Donald Hoffman is Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2023
- Donald Hoffman video - • "Nothing You See is Re...
Donate by PayPal - hardcorezen.info/donate
My Patreon page - www.patreon.com/user?u=4874189
LETTERS TO A DEAD FRIEND ABOUT ZEN audiobook - www.audible.com/pd/Letters-to...
My other audiobooks - www.audible.com/search?keywor...
My blog - hardcorezen.info
Write me at bw@hardcorezen.info
I think of it this way: there is no separation between ourselves and the Universe. There is no boundary upon which the Universe ends and we begin. It is all one existence, and that existence is us. At the same time, "I have a driver's license with my name on it that you cannot use." To quote a certain Zen teacher.
Water is not oil and oil is not water, but both water and oil are manifestations of the total dynamic working of the Universe, which is all interdependent and empty of separately existing selves.
Everything exists in consciousness. What if we render are own consciousness
There is a you and there is a universe.
@@baronbullshyster2996there's an entire 13.8 billion years that wasn't "rendered" but here you are.
@@kayakMike1000I think you may have just rendered the entire 13.8 billion years that wasn’t rendered and here you are.
It feels to me like they compliment each other well, ultimately. Hoffman is saying, your experience is a VR headset construction of certain sense data available to you. He then says there is other sense data out there.....(i never really thought of Hoffman being too into then 'finding it' via meditation or other means, in what ive seen of him, i think he's mainly trying to get people to realise we are not experiencing "objective reality")
Dogen, seems to me, is saying, ok, that VR headset experience IS reality, let's work from here (there is no objective reality - there is reality right here and now)
(also really liked the 'drugs/perspective shift' bit - nailed it)
It might be safe to say that Dogan emphasizes the direct experienced realization of the "headset", beyond conceptual thinking, while Hoffman, true to the Western scientific tradition, investigate and describe how it works. Dogan emphasizes practice (participatory and procedural knowing), while Hoffman emphasizes description (propositional knowing). Not that one is right and the other is wrong. They represent different traditions of relating to reality. Perhaps we need a balance between both.
Well said.
Thanks, very interesting. But actually D. Hoffman says that his mathematical model of conscious agents assumes one can't know the ultimate reality. So, he is not trying to get to know it from his human perspective, as you seem to be saying he is.
True, but then everything else is basically nonsense. Hoffman and Chopra are using spooky physics and big words from within quantum physics to push their idea that consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent so that they can mask that it's simply a spiritual belief. Sounds sciencey to the layperson, but Physicists can easily smell the BS. Have your beliefs or whatever, but don't try to mislead the public to get there.
"Oh, hey, now that I've butchered physics, why don't you subscribe to my theology that agrees with said butchered physics?"
So... what is Donald Hoffman doing?
Couldn't you say... the reality of atoms is mostly empty space? We built a scattering machine to figure out this... Thusly allowing us to look at the reality of atoms.
Then again, couldn't we extrapolate what Hoffman is saying? You cannot truly understand atoms because you're made out of atoms.
Hoffman is deluded mate.. he beleives reality doesn't exist outside of sensory perception 😂 that's psychosis buddy
Nisargadatta agrees with one of you: "The main point to grasp is that you have projected onto yourself a world of your own imagination, based on memories, on desires and fears, and that you have imprisoned yourself in it."
Which reminds me of a Katagiri idea: "Instead of putting your water into a basket, why not put the whole basket into the water?" Or something to that effect.
テロップ(subtitles, captions), seems to derive from TELOP (TELevision OPtical Slide Projector), which according to Wikipedia "was the trademark name of a multifunction, four-channel "project-all" slide projector developed by the Gray Research & Development Company for television usage, introduced in 1949... Because of its popularity, the Telop became a catch-all term for large-format slide projectors and opaque cards, even after the Gray Company stopped manufacturing Telop projectors. The term telop is used in Japan (テロップ, Teroppu) to indicate text superimposed on a screen, such as captions, subtitles, or scrolling tickers."
Oh my gosh! Thank you! I had no idea! I just learned that word while working at 円谷プロ. I never checked the origin.
I don’t really see a contradiction here. Everything IS here, but not everything can be perceived. What we perceive is limited by our senses (the headset). It does not mean that “the rest” is elsewhere, that it is some kind of underlying, objective reality. It is here, just not perceived. Like an iceberg: our perceived reality is the top of the iceberg, what’s underneath the water is “unseen” and may even be thought of as nonexistent, empty, but it is here just like the top. That is how I understand Emptiness: we perceive it as such, because it is void of any of the concepts we perceive as real. Personally I believe that Emptiness is infinity and that certain aspects of this vast emptiness can be comprehended by us and make up the reality as we perceive it: pebbles, tiles, fences etc.
i like that
what is the guitar you used in this video? you should do a video about all your guitars. i'd love to see it.
Its a Fender Bass VI...one octave below a standard six string guitar.
I think its the Eastwood TB64
@@ImStuckInStockton You're right...its a copy of the Bass VI.
@@Teller3448 Ya this is modeled after the Teisco TB64 which itself was modeled off the Bass VI. A tribute to a tribute- pretty neat!
@@ImStuckInStockton You're right. It's Eastwood's copy of the Teisco bass VI, which was their knock-off of Fender's six-string bass. I just got it today. They had a sale on them a few weeks ago.
I like that tone you're getting out of your bass. What kind of amp are you using? Are you using an effects pedals.
Brad - check Ziggy's paw. Sometimes a dog's pads can dry out and the skin can crack and it is painful enough to make them limp a little. Dogs are stoics and won't always show you just how much discomfort they are in. You can use coconut oil or purpose made paw balm (not that pricey) to help soothe their paws and promote healing (I would put it on before periods of rest for the dog).
Thanks. I'll check! We used to put coconut oil on his paws but we ran out of it.
nice! recognized you’re opening tune from first couple chords. Love that song!
Thank you. It's a great song.
The formal term is “lower third” but most tv people call it a “chyron” after a brand name
Thank you!
Love your stuff man! I’m going through Jukai at the Buddhist Temple of Toledo, and find your content to be a wonderful dharma companion! 🙏🏻glad to have another podcast to listen to at work as well! Have you ever listened to the Buddhist Twmple of Toledo podcast?
Hi Andrew, I listen to and learn from both as well. Live about fifty miles from the temple so have only been there once. Do you listen to video dharma talks from one of their guiding teachers James Ford?
I haven't. I'm surprised there's a Buddhist temple in Toledo!
@@HardcoreZen it’s a wonderful temple! Great place to practice! 🙏🏻
@@davidmehling4310 I do. I actually got to meet him at the temple grand opening last year.
I never got the impression that you got from Hoffman. I think he is careful to avoid dualistic language and i think that he is pretty much concurring with your interpretation of Dogen - the only difference would appear to be semantic.
In a way, Hoffmans words seem to me like a western scientific interpretation of the heart sutra - or indeed it can be seen as such.
But i haven't at all noticed him saying that "reality" is some other experience elsewhere to be pursued- quite the contrary, that all of reality is here but not available to perceive through the senses and cognition. I see very little difference, in essence between what he is saying and basic fundamental concepts of Buddhism - although, since there are so many Buddhist traditions and ways of interpreting the core teachings that semantics like this are inevitable, at times.
From my own experience of being a meditator for some 30 years and living alone in the mountains i would have to say that i find Hoffmans evaluation of "what is not reality" is indeed beautifully close.
"News crawl?" "Subtitle?"
We also say telop in Bosnian. :D
And in English... Lower third? What you have on the screen, that's a lower third! Some people call it bumper, but usually, bumpers are defined as a shorter than five second video intermezzos, sometimes like "2 minutes lataaaah" French guy on Spongebob. 😂
i dont know what captions are
get a load of this guy
I love that wichita lineman song such a nice melody. I actually found out about glen campbell first because he recorded a guided by voices song "hold on hope" on one of his later albums.
Is Dogen saying that we cannot escape our experience of reality? Or that our experience of reality is all that exists? He does seem to say that something magical is going on in Zazen.
Came for the talk, stayed for Wichita Lineman.
Thanks!
Just to clarify, did you prove that Hoffman is wrong or just that his view differs from Dogen's? Not to sound heretical, but why should we take Dogen's word over Hoffman's? Isn't the thing to verify for ourselves?
It's a bit of a quandary. To truly see the accuracy of Dogen's viewpoint, we have to have had "the ultimate brain fart," but that is easier said than done. I know I haven't.
"did you prove that Hoffman is wrong or just that his view differs from Dogen's?
You cannot become a Soto monk without assuming Dogen is the absolute truth.
Everyone must conform or be cast out.
Proof isn't what this is about, or should be about. It's about direct experience. One person's experience versus another person's experience. There is no logic or analysis that can "prove" one or the other.
@@t.c.bramblett617 Yup, the principle of 'proof' was entirely absent from the ancient world where Buddhism was founded. Information was declared to be true if it was expressed eloquently.
@@Teller3448 why are you being sarcastic? Most of your comments are insightful, but this one is just petty.
I like hearing that bird chatter in the background.
If Hoffman describes our experience as a computer screen interface or a VR-helmet, and that he is trying to get through this interface into real-reality by doing meditation -
I imagine Dogen has managed to wipe out all the icons on his the computer screen display interface, like when shutting down the electricity, and being able to see the actual physical screen where the icons were presented.
If you think of our experience as looking at a screen, there is the colored light pixel on the screen, and there is the actual lcd-crystals that lights up each pixel.
When Hoffman says we can't see reality because of the pixeled screen interface with it's icons is in front of us - While Dogen says reality, the lcd-screen is right here in front of us, because he could see past the interface.
This is how I would make sense of this.
That was great! Thank you🙏
I am not a Donald Hoffman follower, or a Dogen expert, but I agree that there is no separate reality “out there” somewhere and we can somehow find it. The colors that the pigeon sees don’t exist separate from the pigeon’s perception. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying though. I appreciate your videos. Thank you.
Indeed, with the help of advanced technologies, we've been able to see beyond our natural human limitations. Yet, in our explorations, we've never stumbled upon lines of code, spiritual entities, or other esoteric metaphysical concepts that some advocate for today. Instead, our discoveries have led to tangible advancements such as MRI machines, infrared technology for soldiers, and more. But no grand cosmic consciousness or similar phenomena have revealed themselves.
I like the narrow view of your guitar playing and talks 🙂🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️
That's exactly what I think. I understand it somehow intuitively. Even if there is some Ultimate Reality, if we assume it (or experience or whatever), ultimately there is no difference between what we might call "apparent reality" and ultimate reality.
If you are merely switching on narrow perspective for another narrow perspective, ad infinitum, then on the one hand you may as well live where there are no neat lizards crawling up the wall but just oozing toxic chemicals coming down amidst other inflammable toxics on a wall in chemically toxic Ohio. Or, on the other hand, your articulation of “just another narrow perspective” or that there is no need to get out or go to since it is all here, would that not include that “narrow perspective” as well?!!
You're so right on the telescoping drug perspective. When i had taken hallucinogens it always was like that. Woah look at the way the wall moves, while not paying attention to my very actual present body. Woah look at the clouds forming into dragons, while not paying attention to my breath. You're totally right on that, and the rest here, too. I'm my opinion anyway!
So cool. :) It's not that there's something different somewhere else, instead it's that we don't understand what is right here. :)
I am going with Dogen on this one. I suspect Buddha would, too. It’s worth recognizing that other perspectives may exist on this reality but imagining other realities would be a distraction.
"I am going with Dogen on this one. I suspect Buddha would, too."
I suspect not...Buddha's teaching is dualistic, the conditioned versus the unconditioned.
Completely missed the point
I agree with earlier comments in that Donald is proposing a scientific theory that helps expand the limits of knowledge and point to a reality beyond the perview of the VR headset. For this scientific endeavour, Donald needs and uses precise definitions and descriptions to point beyond the dualistic limits of human consciousness ie. ‘known’ reality. In this way, he’s a lot like Dogan. The biggest difference is Dogan is using poetic not scientific descriptors to help dissolve the limits of ego consciousness - rather than expand the limits of human consciousness - so the whole of reality may reveal itself. This totality is beyond duality and non-duality, where the knower and the known resolve into pure undifferentiated/ objectless consciousness. Donald isn’t attempting to do this, so the comparison with Dogan and the proposition that he is wrong is meaningless.
I really like Glen Campbell. I'm a bit surprised you like him as well. Good stuff!
I love that song!
More talks on Jabber Jaws.
I have the boxed set of every episode of Jabberjaw. Don't tempt me!
I think even Donald Hoffman admits and aspires to be precisely wrong in a meaningful way. That's how science and art advance.
But you're better off falsifying him if you understand the mathematical arguments he's making.
His spoken words are for us normies who don't know about particle physics and the combinatorics of decorated permutations.
Brad.....your wonderful on Zen, but your understanding of neuroscience needs updating. What you see when you view the world is a "simulation" of the outer world....not the real world. Do you ever see your own blind spot? Do you really think you see color, or are you aware you only see wave lengths and your brain creates the color. Lot more examples are out there.
Best wishes
You are drastically misunderstanding donalds view. And posting a video with no math. No experimentation. No philosophy of your own holding logical substance. And claiming youve proved him wrong is just rediculous. He gets views because he does the work. You dont because you make these cosmic assumptions without doing the work claiming some sort of truth in your words. Lose the ego, educate yourself.
Hoffman is not wrong, neither is Dogan. One is concerned with the artistic design and shape of a car, the other is concerned about how its mechanics works, but they’re both talking about the same thing.
This analogy only works to the extent of showing how they’re talking about the same “thing” from different perspectives, but the main point they both make is that most people don’t even know that “thing” even exists.
Hoffman is not a dualist or a physicalist; he believes consciousness is primary. Meaning the world of physical and mental 'forms' arises out of consciousness, not separate from consciousness. He believes out of necessity (evolution), we experience a subset of what is there. He is now attempting to use math to map/describe elements of consciousness. His ultimate goal will be to show how conscious models give rise to forms, systems, and relationships we experience. How this world is the contents of consciousness. For example, a model that shows how consciousness gives rise to the system of quantum physics. These will be testable/repeatable formulas. Again Hoffman's goal is to use math to prove consciousness is fundamental. Separately, I agree with your point about psychedelics shifting (exchanging) focus within 'all' that is already present.
I made a joke about this, it goes like: "Space and time are just virtual illusions and the real truth is OUT THERE." (The point is that there cannot be any OUT THERE if there is no space.)
Hoffman is discovering consciousness from the separate self, Dogen says there is no separate self? A fish will never see a bicycle. Kind of depressing.
Donald is knowledgeable and intelligent, but my recent experiences have shown that even those we regard as experts, with all their credentials and intellectual prowess, can be mistaken, hold incorrect views or just be completely wrong. Today, many individuals who advocate or firmly believe in concepts like simulation theory, panpsychism, and metaphysical realities often have undergone traumatic events. I see this as a modern-day adaptation of mysticism, pseudoscience, or religious beliefs.
What particularly stands out is the notion that things don't 'render' unless we observe them, often drawing parallels with video games. This analogy is flawed. Despite the quantum phenomena, on a macro level, our world functions classically. Just because an object doesn't send photons to our eyes doesn't negate its existence. Other particles interact with it, determining its position in spacetime-this is a reference to the double-slit experiment, which is often misinterpreted. These myriad interactions contribute to the emergent nature of our reality, which might be intricately tied to the concept of entanglement.
Indeed, our brains don't perceive every wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum. Evolution has shaped various species to perceive certain frequencies based on their survival needs. We humans don't need to see in infrared; our evolutionary strength was intelligence and group cooperation. Thus, to claim we don't perceive 'reality' as it truly is seems misplaced. While we can't observe quarks or every light spectrum naturally, we've developed technologies that aid us in these regards.
Evolution isn't about achieving perfection; it's about being sufficiently adapted to one's environment to reproduce. The existence of traits that may not offer any advantage or are even detrimental showcases this. They persist as long as they don't hinder reproduction, and as long as the environment tolerates it.
Arguing that we must see all of reality to validate or refute a theory like the simulation hypothesis seems misguided. At its core, I believe some of these theories stem from coping mechanisms, wishful thinking, or the distortion of scientific facts. The harsh truth is that life is a cycle of birth, suffering, and death. As difficult as it might be to accept, the universe simply "is", without overarching cosmic narratives or designers.
In the search for truth, I find myself constantly bombarded with an array of theories, ranging from the supernatural to the pseudoscientific. It's like consulting three witnesses about a crime: one occasionally distorts the truth (metaphysics), another is frequently misunderstood (science), and the last is a habitual fabricator (religion). Given this choice, my trust naturally gravitates towards science for an accurate representation of reality.
I hold onto a hope, however faint, that a profound and unexpected truth might be unveiled about our existence-that perhaps there is a benevolent cosmic entity, or that we might be the creations of advanced extraterrestrial beings, or even the notion that our lives are mere simulations and there's a way out. Yet, time and again, I'm confronted with theories that demand immense leaps of faith, convoluted explanations, or are plagued by fabrications or misunderstandings. Until there's tangible evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm compelled to align with what is observable and verifiable.
Life is a mystery to unravel not a problem to be solved .
Reality is right now, right here.
When you see, the light hitting your eyes is "old". It happened before you see it. When you touch something, the sensation is delayed by the time it took for the electrical impulses to travel up your arm to your brain. Reality is "there" in the sense that you are interacting with a representation of reality that is delayed in time. Similarly, the actions you take to interact with reality are similarly delayed. So, I think you are correct but it is interesting to think that what we are experiencing is an abstraction or first order approximation.
It’s interesting how this essential difference between Hoffman and Dogen is also found in the evolution of german idealism, namely in the difference between Kant and Hegel. I know that Nishijima mentions Hegel as a prime example of idealism, but as a Hegel scholar, I would say Nishijima is wrong. Hegel actually applies the exact same criticism to Kant as you applied to Hoffman. In short, he criticises Kant’s thing in itself, the independent existence of the objective world and concludes that such thing doesn’t exist and that the appearance and the essence are two sides of the same coin (basically, it’s a critique of dualism). I think Dogen would very much agree with Hegel :))
you are the universe looking into itself through the keyhole
I truly love what you have to say.
Hoffman is incoherent even after pinching other peoples good ideas and trying to stitch them together. That said, you have some problems of yr own imho. At 3:07 That ain't Emptiness dude! The mentation (ideal) are forms just as much as the physical forms are forms.
We can already see that there is another reality. That a subatomic level everything is energy. We can see that. There is no debating that. That's an objective reality. The leap of faith is that energy is consciousness that we add to when we pass and dip into while we are here.
Time to cut the lawn
I need to rewatch your video. Thanks for posting it. I'm going to think out loud here. I think you may have built and attacked a straw man. Hoffman's view is simply that what we take to be reality will always be a representation---not only basic appearances such as color, but even what some take to be the foundations of reality, such as mathematical models, quarks or gluons, or space-time. In any case, he does not take the leap from his view that what appears before us is always an inaccurate representation of reality to the projects of trying to either uncover snippets of it (say, through hallucinogens) or more auspiciously what ultimate reality actually is. He does claim that consciousness is prior to the representation of a material world---i.e., the material world emerges from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from the material world, as most others proffer---but I am not sure according to him if this consciousness is the ultimate reality. If Hoffman holds this view then I am interested in knowing the move to get from 'consciousness is prior to all representations' to 'consciousness is the ultimate reality.' On a different but related note, I've dabbled in Buddhist philosophy and practice and always found the view that the state of sunyata is equivalent to "absolute reality" or a state in which one can be "omniscient" (i.e., understand the empty nature of appearances) puzzling. Might sunyata be yet another state of mind, a state on par with other relative states such as those in which particular colors appear, mathematics is conceived, etc.? That seems to be a separate point (the one you are trying to make?) from Hoffman's project.
Viva Ziggy! I find Hoffman problematic as well. Great video!
I think sometimes when things go one way and we expect it to go another way, it's misleading our expectations. Other times things can go in ways that we might perceive to be wrong, but who and what and where and why could anything be perceived in such a manner of thinking? If you really think about it, the creation of everything resulted in absolutely nothing. The oracles we worship derive their gospel from the dirt, which comes from old cow shit over years of changing under the sun's rays.
Another thing to ponder is the absence of reason in a world of volatile light, the chaotic realm of our being engulfs our fragile chassis and carries us through anxious lengths to becoming aware and knowledgeable of the area we're around. The human mind is stifled by its environment, people can't see into other worlds, we can't see other lives that exist within our own world, our limitations are clear and vast.
In summation... I was just typing random crap. I'm sorry I didn't watch the video, I'm just going along with the stuff other people are saying in the comments. I have a lot of free time, I'm truly a pathetic sort, please take your valuable time to crap on me, I don't get enough attention, there's never enough attention. Celebrities with all the attention in the world think there's not enough attention. I'm loved, I'm doing everything right, but I'm still sad. That's the human experience.
The headset metaphor is not really good. What Hoffman means is not that there are colors we don't see, but that there are no colors, there are no concrete objects, no particles. All those things are a representation. What we see is not reality, because we are evolved in a way that our perception hides reality from us. What is out there, is a web of interacting "agents". Agents in the sense of systems theory, not actual anthropomorphic or living things. Even space and time or space-time/ the de sitter space is simply result of a projection. It is all a useful story.
outside of this headset aka our reality, there are decorated permutations - which is only a mathematical model of something beyond the space-time story.
This might be the closest that a cognitive psychologist is willing to come to talking about the absolute. He’s describing a perceived veil between us and the other, but there isn’t even a veil, same as there isn’t an other. But talking about a one reality could be a little woo woo for the scientific community. Do you think that one of the issues with secularism is that it clings too tightly to materialism or that insisting on the secular is inherently dualistic? Even when it’s talking about this sort of thing? Or is it a linguistic issue of a scientist trying to use words to describe the ineffable? Maybe a sidestep into practice would have him talking like Dogen 😆
10 mins into your video and you realise its seriously only click bait. no argument!
I wish it was hot here.
Donald Hoffman isn’t “wrong” since you’re not discussing the point of what Donald is talking about. Donald is working on a rigorous theory to demonstrate consciousness is fundamental. If successful his theory will elucidate an answer to the hard-problem of consciousness.
I agree with you 100%. I work in perception science and I've been critical of his positions for many years now. It's unfortunate, really, because much of his early work on vision was very good, scientifically speaking, but much of what he was doing was relaying the consensus views on visual cognition from the scientific community. Not so much with his latest work. To the extent that he's right, he's unsurprising, and to the extent that he's surprising, he isn't right. My biggest problem (from the scientific side) is that he makes untestable claims and plays fast and loose with definitions (see "reality). But philosophically, my criticisms are almost exactly the same as yours.
which claims of his are untestable?
Perhaps you need to reconsider your notion of testability. His ideas challenge the postulate of naturalism within the scientific method. You must realize that the scientific method itself is not something testable.
But solipsism isn't very useful for making sense of the world of form.
Progress in science works the Donald Hoffman way. If you want to know something how it works you need to focus on something.
Listened to many interviews with Hoffman, but i find him very selfish and no humor at all !
Great channel. Tom, Belgium.
Hoffman is absolutely nuts. If you get hit by a car I’m sure you’ll realize reality is real lol
We can see that there is another reality. That a subatomic level everything is energy. We can see that. There is no debating that. That's an objective reality. The leap of faith is that energy is consciousness that we add to when we pass and dip into while we are here. I'll take rhat leap of faith to hopefully someday prove over a omnipotent potent God in Heaven that we'll never prove any day.
Wow! Blather much do ya?
Wow! Make incomprehensible comments much do ya?
🤣😂🤣
It seems to me your whole universe is pretty theoretical. Based on books which contain Japanese authors' descriptions of reality. You have many opinions about psychedelic experiences, even when you, as far as I remember what you said, never took any of them yourself. Like all the other Buddhists and Vedantists, your opinions and ideas seem to be based on intellectual concepts, while forever going on about how important it is to leave intellectual concepts behind, and go for the intuitive and internal experience. This only never materializes. And how could it; there wouldn't be a lot to talk about if you stopped juggling around with concepts intellectual ideas and word salads, and thus no way to make a living of it. Hoffman is another version of some parallel universe and in his version his speculations can even be proven by mathematics! Imagine that! Like Feynman said; nobody understands Quantum Mechanics, I say nobody understands Donald Hoffman. Now do I have any alternatives to offer? Not really, except from not indulging so much in trying to come up with explanations for what can't be explained and sticking to more earthy and practical stuff.
You haven't paid much attention to anything I've said, so there's no point in responding to this.
@@HardcoreZen Thanks for responding! I agree that I wasn't being nice. Wish you all the best!
Terop is teleprompter? Wakaranai…😅
another useless word collection....!
Don't be so disparaging about your comment!
We can see that there is another reality. That a subatomic level everything is energy. We can see that. There is no debating that. That's an objective reality. The leap of faith is that energy is consciousness that we add to when we pass and dip into while we are here.