Donald D. Hoffman doesn't think it's real.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- Super Cone Bros EP out now! Listen 👉 ffm.to/superconebros Donald D. Hoffman is a Professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.
In this interview Wenzl McGowen talks to him about MUI theory and conscious realism.
Buy the shirt at bit.ly/2MQw7mk
His bookshelf is really full of interesting books, our consciousness just hasn’t evolved enough to see them.
Haha you made me laugh
Pseudo philosophy by an "authority figure". There is nothing in there that could advance our epistemology. ITs just a death denying ideology, designed to comfort our existential and epistemic anxieties....by overriding the problem of the expiration date of our biology.
Nothing really new, all religious dogmas make the same claims without the lab coat.
That's funny.😂 But we could be seeing would be his 4th shelf.
I like how empty his book shelves are.
Right? I found it extremely funny! :D I love Donald btw.
Only Don can perceive all of the books on the full book shelf.
The number of books on the shelf does not prove anything
You probably dont give a shit but if you're stoned like me during the covid times you can watch pretty much all the latest movies on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my brother lately :)
Wow........does ‘it’ get deeper than this fantastic conversation? Thank you so much for this! ❤️❤️❤️
So....the fairy tales of Chalima.
This is so cool. You guys are so cool. Absolutely my favorite band.
I know this is off topic and all...
But, I mostly came to this (latest) video to have the petition to make the traffic cone saxophone an official instrument and shall be called the "Saxocone"
Also his bookshelf is so... Empty
Logical and interesting topic. Thanks for the "out of the box" viewpoint.
Perhaps Donald should have a chat with Tom Campbell (My Big TOE)
Jane Gardner Indeed! I would like to see that.
+Lloyd Gosden I think, they should share ideas
That was excellent! Thanks !
Great interview thank you
A book for recommendation: Peter Kropotkin: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution from 1902. In this book he goes in complete contrast to darwin. Not the stronges is surviving instead the most loving and caretaking.
Great talk.
It's not the "conscious looking" that disrupts the quantum process inside a quantum computer or any quantum process a physicist would look at. It is NOT possible to look at a quantum process without interacting with it. It is NOT possible to "look at" a quantum process without affecting it, hence the reason for disruption or collapse(E.g. The collapse of wave function in the double slit experiment). In quantum level(or even in macro levels in principle) it would NOT be possible to measure without affecting the measured object or process. This becomes a massive problem in quantum world when we try to measure values or interact with a quantum process. A total misinterpretation of the "conscious observation" of a quantum world had lead to wrong conclusions about consciousness affecting the micro as well as macro world. Things can only be measured without interacting with it in the abstract world of our mind, not in the real physical world we live in.
Precision is how the group transforms. Anti-precision is how the individual transforms.
Language and symbols and numbers and math are all forms of exactitude, or precision.
When you see the apple, remember that the tree evolved its fruit to be red and sweet, just to get you, or another animal to eat it and carry it away to propagate it's seed somewhere else. Have we, as humans not warred and killed our brothers since the beginning of time? Maybe humans don't have a need to know? Do front line soldiers in a war know the whole battle plan or mission? So the winner of that war eventually develops rockets, then rockets are used more and more in warfare, globally, then the rockets were used to carry humans off of the planet that gave it life. Now there's a mission to go to and eventually inhabit Mars. We are just nodes in this expansion across the Universe. Was it Ben Rich former CEO of Lockheed Skunk Works say, something to the effect that there's an error in the equations and we can take ET home? Maybe the math pursuit, is in new maths not logical. Everyone can't be mathematical geniuses, we need more worker bees to make the rockets to get us off the planet, then we move up to the next level of inhabiting, geoengineering, expanding and so on. Then, are we not part of this expanding consciousness? We are part of it, but we don't have to know exactly how it all works until the proper point in its time not ours. It's interesting that peeking inside the quantum computer during the experiment causes negative outcomes. What part of that Double Slit particle or wave experiment was recently debunked or what updated research supports it? Just an observer here not a pro.
I am a thinking musician, too.
Vielen Denk!
moon hooch podcast episode #1
Why would consciousness bother to simulate space time and matter in the first place?
My Favorite Scientist.. He’s absolutely brilliant. Love the Shirt! 🙏 keep it real.. or shall i say “unreal” 😜
Hey Doc Hoffman. You are a genius sir! Keep up the “real” work!
The Buddha said that consciousness (Skt. vijñāna, lit. in two parts knowing) is like a magician's illusion. In other words, consciousness is the mechanism of illusion. It is a kind of super trap from which we never escape and never know other than impermanence and suffering. The only escape is nirvana.
"in that process it sort of loses connection to its own nature." 7:40
Very gnostic and PK Dick. Plato: anamnesis (re-remembering). ua-cam.com/video/tdyoWhiZKxo/v-deo.html
Has Professor Hoffman made any progress in his research in the last year or two? I find his ideas perplexing, to put it mildly. Just curious.
The reward for sloppy thinking is art.
Does he received Nobel prize for that?
Is there a reason why Hoffman never ever mentions Kant?
Moesy Pittounikos don’t mistake him for an idealist per se. he’s not making a philosophical point but a scientific one through and through. this is why he prioritizes mathematical models over philosophical ones. also, why kant?
@@rdenHotEd Everything Donald says is from the system of Kant. Almost word for word. To be honest a few weeks back I went on a Donald Hoffman binge and the Kant thing was striking. Today I have forgotten what interested me. Quite a few comments on other video's have also mention the Kant similarity.
Moesy Pittounikos from a cursory reading of Kant sure. He certainly knows the foundations of idealism but I don’t think he falls under any particular school’s lineage. In Kant for example, transcendental reality comes into cognition through our intuitions (of space and time) as Kant would say. Hoffmans icons on a screen metaphor implies that reality, as opposed to being what it already is (things in themselves) and being restrained BY our own limitations is instead fashioned according to a sort of evolutionary mutualism between organism and environment.
Again, it is certainly idealism in that he’s not putting forward an object oriented materialism but it’s not Kant. Then again, you could argue he’s synthesizing ideas popularizes by Kant and his contemporaries with modern understandings of the world so i digress
@@rdenHotEd My main point is that the people who do these podcast interviews are not as versed as you and so can't ask knowledgeable questions like what you wrote above. Personally I find the question very interesting.
what you said there was brilliant about how underneath maybe we have acces to truth but our logic developed with time and space but underneath its access to pure consciousness. I want you to expound on that idea maybe find a way to sort of prove it? or at leas evidence to back up that
pseudo philosophy......sad.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 what are you talkin about what is fake? The theory you mean? Donalds theory?
@@rainmanj9978 I didn't say it is fake. Pseudo philosophy is the intellectual attempt to explain something by producing a non descriptive explanation that is not based on actual epistemology and failing to provide wise or meaningful conclusions.
Donald hypothesis on the ontology of reality uses a god like entity/substance/agent that he calls "consciousness". That is a theology in disguise ...not a philosophical or scientific theory.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 do you agree that organisms that are better suited for fitness payoffs, survive better then ones who see reality as it is.?
@@rainmanj9978 First of all "organisms that are better suited for fitness payoffs" means that organisms that fits better in their environment gain survival advantages.
That said, by "receiving" and interpreting an accurate model of reality , it increases our chances of survival. This is why we don't exit our top floor windows or try to get out from our apartment through a wall or we don't treat imaginary speeding cars with real cars the same....even if we subscribe to Donald's "theories".
So reality at our level of observation(classical world) is interpreted by our sensory and mental abilities in the best way possible, enabling our chances of survival and flourishing.
We as humans have managed to invent technical apparatus that can observe our world in addition scales too! (Molecular, Atomic, Quantum).
Now questionable "scientists" come along and make these huge arguments from ignorance . "just because we don't understand some things in these really small scales and we also don't understand the whole ontology of some phenomena in our classical scale.....THUS Mystery plus Mystery = Answer!"
That is unscientific and pseudo philosophical silliness in my opinion...based on Logical Fallacies and our personal anxieties.
I could be wrong, but the moment to accept an argument is when its premises are verified, not while "they sound mysterious".
i have no problem with the thought that consciousness may be the only fundamental. but i think hoffman is incorrect with his ideas about space, time, and objects. it does not take my consciousness to put the table on the floor. it is there, irregardless if i know about it, or not. or if i observe it, or not.
if you want to go along those lines, i think peter russell is more apt to be correct. he acknowledges all of space and time and matter as things that are. it is just that he thinks consciousness is the fundamental that is responsible for its being. somewhat like the idea of quarks making up atoms, or atoms making up molecules, etc.
The amount of people(any) that believe they are armchair geniuses is astounding.
Meds. Take them.
You can also check my ideas: philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan
I assume you guys know Tom Campbell? He is saying many of the exact same things. He also mentions Donald D. Hoffman in this talk ua-cam.com/video/YjuKP3rwz0c/v-deo.html Very
so I guess it goes without saying, no one knows the reason of our existence....maybe we exist for the entertainment of that which has created us
We are to the gods as flies to wanton boys.
Book game is lacking
A joke. The professor needs to study Objectivism to get his thinking straight. Phenomenal reality is whatever exists or manifests; IOW, the totality of all existents. Perception cannot reveal all of reality. And perception does not accurately describe what it perceives; it simply tells us that something is there, and exists. It is up to intelligent consciousness to interpret and understand what is perceived.
''Perception cannot reveal all of reality. And perception does not accurately describe what it perceives'' That's exactly what the professor is saying, none other. 'Phenomenal reality is whatever exists or manifests;' You're using confusing language. What exists and what manifests may be two entirely different things. And ''phenomenal reality'' is a contradiction or potential contradiction. And talking about ''the totality of all existents'', means nothing.
How can you talk about ''the totality of all existents'' without defining what is meant by existents. Especially when what is said to exist depends on consciousness for its existence.
The look at - spirit and wisdom ?🧐 Be an original, not being a copy?🌼.
Nothing new here, the view that consciousness creates space and time predates any other view about cosmos and consciousness. Hoffman is great, but as a scientist he is lacking creative imagination, I disagree with the part where he says consciousness cannot know itself, it is mind who cannot know itself, consciousness is not the mind, the mind is as much consciousness as trees and fingernails, it exists and looks from within the preexisting reality it is experiencing, of course it cannot know itself in the same way you cannot look at your eyes without a mirror.
iwbtssothy lol
People are excited about Dr Hoffman because they think their life has purpose now, they are not just here by accident and their life has meaning!!
I think Dr Hoffman hypothesis will fail because it's wrong. We do not create the universe. Consciousness is not fundamental, it's emergent, all evidence points to that being right.
So go back to feeling unimportant, because YOU ARE
This is inane. Philosophically ridiculous. Psychologically typical (e.g., use of local outcomes to make grand generalizations).
Look no further than his first few sentences. "We've PROVEN"! Unbelievable. Is consciousness mathematically deducible? What is consciousness? Absent a certitude on this point (never mind its reduction to numeric modeling) how can one deduce anything.
Why go on. This is absolutely Pathetic.