THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Maybe this is a problem point. People can survive and thrive despite having vastly different interpretations of an event. Until there is a conflict. Then everyone points their finger to the so called reality event and only the do we realize everyone saw a different thing.
@@spaceknave I don't think we see reality "vastly" different, given that we have much the same bodies and brains. You're probably familiar with the "Dress" where people see different colors. ua-cam.com/video/AskAQwOBvhc/v-deo.html I see black (very dark gray) and blue but my brother sees white and gold. But, we both see it as a dress.
Your criticism is unfounded unless you are talking about his published papers. This is a 1/2 hour presentation for an educated, but general audience. He shows his theorems, but he specifically says that if you want the details then you need to read his papers. He is also quite clear that the proofs and mathematical details were worked out by Chaitan Prakash. He clearly understands his theorems well enough to be able to talk about how the formalisms work and their practical implications. If you want to raise your criticism, perhaps you should go publish a refutation of his papers yourself.
I’m not sure I understand the fitness/reality discussion here. If I take 100 people in different situations and I show them a real red apple, and then show them pictures of various types of apples and other similar fruits or objects, they will nearly all identify the same picture of a red apple. However, the relationship of that real apple to their fitness should differ considerably. Some may never have seen an apple, some may hate them, or get sick from eating one, or want to eat it. Thus the fitness value of an apple to them can be markedly different, yet the real apple looks the same to them. Doesn’t that mean that visually the perception is the same? Based on their experience (positive, negative, or none), their brain will associate the real apple with different affects - but that is separate from the visual perception. So what does Hoffman mean by “recreating” the image? Anyway, dimensions are not real. 3-D is a fabrication of our brain made up of the 2-D perceptual space from our retina and time. “Time” is an illusion - there is space-time, space and time are interrelated. That is the core of relativity theory. So we perceive patterns in the “real” space around us, and can retain those patterns, and they can be recognized but they are associatd with fitness levels - that’s different than “seeing” only fitness.
Recreating, as I understand it, is that the brain only receives data, this data is recreating what the brain believes it to by from past experience. Like data through cables, the data traveling through a cable is meaningless untill connected to the tv, the tv recreates the Audio and visuals that where encoded in that data. There is no audio or video in the cable. The brain only receives data in this way 🙏
You miss the point, yes some people will get sick on an apple but the majority of people will gain nourishment from it. The fitness of an apple is obvious, not perfect. Recreating the image means that according to science things only exist when we look at them, nothing is absolutely real, consciousness alone is real, and we see what we see based on what we understand or were taught.
As a mathematician, I find it hard to believe that Hoffman really understands the mathematics behind his theory. You can see it in his random mentions of isomorphisms, rings and fields, and the painful lack of definitions before his so called theorems. What is the purpose of showing a proof of a theorem that talks about terms that are left undisclosed?
AI created discussion on a recent paper on Holographic Brain Theory discussing the possibility of microtubule superradiance creating memory holograms in the brain capable of storing 2.5 petabytes of data in the neocortex. A link to the paper is in the title discription. ua-cam.com/video/KTzs2EPmF7o/v-deo.html
@@stephengee4182 Memory is not the main problem with consciousness / intelligence / cognition. It is associations. All this microtubule nonsense is based on rrelating quantum-mechanics to consciousness. To solve any problem you have not encountered before, you must recall information that has not been previously associated. That is a dynamic process. In computer terms, you need a CPU capble of addressing relevant memory addresses. How do you access all those terabytes of microtubule information in real time? No explanation. On the other hand, synaptic associations are pretty well understood and capable of providing such associations. There is simply no known mechanism for making dynamic associations between microtubule-based information to enable cognition.
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
No, we do not see reality exactly, but we see it good enough to survive and thrive.
Maybe this is a problem point. People can survive and thrive despite having vastly different interpretations of an event. Until there is a conflict. Then everyone points their finger to the so called reality event and only the do we realize everyone saw a different thing.
@@spaceknave I don't think we see reality "vastly" different, given that we have much the same bodies and brains. You're probably familiar with the "Dress" where people see different colors. ua-cam.com/video/AskAQwOBvhc/v-deo.html I see black (very dark gray) and blue but my brother sees white and gold. But, we both see it as a dress.
❤️🍓
Your criticism is unfounded unless you are talking about his published papers. This is a 1/2 hour presentation for an educated, but general audience. He shows his theorems, but he specifically says that if you want the details then you need to read his papers. He is also quite clear that the proofs and mathematical details were worked out by Chaitan Prakash. He clearly understands his theorems well enough to be able to talk about how the formalisms work and their practical implications. If you want to raise your criticism, perhaps you should go publish a refutation of his papers yourself.
I’m not sure I understand the fitness/reality discussion here. If I take 100 people in different situations and I show them a real red apple, and then show them pictures of various types of apples and other similar fruits or objects, they will nearly all identify the same picture of a red apple. However, the relationship of that real apple to their fitness should differ considerably. Some may never have seen an apple, some may hate them, or get sick from eating one, or want to eat it. Thus the fitness value of an apple to them can be markedly different, yet the real apple looks the same to them. Doesn’t that mean that visually the perception is the same? Based on their experience (positive, negative, or none), their brain will associate the real apple with different affects - but that is separate from the visual perception. So what does Hoffman mean by “recreating” the image? Anyway, dimensions are not real. 3-D is a fabrication of our brain made up of the 2-D perceptual space from our retina and time. “Time” is an illusion - there is space-time, space and time are interrelated. That is the core of relativity theory. So we perceive patterns in the “real” space around us, and can retain those patterns, and they can be recognized but they are associatd with fitness levels - that’s different than “seeing” only fitness.
Recreating, as I understand it, is that the brain only receives data, this data is recreating what the brain believes it to by from past experience. Like data through cables, the data traveling through a cable is meaningless untill connected to the tv, the tv recreates the Audio and visuals that where encoded in that data. There is no audio or video in the cable.
The brain only receives data in this way 🙏
You miss the point, yes some people will get sick on an apple but the majority of people will gain
nourishment from it. The fitness of an apple is obvious, not perfect. Recreating the image means
that according to science things only exist when we look at them, nothing is absolutely real, consciousness alone is real, and we see what we see based on what we understand or were taught.
As a mathematician, I find it hard to believe that Hoffman really understands the mathematics behind his theory. You can see it in his random mentions of isomorphisms, rings and fields, and the painful lack of definitions before his so called theorems. What is the purpose of showing a proof of a theorem that talks about terms that are left undisclosed?
AI created discussion on a recent paper on Holographic Brain Theory discussing the possibility of microtubule superradiance creating memory holograms in the brain capable of storing 2.5 petabytes of data in the neocortex. A link to the paper is in the title discription.
ua-cam.com/video/KTzs2EPmF7o/v-deo.html
@@stephengee4182 Memory is not the main problem with consciousness / intelligence / cognition. It is associations. All this microtubule nonsense is based on rrelating quantum-mechanics to consciousness. To solve any problem you have not encountered before, you must recall information that has not been previously associated. That is a dynamic process. In computer terms, you need a CPU capble of addressing relevant memory addresses. How do you access all those terabytes of microtubule information in real time? No explanation. On the other hand, synaptic associations are pretty well understood and capable of providing such associations. There is simply no known mechanism for making dynamic associations between microtubule-based information to enable cognition.
🤝👍dobre.dobre👍🤝