Donald Hoffman on Consciousness and Conscious Agents | Closer To Truth Chats
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- Donal Hoffman discusses his theory of consciousness and conscious agents, and how this theory affects everything from artificial intelligence to alien life and the Fermi Paradox.
Donald Hoffman's Website: www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/
Follow Donald Hoffman on Twitter @donalddhoffman
Donald D. Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine and author of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See and coauthor of Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory Of Perception.
Watch more Closer To Truth interviews with Donald Hoffman: bit.ly/3lyENwa
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
© 2020 Closer To Truth
One of my favorite guests in this show!
We are the universe experiencing itself.
No.
I'm glad to see the whole interview rather than just the piecemeal bits he was putting out recently. Especially for someone as far into the woo as this guy, it really helps to understand his theories when you have it all together in one block.
What he's doing is definitely a step in the right direction and he's on to something surely. I do think he's made a few assumptions that he's not aware of but hopefully that will all get ironed out eventually.
Thanks, DonkeyPuncher
Psychedelics could be a significant portal out of our headsets into the deeper reality. What he talks about with Fermi’s Paradox lines up with alien-like experiences people using DMT and Ayahuasca have. One thing we know for certain is there is far more going on behind the scenes of what we assume as “reality”
“Could be”?
Consciousness and knowledge of higher (conscious) Agents, is what the World needs now.
Consciousness is for me a story of pattern classification. When we meet something new, we classify that "something" in different classes of patterns, e.g., colorless vs colorful, if colorful which color is this, then what kind of subcolor and back to the beginning beautiful vs neutral vs terrible, etc. If we see that "something" again, we use a classification template. It may happen, however, that a portion of features is different this time. So, we have to recognize and accept that fact as well as to change our picture of the Universe. Sometimes those changes may be shocking 🤣, e.g. if someone says its gender remains undefined or some beauty appears to be a dangerous criminal that has nothing to do with good and moral acts, etc
I love Hoffman! Truly one of the most profound thinkers in science. His concepts make me giddy. His therory is exactlly what I and many othes have experiendced directly in spiritual or trans-personal encoutners, but put in into language that can make predctions Astouding! That is- there is a living one force /energy (for want of a better word) more fundimental than space/time matter or energy, that mainfiest all infinite and seemingly seperate forms - and we are it. It is also in line with a lot of experiences people describe of seeming encounters with "aliens" or "other" intelligences, which seems impossible in the terms of our "head se"t based space time model - like time manupulation, telepathy, dissapearng and re-eppeaing, defying causalilty, creating synchronicitiess and so on. I reall think his work is as flavour of how our model of reality will look in a thousand years. I can't think of anyone who reaches so far and puts such radical insights so lucidly.
You so beautifully describe how I feel when Hoffman speaks! From a different angle I also enjoy Bernardo Kastrup. I’ve waited all my life for this
Thanks for this excellent interview to Donald Hoffman
again you did another great conversation uplifting our daily mundane consciousness to another level!
Thanks for sharing that interview. I was waiting for a talk of you both. Donald Hoffmann is a genius. I follow his work for now six years. Inspiring...
If he a genius, I must be a super genius))) He has only just caught up to my theories.
If only he would let go the idea of objective reality...
It is a subject that is difficult to articulate and necessarily requires analogous description -- trying to explain a completely nonphysical thing in physical terms.
@@ZafOsophy Please direct us to your papers or interviews, lectures etc. outling your theories.
22
By far one of the best clearest well thought out theory/idea I’ve heard regarding, really any subject...Donald..you rock!
If there is no time, how does the consciousness evolve or interact or experience anything? It will be static. What are implications for death and the dead? Do they lose their portals to communicate?
Great discussion, I so appreciate Professor Hoffmans’ mind and take on consciousness. At last. Love the art behind you!
I LOVE Donald Hoffman!!!
Hoffman is very good. Gives clear explanations and straightforward statements of the problems. Martin has done great work for years. Two vets who know their stuff.
Seriously? I must be on a different astral plain because none of that made any sense to me. Does he believe consciousness is an illusion? Does he believe in free will? How do I get those goggles he is referring to?
@@caricue He’s not saying that consciousness is an illusion.
In the videogame analogy, the steering wheel on the screen is an icon we can relate to, representing the
electronics and circuits underneath that actually move the image
on the screen. It would not be useful
for us, from an evolutionary standpoint to see reality as it is, molecules forming soundless, colourless material objects, too complex for our minds
to understand. Colours, and sounds are products of our minds, and filtered so we can make sense of them. There are many frequencies and light spectrums we can’t perceive
because they serve no purpose to our survival.
m
@@buddyrichable1 Haha, of course I heard his woo-woo talk about how we can't perceive "real" reality. He is totally enthralled by his own view of evolution. We evolved to live in this middle sized world and this is the only level that we can be confident that we are perceiving accurately. Molecules don't even exist at our level of perception, so it makes no sense to talk of soundless or colorless objects. Everything he says is in support of his gormless theory of consciousness, so it shouldn't be taken too seriously.
I would love to see a conversation between Jeff Hawkin and Donald Hoffman.
In an example, a mathematical equation can be programmed as hardware (computation) for output, into which data can be programmed as input (software). So the programming of hardware to compute for output and the programming of data to input as software might describe consciousness?
Professor Hoffman’s thoughts on consciousness are the closest I have found to my own, which of course has nothing to do with whether he is correct. My background is engineering and I look forward to reading Hoffman’s paper to see if it can provide me with any insights.
When you listen at this guy for a while, sometimes he doesn't get it, sometimes he gets it very fast and well, but one thing is great: he doesn't get convinced easily, and is almost bullshit-proof.
I appreciate it.
Awesome conversation! Headset, Virtual Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Space and Time, and Consciousness. I visualize a future greater than Ironman and the possibility of the 5 power stones! Haha.
Help me understand this. If a conscious agent exists already that can "represent" the "smell of chocolate" (example) then why would it need to go to all the additional trouble of conjuring (or helping to conjure) humans in space time to manufacture and then "smell" the chocolate? Seems like a lot of effort. What exactly is the role of the human there? Is the human a necessary construct to allow the agent to experience the smell? Or is it so one human can inform another human how good it smells, thereby sharing the joy among agents? Also, Grand Theft Auto could still play itself in memory even if the video screen and steering wheel (interface) were broken. Couldn't conscious agents carry on just fine without space time and humans? Maybe that's the agent carrying on even after the human kicks the bucket?
The brain is a modelling tool. It needs to simulate an agent that experiences the chocolate smell in order to model that agents reactions, or any of the myriad things it computes. Our brains themselves are real and are part of the 'real world', unfortunately we - as in what we feel to be a conscious agent, our personal identity - are just a non-existent fiction on the substrate of our brains. It's pretty cool actually! Hoffman is right about the 'virtual reality' bit, of course we don't see the world as it really is in the world where the brain exists, we have no access to that world, but he has a far too complicated explanation for all this. Consciousness is just an illusion, but it's a really cool illusion! And it's everything you got! In the not too distant future we will create conscious machines or simulations, and the magic (or lack of) will be finally revealed for all to see.
At 3:19, What does he say? Who? I couldn’t understand! Please someone help!
I think as he even states himself, his postulates are way out there. I think Occum’s Razor is in play. When the body (brain ceases to function), subjective consciousness also ceases, just as when you go under general anesthesia. You simply cease to exist. Yes indeed, it may be many years before neuroscience has a better understanding the “hard problem” of consciousness but that doesn’t mean it can’t be solved mathematically or otherwise. As humans it’s all to easy to fall into the wish thinking trap. It was Carl Sagan who suggested it’s no more than arrogant thinking that one believes we’re at the center, that we’re the focus, the reason, the purpose of the universe. It’s not about us.
Surely, the thing you are missing is how what we call reality must also be a model. Our own personal version of reality must be composed of us. So many very tiny aspects of us must be arranged to model reality according to external stimuli. The fuss could be over the nature of those stimuli, whether they were made of something more or less virtual.
There is real promise here. It's obvious that we won't get much more dramatic improvements in energy production, transportation, medicine etc if we keep trapping ourselves in the 4D realm. We have to look outside this reality in order to improve it.
The advancements in technology would be huge if he is on point...
Very refreshing how this discussion didn't give rise to the issue of dualism vs monism. Did it avoid the issue or render it a moot point?
Is there really the taste of garlic? Or are we only experiencing the correlates of the taste of garlic so that we can agree on the objective characteristics but we experience wildly different senses of garlic? Because if that is the case each brain would need to agree with the key correlates but is under no demand of actually giving rise in the conscious experience to the same taste of garlic, and, actually, it's a tall order to do so but I like the way this guy thinks, but I think he picked some strange starting points but it may actually predict something and get us a bit closer.
If 1) conscious experiences exist and 2) such experiences can cause actions, but you have already abolished space/time, how can actions be defined? Is there such a thing as an action without time?
Are you referring to consciousness or experiences. Although they are connected, they are two distinct items.
As for action without consciousness, I believe the answer to be YES - but it only makes sense if a God is the cause(source) of consciousness. " Once upon NO TIME God( Consciousness) decided to Create our space/time reality. His Consciousness would be aware of His action of Creating but, more to the point, He would be Conscious of His inaction prior to 'anything' existing or moving. I think. That is a great question - but impossible to answer without a God in the equation.
Love love this topic very interesting
13:59 “I need 2 things, conscious experiences, the taste of garlic, the smell of a rose, a headache... “
the problem is, we are giving you not just one or two things, but an infinite number of possible experiences. You see, the hard problem of consciousness is, why is there any consciousness at all, and how do conscious states relate to a brain and body. The taste of garlic is specific to garlic. Why does it have that taste as opposed to say the taste of a caramel tart? The experiences we have relate directly to the matter out there in the world which we believe stimulate them.
If I give you conscious experience, I have to give you all conscious experiences, and thus, I eliminate any possible explanation of why conscious experiences have that particular character they have. And so, we don’t have ANY explanation OF conscious experiences, nor any relation to the things which seem to stimulate them.
You’re exactly right. His answer to the “hard problem”, i.e. “Why is there consciousness instead of inanimate physical stuff?” Is “Let me just assume consciousness.”
I tend to think the hard problem is just the wrong question, so the only answers to it are nonsensical. It’s kind of like “but what is an electron?” “But what is a field?” “But what is a probability density?”, etc. there’s always another “But what IS it?” Question.
Let’s not worry about what it “is”. Let’s start by giving better and more fine-grained descriptions of it, and see where we end up.
Not sure I fully understand hard problem of consciousness; the general picture have rough idea, but the specific question eludes me.
It pretty much comes down to: how can material processes happening in the brain give rise to the experiences we feel in our minds?
Buddha said in his Law of Dependent Origination, that for anything to exist, 3 factors must be present, 1/ A sane cognising consciousness, 2/ an organ(s) of perception, and 3/ something real out there, described as the 'basis of designation'. Thus we project our personal subjective sense organ created and utility modified version of the world onto the basis of designation, and then mistake this for real objective reality.
Our consciousness of intentions is different from our consciousness of matter. Perhaps we need to examine more closely how we perceive intentions to give us a more useful tool to understand consciousness than the one presented by physics. Perhaps if we make progress in this we can make more progress in physics. Or not. In any case it may certainly be the case that an examination of our perception of intentions should give us another definition of time and thus "causality".
Beautiful artworks
Fascinating stuff....
Donald is definitely asking the right kind of quesiton. And his proposed answer is def. worth a stab, especially considering what traditions of spiritual inquiry such as Buddhism have encountered so far - it's astonishingly close to what he refers to as "realm of conscious agents" even "one agent", funny thing is that they did that in-practice rather than in theory, and their experiments are repeatable, although horrendously inefficient - for 1 person on average it takes 30-40 years to repeat the experiment fully
or you could just have a bunch of people take some acid
More than Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta postulates an identical framework...
It seems unlikely that we will be able to break out of our ¨headsets¨ based on all the constraints of our consciousness and more likely that we will only be able to use our consciousness to create our own new worlds.
If it would be the case that programming is conscious, and with numbers and mathematical equations being programmed; could consciousness be described by the concept and language of programming, whatever that may be?
Martin is cool! Love closer to truth on PBS. I know Hoffman is a Genius but why , being a philosopher yourself didn't you hit him with the fact that his ideas are not that new. I mean Kant, Berkeley & Schopenhauer & many others said almost the same things regarding space time cause & effect & the five senses not capturing fundamental reality. Darwin wasnt popular yet so thats a interesting addition. Kant called the fundamental reality the " thing in itself" .
I would love to watch a conversation beween Stephen Wolfram and Donald Hoffman
There is more: What are "video game signals"? I have heard "sleight of hand" but never "sleight of claim" which is what I think he is doing when he claimed he was going to solve the hard problem of consciousness. So we have gone to perception to sensory experiences to video game signals. All observations are theory laden. He started with the theory of consciousness is like a video game gi and then began to camouflage the undefined and the undefinable. We are off to a great start. Sounds like magic!
@Nick Williams Is this your interpretation of his solution to the so-called hard problem of consciousness?
Wow. Your thinking.is too narrow.
@@garychartrand7378 Not to worry! Remember-Reality is not real, and he’s got the proof! Anti-realism on steroids!
"It is stranger than we can think". RBS Haldane
What is the current scientific definition of consciousness?
One bourbon, one scotch and one beer.
"Nothing worth reading has been written about it" - this description of consciousness remains true...
That is that consciousness is emerging from space and time... but now DH is saying that it is fundamental!
@@TheFrenchNanny No, Opposite, space and time emerging from consciousness
Or, the Stuff-side emerging from the Life-side.
Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira agree
So interesting! Perhaps the notion that we are in the matrix could be a thing!
But how is a conscious agent a fundamental parameter? Despite what the fundamental nature of reality is (i.e. if not quarks, other things more fundamental than quarks), you'd still need to structure them a certain way for a conscious agent to exist. So is this a theory of composite things?
So if your schizophrenic is that just your consciousness screwing up or what is that? Does the brain have anything to do with consciousness? Is conscious ancient infallible
My brain hurts. Gonna have to watch this one again!
Did i hear Dr. Hoffman say, “different CONSCIOUSNESSES” - life is CONSCIOUS or there is NO LIFE - A-I WILL NEVER LIVE, SUPER COLOSSAL ALGORITHMS YES - ONE HAS TO BE CONSCIOUS TO FEEL LOVE TO FEEL HATE - A LIFE FORM IS THE PRIMARY result of and or a conduit of CONSCIOUSNESSES - a machine, at best, is a secondary element -
Here in lies my problem, Dr. Hoffmans definition of the word ‘CONSCIOUSNESS’ is apparently different than my understanding of the word - i would greatly appreciate help some help here -
We can't perceive thoughts with our senses, but a single thought can condition one's whole life.
Pretty good.
Interesting but who or what designed the interface?
What's the most important thing in a video? Right - Sound.
Mathematical measurement of increased consciousness: Neural Signal Diversity. Lets see something about this work on Sussex University:
First evidence for higher state of consciousness found
Scientific evidence of a ‘higher’ state of consciousness has been found in a study led by the University of Sussex.
Neuroscientists observed a sustained increase in neural signal diversity - a measure of the complexity of brain activity - of people under the influence of psychedelic drugs, compared with when they were in a normal waking state.
The diversity of brain signals provides a mathematical index of the level of consciousness. For example, people who are awake have been shown to have more diverse neural activity using this scale than those who are asleep.
This, however, is the first study to show brain-signal diversity that is higher than baseline, that is higher than in someone who is simply ‘awake and aware’. Previous studies have tended to focus on lowered states of consciousness, such as sleep, anaesthesia, or the so-called ‘vegetative’ state.
When you consider consciousness as General Consciousness, the Einstein’s Field Equation could be a math model for explaining the consciousness.
No,
So energy and matter are headset icons and all the permutations of those equal icons is the seeming infinite universe....
I don't get it! He went into a whole analogy of steering wheels in video games, which I couldn't understand, and concluded that the steering wheel didn't do anything. Then later on he said Conscious Agents cause actions. I thought there weren't causes.
I suspect there is something true in here somewhere but I don't see it. Where was the mathematics in this? I saw some vague references to graph theory but nothing substantial, perhaps I need to read some of his papers.
He does say in other places that he puts these ideas up for critique and development. A bit like using Plato's Republic to focus the discussion.
The video game steering wheel analogy was pretty clear to me.
In the game you turn the wheel to turn the car.
But the car isnt actually being turned by the wheel the car is being turned because a force (the player) outside of all of the games enclosed experienced reality is interacting with it to turn it.
You wake up after never being asleep. Alan Watts talked about this 50 years ago. As when you die you wake up.
Thats a real good point.
Yes, physical death is an illusion. Our lives are simulation "game" played by us as useful avatars of a collective consciousness (G*d) for the purpose of learning. When we die, our avatars are timed out and our consciousness reunites with the collective consciousness forever.
At the end, Mr. Hoffman talks about mastery over space/time. However.....he has pointed out that we have no reason to believe that there exists an objective universe outside of our consciousness. But the reverse is similarly true, and is actually disproven by his own theory and research demonstrating that seeing truth doesn't result in greater fitness, quite to the contrary. If we have evolved to seek fitness, not truth, finally seeing truth, "seeing past our headsets" will not necessarily achieve mastery over that truth, over the objective reality. Not to mention that, according to his theory, evolution will be fighting us seeking truth the entire way...... (Looking at the sociopolitical state of America, along with where it seems to be headed, it appears to be following his evolution theory perfectly, with large segments of the population rejecting truth, facts, evidence, etc., while still at least appearing to being successful to end America as we know it.)......
Yep. Even if not truth tracking, for things to persist they have to be in some sort of stable relationship with whatever they exist in, evolution does a mighty fine job of this, at least in the long run, so there must be some correlation with evolutional fitness and objective reality. Hoffman is right is saying that we will never have access to the objective world, and we are living in a simulation, but it's made by our own brains for the purposes of modelling, and evolutional success. But our brains exist in the objective world, even if the neurons and grey matter we see are inside the simulation and are not a wholly accurate representation , the brain, whatever it looks like, exists out there. We will never be able to see past the headset, as we do not exist outside the headset, we don't just live in a simulation, we are the simulation.
The Infinite creates finite agents in order to experience its infinite potential.
When things are made too convoluted or abstruse....then you are "talking up a storm" whilst actually seeing very little...
@Nick Williams I'm using the terms convoluted and abstruse in reference to language. Anything being "complex" has nothing to do with the language used to describe it....
You guys need to interview BERNARDO KASTRUP
Mr. kuhn,
I am yet to see a conversation, where the necessity for material interpretation of mathematics itself is stressed, instead of assuming its accuracy as, so to say, "God given".
Literally, making Mathematics - The New God.
That is why I am posting the same comment given below in many of your podcasts.
Please respond!
The book of nature "may" be written in mathematical charecters, but there is one thing much more "certain" we can say: the books of mathematics are written by, and the book of nature read by, human characters.
Therefore the conclusion is obvious: the book of nature is written and read by human charecters.
(I mean "the book" of nature; not nature itself. Epistemology, not ontology)
And human charecters can cook any book.
It follows: the book of nature is cookable.
So "mathematics are" not necessarily only " for mathematicians", but let's assume, a common property of all life.
Nature, obviously, doesn't indicate any purpose. But it is in our interest to proceed with the assumption that nature's purpose is a wave function that "collapses" to our own purpose the moment we set, and start acting on, the "correct" purpose.
Won't it be enough if the finiteness and certainty of the laws of nature limits itself to those necessary only for eliminating the current, and preventing any future, "negative event intervals", while those relevant to the positive aspects remain eternally infinite and uncertain, so that there would always be positive surprises? Wishful thinking?
As to the nature of such a purpose see my comments (Reply 6) in the comments section of your podcast: The Rise of Scientific Atheism.
I got a head set
I love this new approach. Glad to see Donald Hoffman is gaining respect and podium. Getting Closer 😉.
@Lisa Jordan thanks for sharing. Didn’t know Tom Campbell yet. Interesting how he pursues understanding QM.
Hey, if anybody needs me, they can find me in Gödel's Candy Store. 🍬 🌌
That was clever
Nice one. ☝️
if we could explain everything, we would lose purpose. It gives reason for our existence............
That is a possibility but is also possible that it might lead to a better reality. The worst that could happen is that we have a bit of extra chaos for a while to makes us forget again and return to the state we are in now.
I wrote today 2 rather pertinent comments (I think) on our senses versus objective reality and on consciousness. I am a bit disappointed since both non-offensive comments disappeared from this platform.
I notice that from time to time a given post of mine won't show up in a comments section after I post it. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's inexplicable. I don't like the youtube comments section as a method of communicating with others anyway. And I'm sorry about your comments disappearing.
@@misternought5028 it just happened to me.
Always a skeptic but offers no better solution....
Interesting that as technology advances the hard problem hasn’t gotten any easier….Perhaps looking for a materialist source of consciousness is the error..If the brain, with its vast neural networks is in actuality a receiver/transceiver….adding personality traits from unique genetic parings…then science will never arrive at a materialist explanation of consciousness…The brain is in charge of all those autonomic functions of the body as well… liver function etc…correlations are clearly there…but causality?
Consciousness can only be a property of a Living Being,
therefore a 'conscious agent' must be a Life-Unit.
(Life-Unit-principle, - multiple life-units)
Intelligence can never be artificial,
devices can be programmed so they can do mental functions,
but they wont be conscious,
calculaters cant calculate, they just function the way they are programmed.
'Feeling' is a Eternal ability, if it didn exist, there would never had been any one feeling or sensing any thing at all.
All experiences are Feeling-experiences, (first hand) sensing is the window to Life.
Our sensing-organs is Motion, the object of sensing is Motion, the sensing is Motion.
what would the consciousness be without Feeling, and Motion.
Yeah, every one knows time-space, (periods, memories) no one can explain 'space-time',
but space is part of the creation, ('tiny stuff') and time is the 'shadow' of Motion,
D.H. is right it only exists in the mind/consciousness, of the Living Beings.
So we're just some game played by some thing. That still doesn't answer anything..
That's an inaccurate reductionism of a lot of nuanced and difficult concepts D Hoff is working on. Your brain is trying to make this easier than it is because it makes for cleaner, more simple thinking (and usually, better sleep). You're going to want to push back on that. Stay uncomfortable. It casts a wider learning net. That's been my life xp anyway. Cheers.
@@dannywest8843 I didn't push back on anything. If I didn't utilize reductionism then I'd have to write a term paper. We're on UA-cam. A little easier to shorten data into a few key phrases.
If consciousness is fundamental, and we are aware that we are conscious, and if everything is a data structure, then we are types of conscious agents acting in some type of a conscious universe.
I think you're assuming too much about me.
@@primetimedurkheim2717 I dont think he was referring to you specifically. I think he was referring to "you" as more of general population kind of thing.
It's a game where the answers come up as it plays with itself.
@@primetimedurkheim2717 that's a lot of ifs but I think your in the right ballpark.
Problem with those who are trying to downplay Consciousness is they believe that consciousness is something that the body associates itself with to stay alive.
Consciousness seems to work more from the outside in.
Life is an inner affair, always born from within, always realized from within.
Consciousness is also an inner reality/experience.
Intelligence can never be artificial, and therefore not scary.
Penrose is great, but Life is still a mystery to him.
We have always been Here and Now, We will always be Here and Now, We are the Eternal Here and Now, no one can escape from the Eternal Here and Now-
There ain't No dead in real sense.@Lisa Jordan
Consciousness is self-preservation... Everything else extends from that!
22:00 Portal into other consciousnesses...it seems to me that we could get a long ways there using a voluntary, participatory API, with a standardized schema of some sort. So once you have that, you can also design complicated surveys that once performed at scale, can offer a high resolution insight into human nature, perception, beliefs, perceptual inconsistencies, etc.
Sure, everybody would love a weapon that can make your enemies mentally challenged, without will to resist or even fight for you goals.
@@xspotbox4400 Voluntary!!
@@JohnnyTwoFingers Yes, that would be even better. I like the way this man thinks.
How about the theory of consciousness booting up space-time, due to it's wave-particle duality. Consciousness goes into possibilities and, consciousness looking at the possibilities of consciousness, converts possibilities into actuality - that is, emergent space-time.
भाई मेरी इंग्लिश थोड़ी कमजोर है इसलिए आपसे पूछ रहा हूं क्या ये आत्मा में विश्वास रखते हैं ?
Mathematics can be good way to find out consciousness, in particular with reference to particles (like in the brain) and also objects (maybe galaxies or stars). Also feel consciousness could be found examining relationship between awareness and language, also relationship between experience and free will. Wonder if logic can be used to find consciousness, especially with respect to awareness.
A logical mind is the only way to understand consciousness
👍👍
If two conscious people see and perceive something in front of them, even though there perception might differ slightly due to their own personal and distinct position in tine and space, then they both share a similar consciousness. If they both feel cold, again, the same conscious experience due their similar consciousness. So their sharing a similar consciousness and similar experience(s). Conscious beings can experience our existence inside this universe and take away experiences and memories and feelings. And they can create things being that their consciousness can think and reason and dream and use our bodies and hands and muscles to make things and to appreciate things. But human did not make the moon but the still appreciate it, just as much if not more than the things humans have made. But the greater consciousness that we are attached to via these biological computer systems that we call human bodies is who made the moon and the universe. That is why we are able to appreciate it. You never see rocks staring at the Mona Lisa, but conscious beings do. In the same similar manner that they stare at the moon. And with these biological human computers, we can finally describe what a carrot tastes like, but not with words, but rather with feelings and experiences.
Thank you, intelligent explanation, I have similar understanding of us humans and the things we feel and perceive , I wish English was my first language to explain what I started " understanding " after a near death experience that occurred during a heart transplant operation I had 2 years ago.
@@sammymm2 There is no death, any more than at the end of a movie. The movie may be over, but you get up and leave the theater and continue on for eternity in your consciousness and higher dimensional being. 👍🥳
@@mikeharper3784 you are absolutely right:), but from a linguistic POV, death is just a physical failure of the physical body and not to the spiritual or the conscious entity within living things, which is eternal.
@@sammymm2 Yes. We are higher dimensional being not subject to the restrictions of time and space and matter. And what would seem like only a few moments up there is like 75 years down here inside this little playground we call the universe. So live long and prosper 🖖. Because this is just a virtual interactive movie being shown to us by our teachers so that we cal learn and experience some very important lessons. Peace
@@mikeharper3784 :) yes we are, you are "awakened" keep going, deeper and deeper, you will reach the final and most important answer to "we the humans" entities.
Donald, you are 500 years ahead of the game! Almost impossible for anyone much less robert kuhn to give up on space time and understand the headset concept! Keep going!
Being scientists cannot find the conscious particle, then is mind not a material entity?
Oh what a brilliant interview, thank you. Yes, spacetime cant be fundamental because we never experience or find it. Great questions, thanks.
If not find intelligent alien life in universe, then multi-verse may be where intelligent alien life can be found.
No aliens but many universes
I assume that maximum abstraction we able to produce is infinite graph of converters that are infinite graphs themselves. Any thinkable algorithm we can generate via this infinite graph converters. It is a final abstraction we can imagine within world of words. But if words are labels corresponding to sounds then it is obviously any abstraction has nothing to do with realm we try to bind with labels.
I can see how his work will eventually merge with The Holographic Principle.
Maybe he & Lenny Susskind should arrange a meeting in a coffee shop somewhere....
cold fusion,f,or starters
What if I we are the consciousness of the creator? Are we a figment of a god’s imagination?
Donald is making.some great progress and thinking in ways others are afraid of!
Sounds like the movie matrix.
3
Correlation is not causation...
Raymond Tallis' _
_Seeing Ourselves: Reclaiming Humanity from God and Science_
Bernardo Kastrup would make a great addition to this series.
25:00 drop acid👽
We are seeing alien intelligences - see recent senate report. Military and civilians have been running into and reporting them for decades. Great interview
No, al those videos showed was blobs on screens that could be explained in dozens of different ways other than aliens.
@@fins59 Depends which videos you'r talking about, but many cant. The videos arent even scratching the surface. We have thousands and thousands of reports gathered over the years, from sources such as highly trained military and airline pilots. These encournters have been cooroborated by radar data, video and multiple witness in many occasions.
Is this any more provable than the multiverse ,almost sounds like writing a mathematical program foe a computer or anything that could understand the math could or just would be "Be" conscious.....
I an not understand how you would rate it
Lord Rutherford From Here and spent time with my people
So.... a proponent of consciousness who is NOT an idealist? If not a materialist, then what is he? Maybe a materialistic idealist
Pity every conversation with Don Hoffman has to spend an inordinate amount of time going through the basics (understandably so of course, given the novel and revolutionary character of his ideas) so that the most interesting aspects of his thoughts are rushed and truncated and crammed into the final few minutes....