backwards. We can have experiences that aren’t real but reality by definition is what is real
@@peterrosqvist2480 Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind, although his allegory states that there is ultimately a real and true reality, but the point is that until then we live in a cave of illusions, but the experience is always real, even if what we experience is an illusion. But even without this allegory, quantum physics for example states for the most part that on a more fundamental level reality is completely different from what we experience it, this is a very difficult thing to grasp, but the gap is nonetheless there, between what we experience as reality, and what reality presents itself really to be on a quantum level of subatomic particles and ultimately fields, which is the building blocks of reality, and even without quantum physics, reality can't be gtasped without an observer, so whatever the reality looks like, it is always subjective to the observer, but the observation itself is the only thing which is real and objective, because without it there wouldn't be any reality to observe.
I was quite excited and happy with the conversation, but the last 10 minutes I couldn't look at the screen while listening. Somehow felt sorry for the awkward theology.
53:25
wth right hand? Omelettes are delicious
I like Julian Jaynes' theory on consciousness, being it was learnt and came from language. With that, analogies could be made between external, spatial phenomena and one's mind to constructed a metaphorical space with which an ego could inhabit and will action. We "store" and "retrieve" memories, have a certain "perspective" on thing, "carry" guilt, and "seek" knowledge. Consciousness is used to make decisions and plans-iirc Jaynes calls those "structions"-but not for carrying them out; when we are thinking or performing a simple task, we aren't actually conscious. It's unconscious, automatic thinking executing a struction. Haven't you ever been thinking absentmindedly, then suddenly find the solution to a problem you've been having, or recall that thing you annoyingly forgot? In contrast, an animal's mentality is similar to what people experience in a (non-lucid) dream, where one carries out actions without deciding to and isn't introspecting while observing the dream's events. Before the Bronze Age Collapse, man had a bicameral mind, where one side of the brain made decisions based on past experience, and commanded the other side of the brain via auditory hallucinations to execute them.
Analogue on top of analogue. Yes, Jaynes needs to be revisited, needs to enter the corner.
Nice concept .. that means humans woke up in the dream
You clearly do not understand what consciousness is.
The only problem with Hoffman is that you can not make that which is imprecise precise. The telos of existence is to experience it.
Sounds like Teilhardism
Looks like some took a bigger bite of the Apple than others!
👏👏👏
Donald wants to model the interactions of consciousness... But isn't that what the light all around us is already doing? I guess he is more looking for the patterns within the model we have and then modeling the patterns
This one comment IMO is everything... this is a grand slam homerun baseloaded bottom of the 9th comment.
W
what do you mean by light?
@@dondrejames1679 the 'outside', intentions, anything you taste, touch, see, hear, smell and what drifts away from you when you remain still. The light is what makes you different from me and the light is different for any one person to the next, and thus when we come together we delight.
@@theYungOldBoi of course a sportsman would pick up what I'm putting down :D now get back on the field we got games to win!
People crapping on Donald, really need to look at their own attitudes. This is a very short version of his beliefs. There are many 3.5 hour long interviews, where he explains more in detail, obviously enough for Jonathan to be interested in talking to. Slightly disgusted by some of the comments below, from the NPC's. Open your minds & your hearts. "take your headset off"
The tennis ball doesnt cease to exist because there is an ultimate mind perceiving it which is God. The theory of George Berkley.
Yeah and cause it just exists...
Where da math?
It's literally the Reign of heaven
“all this is unreal in comparison to God, but to the extent that it is real, then it is real; it can be something like transfigured, that it can lead us towards mystery, if we engage with what we see properly.”
evil fight evil. Good can't fight evil. evil is illusion, temporary. Good is real, ontológic.
Ehhhhh. The ‘head set interface model’ gets dangerously close over and over again to Gnosticism or just a general denigration of the body as half of a person.
Interface or not. Christ condescended into one, blessing all such ‘interfaces and games’. It is the body that is Transfigured. Even the very body of the earth and cosmos itself.
Right on the money. We aren't merely 160 lbs sacks of flesh in grand AI generated universe. We are noetic beings.
It was a pleasure to watch the premiere! Thanks to Jonathan and all in chat today ☺️
Hi Jonathan. Just an idea for a video. Take a look at Iron Maiden's videoclip "The Writing on the Wall". It's so full of symbolism. I think you will love it. (Note: the mummy/skull character that appears in various forms is Eddie, the mascot of the band).
Iron maiden 👎
Been waiting for this one!
Disappointment or Enjoyed?
If evolution doesn't, through its unfolding, encode objective reality then perhaps the notion of objective has become distorted. The second definition of "objective" in a dictionary is "a goal that is striven for". And evolved organisms can reasonably be said to strive for goals. The reality that they perceive in order to reach these goals, is it really improper to call it objective reality?
Great conversation! This will be helpful to many viewers.
Many good Christians have a healthy life style but do struggle with leading a sexually pure life or don’t think it’s a sin to cohabitate. So basically no one is sinless and perfection is a myth. One can only do what they can and try not to pluck the dirt in other people’s eyes.
This is gnosticism of a kind.
I dont buy his GTA headset analogy for one second. If you look away from the red Camaro in real life, it can still crash into you from behind without you seeing it coming...
But does the curve flatten at some point. For example level 1 million relative to level 1 million 100.
Relativity
This dudes arm keeps leaping out of space and time! Strange background
So cool! The Collab you hope for but don't expect.
Cantor grounded all of his infinity's in one ABSOLUTE INFINITE which he equated with God, and all infinity's exist in God's Mind
Fifteen minutes of this was all I could stand. You never know when Jonathan is going to make a good point, so I may come back and listen to the rest. I would be very surprised if Mr. "fractal" and "quantum" is going to make any good points.
? Fractals are literally the patterns of God.
Each branch of the tree participates in the previous limb before it, yet it is also separate and individual. Every fractal is a unification of Individual and Collective.
Humans are fractals, trees, rivers, mountains, lightning, days and years. Each part has a substance, and an essence. Just as a branch is made in the image of the tree, we are made in the image of god, and everything with us.
Fractals are literally at the core of Christianity.
@@KizaWittaker Fractals exist in many forms in nature because the cells and structures reproduce themselves by following simple repeatable rules.
@@watermelonlalala And where do those rules come from?
@@KizaWittaker You could say "God" or you could say that great Romanesco broccoli in the sky. "One of the most striking examples is the Romanesco broccoli. Each spiral forms part of a larger spiral that, in turn forms part of an even larger spiral." I think to tell humans that the fractal is "God" or religion or whatever is to encourage them to be a brick in the wall, a cog in the machine, an unthinking, obedient part of the whole.
@@watermelonlalala No you couldn’t say the Broccoli, because the broccoli isn’t the only thing that participates in that pattern. We also participate in that pattern and yet we are not broccoli. Both human and broccoli participate in that pattern because we are both images of Gods creation, as is everything else.
It is to tell them to be a brick in the wall, to be in concordance with all of creation. And you have to make sure your brick is as squared and leveled as possible to be a perfect fit, so you don’t disrupt any of Gods creation, lest you be cast out from participating, or walking with God.
I can see where some would find problems with what Dr. Hoffman says. But it doesn’t change that this was a very profound conversation for “me”. To the point where I see myself listening again and again. Great as always Jonathan (Maximus if I may). Dominus Tecum- God be with you!
What? Virtual reality does not map onto life like that.
thank you so much Jonathan & Donald🕊🌺🌿🙏🏼
This was great! I hope JP Marceau will also interview him. That would be an instant classic
Definitely worth having a look into Electric Universe theory. So many themes are tied up nicely in it. From my perspective, relativity is a consequence of moral relativist philosophy and quantum physics from post-modernism.
The attempt to force the projection of the individual false self to be "real" is original sin. The "internal aspect" of the self which pushes this forward is Satan.
The more I listen to this scientist the more I want him far away from my faith....with all his tests and theories.
He's a spiritual nuclear plant.
Everyone's amazed until a meltdown.
Your analogy strikes in me a terrifying chord
that just sounds like fear overtaking reason because Hoffman's studies take you to an unfamiliar place. If your faith is threatened by science instead of enhanced, then it's pretty weak to begin with. Science and God are not at odds.
A concert pianist and I walk by a piano. Both could agree in a scientific lens that we are looking at the same physical piano. But between the two of us we don't experience the piano or even see it the same way.
The addition to this is that with great mercy. The concert pianist can lower themselves and invite me in to a higher shared experience of the piano
And to take the metaphor further, if a piano tuner/technician also looked at the piano or into it, they would experience the instrument in a much different and deeper way than either of the first two
@@bluecrystalwolfqueen9268 the tuner definitely knows more detail but no one gathers around the tuner while he is doing his job. He in fact needs to do his job isolated from others
@@stevenschwartz765 true that. I also just realized, without the tuner's unseen contribution, the experience of the piano from the view of both the concert pianist and the non-pianist observer would also be affected.
Though from my understanding, God is more like the technician/tuner, in that even if He makes a part of objective reality a certain way, we as less intelligent creatures will never fully grasp all the "mechanics" of how his creations work and reveal His glory, at least not in this life...not sure about how that'd work in eternity
@@bluecrystalwolfqueen9268 McGilchrist books deal exactly with that topic. Whether the mindset of tuner/mechanics are primary or the playing of music.
Did the tuner come first and then piano ,then piano player or desire for music, player, piano, how can we make music better (tuner)
It is the question of seeing God as a great engineer or dancer