The cinematography in this conversation is IN-CREDIBLE!!

He's incredibly and refreshingly honest about what he's sure about and what he's assuming

@supertuesday600

7 жыл бұрын

He might sound absurd, stubborn and crazy, but the fact is he is following all evidences. 'The rest of the physical world' only exists when my consciousness reaches out to perceive it. Otherwise there is no 'rest of the physical world'.

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

@ A P... Since I was arguably prolix in my main posted response, I'll be brief here in response to your principle assertion: Rubbish! But thanks for your opinion.

@gangsterkami1

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Garnier open your eyes further. See the truth. Your assumption is that consciousness is confined in the brain. Go look at some scientific evidence that allows other wise. Your theory will then be flipped up side down

@neil6477

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Garnier From your perspective of consciousness being an emmergent property of the material your argument is sound. BUT, if you turn it around, which is what the video and debate is all about, then consciousness becomes a property which, by necessity, no longer resides purely within the human mind and therefore it is not necessary for an individual to be conscious of all events - only those with which they directly interact. So whilst an individual person may not be aware of the existence of the car that is going to run them over, there is at some level some consciousness which is and therefore both the car and the accident will come into being.

@neil6477

4 жыл бұрын

Al Garnier well as someone with a degree in physics and a masters in quantum mechanics I do have a reasonable idea about how physics works. You have completely missed the point I was making and, given your obvious lack of understanding, I guess we won’t get very far. I’m curious as to why you feel it necessary to insult people rather than offer constructive, rational arguments but again I doubt that we will get very far in trying to explore that line. A pity since I would like to have discussed this topic at a sensible level but that clearly is not the going to happen. Enjoy the sunshine.

Donald Hoffman is underrated! Love his TED talk.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

He's a crackpot!

@jonathanmoore5619

4 жыл бұрын

@@GeoCoppens right... And you know... Go make out with a bottle.

@Bluebell_55

3 жыл бұрын

He's definitely asking the right questions.

@GeoCoppens

3 жыл бұрын

@@visancosmin8991 There is no reasoning against certified nutcases!

@lucifer.Morningstar369

2 жыл бұрын

@@GeoCoppens prove him wrong then since you are so certain. You sound miserable which is why you think people are nutcases for believing in conciousness being fundamental. I mean we are proof conciousness is a real property of reality, and has always existed, you think non concious and non intelligent processes are the bedrock of reality, now that is some very closed thinking, if all scientist thought like that we wouldn't be as advanced.

If all consciousness ceased to exist, what would matter be? Well, it wouldn't matter much.

@alwannan9551

5 жыл бұрын

will be like having a hardware without a software

@keithgreenan1850

5 жыл бұрын

L7 it would not matter at all.

@alwannan9551

5 жыл бұрын

yes it would; no evolution without the universal consciousness. big bang it self triggered by consciousness.

@alwannan9551

5 жыл бұрын

consciousness has an effect even on subatomic particles

@alwannan9551

5 жыл бұрын

Plz see this Video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZoqmxbFvesSzorA.html

Who wants to see a discussion between Hoffman and Sean Carroll.

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, that would be entertaining... in the manner of the Washington Generals contesting the Harlem Globetrotters!

@96oscarC

4 жыл бұрын

@Explicit Relativity why

@derdagian1

4 жыл бұрын

Oscar Carty A quark didn’t just randomly flip, if I scan a thousand attemp fails and discover the quark flip in my brain and decide to ergo Procto the Big Bang and own the flippin universe via merit. Alter Universe? Not in Kennard.

@96oscarC

4 жыл бұрын

@@derdagian1 that made absolutely 0 sense. I don't understand your slang

@derdagian1

4 жыл бұрын

Nothing that I think is a random quark flip. I do it on purpose. I create reality for myself. Next stop: Sean Carroll, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Leonard Susskind, Richard Dawkins, etc. must inform folk that the Big Bang was disproved by Duane Gruber in 2007.

"If humanity has any chance of maturing beyond its barely controlled adolescence, we're going to need a much better understanding of what consciousness is, and what it --- and by association all of us --- are really capable of."- Dean Radin (Real Magic 2018)

@tavoiaiono7885

4 жыл бұрын

ITs all energy and vibration, see the world from the perspective of love and you will understand consciousness thoroughly.

That’s what I love about scientists. They are truth seekers first and foremost.

@NoReprensentationWithoutTax

9 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, Ithink most "scientists" would disagree with him

@Unknown-rc6xt

15 күн бұрын

Truth seeking scientists like Einstein are very rare. Most are just narrow lab specialists.

Also refreshing to have someone questioning Hoffmans assumptions unlike most interviews I've seen.

@_Allen_Holmes_

3 жыл бұрын

@@visancosmin8991 where can I find that example?

@_Allen_Holmes_

3 жыл бұрын

@@visancosmin8991 touché lol! I was hoping there was a specific video in which he used it you had in mind

@opencurtin

2 жыл бұрын

He has the intellect to do it .

Congratulations mr Donald Hoffman on your excellent proposition on consciousness . Consciousness includes time and space within itself . It is the grand field in which all the time, space , all the four fundamental forces find their abode . Consciousness not only creates matter but supports it too . Individual consciousness is like cloud drops in the supreme consciousness . In Hindu scriptures Vishnu is the god of consciousness , who is the source of energy , who is much much faster than light and has entered everywhere as the sheet anchor of existence . The Vedic manthras state this and much more . But they are like theorems and parables which only devoted scientists like you can unravel .

My two favorite people. I love their ideas and the way they explain these topics. Helps make sense of theories, leaves it open to interpretation and further exploration.

Finally, someone gets it 100% correct. Well done Mr Hoffman. What is there that is not experienced through our consciousness?

Secret societies have known that consciousness causes the Cosmos for thousands of years. I like the tree and its leaves analogy best when it come to perceiving the different types of consciousness. Each person is like a single leaf with a simple awareness of what is around it while the tree itself is aware of far more, from all the leaves, branches and the whole tree including the roots and the whole system that makes the leaves possible. An individual leaf might care most about itself and it's immediate surroundings while the tree itself would care more about the wellbeing of the whole. Leaves could only theorize about the existence of roots which I has never seen and presume they perform their work behind the scenes making it all possible.

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

@ Guided Meditation... Have you considered that what lends secret societies that nomenclature is that their insider beliefs are, as a rule... *secrets* ?! But, of course, *you* have the evidence of the content and nature of these beliefs for thousands of years... [Sarcasm alert.]

@mexdal

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Garnier i dont think you have truely grasped what consciousness is and what this guy is saying. You cant have a universe of matter without some kind of consciousness to observe it or register it. It does not evolve from biology but may use biology to evolve itself.

@mexdal

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Garnier no you are the stupid one as you still dont get it and by the sound of your arrogance, probably never will or dont want too. So sad.

@trevelyaen

4 жыл бұрын

​@Al Garnier"Only believe proven science and nothing else, do not be open to different ideas and if you show me evidence or give me reasons to possibly believe new ideas without empirical evidence i will get extremely defensive and angry" dude you suck

@keisi1574

4 жыл бұрын

@Al Garnier You don't know what you don't know.

1. Observer effect in quantum mechanics questioning true objective reality 2. Evolutionary argument that concious agents do not see reality as it is. 3. Concious experience of absolute consciousness and selflessness in meditators/drugs(DMT, LSD)/psychiatric states. I feel these three independent observations need to be reconciled in a single model to reach to the answer. The third might seem out of place but such experiential states are how very similar ideas have arisen in older eastern philosophies.

This looks like it was filmed in some kind of heavenscape that their conciousnesses conjured up

What a great interview, Robert for challenging Donald, and Donald for his well reasoned responses. Love it!

What an awesome concept it is, that the fundamental reality is consciousness, not space, time , matter, or energy - all of those are derived from and secondary to the consciousness. Wow!

@tunahelpa5433

5 жыл бұрын

It's one stepbeyond dualism.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

Complete rubbish!

@paulb6805

3 жыл бұрын

@@GeoCoppens it's the explanation that makes the most sense, if you're willing to set aside your attachment to the material illusion and what you think you know

@GeoCoppens

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulb6805 The material illusion??? What the fuck is that?

@GeoCoppens

3 жыл бұрын

@@visancosmin8991 You really don't know what you are talking about. Matter is a set of perceptions? What a load of rubbish!

Donald Hoffman is doing a great job with this series.

@tunahelpa5433

5 жыл бұрын

The series is done by Kuhn, and I like both men.

The kind of elegance you are looking for may be the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra ; a discourse between Shakyamuni Buddha and one of his wisest recruits, Mahatmi. ^^

@neil6477

4 жыл бұрын

Mael-Strom Totally agree M-S. This is an extremely profound text and one which always makes me chuckle because essentially Buddha is stating that ALL views and models are ultimately void, including Buddhism itself. That, to me, is an impressive claim - one which gives me motivation to sit on my cushion and seek the Silence.

@mael-strom9707

4 жыл бұрын

@@neil6477 Indeed, that profound text puzzled a lot of scholars and philosophers until quantum mechanics and the modern study of consciousness came about. It makes me smile every time I sit on my cushion. ^^

Insightful and refreshing

He talks with so much clarity. Not a moment does he stammer which shows how fluid his thoughts are. Where can i get the full talk?

Absolutely right. Who we really are is beyond the limitations of experience and belief.

absolutely , the problem is most scientist don't understand that our universe is much crazier than we think...And we don't think much..We don't even know why we sleep..Hoffman is daring to think outside the box

Hoffman is the Copernicus of the 21st century. His model --shared by many-- is THE breakthrough we humans need... and quickly.

mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of our whole and unbroken movement David Bohm

@mjt1517

3 жыл бұрын

Only mind exists. Matter is a projected illusion.

And isnt it a beautiful thing when the sound and photography are executed to the highest standards as they are on this superb clip 💘

@michaeltrower741

Жыл бұрын

Yes, you really do feel as if you are sitting at the table with therm.

Tom Campbell hypothesized that the 'material world' is a virtual reality that evolved from primal consciousness. This would explain why newtonian and quantum worldviews can't be reconciled assuming the materialistic model. If the universe is does turn out to be a VR it would explain stuff like the double slit experiment, why the speed of light is a constant and many other things. Check out Tom's videos on KZread. Very interesting.

@johnnastrom9400

4 жыл бұрын

What's your opinion of Peter Russel?

Good lighting and camera work set up in this video.

I wish the interviewer would've let him talk. I'm interested to hear what Donald Hoffman has to say, not the interviewer.

He's making my head hurt in a wonderful way.

This channel is extremely interesting

@chrisc1257

5 жыл бұрын

Until you realize how much is complete fraud.

@MrHardrocker98

5 жыл бұрын

@@chrisc1257 why do you say that?

@chrisc1257

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrHardrocker98 Without knowing the first cause, everything is laughably plausible; even death.

@MrHardrocker98

5 жыл бұрын

@@chrisc1257 Couldn't agree more. But this doesn't make this video a fraud.

@chrisc1257

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrHardrocker98 “We fancy men are individuals; so are pumpkins; but every pumpkin in the field goes through every point of pumpkin history.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Buddha knew it too

@totallyanonymousbish9599

5 жыл бұрын

Kate Stevenson If you really look at it, Buddha was right all along.

This is extremely interesting and thought provoking ~~ my question is how does conscientious arise in the first place (particularly human)?

I think Hoffman is really on to something!

Great guy, relaxed and not too much zealous about his work. For him it's just a intellectual play. Finally we all will die, and possibly get some better explanation;)

Can we skip floating back and forth through the idyllic background setting? Is it not enough to just sit across the table from each other and converse? The interviewer is in love with the idea and success of his brilliance.

i set forth the intention to meet Donald. His preception is purly angelic.

We evolved to think in terms of cause of effect. This is because of how we perceive time. Except that time does not exist the way we (or to be honest, "most people") perceive it (as something 'linear'). Once it's understood that time is not an actual thing, cause and effect fall through the bottom and new questions can be raised. Consciousness doesn't "cause" anything, it just "is" as much as Gravity "is" and we know about as much about gravity as we do about consciousness. Now you can argue that gravity 'causes' things to fall. But gravity doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it cannot be turned off, and things that fall as an effect of the gravitational field did not just appear there either. We like to create abstract models and calculate and explain things that way but 'reality' is not a closed and limited system. It just 'is'. And it is in motion - a perpetual motion - which because of philosophical victim stances cannot or should not exist (according to what or why not, then? Is there a moral argument in this mix? If so, what does morality have to do with physical reality?) Consciousness just 'is'. It's a system that biology taps into and utilizes as part of survivor mechanisms, just as it utilizes energy from light, chemical processes, physical properties.. brains utilize electrical and chemical processes which are paradoxically beyond comprehension to themselves. Through these processes they tap into consciousness and here we are. Is consciousness CAUSED by the brain? NO. Just as much as gravity is not CAUSED by a thing that falls as a result of being in the gravity field. Does gravity cause the thing to fall> The thing falls as an effect of being in the gravity field. But has to be in the field first, so the first cause is getting into the gravity field. Translated . Consciousness does not cause a brain to exist. The brain has to exist first to be able to tap into consciousness, and the brain evolved to become better at that, just like wings of birds evolved to optimize flight and manoeverability according to the survival needs of the various bird types. I can go on rambling like this. It's all very clear to me and I am convinced it can be clear to anyone who just takes the time (!) to let go of extraneously imposed philosophy and thought patterns.

@DharmaBeing

2 жыл бұрын

This is as clearly as I could have expressed this very difficult set of interlaced thoughts, with which I entirely agree. I fully expect you've read Alan Watts, but if you have not, he's also highly articulate on these points. His reputation as a "mystical" thinker is really not accurate, though of course there are aspects/segments of his writings that verge in this direction. Thanks for the nice recitation . . .

@harishsk8014

11 ай бұрын

Is gravity a physical or non physical.

@harishsk8014

11 ай бұрын

Even a single cell organism is conscious. But doesn't have a brain.

The guy talking to don Hoffman has to be one of Einstein's cousins. I can see the family resemblance.

@caseyspaos448

3 жыл бұрын

I was thinking Thomas Kuhn

Good stuff.

Heavy! I love it!

max plank said the same thing

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

@ earthworm jim... I'll bet he *didn't* ❗ 😣

@FStan-co8vv

3 жыл бұрын

@@frederickj.7136 Actually, Planck really did say that. Look it up.

1: What he is saying is that there is nothing to separate your consciousness from mine. 2: Because he is saying that there's nothing that separates one consciousness from another, he is saying that there's only One consciousness... 3: This is what is known as Solipsism. 4: Consciousness requires some form of "container" for which it to occur in, otherwise we are saying that consciousness itself is a substance, OR we are saying that No "physical" substances exist, and we are thereby saying that nothing exists - and if we are saying that nothing exists, then there'd be no consciousness.

@jvdhtm

4 жыл бұрын

WHWWD And Philosophy Nope that’s not what he is saying 1. He describes physical reality as icons (Icons on Desktop on your pc doesn’t say anything about reality ) so space and time are just useful tool for conscious agents. ( so there is no space time or 3d world as there is no physical email icon in somewhere your pc ) 2. He doesn’t say there is one consciousness He says these icons represents the conscious agents which build fundamentally the deeper reality ( remember matrix the only difference is that those green 0s 1s are conscious and when you wake up from your dream state you wake up not in another physical reality but in 0s and 1s world) 3. Imagine network of conscious agents just like matrix. Then theses conscious creatures or network create internal icon and some data structure to hide the truth and complexity of these deeper information. (Other conscious creatures) The you as one of these conscious agent or assemble of these conscious agents don’t see the real reality “ the green matrix of conscious agents.” you see desktop background which is constructed by your Perception.

@DSE75

4 жыл бұрын

Not enough for the label of solipsism in my view. He doesn’t specify in this video his view of other conscious agents. If they act as a collective consciousness, or are we participators versus creators of the physical.

human consciousness brings the reality of the physical universe into being glad to see others agreeing with my opinion on that ,

I think Chalmers may have suggested consciousness as a fundamental force as well, but it's quite a leap to go from that to subjective idealism.

Modern science says that from a singular mass that rapidly expanded and cooled, the entire universe and all in it, including the forces of nature that it all operates by, and including you and me and our supposed consciousness', all came into existence. BUT, does the universe and all in it actually exist per se, OR does only this singular mass exist in the form of all things? Same reality, two different perspectives. Which one is really true? Are they both true? Do "I" exist and yet not exist, depending upon the context? How could "I" ever cease to exist if "I" never ever existed at all in the first place? And if this singular mass wanted to exist as you and/or me for literally all of future eternity, couldn't it do so if it chose to do so? (This singular mass having a consciousness as evidenced by the consciousness you and I are supposedly experiencing).

@soakedbearrd

7 жыл бұрын

Great questions, and we can only hope that as we explore this train of thought, rather than simply disregard as unprovable, that we can make progress into having a unified theory. It is both a scientific inquiry and a philosophical one.

@charlesbrightman4237

7 жыл бұрын

soakedbearrd Thanks. Two things will be included in this post. First, my latest theoretical idea concerning the "TOE" (Theory Of Everything). Second, how to possibly prove proof of the idea and concept which could lead to artificial gravity and neutrino protections for space ships, bases, etc. And note: while this may or may not be really true, I lack the resources to currently prove it beyond doubt. But, I currently believe it to be true at this time. But of course if really true, then we will also have a better model to work with concerning the very nature of reality itself. First, my latest "TOE": THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". 14. I also believe that a pulsating singularity (which is basically a pulsating photon) is the pure energy unit. 15. When these pulsating pure energy units interact with other pure energy units, they tangle together. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the pure energy units unite together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the pure energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting pure energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Second, a possible proof for the idea and concepts: Create a matrix of laser lights that are directed through an electric field of a polarizer. This should polarize the EM of the laser lights which should also then polarize "G" (gravity, gravity being the directional component of the photon). Depending upon which way the light was being polarized, could potentially have artificial gravity, anti-gravity, or whatever the natural environment was just by flicking a switch one way or another or by turning the system off. And of course, a propulsion unit to help propel space ships too. If true, this could also possibly help with neutrino impacts on the astronauts, ships, bases, quantum computers, equipment, etc., if done right.

@soakedbearrd

7 жыл бұрын

Fascinating insights, although I am not a physicist, nor a scientist, I am well read in the area of study and am able to follow what you are saying. Thanks for that info, I need to digest it a little more!

@charlesbrightman4237

7 жыл бұрын

soakedbearrd Thank you again. I believe everything in existence in this universe can be deduced down into pure energy units interacting with other pure energy units at it's most basic level. Hence, consciousness, thoughts, and memories are all just energy interacting with other energy. But, while energy is everywhere and in everything for it to even exist in this universe, it currently appears that consciousness, thoughts, and memories only occur when the energy interactions are arranged in basically a specific way (ie: a physical brain). But, if it happened here on Earth by whatever means it actually did, then certainly it could occur elsewhere in this vast universe. And, as we truly do not know what we do not know, it would seem to leave the door open to the possibility at least that consciousness, thoughts, and memories could occur by other means besides just as related to a physical brain. As a truthseeker, a person has to keep their mind open to other potential possibilities.

@AkshayPatil-qf5eh

6 жыл бұрын

taking the above-told theory, this is what eastern way approaching has said to us that consciousness is the main thing that projects reality to us. to see the absolute reality we must have nothing but pure consciousness to see the ultimate truth that reality is. Hinduism says that this really is "The Brahman" which is the source of everything i.e. consciousness everything there is existing is the manifestation of this infinite continuum of consciousness. that is what Hoffman is trying to put in theory. Buddhism says that Consciousness comes from the void. they say that consciousness is an integral element in our experience of reality as it is otherwise they say that it wouldn't be an experience at all. well, the problem is that this is not how science works and that's why one can say that objective way of viewing reality will not show us the true reality when we consider consciousness as fundamental because when we have an objective approach the subjective experience must not be brought as science is a way in which experimental results must agree by many. while one cannot trust other subjective experience as it not measurable by an objective approach this where the study of consciousness is so difficult. while science is objective and Hinduism and Buddhism is completely subjective one cannot know. can they be thought of as the study of reality? is my main question. and I think both have many parallels in them. to have an open mind is what I am trying to do.

It's like the cliche , the more we know , the less we know !

Please explain the mathematics of consciousness?

I subscribe to all he says - and this is fully aligned with what Idealism postulates. The nature of reality is mental, not material. Read and watch also e.g. Bernardo Kastrup on this topic (PhDs in computer science and Philosophy).

Kuhn does not let Hoffman express himself. This is the sole occasion in which I've seen him behave that way.

@zoheirnoaparast

5 жыл бұрын

Laureano Luna too much coffee

@Daimo83

4 жыл бұрын

I agree he was hostile

@vasishtapolisetty639

3 жыл бұрын

I think here, he needed to be. He is asking a lot of valid questions!

@LaureanoLuna

3 жыл бұрын

@@vasishtapolisetty639 What sense does it make to ask good questions if you don't let them be answered?

Absolutely ridiculous. Post modernism applied to the physical universe itself. Mathematical relativism if you like. A bat see's no light because there is no light, a human see's light because there is light. Both are right. Therefore the bat and the human are sharing 2 overlapping dimensions? Because he can make the maths work

What is consciousness as being defined here?

This is an explanation of what we still don’t understand in the Quantum world, we need sideways thinking a lot now to explain Quantum theories.

if reality only exists when being observed, then why does the blind man still bump into things whilst at home alone?

@ChristopherJ655

4 жыл бұрын

Because the collective consciounce has a subconscious mutual agreement that it exists it being consciousness. The blind man still lives in the quantum realm and exists simply because he exists.

@AG-yx4ip

2 жыл бұрын

Observation is not exclusive to visual perception. You can “see”with sound and body, etc

this interviewer tried to dictate that this man shouldn't present his theory in such a way that it looks like it invalidates established consensus. The same way Boltzmann caused anger among physicists when he proposed atoms. This interviewer even had the nerve to bring in the totally irrelevant comment "it's a free country" as if physics depends on that!! seriously dude? Physics is the search for the truth, not just the truth that you personally prefer.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

"Physics is the search for the truth" Nope, physics wants to finds out how everything works according to lawlike events.

@ddandrews6472

4 жыл бұрын

"Physics is the search for the truth, not just the truth that you personally prefer.". Actually physics is the 'truth' that you personally prefer. That personal preference may come to the point of a widespread agreement type truth. But, still it is the truth one personally prefer. This is the very reason Boltzmann had to endure lot of pain with his "atomic" view of the nature, simply because the majority had a different "personal preference" at that time. Chasing the "objective reality" with the physics as we know it is a wild goose chase. Physics build mathematical models to explain the nature as we see it, nothing more.

@motherofallemails

4 жыл бұрын

@@GeoCoppens I'm afraid not. Don't confuse physics with engineering. I said "the truth" not just part of the truth. "finding out how everything works" is like "searching for part of the truth". But the truth is not just "how everything works" it's how and why everything is the way it is.

@motherofallemails

4 жыл бұрын

@@ddandrews6472 no it's not personal preference, it's what best explains observation with a view to getting to the truth, in short, searching for the truth. If the respected "physicists" of the time had remembered this, they would not have got all uppity with Boltzmann's new ideas.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

@@motherofallemails "But the truth is not just "how everything works" it's how and why everything is the way it is." Finding out how and why everything is the way it is, is a point that can never be reached!

It's magical...

Conscious beings come from outside of Time. The Universes were created to house the Holographics of our Worlds and Galaxies and various Dimensions. The Conscious Singularity does Create the Worlds of Creation inside of Time and then parts off "Us" and sends us into the Creations it has created. It is a Miracle and we as Conscious Beings -- keep right on creating once we get into these Created Realms that were created from OUTSIDE of Time.

@Lola-AreaCode212

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. This. 100%.

@LO-gg6pp

4 жыл бұрын

Beautiful

@nik8099

3 жыл бұрын

What is meant by "outside"? That implies something 'external', but wouldn't externality be an illusion?

1st Hermetic Principle: All Is Mental. And everything that is exists within the mind of the All.

@TacoBell510

4 жыл бұрын

ATUM is God

@cobrajitsudojo

4 жыл бұрын

@Scott Lutz As above so below as below so above as within so without

@jamesstevenson7725

4 жыл бұрын

Meaningless statement

@nik8099

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesstevenson7725 Can you elaborate on that please?

I like alot of what this guy is saying.

So how can we test this speculation? Logically it is hard to unravel the circular logic whereby matter is a derivative of consciousness but if that matter is a brain, the consciousness appears to be a derivative of matter.

This interviewer will understand some day... :)

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

You mean when and if he starts losing marbles in old age?

All quantum talk in philosophy turns out to be crap-wrapped juicy soup.

@mael-strom9707

5 жыл бұрын

Deep introspection (zen mind) can turn all that crap into fertilizer. 😁🙏🤗

@nickolasgaspar9660

2 жыл бұрын

@@mael-strom9707 that sounds like a wishful thought....

I like it.

David Bohm talks about the most fundamental particles, which he named Consciousness Units.

The normal materialistic view is full of holes. Something always existed. In my view it is nondimensional conciousness. We already know there is no self and that energy can neither be created or destroyed, the law of thermodynamics. And to refer to "accidents" seems very childish when we also know everything is moving with precision. Science will never end and continue to revise beliefs w each passing year. Raw experience is our only tool.

@d1427

7 жыл бұрын

right, 'raw experience is our [rather say mine- because it must be individual] only tool'. And in this experience the 'something' that always existed is... nothing. However, nothing IS. This isness makes it be/exist in the impersonal, formless, spaceless and eternal, all pervading Being, which is I [n.b. but not i- this is the paradox: it is i that becomes/has always been 'I' by leaving behind/transcending the body-mind-world that rise together creating the illusion of the universe]. The scientist that puts consciousness under the microscope starts from a false premise that he is in charge of dissecting and analyzing something that is beyond mind. If they were only able to unglue the label they put on themselves as 'thinkers' and just be perhaps they would be free from all the prejudices that their 'scientific' minds limit their freedom to see reality.

@jonm3388

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Beautifully put.

@jonm3388

7 жыл бұрын

That's also the difficult part of our culture and my mind as well, is the me.

@d1427

7 жыл бұрын

J Money it looks like this is an universal issue- understanding the illusion aspect of the mind made reality and yet indulging in the illusion... mindless [mindful?]. Yes, the culture and the practice of it for 2, 3, 4... 44 decades is a real challenge for living in accordance with the reality we know at the intellectual level but once the truth known you cannot fully get back to living in ignorance [i.e. knowingly, this time]. So it appears we are stuck but it is only an appearance as all else... Anyway, i feel that trying to detach oneself from me and mine is another step towards renouncing the lie. Long story short- i'd rather think in terms of mind instead of 'my' mind... getting rid of all the possessive pronouns helps, including yours, ours, theirs.... Because me and mine/you and yours create separation and you get into the situation of the scientist who is stuck within the self-imposed limits of his labels

@MylezNevison

7 жыл бұрын

wow @Daisilui you summed up what l have been tell most people about possession and ownership and the rabbit whole they lead those that indulge in them. I say ownership leads to entitlement,entitlement comes with a title, the title becomes an identity and wherever there is identity there is a fight to keep it. for example 'my' wife [ownership], leads to only l can have sex with her [entitlement].why? because l am 'her' 'husband' [title + identity]...and anything that challenges the wife or husband identity will be seen as a threat and treated as such... the answer l always say to people is 'own and identify with nothing' so that you aren't limited by that which comes with owning and identifying with things. Anyways you sure have an intriguing outlook on things @Daisilui l sure would love to pick your brain on other concepts/ideas. is there a way l can get a hold of you?

Metaphysical Idealism rules!

@zoheirnoaparast

5 жыл бұрын

IS - BE rules rule.

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Heisenberg

Truth as a static structure vs a dynamic system. To simplify, think of a stack of copy paper with one word on each page. In time, we see each page one at a time, outside of time all of the words, on all of the pages combine to make a single word. This single word is truth, it is the entire story, told in an instant of time. The fractal version of this story has another feature. As each page is presented to us, our intent creates a slightly new meaning that branches out, changing the story, an effect that turns the stack into a tree like structure. The direction of time's arrow is the breaking of the symmetry of the potential of the boundary condition. In other words, if I toss a coin and it has perfect symmetry of potential it will land heads half the time and tails half the time. The symmetry of the potential is broken if the coin tosses are not 50/50. In a perfectly random system, after a sufficient number of tosses, the symmetry for all even number tosses would always be 50/50. Coin tosses are a lot like squaring the circle. You get closer and closer to the true value but you never reach it, like an infinite recursive iteration. If meaning is always fluctuating then we do not ever really see truth, what we see are truth values. In the example of the coin tosses, We have a resolution that gives us a value something like yes that is definitely heads. But if the time scales are very small, we can't see the result of the toss long enough for it to register, and if the scales are very long. we would not live long enough to see the result of the toss. We appear to be right in the middle of these scales. Is this a coincident?

I've always thought I was living in a computer program.

Gonna be hard to see how we can run experiments to test this hypothesis. I think consciousness is an emergent phenomena from just higher forms of complexity. If we ever get to the singularity, then that would be one method of proving this hypothesis.

@mrchristian87

8 жыл бұрын

how about the double slit expirament?

@chedagoz7145

8 жыл бұрын

how would the singularity help?

@MacedonianHero

8 жыл бұрын

Because if we can make AI (that is the point of the singularity) then we can really determine whether it is an emergent phenomena.

@nimim.markomikkila1673

7 жыл бұрын

Which singularity do you mean? For example, every black hole is a singularity. And consciousness, might be - might be - a singularity.

@MacedonianHero

7 жыл бұрын

I'm referring to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity Not the ones theorized to be in black holes, or at the time of the Big Bang.

Donald is great !!

all the answers lie within ourselves...

Both parties seem unaware of an essential (and ancient) philosophical distinction at play here - that between Idealism and Realism. Idealism maintains that reality as a whole is constituted by minds (or mind) and that it has no existence all its own independently of mind. Realism maintains the very opposite - that there is a reality beyond mind and it has its existence independently of mind (regardless of the _nature_ of that independently existing reality and of the various ways we may have of interpreting or perceiving it). On this issue, science is of no help. Science would remain the same in the sense that all the empirical evidence, measurements and observations we could gather would remain the same regardless of which is true. It is a purely philosophical matter - a metaphysical matter. I suspect that Philosophical Overdose (below somewhere) has it right in suggesting that Hoffman is a kind of Berkeleyan immaterialist. But that, too, is a purely philosophical thesis. All the science, again, would be consistent with it. On the whole, this video is about issues where the distinction between science and philosophy is essential but goes largely unobserved, especially by scientific sorts. Its absence plays havoc with their understanding and leads them simply to re-invent philosophical wheels that have already been in place and argued about over many centuries.

@tunahelpa5433

5 жыл бұрын

Brilliant comment

@Drogers8675

5 жыл бұрын

Now that you have explained the video to yourself, do you understand better?

'Its a free country - say whatever you want.' Right. You can be as big a smug presumptive materialist as you like. Doesn't make you right or even a decent interviewer.

@natemccullough8922

6 жыл бұрын

Well, Kuhn is a dualist, soooo

@chrisc1257

5 жыл бұрын

... Soooo?

@tunahelpa5433

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, no. Kuhn is not smug by any stretch of the imagination.

In the Buddhist teaching known as the Heart sutra it is explained that consciousness is not fundamental, it is still part of the illusion. More ‘fundamental’ still is Shunyata - but this lies ‘outside’ of time/space, outside of dualism and cannot be expressed using words. It follows that anything that can be expressed in words, thoughts or ideas is not ‘fundamental’ but is part of the illusion. Whilst consciousness may gives rise to the material, there is also that which gives rise to consciousness. (I have realsied that I am using the term 'dualism' in a different sense to that which is used in the video. In the video the dualism referred to is that of mind/body conflict - I am using it in the more mystical sense, as say used in the Vedas and Upanishads, that in our perception each property or quality we speak of has to automatically give rise to its opposite eg left/right, up/down, good/bad, existence/non-existence, etc., etc..)

The two are co-dependent, causative and reactive to each other. Unity of opposites should be fundamental.

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

FYI, Jesus... "Cause" (and effect) hasn't been a very useful or applicable concept in physics since smart people realized the fundamental laws are time symmetric... a long, long time ago.

When you interview someone and end up talking more than them. Now that I've watched a few more of these videos I do really appreciate his probing style. But the beginning of this was a bit much.

Whether he is right or not, a universe without any consciousness is pretty pointless lol

@nickolasgaspar9660

2 жыл бұрын

That is the problem his ideas are unfalsifiable this unscientific. And whether there is consciousness or not changes nothing....the universe doesn't have a point , a purpose or meaning. Those are qualities projected by observers and they need to be demonstrated as Intrinsic features....not assumed.

@cashglobe

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickolasgaspar9660 a universe without consciousness doesn’t exist subjectively

@cashglobe

2 жыл бұрын

@@nickolasgaspar9660 his ideas are very much falsifiable, and very scientific. It’s a rigorous scientific theory based on mathematical theorems and proven theories (evolution)

@nickolasgaspar9660

2 жыл бұрын

@@cashglobe well a universe exists independently of our subjective conscious states. So what we are subjectively aware of has nothing to do with its state of existence.

@nickolasgaspar9660

2 жыл бұрын

@@cashglobe Ok so pls present the falsification method of his "mathematical theorem". Now his supernatural claims are not supported by evolution. He assumes a disconnection between physical structures and how we have evolved to perceive them. We have developed scientific methodologies to verify our perceptions. How can he ever test those methodologies and find them to be inaccurate???? Btw we don't have a mathematical variable for "consciousness" so I don't know what kind of mathematical theorems he is talking about.

GB Search Avatar image 1:27 / 7:59 Donald Hoffman could gravity and time be the same thing ?

The Logical Error here is that at 0:40 he mentions "conscious agents" however an "agent" is the medium by which information is transported somewhere or to someOne, we are trying to find that Some-One, the language he uses and the logic he follows is slightly-off, the intention by which he operates is correct, consciousness must be explored.

For the record, consciousness does not cause the wave collapse. Quantum phenomena will continue without an observer.

@3xxiled

4 жыл бұрын

Yet, what confuses me is that the only way we know that is because we’ve observed that. I donk think your statement is as conclusive as you think and many physicists aren’t so quick to accept that claim too.

@nik8099

3 жыл бұрын

Do you do readings?

His consciousness is creating the delusion that it is creating the material world.

@continentalgin

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, he can zap Closer To Truth out of existence, if he feels like it!

Where is the rest of this interview?

Hoffman’s TED Talk explains his ideas much better than this. His theory on perception of reality is really smart and refreshing. This makes it sound all over the place. He’s also very open to the fact he may be dead wrong.

well its funny when the intervwer says that don's claim is outrageous, because he must not have read very much into buddhism or hinduism or others..

The interviewer is so rude and aggressive. I understand trying to play devil's advocate but there are ways and ways to do it.

@bobrussell3602

3 жыл бұрын

yeah. i thought he was overdoing it.

Honestly discussing physics is a de facto objective idealist conversation. The materialist must use very careful linguistics like "causal relation" and "spacetime interval" to even cope with one's lightcone's "elsewhere". Physicialism's privilege is only nativity, as in naive realism. Once one begins the metaphysical journey, they must either depart from naïveté OR deeply invest in materialist woo. All objective idealism requires is one recognize that length contraction and time dilation are ongtological. This flattens spacetime to the rest frame. All particles are then "mental" constructs as in they are experienced AS possessing these objective qualities of time and geometry from our A-theoretical phenomenal space, which is an false objective space.

I wonder if consciosness can interfere or change other consciousnesses? And relatedly, is consciousness only there when perceived by another consciousness?

@keisi1574

4 жыл бұрын

Your consciousness conceived of, and constructed, that question...and my consciousness responded with this comment...Of course, you had to post it in order to get a response...It started with a thought within your consciousness. - Just one response to your query.

The interviewer sounds a materialist, can’t think outside the box. And never shuts up to listen to him..

@brucegelman5582

4 жыл бұрын

Uh oh...herecomes the NewAge again😩

@joshc7865

4 жыл бұрын

Bruce Gelman new age?? Really? Hahaha you twit

@23Mijk

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. He’s just being a devils advocate because that’s his job. On the whole he’s quite even handed when he speaks to scientists philosophers etc

@vasishtapolisetty639

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what his stance is, but he is asking really valid questions

The cameras moving all the time was distracting. At least have smooth motion if you're going to be constantly moving.

this is what i m talking about

yes.

Isn't "collapsing the wave function" in physics the result of the observation of a wave that creates the matter that we live in?

@frederickj.7136

4 жыл бұрын

@ J. Adanin... *No* . There is no collapse of the wave function to be found in the formalism of quantum mechanics.

Reality and existence and in particular the qualities of experience are not made of “matter” they are made of (what matters)!!

I think hes onto something

Consciousness being the cause of our perception of space and time? Wild. Who knows, maybe it’s true. I love Donald Hoffman’s work; there were some very intriguing claims and questions posed here for sure.

@summerbreeze5115

Жыл бұрын

Weird world this is for sure :) 🌹

It's a matter of taste.

If another species could describe nature, would they describe a different set of laws of nature?

It seems that at the edge of physics, there is a lot of push in the direction of a vector universe, not a pre-rendered pixel (voxel) universe. Think of a multiplayer video game, the world the players live in is only rendered from their perspective. It would be ridiculously inefficient to render the whole world. Time is perceived through a variable in an equation. Space is rendered and projected through your X,Y,Z location and rotation.

@pegatrisedmice

5 жыл бұрын

Makes sense, given that the universe is just a giant spontaneous optimisation algorithm. There's also a problem with using the word existance, given that the very concept of existance is possible to confirm only when observing things. Scientist want to know what is happening when you're not looking even though things happening are the consequence of your observation, since the concept is necceserely related to your interaction. It's kind of like asking what is hiding behind the occlusion culling walls in a video game, where the answer nothing doesn't satisfy, even though what happens is a function of your presence which is a necesary variable in that system. In other words, I can give you a color of every pixel on your screen only if you tell me where your camera is positioned relative to the world i'm trying to render. This doesn't mean that there isn't objective reality, it just means that what different people observe will be different since their implicit variables are different by definition.

I think that consciousness must have a Quantum component because of the observer phenomena, unless anything can act as an observer, then i am wrong. But if it takes only consciousness to be an observer that interacts with a quantum state, then i suggest it does this because it is some how a Quantum system itself, in some degree.

Consciousness has different levels. One level has the ability to assume an identity and observe. This is the lowest level that allows the consciousness to actualize from the energy field. Another higher level has this and also has the ability to act. As you go higher in consciousness, there is the ability to consider, to mentally project choices. Later comes the awareness of self as an awareness separate from that which has been actualized out of the energy field. And so onward and upward.