Dr. Nader has some of the best discussions on consciousness on youtube or anywhere. Listening to these 2 brilliant minds come to the same conclusions through their own through their own approach to scientific research is enlightening. But Dr. Nader never mentioned his work on a mathematically model of consciousness. He is jut too modest to promote himself but lets his guests express their own work. Among so many other things he is a supreme gentleman. Thank you Dr Nader for sitting down with Dr Hoffman.
Consciousness is already a vast, deep, and unlimited subject DrNader pushes it more and more to infinity by his brilliant collaborations It’s a beautiful and rich knowledge You are unbounded Sir
Dr. Nader, it was such a joy to see the bliss in your eyes as you spoke to your fellow MIT alumnus, scientist, and friend. Your quality of bliss was different than speaking about Veda to a TM group. Like two children in that completely innocent place of wonder. Such a joy.
Just wanted to add, coming to this as a layman and from a spiritual perspective I wondered if Dr Hoffman had read any of Eckhart Tolles work as I feel there is so much common ground between your ideas. Tolle is always saying about quieting the mind, in the present moment with silence takes you out of time and space, (amongst other things of course). Thank you both for an inspiring and exciting dialogue. Wow again !
We could say that the 'silence' doesn't support the activation of the very early on learned structures (from the fetus to two years of age) in our knowing substance aka consciousness. This suspension allows the knowing substance to, as it were, return to its original undifferentiated nature. In this state of the knowing substance where the structures that project time and space are resting in suspension, it can begin to receive impressions from what is beyond the space and time template (headset) that have brought us to the point of ordinary knowing which only sees inside the template of patterning of the space-time grid that we learned implicitly (as impressions through the outer senses and their organization into a relatively mental template over our consciousness) before we were even self aware. So our ordinary sense of self is somewhat colored by or entangled in these space-time structures of knowing. So it is not easy to allow these to fall into suspension.
So example we see our self as something that is limited to a particular time and space. However it may be that our true identity is non-local (not limited to time and space) and is or is directly associated with the one unity that is the one reality. As a first approximation we can say this one reality is a kind of energy or one consciousness that is infinite with its energy of love, compassion, intelligence, patience and courage and so forth when seen as manifest in time and space. From our ordinary point of view manifestation or embodiment is a hazardous undertaking (the baby is born helpless with many, many needs that may or may not be met) yet from the p.o.v. of unity it is also that which allows the manifestation of love. However we can hardly see and feel this until we somewhat realize the Unity.
Could I please ask that if Professor Hoffman’s theory proves to be true, while it may lead to unimaginable technological advances, how may it affect our spiritual progress? Climate change is ravaging our beautiful planet, there is slaughter and terrible man made,suffering here in Europe and else where, how can this theory, if proved to be true help us on a spiritual level. Time feels very short at the moment. We already have incredible technology but while our minds are full of ego, greed and some may say a kind of insanity, we are using it to bring the world to the brink, how can this theory help us evolve? Thank you again for a mind blowing dialogue.
You've hit the nail on the head @31:00! Just the statement of, showing how Consciousness creates the brain, is enough of a statement to prove the theory. Just like planting a seed in the ground without knowing what it is, will still produce a plant. How does the human body, (including the brain) develop within the womb? There is something that controls the development. The individual consciousness which transcends space and time. The human soul.
Thankfull to both scientists for sharing with us all ideas, theories and experiences about Consciousness. Very inspirational discussion. The conclusion, let me say in very simple words for an ordinary man, is: "never try, never know". Finding the answers in whitnessing the pure Consciousness beyond space and time.
No, our senses show a very narrow band of data; and our brain uses a process called "mind" to interpret that data. The brain organizes the data in a mental data model we call "personal reality". With science or with trial+error we discover what parts of "personal reality" can be treated as "objective reality". Consciousness is part of the "personal reality" that represents body states.
The Icon being blue and rectangular and in the bottom right actually tells you information about the truth of the object. It may be an irrelevant truth that is misleading as to its extensive functioning because it focuses on information tied more to the desktop's and operating system's operation than the program run thereafter but the model of the desktop itself clearly reflects a true correlation within the structure of the underlying architecture that shows data that truly reflects a 2D representation compatible with the interface. You can't shape an interface if said interface doesn't operate comparisons between objects, the comparisons can be irrelevant but just like markers they show you an underlying truth to the data and how it reacts to the function making it arise as emergent. A sensory system is like finding a truth within a system, said truth is under no obligation to be one of the operating postulates of the system but its interaction needs to display true statements within the system itself under any interpretation. I like the work of Donald Hoffman but this whole idea that any sensory system can show anything that isn't a projection of the truth sounds dubious to me, in that it seems to me that there is a wrongful assumption at the root which is that the payoff functions can exist independent of reality while in truth the payoff functions can only exist as projections of reality and not separate from it. We may be attuned to perceiving a very questionable section of reality but that doesn't mean the interface has no bearing in reality just that it overemphasizes certain aspects creating a processed version of reality as a result, like a twisted mirror that only reflects purple instead of an actual experience of the underlying reality.
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??
If you take relativity (gravity) and quantum fields (particles) as the complete picture of spacetime, then purely within the mathematics that encompasses those you reach this limit (planck length). At that point the mathematics simply doesn’t compute, and you need an alternate picture. One which obviously doesn’t arise from spacetime or else you would once again reach that same limit. There are other indicators that spacetime breaks down. Another big one is that gravity/quantum can’t be unified within this framework. They have to live in separate worlds if spacetime is fundamental. But we see they clearly describe the same world from different reference scales. The math is as clear as when you do basic geometry and find you can’t get, say, a circle with area greater than a square with length equal to the circle’s diameter. It’s just not possible. The reason why you haven’t heard this much is physicists like to dumb things down for the rest of us and also they were hoping they could find a unification trick that is “spacetime-like”… like string theory. It just doesn’t want to pop out despite our attempts at squaring a circle. And now they are a bit embarrassed and not sure what to do next. But it’s clearer now what not to do (hold onto spacetime as fundamental). Hope that helps.
Ancient Sages explained it all with Samkhya philosophy which is the illustration of Yogic realization. It is actualized with the advent of Samadhi when one realizes the reality of Purusha.
If I understood (as a non-scientist) that ''fields'' are neither space-time, nor, within the mathematics of subtler quantum particles; could you, Dr. Nader, talk at some point (maybe you have?) about Maharishi's discovery of the mathematics of ''Apaurusheya'' and how this precision bifurcates - within ITSELF, of ''its'' vastness of infinite ''space'' that can also Self-create LIGHT and total immersion? (And, did you, Dr. Nader - work with Maharishi on this?) And, is there total or even partial values of Self-referring: of four aspects of this ''gap''; and, why the word ''gap'' is used? I know, just before lifting-off into the air, ''M'' asked us (IAA), ''What are you experiencing?'' At first I was puzzled . . . and then realized later during experiences of lifting off how valuable a question can be: In this ''vacuum'' there is a ''filling-up'' of ''this 'cup' - the body/mind - as it 'runneth over' '' . . . and, whooosh . . . into the air, straight upwards, hanging, balancing, arms outstretched, even as to fly - on tip-toes, unable to come down for seconds . . . and, this energy suddenly ''dissipating'' - crashing downward to the gentle foam again; and the strong feelings, so often, of floating, even while sitting in deep meditation. (sorry for this length). Is any of this related to the above discussion . . . that was way over my head; but, UTTERLY intriguing?
p.s. Bacon may be credited with recognizing, in their essence, the method of agreement, the joint method, and the method of concomitant variations. His emphasis on the exhaustive cataloguing of facts, however, has since been replaced as a scientific method, for it provided no means of bringing investigation to an end or of insightful delimitation of the problem by creative use of hypotheses
I enjjoyed this discussion very much-- just use Godel's ontological proof to ascertain the boundary condition of the mathematical structure, the initial boundary contition contains the primer pointer!
6:24 Interesting point on exceptions, on allowing to group fitness payoff functions into clusters, group into pseudo-objects. At around 40:00 on time and entropy. Also, the last 6-10 minutes are super interesting. Many thanks.
Hymm. We don't need brain to feel but would we contemplate what touch is or will senses describe frozen peas in back of freezer. I think the air way from nostrilsiskey to voice and we could speak through vibrations if nose is gone or widend for larger inner wave vibrations( bear from annihilation is example especially if humans revolutionize better sleep patterns to lower and more energy via heart beat, form, stimulate for best repair or shed faster.n
The presence of awareness to consciousness is just as absolute than consciousness itself. It all exists within and without… Meaning making to shape a product and the expectations set to them is where we fall into illusory thoughts and feedback to emotions.
Of course our senses create our reality. Dogs, cats and bats have a different reality. Every time I toss the ball my pet bat returns it to me. And my dog runs around the ottoman never thru it.
Dr. Nader has some of the best discussions on consciousness on youtube or anywhere. Listening to these 2 brilliant minds come to the same conclusions through their own through their own approach to scientific research is enlightening. But Dr. Nader never mentioned his work on a mathematically model of consciousness. He is jut too modest to promote himself but lets his guests express their own work. Among so many other things he is a supreme gentleman. Thank you Dr Nader for sitting down with Dr Hoffman.
Consciousness is already a vast, deep, and unlimited subject
DrNader pushes it more and more to infinity by his brilliant collaborations
It’s a beautiful and rich knowledge
You are unbounded Sir
Two of my favourite authors coming together. I really hoped that you and hoffman would talk to each other. Glad it happened.
What an amazing and fulfilling conversation! Science and spirituality converge. Beautiful!!
Dr. Nader, it was such a joy to see the bliss in your eyes as you spoke to your fellow MIT alumnus, scientist, and friend. Your quality of bliss was different than speaking about Veda to a TM group. Like two children in that completely innocent place of wonder. Such a joy.
Just wanted to add, coming to this as a layman and from a spiritual perspective I wondered if Dr Hoffman had read any of Eckhart Tolles work as I feel there is so much
common ground between your ideas.
Tolle is always saying about quieting the mind, in the present moment with silence takes you out of time and space, (amongst other things of course).
Thank you both for an inspiring and exciting dialogue.
Wow again !
We could say that the 'silence' doesn't support the activation of the very early on learned structures (from the fetus to two years of age) in our knowing substance aka consciousness. This suspension allows the knowing substance to, as it were, return to its original undifferentiated nature. In this state of the knowing substance where the structures that project time and space are resting in suspension, it can begin to receive impressions from what is beyond the space and time template (headset) that have brought us to the point of ordinary knowing which only sees inside the template of patterning of the space-time grid that we learned implicitly (as impressions through the outer senses and their organization into a relatively mental template over our consciousness) before we were even self aware. So our ordinary sense of self is somewhat colored by or entangled in these space-time structures of knowing. So it is not easy to allow these to fall into suspension.
So example we see our self as something that is limited to a particular time and space. However it may be that our true identity is non-local (not limited to time and space) and is or is directly associated with the one unity that is the one reality. As a first approximation we can say this one reality is a kind of energy or one consciousness that is infinite with its energy of love, compassion, intelligence, patience and courage and so forth when seen as manifest in time and space. From our ordinary point of view manifestation or embodiment is a hazardous undertaking (the baby is born helpless with many, many needs that may or may not be met) yet from the p.o.v. of unity it is also that which allows the manifestation of love. However we can hardly see and feel this until we somewhat realize the Unity.
Could I please ask that if Professor Hoffman’s theory proves to be true, while it may lead to unimaginable technological advances, how may it affect our spiritual progress?
Climate change is ravaging our beautiful planet, there is slaughter and terrible man made,suffering here in Europe and else where, how can this theory, if proved to be true help us on a spiritual level. Time feels very short at the moment. We already have incredible technology but while our minds are full of ego, greed and some may say a kind of insanity, we are using it to bring the world to the brink, how can this theory help us evolve?
Thank you again for a mind blowing dialogue.
You've hit the nail on the head @31:00! Just the statement of, showing how Consciousness creates the brain, is enough of a statement to prove the theory. Just like planting a seed in the ground without knowing what it is, will still produce a plant. How does the human body, (including the brain) develop within the womb? There is something that controls the development. The individual consciousness which transcends space and time. The human soul.
Thank you so much for putting this content out. Enjoying it so much!
Love for knowledge, thank you papa Nader and Doc Hoffmann.
Jai Guru Dev
Thankfull to both scientists for sharing with us all ideas, theories and experiences about Consciousness. Very inspirational discussion. The conclusion, let me say in very simple words for an ordinary man, is: "never try, never know". Finding the answers in whitnessing the pure Consciousness beyond space and time.
Mind blowing discussion....superb!!
No, our senses show a very narrow band of data; and our brain uses a process called "mind" to interpret that data. The brain organizes the data in a mental data model we call "personal reality".
With science or with trial+error we discover what parts of "personal reality" can be treated as "objective reality".
Consciousness is part of the "personal reality" that represents body states.
‘ Truth goes beyond computation’
The Icon being blue and rectangular and in the bottom right actually tells you information about the truth of the object. It may be an irrelevant truth that is misleading as to its extensive functioning because it focuses on information tied more to the desktop's and operating system's operation than the program run thereafter but the model of the desktop itself clearly reflects a true correlation within the structure of the underlying architecture that shows data that truly reflects a 2D representation compatible with the interface. You can't shape an interface if said interface doesn't operate comparisons between objects, the comparisons can be irrelevant but just like markers they show you an underlying truth to the data and how it reacts to the function making it arise as emergent. A sensory system is like finding a truth within a system, said truth is under no obligation to be one of the operating postulates of the system but its interaction needs to display true statements within the system itself under any interpretation. I like the work of Donald Hoffman but this whole idea that any sensory system can show anything that isn't a projection of the truth sounds dubious to me, in that it seems to me that there is a wrongful assumption at the root which is that the payoff functions can exist independent of reality while in truth the payoff functions can only exist as projections of reality and not separate from it. We may be attuned to perceiving a very questionable section of reality but that doesn't mean the interface has no bearing in reality just that it overemphasizes certain aspects creating a processed version of reality as a result, like a twisted mirror that only reflects purple instead of an actual experience of the underlying reality.
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??
If you take relativity (gravity) and quantum fields (particles) as the complete picture of spacetime, then purely within the mathematics that encompasses those you reach this limit (planck length). At that point the mathematics simply doesn’t compute, and you need an alternate picture. One which obviously doesn’t arise from spacetime or else you would once again reach that same limit.
There are other indicators that spacetime breaks down. Another big one is that gravity/quantum can’t be unified within this framework. They have to live in separate worlds if spacetime is fundamental. But we see they clearly describe the same world from different reference scales.
The math is as clear as when you do basic geometry and find you can’t get, say, a circle with area greater than a square with length equal to the circle’s diameter. It’s just not possible. The reason why you haven’t heard this much is physicists like to dumb things down for the rest of us and also they were hoping they could find a unification trick that is “spacetime-like”… like string theory. It just doesn’t want to pop out despite our attempts at squaring a circle. And now they are a bit embarrassed and not sure what to do next. But it’s clearer now what not to do (hold onto spacetime as fundamental). Hope that helps.
Great to hear the reality of what it is being spoken
Hoffman's entropic time pointer needs to be self referring in order to work... Good Discussion!
Hoffman = Deepak Chopra of consciousness
Amazing
A fantastic discussion. Would be very useful to have both Dr. Nader and Dr. Hoffman's name in the heading for purposes of posting to FaceBook, etc.
Another awesome collaboration. Ruper Spira is another wonderful person that would be great to collaborate with here!!! 😃❤
Ancient Sages explained it all with Samkhya philosophy which is the illustration of Yogic realization. It is actualized with the advent of Samadhi when one realizes the reality of Purusha.
If I understood (as a non-scientist) that ''fields'' are neither space-time, nor, within the mathematics of subtler quantum particles; could you, Dr. Nader, talk at some point (maybe you have?) about Maharishi's discovery of the mathematics of ''Apaurusheya'' and how this precision bifurcates - within ITSELF, of ''its'' vastness of infinite ''space'' that can also Self-create LIGHT and total immersion? (And, did you, Dr. Nader - work with Maharishi on this?) And, is there total or even partial values of Self-referring: of four aspects of this ''gap''; and, why the word ''gap'' is used?
I know, just before lifting-off into the air, ''M'' asked us (IAA), ''What are you experiencing?'' At first I was puzzled . . . and then realized later during experiences of lifting off how valuable a question can be: In this ''vacuum'' there is a ''filling-up'' of ''this 'cup' - the body/mind - as it 'runneth over' '' . . . and, whooosh . . . into the air, straight upwards, hanging, balancing, arms outstretched, even as to fly - on tip-toes, unable to come down for seconds . . . and, this energy suddenly ''dissipating'' - crashing downward to the gentle foam again; and the strong feelings, so often, of floating, even while sitting in deep meditation. (sorry for this length). Is any of this related to the above discussion . . . that was way over my head; but, UTTERLY intriguing?
p.s. Bacon may be credited with recognizing, in their essence, the method of agreement, the joint method, and the method of concomitant variations. His emphasis on the exhaustive cataloguing of facts, however, has since been replaced as a scientific method, for it provided no means of bringing investigation to an end or of insightful delimitation of the problem by creative use of hypotheses
I enjjoyed this discussion very much-- just use Godel's ontological proof to ascertain the boundary condition of the mathematical structure, the initial boundary contition contains the primer pointer!
We need to define consciousness
What a happy Tony👍
These two should spend more time together. Right on.
very interesting coincidence with the intuition of Strange Loop from Hoftstadter... oh he just mentioned it
Beauitful
Veda says, what you see is not real and what you don’t see is real
6:24 Interesting point on exceptions, on allowing to group fitness payoff functions into clusters, group into pseudo-objects.
At around 40:00 on time and entropy.
Also, the last 6-10 minutes are super interesting.
Many thanks.
Sir consiesness is fundamental or brain product please answer ?
Hymm. We don't need brain to feel but would we contemplate what touch is or will senses describe frozen peas in back of freezer. I think the air way from nostrilsiskey to voice and we could speak through vibrations if nose is gone or widend for larger inner wave vibrations( bear from annihilation is example especially if humans revolutionize better sleep patterns to lower and more energy via heart beat, form, stimulate for best repair or shed faster.n
Dr Nader and Dr Hoffman both agree that consciousness is fundamental.
The presence of awareness to consciousness is just as absolute than consciousness itself. It all exists within and without… Meaning making to shape a product and the expectations set to them is where we fall into illusory thoughts and feedback to emotions.
@@tyejohnson9400 thank you 🙏🙏
Wow
why do we need math to describe the theory of consciousness ???
I particularly enjoy that Dr. Hoffman is speaking in front of a green screen--so I'm not seeing reality. A sense of humor, perhaps??
Of course our senses create our reality. Dogs, cats and bats have a different reality. Every time I toss the ball my pet bat returns it to me. And my dog runs around the ottoman never thru it.
Ants, only like ants. Kings of the world that you are able to perceive.
Huh
7:53
15:01
🎊 𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖒𝖔𝖘𝖒