These guys know how to have a productive conversation like adults without interrupting each other. I really enjoyed the conflicting ideas while not getting irritated by egos. Michael Shermer is a pro. Hoffman is awesome. There is definitely something to this. I really really loved this interview.

@ransakreject5221

2 жыл бұрын

I disagree. Troll

@patrickl6932

2 жыл бұрын

@@ransakreject5221 Still day drinking, Nana?

@ransakreject5221

2 жыл бұрын

@@patrickl6932 I don’t drink. Lots of Vicodin and some tramadol. But I don’t drink. My bodies a temple. Now go back to bed

@patrickl6932

2 жыл бұрын

@@ransakreject5221 Get help.

@ransakreject5221

2 жыл бұрын

@@patrickl6932 that’s what the vics are for

What a gracious and humble guest Dr. Hoffman is!

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

This is so true...I've been "fan-stalking" him over the past two weeks on KZread across almost twenty hours of video now and he's been consistently patient all along despite the repetitive questions (even when already explained in his very careful way) and sometimes judgmental incredulity...I guess his daily three-to-five hour meditation over twenty years really helps!!

@kevincasson9848

Жыл бұрын

He"s a effing "nutcase'

That was THE best interview on this topic that I have seen because of both parties. Shermer was a great host and asked all the right questions, and Hoffman gave great answers. I didn't plan to watch a 1 hour 45 minute video in one sitting, but I could not stop!

"Spacetime is just a data structure." Damn I need this on a T-shirt.

@grosbeak6130

4 жыл бұрын

Dan Howard but if it wasn't for the data structure of space-time there wouldn't be someone saying here that space-time is just a data structure and so all you have is a data structure saying it's a data structure.

@craigbowers4016

4 жыл бұрын

@@grosbeak6130 Can I get that in a t-shirt?

@happyhaze1526

4 жыл бұрын

I love, I love, I love a spacetime girl!

@DarkMatter1919

4 жыл бұрын

@@grosbeak6130 No We would always be here. The data structure isn't needed, but it's very useful when competing for limited resources (evolution).

@TC-io4hm

3 жыл бұрын

DarkMatter1919 Evolution is just a data structure. “Natural” is just a data structure “selection” is just a data structure.

I don't understand why Shermer does not get it. It is very well explained, right off the bat. Hoffman is not saying the "pen is not there," he is saying there is much more to the pen there, than we could ever understand with our limited brains, so our brain uses shortcuts to describe what is actually much more complex. But Shermer seems to keep getting stuck on the wrong idea that our brains create the pen, and that is not what Hoffman is saying.

@jigc23

4 жыл бұрын

If the pen doesn't exist why someone else doesn't view it in a different spot

@vertigoz

4 жыл бұрын

And yet each brain create is own perception of the pen, for all reasons and proposes it just might well be it creating the pen, since nothing exists outside the scope of the brain.

@VperVendetta1992

4 жыл бұрын

It's a personality type issue. Shermer is clearly a strong sensory user, and therefore his deep mind can't accepts the idea that sensorial experiences are delusional. Hoffman is instead a strong intuitive thinker, which means he's not as attached to the senses as Shermer.

@VperVendetta1992

4 жыл бұрын

@@dmaximus73 I think it's not an approximation, but rater a symbolical representation of something completely different, as Hoffman says. It's the icon that represents a series of electrons running inside silicon chips and metal cables. I agree "delusional" is not the perfect word, as the perception is still useful, although not truthful... Maybe "misleading" is a better word.

@JH-ji6cj

4 жыл бұрын

I think y'all are missing Shermer's base concerns here. As a skeptic he has positioned himself as someone who can be trusted to attempt give the most unbiased information regarding reality. As such, he sees shortcuts to extensive testing of such reality (Religion, belief, faith and Chopra's untestabilty theorems) as a problem from the standpoint of dogmatic conformity to views untestable. Now he is faced with the possibility of subjectivism to such a scale as to make any snake-oil-salesman to look as if they have rabies from frothing at the mouth so much. If we can't have agreement, where goes cohesion and thus what are the societal affects. I am not advocating that the truth of what Hoffman is elucidating be stifled, but am wanting what's being seen here as similar to what the Christian Church faced with discoveries such as Galileo and backlash Einstein faced (and even Einstein's questioning of Quantum Physics). I don't equate Shermer's reaction to theories requiring objective truth to be 'dumb' as so many others here are inferring.

Outstanding podcast. Thanks Dr. Shermer and Dr. Hoffman. Solid Gold. A+

The map is not the territory, never mind the words that describe the map.

@petroniaskho

4 жыл бұрын

my head is exploding all over my paper mental maps

@Liphted

4 жыл бұрын

Bob Wilson

@skyerscape8454

2 жыл бұрын

Actually is from Alfred Korzybski.

I watched the whole thing and Dr. Hoffman doesn't seem insincere or appearing to offer Deepak Chopra-esque woo-woo, sorry Michael XD. With Deepak there's zero attempt to ground his woo-woo in science; he just asserts things in an unprincipled manner. Hoffman opens up his arguments to scrutiny for scientists, and to the world. Too many scientists appear protective of their dojo that their attitude when confronted by someone like Hoffman is to be immediately dismissive before thoroughly reading the argument. Then after a tiny fraction of reluctant takers read the argument, these smart scientists are so biased that they reduce Hoffman's argument to silly nonsense before thoroughly understanding it. I want this guy to be disproved tomorrow if he's wrong, but we'll never get there with pompous scientists who refuse to address him seriously and honestly. Shermer is willing to challenge the guy on his podcast after reading the book. That's great! 10 others apparently took a look at the science of Hoffman and came up with 1 good counter-argument. I say, try harder you arrogant freakazoids. It isn't just unfalsifiable pablum.

@samrowbotham8914

4 жыл бұрын

I don't agree with you about Chopra in fact by reading his book The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success I made a great breakthrough and that allowed me to have experiences money could not buy. I think Shermer should get Bernardo Kastrup, Anthony Peake or Tom Campbell on!

@S.G.Wallner

4 жыл бұрын

@@samrowbotham8914 I think Bernardo has a video clip on his youtube page where he addresses Shermer and others at a SAGES conference. I'm with you on Tom Campbell too! Also, it would be cool to see thinkers like Hoffman, Kastrup, Campbell, Thornhill, blow Joe Rogan's mind, or sit down with Eric Weinstein or Russel Brand and the like.

@seabud6408

4 жыл бұрын

Clifton100 Woo woo? If Buddha ( no stranger to cognitive science .... ask some of the founders of rational emotive therapy/ or those who teach an MSc in Mindfulness with CBT ) was sitting in on this discussion I think it would become a true dialogue. He would probably point out that space and time have been regarded as illusory by people who have practiced the science of meditation, for millennia. Mystic ... someone who experiences the Universe as self ( and not conceptually) .... woo woo ? When will “ science” accept that there is an inner subjective reality/actuality which can only be fathomed directly by delving into consciousness. Consciousness .... you know ...that primary reality which Dan Dennett tells everyone is illusory, while omitting to add that illusions and delusions can only exist in consciousness. Dan’s solution to the hard problem of consciousness (how does super dense/hot plasma ( energy) given “time” and “space” ... grow into Shakespeare and his experience of a rose 🌹) by ignoring it or saying its irrelevant. The first step to seeing the reality of what is going on would be a paradigm shift that sees that energy ( = mass = information) has never NOT been alive and conscious at every system level .... top to bottom. Big Bang to current Universe . UNI-VERSE The spiritual insight ...“ as above so below” is what systems theory originated from. The Big Bang energy was both a womb and an embryo. Forces fields geometry symmetries, intelligent order life death and consciousness are all inherent in that plasma otherwise how could it give rise to you and what you see around you , by only doing its thing for 14 billion years. Oh no .... energy that has all these qualities/potentials gives scientific materialists ( SM) the lurgy, because it points to consciousness not being excreted from the brain like insulin from the pancreas ....and that ain’t allowed in SM. Prof Roger Penrose is attempting to find evidence in the microwave background radiation that the Universe has exploded and died and repeated this process for eternity(which means .... out-with time) an infinity of births and heat deaths , followed by quantum fluctuation ... Bang If that’s the true picture it’s obvious .... if there are an infinite number of prior and future universes .... (which all sprout something like mammalian life around 13 billion years in to the cycle )...... it will be obvious that mystics have been right all along . .........The Universe is a living conscious organism ( at every system level) which has no real beginning or end. SM can’t deal with infinities and can’t deal with a reality where we ( and the Big Bang plasma ) are like a cell in the human body. It is alive only by virtue that the human is alive the biosphere supports the human and the earth and sun support the biosphere ..... all the way up all the way down. ( dependant origination) Mathematics ..... awaits discovery by mammals in every regeneration and growth of a new Universe. Does it ? Probably!! Mathematics is transcendent ( information) there is a clue there to what underpins space/time ( a timeless spaceless field of information) Oh no ..... we are back to woo woo again. Or perhaps not ???? Isn’t it just ....obvious ....that the Universe is as much an organism at its system level as you or I are at ours . Surely even a kid can see that.

@samrowbotham8914

4 жыл бұрын

@@seabud6408 According to Psychonauts the Universe is a Simulation. Check out Tom Campbell: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pWFowc6pecm2frA.html

@RonnieD1970

4 жыл бұрын

Shermer was very charitable in this conversation. There was great rapport between them. I like that micheal is now friends with Chopra. Good for him. We dont have to agree with people to give the principle of charity.

Terence McKenna said the same thing, in regard to the approach many scientists take to hard problems: “Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain everything else.” To this day we don’t have any fundamental knowledge about the Universe we live in. We’ve become adept at understanding how many aspects of the Universe function, but we haven’t nailed down a single truth about the fundamental nature of our world. It’s obvious that our senses don’t portray reality to us as it actually is. Look how easily our senses are fooled, with optical illusions as only one example. Consider the vivid dreams we have, where we quite literally see, hear, and experience a world of our own unique creation. I believe Donald is on the right track by taking a step back and questioning the approach we’ve historically taken to hard problems. The methodology we’ve employed so far hasn’t gotten us anywhere. To continue taking the same approach, expecting a different outcome, could be considered insanity. In another video Donald says that his theory is most likely wrong (along with everyone else’s). He understands the limitations of the human mind, and isn’t afraid to admit to the limitations of his own mind. Still though, I think he’s on the right track. In short I find Donald’s ideas very refreshing. The scientific community could benefit greatly by adopting an attitude like his.

@bradmodd7856

4 жыл бұрын

Philosophers already assume this, they are already working on problems under these assumptions and have been for centuries

@thinkneothink3055

4 жыл бұрын

Brad Parker If you find a philosopher assuming anything you can assume, without any doubt, that they’re not a philosopher. “Assume” isn’t included in a philosopher’s philosophy. To assume is to commit philosophical suicide, as Albert Camus brilliantly pointed out.

@kimyunmi452

4 жыл бұрын

Check out dr.bernardo kastrup on youtube. Ever heard of Monistic Idealism?

@aureliorodriguez5275

4 жыл бұрын

Pithagoras, Plato and Plotino said this long before.

“We were right to leave the idea of the ‘ghost in the machine’ behind. Not because there is no ghost, but because there is no machine.” -Paul Davies

@Dreamingforwaking7

4 жыл бұрын

That is exactly right.

@waterkingdavid

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe there is no machine. But there are certainly lots of thoughts and feelings! Hence all the discussion!

@MeRetroGamer

2 жыл бұрын

What if there is actually no ghost and the "machine" is just built in conscious experiences?

@ransakreject5221

2 жыл бұрын

“My girlfriend’s run off with my car And gone back to her ma and pa Telling tails of drunkenness and cruelty Now I’m sitting here Sipping at my ice cold beer Lazing on a sunny afternoon.” Ray Davies

@Sapientiaa

2 жыл бұрын

@@MeRetroGamer The “ghost” is consciousness.

This has been one of the best conversations I have listened to Thanks Guys between this talk and The writings of RAW I have a better concept of reality something that interests me.This articulates what I learned from LSD

@skyerscape8454

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, RAW primed me for this type of thinking too. RAW seems to be sadly overlooked but his inter-disciplinary interpretations of the big questions were profound in my view. ‘The world is just a model that we’ve made’.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."- Richard Feynman.

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

LOL Let's not forget it was this very Feynman who advised Clauser not to bother wasting time conducting the experiments for which the 2022 Nobel in Physics has just been awarded, over fifty years later. Let's also not forget that Feynman had the curious requirement that the wives and girlfriends of his graduate-student collaborators sleep with him.

@Vlasko60

Жыл бұрын

@@davidchou1675 So what is inaccurate about the quote?

“Spacetime is a solution to a fitness problem.” What constitutes a “fitness problem” outside of spacetime?

The best of Donald Hoffman on KZread for my money. The science of idealism, love it.

That email icon & the computer code in charge of running the email metaphor really hit home for me. Makes a lot of sense. Totally blew my mind.

I’m an outsider, I love science in all its forms but cognitive science is utterly fascinating, I’m reading his book at present and like any good read can’t put it down, mind blowing, we have something within our skull that is incredibly profound biological and evolutionary structure designed for survival, thank you.

This might be my favorite interview you've ever done.

@bjenkin100

2 жыл бұрын

no coincidence there -- definately due to the guest and not the host.. no offense to Mike but at times he just seems to disagree to be disagreeable. Even wgen an incredibly well-founded argument is made in an incredibly articulate manner - he just goes back repeatedly to simple minded responses, or saying its semantics therfor minimizing the importance of Donalds case or just muddying the waters.. or he repeatedly says basically "well we will never have the answer, or this answer, or all answers" Donald insists, rightfully, that there are ways we can appepach and tackle these problems. Not sure he goes into that argument here but i've heard him enough before. Mike is patient- however i'm not sure he's really open-minded enough for a true visionary like Donald. Probably would have been saying something similiar to Albert before Al got all his Math straight lol just too bent on being mr. Skeptic. I've arrived at the point where i can no longer understand people who try to refute some of Donalds more well established cases -- like how bioligical creatutes cant "see" obective reality on the surface, for the most part. this just seems too well proven by folks like Donald and his team.

@patrickl6932

Жыл бұрын

@@bjenkin100 The IQ gap is not lost to careful viewers.

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for noticing...it's beyond ridiculous that a "skeptic" forgets to be skeptical about himself first and foremost!

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

Do you think it's simply IQ?? Would have been a great question for Hoffman, how to explain what appears to be different illevels of intelligence (another thing no one ever asks him about is dreams [at least not in the almost twenty hours of videos I've seen so far]). Mikey's pretty annoying with his closed-minded flavor of "skepticism," so called!

Both of these guys should have a conversations with Dr. Bernardo Kastrup.

@ConsciousnessMatters

4 жыл бұрын

I'll second that! I feel like Kastrup makes the case for agential cosmopsychism, where as Hoffman feels more like agential microspyschism.

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

The idealist Bernardo Kastrup? Does he suggest something new or just the same old idealism?

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

@Laura Cool, idealism could use some new ideas besides idealism.

@ConsciousnessMatters

4 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 I can't read your mind well enough today in order to know what would constitute new for you! :P Why don't you go take a look at his position and share your thoughts?

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

@@ConsciousnessMatters You right, I should look at what he has to say. So I did. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qWeWx82LeNqnlKg.html The hard problem of consciousness? Really? That's the same old stuff Chalmers has been peddling for decades. It hasn't produced anything useful, it doesn't explain anything that materialism can't. It doesn't explain much of what materialism does. Same old idealism.

Over an hour in and Shermer has only packaged and repackaged the same challenge.

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

What can you do when the challenge is never met?

@DarkMatter1919

4 жыл бұрын

Yes exactly my thoughts. Unfortunately Michael shermer didn't understand Don hoffman's concepts.... Or he didn't do his homework on his work, and kept asking the same "desktop icon" type questions. As far as Hoffman's hypothesis goes, it's certainly plausible and probable that his analogy about reality being something different, and we see icons etc, is true. But he should stop using the word exist in the sentence "the object doesn't exist when we don't look at it".... Because that is what throws people. The correct way to say it is that the information which leads to our construction of the apple is always there whether we look at it or not, but the actual apple representation is only created in our head from the underlying information, when we look at it. And his introduction of consciousness as being fundamental is pure speculation. Hoffman needs some way of devising a real or a thought experiment to justify his position and add weight to this hypothesis.

@mrroberts9230

3 жыл бұрын

He has done so now

Throughout the interview, Shermer struggles with Hoffman's idea of the spacetime interface arguing to equate it with something he's more comfortable with and, by the look on Shermer's face, the lightbulb never goes on.

@travisstotts1107

3 жыл бұрын

Lol i love when i read a comment that describes exactly what i was thinking.

@sa.8208

3 жыл бұрын

blue pill.

@grosbeak6130

3 жыл бұрын

so?

@lievenyperman9363

3 жыл бұрын

Shermer is getting Deepak Chopra flashbacks.

@variousthings6582

3 жыл бұрын

People have real trouble letting go of the idea that what they see, touch, taste is an accurate representation of what it actually is. There is something there but is is nothing like we think it is. Shemer can’t seem to go there.

Reading this book now and am finding it fascinating and mind-blowing.

Hoffman's theory sounds a lot like David Bohm's thinking in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

@filmjazz

4 жыл бұрын

John Perry I thought the same - the implicate and the explicate

I appreciate the work Michael Shermer has done in taking a stance to ask complicated questions about certain theoretical topics.

I’m about 2/3 through the book. It’s a great read. Very careful and powerful argumentation.

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

What I don't understand is that all these hosts -- I've seen almost twenty hours of KZread videos now -- keep asking the same damned questions in different ways despite Hoffman carefully answering them again and again...! Of course they have to ask such basic questions for the benefit of their viewers -- but I'm saying that they keep asking and asking and asking in different ways like Mikey does here despite Hoffman having already answered it carefully and clearly...if they're unconvinced they should just get to the point instead of, apparently, trying to trick him by asking the same questions throughout their shows....

For those interested, the "Objects of consciousness" paper by Dr. Hoffman was actually published in 2014 and you can download it here: www.researchgate.net/publication/263704213_Objects_of_consciousness

I'm fascinated by the work of Dr. Hoffman, and eager for science to uncover the mysteries of the Universe because that's how we're able to enjoy all the fun stuff and advancements science brings humanity. Having said that I must also say: in terms of a speculative approach, science is eons behind eastern philosophy, which proposes lots of insights on the human condition and the nature of the universe and existence itself, insights that scientists could be using to formulate and test hypothesis. Not to mention how much science lags behind pop culture, that faced us with the hard question long before: "What is the Matrix?" But science is not about speculation, I know and we need guys like Mr. Shermer, great interview!!

@bjenkin100

2 жыл бұрын

Science isn't behind pop culture... Pop Culture is how you find out about science that you othetwise would not have heard about. Start looking up dates - you'll find whatever movie concept being written about (research papers or concept theory) or investigated 20 to 50 years ealier. even Donald Hoffman here- who i Love- is doing circuits last couple years and we're all fascinated by him lately as his ideas gain steam ... yet i was interested to find how decades ago he already was working on these ideas. Go ahead- research him and see what you find. If i recall correctly he was digging in DEEP to these ideas back in the 90's.

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

Look up his video on the website Edge ( this one doesn't seem to be on KZread) where he mentioned that he actually broached the interface idea back in his Late '80s book on visual mechanics or something but he didn't have all the math he does now -- which is still not enough for a full-fledged theory of Conscious Realism ( hope to see it soon!!).

The best interview with Donald Hoffman out there. Every other interviewer makes the discussion confusing

Shermer thinks he knows the certainties. He’s frustrated when they’re questioned. Hoffman’s on another level

I can't help but notice the similarity of Dr. Hoffman's work to Kant's claim on space time being categories that provide a mould to precepts.

@skyerscape8454

2 жыл бұрын

Very similar. I believe Hoffman criticises Kant for being ‘unscientific’. I struggled to understand his argument tbh.

Great interview! Definitely interesting and look forward to hearing more about the results and the future of his work. He definitely had the right attitude that I wish more academics would adopt.. that is to always remain curious and conscious that one can never have all the answers! (Forgive the bad pun ;p) The true quest for knowledge is an ongoing one, and shouldn’t come to an end upon receipt of some arbitrary title or award. His almost child-like enthusiasm is contagious and I wish him the best! What a great guest he would make on JRE hahah wonder if Joe has read his book?

@Congruesome

2 жыл бұрын

After watching Joe’s failure (and I love Joe and enjoy his program very, very much) to grasp Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument, I have to wonder how constructively he would deal with this much more complex and nuanced theory. I’d certainly watch, though

@JM-ev9gh

Жыл бұрын

Most scholars do have this attitude, one thing folks might not understand is how much the industry of higher ed is a rat race and how the working conditions of many, many scholars, along with pitting them against others results in bad science. The scientific method eventually wins out but it often takes much longer because of the role universities and other scientific institutions play in our society, especially after neoliberalism. Simply put, the curiousness of young scientists is often beaten out of them by the system. Nonetheless as Hoffman points out, science does advance.

It's a really difficult topic , and i think Michael Shermer does it really good here in this clip on a topic that everyone is talking about but only a few people can even comprehend !

"Spacetime has been a very valuable tool in physics...but it has outlived its usefulness." -Donald Hoffman 30:19

@JudoMateo

4 жыл бұрын

ArcadianGenesis David not Donald.

@ArcadianGenesis

4 жыл бұрын

@@JudoMateo Wait, what?

@JudoMateo

4 жыл бұрын

ArcadianGenesis Oh my bad I’m was commenting I on the wrong user interface.

@DarkMatter1919

4 жыл бұрын

Dumb You're just quoting a line he said without adding your opinion or anything further. What use is that? We all heard it. Just dumb.

@ArcadianGenesis

4 жыл бұрын

@@DarkMatter1919 It's because I thought the quote was important. Sometimes, nothing more needs to be said.

Yes! Been looking forward to this one!

When physicists say spacetime is doomed, I think they mean spacetime is not fundamental.

@SimplifiedTruth

4 жыл бұрын

No, literally non existent. Its information our minds model as a perception. Einstein admitted it before he died....“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 This quote should have shocked the world into insanity.

@astrophonix

4 жыл бұрын

@@SimplifiedTruth It certainly seems to have induced insanity in you.

@marcosgalvao3182

4 жыл бұрын

@@astrophonix no it's right , Einstein did say this . And quantum mechanics made this possible .

@2CSST2

2 жыл бұрын

@@SimplifiedTruth @Marcos galvão You're both fucking lunatics as most people are in this comment pages, going for the old and annoying tendency of using out of context quotes from renowned scientists to prove their ridiculous ideas. First off, that's not a quote from Einstein, that's a quote from Max Jammer's book explaining Einstein's view on referential frames, and the full quote is this: "For example, in a reference system that rotates relatively to an inertial system, the laws of placing rigid bodies no longer correspond, owing to the Lorentz transformation, to the rules of Euclidien geometry. In accordance with our fundamental postulate, only one choice is possible and Euclidien geometry must give way to Riemannian geometry. 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." So, first off the dumbass [mind] that you added after "scheme" isn't at all what is meant by scheme, scheme here refers to either using Euclidien geometry or Riemannian geometry depending on the reference system. So secondly, no, Einstein never fucking said spacetime doesn't exist, he says the universe doesn't just have a Euclidien geometry or Riemannian geometry that's given to us, we choose the scheme based on what system we're trying to characterize . It's a purely mathematical pragmatic point about HOW to model spacetime, not that spacetime doesn't exist.

@2CSST2

2 жыл бұрын

@@astrophonix 🤣🤣🤣

Hi Doctor Shermer. Remember me? I was a student of yours over 30 years ago at GCC. :)

A very worthy and cogent discussion!

Hoffman articulates his fundamental position very poorly, and I think that is at the root of so many of the comments. Here is what, at bottom, he is saying: 1) there is an objective reality and it can kill you (you who are also objectively real); 2) that reality is different from what it appears to be through our senses; 3) that reality is VERY VERY different from what we think it is; 4) we haven't yet figured out the full truth about that reality, but we will at some point through science. Every scientist will agree with 1) and 2) and 4). The dispute is about 3). Take the moon. He is NOT saying that the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking it. What he's saying is that in truth the moon is not the solid, massive thing it looks like. Physics agrees with Hoffman, and says that the moon is made up of particles that to (to simplify greatly) are wave functions that exist in space-time. Hoffman is arguing that even that perspective, which accepts the reality of (Einsteinian space-time) is not the full truth. He has considerable evidence and many compelling arguments to support his position -- which does not mean he's right, just that (as with all science) his hypotheses are a work in progress. But in my mind he's made his case that his hypotheses are worth considering and testing further.

@williamnelson4968

4 жыл бұрын

You hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more with your nice summation of Hoffman's WIP (work in progress).

@alecmisra4964

4 жыл бұрын

As someone in the comments said he is rediscovering Kantianism. Kant plus Darwin.

@joshuamitchell1733

4 жыл бұрын

That isn’t what Hoffman is saying. He rebuts point 1 early on the video. He is saying that all experience is pure symbols, or symbols within symbols..: the idea of Body, space, time everything. Conscious agents use symbols like what we call objects to survive and work in a cohesive manner. Whether or not their is one consciousness or many aspects of one consciousness Hoffman doesn’t say.

@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt

4 жыл бұрын

@@joshuamitchell1733 Are NDE's evidence?

@henryb1555

4 жыл бұрын

What you may not realise though is that his thesis states that consciousness and not space-time is fundamental.

This guy should be taken more seriously among the professional scientific discussion.

@5piles

2 жыл бұрын

yes, im sure the church of materialistic scientism will get right on it

@cygnusustus

2 жыл бұрын

He, and Deepok Chopra.

@crypticnomad

2 жыл бұрын

@@cygnusustus There is a big difference between Hoffman and Chopra. I personally get the feeling that Dr Hoffman is more humble. He speaks in an authoritative way and has solid math to back up his arguments but if you listen to him speak he usually leaves room to be corrected and often repeatedly says "I'm making a precise argument so someone can come and show me precisely how/why I am wrong". Chopra on the other hand tends to speak in a more matter of fact way while having near zero precision.

@cygnusustus

2 жыл бұрын

@@crypticnomad The difference between Hoffman and Chopra is quantitative. Hoffman is peddling woo here, regarless of whether he has additional legitimate research on his CVA. There is one glaring flaw in each of his presentations that I have watched. He claims the natural selection favors fitness over truth, to the extent that an organism tuned only to truth does not survive, but the obvious implication is that truth has no fitness value. That is, or course, rediculous. There is enormous overlap between between truth and fitness, which I have yet to hear him mention.

@cygnusustus

2 жыл бұрын

@@crypticnomad ...and sadly and predictably, I am seeing woo-mongerers and religious apologists citing this as if it is settled science.

Has anyone ever bridged the gap between mysticism and hardcore science as well as Don Hoffman?

Great conversation. Thank you.

Oh man, I love this topic and I love this interview!! Mr Shermer knows he is out of his depth.

@StarKittens

4 жыл бұрын

"A factory full of quotes kills original thought." Perhaps that's the tactic being employed by Michael Shermer.

Shermer admits that he was somewhat of a religious zealot. He promulgated it and tried spreading it very fervently. Then he went the opposite and turned against it and fought against it as inherently false and irrational. For Shermer to tip his hat to the idea that space and time don’t exist and that there is a “deeper reality,” is, to him, a way of casting doubt on his doubt about what he used to be so very emotionally invested in. It opens up the possibility that he is now wrong about what he previously believed he was so right about. So there’s a very human and irrational basis for him not taking Hoffman very seriously or admitting that some of his arguments make sense to him. And I’m left frustrated by his obstinacy and closed mindedness. To me, he does not appear to be operating at a logical level, but at a more emotional level. And by questions like, “Is the moon still there?” I’m left in utter bewilderment at how childlike his reservations really are. However, I don’t believe he does not have the mental capacity to keep up with Hoffman, I just believe he is emotionally closed off in pride in fear of Deepak Chopra pointing the finger with laughter and saying something like, “Look, even the great skeptic Michael Shermer is starting to lean towards immaterialism.” He has a reputation that he is firmly upholding, for, I think, emotional reasons more than logical. "From a point of view of science, we have to be willing to admit that our current theories could be deeply wrong. That space-time itself could be doomed. If we can't admit that, we're not scientists. If we're not willing to even entertain that possibility, we don't have the openness that's needed for true science." - Hoffman. It' funny to me, how this almost feels like a criticism of Michael Shermer's hard-nosed skepticism and indifference to anything besides reductionist materialism. I do not think that Michael Shermer is open-minded enough to be a true scientist.

Fascinating nobody breaks it down like shumer

Like a lot of people I first found Dr Hoffman's work via his ted talk but my interest was mostly surrounding possible applications in machine learning and more specifically in multiplayer imperfect information game settings. What I found particularly interesting was how simple 3 bit concious agents in his CA framework can implement a Toffoli gate. A Toffoli gate is a universal reversible logic gate that can be used to construct any other logic gate. Basically from what I gathered this makes his CA framework Turing equivalent. Reversible computing is literally the only path forward if we want to keep up the accelerating growth curve in technology we've enjoyed until now.

@cygnusustus

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for all that pointless information. We are all very impressed with your knowledge of wurds.

@crypticnomad

2 жыл бұрын

​@@cygnusustus how obtuse of you. If you read any of his papers, which all have rock solid foundations in math and computer science, then you'll see that my comment is directly related to his work. The practical use case for his work is in problems that can be solved using game theory which includes but is not limited to evolutionary game theory. His conscious agents have complete computational power and can do anything a neural network can and a lot more. The part about you being obtuse is subjective but what I said about his work is objective and objectively true regardless of your personal biases against whatever the broader implications of this work may or may not mean for the wordview you're so stubbornly obsessed with. I would consider myself an atheist and a skeptic but I'm not an arrogant militant atheist who seeks to disprove the obviously objectively false beliefs of others. That need that those assclowns have is the same need that leads to barbarians committing genocide in the name of their delusional belief in god(s) and or political ideologies for example

The only thing sciense can do is to study the ”interface”. That is because it is limited to observations. Observations can be made of Phenomeno, not from Noumenon (Immanuel Kant). The only exception is mathemathics. I find it ingredible that we are able to brobe beyond Phenomenon by it.

Really beautiful, interesting, informative,a step towards finding realty, conversation between the two..... of course Dr. Donald Hoffman' painstaking work is definitely pointing positively towards Eastern Wisdom traditions (Verdanta) which are supported by Dr Deepak. Chopra...thanks

@cute1678

Жыл бұрын

And Christianity.

Absolute fantastic discussion.

This is the best interview of this incredible thinker on the net. congrats

It sounds like Dr. Hoffman should talk to Prof John Vervaeke, it sounds like they're interested in very similar problems.

58:45 "It kinda depends on how you define these things", says Shermer. That statement would seem to only reinforce Hoffman's thesis.

Thank you both!

Shermer doesn’t seem to realise space time is just a human created measurement of a reality only we can perceive. Hoffman goes beyond that.

So this was the guy behind Stephen Hawking's voice!

@flaggerify

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds more like HAL.

Shermer is getting a lot of crap in the comments (and I can see why) but I'm glad he asked so many basic questions. It really helped me better understand what Hoffman is trying to say.

Oh WOnderful Wonderful!!! Enjoy every details of this

Need to read James Gleick's *The Information* again. Deserves another read...great book.

Joe Rogan needs to get Hoffman on his show, smoke some bowls and have his mind REALLY blown..

Hoffman is absolutely brilliant. The world is indeed like a VR headset for our consciousness.

@bharat1876

Жыл бұрын

Hoffman is in conscience whilst speaking and the host isn't as it reflects in their faces

@davidchou1675

Жыл бұрын

I wanna know where I can get a refund for this unwanted headset -- "where's the manager!!"

@JovanJovanovic-rl6zq

10 ай бұрын

no

finaly somebody's asking the real questions!

Are Hoffman's ideas all that difficult to accept? Most modern philosopher agree that we can never know a "thing in itself". If the computer interface metaphor was available to them, they might have used it. Hoffman's work is yet another of many instances where philosphic investigation moves into the realm of science and testability. While Shermer and Hoffman disagree on specifics, they do both agree that what we experience is constructed by us to provide the most utility.

Honestly my impression is that Shermer never really fully understood Hoffman's interface analogy, the question comparing it to Jordan Peterson's "truth" I think highlights that. It's a shame because every time Hoffman talks about this theory with someone it seems like they for whatever reason are too baffled to talk about it on his level and instead are asking questions like "is the moon there?" I want to hear more about how Hoffman is planning to try to model qualia and conscious agents for his theory and how he would justify that, if he thinks reality is higher dimensional than the 3d interface, etc. Does anyone know of a better conversation with him?

@conk3rryan422

4 жыл бұрын

yeah, got the feeling Shermer only brought Peterson up, so he could read a part of his own opinion piece

@kafka27

4 жыл бұрын

Shermer is a dumb F

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

I want to hear how Hoffman has tried to falsify his theory or how his theory can be falsified or is it all just pseudoscience?

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

@@j92so Pseudoscience can be backed up with mathematics and precise theorems. What pseudoscience doesn't do is use those mathematics and theorems to create testable hypothesis that could disprove the theorems. But to be good science takes more than that. Not only do they have to be testable they have to be either more precise or more precise than current theory. The big problem I see with Hoffman's interface is an interface is something that sits between two things. A computer desktop interface sits between the computer and the human and is how they interact. Hoffman's interface sits between the person and the world. So how does the person interact with the interface? Is there yet another interface between them? This leads to an infinite regress of interfaces. A simpler approach is to leave out the unnecessary repackaging of information in representation, interface or cartesian theater. Repackaging theories might have a nice intuitive ring to them but they don't do the hard work of explanation.

@damandatwin

4 жыл бұрын

@Captain 7 thank you, this interview is much better.

Take a shot of whiskey every time you hear the word interface. Ok, I'm going to pass out now 🥴

@slamrn9689

4 жыл бұрын

That's funny.

@eddieking2976

4 жыл бұрын

@@ericmiller5674 Yummy😛

Even though I'm not crazy about his theory, I think it's the most interesting theory going right now. I do like Dr Hoffman and I hope he can prove it, one way or the other

Love it when two great minds (or conscious agents) come together

I love Hoffman and his theory.

Personality-wise this Donald could not have been more different from the- Donald. So polite and good natured. Regardless of your very interesting theory it's a pleasure to watch and listen to you sir Hoffman. You're a pride and an asset to the U.S citizens (I don't recognize "Americans" as referring to the people living only in U.S . Brazilians, Argentines, Peruvians and a bunch more of other people are complying as well to this name). Good luck Donald!

I recommend Ronald Giere's Scientific Perspectivism as I think he makes less unwarranted assumptions and he makes more sense. He is a perspectival realist.

Great discussion.

Thomas Kuhn could have cited Michael Shermer as Exhibit A in his argument about why scientific revolutions are so painful and difficult to achieve. As another sage once noted, scientific revolutions proceed one funeral at a time.

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

LOL, it's going to take a lot more than one funeral for Hoffman's nonsense to get a foothold, I'm willing to bet.

@jj4cpw

4 жыл бұрын

@@KRGruner point proven

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

@@jj4cpw LOL, OK, whatever. Keep that tinfoil hat on, suits you.

@jj4cpw

4 жыл бұрын

@@KRGruner If you were capable of something other than ad hominems, I'd actually engage. First, by referring you to the 3 physicists mentioned by Hoffman. Then, I'd refer you the most recent book by Lee Smolin, Then .... But never mind I know that for many a nasty, smug certainty is preferred,

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

@@jj4cpw LOL!!!! I guess you have NO IDEA what "ad hominem" means, do you? I made actual, concrete arguments that you are unable to answer (granted, they are in other comments in this thread. I guess you are too lazy to look), so you are going to call them "ad hominems" out of what... desperation? On the other hand, YOU are invoking arguments from authority, and nothing else. You are not capable of engaging. You have no clue what they (including Hoffman) are talking about. Loser boy...

It is trivially true that perceptual experience does not REPLICATE the world perceived. The question is whether there is a structural isomorphism between what we would call the external world and our perceptual "maps of same"? Can a fundamental lack of isomorphism still give us, or, as he claims, preferentially give us, fitness payoffs. This is a decidedly nontrivial question to which I'd like an answer.

@DamjanB52

Жыл бұрын

Interesting how Hoffman evades the question about judging ratios and their ontology (15:01) and makes the giant leap to space-time instead, and how Shermer forgets his own question and lets him get away with it .. from judging waist-to-hip ratios to questioning space-time itself :)

@DamjanB52

Жыл бұрын

Isn't it a basic function of seeing to inform animate beings where things are and where they are not ? How can such knowledge be detrimental to fitness ?

@DamjanB52

Жыл бұрын

If space is just a data-structure, without any morphism to / from the outside, why do we have two eyes ? Or do we ?

Many years ago, I experienced a short migraine which caused the visual sight of the left side of my husband's face appeared to me to melt, I realized that the light waves that hit my visual context was being interpreted incorrectly, because of a block in a vein which was released later. This may be what Doneld is talking about when he says that there is an underlying structure which our brain interpretates, or all is light which creates our experience. There is a deeper reality.

@cute1678

Жыл бұрын

"Let there be light".

I guess where I’m losing the precision in Hoffman’s argument is where he uses evolution as a way to arrive at a view which seem to throw all that evolutionary evidence and explanation right out the window. Once you arrive at the conclusion that “conscious experience is what’s fundamental, giving rise to physical reality”, then does it make any sense to say that some physical process of evolution shaped our perception system of consciousness? Again, if “space and time” are just species specific “hacks”, then how can you credit them (time in particular) for specifically shaping the human consciousness? The whole theory of evolution and descent with modification rests on there being a timeline of spatial events well before consciousness ever arrives on the scene (in the early stages of bacterial evolution for instance). In other words, doesn’t the whole evolutionary scheme require there to be an extant physical world independent of consciousness? How then would we explain something like the evolution of bacteria then? If consciousness is what gives rise to the physical world, then we would have to posit some form of consciousness “experiencing” that evolution of bacteria billions of years ago. Buuuut, isn’t evolution also credited with shaping that consciousness? Seems like you’re shoehorning in a necessity of consciousness well before it’s had the chance to even evolve. In which case, evolution clearly didn’t shape or create it, which is how he tried to get to his conclusion in the first place. The theory just seems to eat itself when trying to use evolution and consciousness both as the cause and effect of each other.

@MrClockw3rk

3 жыл бұрын

Agree. “Spacetime is a solution to a fitness problem.” What constitutes a “fitness problem” outside of spacetime?

This sounds like John Gray's philosophy free-based, ie. hyperpessimism. Not complaining , just that it does suggest t there's almost a direct relationship between seeking truth and being evolutionarily unfit - tough to get colder than that.

(up until the first 40 minutes ) the desktop allegory sounds to me like Plato's cave allegory (as I understood it) and any other philosophical disquisition about ontology. We have no idea of what REALly reality is, ok: that's what most of us realize as children. Not to undervalue how fascinating the thought is: but also, it gets quite sterile quite fast within a conversation . Also, an allegory is a proxy of an argument as a desktop or spacetime might be of reality, and ten seconds of it would be enough imo.

@chipwrecker

4 жыл бұрын

nefaristo 10 seconds would be enough for someone with some breadth of philosophical curiosity, but it seems some materialists haven’t ventured out of the cave yet. So it takes an hour. And he’s still in the cave.

His hypothesis is that fitness trumps truthful perception and we experience a representation of reality, a user interface. Causality is just an illusion and spacetime and objects are only useful data structures for us to maximise payoff. In that case, isn't evolution itself just another representation? After all, we base the theory of evolution on what we call objective reality. The evidence are (objects) which we call living beings, fossil records, DNA RNA etc. All of which would be objects in our UI. Evolution is a process of causality that takes place in spacetime. If causality and spacetime are just representations, isn't evolution also an illusion? Evolution produces a sensory representation in which evolution is a representation? Paradoxical.

Glad Hoffman went on here it made his argument more interesting.

Shermer: All living things go extinct: Does the moon still exist?!?! He (and many I've seen in discussion with Hoffman) is not grasping what Hoffman is saying. Analogous to Shermer's question, one could ask, "All TV screens connected to gaming consoles in the world get destroyed: Does the NBA 2k20 game still exist?!" The answer is both No and Yes. The images that we play the game by would no longer exist, because they were just parochial TV representations of a more fundamental electronic system. But the more fundamental information and hardware causing those images (the gaming console) would indeed still exist. And likewise for Hoffman with the Moon and our perceptions of it.

@janesmith7744

4 жыл бұрын

Brad Lencioni Great explanation...! Hoffman gets this question every time & you just gave him the metaphor to explain it ... :-) I have the impression that some smart people don’t really get what his theory implies...

@origins7298

4 жыл бұрын

No Hoffman is saying something more which has no evidence He is saying that Consciousness is primary and that somehow we are wrong about space and time being fundamental You're right that if all life goes away physical objects will still exist but our individual subjective perceptions of them will no longer exist Most people who believe in science would agree with that Of course the moon exists when we don't look at it. but our individual subjective perceptions of what the moon looks like and how we experience it is of course based on our lives and our species and so on. we could say that all mammals probably share certain perceptions and would see object somewhat similarly. Those perceptions have some truth about the objects. But when you get down to the physics of it there's always going to be some margin of error as you try to quantify exactly what the object is from a scientific standpoint But Hoffman is going further he is arguing for some sort of mysticism. Some sort of Consciousness is primary the true nature of reality is something.... Well that's where he's never really clear he plays in my opinion a game of vague language....

@mrb532

4 жыл бұрын

Shermer is not very bright. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

@Anon-xd3cf

4 жыл бұрын

Imagine what the moon would look like if humans could see more of the light spectrum. What would the milky way look like to us if we could see gamma and x-rays? What would botanicals look like if we could see ultraviolet light? What would these abilities mean for our perception of reality?

When Michael asks "when I look away from the Moon there is nothing there?" The correct answer in no, there is the information that human represent as the moon.

@cheyennealvis8284

4 жыл бұрын

Not just the moon but even the physicality of you

@StarKittens

4 жыл бұрын

"A factory full of quotes kills original thought." Perhaps that's the tactic being employed by Michael Shermer.

Despite all the comments here, I thought this was a great discussion where both men articulated well. I certainly understood most of what was argued by both men. The only area where it got muddy was when Hoffman got carried away with the mathematics and "symmetries". Tom Campbell's Big TOE mirrors some of this although beyond his basic premise Campbell goes much deeper down the "rabbit hole"

@SearchBucket2

4 жыл бұрын

I used to be a hard line materialist. Sam Harris's arrogance and sense of infallibility made me turn away. All belief systems have dead ends so arrogance is not a virtue. Hypotheses by the likes of Campbell and Hoffman have made me rethink things. I certainly won't go back to a worldview based on determinism, especially after seeing how arrogant and self-absorbed the protagonists have now become despite all the gaps and dead ends.

Why do magnets attract was a question posed to Feynman. Basically he said who knows. Or wrong question. Maybe he also was on to it.

The characters in my video game will protest if they knew this knowledge

@socratesagain7822

4 жыл бұрын

They will once they find out! See: "The Matrix" and "The Thirteenth Floor."Be well.

An hour in, and they're going round in circles; Shermer keeps making statements about objective reality, and Hoffman keeps stating its all part of the interface... Hope the rest of the talk Shermer can transgress his position, at least in his capacity to ask questions and make statements that dont just loop back to the standard space time model. Also I dont quite understand or see the need for the polemics about consciousness being either fundamental or an emergent property of matter; some non dual traditions point to the unicity of phenomenon and noumenon, like Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching saying "Being and Non Being create each other" (Stephen Mitchell's translation), also the great Tao symbol, the yingyang points to the unicity of polarity- 1 and 2 unified into 3, or like the shorthand translation of Advaita, '2 into 1, 1 into 2'. The Zen master Huang Po stated "Beware of holding onto one half of a pair (of opposites)" and yet paradoxically (paradox being understandably rife when using a tool as dualistic as language) much Zen says objective reality is nothing but 'mind' (or consciousness, noumenon, first principle, Tao- whatever word symbol you choose, its just a symbol, maps for the territory as has been well used by many). It seems completely reasonable that there is a deeper underlying reality than the current space time model, and I look forward to finding out more from the worlds great men and women of science, spirtuality, philosophy and all those who are also pilgrims on the way of understanding, whatever your leanings may be- I hope humanities endeavours in these fields of research may usher in a new paradigm shift that will benefit us all in the long run. The electric universe theory is something I've only just started to look at, but it appears to have very strong arguments- at least a very interesting alternative- see Wallace Thornhill and the Thunderbolts project on youtube.

@MrClockw3rk

3 жыл бұрын

“Spacetime is a solution to a fitness problem.” What constitutes a “fitness problem” outside of spacetime?

@waterkingdavid

2 жыл бұрын

I see you wrote the above 2 years ago but what's 2 years in the midst of infinity. Eventually one just has to look at the place from where one has forever been running. Look within. Or so those deemed wise have been saying for millennium. Says me who's not doing just that! But eventually we're going to have to do that. I can see no other way. cc. Michael Shermer!

Very thought provoking theory

Y’all say that Shermer keeps asking the same question but it’s not a fault of his. Hoffman makes serious jumps in reason which Shermer is quite correct to remind him of. Because in the beginning Hoffman basically says if nobody is looking at the moon it does not exist but toward the end, when answering about Jordan Peterson, says he does believe an objective reality exists. He contradicts himself on this point.

Without limitations, nothing can be measured. Nothing gained.

1:10:18 Hoffman compares reality to a desktop interface and says that we can step out of it. Shermer's timid "how do you do that?" seemed like an overcorrection to incredulity. I found it really funny.

@jacobodom8401

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a reasonable question in response to something so incredibly stupid

The ego is the consciousness observing and learning from the robotic mind we have, what a human is is all this integrated as 1 system.

Michael should do a podcast somehow getting Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup together or have each of these guys evaluate the other.

Hoffman's outstanding. He points to exactly what is missing from both mainstream scientific assumptions and with woo woo new age navel gazing.

@gangsterkami1

4 жыл бұрын

I'm so happy others are finally starting to understand Hoffman

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

Oh? What is that? It seems to me he just adding some more woo woo and a cartesian theater theater that's an interface. Why complicate things more than is necessary?

@dazboot2966

4 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 He's not. He's offering up an empirically based means by which we may be able to shed light on questions which science has thus far not been able to answer.

@myothersoul1953

4 жыл бұрын

@@dazboot2966 Oh? I didn't know that. What questions is he trying to answer? How has he operationalized them? and what are his empirical means of try to answers those questions?

@dazboot2966

4 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 'What questions is he trying to answer?' If you're not familiar with the frontiers of scientific endeavour then there's no point in continuing this exchange. Watch the clip again, both Shermer and Hoffman touch on this.

I’m amazed that people don’t get what he’s saying.. it makes sense and he knows it

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

Uh... Be aware that it's entirely possible to get what he is saying AND see that it's complete nonsense. In fact, that's the ONLY way to see it's nonsense. If you don't see that, then you don't get what he is saying.

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

@Bob K. I'm relieved to see SOME people still retain an ability to think for themselves and not be taken in by the latest pseudo-scientific fad.

@rahulranjan9013

4 жыл бұрын

@@KRGruner you are wrong bro... I think he is right.

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

@@rahulranjan9013 All that shows is you are not capable of critical thinking and will accept any nonsense thrown your way for absolutely no valid reason. The arguments against Hoffman are so obvious as to not even warrant any attention being paid to his idiocy. I guess that says something about you, too...

@rahulranjan9013

4 жыл бұрын

@@KRGruner you are Materialistic minded people. Don't worry. You will understand one day what it is being said in the book.

Professor Hoffman certainly challenges peoples comfort zone. Science already tells us how little of reality we do percieve, even if it is objective reality. Seems Hoffman has done some science to delve into this.

This is the voice they used for Hawkings wheelchair. You cannot convince me otherwise

@Bishbashboshboshbosh

4 жыл бұрын

Not just me then :-D

"A factory full of quotes kills original thought." Perhaps that's the tactic being employed by Michael Shermer.

@2CSST2

2 жыл бұрын

Or perhaps it's exactly your since all you did was use a quote to somehow discredit about all his points whereas if you actually listened to him his quotes were only used for illustrations, contrarily to you, and he HAD some original thought which was illustrated by them.

Dr. Hoffman’s argument deserves serious consideration. Does the moon disappear when we look away? Probably not. However the moon’s deepest reality is NOT necessarily what the human species perceives it to be. Let’s remain open and flexible and not become dogmatic as to what is or isn’t really there.

@rooruffneck

4 жыл бұрын

Well put. I'm seeing more and more physicists interpret the contextuality findings in ways that definitely match up well with the kind of model Hoffman is proposing. They can't get themselves to think of consciousness as an ontological primitive , but that even seems to be coming more common.

@joshuamitchell1733

4 жыл бұрын

All sounds and physical perception are just concepts or metaphors. We all agree that the idea and word moon is not the same thing as the moon. So we all agree that we use sound to denote and symbolize the moon. If things are real in and of themselves then concepts and symbols wouldn’t be necessary. That way of disproving what we call reality has been used by other philosophers as well.

@KRGruner

4 жыл бұрын

@@joshuamitchell1733 Yeah, sure. Then just go step in front of a speeding bus, just make sure before hand you call the bus a "mere gust of wind" and you should be fine. Whatever, dude. Those mushrooms must really be something!

Hilarious that a Tony Robbins ad popped up with the video.

at about 1:00: I found the unexplained correlations material extremely interesting

Saving this one for my next trip on magic mushrooms.

@bajajones5093

4 жыл бұрын

why ruin the trip? Shermer is a major downer.

@ZalexMusic

2 жыл бұрын

better idea: go outside

Great talk by Hoffman, but how obtuse is Shermer?

@SimplifiedTruth

4 жыл бұрын

The materialistic language and images are to deeply ingrained in the western mind. It portrays reality as "chunks of stuff out there independent of observation" which us false. Reality is turning out to be soo opposite it's almost to hard to entertain.

@dancurtin9362

4 жыл бұрын

Oh please. You took "The Matrix" literally.

@SimplifiedTruth

4 жыл бұрын

@@dancurtin9362 It appears you are somewhat behind on the data. “The common sense view of the world in terms of objects that really exist “out there” independently of our observation , totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor.” - Niels Bohr “If we think of the field as being removed, there is no ‘space’ which remains, since space does not have an independent existence.” - Albert Einstein, Unified Field Theory “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” - Albert Einstein “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 "One has to find a possibility to avoid the continuum (together with space and time) altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory."- Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm. "Everything we see is made up of things we cannot regard as real" - Niels Bohr. "The atoms or particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of the things or facts." - Werner Heisenberg "What we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure." - Anton Zeilinger “It will remain remarkable, in what ever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality.” - Eugene P. Wigner a Nobel Prize winner and one of the leading physicists of the twentieth century. “The material world really stops at about the atomic level.” - Quantum Physicist John Hagelin PhD, Harvard University. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of ‘matter’, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no ‘matter’ as such! Edward Fredkin - Digital Physics * the entire history of our universe is computable * Reality is: - A computer itself. - Essentially digital. - Essentially informational - The computation must be in “other” outside of physical reality. Nick Bostrom - Now at Oxford, Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? "One must be true: - It’s impossible - If not impossible, then unlikely - If not unlikely, then almost all entities with our general set of experiences are most likely living in a simulation." “It from bit.” This phrase, coined by physicist John Wheeler, encapsulates what a lot of physicists have come to believe: that tangible physical reality, the “it”, is ultimately made from information, or bits. "The universe is a virtual reality created by information processing, and furthermore this concept is supported by findings of modern science." -Brian Whitworth - The Physical World as a Virtual Reality. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual. ("The mental universe"; Nature 426:29, 2005

@dancurtin9362

4 жыл бұрын

@@SimplifiedTruth "behind on the data?" none of that is data. You choose Jesus, Hoffman chooses "The Matrix", I choose verifiable physics. All the guff Hoffman spews is exactly what one hears from eager freshmen behind the doors of college dorm rooms accompanied by the drifting fumes of marijuana.

@SimplifiedTruth

4 жыл бұрын

@@dancurtin9362 The experimental data *IS* why they made those statements.

A way you might check the idea of evolutionary icons/metaphors is to create an instance of your model where it applies to a limited subset of reality. For example, try to an iconic VR for the physiology of a worm. Say as a factory. Would it evolve into something more abstract or not?

This is a strong form of anthropic principle. Things in the environment exist insofar as some consciousness process demands that they exist in order to satisfy consistency and continuity conditions of consciousness