The Death of SpaceTime & Birth of Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2017
- Spacetime is doomed. It, and its particles, cannot be fundamental in physical theory, but must emerge from a more fundamental theory. I review the converging evidence for this claim from physics and evolution, and then propose a new way to think of spacetime: as a data-compressing and error-correcting channel for information about fitness. I propose that a theory of conscious agents is a good candidate for the more fundamental theory to replace
spacetime. Spacetime then appears as one kind of interface for communication between conscious agents.
Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and author of more than 90 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See (W.W. Norton, 2000). He received his BA from UCLA in Quantitative Psychology and his Ph.D. from MIT in Computational Psychology. He joined the faculty of UC Irvine in 1983, where he is now a full professor in the departments of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research into visual perception, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. He was chosen by students at UC Irvine to receive a campus-wide teaching award, and to be included in Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers. Hoffman studies visual perception, visual attention and consciousness using mathematical models, computer simulations, and psychological experiments. His empirical research has led to new insights into how we perceive objects, colors and motion. His theoretical research has led to a “user interface” theory of perception-which proposes that natural selection shapes our perceptions not to report truth but simply to guide adaptive behavior. It has also led to a “conscious realism” theory of consciousness-which proposes a formal model of consciousness and the mind-body problem that takes consciousness as fundamental.
"Intersubjective agreement does not mean objective truth."
Eureka! on point
Does this speaker assume/believe that objective truth/reality does exist? Or does he only use the terms (objective truth/reality) in order to show how his theory is different than traditional space time theory? If we don't see reality "as it truly is", then how can we assume or prove that objective reality exists. Maybe our perceptional systems (that exist in order to forage for fitness) are our true reality. Maybe the concept "objective" does not exist at all. There is only "shared reality" or "agreed upon" reality, and our "individual" reality. And these realities only exist when we are observing the reality or when we are remembering the past shared/agreed upon reality.
The truth has nothing to do with how many people believe it.
@I am -> Are you sure that "You are", Mr. "I am"? What if your interface is buggy? What if "You were once" or "You will be maybe"? What if something deep beneath is just playing with your data? How can you know what is real?
I agree.
@jenny henley: I’ve read his book and listened to a lot of his talks. Based on what I’ve heard, I do believe Hoffman believes there is an objective reality but what we perceive with our senses is not what objective reality is. What we see as real is just a structure of shorthand fitness payoff representations that doesn’t represent what the fundamental reality actually is.
This and the collapsing of a wave function by observation reminds me a lot of Buddhism. In Buddhism, things only exist as a result of conscious interaction with the Universe.
"When people asked Buddha what he was teaching, he said he teaches "the way things are." He said nobody should believe his teachings out of faith, but instead they should examine for themselves to see if they are true or not. "
Taoism has a lot of similarities to this too. Not surprising when you look at average IQ distribution on a world map.
Collapsing of a wave function isn’t from a conscious being tho. It’s the detector that must receive information and to do that it interferes with the wave properties
@@LiMitZplus not until the consciousness examines the detectors results can the wave function be said to have collapsed. It leads to all sorts of interesting concepts; like Retrospective Causality & Co.
Vedas and Upanishads are pretty much about the same thing. Precedes Buddhism.
I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is that … one has to find a possibility to avoid the space-time continuum altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory.
- Albert Einstein (1954)
“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last
analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human
thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]. -Albert Einstein
Antony Stringfellow stop quoting Einstein. He left his wife and married his niece. He is garbage...
(maby)) Albert was trying to find a physical explanation to a spiritual Quest? Albert was all about the physical.
Quotes without context to mislead.
@@PaulSebastianM do you feel misled? Or perhaps just out of context.
Contrary to the mainstream consensus.....suicide IS sometimes the answer (but only when even drugs have let you down).
It's not unrealistic to think that by Halloween you could be deep into the labrinth of addiction to NON-socially acceptable narcotics, and with just a tiny bit of motivation....stone dead, hanging in the basement with a string of christmas lights around your neck, just in time for JC's B-day!!
That being the only logical outcome, I say why procrastinate???? Get after it man!!!! Jesus is waiting to tell you how badly we have all let him down and how he has given up the 'water walking' to pursue other endeavors. Like latenight strip club buffet/salad bar design using the most modern techniques of interrior decorating.
I talking; strobe effect and disco ball- heat lamps!!!! Combination condom/condiment dispensers at every table 👍👍(cant be bad)
And table cloths that say :
if you can read this...the bitch fell off! A' la carte menu 'tramp stamped' on the waitress just above an ass that smells like stale beer, Purell hand sanitizer and the garbage can after mondays shrimp night! Get a lapdance while you chose an appetizer.
Soup of the day will ALWAYS be the same leftover pot of bad Hormel chili w/ beans (with just a hint of cilantro and chlamydia) if anyone ever eats any, the music stops, the girls sit down and we all just watch them for the rest of the night.
So get to it buster....we are all waiting on you to continue with the remainder of our lives/prison sentences.
F.YI. the reason that monday is shrimp and clams night...so now when someone says "what is that fukin stench in this place?", the strippers can point to the buffet table....instead of each other. (still only 20% chance of being right, but every inch part of a mile, right??!!)
I'm an old acid-head and I approve of this message.
George Smiley 😊 🤩☀️🌞🏄😜
Im an old acid-head and I approve of....the neighbors kid that helps me carry my groceries home from the library....or pumps my gas at McDonald's.
I DO NOT approve of the relentless effort by the governments clandestine alphabet agencies to prevent congress from mandating- oreo cookies, swiss miss coco and king-sized tootsie rolls- being officially recognized as our 'national stew'.
This shit ends NOW!
Common' man......who's coming with me??!!??
Same here bro
@@jasonmcmurry1281 You might've taken too much bud
George Smiley 😂✌️
What I find most interesting is the fact that consciousness can and does come to know itself in a way beyond concepts, in a direct and undeniable way that slips down from concepts into simply the experience of being prior to concepts or thoughts or mental reflections on the reality of being. And that in this simple being, the essence of all that is is known.
This understanding of the Universal nature of reality, of one’s ultimate and essential Self being the totality, being all beings, being the one consciousness peering out from all sets of eyeballs from all beings throughout all space and time, of being the very life force that powers all life forms, is pretty cool, to say the least.
@P-Nut Buttah also, burning women at the stake was a myth
@P-Nut Buttah vegetarians never have bigger fish to fry
I'm assuming you paid attention to the video so see if you can help me with this:
So, he argues that spacetime has no casual power (as it is only an interface that hides deeper data, having it no connection to the truth whatsoever) and therefore our brain and its activity cannot be the cause of our consciousness. That being said, where does our consciousness come from? He claims that conscious agents are the source of everything we take for reality (its physical construction being merely a practical representation of an error correcting code for fitness; thus basing his theory on survival and reproduction being the very purpose of our existence), including our own perception of consciousness. He defines a conscious agent as the relationship between experience, actions, and the world; according to him, agents of those would interact with eachother to create a network which is fundamentally what reality consists of and therefore the originator of every object including our brain.
Now, knowing that consciousness doesn't come from unsentient matter, but, instead, from conscious agents, there are two questions I have in mind. Number one: what would be fundamentally necessary for the creation of a conscious agent? And number two (which is a little more philosophical): why do conscious agents and consciousness itself work within the principles of evolution?
I have been teaching visual art and used to lecture about visual perception, aided by Rudolf Arnheims textbook on the subject. But this is far more universal and far-reaching! We hindoos and buddhists have known about the fact that sensory percetion is an illusion, maya, for thousands of years! Very clear logic in this lecture, which actually makes a synthesis of psychology, religion and physics! Stunning!
If you're "foraging for fitness to reproduce" that's the survivalist point of view. It is a tense kind of rushing & grabbing with the eyes. It is a fight for survival against "the other". On the other hand, If you relax with what is, realizing we are all one, you then see and appreciate the whole and the detail. That is the more fully conscious or Zen way to see. We then become "conscious agents" & evolution accelerates.
Howard Hill I’m definitely leaning toward that idea myself. It makes more sense to me.
But the same is true with consciousness. "Grabbing" Zen, "Claiming" calm is just another commodity to conquer.
I’ve already reproduced, so I guess I can relax and just survive for the fun of it. Glad I saved for my retirement!
This is also what A Course in Miracles teaches - There is no causality in this material world. Our body does not cause anything to happen, even though we treat it as such. All starts and happens in Mind.
This is in sync with much of the esoteric literature I've read over the last 40 years, and even the respected Max Planck said he had come to see matter as derivative of consciousness.
Kant was also very clear on the phenomenon and the noumenon ... all this many years ago.
Science is subject to fashion at the expense of progress, which as it's been said, advances one funeral at a time.
Dang that last line was savage
Brilliant! But why cut the Q&A part? Those are very interesting sometimes
the crowd seem very "alive", there were probably some interesting questions asked.
@@ildisiri :-) yes, I think it's the reason why it's been cut
Because it has no fitness value
@@fidziek I don't get it. Why would they cut such an interesting part?
I concur
I'm an expert in esoteric spiritual philosophy and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and in my forthcoming book on nonduality and Mind-Only (due out in late 2023 or early 2024), I deconstruct most everything Hoffman says. For starters, reality is neither objective nor subjective; it just is. IOW, whatever exists, by definition, is real. Objective reality means describing existents free of subjective bias. Second, the senses are valid, as are sensorial extensions, in that they tell us something, anything, exists. It is up to the mind to properly interpret sense data. One can mistake a rope for a snake in the dark, but once the light is turned on, the mistake is corrected. To sum: reality is not an illusion, as Hoffman contends. Secondly, although I agree that Consciousness, or Mind, is fundamental, the Real, this does not reduce phenomenal reality to an illusion. Physical reality, spacetime, really exists as emanated energy and matter. It is "doomed," in its present form, since everything created is eventually destroyed.
Hoffman, with his collaborators, claims he will be able to provide mathematical equations that describe consciousness, the immeasurable, timeless, spaceless Primitive. Mathematics is the science of measurement, but the Immeasurable cannot be measured. At best, he will only be able to describe state of consciousness, not consciousness itself. IOE, ripples in the Pond, but not the Pond itself.
This guy is wise. A brilliant man once said "Reality is merely a shared series of delusions."
Hey Plato said that dude!
We don't experience what happens, we experience our interpretation of what happened. We experience whatever we are convinced of. Interpretations that enlighten and empower us are therefore, preferable.
Very Stoic of you......
Wonder what the great stoics would think of all this 🤔
I will definitely buy Don's book in 2019. He's got some actual evidence for what he claims, unlike the vast majority of people doing consciousness research.
Read Russell Targ, a physicist who ran studies re seeing at a distance, out of body experiences, psychic experiences research done for CIA and others.
Great presentation and good points. IMHO, "Error" is not in the stuff but whether our intentions match our reality. Nature is trying to determine what we want or need. Therefore, it's important to know what we want and align our thoughts, emotions and actions.
Peace, love and abundance to all
Reality is not behind a veil.
It is the veil.
Stfu
If u mean “space time based reality” i agree. There must be more fundamental systems running...
@@lunalima7864 You need a good F'ing.
@@timishere1925 lol
@@lunalima7864 fu
Cellular division as a vehicle to store and express more and more information. As the volume decreases the information storage increases...the nothing/everything...data compressed to the smallest mass...exploding into manifestation...big bang? This talk blew me away. Again, left in awe. Felling the truth of it...much thanks, Donald.
Schrodingercat1 cellular division reduces the survival burden for each individual cell, allowing cells to specialize. When groups of specialized cells work together, we get complex multicellular organisms that are far more intelligent than individual cells. Now imagine that individual humans are cells ;)
If this resonates with you and you'd like to know more, Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism is worthy of looking at too.
Biocentrism, the perceptions of the life centered universe, is true.
i first learned that spacetime was not fundamental from seth in the seth books channelled by jane roberts most of which published in the 70's. donald's explanation that a chair is not "reality" but an interpretation of data aligns with seth's explanation that we perceive a chair as physical reality because this is the pitch that we are tuned into with our physical senses. seth also explains that the chair is not "only physical" but that there are versions of the chair that are less physical, and also more physical. our particular perception of our physical reality is due to pitch (or frequency) we are tuned into. also, that we can learn to tune into other realities, as we, and reality, are multidimensional.
"Beware of your interface with reality; your perceptions are at risk of deconstructing the ideal of love, compassion, peace, and the benevolence of your being." ~ C.C. Arshagra
This is amazing I'm going to check this cc arshagra person. This struck me because I have seen that power first hand. We all literally create who we are consciously or subconsciously we are attemping to destroy what we don't like about ourselves, things that don't fit with our ideas of life,right n wrong or honor,self respect and responsibility.We also create and build on those things we deem worthy for whatever reason. Its terrifying to think that I truly do have the power to create a dangerous monster thats void of all things good......or a misguided soul pursuing it's own ideas of what he must do......or just scared. We all have the power to create and destroy the pple we are. We make ourselves monsters or saints. That power is in our hands and we can see clearly by looking at the state of man and its history, that we can get it very very wrong. Least we become the monsters we must educate ourselves and live with compassion and honesty while being aware and critical of our heading. I struggle tremendously with wat I feel vs wat is right but ultimately it's my choice wat I do.
@@williamreynolds6586
The question posed at the end of your comments is what’s critical, but what is answering the question? Is it the personal information, the collective information or is it the result of psychological conditioning? Methinks it’s the conditioning because the personal draws from the collective and the collective is only the sum of the separate forms so they are both similar contextually. On the other hand, we are all caught in the conditioned that has accumulated over time, but that is still not representative of truth as truth is not fixed so it can never be known for it is ever changing.
Upanishads, which contain some of the highest spiritual flights of Hinduism, sum all of this up in seven neat lines.
1) 'Brahma satyam jagat mithya'- The world that a being perceives is false, the universal spirit is true.
2) 'Ekam eva advitiyam brahma'- The universal spirit is indivisibly one, without a second.
3) 'Prajnaanam brahma'- Knowledge of the infinite shines the universal spirit forth
4) 'Tat tvam asi'- That Thou Art
5) 'Ayam atma brahma'- The personal self is the impersonal universal spirit
6) 'Aham brahmasmi'- I am the universal spirit
7) 'Sarvamidam khalu brahma'- All of this is the universal spirit, without a doubt.
Shubham Bhardwaj you truly know what you are talking about. Amazing that people think science is so advanced when what they are beginning to think about has been shown to us for thousands of years. Great job!
Yep the mind is learning what the heart already knows
'Upanishads...sum all of this up in seven neat lines.'
How does that help us? So the ancients intuited what the scientific community is now uncovering in a testable way. Go figure. Which would you say is the more useful? The conclusion you quote is that 'All of this is universal spirit'. So what's that? Mysticism without intellectual rigour is of no use when it comes to establishing the truth, as Hoffman would be the first to tell you.
Since Brahman has no attributes it would be impossible to produce anything tangible with regard to It's character. If you were to disprove Hoffman's hypothesis, which he wholeheartedly invites by the way, who then is doing the disproving? What Shubam is saying goes way beyond the phenomenal world and therefore, by nature, can only be mystical. That does not necessarily mean false. The best Hoffman can hope to prove is that there is a finger pointing at something we know not what and can never know via the physical sciences.
I profoundly disagree. I think that 'Brahman' as you call it and it's character (if you can call it that) relevance and meaning can be completely understood and revealed. I agree not by science as it is currently practiced but by a developed scientific endeavour. If Brahman is unknowable as you imply then you cannot assert it has no attributes.
Einstein was challenging the dominant view (i.e., Copenhagen interpretation) that quantum mechanical systems lack definite objective properties (e.g., position), independent of observation. He used the moon to emphasize the apparently absurd consequences of this view .
@@ruthkastner6248 Respectfully, you misunderstand the argument. When one says "the Moon is only there when we look at it," it means that the physical form of the Moon that we recognize doesn't actually exist at all. We're overlaying the true reality (a vastly more complex and unintelligible one, at least to our minds) with a drastically simplified version that we can then make use of.
To be sure, comparing this to an icon on a desktop isn't a perfect comparison, but it's close enough to let people wrap their minds around it.
The point is that humans have always needed to simplify things in order to make broad use of them. And so, frankly, the idea that our primitive monkey brains have evolved enough to take in the scope of reality itself as it truly exists is quite arrogant.
@@ruthkastner6248 If that's all you meant, then this is little more than semantics and not particularly useful to the broader argument, whether one agrees with it or not.
@@ruthkastner6248 Respectfully, don't be absurd. I fully concede I like the man, and that's precisely why I want him to be subject to as much reasonable criticism as possible. How else are his ideas supposed to get any stronger?
My problem with your criticism is that, insofar as I understand it, you're basically saying that the underlying structure that we interpret as the Moon is the same as the Moon itself. I wholly disagree with this interpretation.
Hypothetically, let's say I have free reign to alter the Moon's code and change it into any form I choose. Maybe I turn it into a giant chunk of cheese for kicks. Its fundamental element wouldn't have changed at all, but would you or anyone else look up at a massive ball of cheese in the sky and see it as anything like the Moon you knew? Of course not.
@@ruthkastner6248 If your only point is to say that Dr. Hoffman should've been clearer in his remarks, then that's fine. My only point is your continuous harping serves nothing to the larger argument.
Frankly, this was my point right from the start - and that you can't seem to let it go says much more about you than it does about me or Dr. Hoffman.
@@ryanashfyre464 That's funny, since you were the one who couldn't let a minor criticism go. You claimed that it was based on a misunderstanding and I simply clarified why there was no misunderstanding, but you still couldn't let it go, and now you launch an ad hominem re 'harping'. In any case, I've deleted those comments since they upset you so much. It's really not that important. I hope you feel better now. Have a great day!
"Objects are a solution to the data representation problem" wow
There is no "data representation problem " this idiot is making this up, no one ever takes his idiot premises seriously.
Luna Lima no one took Einstein’s theory seriously at first either. Just because a concept is too radical and bizarre to you, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Science is constantly changing
@@lunalima7864 There is no spoon either.
And have nothing to do with truth
@@trubador09 Truth, lol, Good luck sir.
It's some years since I last read chapter one of Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason',; thanks for the refresher.
i was just thinking the same thing. einstein credits kant for inspiring some of his own ideas so i tried to read kant and well i just kant! makes me wonder how kant got the idea tho....
Pun Police. Everything seems to be in order here, carry on.
I like Donald's use of the Desktop-metaphor... As a programmer and someone who grew up with movies like the Matrix, I
think it is Fantastic that we are having this Conversation in a Scientific & Academic Setting, quite Cool indeed ! and brings Great Insight about how to think of Systems, Software and the End-user.... i had seen the other optical illusions but the Flashing Images at 9:00 were very humbling haha...especially because of where the Change was located :P
PS: Damn... Matrix Quotes & Hamming Code... this is a Great Lecture... and Donald is an excellent Communicator.
Hoffman’s ideas such as “space and time are illusions” make Tegmark’s “Consciousness as a State of Matter” seem like old school conservative paradigms in comparison.
I find some aspects Hoffman’s theory interesting, and perhaps elements of it ‘may’ prove to be fruitful from a data analysis perspective. Meanwhile, the overall conclusion - as he admits-isn’t even something that physics research typically deals with: namely the proposition that there is no objective reality that our consciousness can accurately perceive seems to delve into philosophy (like an extension of solipsism to include ‘other conscious agents’ using quantum information theory as a framework). Philosophical concepts like this tend to revolve around language meanings, and as such may be untestable at an objective quantitative macroscopic level, and by testing I mean something beyond optical illusions. Having said that, kudos to this guy for even having the cahones to propose something that extrapolates John Wheeler’s conscious realism (it from bit) and then actually develop methods of research to flesh it out.
Evolution appears to select for fitness over accurate perception, to the degree that whatever helps one to procreate is the only essential driving element - that part seems mainstream.
The conscious agents forming networks aspect is the part that I’m guessing could generate the most interest within the scientific community. But
I think there are lots of logical inconsistencies that need to be ironed out. The real proof of his pudding might be showing how consciousness which consists of perceptions from incoming data as well as internally generated...how is it that a consciousness being so full of inaccurate representations, regardless if just one or linked, can do all this projecting of ‘inaccurate yet useful objects’ onto external reality (he referred to external realty as digital rain). Also where is this consciousness originating from if the brain as we commonly think of it is only a useful representative symbol but essentially an illusion? Consciousness is the fundamental player in a game that only cares about procreating with other conscious agents per Hoffman, to the degree that consciousness will create a functional overlay that we recognize as day to day external reality. Seems like a hella lot of matrix thrown in there but without any brain to even plug into since that would exist in spacetime, which he also thinks is an illusion. He focuses on what consciousness does and never seems to flesh out what it is, other than stating it’s purpose is to procreate, and it utilizes functions to do that (or is he only saying he can reduce what it does to a function?). He tells us consciousness is the only fundamental layer of reality. He makes clear that any external realty regardless of paradigm shift is merely another illusion when he described Neo as breaking free of the matrix only to exist in yet another one. My takeaway is he views consciousness as networked solipsism which emerged to further the evolutionary goal of procreating.
In contrast, in describing his information theory approach to consciousness, Tegmark said consciousness is what it feels like to process information. Tegmark never suggests that external reality and spacetime are mere inaccurate symbolic representations humans have made up along the way to help us reproduce.
As far as our brains becoming smaller as we form larger networks with other conscious agents - that wouldn’t be appear to be a positive development if true (?), since only brains of sufficient intellectual capacity appear well suited to taking humanity beyond the current era of ‘existential risk’ of extinction. Since evolution is no longer at the wheel in some future crispr scenarios, it will be possible to fine tune brains beyond the job of procreation. The impacts of human genetic engineering whether positive or negative relative to the overall well being of the species and the environment would easily eclipse any previous quirky evolutionary noise artifacts that have resulted in human minds being vulnerable to accepting inaccurate or inconsistent information, as with the optical illusions for example.
Speaking to your implicit question at the beginning of this, i.e. 'what is consciousness in this theory?', I think I could give a stab at trying to pin a nature to the reality he describes.
Think again about his demonstration of the densification of information by condensing a large object into several interconnected smaller objects (the spheres). As he said, this could be done recursively, down and down and down. You could imagine it also going up and up and up. This is similar to the idea of 'turtles all the way down' or simulation and simulacra if you're familiar with either.
Next, we consider the idea that reality is a network of conscious agents. These conscious agents are information processors, which both perceive and act on other information processors. We can perhaps consider them to be clusters of interconnected balls which recursively continue 'all the way down'.
Of course, both if these clusters would also be part of the large ball they are contained within, and this would also apply to that ball etc. Ultimately, there is no way to distinguish between levels, all is One yet Many. If this is representative of reality, we could say that consciousness is a fractal information processor, an infinitely dense self-recursive pattern which processes other infinitely dense self-recursive patterns (which ultimately cannot be distinguished from one another, they are both a part of Reality with a capital R).
I have no idea if he's thought this far in, but I find it to be a compelling extension of his ideas which (admittedly) are made coherent with my own. This would bring rational, scientific truth in line with irrational, mystical truth through the binding of conscious agency. There is much much more to be said, but this is already a long comment. Hope you find this useful/interesting, all the best :)
Anyone who's reading see if you can help me with this:
So, he argues that spacetime has no casual power (as it is only an interface that hides deeper data, having it no connection to the truth whatsoever), and therefore our brain and its activity cannot be the cause of our consciousness. That being said, where does our consciousness come from? He suggests that conscious agents are the source of everything we take for reality (its physical construction being merely a practical representation of an error correcting code for fitness; thus basing his theory on survival and reproduction being the very purpose of our existence), including our own perception of consciousness. He defines a conscious agent as the relationship between experience, actions, and the world; according to him, agents of those would interact with eachother to create a network which is fundamentally what reality consists of and therefore the originator of every object including our brain.
Now, knowing that consciousness doesn't come from unsentient matter, but, instead, from conscious agents, there are two questions I have in mind. Number one: what would be fundamentally necessary for the creation of a conscious agent? And number two (which is a little more philosophical): why do conscious agents and consciousness itself work within the principles of evolution?
The thing with the information on the ball blew my mind a little. I kids knew that but I never understood it in that way.
Any relation to the Hoffman who first made LSD? Both Hoffman's have similar effects
i found it a little offputting and suspect that when questioned by audience member that a decrease in volume of the brain doesnt exclude the possibility that the surface area increased, he didnt answer the question(which the audience member correctly pointed out)....i thought it was quite shady in a way, why not just admit that could be a possibility if he didnt know?
would also have loved to see q&a for this talk.....the audience seemed pretty switched on
Yeah it was weird, like wouldn't that have went right along with his lecture as well? 🤷🏿♀️
Consciousness alone exists alongside consciousness thereof. ❤❤❤
Unconvincing. It's brilliance is the avalanche of seemingly related but interesting conceptualizations in the delivery. Just more convoluted abstraction dressed up as brilliance. Another theory. If I don't duck the cricket ball in time I might sustain a fractured skull . If I duck the ball in time I will not sustain a fractured skull. For all intents and purposes in this part of the spectrum of reality, there is a ball to duck.The rest is just clever conversation.
IF you duck and IF your dont - another theory... ?
You are ducked out of what is NOT meeting your awareness now and you ARE meeting what is. Always. How you choose to interpret and relate to what is - is not a theory - in its results - so know by your fruits - that is check the feedback as feedback - rather than manipulate the feedback as if IT is the cause and not a symptom.
I was hit by a cricket ball smack in the forehead - did a backward somersault - which I had never done before or since. I noticed a 'stage' to play in a microsecond - without any hesitation or thought of injury - is that weird - that's how I recall it (50 years back now).
The word misalignment is just a term for the alignment of something unintended, unexpected or unwanted - but it arrives perfectly on time. But I don't argue with you - there is no need to be convinced by anyone's show.
I don't resonate with the vid overall. That's all I need to know - and move on to what does. Trying to THINK or define reality is an absurd arrogance - but a willingness to share - really - can join in ideas that reflect inner recognition.
His point is that the ball is shown to you as a human as an icon. The itself doesn't "look" like that in "reality". If there was a conscious animal that could perceive reality closer than how humans do they would probably be unable to function properly in order to survive. Evolution has given us a set amount of perception through the senses we have but we only perceive a fraction of information that exists in front of us. (For instance, with certain technology we can detect thermal and "see" thermally with a device.) If we could perceive all of reality the way it is it would overload the being, reality is too complicated to fully perceive and continue surviving at the same time.
You speak of physical evolution - what about the evolution of consciousness? Fitness is a function of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. Will be wonderful when science catches up.
The scientists are inching along... yet continue to miss the obvious... they are still intellectualizing, and not doing the inside work which would allow them to perceive the obvious, without the filter they are starting to realize exists... which is precisely as you stated. ;-)
Well just me, but consciousness is spirit, and not of a physical nature, nor does it ever evolve for it always is, and exists outside of space and time, perfect. Also, for me, Fitness is no more than a word for materialism. Science looks to this realm for its answers and it should. For in this manifested realm, all is either a wave or a particle, but where these do not exist, is where the All is, and it is that which has brought you forth. You are not of this realm, not a body, not a mind, not an ego, not awake, till you leave this place.
Consciousness is not fundamental. Prior to consciousness is awareness. The former is the son and the latter is the father. The son is the father but the father is not the son. The wise one will step out of consciousness even though it has the brilliance of a billion suns. Doing that, and few will dare to do that, is returning home - to the FATHER / SOURCE = extinguishing the candle flame.
@@artistcarl5970 Nothing's real so doesn't matter.
Joe Lee Splitting hairs. Awareness is an aspect of Consciousness as are Witnessing and Experiencing. So say the Mystics. Consciousness, or Awareness is indeed fundamental to life whether possessed of autonomy or not and the Mystics all agree it’s fundamental to existence.
I can’t make a case for that ( no one can prove ‘God’ exists) yet it’s obvious that Consciousness is fundamental to the entire scientific enterprise in the sense that without it there cannot be perception or ‘observation’ if you like. Perhaps ‘a priori’ is better than to say ‘fundamental’.
23:57 “..It turns out…Stephen Hawking answered this" Somewhere in our holographic universe, Hooft and Susskind simultaneously rolled their eyes…lol
Why is it so refreshing to hear someone say "couldn't care less" correctly 😅
I hope nonduality is a true description of reality, but it's awfully counterintuitive. Matter is way more likely to be fundamental. And consciousness is also way more likely to be the emerging byproduct of a working brain.
How do dreams fit into Hoffman's model? Dreams are also projections of the mind. If this universe is a shared 'x', and the dream is a personal 'x', then who is the dreamer?
@UCwahOjaUd8APpXN7u5EQi3g
Truth hurts doesn’t it ? That’s why you’re attacking him personally, what a pussy move.
The ancient Indian didn’t have such as sophisticated terminology or model as Prof Hoffman to explain but merely using concept prevalent to the masses then
14:33 Hoffman is asked to define his term "fitness", for anyone else wondering. I've watched a few videos with Hoffman speaking on this topic now and for the first time I understand what he means by "fitness". Thanks for asking, Lady.
Hoffman states that 3D space and time, as we perceive them, is the desktop; physical objects are merely the icons on your species-specific desktop. I’m wondering, when he says “physical objects”, does he mean, any objects of perception through our 5 senses, or just visual objects? I suspect he means any and all objects of perception, but some clarification would be good
Pretty please discuss how this interacts with the double slit experiments, the Schrödinger effect, and the Hawthorne effect.
I have always believed this.
I got there because people have vastly different perspectives.
Expect a large percentage of people to be upset by colors like teal if you ask whether it's blue, or green.
If we create everything, like the moon in your talk, it does explain the double slit experiments differences on being viewed.
Liz I got to this video by watching Paul Vanderclay's video 'Did God exist before people'.
Paul's video links to another video about the double slit experiment which might interest you.
I only have an IQ in the mid 130s and no physics training but my understanding is as follows.
The fact that we can determine the photon's apparent past (change the past) is because we are compelled by our nature to construct a present that requires the past to have happened in a certain way.
Like the colours on the hat in the video above, we require reality to appear to us in a certain way by the way we measure/ perceive it.
This goes way down to a very deep level of perception. The idea of time and the idea of space are both boxes we have been provided with. Reality isn't 'actually' composed of time and space.
This infers that reality is not as we perceive it, but that in order for us to perceive anything we have to fit it into the boxes we have been provided with by evolution.
Our ideas about what reality is are just metaphors, or icons on a computer screen.
The moon is our way of understanding and dealing with the 'effect' we witness and call the moon.
To another species ( a plant or a bacteria) the moon may be imperceptible.
Some say planting seeds during a full moon ensures better crops. Perhaps to a seed the moon is perceived as 'goodness' in the same way that a mother's milk is perceived as 'goodness' by a baby.
At this level of perception both milk and moon are indistinguishable.
If you are human, this metaphor falls apart after a few months of life outside the womb. But the dissolution is never complete. Mother's milk remains an incorruptible concept throughout our lives, and the moon remains a symbol of love.
There is an objective reality, it's just that evolution isn't in the business of creating beings that need to perceive it. We are equipped with a clunky version of reality like an early arcade video game that enables us to perpetuate and survive. Only reason has given us a rare insight into 'the matrix'.
One of the most interesting talks I have heard in a long time
"The Matrix" movie is like the actual Hologram, it cannot be some other operating system, even as an idea only.
"Conscious Agents" in the context of Actuality is equivalent to the meaning of coherent cohesion objectives in pulsed geometries of e-Pi-i interference positioning singularity/hologram resonance.
Absolute meaning of computation is cause-effect/Time Duration Timing.
Excellent lecture
Spacetime is form and forms are ideas.
Energy is structure and structure is relation.
Finally all we have is idea and relation.
i am aware of Einsteins dilemma about the moon. i have found that it is there at all times, but you have to sneak up on it when not looking.
It's no dilemma, really. It's not there, whether we're looking at it or not. Lol.
I thought that only worked for rainbows.
The moon "is" there but the ocean "sees" it better than us...
Also read the diamond sutra. It deals with contradictory ideas of reality.
Following him since the beginning. Donald is a simply pure genius.
mind'blown. just what i needed today
The story about Einstein and the moon comment has been misrepresented. He wasn't suggesting that the moon didn't exist when we weren't looking at it. He was arguing about experiments and conclusions involved with quantum theory which he disagreed with. He was saying that to believe the moon wasn't there when you weren't looking at it was an absurd idea.
The best model for spacetime may not be mathematical, but purely visual. Eg the planet earth itself is actually spacetime. We calibrate all other motion from here. All aspects of the earth express spacetime as consciousness. If we used a visual system to express this continuous transformation then our mental awareness would match our physical experience which may aid humans to make better sense of our non dualistic reality. The present math / numerical based system may be a cause of the separation between facts and irrational projections. The analemma shows the temporal distortion that we have to undo to find our actual situation. It shows that clock times can be up to 16 minutes out of sync with our senses. Food for thought.
I don't think I understand your post, but I like it
Anyone suggest a link refuting this? Thanks
The most impressive thing is that screen projector. Man that thing is bright!
Yes, and what is more impressive is the fact that consciousness is fundamental (can you imagine a immaterial part of reality?)
Many of new theories leading to eastern philosophy of thousands years
Nikola Tesla already knew all this. But explained it as "light energy"-plasma fluctuations in the aether.
longyearsbehind you should read Schopenhauer, he is the most eastern of western philosophers.
How does Eastern philosophy deal with sin and evil? Western religion explains it quite readily as the absence of God. Is there an Eastern equivalent to this notion of sin, evil, suffering, etc., to be an absence of something?
nbfdmd the answer to that would take years of reading. First of all, there are various eastern religions and philosophies. They are not all the same. Jospeh Campbell. The hero’s with a thousand faces is a good place to start a study of comparative mythology. Audio version called The Hero’s Journey, I recommend.
@@drewmandan absence of union. Jung shadow integration
Very similar idea to Tom Campbell's my big T.O.E. It looks like others are coming round to his ideal of how the world we live in is constructed.
This is a VR simulation,. And if you want to know HOW and WHY, give me a "click"....
Actually, I just did a screenshot of 6:19 - and in photoshop I took the eyedropper tool and checked - the shades do differ slightly.
It's probably the codec that the CZcams video was converted to.
you would have to reproduce it in photoshop to test that. A screenshot will differ due to colorspace and compression etc of the screenshot
It's a slide captured with a camera
If it does not mean objective truth then there is no objective truth.❤❤❤
It seems contradictory that on the one hand, our perceptions are designed to simplify the extreme complexity of "reality", while on the other, with the advent of social networking, evolutionary selection has diminished our capacity to manage that complexity. Our current perceived reality is far more complex than that of our distant ancestors, but somehow lacks the selection pressure necessary to maintain our fitness to function within it. How has evolution selected lower cerebral capacity as a solution to the greater complexities we experience today?
Positive Outlook
Because fitness = reproductive success. Adaptation is a little different but the selective pressures that usually determine survival (available resources and extreme temperature or other environmental pressures) haven’t changed that much...yet.
Also, I’m not convinced that we’re getting less intelligent at all. It could be that we made certain cerebral trade offs, I.e., short term memory and spatial skills versus long term narrative memory and advanced “higher order” linguistic and mathematics skills. Brain size isn’t intelligence.
@@livthedream91 You're probably right, but I'm impressed with the accomplishments of past notables like Archimedes and Newton, using only a pencil and their wits.
Positive Outlook
Yeah. I do worry about our modern tendency, and how little we actually have to creatively negotiate our environment. I thought you were referencing the past four thousand years or so of agriculture. I’m open to all sides of the argument, but this guy doesn’t strike me quite right. I’m not sure why... . I mean, I’ve definitely had experiences that challenge space-time as a fixed property, and tend toward a weak pan psychos myself. But I respect things like objects, force, gravity. Maybe I’m not understanding his message. I think I’ll need to watch this a few times.
^^pan psychism^^. The idea that consciousness is pre-eminent and material organizes in varied constructions through evolutionary processes makes sense to me.
This is very similar to Kant’s metaphysics
This is tempting and consistent on many levels, but it begs the question of how did consciousness come to be if the universe that it seems like creates it came second?
It has simply always been, but that isn't quite right since space-time is illusory. Buddhism calls this "dharmakaya" - the ground consciousness out of which all arises (and vanishes).
"The User Illusion" by Tor Norretranders is relevant here too.
there is no "reality as it is" there is no reality as such, there is only reality as we perceive it, and different lifeforms perceive reality differently. so physical objects only exist when being observed. if the universe does not exist without an observer it can only mean one thing : that reality is an illusion because it's a simulation, but not a man made one, it's made from pure consciousness. but if I'm in an empty room and I close my eyes, everything in the room doesn't disappear because we can identify it using other senses like touch and smell.
My brain shrunk, after thousands of brain cells burst, trying to understand this lecture.
So go within to your Heart of Love. Remain there long enough and all knowledge will come to an end and then the true magic begins. It's been said that the musk deer would run after that enchanting musky scent his whole life, thinking that the scent exists out there in the WORLD and not realizing that he is veritably the one producing the scent - from his OWN ABDOMEN!!
Interesting to hear the evolution aspect brought into the reality conversation
One point of critique-
Our brains shrinking has nothing to do with whether or not the universe cares about intelligence or functional networks.
You cannot make that claim based on a hypothesized single data point.
The universe clearly does care about creating larger functional networks- because that’s what happens over time with all evolution.
You really can’t claim anything else
Comments (not mine) from researcher of AGI (Artificial General Inteligence):
1:16 Failure to understand abstraction.
2:00 Failure to understand focus.
5:00 Failure to understand symbology
7:00 Failure to understand bandwidth limitations and sparse representation.
9:00 Change blindness (along with focal blindness) are things I studied. He doesn’t seem to understand their significance or importance.
12:00 Failure to understand environmental orientation. His claim that only the center is “decoded” is incorrect.
12:40 I have no idea where he got the claim that our brains were bigger 20,000 years ago. The brain volume of Neanderthal was a bit bigger. Maybe he is getting these confused. Okay, I checked into this. Early estimates were indeed based on Neanderthal brain volume which was distinctly visually adapted. Trying to find something limited to Homo Sapiens is quite difficult. For example, this is from a 1988 study which to my knowledge is the largest study with 12,800 skulls examined:
“Since brain size in humans, as in other mammals, is strongly correlated with body size through shared growth regulators, the hypothesis is advanced that the decrease in CC during Holocene is a by-product of a generalized structural reduction known as gracilization of the skeleton. Therefore, the observed decrease in CC may not be a result of the direct operation of selection upon brain morphology.”
13:30 His rationalization about skill is ridiculous. He is in fact just parroting one of the hypotheses put forward. This is confirmation bias.
16:45 This is pathetic. He is getting into pseudo-philosophy and trying to call it objective science. I’ve detected a steady decline in my opinion of Hoffman since the beginning of this video.
20:00 This is getting worse. What is his background? Quantitative and computational psychology.
Quantitative psychology is a field of scientific study that focuses on the mathematical modeling, research design and methodology, and statistical analysis of human or animal psychological processes. ~ That looks okay.
Computational cognition (sometimes referred to as computational cognitive science or computational psychology) is the study of the computational basis of learning and inference by mathematical modeling, computer simulation, and behavioral experiments. In psychology, it is an approach which develops computational models based on experimental results. It seeks to understand the basis behind the human method of processing of information. ~ And we know that Hoffman was involved with Artificial Intelligence research. That’s an obvious source of error.
21:00 This clown has no idea what Hamming code is.
24:00 The holographic principle. ~ Today we observe a prime example of a Dunning Kruger meltdown where the subject’s confidence in his understanding vastly exceeds his actual understanding.
26:30 This is getting worse. Not long ago I wanted to replace the main steering gear on my Cub Cadet riding mower. When I looked this up online everyone said that it was so difficult they wouldn’t attempt it. I did replace the gear but it took 8 hours. On a properly designed mower you can replace the gear in 30 minutes. So, I said it was as though the mower was designed by chimpanzees with a learning disability. My opinion of Hoffman at this point is similar.
28:44 Hoffman cites Hawks as proof of his conjecture. However, Hawks’ work only goes back 4,000 years and his numbers don’t match. When Hawks does claim a 10% reduction he uses Neanderthal brain volume.
29:50 Hoffman has no understanding of evolutionary theory. He is trying to substitute an altered version that supports his conjecture. The question at this point is if my opinion of Hoffman can get any lower or whether it has hit bottom.
33:00 “What you sense is not real, but what I speculate about what I sense that isn’t real is actually real . . . just because.” ~ Sure Donald, that makes a lot of sense.
Hoffman keeps mentioning Chaitin, so let’s look him up.
Gregory John Chaitin: Chaitin also writes about philosophy, especially metaphysics and philosophy of mathematics (particularly about epistemological matters in mathematics). In metaphysics, Chaitin claims that algorithmic information theory is the key to solving problems in the field of biology (obtaining a formal definition of 'life', its origin and evolution) and neuroscience (the problem of consciousness and the study of the mind). ~ I see. This doesn’t bode well for Hoffman.
35:00 Space and time and physical objects have no causal powers. ~ Dunning-Kruger overdrive.
Hoffman is the coyote running full speed into a painted tunnel.
the desperate musings of an angry materialist
@@ZalexMusic why?
I disagree with why brains are smaller.... computers use to take up alot of space, now they don't. Efficiency
Maybe, the speaker didn't offer data, only a speculative cause
Brains that are getting more efficient could not make choices like we are making, because we would not have survived to get to today. Case in point: Brains that elected a Franklin D. Roosevelt and then a John F. Kennedy, if they were they getting more efficient, could not possibly elect a Donald J. Trump. Declining efficiency is apparent......
If you follow the raging vegan vs. low carb debate/rabbit hole on youtube, then there is an alternate theory that the paleo side might propose. The agricultural diet - i.e. grains and legumes - may have made our brains contract. Certainly the excavated bone evidence is that the introduction of agriculture 10-12 thousand years ago was disastrous to human health, although it was a lot more convenient than the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
@@tomrhodes1629 - That has nothing to do with brain size. IQs are going up. Which means the propaganda and psyops against the unwashed masses is MUCH better than it used to be.
That's not what the speaker is saying?
Very Schopenhauer-esque (minus the part of existence being miserable n all) Love your work tho, looking forward to more
"Greatest trick from main programmer is make you believe, that he doesn't exists"
Woah, Jeff Goldbloom just blew my mind
Now I can’t unhear it 😆
What about the place of cataclysm? This image of gradual evolution has been disproven. Punctuated equilibrium. There are mass die offs, at which time rapid mutations take place. This vision of evolutionary fitness seems a little dated.
I enjoyed the subtle promo for the movie Idiocracy.
This is so in sync with the non-dual Vendantic literature, absolutely brilliant!
you are speaking over the heads,
of so many people,
that if you were to become aware,
of just how many,
don't,
understand,
you,
would be,
floored.....m..
Fascinating theory.
80% of the comments here are asking _Is there any evidence for this?_
You can't express more clearly that you didn't understand a word of it. Yeah, I know I know, humans don't like to admit that. Makes them feel insecure or somesuch nonsense. What a pity...
But you got it...
Can any of this be partially explained just by the limitations of human communication?
Donald Hoffman should look at what Bashar says of time and space as properties of a physical object, just like weight. He explains how to teleport an object. EnJOY scientists!
this guys need to be on the joe rogan podcast
Rogan doesn't seem much of a sympathizer of this way of looking at things. This is validating the work of people like Chopra whom Rogan thinks is nuts. But I too like Hoffman's theory.
This will become the new paradigm, and from it will emerge a new science, a new religion and a new man. First there was Relativity, then Quantum and String theory, but Conscious Agent theory (concepts) will replace them all.
This religion already exists and it's the religion of Indians. You people call it "Hinduism". There is whole library of books related to it called vedanta and Upanishads.Tries to explain who am I
Nah not really its just a rebranding of the observer in quantum mechanics.
Reality itself is a conscious agent and we are conduits, receptacles whose complex circuitry channels these energies to give us higher levels of consciousness. This is made evident in how evolution takes place. This mysterious thing we call adaptation is pure consciousness itself telling the organism what to do at the genome level, encoding instructions on the DNA to grow longer limbS to climb trees better, or a longer snout for probing, etc. This is how nearly blind organisms like some nudibranchs in the oceans have spectacular colors but can hardly see to appreciate them. The colors evolved for camouflage, entirely independent of the organism simply "adapting" independently to it's environment; its environment, and all its constituent parts are also conscious and aiding in the process. Everything that exists is a manifestation of absolute consciousness. An organism does not physically evolve by adapting mechanically, independent of an enveloping consciousness enabling that evolution; there is a deep mystery at work here that has not been broached by Darwin OR his predecessors. This concept need not be esoteric, for Holism has a deeper definition beyond interconnectedness of physical objects in nature, we are in fact immersed in a conscious, oscillating, goo or foam, defined currently as quantum fluctuation in particle physics - the underlying dictate of all things in nature -- even space itself. It is as fundamental to nature as water is to fish. The "nothingness" that fundamental particles borrow energy from to pop into existence, is actually pure consciousness. So when native cultures said that even rocks have spirits, this is the light of higher consciousness providing them insights into the engine of creation... at a fundamental level.
Great lecture. Gives me something to chew on for a while.
His comparisons between humans and computer desktops are only illusions.
LOL his presentation its only his illusion
2:40 Bad example in my opinion, there is a big difference in you not wanting to Drag an icon to the trash bin Then you not wanting to step in front of a train, this example does not defeat the argument of why you don’t step in front of the train because you’re not convinced that the train isn’t Objective reality, I’m calling BS
The _concept of time_ and the _concept of space_ are felt and are dependent on the mind.
Time and space in themselves, on the other hand, are necessary for evolution, without which there would be no mind.
Thus, _space_ and _time_ are more fundamental than the _concepts of space and time._
Thus, space and time are more fundamental than mind.
Agreed. Anyone stepping back for a look at the big picture would know we are products of the universe and not the other way around.
Very interesting. Anyone care to unpack what he means when he says "there is no causality in space and time"? (37:15-ish)? If I observe one billiard ball hitting another, would it be better to look at it, rather than the physicalistic "forces at work", as, say, "the unfolding/flowering of a conscious agent"? I would have thought that the appropriateness (or perhaps correctness) of description depends on context or purpose? Either of these descriptions would have no relevance to a professional billiard player.
"Our universe is that portion of existence which is characterized by what the Sanskrit psychologists call Desha-kâla-nimitta, or what is known to European psychology as space, time, and causation. This universe is only a part of infinite existence, thrown into a peculiar mould, composed of space, time, and causation. It necessarily follows that law is possible only within this conditioned universe; beyond it there cannot be any law. When we speak of the universe, we only mean that portion of existence which is limited by our mind - the universe of the senses, which we can see, feel, touch, hear, think of, imagine. This alone is under law; but beyond it existence cannot be subject to law, because causation does not extend beyond the world of our minds. Anything beyond the range of our mind and our senses is not bound by the law of causation, as there is no mental association of things in the region beyond the senses, and no causation without association of ideas. It is only when "being'' or existence gets moulded into name and form that it obeys the law of causation, and is said to be under law; because all law has its essence in causation.
Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by the conditions of space, time, and causation. Everything that we know, or can possibly know, must be subject to causation, and that which obeys the law of causation cannot be free. It is acted upon by other agents, and becomes a cause in its turn. But that which has become converted into the will, which was not the will before, but which, when it fell into this mould of space, time, and causation, became converted into the human will, is free; and when this will gets out of this mould of space, time, and causation, it will be free again. From freedom it comes, and becomes moulded into this bondage, and it gets out and goes back to freedom again."
- Swami Vivekananda
As far as the billiard player is concerned, you're right in assuming that he sees relative to his necessities of perception. The owl sees the world differently from a human, each according to their respective natures.
Now this Knowledge of the Infinite is for an intellectual grasp. It brings holism and humility out. Our sense of individuality vanishes and we shine forth in our true nature- 'infinite existence, consciousness and bliss'. Also, comes with this the awareness that the way to stay one with the infinite is THROUGH the finites. It also makes you aware that one must stay in this world like a lotus in mud- blossoming in it and through it, yet clear of even a small speck of mud in its personal nature.
For example, you know that your family members are the same elements as everything else in this world, yet you choose to give them a spirit of a family.
A billiard player would be a hypocrite, if he wants to continue being a billiard player, yet at the same time, also look at the balls devoid of the context of the game. A dutiful player would therefore assign a 'spirit of the game' to what he knows, deep within, (for his own knowledge's sake), are simply vibrations of the same kind but of a different degree.
If your question is fundamentally about the usefulness of knowledge in general, that is something else :D
Simon Woods brilliant point. You got to the essence of this lecture. Cause and effect are perception. To think that one caused the other simply because it preceded it is to make assumptions that are unfounded in reality.
You can say that the cue ball hit the black ball, but what moves the cue ball? The arm? What moved the arm? The brain? What moves the brain? Did you hit the ball trying to win, was it to have fun, to prove something? We got everything moving is a conviction, a desire, in truth, spirit.
I feel to honour cause and effect in time as part of arriving at an appreciation of the Timeless. Actions have consequence by which one learns and is transformed and aligned to balance in which to operate from a different presumption of being. One can play billiards from a perspective of already seeing the outcome and allowing the body to operate the alignment with that outcome. This is in fact how things work - but part of hiding is the interposing of a manual overlay of the 'doer' - and of course the world of power struggle.
There is a complex math to the most efficient way to catch a long high cricket ball - and cricketers can be observed to implement this. But of course they are simply intent on catching the ball. No one needs to understand how life works to live it! But if misunderstandings are identified as if true (like fear of shame from dropping the catch or pride in a catch one hasn't yet made) - then such need to be truly understood within their original context - to be released. Because of the way mis-identity works, that is often the last thing we allow - and rather add all kinds of layers of 'motivation' or enforced discipline to 'succeed' as the doer - rather than face the underlying issues that may be found to yield a false cause to a true life resumed - as connected presence.
As I see it - everything within Consciousness is an agency of Consciousness and the whole arises as a 'quantum coherence' - regardless the 'thought adjusting layer' of definitions by which an incoherence of fragmented experience results. My sense of checking in as I write is a sense of integrality within wholeness. I listened in on what your question tuned me into and let it find its way - via the baulk cushion!
It wasn't that I dredged a 'database' of knowing anything - so much as felt into the movement beneath the question and joined with it as my own. I may have not matched what you were feeling for - but I enjoyed a willingness of leaning in that direction.
Very nice. Thx Binra.
You lost me at error correction. So space has no volume just information?
Space is a representation of a deeper reality. Our perception of space is a fitness assessment based on what it does or does not do to benefit us.
It is not good fitness to reason that asteroids and comets don't exist because we can't see them, before they impact. It is rather a high degree of stupidity which could lead to extinction. We do not (now) evolve according to the principles in the animal world, we evolve like a force in the solar system. And for this we need big brains with high IQ in average, evolution tries to produce a conscious immortal species, which can act/fight as such a force in the non-perfect (but fantastic) star system.
This guy sounds so much like Jeff goldblum !
JJ Stubbs he is the voice from hawkings wheelchair
@@terrythetuffkunt9215 He sounds like one of those spelling machines..
Can someone tell me the music in the beginning please.
Spheres within spheres stores more data in a smaller space, but that is not data-compression. Improving the storage container (like getting a bigger hard drive) only compresses the data if you stretch vocabulary to suit this user. The sequence of the data makeup has not changed. I don't mind the usage, but today's usage of data-compression modifies the data so more will fit into the exact same previous container.
14:00 i’ve gotten to this point in the video and the man’s continuously contradicts what he says.
If the train isn’t hitting you then what is hitting your body? So your body itself is just another interface?
You thinking that you’re copulating is an interface? or are somethings interface and somethings objective reality? Which is it ? Is your perception of being alive itself simply an interface and you’re not really alive ? what is the point in this entire lecture ?
Who's job is it to constantly stare at the moon, so as to not disrupt the tides?
Seymor Onion That's my job.
Its your turn Dude... Don't slack off! (Slight reference to a slack tide) :)
The moon and tides, as we perceive them, is just a convenient way to represent them to ourselves and tell us nothing of their true nature. From the quantum view, while unobserved, they theoretically only exist as unobjective wave functions.
What he meant is that, to us these phenomena do occur and we cannot help but experience them as we perceive them to be, but behind the very nature of the gravitational forces which cause the tides and moon to exist exists a completely different reality than we could ever imagine. The truth of reality is beyond our ability to understand it because our best understanding of reality is always colouring that truth in a way that our bodies can't make use of it.
Example is we do not see the gravitational waves, yet we have now instruments that can detect them. We have no body sensors that can feel this gravitational wave, but through an instrument we built that can sense it we can use readings that feed our sensors (eyes) with the information that allows us to corroborate the existence of the waves themselves.
In this exact same way, the truth behind the very structure of reality itself is so far removed from any way we can sense it that it almost makes no sense to try and understand it. It's like a game character trying to understand it's existence, even if it understands that it is made of the same code that it's environment is made up of, how possible is it for the character to further understand that the code reflects 0 and 1's and then even more so that the 0 and 1 represent voltage fluctuations in some box that generates the code that eventually leads to the game world. This is what he is pointing at.. It's pretty deep.
Your brain creates your experience of the moon i.e the shape, color and so on. Your experience of how the moon is, isn't really what is there objectively. Its not how we see it, so when we look at it we construct the moon as we see it.
How do you let go of causal structure and still retain the ability to do computation? I dont get that at all
You don't. This theory is full of self-contradictions which are not remotely addressed.
we don’t see reality as it is because we see it as it was, is, and could be. I wonder if the lines between past, present, and future are also a construction.
I suspect all of us have claimed at least once..
"Yes! That's it! I knew that. Why didn't I see it before?"
Meaning inspiration revealed what we already know to be true.
We already know everything, all that is (left) experienced is a revealing.
All in due time.
Except that time doesn't really exist ;)
It is all quite logical, right up to the "conscious agents" bit.
Bob Aldo I used to think so too, but so much evidence points to the fact that physical reality is an illusion and spacetime itself is an emergent product of consciousness or conscious agents. Similar to how one single H2O means nothing but enough of them create a drop of water and even more create an entire ocean. There’s so many questions that one doesn’t even know where to start to ask... how is it that a conscious agent causes a collapse of a wave function, simply by being aware of whatever is being observed.
Daniel Ram more than that: physical reality as we know it through our perceptions and common sense is absolutely, for sure, an illusion. For example, there are no solid and persistent objects. It's just that for practical purposes (inclusive fitness, Reproductive Success), what does exist might as well be solid and persistent objects. It doesn't matter that it's not true. At the scope and scale of our everyday experience, reality functions as if it were true, in most but not all important ways. That's good enough for selection to shape our perceptions this way, just like other suboptimal aspects of our biological endowment. The world we perceive is the most computationally efficient model that lets us get our genes into subsequent generations, but it is not an accurate or comprehensive representation. That's virtually a truism.
Physics-to-evolution offers us a potential path to a reductionist description not of conscious or agency, but of human behavior and the connections to other natural phenomena.
There is a temptation in some circles to view physical cause-and-effect as operating below or before conscious agents, but that somehow conscious agents emerge and behave in some way which contradicts what physics would indicate.
But the "below" part is still seen to be valid - brains and neurons break and can be starved. Personalities & judgments are seen to be modified by experiences and by pharmaceuticals.
One thing we do when we are not completely confident of what our senses tell us is that we aim scienfic instruments at phenomena. And A.I. which is not merely an extension of our concepts.
Wavelengths of light are found which go beyond what our brains and cultural ideas might condition us to believe in. Also connections between disparate phenomena. So we find out a lot about the objective world which goes beyond
the limitations of our senses and our brains.
It is fine to say that intersubjective agreement doesn't make something true - but what about one's own subjective "agreement"? One's confidence doesn't make other people or objects "real".
A predator is hunting, and smells a prey. The smell is just a symbol that the prey is there - it isn't the same as the prey. But what of it? The cause-and-effect chains would have us understand that evolution has crafted
the predator animal to respond to that smell with heightened hunting mode changes, but there are no "wrong concepts" at work. It seems to obvious to us that we have concepts, but empirically, a person is seen to have molecules
which respond to physical and social cues.
None of the examples given here contradict objective realism. The drumbeat of "you construct reality" doesn't match which the best research in neuroscience and evolution. It is when an explanation seeks to inject conscious agency that
things become muddled. I see plants and I think "green". It isn't that I am personally creating green - but that evolution has crafted my neurology to perceive those wavelengths that way. It has also crafted brains to process cewrtain
sets of phenomena as shapes, motion vs rest, light / dark. etc. Different groups of people also have different socialized patterns of processing, passed from generation to generation.
I'm about 1/3 of the way through, and won't keep watching, but basically the problem comes in when you naively assume there is conscious agency "out there" and that it 'creates the world'. Why would it create one thing and not another?
28:00 agriculture, pressures changed. Then suddenly mothers dieing during child birth gain more wieght in evelutionary pressure. Now there are c-sections. The agriculture shift is consistent through agriculture advancements.
Very interesting! But if spacetime is not fundamental, "fitness" can't be fundamental either. I think the new theory should get rid of utitilarian notions like fitness (which as Hoffman explains is a very complicated function of the state of the world and the organism, etc., which again shows it's not fundamental) and adopt some more abstract notion like creativity. All spiritual teachings I know say that creativity is a fundamental dimension of reality, probably as fundamental as consciousness itself. To explain that we all seem to have similar perceptions of the world we don't need to resort to evolutionary explanations (we are similar organisms, the product of a long evolution, etc.), but realize that on some (mostly unconscious) level we all share one same awareness or consciousness.
right! I like Roger Castillo's term "pure potentiality" too. It's a-causal, fundamental, without reason, etc....
Fit for purpose - allows a fitting in with a wholeness - even when expressing in appearances of conflicting or competing parts. The usurping of a true whole-part recognition is the idea of separate powers in a separate 'world'. The Creative can be 'sacrificed' to mythology - but only while the focus in such a role is fed or supported by a sense of purpose accepted meaningful.
The purpose in establishing such an experience is having the experience for what it yields. But when that purpose itself yields to true creative being - the definitions that frame an UN-fitting and un-fit reality rise to be re-evaluated in terms of resonance and relevance to the true of you. Nothing (no one) else can fit your part BUT you.
But I agree. taking parts of the new wine perspective and yet stuffing them into old paradigm bottles is a way to make more time - or delay recognition and appreciation for being - in sacrifice to some idea of a future becoming - set by a past conditioning.
Creative is being. But patterns of conditioned response operate the same 'choice' as if a freedom to choose apart from and without the Creator-Nature of all being. Love wists where it will - but it is not random - though of course our reality experience includes experience of what seems random within a limited framework.
Unconsciousness is in fact the shadow of what is assigned and accepted to consciousness. Stuffing reality 'out of mind' is a clever way to seem to create a separate mind. Clever because it is not a true creation that extends shared Conscious Reality - but rather a derivative of a conflicted or contradictory idea.
The persistence and propagation of idea given focus is natural enough - and yet the compulsive dictate of fear and its derivatives is not the true movement of support for being. Until yielded to the Creative, mind usurps everything. That was its job description when we thought to climb into the movie frame. Investment in (or suppression of) outcomes via force, rather than unfolding of being through communication (on all levels and dimensionalities of being). The latter remains true while the former seems to 'run the show' - but seeming requires force to pass off as true - and thus all that would not 'fit' is suppressed, inhibited, denied and blanked to 'unconsciousness'. Forced reality is a private protection racket - that seems to share by enforcing compliance.
In a sense everything experiencable is a 'reality' but not everything resonates relevant to who you are being the movement or focus of Now - and so accepting all of who you are will release some of what you thought true and accept the embrace of much that such a false sense denied (rendered unconscious). This is experienced as a shift of perspective from time to timeless and the conscious appreciation and gratitude for the sharing by which experience itself is beheld - or co-created. The floor disappears out from under and balance is uncovered within the flow of the whole. So in the extension of a true recognition and appreciation - we are not projecting the idea of conflict and then receiving its reflection as our world.
Adur Alkain or like quality as in pirsing metaphysics of quality
very well said, but I think fitness is mentioned for a reason, after all that is what life is trying to do, to survive and reproduce and the idea of creativity is left behind (nonconscious) we all constantly create reality we observe, we just are not aware of it or forgot it. We all are an extension of the One source/awareness with a unique qualities we have developed over many experiences we've acquired. I think that was the idea since the beginning, to give up the most creative state we all came from to gain the experience of "good" and "evil". One cannot experience being lost if he knows he cannot get lost. But that does not mean we lost the creativity, we never did, we just left it to the awareness of our own selves which we are not conscious of(subconscious), this is where the idea of the Higher self comes from, and the existence of Quantum Observer (which collapses the wave function and projects the reality to the ego) has been suggested experimentally even by science, quantum mechanics.
Seeking the truth as it relates to conscious life? Search *_Truth Contest_* and read the top entry called "The Present". This is truth you can and should check for yourself, this is truth the evidence says is true
Time is space. Not the emptiness that surrounds the stars. The more full life is the faster we travel through a space called time.
The more miserable we are... the slower time goes by.
The roadrunner knows this. The clever coyote does not.
It's all perspective.
Time has an arrow. The arrow of time. It goes in one direction. Things "break down" eventually. Put a drop of food coloring in a glass of water.....I promise it will always dissipate throughout the water. It will never do the opposite. Not in this universe or some unfound parallel universe. Same goes for energy. Ever heard of "entropy" ? Look it up. It kind of has something to do with the "arrow" of time. If you want to dig into this a bit more, look into it, as well as "reference frames" and how we calculate time. Another cool thing is how time changes depending on the gravitational field. It is very measurable, just ask some satellites or the crews that were manning the space stations! GPS would not work if it were not for the time calculation!
🤣🤣🤣 good one, steve~
superb content
Wonderful presentation. You have scientifically expressed what I have been thinking for decades but don't have the credibility 2 present a good argument.