Oh my. This conversation is mind-blowing. I've already had to rewind a number of times in several parts, and I will likely re-listen many more times. Very dense, yet very listenable. Great stuff.
Check out the link in the description to his Google scholar profile. Then Google some of the titles separately (some of them are available online free in pdf format). His colleagues Prakash and Singh also have excellent papers with more in-depth mathematics. Enjoy!
TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:35 - Psychophysics 02:38 - Observer-independent reality assumption 05:56 - Evolution & probability of perceiving veridical reality 10:21 - Evolutionary game theory, fitness payoff functions & homomorphisms 20:27 - Quantum field theory's confirmation that Space-Time does not exist 32:24 - Space-Time & biological reductionism is still useful (take it seriously, not literally) 42:20 - Interface theory of perception (ITP) 49:08 - Conscious realism & Conscious Agents (CA) theory 58:00 - How has Donald's view of consciousness impacted his ethics, morals and meaning-making 1:07:06 - Markovian dynamics, entropy & time 1:10:53 - Links with Karl Friston's minimizing free energy principle 1:14:34 - Universal Darwinism & Markovian kernal universality 1:19:19 - Gödel's incompleteness theorems' implications on the reasons for the fundamentality of consciousness 1:26:21 - The notion of life, memories, the self & neuroscience under the CA framework 1:32:11 - Einstein's infamous dilemma 1:36:03 - Donald's author/philosopher recommendations (Nima Arkani-Hamed, Gottfried Leibniz, George Berkeley, David Marr, Francis Crick, Vilayanur Ramachandran) 1:42:50 - Response to Yale researcher's objections to CA theory (multiple fitness payoff functions) 1:46:52 - Response to other counter-arguments & misconceptions 1:54:13 - Donald's views on religion/spirituality & its relationship with science/mathematics 2:02:39 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
I’ve been following this guy since his TED TALK. The Yale research was the first real test against his theory and I’m pleased that the theory only became more confirmed and strengthened. Exciting stuff
His theory is entirely based upon Darwinian, atheist materialist evolution. According to it, the only consequence of our existence is living as long as possible and procreating. Creativity, selflessness, conscience are of no value. The only thing that has any meaning, according to it is survival of the fittest. Don't you believe we have had ENOUGH damage from this philosophy in the last Century? His theory is just Darwinian atheism in another wrapper. Think about it. If life is essentially meaningless, what is the fucking point of the Universe? Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Would love to see someone connect Thomas Campbell and Donald Hoffman together in the same discussion. There are so many correlations between their work and goals.
I have watched ALL of Dons interviews and he definitely explained better in this one. He also went into a couple of theory points he doesn’t mention sometimes. Great video.
I prefer to call the headset view "reality" and the underlying "whatever" to be a realm we cannot reach or even be sure exisits, I think we should be careful not to award it too much significance for those 2 reasons.
Hoffman is Great. Not a scared scientist... No trailblazer ever is. He picks up where a Tom Campbell doesn't have access to the mathematicians.. but is saying the same thing basically. Campbell is also Great. Thx for letting him speak interviewer, you're channel has earned a closer look 👍 ( Edit here: yep I took a closer look...Perfect content coupled with an interviewer thats not trying to be the guest speaker himself.. Subbing)
Great interview, and it got particularly interesting when you got talking about God. I was expecting Hoffman to mention the philosopher, and his friend, the great Bernardo Kastrup, whom I recommend as a guest.
Funny enough, Bernardo and I were scheduled to have a chat 2 days ago but (unfortunately) due to a massive storm on my end, we had to cancel. We'll definitely be chatting soon though! Keep a look out.
Kastrup strikes me as a self promoter more than an amateur "philosopher". His basic "everything is consciousness" theme is technically beyond flawed. And he needs to introduce himself to just a little of the discipline before airily dismissing the work of physicists with his perpetual "dashboard of reality" metaphor, or whatever it is. Listening to some of his recent objections, I was embarrassed for his ignorance. The physicist nobly refrained from simply telling him he was incapable of grasping the idea mathematically.
That even I, nothing more than an amateur (in the best sense of the word, I hope) in physics and cognitive science, understand the compelling nature of Dr. Hoffman's argument makes me really wonder about just how "brilliant" his colleagues are, as he keeps insisting. But it does go to prove how insightful Max Planck's comment that 'science advances one funeral at a time, remains. Btw, I have listened to some of Arkani-Hamed's Harvard lectures and I assure you you'll have to be way more than an amateur to understand them (in fact, I wonder if even his Harvard grads did).
Donald is a real star. Could somebody try to explain the core of the physical statement why space-time is doomed as beeing fundamental based on the two statements. 1. As you like to observe smaller and smaller items you need higher and higher energy light (growing into a black hole). Why Cant smaller space-time exist even if it is unobservable by any technique? Same thing with the growing machine which would collapse in to a black hole as well. Does existance require observability and why??
Tevin, thanks for this wonderful video! Was hoping that Donald Hoffman would comment on how his theory of reality fits in with Kant's :The thing in itself is unknown and unknowable to the categories of the mind". Any replies appreciated.
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it. I'll be sure to make note of this for Donald's "round 2". Feel free to send any more questions/comments for Donald. I'll make a list!
Hoffman had a brush w/death last year (covid). I bet that experience will deepen his ideas...in some way. Perhaps, if that is at all true, he will speak to us about it, some day. I'm thankful he was not taken from us. He is a unique 'conscious agent'.
I've watched several Hoffman videos, but I don't understand why it's referred to as a theory consciousness. He describes a situation through which conscious observers are perceiving their world through an interface. But it seems to say nothing about consciousness. Does anyone understand why people refer to it as a theory of consciousness?
Donald is a real star. Could somebody try to explain the core of the physical statement why space-time is doomed as beeing fundamental based on the two statements. 1. As you like to observe smaller and smaller items you need higher and higher energy light (growing into a black hole). Why Cant smaller space-time exist even if it is unobservable by any technique? Same thing with the growing machine which would collapse in to a black hole as well. Does existance require observability and why??
Next question, Space-time is not fundamental, yes it is certainly correct even though I dont understand it completely. But even though, couldnt it be that consiousness spring out of something that is not fundamental anyway? I dont see the clear logic step that its no point investigating consiousness coming out from space-time. Could somebody explain why this must be the case.
He is absolutely insane. Like he said, this is the next step (at least) to find new data frameworks about Meta-Science (like i mean this) and Non-Duality. Outstanding performance.
I suggest Donald considers emulation technology. Nature has given us an efficient manageable interface to the outside world. If I see color of grass as green then that is better than seeing atoms of grass. When the PC monitor shows me grass then it is emulating the colors instead of having true grass. Don't be misled to reverse engineer the human interface backwards to PC interface.
It makes sense to have Hoffman's openness to religion as a bridge to help people cross a river of consciousness between our misperception of the duality of nature and the nondual nature of reality. Mere mortals without math skills like me can take an Earthling like a tree and keep sending her or him blessings, name her and make her part of your cousins here on Earth. Take about 6 months. I like sending metta to trees and people I'm walking by. What happens to your mind body division after 6 months? A year of practicing this extension of "self" to other previous objects now sentient beings? Find out.
Strikes me that scientists and indigenous relatedness to all beings are converging in Hoffman and Faggin's thinking cnscsnss is learning about herself.
"Error" is "complete information" that confers a payoff in the positive. When it is not a negative payoff prior to its occurrence -- or the imagining of "complete information". Thus 0 (probability) of a 1 (success). And while "error" is ubiquitous, its occurrence is impossible (as stated). Or cosmic luck, perhaps. Just a thought.
You're a great host mate. By the end of each episode I feel like I have a good overview of what each guest thinks, and what I would have to deep dive to learn more 🧐 all prompted, but not interrupted or lead, by you. 👏
Thanks Arman!🙌🏽 I try my best. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't - but always learning and trying to get better! Really appreciate your comments!🙏🏽 If you ever have questions for any of the guests, feel free to let me know and I'll ask them in our Round 2 or 3 etc.👌🏽
@@drtevinnaidu thanks mate! If anything, I've thought a couple of times, it'd be interesting to know what (if anything) your guests think the everyday, 'useful' applications of their theories might be (especially the really esoteric ones), wrt the common sense (example based) conception of consciousness that non-philosopher, lay people would hold. In ethics, arts, society, just how we live each day. Just a thought 😅
I sometimes try and address pratical and ethical Implications of their theories but sometimes time goes over so we don't get to it, but I'll try get those views in each time towards the end of the episodes more!😁👍🏽
I notice lots of positive and enthusiast comments, but I was disappointed to find all this speech somewhat anti-scientific in the way it was delivered, and shallow to be honest. The speech was long and wordy but the information delivered was very limited and not supported by solid thesis or explanations. I personally need more to reflect on this argument, repeating 'spacetime is doomed' over and over is not very satisfactory. I am intrigued nonetheless, and I will read and listen more of his thesis, interesting for sure.
You can go and check his mathematics on his website, but mainly he is hypothising and desperetaly searching for math which supports his thesis, if you are a good mathematician, please help him, 99 percent of his brilliant colleagues are physicalists, they have little interest in helping him with math.
Reality, as in "R", most definitely. Reality, as in "r" -- not the case. But you're not going to eliminate Dualism by waiting for emergent consciousness to magically appear. Since there's every reason to believe that Hume was a bit more than merely skeptical.
Tribal leaders who are not involved they didn't have that position for too long the tribe would kill or evict the ones not jointed with the survival skilled workers who gripe about the situation in the tribal areas is listened to and a conframised addition is the most common
If I may add something, the fitness payoff functions operating with equal weights makes sense for asexual reproduction. But in intelligent sexual reproduction, attractiveness to females, and the discernment of females regarding which males are deserving of sexual access, seems (to me) to be a utility function that outweighs other utility functions.
Great interview, his theory is so in sync with Native American ancestral visions. You should interview a gestalt psychologist that could tell from his experiences that space time is just our playroom ua-cam.com/users/AlejandroSpangenberg
"You need to survive long enough for you to reproduce." This assertion is too simplistic. It is not true for every member of every species. Many species require having members facilitate the survival, maturation, and reproduction of only some, not all members of their species. And most species require cooperation-collaboration with other species for survival. And many, if not all species engage in play and joy as necessary for survival. Does game theory take those factors into account? The feed-fight-flight-mate model is too simplistic, too individualistic.
One of the better Hoffman interviews. Well done. Thanks for letting him speak
Thank you very much. I'm glad you got to hear him express himself more - that's always the goal!
I’m so obsessed with Don’s work I literally search for new videos everyday!
Same! Heard him first on Lex Fridmans podcast and have been fascinated ever since. Definitely an interesting thinker
Don and I are scheduled for a round 2. So lots more to come!
That’s me😅
Same here friend, especially after my first trip 😂
Me too :D
Oh my. This conversation is mind-blowing. I've already had to rewind a number of times in several parts, and I will likely re-listen many more times. Very dense, yet very listenable. Great stuff.
Thank you! I'm really glad you're enjoying the conversation. Let me know which parts blew your mind the most! :)
Check out the link in the description to his Google scholar profile. Then Google some of the titles separately (some of them are available online free in pdf format). His colleagues Prakash and Singh also have excellent papers with more in-depth mathematics. Enjoy!
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:35 - Psychophysics
02:38 - Observer-independent reality assumption
05:56 - Evolution & probability of perceiving veridical reality
10:21 - Evolutionary game theory, fitness payoff functions & homomorphisms
20:27 - Quantum field theory's confirmation that Space-Time does not exist
32:24 - Space-Time & biological reductionism is still useful (take it seriously, not literally)
42:20 - Interface theory of perception (ITP)
49:08 - Conscious realism & Conscious Agents (CA) theory
58:00 - How has Donald's view of consciousness impacted his ethics, morals and meaning-making
1:07:06 - Markovian dynamics, entropy & time
1:10:53 - Links with Karl Friston's minimizing free energy principle
1:14:34 - Universal Darwinism & Markovian kernal universality
1:19:19 - Gödel's incompleteness theorems' implications on the reasons for the fundamentality of consciousness
1:26:21 - The notion of life, memories, the self & neuroscience under the CA framework
1:32:11 - Einstein's infamous dilemma
1:36:03 - Donald's author/philosopher recommendations (Nima Arkani-Hamed, Gottfried Leibniz, George Berkeley, David Marr, Francis Crick, Vilayanur Ramachandran)
1:42:50 - Response to Yale researcher's objections to CA theory (multiple fitness payoff functions)
1:46:52 - Response to other counter-arguments & misconceptions
1:54:13 - Donald's views on religion/spirituality & its relationship with science/mathematics
2:02:39 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
J
I’ve been following this guy since his TED TALK. The Yale research was the first real test against his theory and I’m pleased that the theory only became more confirmed and strengthened. Exciting stuff
His theory is entirely based upon Darwinian, atheist materialist evolution. According to it, the only consequence of our existence is living as long as possible and procreating. Creativity, selflessness, conscience are of no value. The only thing that has any meaning, according to it is survival of the fittest. Don't you believe we have had ENOUGH damage from this philosophy in the last Century?
His theory is just Darwinian atheism in another wrapper. Think about it. If life is essentially meaningless, what is the fucking point of the Universe?
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Same!
Could you point to the Yale research you’re referring to
What Yale research?
By the way, one of the most intriguing conversations I’ve ever experienced.... thank you!
Thanks for this. I really appreciate your kind comment!
1:57:50 How can Donald's podcasts be found? Any link or keywords?
Apologies Giedrius, I should have asked Donald to mention the podcast names. Perhaps try searching "Donald Hoffman Spirituality"? Hope you find them!
@@drtevinnaidu thanks, but still haven't found them yet :(
Would love to see someone connect Thomas Campbell and Donald Hoffman together in the same discussion. There are so many correlations between their work and goals.
I'll be chatting to Don again soon. I'll run this idea by him!👌🏽
I have watched ALL of Dons interviews and he definitely explained better in this one. He also went into a couple of theory points he doesn’t mention sometimes. Great video.
Thank you!
I prefer to call the headset view "reality" and the underlying "whatever" to be a realm we cannot reach or even be sure exisits, I think we should be careful not to award it too much significance for those 2 reasons.
Hoffman is Great. Not a scared scientist... No trailblazer ever is. He picks up where a Tom Campbell doesn't have access to the mathematicians.. but is saying the same thing basically. Campbell is also Great. Thx for letting him speak interviewer, you're channel has earned a closer look 👍 ( Edit here: yep I took a closer look...Perfect content coupled with an interviewer thats not trying to be the guest speaker himself.. Subbing)
Thank you for the kind comment. Glad you enjoyed the content!
Great interview, and it got particularly interesting when you got talking about God.
I was expecting Hoffman to mention the philosopher, and his friend, the great Bernardo Kastrup, whom I recommend as a guest.
Funny enough, Bernardo and I were scheduled to have a chat 2 days ago but (unfortunately) due to a massive storm on my end, we had to cancel. We'll definitely be chatting soon though! Keep a look out.
Glad you enjoyed the interview!
Kastrup strikes me as a self promoter more than an amateur "philosopher".
His basic "everything is consciousness" theme is technically beyond flawed.
And he needs to introduce himself to just a little of the discipline before airily dismissing the work of physicists with his perpetual "dashboard of reality" metaphor, or whatever it is.
Listening to some of his recent objections, I was embarrassed for his ignorance.
The physicist nobly refrained from simply telling him he was incapable of grasping the idea mathematically.
What kind of mathematics is he appealing to @ 1:08?
That even I, nothing more than an amateur (in the best sense of the word, I hope) in physics and cognitive science, understand the compelling nature of Dr. Hoffman's argument makes me really wonder about just how "brilliant" his colleagues are, as he keeps insisting. But it does go to prove how insightful Max Planck's comment that 'science advances one funeral at a time, remains. Btw, I have listened to some of Arkani-Hamed's Harvard lectures and I assure you you'll have to be way more than an amateur to understand them (in fact, I wonder if even his Harvard grads did).
Donald is a real star. Could somebody try to explain the core of the physical statement why space-time is doomed as beeing fundamental based on the two statements. 1. As you like to observe smaller and smaller items you need higher and higher energy light (growing into a black hole). Why Cant smaller space-time exist even if it is unobservable by any technique? Same thing with the growing machine which would collapse in to a black hole as well. Does existance require observability and why??
Tevin, thanks for this wonderful video! Was hoping that Donald Hoffman would comment on how his theory of reality fits in with Kant's :The thing in itself is unknown and unknowable to the categories of the mind". Any replies appreciated.
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it. I'll be sure to make note of this for Donald's "round 2". Feel free to send any more questions/comments for Donald. I'll make a list!
I am honored to make up a list of questions for round 2. Thanks for your reply.
Very good interview! Thank you for doing it, and for letting Donald speak! I love it!! we are waking up!!!
Thank you!!
Hoffman had a brush w/death last year (covid). I bet that experience will deepen his ideas...in some way. Perhaps, if that is at all true, he will speak to us about it, some day. I'm thankful he was not taken from us. He is a unique 'conscious agent'.
I don't know about that Situation, thanks God he is still here.
Hoffman is is my hero
Wow, great interview.
Especially from 1:05:30 and further on.
I enjoyed the interview very much. Glad you did too!
I've watched several Hoffman videos, but I don't understand why it's referred to as a theory consciousness. He describes a situation through which conscious observers are perceiving their world through an interface. But it seems to say nothing about consciousness. Does anyone understand why people refer to it as a theory of consciousness?
His Interface Theory of Perception isn't about consciousness directly. His other 2 (Conscious Realism Theory & Conscious Agents Theory) are
20:27 - Deeeeeeep
Donald is a real star. Could somebody try to explain the core of the physical statement why space-time is doomed as beeing fundamental based on the two statements. 1. As you like to observe smaller and smaller items you need higher and higher energy light (growing into a black hole). Why Cant smaller space-time exist even if it is unobservable by any technique? Same thing with the growing machine which would collapse in to a black hole as well. Does existance require observability and why??
Next question, Space-time is not fundamental, yes it is certainly correct even though I dont understand it completely. But even though, couldnt it be that consiousness spring out of something that is not fundamental anyway? I dont see the clear logic step that its no point investigating consiousness coming out from space-time. Could somebody explain why this must be the case.
fantastic thankyou! I'm convinced, and this squares with metaphysical idealism in my view.
He is absolutely insane. Like he said, this is the next step (at least) to find new data frameworks about Meta-Science (like i mean this) and Non-Duality. Outstanding performance.
Physical and mental they coexist and support each other and guide and lead each other.
I suggest Donald considers emulation technology. Nature has given us an efficient manageable interface to the outside world. If I see color of grass as green then that is better than seeing atoms of grass. When the PC monitor shows me grass then it is emulating the colors instead of having true grass. Don't be misled to reverse engineer the human interface backwards to PC interface.
Fundamental might be anything that keeps us alive, survival so as too...
I can't watch this enough!
It makes sense to have Hoffman's openness to religion as a bridge to help people cross a river of consciousness between our misperception of the duality of nature and the nondual nature of reality. Mere mortals without math skills like me can take an Earthling like a tree and keep sending her or him blessings, name her and make her part of your cousins here on Earth. Take about 6 months. I like sending metta to trees and people I'm walking by. What happens to your mind body division after 6 months? A year of practicing this extension of "self" to other previous objects now sentient beings? Find out.
Strikes me that scientists and indigenous relatedness to all beings are converging in Hoffman and Faggin's thinking cnscsnss is learning about herself.
"Error" is "complete information" that confers a payoff in the positive.
When it is not a negative payoff prior to its occurrence -- or the imagining of "complete information".
Thus 0 (probability) of a 1 (success).
And while "error" is ubiquitous, its occurrence is impossible (as stated).
Or cosmic luck, perhaps.
Just a thought.
You're a great host mate. By the end of each episode I feel like I have a good overview of what each guest thinks, and what I would have to deep dive to learn more 🧐 all prompted, but not interrupted or lead, by you. 👏
Thanks Arman!🙌🏽 I try my best. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't - but always learning and trying to get better! Really appreciate your comments!🙏🏽 If you ever have questions for any of the guests, feel free to let me know and I'll ask them in our Round 2 or 3 etc.👌🏽
@@drtevinnaidu thanks mate! If anything, I've thought a couple of times, it'd be interesting to know what (if anything) your guests think the everyday, 'useful' applications of their theories might be (especially the really esoteric ones), wrt the common sense (example based) conception of consciousness that non-philosopher, lay people would hold. In ethics, arts, society, just how we live each day. Just a thought 😅
I sometimes try and address pratical and ethical Implications of their theories but sometimes time goes over so we don't get to it, but I'll try get those views in each time towards the end of the episodes more!😁👍🏽
@@drtevinnaidu I've noticed! Me stealing ideas again haha ... thanks for taking onboard my feedback, much appreciated 🙏
Always welcome!
I notice lots of positive and enthusiast comments, but I was disappointed to find all this speech somewhat anti-scientific in the way it was delivered, and shallow to be honest. The speech was long and wordy but the information delivered was very limited and not supported by solid thesis or explanations. I personally need more to reflect on this argument, repeating 'spacetime is doomed' over and over is not very satisfactory. I am intrigued nonetheless, and I will read and listen more of his thesis, interesting for sure.
You can go and check his mathematics on his website, but mainly he is hypothising and desperetaly searching for math which supports his thesis, if you are a good mathematician, please help him, 99 percent of his brilliant colleagues are physicalists, they have little interest in helping him with math.
Next time my wife states I'm lazy, I'll simply point out I'm evolved to be fit.
Reality, as in "R", most definitely.
Reality, as in "r" -- not the case.
But you're not going to eliminate Dualism by waiting for emergent consciousness to magically appear.
Since there's every reason to believe that Hume was a bit more than merely skeptical.
There will be pleasurers for evermore (Holy Bible) Me in you, you in me and all in Him - One Consciousness containing all consciences.
'Invasive Emergence' two words
Tribal leaders who are not involved they didn't have that position for too long the tribe would kill or evict the ones not jointed with the survival skilled workers who gripe about the situation in the tribal areas is listened to and a conframised addition is the most common
If I may add something, the fitness payoff functions operating with equal weights makes sense for asexual reproduction. But in intelligent sexual reproduction, attractiveness to females, and the discernment of females regarding which males are deserving of sexual access, seems (to me) to be a utility function that outweighs other utility functions.
Great interview, his theory is so in sync with Native American ancestral visions. You should interview a gestalt psychologist that could tell from his experiences that space time is just our playroom ua-cam.com/users/AlejandroSpangenberg
Thanks! Will definitely check it out!
"You need to survive long enough for you to reproduce." This assertion is too simplistic. It is not true for every member of every species. Many species require having members facilitate the survival, maturation, and reproduction of only some, not all members of their species. And most species require cooperation-collaboration with other species for survival. And many, if not all species engage in play and joy as necessary for survival. Does game theory take those factors into account? The feed-fight-flight-mate model is too simplistic, too individualistic.
Sigma-additive set(s) == methodological naturalism.
The four F’s? I only counted three. Ha ha.
Everyone leaves out the 4th one just in case 😂
Rah is turning flips in his grave when you say it's an illusion of the world of our universe that is so childish