OMG! I was about to write "Hoffman's in podcast everywhere... and I chase em all down" 😀. But you basically beat me to it, as I read your comment on way to tapping mine in lol. Consciousness nudge at work. Interesting synchronicity. Yep. It's serious work he's doing 🏂🏽
@@2kt2000 :) yes, he's doing it great. Good luck hunting! :) BTW, sadly a video where he talks about things with his dad was removed from youtube like half a year ago, that one was really good too. If someone finds it, please share.
16:53 Erckhart Tolle in his book "The power of now." talks about the situation when he found him speaking with himself !!! And he asked: If I´m speaking, Who is listening and answering ? In psychology it´s called "the inner dialog", and it seems to be a simple issue but in a deeper analisys it´s not so simple at all !!! And in the case of people wich have "multiple personalities", the situation is much more complicated. And the film "Split" is a good example of it !!! Anyways, we, human beings, are much more complex than anyone can imagine !!! But it seems to be interesting to study our nature !!! Good look, and blessings !!!
As always, it is great to listen to you Don, and wonderful to see you more often these days. As usual, it is another great presentation and Thank you very much. Every time I listen to you, I seem to understand a bit more of what you are proposing (which of course is fascinating). I wish I had time to study and understand the mathematics you have presented in your papers !
@@shawnpalmer6715 The way I understand I would not call it a bluff. Just that consciousness is more fundamental than spacetime. It is like going from Newton to Einstein but more profound. Therefore the implications likely will be profound as well. One implication is that what you perceive is not what you think it is.
What about math itself? Is it fundamental, or is it too a projection, as seen from inside a VR headset? Is math real? Is there an absolute criterion for 'realness'?
Reality is not really complicated. It is simple, simplicity itself. Time and space and everything were birthed within it, and there is no end to the complications there. However, Being Itself, Reality itself, is simplicity Itself.
If the human brain is simply a “processor” through which consciousness passes (or is manipulated) would it not be a breaking down of the processing mechanism of how the brain processes data causing damage in the case of split brain experiences? Also, if in this “video game virtual reality” people can recognize me as the same person consistently that must mean our “virtual” processing of what we accept as “reality” means that this “game state” in which our brains function has a consistent virtual “video” system working at least reasonably well throughout what we call time. Often psychological counselors say, “Well, your opinion about who you are is basically your story about yourself but you, in fact, can be someone very different after you change your story if you choose”. So, our storyline as humans who believe this world is “real” is not consciousness but rather simply a virtual storyline. Consciousness is who we are but the rest is up for grabs because we don’t know the answers yet.
Doesn't Dr. Hoffman contradict himself within 5 minutes at ~1:00:00? He says, first, "We don't perceive the truth" and then he says, second, "Once you come to terms with the true nature of evolutionary game theory, you see the inadequacy of those theories." This seems contradictory to me. If we don't perceive the truth, why should we think that we've got a grip on the true nature of evolutionary game theory?
literally every matrix quote ever.^^ but seriously, i like to believe that there is no end to wonder, and that whatever god-like kardashev 3, 4, 5, or higher civilization might be out there, they are still as bafffled by the secrets of existence as we are.
That's an interesting thought - but if Professor Hoffman's theory pans out in any large measure, the Kardashev scale may well have to be retired, or at least *drastically* updated. Because civilizations on the Kardashev scale are judged based on how much energy they use, right? So we go from the energy of a planet to a star to a galaxy to a universe to the multiverse, etc. But energy only exists within spacetime. It's a construct as much as anything else within spacetime. And once you open the door to potential entities that exist outside the constraints of modern physics and things like gravity and energy - insofar as they're developed enough, the sheer scale of their abilities would be jaw-dropping. Even supposedly godlike civilizations on Kardashev Level 4 or 5 might look like infants compared to an entity like that.
Physiology of the Spiritual (Quick Guide) -The pleasurable “chills” or “goosebumps” (aka frisson) experienced when listening to music, watching movies, viewing art, dancing etc. are the beginning of the sensation of what is called the “soul” in western civilization. Generally, this begins on the arms, back, or neck when a person feels profound emotions. It is most likely you have already experienced it to some degree. -If you pursue this sensation within yourself by attempting to feel it as much as possible (all day, every day if you are able), it builds in strength significantly over time to the point where it becomes a full body sensation with the pinnacle being at the crown of the skull. It is sustainable with practice. You must become your own experiment as each individual’s set of beliefs and emotional reactions are unique. -It is the sensation needed to enter higher states of consciousness known as the Jhanas as well as to self-induce out of body experiences from a meditative state (visualization techniques are also required for OBEs). -One fundamental key to the sensation is to achieve states of genuine, positive emotions such as love, gratitude, inspiration, courage, joy, unity etc. (Therefore, anything that enables you to feel these emotions will work. Conversely, anything that prevents these, will prevent your sensation.) Control of thought is the key. -You will be required to be honest with yourself. This cannot be emphasized enough. Simply saying you feel love or gratitude, does not mean that you actually feel those emotions. This is why stimuli is extremely helpful such as music, movies, etc. to provoke those emotions in a genuine and real sense. -Be patient and be understanding of yourself if you think you are struggling. Trust your feelings and intuitions. This is a progression and it will take some time to strengthen as your brain reforms its pathways via neuroplasticity. (Weeks to many months depending on commitment.) Love yourself unconditionally for the greatest success. -Your sensation will inevitably grow in strength with persistence and you will begin to feel it more easily to a broader range of stimuli. You will eventually realize it is not the stimuli at all, but only your emotional state and control of your mind/thoughts that matter. -It is this same sensation that monks attempt to achieve during meditation and chanting. (The chants or mantras are to create vibrations in the chest which can stimulate the sensation as well as to keep one’s focus single pointed) -It is the same sensation that “spirit runners” or indigenous long-distance runners attempt to achieve. (Also called “runner’s high” in the west.) -The current scientific term for the sensation is “Frisson” and it remains relatively unexplained in the public sector being reduced simply to a release of endorphins. -Other names include: Chakra Energy, Kundalini Energy, Prana, Mana, Qi, Chi, Holy Spirit, life force, vibration among others depending on your cultural lens. (Google “CIA Gateway Process” for a consciousness study from US Gov’t. www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf )
I feel like this guy really understands what he’s saying in technical, mathematical and experimental ways, and then a lot of people are interested in this idea mostly because of the spiritual things it offers and the idea that scientists aren’t studying true reality but like Buddhists could be while they meditate. I think randomly adding that in is gonna attract people that don’t care about the science.
Why wouldn’t Buddhists or people meditating also be stuck behind a user interface, the same one everyone else with a religion and beliefs is. You have to have separate ideas about that stuff to believe that part of it but I guess since no one knows what’s the interface really is that’s one possibility in many. Many many.
And not only do these people not care about the science they want it to be wrong lol. So their spiritualism can be validated.. that’s why I don’t speak fondly of spiritualism in science. I bet this guy has many people try to do talks with him unrelated to science at all.
That's why I wanted to stick with mostly science in the conversation. However, I'm putting together one more session and would be happy to include these questions. I feel, what he is saying goes to some of the deeper questions about matter, reality and the existence of anything. For the consciousness bit, we need a cleared framework.
@@ReasonwithScience but look im just a critical person don’t change anything for me I think this is a great interview. After this guy has been looking at this problem from all angles for decades I can understand why he has to try and see it this way also. I think he’s a genius for sure I can’t criticize his thinking.
So I don’t misinterpret the main part of the interview the world is in me as opposed to the out there belief ok that sounds very plausible the world is like a computer platform and the I only experience when an icon is opened like on my desktop not even brain is actually there So we are all in some sort of illusion as has been stated by mystics so how in the world did the vast majority of us miss this but I know enough not to dare mention any of this to the avowed materialists just do things that will baffle them
I'm a materialist and so does Don ;) His theory tries to explain the spiritual experiences can be coming from the conceived icons. I will go in to the details of it in the second part of the conversation. Do share your questions :)
@@ReasonwithScience As confirmed by the double slit experiment the observer doesn't have to be human. There are currently over 2500 satellites circling and scanning the earth. So I would imagine that everything exists for more than 90% (guesstimet) of the time.
I have a small issue with Don and that is he has sometimes been seen with some New Agey folks. That sort of takes the credibility out of what he is trying to say, and it is not that he can't hobnob with those individuals, but anything associated with them easily gets into the fussy areas of pseudo wisdom 🙂. But that said, I have been fascinated by his lectures and talks and wherever i see him i just stop everything and listen.
@@ReasonwithScience Definitely, thanks so much for this outstanding interview. I just adore the concepts he presents us with and your presentation is spot on too.
I don't know exactly who you consider "New Agey folks" lol. But Don has stated that he was interested in learning about different belief systems to help him in his quest for understanding. Rather than only working with what some might consider the "proper" belief systems, which is quite limiting. Part of his genius is in his openness of mind. I think it's necessary to get this to ever fully understand his ideas. (Btw, I'm NOT a "New Ager," but do try to recognize wisdom in all beliefs.)
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??
I find his stuttering insufferable. I, I, I, I, the, the, team, team, who does excellent work... what gives? Since Bernando's thesis encompasses his, and he never say anything deeper than thanking his colleagues who worked out the mathematics, I will just stop listening to him. Period.
I do think BK's ideas currently connect the most dots & by far but, I think Don's work is also quite interesting. He has to be mostly concerned with the math in academia. & I'd also say that his stuttering really isn't all that bad.
@@realcygnus Then ask the mathematicians to come and present the maths. I do maths myself and I don't see any math other than the most trivial kind from this guy (and always saying that it's his "colleagues" that did the "deep" work)
He doesn't prove anything. Science doesn't prove anything! In his Bayesian understanding, we are not evolved to see the reality. We are evolved to survive long enough to pass our genes to the next generation.
@@ReasonwithScience semantics! Many college professors don't pass on their genes! They pass on knowledge to future generations to enlighten humanity. Did they escape? I just thought it was humorous that one theory is used to shed light on another by showing that your head is in the sand. Amazing. If evolution is true, reality is false! No contradiction there? Donald explains! A better conclusion might be that we only see part of reality. To say we don't know anything seems to contradict Itself. How would we know if nothing is real? Somehow math or tge collected data is not effected!
humble and intelligent. These 2 don't often come together within one person. Much respect for Donald
I really enjoy his concepts. It's very close to what I've been thinking/developing over the years.
Oh yeah, one more interview with Donald Hoffman. Waiting for more every day. :-)
He is brilliant, we will have a round 2 soon 🙂
OMG! I was about to write "Hoffman's in podcast everywhere... and I chase em all down" 😀. But you basically beat me to it, as I read your comment on way to tapping mine in lol. Consciousness nudge at work. Interesting synchronicity. Yep. It's serious work he's doing 🏂🏽
@@ReasonwithScience yes, he is. Cool to know about round 2!
@@2kt2000 :) yes, he's doing it great. Good luck hunting! :) BTW, sadly a video where he talks about things with his dad was removed from youtube like half a year ago, that one was really good too. If someone finds it, please share.
Me too !
I could listen to Donald all day long.
Please consider this guest: Douglas Vogt
Thanks, sure I will :)
16:53 Erckhart Tolle in his book "The power of now." talks about the situation when he found him speaking with himself !!! And he asked: If I´m speaking, Who is listening and answering ? In psychology it´s called "the inner dialog", and it seems to be a simple issue but in a deeper analisys it´s not so simple at all !!!
And in the case of people wich have "multiple personalities", the situation is much more complicated. And the film "Split" is a good example of it !!!
Anyways, we, human beings, are much more complex than anyone can imagine !!! But it seems to be interesting to study our nature !!!
Good look, and blessings !!!
As always, it is great to listen to you Don, and wonderful to see you more often these days. As usual, it is another great presentation and Thank you very much. Every time I listen to you, I seem to understand a bit more of what you are proposing (which of course is fascinating). I wish I had time to study and understand the mathematics you have presented in your papers !
what is the point of life if it is all a bluff
@@shawnpalmer6715 The way I understand I would not call it a bluff. Just that consciousness is more fundamental than spacetime. It is like going from Newton to Einstein but more profound. Therefore the implications likely will be profound as well. One implication is that what you perceive is not what you think it is.
Amaizing
Has anyone ever heard Donald discuss Alan Watts in any interview?
I'm not aware of any interview. Also, I'm not aware of 'Alan Watts' philosophy. Have you read some of his work?
Tha k you for this helpful information donald
This is Really Excellent an Intelligent Interview with Donald Hoffman Sir.
What about math itself? Is it fundamental, or is it too a projection, as seen from inside a VR headset? Is math real? Is there an absolute criterion for 'realness'?
Hi, here are Don’s thoughts on mathematics:
ua-cam.com/video/5zHdq_ba2W8/v-deo.html&si=K_8p6_of01ToAvBE
great video
How is it that things like the moon don't exist yet have the same physical characteristics and behavior when rendered by all individuals?
Please invite Bernardo Kastrup!!!
He is on my list, thank you :)
Reality is not really complicated. It is simple, simplicity itself. Time and space and everything were birthed within it, and there is no end to the complications there.
However, Being Itself, Reality itself, is simplicity Itself.
Amazing
So Dr. H, would you say that our ego is the filter we are seeing reality through?
who is the we?
If the human brain is simply a “processor” through which consciousness passes (or is manipulated) would it not be a breaking down of the processing mechanism of how the brain processes data causing damage in the case of split brain experiences?
Also, if in this “video game virtual reality” people can recognize me as the same person consistently that must mean our “virtual” processing of what we accept as “reality” means that this “game state” in which our brains function has a consistent virtual “video” system working at least reasonably well throughout what we call time.
Often psychological counselors say, “Well, your opinion about who you are is basically your story about yourself but you, in fact, can be someone very different after you change your story if you choose”. So, our storyline as humans who believe this world is “real” is not consciousness but rather simply a virtual storyline. Consciousness is who we are but the rest is up for grabs because we don’t know the answers yet.
The payoffs aren't attuned to the structure of reality but the correlation between the payoffs always must be.
Did someone tested it? Can you please share any possible links?
This all sounds very similar to Abraham Hick's metaphysical / spiritual concepts of Source Energy. (Not exactly... but very similar.)
Love channel
"the name of the game is having kids, not seeing truth"
1:37:02
1:41:18
1:43:06
1:56:00
Doesn't Dr. Hoffman contradict himself within 5 minutes at ~1:00:00? He says, first, "We don't perceive the truth" and then he says, second, "Once you come to terms with the true nature of evolutionary game theory, you see the inadequacy of those theories."
This seems contradictory to me. If we don't perceive the truth, why should we think that we've got a grip on the true nature of evolutionary game theory?
These are brilliant interviews.
Thanks :)
it was a great conversation which is very useful foe me right now thank you !!
Just figured out about Don’s work and absolutely amazed. Thanks for making this video 8 month ago🎉
Nice
literally every matrix quote ever.^^
but seriously, i like to believe that there is no end to wonder, and that whatever god-like kardashev 3, 4, 5, or higher civilization might be out there, they are still as bafffled by the secrets of existence as we are.
That's an interesting thought - but if Professor Hoffman's theory pans out in any large measure, the Kardashev scale may well have to be retired, or at least *drastically* updated.
Because civilizations on the Kardashev scale are judged based on how much energy they use, right? So we go from the energy of a planet to a star to a galaxy to a universe to the multiverse, etc.
But energy only exists within spacetime. It's a construct as much as anything else within spacetime. And once you open the door to potential entities that exist outside the constraints of modern physics and things like gravity and energy - insofar as they're developed enough, the sheer scale of their abilities would be jaw-dropping. Even supposedly godlike civilizations on Kardashev Level 4 or 5 might look like infants compared to an entity like that.
I love this idea!
Physiology of the Spiritual (Quick Guide)
-The pleasurable “chills” or “goosebumps” (aka frisson) experienced when listening to music, watching movies, viewing art, dancing etc. are the beginning of the sensation of what is called the “soul” in western civilization. Generally, this begins on the arms, back, or neck when a person feels profound emotions. It is most likely you have already experienced it to some degree.
-If you pursue this sensation within yourself by attempting to feel it as much as possible (all day, every day if you are able), it builds in strength significantly over time to the point where it becomes a full body sensation with the pinnacle being at the crown of the skull. It is sustainable with practice. You must become your own experiment as each individual’s set of beliefs and emotional reactions are unique.
-It is the sensation needed to enter higher states of consciousness known as the Jhanas as well as to self-induce out of body experiences from a meditative state (visualization techniques are also required for OBEs).
-One fundamental key to the sensation is to achieve states of genuine, positive emotions such as love, gratitude, inspiration, courage, joy, unity etc. (Therefore, anything that enables you to feel these emotions will work. Conversely, anything that prevents these, will prevent your sensation.) Control of thought is the key.
-You will be required to be honest with yourself. This cannot be emphasized enough. Simply saying you feel love or gratitude, does not mean that you actually feel those emotions. This is why stimuli is extremely helpful such as music, movies, etc. to provoke those emotions in a genuine and real sense.
-Be patient and be understanding of yourself if you think you are struggling. Trust your feelings and intuitions. This is a progression and it will take some time to strengthen as your brain reforms its pathways via neuroplasticity. (Weeks to many months depending on commitment.) Love yourself unconditionally for the greatest success.
-Your sensation will inevitably grow in strength with persistence and you will begin to feel it more easily to a broader range of stimuli. You will eventually realize it is not the stimuli at all, but only your emotional state and control of your mind/thoughts that matter.
-It is this same sensation that monks attempt to achieve during meditation and chanting. (The chants or mantras are to create vibrations in the chest which can stimulate the sensation as well as to keep one’s focus single pointed)
-It is the same sensation that “spirit runners” or indigenous long-distance runners attempt to achieve. (Also called “runner’s high” in the west.)
-The current scientific term for the sensation is “Frisson” and it remains relatively unexplained in the public sector being reduced simply to a release of endorphins.
-Other names include: Chakra Energy, Kundalini Energy, Prana, Mana, Qi, Chi, Holy Spirit, life force, vibration among others depending on your cultural lens. (Google “CIA Gateway Process” for a consciousness study from US Gov’t. www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf )
Meh 👀
Let scientists figure out what the user interface actually is before you try to interlink with a bunch of spiritual shit.
@@deepblueseeds5563 Would you like a fresca ?
Have a great interview I like this conversation
Best like this video
I feel like this guy really understands what he’s saying in technical, mathematical and experimental ways, and then a lot of people are interested in this idea mostly because of the spiritual things it offers and the idea that scientists aren’t studying true reality but like Buddhists could be while they meditate. I think randomly adding that in is gonna attract people that don’t care about the science.
Why wouldn’t Buddhists or people meditating also be stuck behind a user interface, the same one everyone else with a religion and beliefs is. You have to have separate ideas about that stuff to believe that part of it but I guess since no one knows what’s the interface really is that’s one possibility in many. Many many.
And not only do these people not care about the science they want it to be wrong lol. So their spiritualism can be validated.. that’s why I don’t speak fondly of spiritualism in science. I bet this guy has many people try to do talks with him unrelated to science at all.
That's why I wanted to stick with mostly science in the conversation. However, I'm putting together one more session and would be happy to include these questions. I feel, what he is saying goes to some of the deeper questions about matter, reality and the existence of anything. For the consciousness bit, we need a cleared framework.
@@ReasonwithScience but look im just a critical person don’t change anything for me I think this is a great interview. After this guy has been looking at this problem from all angles for decades I can understand why he has to try and see it this way also. I think he’s a genius for sure I can’t criticize his thinking.
nice concept. very clear explanation of the concept
Unique thought.
Very informative
I love this idea good information
That's good it's very informative thank you
So I don’t misinterpret the main part of the interview the world is in me as opposed to the out there belief ok that sounds very plausible the world is like a computer platform and the I only experience when an icon is opened like on my desktop not even brain is actually there
So we are all in some sort of illusion as has been stated by mystics so how in the world did the vast majority of us miss this but I know enough not to dare mention any of this to the avowed materialists just do things that will baffle them
I'm a materialist and so does Don ;)
His theory tries to explain the spiritual experiences can be coming from the conceived icons. I will go in to the details of it in the second part of the conversation. Do share your questions :)
the mystics from long ago were way ahead
As usual, they were right about many things and wrong as well. It will be the same for us :)
Don is ignoring blind people can still see!?
so nothing not viewed by observer is not there
Yeah
@@ReasonwithScience As confirmed by the double slit experiment the observer doesn't have to be human. There are currently over 2500 satellites circling and scanning the earth. So I would imagine that everything exists for more than 90% (guesstimet) of the time.
I have a small issue with Don and that is he has sometimes been seen with some New Agey folks. That sort of takes the credibility out of what he is trying to say, and it is not that he can't hobnob with those individuals, but anything associated with them easily gets into the fussy areas of pseudo wisdom 🙂. But that said, I have been fascinated by his lectures and talks and wherever i see him i just stop everything and listen.
Till the time, his scientific message is clear, it shouldn't matter :)
@@ReasonwithScience Definitely, thanks so much for this outstanding interview. I just adore the concepts he presents us with and your presentation is spot on too.
@@euginrobinson Thank you Eugin. I will have another conversation with Don at the end of August. Your questions are welcomed :)
@@ReasonwithScience Wow, sure. That's exciting. Will send some in the days to come. Thanks so much Jitender 🙂.
I don't know exactly who you consider "New Agey folks" lol. But Don has stated that he was interested in learning about different belief systems to help him in his quest for understanding. Rather than only working with what some might consider the "proper" belief systems, which is quite limiting. Part of his genius is in his openness of mind. I think it's necessary to get this to ever fully understand his ideas. (Btw, I'm NOT a "New Ager," but do try to recognize wisdom in all beliefs.)
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??
Thank you for the questions. I plan to cover these aspects in the coming sessions. So keep it coming 😉
I find his stuttering insufferable. I, I, I, I, the, the, team, team, who does excellent work... what gives? Since Bernando's thesis encompasses his, and he never say anything deeper than thanking his colleagues who worked out the mathematics, I will just stop listening to him. Period.
I do think BK's ideas currently connect the most dots & by far but, I think Don's work is also quite interesting. He has to be mostly concerned with the math in academia. & I'd also say that his stuttering really isn't all that bad.
@@realcygnus Then ask the mathematicians to come and present the maths. I do maths myself and I don't see any math other than the most trivial kind from this guy (and always saying that it's his "colleagues" that did the "deep" work)
Cobblers.
Evolution is a canard that he uses to prove reality is fake! Hahaha hilarious!
He doesn't prove anything. Science doesn't prove anything! In his Bayesian understanding, we are not evolved to see the reality. We are evolved to survive long enough to pass our genes to the next generation.
@@ReasonwithScience semantics! Many college professors don't pass on their genes! They pass on knowledge to future generations to enlighten humanity. Did they escape?
I just thought it was humorous that one theory is used to shed light on another by showing that your head is in the sand. Amazing.
If evolution is true, reality is false! No contradiction there?
Donald explains!
A better conclusion might be that we only see part of reality.
To say we don't know anything seems to contradict Itself. How would we know if nothing is real? Somehow math or tge collected data is not effected!
@@ReasonwithScience we survive to reproduce ideas that are meaningful. Not to be stupid and just keep reproducing like cancers do!
great video