Another very recent interview on this subject which is extremely cutting edge and this WILL DEFINITELY open new doors....and it has accurate mathematics backing it up . A total game changer. 💥💯
Justin, thank you. I found your interview and presentation very creative and different. Lots of diagrams! :) From the 50 or so interviews with Don Hoffman I've watched, I appreciate at the end you asking him about the moral and meaning implications of his conclusions. My rephrasing might be: where is the heart and soul embedded in decorated permutations/ geometric hyperspace? Will we still care about plants animals and the quality of water? There have been very few of these kind of questions put to him and the few times he has answered his responses have been very ethical/sound but NOT in-depth in the way he explains all the math and science. PLEASE followup with him on that. You would be doing all of us-and the planet-a great service.
Justin - I love your work and am so glad you decided to create this channel. I’ve watched all but two of the videos in this series and my mind is blown. I’ve always been curious about consciousness and the nature of reality and your education, intelligence, and grasp of the fundamental ideas amongst the leading edge of quantum theory was so helpful in understanding so much of what I always thought would be too difficult to understand. Not that I fully understand any of it really - but it definitely makes more sense to me now after watching your series. Will there be a second series or any updates anytime soon?
Your descriptions of Hoffman's thoughts are the best I have come across in several years now of viewing all of his stuff that was findable; with the exception of Hoffman himself of course.
One thing you're getting wrong here, is that in Hoffman's view, consciousness is most definitely *not* a quantum computer. In fact quantum mechanics, along with space-time, are *both* emergent properties of consciousness; as per Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed's theories, which Hoffman is working off and indeed are worth studying in and of themselves.
For those interested: A discrete signal in time domain is continuous in frequency domain and vice versa. Every continuous time signal can be broken down into it's discrete components of frequency domain. There's this famous Sampling theorem that states that a discrete time signal f(n), where n is the sample number (which is continuous in the frequency domain) can faithfully reproduce the effects of similar continuous time signal f(t) given that the number of samples collected (for one period if periodic) is atleast twice the maximum frequency component of f(n). In other words, if a continuous time signal (physical phenomena) is recorded at every 1/2fmax instants of time, we can produce continuity from discrete data. Digital can produce Physical.
Super interesting and my deepest thanks for your impeccable overview. At 7:55s for e.g. the total scenario of the 'conscious agent' you go through, would you even include ions/metals like Na, K as these conscious agents?
What’s funny is the “geometric form” were always groping at is the graph of the infinite set. How does one graph infinity? We need a new calculus that pulls in and accounts for all the trivial geometry that all past models try to swoosh away and brush under the rug. So no, we don’t have to be satisfied with a finite model, instead we need a finite model that leaves an open place holder space for the infinite (in symbol only of course).
It's possibly straying into anthropocentrism to argue that the theory is limiting of a potentially more enriching ultimate space-time experience, unless it bothers you also that other conscious agents, for example cats or water voles, are thus similarly short-changed by it.
Justin ...you are misunderstanding Hoffman...he DOES NOT equate guantum mechanics nor quantum mechanics with conscious agents. Quite the contrary. It is CA'S that project anything quantum which are "virtual reality headsets". You need to go back and clear up this confusion. It is central to this entire matter. Hope this helps.
@peteraddison4371 absolutely most times it turn out OK. As long as I keep control of myself. My emotions in check. I have noticed that 50 rotations around the sun that is the one thing that is required.
@@peteraddison4371 I don’t know. Look, I saw a physicist (Sabine Hossenfelder) on UA-cam make that statement as a criticism. Since I don’t know much on the subject, I decided to take it to someone who can answer it.
Michael Levin would say your liver IS conscious, in that it does have its own private inner life. You can’t sense it simply because it’s consciousness is dissociated from the one you identify with as brain activity. This is the same phenomenon that explains why you can’t directly experience my consciousness. That your liver lies within the boundaries of your physical body and I do not does not remove the potential for that same dissociation. Your brain, your liver, and the appearance of other people are all mental processes that appear as the aforementioned when viewed from the outside.
The point is it’s nothing to do with quantum stuff so not sure why it’s referred to as that. All spacetime explanations are just external representations. They are not objectively real or fundamental
The "quantum" property actually does not apply to conscious agents, they are not "quantum computers". Hoffman claims in his interview that quantum behavior, just like space-time, is an emergent property derived from more fundamental interactions between conscious agents, and so quantum mechanics is as doomed as space-time. Conscious agents' interactions are described by Markovian kernels that have nothing "quantum" in them, and not by the equations of quantum mechanics.
Conscious Agents and The Problem of Suffering: Professor Hoffman is saying that the theory of “conscious agents” posits that space time emerges via the interactions between “conscious agents”. Even if that were so and space-time were a kind of simulation, it would still be a fundamentally flawed and faulty one given all of the suffering that sentient beings experience within it. The problem of suffering would still apply in a sense, unless we were to concede that this is a negative universe. see: the problem of suffering.
@@JorgeMartinez-xb2ks What does mental illness have to do with Donald Hoffman’s theory of conscious agents and the emergence of space-time, as we perceive it? Professor Hoffman is saying that the theory of “conscious agents” posits that the interactions between “conscious agents” generates or “simulates” what we perceive as space-time as well as everything in it. I’m simply pointing out that it doesn’t matter who or what is creating the reality we perceive: It’s still a fundamentally flawed and faulty one given the presence of suffering. Might help to look up: the problem of suffering.
Not in the way you might be thinking. My understanding of it is that the idea of a "creator" is essentially irrelevant because ultimately we (and every other conscious being) is an expression of one infinitely small part of a single consciousness. Nothing is really created because nothing really exists as we perceive it.
@@TheDjed19 Hoffman doesn't suggest a "designer", no. Are you familiar with 'Plato's cave'? Hoffman's idea is that reality is similar in that spacetime and everything in it, is simply an emergent property, a shadow if you will, of actual reality.
@@Secretgeek2012 hmmm ok. Also I will check out Plato’s Cave thx. By the way when I say intelligent design I don’t mean “god”. I’m talking abut a higher consciousness.
51:35 'the n by n matrix drops to rank 1'... Hooray now it's just a scalar who is a new experience(r)... Our shamelesBs is always mathematically precise (wordiness)...that's why we have no real/experimental examples it ever maps onto.
isn't this just what ancient wisdom schools have been teaching for thousands of years, just repackaged for a modern science language needing audience? Ideas have ideas of their own. We've known this. lol The marketplace of ideas is such an interesting place...
You may be right but joining it to the language of maths allows us to understand and investigate it in a way and to a degree that our ancestors could never have imagined. The mathematics of spirituality.
Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
Hoffman does address this elsewhere. Each of us is a "portal" that the overarching consciousness can use to perceive what is by identifying what it isn't. Remember, the overarching consciousness is outside space and time. Hoffman posits that there is essentially an infinite number of these portals reach with their own way of perceiving a (very) limited version of reality. He also posits that humans are highly likely to be very low down on the pecking order of "portals" with most being able to perceive many more dimensions than our rather paltry 4 (3+time).
That is all yin_ young is telling you simultaneously the probability law with addition of DNA logical configuration observed and deduced from observations of nature without intervention of self
The guy creeps me out.... his gaze, his voice, his mannerisms....but i gotta know how deep the interview goes cause I want to u understand 'Decorative Permitations' are .... Hmm, the interview wasn't good. But I liked your attempt at explaining the whole deal beforehand. Get yourself a good mic, that'll do wonders. Wow this stuff is not easy to comprehend.
Godel's theorem says the finite axiomatic theory will be omega-incomplete. So there will be mathematical statements that are True that can be shown to be unprovable. That does not imply that such statements correspond to anything in reality! But Don is a smart enough decorator to fool the average listener: now, stepping outside the conversation, we can reduce all he's ever said mathematically to one term. Simple! Bril(shameless)liant! Oof, I commented too much just because I wasn't in on the joke, sorry🤦♂ Paradigm-busting reduction to one "mathematically precise, haha" statement = Just listen to Justin's quantum computational ideas only.
... love yore commentary. Big fan, big BIG fan-!!! Do you have tenure, somewhere, or, are you, a professor emitis of something or other-? Are you perhaps an Abbey monk or scorscery apprentice of some obscure as yet unknown, underground hidden sect, somewhere, hmm-? ... Do the math 'nd crunch a few fidgerty digits for us, now, please, sir-? ...
Awesome show. Hoffman wants to believe his own findings; but he is too attached to the Hoffman avatar story to let go. His belief in rigor till rigamortis, then rigor some more may yet get mathematics to show our 4D world is emergent. He and Penrose are hopefully still working on this.
Sorry Justin but I just lost interest about half way through. Maybe the producer should apply the muzzle earlier because Don sounded quite interesting!
Oh no, Justin, you can see that while Don is such a lovely person, his discretely-built model of conscious agents is patently hopeless (a pretend-game that has almost enough convolution to make people say "Ah!", and Don has always covered himself with the caveat "I'm probably wrong"). (or if I namedrop Nima Arkani-Hamed etc and his delusional recasting of physics, will people say Oh Wow, they believe me now! I'm not mocking you: you're taking sincerely someone who is not talking seriously. Makes for great stories and presentations tho, and I have enjoyed the listening experience Don repeatedly offers.) But I suppose you'll just act friendly and substantially-ignore me... Since I believe you would love to get to the bottom of this ultimately, I'll just leave a 343 here, since you intuitively get it
I agree with your take on this. I think the geometric models are fascinating but something just feels off about the whole thing. I am not satisfied by those approaches. And yes, Hoffman invokes Markov chains and then claims to have solved consciousness... This is a huge leap. If I get a round two with some of these guests, I would like to be a bit more combative with them and maybe escape my "nice guy" persona haha
@@JustinRiddle Let's be plainspoken and say that Don and Nima are bigtime bullshitters. And being a really nice guy is a key part of the scam. But they talk and talk til they convince themselves, so that they're not lying. Every time he drops the phrase 'mathematically precise', go check the actual rubbish he and Prakash have put out. The game is about more papers and more publicity, starving the field cos those of us who are trying to work out the real answers can't keep up with the bs. At first, I felt I must take Don's words in the best possible light (since indeed, we form conscious "sensory images" that can never be said to be identical to reality as a whole), but then even Faggin Foundation severed off from funding his phrase-/name-dropping bollocks. I've heard some of Don's personal story and I really like him as a human, so it's all a damn shame. Why pretend to understand theoretical physics when he clearly doesn't?: because Arkani-Hamed is a cool namebrand who pretends to have reduced it all to 'one term'? Enjoying the Feynman lectures?
.. so, Don, donns a dunce hat to fool and mesmerise the thaughts 'n' courts of kingly thinkers. The prime numb-buzz abates to dissolve, ware off, and falls asside, leaving a berry-bad taste, a possible poisonining, perhaps. Or, moreven probably just a micky-finn, niet-? ...
You+me 2nd ("You&I" is a conscious agent, in which each of us is nested: Thank you to you, and to us, for adding your powerful insight🥇 above to the internet, just as Don+you+me has added to the paper mill with our zillion-D string theory hmm, mathematically precise we were throughout indeed, hmm)
You’ve got to have a full-length interview with Don!
Another very recent interview on this subject which is extremely cutting edge and this WILL DEFINITELY open new doors....and it has accurate mathematics backing it up . A total game changer. 💥💯
Since I started meditating this is more accessible.
... kudoze to you, Vince. Until the suspension of judgement, beyond disbelief, absolutely KNOW-THING, is even possible-?! ...
Nothing is not nothing, just no thing.
Justin, thank you. I found your interview and presentation very creative and different. Lots of diagrams! :) From the 50 or so interviews with Don Hoffman I've watched, I appreciate at the end you asking him about the moral and meaning implications of his conclusions. My rephrasing might be: where is the heart and soul embedded in decorated permutations/ geometric hyperspace? Will we still care about plants animals and the quality of water? There have been very few of these kind of questions put to him and the few times he has answered his responses have been very ethical/sound but NOT in-depth in the way he explains all the math and science. PLEASE followup with him on that. You would be doing all of us-and the planet-a great service.
Justin - I love your work and am so glad you decided to create this channel. I’ve watched all but two of the videos in this series and my mind is blown. I’ve always been curious about consciousness and the nature of reality and your education, intelligence, and grasp of the fundamental ideas amongst the leading edge of quantum theory was so helpful in understanding so much of what I always thought would be too difficult to understand. Not that I fully understand any of it really - but it definitely makes more sense to me now after watching your series.
Will there be a second series or any updates anytime soon?
Your descriptions of Hoffman's thoughts are the best I have come across in several years now of viewing all of his stuff that was findable; with the exception of Hoffman himself of course.
I prayed for this years ago thank you Justin Michael Riddle
Chris Langan’s CTMU essentially bridges Platonism and syntax to interface theory
Found your channel by searching for Donald Hoffman. Get him back! 😊
One thing you're getting wrong here, is that in Hoffman's view, consciousness is most definitely *not* a quantum computer. In fact quantum mechanics, along with space-time, are *both* emergent properties of consciousness; as per Dr. Nima Arkani-Hamed's theories, which Hoffman is working off and indeed are worth studying in and of themselves.
Thank you this is fantastic love the illustrations I’ve listened a lot to Hoffman and this adds clarity! Pretty exciting
lovely video. Om.
ABUNDANCE TO EVERYBODY AND EVERY THING. (Before I watch the video.)
Clearest explanation i've heard so far..
Conscious Agents dynamics expressed through the Orch OR wave function collapse … let’s go!🚀🚀🚀
Not at all Orch is a spacetime dependent model and thus invalid
Super interesting. Cheerz for tha upload!
For those interested:
A discrete signal in time domain is continuous in frequency domain and vice versa.
Every continuous time signal can be broken down into it's discrete components of frequency domain.
There's this famous Sampling theorem that states that a discrete time signal f(n), where n is the sample number (which is continuous in the frequency domain) can faithfully reproduce the effects of similar continuous time signal f(t) given that the number of samples collected (for one period if periodic) is atleast twice the maximum frequency component of f(n).
In other words, if a continuous time signal (physical phenomena) is recorded at every 1/2fmax instants of time, we can produce continuity from discrete data. Digital can produce Physical.
Thanks a lot for this amazing talk.
thank you!
Oh yes. You guys rock!
... aenda, maybe evena grocks some, ah, liddelly bitzear. Let's really get busy bashin' and stirin' up this Hoffman hornets nest, right naow-?! ...
Super interesting and my deepest thanks for your impeccable overview. At 7:55s for e.g. the total scenario of the 'conscious agent' you go through, would you even include ions/metals like Na, K as these conscious agents?
What’s funny is the “geometric form” were always groping at is the graph of the infinite set. How does one graph infinity? We need a new calculus that pulls in and accounts for all the trivial geometry that all past models try to swoosh away and brush under the rug. So no, we don’t have to be satisfied with a finite model, instead we need a finite model that leaves an open place holder space for the infinite (in symbol only of course).
I wonder how these models correlate with Wolfram's Ruliad. It seems to me there are similarities. Justin, have you looked into this?
It's possibly straying into anthropocentrism to argue that the theory is limiting of a potentially more enriching ultimate space-time experience, unless it bothers you also that other conscious agents, for example cats or water voles, are thus similarly short-changed by it.
Your videos Definitely help me reduce and visiualize alot of these theories and integrate my own research into TOE much appreciated
So in this theory, are all living beings considered conscious agents? Or is that considered something that only some or all humans have evolved to be?
We're all a collection of conscious agents.
Justin ...you are misunderstanding Hoffman...he DOES NOT equate guantum mechanics nor quantum mechanics with conscious agents. Quite the contrary. It is CA'S that project anything quantum which are "virtual reality headsets".
You need to go back and clear up this confusion. It is central to this entire matter.
Hope this helps.
Catch 22. Anything observed changes upon observation
... &, have you, ever, like, up close & personalarized, actually witnessed to notice such a thing, prey n tell-? ...
@peteraddison4371 absolutely most times it turn out OK. As long as I keep control of myself. My emotions in check. I have noticed that 50 rotations around the sun that is the one thing that is required.
About Orchestrated Objective Reduction.
If microtubles are involved in quantum consciousness, how come my liver is not conscious??
... do you truly even realise the absurdity of that statement-? How could one be aware of liver consciousness without first being a liver-?! ...
@@peteraddison4371 I don’t know. Look, I saw a physicist (Sabine Hossenfelder) on UA-cam make that statement as a criticism. Since I don’t know much on the subject, I decided to take it to someone who can answer it.
Michael Levin would say your liver IS conscious, in that it does have its own private inner life. You can’t sense it simply because it’s consciousness is dissociated from the one you identify with as brain activity. This is the same phenomenon that explains why you can’t directly experience my consciousness. That your liver lies within the boundaries of your physical body and I do not does not remove the potential for that same dissociation. Your brain, your liver, and the appearance of other people are all mental processes that appear as the aforementioned when viewed from the outside.
@@aaronfromohio8895 Thanks.
The point is it’s nothing to do with quantum stuff so not sure why it’s referred to as that. All spacetime explanations are just external representations. They are not objectively real or fundamental
The "quantum" property actually does not apply to conscious agents, they are not "quantum computers". Hoffman claims in his interview that quantum behavior, just like space-time, is an emergent property derived from more fundamental interactions between conscious agents, and so quantum mechanics is as doomed as space-time. Conscious agents' interactions are described by Markovian kernels that have nothing "quantum" in them, and not by the equations of quantum mechanics.
Thanks for that. Ten minutes into the video and I was beginning to wonder if this guy was talking about the work of another Donald Hoffman.
Bro, love the content but...whats that music ????
Conscious Agents and The Problem of Suffering: Professor Hoffman is saying that the theory of “conscious agents” posits that space time emerges via the interactions between “conscious agents”.
Even if that were so and space-time were a kind of simulation, it would still be a fundamentally flawed and faulty one given all of the suffering that sentient beings experience within it.
The problem of suffering would still apply in a sense, unless we were to concede that this is a negative universe.
see: the problem of suffering.
You are absolutely right. I think that the screenwriter must be quite mentally ill.
@@JorgeMartinez-xb2ks What does mental illness have to do with Donald Hoffman’s theory of conscious agents and the emergence of space-time, as we perceive it?
Professor Hoffman is saying that the theory of “conscious agents” posits that the interactions between “conscious agents” generates or “simulates” what we perceive as space-time as well as everything in it.
I’m simply pointing out that it doesn’t matter who or what is creating the reality we perceive: It’s still a fundamentally flawed and faulty one given the presence of suffering.
Might help to look up: the problem of suffering.
... naow, go-figga, that. Firmiularise IT, & algorlar8 & mythlarise 😢 X ...
Dear Justin, Your episodes are getting more difficult to understand these days. Be precise and use more graphics. Thanks.
... Esher meets Dali meets cubigsticky Picasso, often in the house of fun ...
Does Hoffman and Penrose system support an intelligent designer?
Not in the way you might be thinking.
My understanding of it is that the idea of a "creator" is essentially irrelevant because ultimately we (and every other conscious being) is an expression of one infinitely small part of a single consciousness. Nothing is really created because nothing really exists as we perceive it.
Right so this single consciousness which we and everything are all apart of, is the or an intelligent designer.
@@TheDjed19 Hoffman doesn't suggest a "designer", no.
Are you familiar with 'Plato's cave'?
Hoffman's idea is that reality is similar in that spacetime and everything in it, is simply an emergent property, a shadow if you will, of actual reality.
@@Secretgeek2012 hmmm ok. Also I will check out Plato’s Cave thx. By the way when I say intelligent design I don’t mean “god”. I’m talking abut a higher consciousness.
51:35 'the n by n matrix drops to rank 1'... Hooray now it's just a scalar who is a new experience(r)... Our shamelesBs is always mathematically precise (wordiness)...that's why we have no real/experimental examples it ever maps onto.
Way to go. We have a brilliant UA-camr who solved the problem and disproved Don’s theorem👏👏🧠🧐
isn't this just what ancient wisdom schools have been teaching for thousands of years, just repackaged for a modern science language needing audience? Ideas have ideas of their own. We've known this. lol The marketplace of ideas is such an interesting place...
That science is getting to where it can prove these ancient insights is what’s so exciting
... yeah, rite-!?
0ne-step-beyond
...MYSTERY'S-COOL...
@@peteraddison4371 it's a spicy soup! lol
You may be right but joining it to the language of maths allows us to understand and investigate it in a way and to a degree that our ancestors could never have imagined.
The mathematics of spirituality.
Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
... that, dear-rest quest-ioner, is indeed, a most presisly-put-premise, totally assumed, (+i) presume ...
Hoffman does address this elsewhere. Each of us is a "portal" that the overarching consciousness can use to perceive what is by identifying what it isn't.
Remember, the overarching consciousness is outside space and time. Hoffman posits that there is essentially an infinite number of these portals reach with their own way of perceiving a (very) limited version of reality.
He also posits that humans are highly likely to be very low down on the pecking order of "portals" with most being able to perceive many more dimensions than our rather paltry 4 (3+time).
That is all yin_ young is telling you simultaneously the probability law with addition of DNA logical configuration observed and deduced from observations of nature without intervention of self
I feel like a pop up character in an overminds dream
The guy creeps me out.... his gaze, his voice, his mannerisms....but i gotta know how deep the interview goes cause I want to u understand 'Decorative Permitations' are ....
Hmm, the interview wasn't good. But I liked your attempt at explaining the whole deal beforehand.
Get yourself a good mic, that'll do wonders. Wow this stuff is not easy to comprehend.
Second
you really need to upgrade your mic ASAP. my ear almost got cancelled by your pitch
Follow the evidence..., opinions and could we should we is not required.
With all due respect, is there an issue with your voice? It cracks (literally) every few seconds
Godel's theorem says the finite axiomatic theory will be omega-incomplete. So there will be mathematical statements that are True that can be shown to be unprovable. That does not imply that such statements correspond to anything in reality!
But Don is a smart enough decorator to fool the average listener: now, stepping outside the conversation, we can reduce all he's ever said mathematically to one term. Simple! Bril(shameless)liant!
Oof, I commented too much just because I wasn't in on the joke, sorry🤦♂
Paradigm-busting reduction to one "mathematically precise, haha" statement = Just listen to Justin's quantum computational ideas only.
... love yore commentary. Big fan, big BIG fan-!!!
Do you have tenure, somewhere, or, are you, a professor emitis of something or other-? Are you perhaps an Abbey monk or scorscery apprentice of some obscure as yet unknown, underground hidden sect, somewhere, hmm-? ...
Do the math 'nd crunch a few fidgerty digits for us, now, please, sir-? ...
First
Martin Dorothy Brown Barbara Walker James
Awesome show. Hoffman wants to believe his own findings; but he is too attached to the Hoffman avatar story to let go. His belief in rigor till rigamortis, then rigor some more may yet get mathematics to show our 4D world is emergent. He and Penrose are hopefully still working on this.
man bun and mask. my my.
Unsubbed just because of the quality of mic, bruh moment
i m two stupid to understand
Sorry Justin but I just lost interest about half way through. Maybe the producer should apply the muzzle earlier because Don sounded quite interesting!
Oh no, Justin, you can see that while Don is such a lovely person, his discretely-built model of conscious agents is patently hopeless (a pretend-game that has almost enough convolution to make people say "Ah!", and Don has always covered himself with the caveat "I'm probably wrong").
(or if I namedrop Nima Arkani-Hamed etc and his delusional recasting of physics, will people say Oh Wow, they believe me now! I'm not mocking you: you're taking sincerely someone who is not talking seriously. Makes for great stories and presentations tho, and I have enjoyed the listening experience Don repeatedly offers.) But I suppose you'll just act friendly and substantially-ignore me... Since I believe you would love to get to the bottom of this ultimately, I'll just leave a 343 here, since you intuitively get it
I agree with your take on this. I think the geometric models are fascinating but something just feels off about the whole thing. I am not satisfied by those approaches.
And yes, Hoffman invokes Markov chains and then claims to have solved consciousness... This is a huge leap. If I get a round two with some of these guests, I would like to be a bit more combative with them and maybe escape my "nice guy" persona haha
@@JustinRiddle Let's be plainspoken and say that Don and Nima are bigtime bullshitters. And being a really nice guy is a key part of the scam. But they talk and talk til they convince themselves, so that they're not lying.
Every time he drops the phrase 'mathematically precise', go check the actual rubbish he and Prakash have put out. The game is about more papers and more publicity, starving the field cos those of us who are trying to work out the real answers can't keep up with the bs. At first, I felt I must take Don's words in the best possible light (since indeed, we form conscious "sensory images" that can never be said to be identical to reality as a whole), but then even Faggin Foundation severed off from funding his phrase-/name-dropping bollocks.
I've heard some of Don's personal story and I really like him as a human, so it's all a damn shame. Why pretend to understand theoretical physics when he clearly doesn't?: because Arkani-Hamed is a cool namebrand who pretends to have reduced it all to 'one term'?
Enjoying the Feynman lectures?
.. so, Don, donns a dunce hat to fool and mesmerise the thaughts 'n' courts of kingly thinkers. The prime numb-buzz abates to dissolve, ware off, and falls asside, leaving a berry-bad taste, a possible poisonining, perhaps. Or, moreven probably just a micky-finn, niet-? ...
🎉❤
First
You+me 2nd
("You&I" is a conscious agent, in which each of us is nested: Thank you to you, and to us, for adding your powerful insight🥇 above to the internet, just as Don+you+me has added to the paper mill with our zillion-D string theory hmm, mathematically precise we were throughout indeed, hmm)