Donald Hoffman - What is Consciousness?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/38gK7QI
Donald D. Hoffman is a Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Good to know everyone in the comment section already solved the hard problem of consciousness. Guess it wasn't so hard after all.
Welcome to YT
Yep, happens on every video. The people interviewed are morons who can't tie their own shoe laces, and the guy who who votes for Trump knows all the answers.
@@cosmikrelic4815 😂😂😂😂😂
We have solved it, simply by being Conscious, that is Hoffman's point. To wit, what are you doing to "solve" it? So far, I only see another sarcastic commentator and we already have plenty of those...
Hahahaha exactly
That was by far the best explanation I have ever heard of the Hard Problem. This man is a born teacher and thinker.
I agree, sad that he got interrupted when things were getting interesting.
If you think about the topic millions of times, probably you'll get to know how to express it. It is the result of his dedication.
Love watching your videos..
Robert seems unreasonably smug about anything beyond materialism given how many show-stopping problems that has; one example being that you have to believe in many worlds, or super determinism to maintain the physical world having fundamental stand-alone existence.
@@kennysaunders7259Hellos 👋, could you explain more in detail on what your saying, I'm kinda lost😅.
I don’t know how I only just discovered Donald Hoffman but I’m on a YT binge of his interviews and I’m not mad about it.
Saaaaame
Yes. I like him and sadguru and eckhart tolle
Where are you now, Kinga?
I highly recommend his interview with Lex Fridman. It’s mind blowing.
There’s something to the idea 💡
I like Hoffman's approach to the mind/body 'problem': rather than throw out consciousness in order to preserve mainstream materialism/physicalism (which, as he says, require an unwarranted 'miracle for the emergence of consciousness) he instead attempts to build a mathematical bridge from the other direction, by assuming consciousness is fundamental. I respect his approach and, as someone who spends a lot of time pondering the metaphysics of our existence, I find his insights tremendously inspiring.
Great comment and I agree.
Totally, and if you haven't already make sure to check out some of his other videos where he has a chance to go further in depth. A lot of it is repeating the basics found here--or giving details of this--but sometimes he goes into his forecast and opinion on AI and things like that. They can be fun. Here's some suggestions:
- The Consciousness Podcast: Consciousness as Fundamental to Reality with Dr. Donald D. Hoffman
- The Money Friends: Donald Hoffman and the way we see the world
- BuddhaAtTheGasPump: Donald Hoffman - Buddha at the Gas Pump Interview
- The Disruptors - Science, Technology and Ethics: Don Hoffman - Spacetime's Doomed, Quantum Mechanics Falls Short and Reality's Not What it Seems
- The Chopra Well: Solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness: A Conversation with Deepak Chopra and Don Hoffman
- ZDoggMD: The Case Against Reality | Prof. Donald Hoffman on Conscious Agent Theory
- metaRising: Is there an Infinite Mind? | Donald Hoffman Ph.D. | Waking Cosmos
If you want the answers to metaphysics, ask me. He hasn't got them.
@@havenbastion Haha but you are conscious... What possible metaphysical insights could you have if Donald Hoffman is not correct....
Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant & Searle all realised and recognised this truth. We (as consciousness) are completely incapable of directly interacting with *matter* as it really is. We are stuck in the realm of phenomena, ideas, properties, qualities and the such. Matter exists in the realm of quantity, i.e. quantiy of energy/mass/charge/motion etc... and there is by definition, no way to bridge quality and quantity that does not make use of some Code/Language (i.e. interpretative Framework) and thus it is a hard problem that will remain such. There is no reason to believe that any more quantitative or qualitative data will do anything other than serve to further highlight the distinction between ought/is or values/facts or matter/mind etc....
Hoffman is one of my favorite scientists in the Closer To Truth series. I really think he's a pioneer and his concept is real. He's a brilliant guy.
He does a great job of explaining the perspective
Know him, do you?
If you're talking to me, no, I don't know him personally. I've listened to him on dozens of podcasts and I have his book, which is very well written.
@continentalgin
That's not good enough. You don't have a degree, do you?
@@continentalgin
Yiu have to do better than that
Hoffman's theories about consciousness are very interesting to me. He's a really smart student of consciousness.
Watch Sir Roger Penrose on Lex Friedman. He thinks consciousness is a quantum phenomena and I believe that too. Our brain is a quantum computer influenced by the universe itself.
Judging from his comments here he could not be that smart.
Yes , Hoffman is good . Related , check out David Chalmers and ( speaking of ‘smart’ ) check out J.C. Smart
He's a smart student of sensory perception and its evolutionary character. He has not discovered consciousness, or awareness, as the true Self.
I’ve not come across Hoffman before but what an excellent communicator and humble yet clearly brilliant man!
I find Hoffman's work very interesting and appealing. I have his book, "The case against reality" on audible. Honestly, it's over my head and I keep going back for bits and pieces, growing my own neural pathways as I try to figure out all of his points. But he is very disarming and honest. His theories are fun and his complete interest is intended to advance our understanding of consciousness, and by his own admission, he may be wrong. We don't know for sure. It's a hard problem. At least, True and honest science is spoken here.
Lots of scientists are beginning to agree that in the beginning was Consciousness and that that Consciousness is God.
Sounds like Book of John chapter 1 verses 1 through 5, to me.
Is this an audible ad? AI is getting good...
@@williamesselman3102 Who are these "lots of scientists" who agree that consciousness started the universe and then call it God?
And your John reference can be traced back to Hinduism and Brahma. In fact, most world traditions state we come from the cosmos. That's not too mystical. We sure can't come from a parallel universe so the book of John isn't teaching anything different there.
@@andersrahm424 Just make up your own mind about things in life. Turn off media. You never know who's programming you.
@@danielpaulson8838 Just joking around amigo. I’m certain that I have no clue who’s programming me. Whoever they are, I hope they are programming some great things for me.
How do you feel about the concept of higher selves?
To be blunt, Donald Hoffman’s work on the search for what consciousness is may be the most sound and thoughtful approach that exists today. I hope one day soon I can contribute with my own research derived from objective observation and sound reasoning around the psychedelic experience of magic mushrooms.
Heyy how's it going?
I think this guy is on drugs but trying to convince us he contributes to this comment section
Just discovered Prof. Hoffman and his work on metarising. Came here to find out more, at least at a general introduction level. This is excellent! I've always took the consciousness as primary approach when thinking about reality, metaphysics, scientific mysteries. I know others have taken that approach, including actual philosophers and a few scientists, not just self-appointed armchair philosophers like me. [Takes a couple puffs on the pipe while deciding what to pontificate on next]
So, I had this insight years ago, shortly after leaving grad school. Already believed consciousness, or something like it, was fundamental, since I was a kid and could form such notions. I was reading about neuroscience, physics, and other topics, wondering how far the mechanistic, quantum, material mind-from-matter approach might go. Believing it would fail in the end, but maybe provide insights along the way.
Belief turned into certainty in my conscious mind. [Pokes pipe into the air to emphasize the point]
Neurons firing are mechanism. Whether electronic, mechanic, electrochemical, whatever, it's just blinkenlights. Unthinking matter following simple laws of behavior at the component level. No matter how many components, how they are arranged, in layers, feedback loops, hierarchical layers of multi-level recurrent chaotic feedback loops, whatever, it's still just blinkenlights. A simple input may trigger a long and fascinating light show, affected greatly by the system's history, but still, blinkenlights. It can be contrived in arrangement and function to imitate thinking processes, to play chess or translate Russian into Japanese. No materialism based theory can possibly explain consciousness, the real thing. There will be correlations, sure, but just what are the correlates? We have deep knowledge of the matter-quantum-blinkenlight side, but airy wavy-handed mystic-talk about the other side, or the only side if what I suspected was true. Could there be a scientific way to start on the other side, with consciousness and work out to the matter side? [Takes an long draw on the pipe while looking toward the past]
In the following years I had interesting discussions with fellow self-appointed armchair philosophers, and actual philosophy professors too, at the Theosophical Society, book discussion groups, and churches of the kind where such questions are welcome and explored. A lot of bad ideas go around, some good ideas, some great questions, but no real understanding at a scientific level of what apparently must remain subjective experiential experience. "Experiential experience" because just "experience" doesn't quite do it, if you get what I mean.
Now it looks like Prof. Hoffman has found a way to make some progress on all this. I'll be reading his works as time allows in the near future. This video was fantastic as an general overview of his approach. [Taps gunk in pipe into wastebasket] Well, I better get back to work. Nice having this chat with you!
[Hey, I don't smoke a pipe, or smoke anything, so why was I writing these pipe-smoking comments? Odd. Mysteries no one will ever understand...]
That was a complete waste of time, both yours and mine.
But fun, eli
These are such interesting videos! It is so nice to have an open discussion about the complex nature of our being.
This man has somehow wormed his way into my UA-cam playlist and won't go away. Icon on a desktop PLEASE every lecturer is the same
The most scientific/intellectual discussion I've watched yet on this pertinent subject of human existence.
no, just intellectually honest, unlike the vast majority who simply idol worship
He's a favorite when it comes to the topic of consciousness.
Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Seth Lloyd, David Chalmers are my favorites. I think they pursue the most promising approach and push the frontier.
You forgot Siddhartha...
Hoffman and Chalmers have wildly different approaches. Chalmers is generally taken a lot more seriously. Hoffman is borderline cranky.
You forgot Tononi
@@lemmingdot right on. Lanza and Hammerhoff. I really think those guys are on to something. Be nice to see all these guys discuss the topic.
The soothing birds just adds to this awesome conversation. Loved his 4 hour podcast with Sam Harris and Annaka Harris.
Harris is a neocon zionist shill.
@@louisho7493 wtf?....
@@Quetzalcoatl_86 100%. Before Harris reinvented himself as a some sort of guru, his schtick was basically bashing Islam and making excuses for American imperialism with American exceptionalism. I've seen many of his videos. He won't even condemn Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.
@@louisho7493 I have researched Islam myself. The Quran is detestable asf.
@@louisho7493 because he's Jewish, and knows Jewish ppl are the minority in the land around Israel. But I will not excuse any wrong behavior.
Consciousness is fundamental. Amen
Maybe you missed the part where he said he had absolutely no evidence for this assertion.
@@Bandit19990 I didn't. I employees deductive reasoning. Obviously you didn't
@@1974jrod Deductive reasoning? no evidence = it's correct? lol ok
@spredatorify Well ask yourself, did consciousness give birth to materials or did materials (rocks) give birth to consciousness. It's not a hard question to deduce.. I'll wait.
@@1974jrod All evidence points to consciousness as a process of the brain and there's no evidence consciousness is fundamental. Did you watch the video?
Why doesn't this get more attention? THIS IS HUGE
It's a huge pile of bullshit.
@@havenbastion Right cause the adequate arguments you have against it is literally zero lol.
@@joeclark1621 I haven't presented any.
Awesome, please never stop doing videos. Congrats
Donald Hoffman and Albert Hofmann were sent to help us get a better understanding of what is really going on here .. thanks to my beautiful universe 😘
This is what happens when scientists meditate for years, it opens a new insight into the nature of mind. It's purely experiential and will never be understood conceptually. We need more of this!
Totally agree. Outward bond scientific mind can never comprehend inward bound self actualized mind.
When I listen to professor Hoffman I understand his questions but not his answers
I found this fascinating.
I´m not a scientist, since the Eighties I have studied metaphysics, channelled books and ancient eastern philosophy, all of which get scant respect in the world of reductionist science.
The odd thing is, that a crank like myself, who would be laughed out of any scientist´s convention, has arrived years ago to the same position as Donald Hoffman, in feeling that somehow, matter is derived from consciousness. (Rather than the genie from a bottle theory preferred by science).
Since I think that consciousness and matter are both merely forms of energy, I don´t find it difficult to accept that consciousness is fundamental, is the source of physical matter, and that my consciousness is eternal and inviolate.
I see my consciousness as the foot and my body as the shoe. At 73 I will soon wear this pair out, and thereafter hope to walk barefoot for a while.
In the meantime, I will hear more from Donald Hoffman, to whom I would like to offer my warmest thanks.
It is impressive how some years ago (I guess the interview is from 2016) it was really difficult to ask the questions from a 3D physical independent point of view. Fortunately today it is more clear that we don't need to start from space-time for granted.
Really? How do we start without a background?
This both guys ,apart from their undeniable intelligence ,are also such good narators that even a common person can get an idea about a subject.
Simply Brilliant. Thank you Dr. Hoffman for being the science we needed to prove consciousness does exist, and is not contingent upon reality. Wow I AM so happy to finally see the math and science of what I’ve always felt to be true.
Im in awe of professor Donald Hoffman his thoughts unfolding with many years behind his perception on what is and how is and what is really happening when we perceive something to be real
Thanks! This was a fabulous exploration of brain chemistry and the possible ancient wisdom connection!
I love your approach.....
Very good. I found it to be too short. Explore more in this direction. What would be the "atomic" structure of consciousness? Or is consciousness a total upsidedown of any world view -- implying that a view is inside-out while consciousness might be a self-sustaining outside-in, being fundamental to existence, to any form and to any matter. I wonder how that could be cast into mathematical formular.
Nice to hear good thinkers like this on YT.
Consciousness is not a computation.
Sir Roger Penrose
Would love to see a panel discussion between Donald Hoffman, B. Alan Wallace, and Bernardo Kastrup on the "Consciousness as fundamental" hypothesis. All three have fascinating things to say!
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in a dream.
2. A dream,Including every body living in the dream is observed by consciousness which is not a part of the dream.
3. The universe, including every body living in the universe is also observed by consciousness which is not a part of the universe.
Accurate and well said
Is this solipsism or consensual consciousness? I say consensual because I do believe other minds exist and that we share certain objective facts, which is why we follow social conventions. But if they really exist, their consciousness is aware of different objects than my consciousness.
I think the grand consciousness (God) is intrinsically part of the universe (creation).Religion has written it wrong suggesting a separateness.Gnostic beliefs are possibly more in tune to reality
Na ca pumps arent conscious,therefore a neuron isn't conscious give it a 0 value.mathematically you can add any number of 0s and the sum is always 0
नमस्ते सर क्या ये भाई साहब आत्मा में विश्वास रखते हैं या नहीं ? मेरी इंग्लिश थोड़ी कमजोर है इसलिए आपसे पूछ रहा हूं
Wonderful interview, and I've just subscribed to this series. I'm not a scientist, but I intuitively agree with Dr. Hoffman. We have already created machines that "see" objects, "play" chess, pick and place, etc., and yet no one believes that they are "conscious" of what they're doing, even when they do it far better than any human could. Most computer scientists agree that within the next 15 years or so, the equivalent of a desk top computer costing $1,000 today will have the processing speed and power of a human brain. Will it be conscious? Is there some "critical mass" of processing power beyond which subjective self-awareness automatically manifests? Or might the salient difference between homo sapiens and other species be not consciousness, but our ability to think and communicate about it? More in this vein, please! Thank you.
A computer playing learning how to play chess is very far away from selfawareness. Not even close. Computer scientists themselves agree that we are still very far away from this kind of AI.
My dog is conscious, but it's never beaten me at Chess :)
A computer can be no more conscious than a toggle switch.
Hi George I think that our ability to notice that we exist and to think about our own behaviour IS consciousness. Animals react quickly to one another. We humans can reflect on our own reactions and on those of other creatures. This increases our ability to survive because we can anticipate what might happen e.g. we can anticipate the likely change in the weather due to the seasons and use that knowledge for farming. We can gather data over centuries and respond to global warming. And we are so self aware that we can discuss all this with one another and even reflect on the progress of our discussions. Each of us can reflect on our own reactions to these discussions e.g. you might think "Tracesprite is carrying on too long about all this. I'll stop reading and get some coffee now." Which means you are consciously choosing your reactions to my thoughts. Later you can even reflect on a larger scale and think "That was an interesting discussion but do I spend too much time on social media? Should I choose to go for a walk instead sometimes?" With our consciousness, we can choose to enhance our lives and the quality of our family life or our community life etc. Animals simply can't reflect enough to make choices on that level.
I am not fan of Closer to Truth (very biased) but I am big fan of Donald Hoffman, his idea is very refreshing and interesting.
Interesting path direction taken by Hoffman. According to Penrose, however, consciousness is non computational. Thus, this study on consciousness is getting more exciting. Thanks for this interview.
I really hope Hofmann is correct about this theory, because consciousness being fundamental could just maybe give consciousness after death a possibility
I have come to really respect Donald Hoffman. I feel he is on to something.
I LOVE when people ask the exact right question
意識の話は面白いですね😊Thank you for your message♪
Good to know someone is going in the right direction.
There is no “right direction “ of science. Most scientists make incorrect hypothesis, but even being wrong in science is a good thing.
@@takingiteasy17 true but I ment the right direction of what I believe. That is not science of course.
@@takingiteasy17 you have to keep in mind science can not without a doubt say that there is not more to consciousness.
Cool channel. & Hoffman is pretty awesome imo. Anyone seriously interested in Consciousness should be aware of Ketamine, even more so than DMT imho. As its thE most interesting(overall) substance I'm aware of. & the bridge-ability of that gap between the "quantities" of mass charge & spin etc., & the "qualities" of experience is not only tremendous & ENTIRELY arbitrary(even if there existed a "complete 1:1 mapping") that it just can NOT be reconciled even in principle(as of yet, from a physical realists perspective). Hence "hard", & most likely literally impossible. Something like Kastrup's alters is what currently connects the most dots & by far imo. btw, this by NO means suggests that the neurosciences(& related) shouldn't continue doing what they do(such as finding the NCC's). As ANY reasonable philosophical position MUST by informed by science. Big breakthroughs rarely come from mainstream/consensus. Its there mostly for support/structure/financing etc. Such "paradigm shifts" usually come from out in the "fringes" & eventually work their way towards the "center". They are typically denied, rejected & often even ridiculed at 1st, gain acceptance(at various rates), till they finally become "self evident". Materialism is overdue for such an upgrade.
What are your thoughts on meditation? I do believe wholeheartedly beyond a doubt that we are able to tap in and shift our thoughts in the subconscious. I experienced this and my perception on myself, and the outside world is extremely different than it was prior to this particular meditation episode. I dont see it as a problem, it is giving us validation that there is something more within us, that we are consistently moving towards. Being observer of "what is" without the attachment of opinions, guesses, beliefs and ideas letting go of previous knowledge perhaps then consciousness will tell its own story.
Physicist Tom Campbell , exactly the same conclusion from a Physics point of view. It’s so interesting that we’re trying so hard to fit the super system into the sub system. Like avatars in a video game doing whatever they can to prove that their game u is s fundamental.
@Chopped Wood consciousness is fundamental.
@Chopped Wood this will clarify in details. ua-cam.com/video/7hzSjnPikIU/v-deo.html
Love listening to him.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros This is actually a Big question.
But there are some "freedom phenomena" connected to Truth. As the old saying goes, "the Truth shall set you free." I don't know if it helps, but there it is. :-)
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros It's really a Big subject. You are not the first to ask.
To be honest, no answer I give will satisfy you. Truth is not something you can put in words.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros I didn't say I don't know what Truth is.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros LOL
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Why don't you think about it yourself and then tell me?
The sound of a specific sequence of notes is a much more rigorously describable experience than the taste of chocolate or the color red. Music has a definite language and mathematical structure, so perhaps the synaptic activation pattern that corresponds to hearing a specific piece of music doesn't change from one person to the next, as it is based on a universal set of rules. I'm just suggesting that perhaps this could be an avenue for further research into how conscious experiences correspond to the neural correlates of those experiences.
It’s always been known and obvious to Hindus and Buddhist, that consciousness is fundamental, one thing, that is in every living thing. Our minds tells us we’re individual and we are to some extent, but our essence is that one consciousness that is eternal.
Try meditation and quiet the mind and you’ll know this is the truth.
Makes sense to me. Science has to eventually face up to the fact that conscious experiences are provably and logically irreducible to physics. This suggests that consciousness, whatever it is, is a fundamental aspect of reality. Neuroscientists can find all the neural correlates of consciousness they want, but they'll never be able to explain in physicalist terms how my experience of pain literally _just is_ c-fibres firing in my brain.
Well put. And a great point.
When you say "They'll never be able to explain" you ignore how discovery works. Be a bit more humble and say perhaps some day we will have a better inderstanding of such and such. It allows you to grow.
Consciousness is what remains when everything is peeled off. It is the 'I'.
Try peeling off matter or spacetime or concepts or thoughts or identity or mathematics . One will reach consciousness.Then further peeling off is not possible. It is there as existence..
The *I* and the Consciousness, is the Living, and the Life-ability, and cant be separated, two eternal sides of the eternal Living Being.
Nope
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt if thats your real pic, sign me up for a taste.
Hoffman is brilliant because he understands the science and integrates it with his understanding of ancient eastern philosophy. He carefully weaves what ancient enlightened people have explained over and over again without detection. Hoffman is an Einstein of sorts.
So carefully…………..
This video had a good Cinematic vibe.
Dr. Hoffmann is simply brilliant. consciousness always did feel fundamental to me. The double split experiments give us a flash light into cosmic consciousness, in that particles' (eg electrons) behaviour CHANGE simply with the introduction of an "observer". How does the electron figure out if its being observed or not ? Any ideas folks,,,,,,help me out here
And of course it does it spontaneously, irrespective of Anton Zeilinger's 11 billion light-year and 8.5 billion light-year
quasar separation. Zeilinger didn't win the Nobel because Roger Penrose speaks to an intelligible univese, despite
positing a perptual-motion universe.
Particles DON'T change with introduction of an observer; they don't EXIST until measured/observed. They are waves. So "How does the electron figure out if it's being observed or not?" The electron isn't an electron at that point to even ask. It's a wave, infinite probability.
@@bonniematthews7611 Does that mean a thing only exists only if we make it to be? can you explain it to me more please?
@@a42lalrinkimi48 Consciousness has nothing to do with the double-slit experiment. Particles are fields, not little balls and not waves (even though everything is described by something called a "wave function".
@@nissimhadar what it unveils it that you can’t remove the observer from the equation, there’s no objective point of view.
I've been thinking about this a long time. I suppose Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach got me started. Along the way, Julian Jaynes persuaded me that language has something to do with it. Lately I have been think a lot about my cats, whose brains are about the size of walnuts, and who do many of the things I do. In fact, it seems like their proprioception is superior to mine, and perhaps at least on a par with elite human athletes. I don't think they see the same world I do--and only in part because our retinas are different. Lately I'm wondering if a big part of the difference is words. I have a sense that when I call one of them by name or ask if they want breakfast, they are reacting in a Pavlovian way to a sound, rather than associating a word with a concept. I do sometimes suspect that communicating with them has helped me better empathize with aphasic patients I see as a nurse.
I have also been thinking a lot about intuition. In nursing school, on one of my care plans, an instructor asked about one of the interventions I proposed, and I had to answer that I had chosen it because it felt right. She was supportive, but insisted I find a more formal rationale to support my intuition. Since then, I've tried to look for a balance between the art and the science of nursing. A lot of times, it feels like the science tends to smother the art--and the business seems to leave precious little time for art or science--but there are still times when a feeling seems to direct my reason to the right path. I also think it may be that the emotional sort of feelings have some role in the intuitive sort of feeling. Caring about a patient, especially one not doing well, causes me stress, and that stress seems to open access to perception and cognition that don't usually reach a level of awareness.
Mike - I like the connections you make in how we understand and communicate. The most effective way of communicating is to see the image that you are describing in language because we do communicate telepathically with one another. This is especially true with horses. All you have to do is imagine what you want the horse to do and it obeys. Usually, an existing relationship with the horse is preferred, but I have seen some horses respond like this in my first encounter with them. The point is that we have the ability to communicate with mental images alone, but it requires a calm mind, one that is not full of constant thinking and day dreams. Once your mind is calm, your awareness of intuition blossoms. It takes practice to know whose mind you are reading, and most people disregard intuition. The great doctors have a combination of knowledge and intuition that makes them brilliant. Most doctors rely exclusively on knowledge and only work from within the framework of possibilities.
@@JFairhart I'm not sure I believe in telepathy, but I am not entirely sure I don't. It's interesting to think of the Universe as a single field in which everything is connected. So maybe one region of that field could know what another region is thinking or doing. But I think a lot of what we call extrasensory is really just our brain working behind the scene, in ways of which we are unaware.
A thing I encounter caring for stroke patients and their functional deficits is remembering that a weakened right leg, for example, is actually no weaker than their unaffected left leg. Rehab has much less to do with strengthening the muscles than with building new neural pathways. It's just that in normal experience, we don't perceive the work our brain is doing when we walk. Similarly, I think intuition is a form of cognition that goes on outside our awareness. And maybe dialing back our awareness can help access that intuition. Maybe.
@@mikestewart505 - Ever say the same thing as another simultaneously? Ever think of someone and that person calls you in that moment? These are just a few every day examples of telepathy. Don’t take my word for it. Clear your mind and watch what happens.
@@JFairhart I've had a few experiences that felt a bit telepathic, but nothing I have found definitive. It's a real open question, for me. At present, I'm more interested in empathy than telepathy. Setting aside any "paranormal" phenomena, I find it interesting how much we communicate non-verbally. I've also been considering how language may limit us. The saying, "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao," resonates for me. But I think we are on a similar track. Where you saw "clear your mind," I say "turn off the words." But I have a sense that it isn't always a matter of calm--at least sometimes, stress can open another way of cognition. (Which, admittedly, sounds a bit like mental illness, but I don't mean command hallucinations.)
@@mikestewart505I'm late to the party, but I've come to the same conclusion that language is a limiting factor in communication and consciousness and was possibly introduced to us on purpose as a limiting factor. Perhaps we were telepathic before when we look back on ancient man and assume they did not have a verbal language and only pictograms. Language is controlling and constraining on thought.
The universe as fundamentally qualitative is the only plausible theory and the correct starting point for all further considerations. The brain, for example, couldn't even exist in its form without all the input from our conscious mind, but on the other hand, there'd be nothing to experience without the body either. So they must be inseparable, built of the same universal stuff, and that's what gives rise to human consciousness - the entire being together with the "material" it's made of. When someone sees the color red, it is always the person as a whole who sees. Looking for some neurons that correspond to the color red can't therefore reveal the subjective experience. When I first encountered this idea, I thought it sounded like deception, like illusion, but today I find it beautiful and fascinating. You just have to adapt to the idea that reality is virtual in a way, which doesn't mean it's any less true.
Impressive thinking to tackle the problem.
Consciousness is all that there is and consciousness is happening within itself.
I believe that if you start studying NDE’s I believe you will understand more about consciousness
Nde are just massive DMT dumps, nothing more.
Hoffman hasn't "solved" the hard problem of consciousness. Rather, he's reacted to it and seen its panpsychist/classically theological implications. He's seen beyond the physicalist matrix. Oh the irony. Bravo.
Beautiful conscious mind.
imagine this thought experiment... we are all time travellers. We travel into the future at different rates of time , not only in respect to each other but even in respect to different parts of our body. Speed, gravity dictate the passage of time and this calculates into varied passing of time. Now, each person is travelling into the future or being left behind in the past, yet each person always discovers new versions of the person left in the past or people left in the past discover a new version of a person who has travelled into the future. Hence each persons observation is only valid unto themselves. That reality of each individual is unique and only relates to himself or herself. In this way , we are all time travellers or time left behind individuals and it gets even more confusing due to different parts of our body perceiving time differently. I don' t have the conclusion to this scenario but the most rational one should be that we are just observers in a vast space of our own choosing. Hence- we create Reality
Whoa, that must have been a long lond drag off something cause it made absolutely no sense.
Consciousness is perhaps a dimension of the universe same as length, width, depth and time. Somehow the brain through evolution taps into it.
Something like this has occured to me as well. One way or another, consciousness is a direct experience of the stuff of existence. If it exists it must be so.
Sounds nice and simple but doesnt make much sense
Not all living things are conciouss , why and at which state would we evolve ohr brains to escape in to the other dimensions
@@urosuros2072 I agree 100% with this idea. It makes perfect sense. It's unclear what living things are tapped into consciousness. Probably, for sure, anything that needs to be aware of its surroundings in order to survive.
I'll go one better with this theory. I believe that there is an, as yet, undiscovered force in the universe that compels matter to combine in extremely complex ways to create useful things such as human brains and parts of the human brain that are able to transcend the physical part of the universe and connect with the conscious part of the universe.
And, to go even one better than that, I believe that this undiscovered catalytic force of nature has an intelligence behind it, as does the entire universe. In other words, I don't believe its an accident that human brains evolved and that they are able to connect to consciousness.
My question would be: Do we already have anything regarding mathematical model of consciousness? I don't mean precise, I don't mean complete. I just want to know if anyone has already started describing it precisely mathematically. Or if anyone even has idea how to start. Or if anyone even thinks it can be done. I think we would need some physical units to measure it. And I don't think any of those even exist yet for consciousness.
For similar reasons, the discovery of neural correlates of consciousness can leave difficult questions unanswered. The question of why these correlations exist remains open. Nonetheless, scientific advances in cognitive models and the neural correlates of consciousness can play an important role in comprehensive solutions. Good to know and let me know the knowledge beyond spacetime and share it all to see reality crystal clear. The moon is beautiful, isn't it? No life and no dead, and really I don't know. Thanks.
The fact they are just sitting outside on a bench makes me feel like I just watched "Waiting for Godot." Two guys trying to figure out the meaning of life while sitting on a bench.
As someone who has come to this conclusion--that Consciousness is Fundamental--via long-term meditation, I appreciate this discussion. On the other hand, I MUST draw attention to a meaningful and important distinction that was not made by either of these gentlemen:
Consciousness is NOT an EXPERIENCE of any kind [GOD EFFING DAMNIT]! It is NOT, for example, the EXPERIENCE of the scent of a rose. That scent is WITNESSED. But it is NOT the WITNESS. Isn't this incredibly obvious? I mean, take ONE EFFING SECOND to examine it!
Experiences take place IN Consciousness. For another example, THOUGHTS are NOT Consciousness. Rather, thoughts are tacitly WITNESSED. Right [GOD EFFING DAMNIT]? I mean, are your thoughts aware of themselves? No, of course not. SOMETHING WITNESSES EVEN THOUGHTS. So WHAT is it that witnesses even THOUGHTS? Why CONSCIOUSNESS, of course! Consciousness witnesses ALL qualities, but has NO witnessable qualities of its own.
(I wonder if this distinction will be read and understood by anyone.)
--The ANGRY AF Maytag Repairman.)
Part of the problem is that we use the same word for many different phenomena. I too am usually referring to "the observer" behind the rest of the mind when I speak of consciousness, but this is not always the case for everyone.
Also, I would like to point out that "the observer" can be observed by itself. This is quite uncomfortable at first, but can certainly be achieved during various kinds of meditation. And there are many symbols in various cultures throughout history which indicate this has been going on for thousands of years (let alone the reaps of Upanishads and other South Asian philosophy which discusses this). So, I'd argue that something which can be observed must necessarily have qualities. However, what those qualities are my be ineffable-thus the symbolism, icons, metaphors, and so on.
@@RubelliteFae "The observer can be obserbed." Utterly false. (I've been meditating for 40 years, btw.) Please read and actually think about what was written above. Seriously.
@@johnrainmcmanus6319 You having not experienced a thing has no bearing on weather or not it is a real thing. I've seen monkeys relaxing in a hot spring. I doubt you would call that false just because you hadn't seen it. Yet here you doubt. Interesting
You didn't read what I wrote, or at least you didn't think about it. You cannot witness something that doesn't have ANY qualities other than the quality of being aware.
@@johnrainmcmanus6319 Interesting perspective.
Tat tvam asi.
Excellent 👍
Donald knows his stuff unlike many here who always come to evade and transmit their confused state to others!!!
Well you don’t need to have an alternative hypothesis to see flaws in an argument or position.
That's just a skeptic with a lack of imagination.
But I guess if Consciousness is fundamental, Hoffman's ambition of formulating a mathematical theory might be too far fetched. Why shouldn't Consciousness behave like the multiverse hypothesis, spawning a multitude of Universes, with different laws of physics and physical constants. Why should math be able to define fundamental reality, where consciousness gives existence to math itself, making it a subset of consciousness. If Consciousness is fundamental, we must accept that truly nothing you can say can encompass it, because by definition, it was already contained inside of concsiousness.
Things get worse when they say consciousness is created by the brain, if thats the case how do you know that a brain exist in the first place, no mind can't make any affirmation about reality.
Beautifully said. The brain receives consciousness and act as a limiting valve. Consciousness itself is fundamental, all knowing and everything is derived from it. When contained in a brain it forgets it’s true self ( a bit of a spiritual perspective I think )
Consciousness is “us”, and perceiving an experience with a multitude of emotions both good, great, bad, awful, and all very intriguing and thought provoking. The name of this theater we, consciousness, are inside of and in at this very moment, is the Universe. Through the magic of the the third dimension (material) and also the forth dimension (time), we are given an experience that comes with a myriad of emotions and feelings and memories which is a good lesson to appreciate our existence in the fifth dimension, where time, aging, and death do not exist. But are only concepts that must be experienced just as it is better to visit Disneyland then it is to hear or read about it. The lessons you learn here are all that you are going to take with you when the lesson is over. Think about it.
Spot on! If consciousness is the ultimate constant out of which everything emerges then science, mathematics, hypothesis and any other form of intellectual understanding is a ‘product’ of that consciousness. The ‘ultimate’ question must then be; is consciousness able to know itself?
That is precisely the question the Gautama Buddha said he knew but it cannot be shared from one person to another. It can only be directly experienced by consciousness itself. In practical terms that means each person can only reach an answer to its own existential questions by its own methods of investigation and conclusions. According to the Buddha that is the nature of consciousness. The fundamental reason for this is, according to the Buddha, consciousness is non-dual in its nature and thus cannot be referred to within the constraints of time/matter or any other form of dimensions. It is both the beginning and the end for anything that occurs. Nothing can ever be experienced outside of consciousness. It encompasses everything. And yet it lacks any form of substantiality, size, location or place in time. It is also what gives rise to our experiences of body, space, time, world, universe, etc.
Also, the Buddha have said that it can indeed know itself for the precise reason its base of knowledge is limitless and primordial. Every living being (not just humans) got the same fundamental nature since time without beginning. In theory that means any living being can, at any point in time, access its full potential and become completely aware of all its own knowledge inherent in its own consciousness. In spiritual traditions that is usually called enlightenment, or awakening. What prevents us from doing so is a very basic form of ignorance that give rise to a myriad of distorted ideas and views concerning our own existence, which in turn, lead us down the rabbit-hole of misinformed decisions and actions. This, in turn, give rise to a solidification of our distorted views into a type of bodily experience of form and worlds that we must endure. Since these processes have been going on for an eternity very strong mental habits have been established which make us not believe in anything else but our own erroneous set of existential world views. And so our eternal wanderings in the darkness of ignorance continues forever, unless we one day decide to change course towards awakening, or the removal of the basic ignorance that is the illusory foundation for the whole structure of this unnecessary state of misery.
The reason awakening is possible at all is because all wisdom and knowledge is already present in consciousness, since time without beginning. It is just temporary covered over by our own ignorance of it and the unnecessary stains of the incorrect ideas and views that spring from that temporary ignorance. The reason we are able to learn, study and reach new insights is because all ignorance is temporary and ultimately non-existent. The fact that we (some of us anyway!) are so eager to find out about the true nature of consciousness springs from consciousness itself wanting to manifest its true potential of awakening. It is inevitable! But we must all go through the process since we all are bearers of the primordial wisdom within us. Because our own personal type of blockages and hindrances are our own ‘creations’ we cannot uproot ignorance through attending lectures or reading books.
Our own clinging to ignorance is so deeply rooted that it can only be dissolved through earnest efforts and dedicated inner practices that we know works. Thus we have no choice but to seek out a genuine spiritual path that is upheld by genuine teachers that knows all about this process of transformation. This is an eternal principle throughout all times and all worlds. Nothing new under the sun! And yet, it would be a revolutionary transition for you and me!
@@freetibet1000Non duality?
In Buddhism?
Which one Mahayana?
Consciousness can contain anything and it can be full only.
It's the only thing which can Experience itself.
The universe is energy, energy is information, and consciousness is organized information with which we perceive matter, which is also energy.
That was a lot to unpack...love it
Consciousness is just self awareness of one's "beingness" through all of the individualized but intertwined senses. ESP might be considered a higher awareness of things beyond our typical sensory interactions with being. Atheists are very intellectual individuals but they're confined somewhat in their limited bubble of possibilities. The ultimate proof of greater levels of consciousness is through experience with the metaphysical component that science can't measure with instruments. We truly are an ocean within a gallon jug.
What do you mean by one's "beingness"? Do you mean agency? The soul? If by beingness, you mean having consciousness grants you the privilege to be privy to your subjective experience and thoughts, sure. But that's just circular. You're not providing anything new to bring light to consciousness.
Atheists are not stuck in a bubble that restricts their thinking; instead, they've agreed to question and be skeptical of the existence of the supernatural and God.
If an instrument of science (i.e., whatever objects or tools necessary to obtain a probable truth) cannot measure or obtain this beingness, then how did you conclude that our consciousness is just an awareness of our beingness? Most likely, your answer will be personal experience. Personal experience of the world is great, but imagine if scientists use only personal experience to explain the universe, you and I to this day might still agree that the morning star and the evening star are two separate things, for example. (By the way, it's Venus, if you're wondering.)
Individual consciousness to universal consciousness must involve quantum fields. I will let you all know when I have figured this out...haha
lol
Quantum fields are an abstract description not reality. 😚
I understood that. Thank you.❤
I good starting point would be to have a clear and consistent definition of consciousness. If we are saying it is Awareness then it is no more than perception and the systematic processing of that received information . It is subjective only in that each of us have ingrained neural pathways from nature and nature IMHO .
Awareness is the blank screen on which the movie of consciousness is played. Awareness is the ultimate core of your nature when you strip everything else away. Consciousness is the contents that are placed in awareness... inner vocalization, mental imagery, and feelings (peace, fear, joy, love, hate, jealousy, admiration, pride, lust, greed, hope), intention
Subconscious is where you find beliefs, stereotypes, assumptions.
Your awareness can do nothing but witness the actions of consciousness. Consciousness is transient, impermanent, malleable. Awareness is ever-present, unchanging, eternal. Even in sleep you are aware. Aware of the absence of consciousness.
The "self" is a persistent perceptual illusion developed around 12 months old. Awareness identifies with and is bound to the bodymind through the ego. The ego structure enforces the separation between embodied awareness and universal awareness, a.k.a. god.
You can break the separation temporarily through hallucinogenics, a near-death experience, a sensory deprivation chamber, or meditation, the latter 2 being the most difficult. A sufficient dose of 5-MEO DMT guarantees you an involuntary and complete dissolution of ego and return to universal awareness for 20 minutes or so.
You can break the separation permanently(ish) by dying. However, your awareness will very likely return to embodiment as something else, somewhere else, in the gladiator arena of hunger, fear, suffering, and death we call the universe.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeItWell, tasty, seems you've been spending some time in either the New Age section of bookstore or the Buddhist/guru section, or perhaps both. Ah, yes...the blank slate of pure, pristine, unadulterated immanent Awareness. Visit it every day.
I think conscious is not fundamental in the universe, rather I think awareness is fundamental and that consciousness is an emergent property of aggregations of awareness.
I would replace "awareness" with "sensation" and suggest more specifically "tension" and "compression" and presenting as a change in frequency, speeding up in compression and slowing down in tension. Consciousness probably requires some emergent particle since it's the particle that has sensation. ... hypothetically.
I think we are an electrotonic pseudoparticle existing between the surface of the cortex and the Pia Mater.
I can respect the ideas of creating a rigorous starting place, and looking in places other than where most others are looking. But he admits we’re only 20-30 years into understanding the brain - the most complex known structure. To give up on the (apparently true) idea that consciousness emerges from brains based on the fact that we don’t understand how it happens, and then to jump to the idea that mind exists not only outside of brains but as a fundamental element of the universe - that’s serious woo woo
“Emergence” is an abstract category created by conscious minds. It means absolutely nothing in terms of physical laws. Go ahead, describe emergence in physical terms.
Actually even the brain is a creation of conscious minds, attempting to understand groups of cells based on arbitrary value judgments.
@@deanodebo Consciousness is an abstract concept created by conscious minds. It means absolutely nothing in terms of physical laws. Go ahead, describe consciousness in physical terms.
@@KestyJoe
There’s a critical flaw with your analogy. I’m not claiming consciousness is purely physical. So if you’re comparing consciousness to emergence, then I’ll ask you - do you think your concept of emergence is subject to the laws of physics?
If so, then bad analogy. If not, then is it supernatural?
@@deanodebo Supernatural?? Talk about a false dichotomy!
@@KestyJoe
Is emergence explained by the laws of physics ?
Do you consider emergence to be a physical phenomenon?
3:20 BTW I think it is _impossible to rigorously _*_define_*_ what is the green-ness of the apple_ , and this also adds to (or maybe even is one of the primary) causes why it's impossible to solve the question what gives rise to the conscious experience of green in this case.
I surely appreciate your work. But I have just one technical claim: the slow camera movements I find disturbing. Fixed cameras could be more appropriate for that kind of documents.
I like how these two guys are talking about some heavy stuff while people are driving around in golf carts behind them. Conscious agents doing their thing
my consciousness from in my 20ys? or my consciousness from in my late 80ys, asks the octopuss from the deep
My consciousness at 61 is exactly the same as from an OBE I had at 4 months old and every point between. It's unchanging. It's brain states that change and by the fraction of a second.
As for Dr Hoffman's research focus stated at the conclusion, I assert you don't need a map to explore and make important discoveries. Also, no need to describe the wonders seen to those without a frame of reference to understand the realm. Consciousness continually reveals itself to the willing and ready. Tally ho!
Being blind to our own blindness is intriguing but im having the experience watching this that Donald Hoffman talking to Albert Einstein! :D
A question for materialists: What is the evolutionary purpose of subjective experience if p-zombies are just as good at survival as conscious humans?
Because if they were we would not be here to discuss about them. A variation on the Antropic principle if you will
I have looked at this problem in depth for at least 10 minutes and are forced to conclude that the only explanation for consciousness is that G-D does exist. Try to explain to a blind man(since birth) what the colour red is, or a congenitally deaf man, what sound is etc, and it is impossible. Although we know that there also has to be a physical component, functioning eyes or ears, this is not enough on its own. We also know that people with end stage Alzheimer's recover their faculties just before death to converse with relatives, when very little of their brain is functioning. This demonstrates that even the physical component of consciousness is not even essential. This is quite part from NDE's
etc which show that consciousness is non physical and non local. Jung was right when he wrote about his theory of the group(collective) unconscious. That can only work on a non physical basis and shows our connection to all humanity.
Right. You don't need a brain to have a consciousness. Try removing it from your head and see what happens
@@Aguijon1982 In my case I could manage just as well without. Alright there is a physical component to consciousness as well, but it is not critical. For instance take the scene of a very messy car crash with cars and bodies lying everywhere. There have been cases where the victims are brain dead because their vital signs are gone and yet whilst unconscious in this state they are aware of everything going on around them, as they have recalled later whilst in recovery. How is that possible if the brain was no longer functioning? See NDE accounts on the Internet.
@James Strawn
False analogy. That was like saying that heat doesn't arise from the sun.
Like I said, try having a consciousness with out a brain. Do the experiment and come with the results.
That was beautiful, thanks
*BINGO!*
Consciousness is the primordial source of energy - the *Cause* behind and within everything physical. The latter being effects of consciousness...
What a guy Donald is..could listen to him all day long..such charisma.
You're allowed discuss consciousness forever but DMT is banned.
K
From discussion or what? And then, so what? Say something about DMT relevant to consciousness. I mean, I could just throw out any word too. Let's see...um...cabbage. boom, there it is. Why aren't they talking about cabbage. Common now, make some small contribution of your own here.
@@howardrobinson4938 You can learn more about the question this man seeks on a DMT breakthrough than you can with a life time of pondering and discussing with scientists, philosophers and theologians. I love cabbage by the way!! 😍😍😍👍
@@everready2903 Now, can the same be said for LSD? How about for psilocybin? Um...weed? What about yoga? How bout fasting? I don't know, um...tantric sex? Let:s see, ultra running? How bout dying?
@@howardrobinson4938 Yeah they should talk about those things too.
Consciousness is existence. No debate required. Turn inwards to realise, not gonna happen by some experiments or theories.
A rock exists too.
OK thanks for that, we can forget about science then, we should have asked you in the first place.
@@cosmikrelic4815, Science can never uncover existence with all its limits.
@@everready2903 Rock has consciousness too.
I came here because my experiences on Out of body travel made me awake
The portal to this higher realms, dimensions, is within us, it is the seat of the soul, also known as pineal gland, third eye. once you meditated in your dreams and focus your Consiousness in the middle of the eyes, it will open up a like spiral wormhole tunnel and your Consiousness will travel through it in the speed of light and you will see how vast our universe really is.
“Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.”
Is it like an OBE?
@@gustanto1981🎉it's better.
OBE seems to happen in times of stress, just happens. But wanting to explore your consciousness as an intension requires a very relaxed state. And that deep relaxation in our hectic word needs practice for many.
Mr Hoffman is exactly right in stating that "consciousness is fundamental", meaning it is a property of the universe as basic as gravity. All consciousness derives from preexisting "universal consciousness" and is totally dependent on it in everything. What we mistakenly call our "consciousness" is actually our "experience" of consciousness which is something very different. Consciousness precedes and is something much more than cognitive experience. The former is universal and eternal while the latter is temporal and completely dependent on brain function. Consciousness is difficult to define and it's mystery will never yield to the empiricism of pure science.
Imagine being in a movie theater precisely at the time when darkness enfolds the room seconds before the movie begins. One can sense the palpable expectation of everyone there. There is more in that room than darkness and silence, there's a heightened state of "consciousness" also which might be defined as a willfully directed condition of psychological and emotional receptivity wherein the movie goer can provide the mental space to be filled by viewing experience. In other words "consciousness" makes possible and accommodates the cognitive experience of watching and enjoying the movie. It doesn't create the movie but makes experiencing the movie possible.
Mr Hoffman talks about AI (artificial intelligence) and many have wondered if any machine with enough AI could become self aware. The answer is clearly yes, but no machine will ever experience consciousness for a very simple reason. Being self aware is not the same as experiencing consciousness. A machine can be fitted with an optical device to direct its movement, but it's purely mechanical. A dog is self aware but doesn't experience "consciousness." Self awareness simply means being awake and mindful of your surroundings. Animals do as much but only humans are capable of experiencing consciousness.
Being a preexisting property of the universe consciousness came before the human mind and imbues thought, imagination and all forms of cognition with its selfsame original qualities. To put it differently; all forms of "consciousness" derive from "universal consciousness" and is an outgrowth and extension of its origination. As every cell in the body is programmed to recognize every other cell as "self" so too is universal consciousness designed to accommodate our human experience of that universal consciousness, and will never enable any machine however complex to also experience that consciousness.
All consciousness is "universal consciousness" which is a manifestation of omniscience which is an attribute of transcendent reality, in other words a supreme being.
Keep the camera still!
If consciousness was created by the brain, it would seem the brain would have had to be conscious first. Interestingly that could point to something witnessing consciousness. That I am.
A deep study of Buddhism and non-duality points directly at this alignment with conscious observation and physics. Matter and consciousness are the same thing. You immediately say this to yourself after taking LSD, I am everything aware of itself. Carl Sagan was already pointing at this "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself". The asymptotic approach the razor blade of consciousness keeps getting sharper as the universe evolves.
I would not describe myself as being particularly religious, however it would seem a foundational premise of at least some major (in terms of influence, if not also numbers of adherents) religions that we believe (or experience the world) we are at the center of existence, similar to the earth being the center of the universe - which seems like a recurring limitation on our thinking, a perspective trap. Christianity certainly comes to mind.
I appreciate the idea of creating a mathematical equation as a reference point and testing theories of reality and consciousness from there… interestingly, however, like math, religion - Christianity and the Bible, for instance - are based on similar starting points - right or wrong (take the apple/ don’t take the apple) - effectively ones and zeroes, similar to the beginnings of our understanding of math.
I, as a non-native speaker, would appreciate a lot if there were subtitles to this video, even in english. The words used are quite complicated, and i'm very interested in this topic.
click on the three dots under the video (next to share). You can then see the transcript.
Is consciousness quantized?
Are there any examples of complex mental illness states where fear/happiness/pain etc would shift and loop so rapidly that it becomes a composite state, where the different parts blend beyond recognition?
Maybe there is an RGB model of consciousness, waiting to be discovered.
Sounds like Prof. Hoffman should collaborate with Stephen Wolfram to investigate the origins of physics from the point of view of pure consciousness. Wolfram's cellular automata based physical theories have the speed of light and other physical constants appear as emergent properties. What better basis for consciousness based physics than cellular automata?
Consciousness creates matter, not the other way around. And when the body (matter) dies, Consciousness is no longer constrained, and expands greatly.