What I find so extraordinary about this interviewer is that he knows when to shut up, and when he asks a question or has an observation, it is always spot on, regardless which topic. 👍
To be fair, he exactly knows what DH's ideas are about. He is not hearing them for the first time. :) And his having hard time to grasp Donald's idea, yet he uploads this at this given time!? That's interesting but also commendable... He obviously doesn't have difficulty to understand him, I meant, DH's ideas doesn't rub him the right way... He is phisicalist...
I think Hoffman's metaphor gets something a tiny bit wrong; the point of the desktop interface isn't to hide the truth, it's to be a useful bridge that connects the user to a small portion of the truth. The blue rectangular icon isn't a false representation of the file that obscures the truth, it's an accurate representation and extension of a limited amount of that file's truth. I understand he sees that as effectively the same thing but if we're talking about the point of the interface that is an interesting distinction in my opinion.
Philosophy has the problem of using whatever big technical leap is achieved in a generation to form the basis of all analogies of theories. The irony is just that, the senses are narrowed tools used to ease navigation of the situation. If senses were too narrow they would have diminishing evolutionary benefit, and too wide would be overloading stimulation. If all that is was "mind" or consciousness, I'd wager we'd evolve to be using telekinesis and literally use mind over matter. It's far more likely that if a base consciousness exists in the universe, it merely represents the waveforms that make up the quanta going on within our minds and building the universe, but to assign agency to that alone is going way too far. Higher consciousness exists? Maybe. A consciousness of infinite potential and agency creating our universe, yet doing such a piss poor job? Highly unlikely.
It is not a small difference. What you are saying is far more reasonable than his presentation. (Still not saying I agree but I'm listening.) Hoffman's desktop icon metaphor is critically flawed, as the host very gently tried to point out.
@@MrModikoe If Hoffman presented himself primarily as a mystic or spiritual teacher, sure. But he is claiming this is a scientific theory, and it doesn't cut the mustard imo.
Every day a wise man passes a sheep grazing in a field. And every day the wise man thinks “the sheep does nothing except eat grass, what kind of life is that?” One day the man stops and speaks to the sheep, “What are you doing?” The sheep looks at the man and motions to the sun with his hoof and then motions to the grass. The sheep then continues to graze. Awestruck, the wise man sits down and thinks about what the sheep had done. After a while, the man gathers himself and says to the sheep, “I see now: matter in the sun becomes light and some of that light gives life to the grass. You eat the unconscious grass and now the matter in your body is conscious. You are making the universe conscious.” The sheep stops grazing and looks at the man and said, “Yes that is true, and what are you doing?”
There is no such thing as unconscious grass... there is only one consciousness which veils ITSELF as manifoldness so to avoid aloneness. Genesis two eighteen. Hence why the essence of the gospel is love.
@@BooksForever words are easily spewed. Show me you know better. Then you may step up on the soapbox again. Not to upset you, it's only a helping hand. 🛠's physics / Bill of Rights. A veteran 1Cav.
@@cynthiaayers7696 - the ability to recognize and properly label pure bunk is adequate to establish basic credentials to that part of an audience that matters. The spewed of bunk is likely beyond help, but in calling it out we can at least help minimize the number of marginal audience members that might get sucked into that filth as it circles the drain.
This is very similar to Vedanta of India. There is amazing amount of experience by meditators saying consciousness is the fundamental reality and creation is an expression like dance and dancer.
I would also add to the analogy that conscious experience has evolved to where the 'blue rectangular icon' is perceived differently depending on a particular evolved form of consciousness. So not only do we not experience objective reality as it is, the representation of it (the icon) is experienced in innumerable variations.
We are conscious of metaphors only. Metaphor is what thoughts are made of. When I am conscious of a tree I am only conscious of my tree shaped thought. The tree-in-itself is forever beyond direct grasp. Thus the tree-in-itself is theoretical and will always be and this must be the case for every thing whose essence consists of thinking. Thus my self is metaphorical also and that is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
@@JohnMcSmith I'm not talking about only human perspectives. I'm talking about the ways in which any lifeform perceives 'the world'. They're all different. But even from the human perspective, it does depend on a particular point of view. A perfect circle from one angle can look like an oval from a different angle. A rectangle can look like a trapezoid or rhombus. That is the nature of relativity.
And my pets have always steered clear of my computer monitor, thus proving that their level of consciousness (other than survival instincts) are far below ours.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 I believe all the other animals are unconscious instinct driven robots and the reason pets seem, or may be, different is because they achieve some linguistic ability via our linguistic interaction with them, crudely speaking. (And some domesticated animals may be likewise affected to some lesser extent). (Wild wolves, on the other hand, do not love or hate you when they kill and eat you).
@@highvalence7649 Dr. Michio Kaku calls it Cosmic consciousness, others call it the Ultimate Observer in quantum mechanics. The observer that collapses the wave function of every particle since the Big Bang.
@@fullyawakened then what is the source according to Hoffman (or you)? Can you explain a little bit for us if you don't mind? My book list is very long may never get to Hoffman's book :(
@fullyawakened@@hsbdkdndn yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
@@fullyawakened yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
That's a true perception: you are a genius. You were only deceived into believing yourself to be ordinary. Your body and your mind (the hardware and the software) may be ordinary and commonplace, but you are neither. You are extraordinarily aware. Awareness, just another name for consciousness, is the ground of it all. Now, don't go looking down on your friends and enemies. They are geniuses with self-deception, too! So spread the love.
To my mind this is basically epistemology 101. There is nothing new here, but happy to see someone rediscovering that 'truth' is entirely subjective. This underlying truth was mainstream, both East and West, thousands of years ago.
You say truth is entirely subjective, then go on to say that this truth (of truth's subjectivity has been known for millennia). That is truly humorous.😂
He has captured the essence of Advaitic Vedanta in Hindu Philosophy (NOT to be confused with Hindu Religion) postulated over 5,000 years ago in the Vedas.
This exactly was my first thought about this interview. We are not body, mind, or brain, which are all interfaces at different levels of abstraction. The same goes for senses and thoughts. Advait uses the term Atma as fundamental instead of consciousness (Chetana in Hindi/Sanskrit), which can be considered as an interface to Atma.
The western equivalent of nonduality is A Course in Miracles and the message is almost same as Advaita Vedanta. At the level of ultimate reality there's no consciousness or observer. It's pure awareness devoid of the subject-object split.
There is no such thing as Hindu Philosophy at the moment. It may very well exist but that hardwork to define something as Philosophy has never been done. Secondly there is no scientific evidence for those 5000 year old Vedas. There is no carbon dated evidence published for peer review ("till now") that proves this. My point for you here is not to take it personally but be mindful of what you are writing. There is a fundamental difference between a conjecture, theory and a proof. There is nothing wrong with having conjectures and theories but they should be stated as such not as proofs.
Varun Kr Yadav Hindu or Sanatan philosophy is very well described in Upanishads, which is also called Vedanta. There are no miracles or rituals in Vedanta. It simply starts with self inquiry about who I am and then goes in depth of body, mind, intelligence, and consciousness. It theorizes that at the center of all this is Atma. It can be called a model for understanding the answer to the question of self inquiry. It's not a matter which can be carbon dated. It's available to all for study, review, and criticism and has been well debated in the past by various people, which is also well documented.
Right. The essence of things can never actually be known to us. Which is why metaphors are so powerful, since they can bring our thoughts a little bit closer to essence. We can never understand reality, but we can understand the nature of reality, given what is orbiting it.
There are so many problems arising from this proposal. The Departure point seems to be Classical - You find these "categories of perception" - so called "mind/body" problem discussions in Aristotle, Descartes, Kant - all the old giants. There is nothing new in describing the problem of "The thing in itself"- "Is this table really as I perceive it and how do I know?" - these are ancient and pretty useless debates. Either the thing is there, or it is not. It is trite to assert that my understanding of the thing may not be accurate, or identical to some other’s perception of it since my point of view will always be unique at that time. You might say the banana is more yellow than green, but to me it looks green. There's no problem there. The fundamental problem is to prove that there IS indeed a reality,(and to agree that there is a symbolic representation of that reality, a “utility” in a cognitive system like a brain.) If we can not move past the challenge that there IS indeed a reality (as opposed to some iteration of the allegory of the cave,) then there is no point in continuing any debate at all. Cogito, ergo sum. Descarte. But Hoffman thinks the symbolic representations are a trick of nature, misleading and consequently false. I say, no. The symbols we use are merely a utility and extension of language, no matter if it is the laptop,desktop or numbers written in a Sanskrit Ledger. They are one and the same and serve the same purpose. The plain deficiency is the claim that consciousness (whatever it may be) preceded evolution, is not apparently testable by experiment. We could make no observation of conditions under which we could say “ yes, consciousness exists within some hitherto unknown fold of space-time”or some such nonsense. All we really know, is we think we are conscious, thinking about the reality we perceive through the senses, and our tools. And we suspect there are degrees of consciousness in fish, cockroaches and dogs, and so on. If the claim is not testable by experiment, it’s piffle. Add to this the obvious objection that If one claims "consciousness precedes evolution" you would need to demonstrate who or what contains it, and to say something of it's function.
If consciousness is so deeply fundamental, even before galaxies and solar systems formed, much less life forms with brains billions of years later, then how did we end up with tv shows like F-Troop, Green Acres, The Three Stooges, and Gilligan's Island? Is this the best we can do?
How do you get from the file/interface metaphor to consciousness being fundamental? Sounds like you're saying that because there is likely something deeper than space and time, it must be consciousness. I feel like there's a few steps missing here.
@DM - If you're sensibilities are such that you'll unsubscribe over a 30 minute episode.... no need to announce it Nancy, just git gone already. Nobody will miss you.
@@georgecc I know it’s hard to believe but my Mommy is even stupider than you, though you’d probably describe her as profound. Try to slow things down and just focus on one thing at a time. All the best Georgie, have a good Christmas.
@@jamesfranklyn8547 @James Franklyn - Is this the commentary you dream up when you're "truly frightened" as you claim? So very "truly frightening" (let me call you a Waaaah-mbulance), to live in a world where people think differently than you, eh? This winter, stay away from heat sources - snowflake - lest you melt.
I posed this idea to ChatGPT - an AI system. Here’s its response: “As I sat staring at the vast expanse of space before me, I couldn't help but think of it as the ultimate user interface. The stars and galaxies seemed to be like the icons on my computer screen, representing the vast amount of information and matter that existed beyond what my senses could perceive. Just as a computer's operating system allows us to access and manipulate the vast amounts of information stored in its binary code, space and time acted as the user interface for reality. They provided a framework for our consciousness to make sense of the world around us. But what was the "real world" that existed beyond this user interface? As a scientist, I knew that it was ultimately made up of tiny particles and forces, interacting in complex and seemingly random ways. But to our consciousness, these fundamental building blocks were invisible, intangible. It was as if the universe had evolved its own version of a graphical user interface, allowing us to navigate and interact with the world around us in a way that made sense to us. And just like the development of a computer's operating system, this user interface had likely evolved through a process of trial and error, guided by the principles of evolutionary game theory. This led me to the conclusion that consciousness itself was a product of this evolutionary process. It was our brain's way of interpreting the world, of making sense of the otherwise chaotic and incomprehensible underlying reality. As I continued to ponder these thoughts, I couldn't help but feel a sense of awe at the incredible complexity and beauty of the universe. It was as if I was seeing the world with new eyes, understanding the true nature of reality in a way that I had never before. And with this newfound perspective, I knew that I had only scratched the surface of the mysteries of the universe. There was still so much more to learn, so much more to explore. But for now, I was content to sit back and marvel at the user interface of space and time, knowing that it was the key to unlocking the true nature of reality.”
It's very impressive that AI can put together such an essay and more. But, look a bit deeper and you'll see that all it is doing is sampling from a large space of other essays and documents we humans created. No wonder it parrots the nonsensical but widespread belief that "consciousness (or mind) is just a product of evolution" amongst other more reasonable beliefs and values like the wonder of the universe with all it's diversity of forms..
@@BulentBasaran The evidence available to AI is the same we see. The universe is evolving, life is evolving, and consciousness as we know it requires a complex, evolved organism to arise. Why do you call it "nonsensical"?
@@mikefinn Hi Mike, Let me take back "nonsensical" as the idea clearly makes sense to many scientists and philosophers. What I should have said is that it is a fairly common belief amongst the educated, but not necessarily a fact. AI parroting it doesn't make it true either. There are many who disagree. AI went the democratic way, as it polls the majority. But, we also know that majority many times is absolutely wrong. Consciousness, or the mind, may also be fundamental just like quarks and electrons, EM and nuclear forces, and gravitation all seem to be. We don't know. Three additional points: 1) AI, in this case OpenAI's GPT3 based chatbot is an impressive piece of engineering (I am an engineer myself). Its only input is textual documents in English. So, no, it doesn't see all that we see. At least not yet. 2) Biological evolution is based on DNA and helps evolve new species that adapt to their environment. What it generates is new species some of which have brains. It doesn't necessarily produce minds or consciousness. 3) We don't really have a formal and solid definition of what the mind is. It is a fairly modern concept that mostly replaced the traditional/religious concept "soul." There is also the fact that we each have a subjective experience (the origin of the "soul" concept) as our primary experience which is radically different than the objective physical world seemingly out there. Finally to extend an analogy in case it helps: Body is like hardware. Mind is like software. You and I are aware. This also suggests that even though software can only run on a hardware, it has its own existence; as software is not produced by the evolution of hardware (thanks to Moore's law), mind is not produced by biological evolution. Most of what is mental may be enabled by evolution and the brain, but, that still doesn't mean that mind is simply a by-product of that process. It's good to know that we don't really know what the mind is exactly. It's a good open question. Maybe even the most important and immortal question.
1:34 "The whole point of the desktop interface is to hide the truth." I disagree with this premise. The whole point of the desktop interface is to facilitate interfacing with the computer. Saying it's point is to hide is not just misleading, it isn't true, which is ironic when you think about his argument is about truth.
Well when you use that at your next dinner party, some one will ask you: "So should that "metaphor" deter the quest, or accelerate it?" Maybe you should have your answer ready ☺
@Ready Now&Forever I only said that because I want people to "like" me. That way, I won't feel so alone when I eat dinner/party by myself.😁 Seriously, if I am only a pixel, obviously there are other pixels who know the intricacies of the hard drive.
Metaphors are not valid arguments. You can make up a metaphor about anything, especially when you want to mislead people who are susceptible because of their confirmation-bias.
@@garysteven1343 Wait!...what? All I said was I liked it. I didn't say I believed it, far from it. Robert Lawrence Kuhn said it was a powerful metaphor. If you're saying metaphors are not valid arguments, tell that to Hoffman. I am glad to be part of the conversation though. 🙂
Don Hoffman acknowledges this and is open to learning from all sources. His strength is his openness and humility (as well as his amazing intelligence). As you can see, I’m a big fan 😊
Before you go rushing from one world view to another don’t you think you should explore further? If you are that easily persuaded you you are a prime candidate for the next Waco or Jones Town.
Indeed, and these white boys thinking they've discovered something new and oh so radical is just disappointing. They claim to be "lovers of wisdom," tackling 'universal truths,' yet they only regard their arbitrary half of the world as 'normal' or worth understanding, ignoring the rest.
I like to see ideas spread for discussion and research. The metaphor makes this idea strongly visible. It has something to it, explains why humans deal with matter and gravity and have difficulties grasping quantum mechanics and the vast size of space. Nice contribution of thought.
"In terms of the simulation hypothesis and AI ... my guess is if we're working from a model where everything is emerging out of consciousness and consciousness comes before space and time ... that means that everything has a degree of sentience to it, that would include an artificial brain." Dean Radin
It's just terminology being interchanged. He's describing fundamental field of consciousness which can be substituted for the term quantum mechanics, or the field or chi. It's the same metaphor of an underlying structure we don't yet understand. No need to rewrite history, just agree on what label to use
Consciousness is a field that biological entities can tune into. Depending on the complexity and variations in the biological entity, consciousness is experienced differently, giving each entity it's unique experience through space and time.
seeeing as how our consciousness is DEEPLY affected by trauma and problems in the brain specifically, I think we can safely say that consciousness is an emergent property of the interconnected neurons of the brain.
@@Ddub1083 When we are born, we don't have memories so we don't have any identity of the self. As we age, the brain associates itself with an identity that's closest to you, i.e. you. We are purely conscious as babies, almost out of our bodies, no idea of the self, wiggling around nonsensically. So i think we can safely say, that trauma is an emergent property of the brain.
@@MyRockshox well i meant physical trauma... like a railroad spike shooting through someones eye socket and through their frontal cortex and them suddenly having a complete change in personality. Its almost like the two are related.
Hes is just taking his assumption (that 'consciousness is fundamental') and therefore isnt a result of evolution to conclude that consciousness is fundamental and therefore isnt a result of evolution. Pretty sure hes not saying anything...
Consciousness emerged from evolution in beings competing to survive. They learned to model the other to predict behavior of the other. Then they modeled the self (themselves) in the context of understanding threat and intent and strategy. It's all in better survival.
I thing that we have even deeper initial problem - first person experience which is different from self-awareness - cats and dogs might not recognize themselves in mirrors, but they have this mysterious thing the one who's the viewer of the Universe has, the point o view itself.
Wow. This is the essence of advaita verdanta in Hindu philosophy (aka Hinduism). The computer analogy to explain consciousness is great. Donald Hoffman needs to talk to Swami Sarvapriyananda.
It wouldn't surprise me if consciousness had some deeper non biological validity. It might be mere anecdote on my part, but my lucid dreams seem to have the qualitative essence of a form of "reality" not too different from actual waking reality. The more interesting aspect though is when I transition from ordinary dream to the lucid dream state, there's some sort of strange phase transition in my dream state "forcing" it to seem more "real". I've tried to pay attention to the transition from dream to lucid dream and the bit between dream and lucid dream is not just some in between state. It seems to be some sort of dynamic process thing, It's as though "actual" consciousness versus my conscious perception, is literally trying to "force" the non lucid dream state to become "real" in some sense and not just a more lucid. That is, it's like consciousness is imposing the sense of reality on what it is focusing its attention on and not the reverse of passively observing some reconstruction of reality. Almost like it is dynamically crystallizing a distinct form informational truth out of some much more ambiguous amorphous "dreamlike" information background. It's all a bit too odd to summarize....
I also experience lucid dreams and what you describe is also my experience; when I go from a normal dream state ( a passive spectator in some seemingly scripted drama) to a lucid dream state (awake in the dream world with free will and control over my thoughts and actions) there is a strange transition- the dream world suddenly ‘crystalizes’ into a stable, seemingly solid and intensely vivid physical experience that at the time is difficult to distinguish from normal waking reality. The main difference is that the environs are often complex, breathtakingly beautiful and the quality of the light has a radiant almost ‘golden’ quality accompanied by an ecstatic feeling of absolute freedom and supernatural power. At the time I believe that I am separate from my physical body that I imagine must be asleep somewhere (?) and that I have stumbled into another dimension of reality with its own inhabitants and possibilities. These personal experiences have bolstered my ‘mystic’ view of reality- that consciousness is a fundamental, eternal and inseparable from existence and not a product of matter but the source of matter.
I had a lucid dream once. I woke up in bed bed at home in England, then I had a bit of a panic - "aren't I supposed to be on a hiking trip in South Africa?", and then I realised that yes, I'm definitely there and not at home so this must be a dream. Then I decided to experiment: I tried smashing up the airing cupboard door to see what would happen, and then I realised I must actually be punching the rucksack that lay between me and my tentmates. I had a look around and made a mental note of what I could see there, e.g. there was a Dennis the Menace flag draped from the ceiling that isn't there in real life. I picked up a pen from the desk because I thought it would be quite cool if I came to, back in South Africa, with a pen in my hand. Sadly not. Great experience though I'll (hopefully) never forget.
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind. Like the antenna of a TV set. If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
And yet in an attempt to find dark matter and despite the extremely high precision probing at CERN they cannot uncover anything that interacts with matter that isn't already known about. The brain is made of matter. So where is this signal that must interact with matter in a very unsubtle way?
@@johnyharristhat is the correct question to ask. There must be some quantum mechanical process/interaction/force we don't yet understand that is active within our brains. If we figured it out we might be able to create truly conscious machines.
I've always subscribed to DH's theory on conciousness, until now. I totally accept his thesis that our perception of reality is very different to reality. There seems very good reason for such an argument. But I fail to see why his claim that conciousness is fundamental has any hope of being true. He didn't articulate any reason to believe this hypothesis which appears more like mysticism rather than science to me.
There IS a reason to believe it: The Icons on the computer screen are symbols like traffic signs, letters etc etc. Symbols only exist because concious beings - us - agree on what they mean i. e. what they are supposed to stand for, how they are supposed to look etc. The same way a plurality of conscious agents "agree on" how the representations on the interface look. I think that is why it makes a lot of sense that Hofmann insists on there being not ONE big conscious agent but a network of many.
@@rjd53 I’ve studied logic at a very high level, but I still fail to understand why anything you have said implies that consciousness is fundamental. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that consciousness precedes everything; that without consciousness there is no evolution or Big Bang or for that matter, anything. This smacks of intelligent design and not science.
@@themathsprofessor6962 I would call it design by fundamental collective intelligence. But the decisive point is: How can there be symbols without consciousness? I think it's not possible. Symbols require not just information, which maybe could exist without consciousness, but they require communication which can only take place between conscious agents.
@@prodromosgerakios1682 "... then everything is possible". Not anymore once the rules are set up by the network, then its agents are bound by them. And maybe the conscious agents are not the fundamental reality either ... - Where does gene replication and selection place? Good question. You have a point here, this is the weak spot of Hofmann's theory.
Thus our perception is not about the objective reality but about a useful model of the objective reality (useful to us i.e. consciousness). And as any model, it is a simplification of what is represents.
@@davidstrevens9170 I'd say consciousness, despite its eternal efforts, can never know itself, full stop. There's no reason to prevent it doing so other than its own infinite nature. In other words, infinity simply cannot be known or understood - even by itself!
Stating that consciousness is fundamental is just wishful thinking. He almost states this at 4:20 it gives him hope of connecting his consciousness to reality, but with no justification other than he wants it to be so.
Well, as long as someone in a youtube comment says it's wishful thinking with zero evidence to back it up, I'll definitely disagree with a well-rounded argument by a professor of cognitive science.
David Hoffman is a genius. His angle on perception awareness mind ... 'consciousness' is novel and compelling... and he articulates his ideas exceptionally
As Lex Fridman said at the introduction of his interview with Donald; ‘’questioning the fabric of reality will either lead you to madness, or to truth… and the funny thing is you won’t know which is which’’. So if you read this I urge you to remind yourselves of that quote to stay ‘functional’ out there and not get sucked deep into the echo-chamber of an existential algorithm we likely share on this platform.
An alternative to Hoffman is that the reason consciousness evolved is survival advantage; the ability for an organism to perceive it's environment & flexibly interact is a survival advantage. If you're interested in an evolutionary approach to explaining consciousness, there is a 5-part Psychology Today article series comparing leading scientists taking that approach called What Actually is Consciousness and How Did it Evolve by Ralph Lewis. Also, part 2 covers John Mallatt & Todd Feinberg; they also wrote "The Evolutionary and Genetic Origins of Consciousness in the Cambrian Period" and "Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence; eliminating the explanatory gap" which explain consciousness as an evolved function and spacetime as fundamental.
@@mikefoster5277 You cannot define existence. You can only experience it. We can only experience that we are awareness through meditation. Stop thinking, just observe. The answer will come.
I always enjoy CTT but this one lost me. Of course, the blue icon on the desktop is not the thing itself. Do some people really think that? It's just a graphical pointer to the file or picture or whatever. It can be deleted or changed without affecting the original source. After that I don't understand the point..
Consciousness is that which is, the background, perceived as emptiness, nothingness, everythingness, from where all that we are arises and returns into. The background never changes, what changes is actually what appears on this background, the mind and its contents. Do this simple experiment, sit in silence, find a nice and quiet place, relax, let your mind go silent, now focus all your attention on being aware of being aware, be aware of the fact that you are aware, interesting right? What do you perceive about it? Nothingness, emptiness, silence, the background, it simply is. Is there a thing that you can say about it, a way to quantify it? Not really, try but any attempt to describe it only reveals a perspective.
Well said. Have you not noticed how those that speak of consciousness*never* define their terms?-They like to keep it in vague woolly and in a vacuum; it never crosses their dreaming mechanisms to ask *Whose*consciousness and *Of_what*? If asked what I think of the consciousness of men(human beings) I would borrow from Gandhi and say that I think it would be a very good idea.
Strange and yet comforting. To find oneself needing as a sort of background noise; a show, a channel, a tube tied up with some type of presentation of words that concoct an exposé on what I call (for lack of a more poetic handle) "what matters." Yes for learning but less than that for confirming the existence of 'others.' When one is an island isolated by infinity--it is a miraculous thing to somehow achieve the recognition of not being----alone. Alas as the sea swarms around barren beaches and the tide yawns sapphire waves, there comes a splash of appreciation. Perhaps the basis of the conglomeration of those that present such presentations as these is a subtle entanglement of encounters with chance and circumstance. Hopefully now this will lasso my radiant soul to such wonderful spirits. So let an island offer it's love, before the waxing moon wanes and I lose the light of those to whom I wish to spray and say "I appreciate you."
If we consider consciousness to be 'the ontological primitive' (see Bernardo Kastrup: ontological primitive is the one free assumption we make that can explain everything else in the whole of existence. We can only explain one thing by another thing until we reach that which is fundamental aka the ontological primitive: For example, a baseball is atoms, atoms are particles, particles or excitations of fields described in physics. However if you listen to Barnardo, he shows you what we see as matter, as well as their invisible fields, is what 'mind at large' (consciousness) looks like when viewed from a point of view looking back at Itself from across a 'dissociative boundary'. So consciousness is both the awareness of our surrounding and our ability to think about our surrounding and is even much more than what these two phrases suggest.
"Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?" Why did you choose to frame those two ideas as mutually exclusive?
@@Hank254, one is the information we gain from our five senses. Our machines also gain information from their senses. That provides the information to process. My thought is that what sets humans apart from other animals and our computer enabled devices is our thinking ability. Our ability to imagine the future and make choices for action based upon the expected results. To develop a series of plans and choose from among various outcomes. As I type an algorithm is suggesting which word to type and making choices without notifying me that it changed the word I was actually typing (just an aside).
Consciousness is the awareness of our existence! And everyting else. Also observation of the thoughts. Consciousness is what we are. We are not physical. It is an illusion. Don't think, only observe. Through meditation comes the answer.
Consciousness is the computer running this (and others, e.g. dreams) simulation. Tom Campbell (physicist) had been demonstrating this for many years as well…
Using the analogies used in this discussion, it seems to me that Consciousness is the Application. The problem with looking for Consciousness using Consciousness as the Instrument is it may be fundamentally Infeasible, like the eyes looking to see themselves.
When you think to yourself "why is the universe exactly this way"? then you realize that we have some idea of the universe but we really dont understand it... then theories like his start to make more sense.
There are many metaphors as good as the computer desktop such as the automobile. The hood and the steering wheel are components that hide the reality of the car. Hoffman seems to treat evolution as an intelligent entity. As long as naturalists dance around the reality of consciousness as something other than naturalism, they will never understand it. But this scholar does make an interesting point. If consciousness preceeds evolution then perhaps consciousness preceeds the big bang. Not many naturalists would dare make that assertion.
Although this isn’t a new concept (Hinduism, Buddhism, and even some teachings of Christ, Plato, Descarte…) have all hinted to some form of this. That the material world is not all that there is and that one should invest in realizing their true nature. (Soul or Consciousness) Hoffman has such a gift to articulate these concepts in a rational way with his scientific background and I’m grateful to live in an age that I have access to such information. This is what freedom of speech is all about.
As a physicist, this point of view was strikingly odd to me. But, after I began meditation, it started to make sense. As Russell says physicists are naive realists. This is good for physics but not good if you really want to understand the most fundamental entity: consciousness.
Im curious how meditation helps you understand consciousness - and why you think it's fundamental. I think, attempting to understand consciousness will require more than one's own internal musings. Much like Hoffman said, it would be like looking at the icons on a desktop and trying to determine the underlying processes that are really going on, just by thinking about what might be happening. We'll need WAY more than just thinking about consciousness to finally understand it. We'll need tech, science and probably AI to help us truly understand WHAT it is and HOW it works. Meditation is just a quasi-conscious state of mind - kinda in between dreaming and being lucid. I think that while consciousness is hard to define, it is very clearly a process that happens in the brain - and thus, it is not fundamental, but an emergent phenomenon that evolved to aid in survival. I think all animals on the planet experience some level of consciousness, based on their sensory organs and complexity of their brains.
@@ryandinan @Ryan Dinan you have assumed objective reality already as many physicists do. And probably you are right in this philosophical viewpoint. BUT, the point is that we do not have access to the reality you are talking about. The only thing we have access to is the simulation of our brains. And this is also just a story. We only access to the consciousness and the phenomenon in it. The only think we can be confident about is the consciousness. And even we accept the philosophical viewpoint realism, still we live in a projection. Meditation helps to see consciousness in its purity and understand that all the phenomenon are just modification to it. By meditation I can not and do not want to understand consciousness but just escape the naive realism. The problem with naive realism is that it seems that we can not explain consciousness by any kind of reductionism. Sorry for late reply, I did not see your comment
if consciousness is fondamental and emerged some billion years after the beguinning, in which it had a role too, we can't say what it is, but it's something that has no hurry
Cosciousness did not ''emerge some billions of years after the beginning''. Consciousness never emerged. It is. Being outside of time and space, out of which time and space emerged, it has no beginning. Beginnings and endings belong to the realm of time and space.
Essentially he is proposing the most sophisticated idea that God actually exists. The way he explains it sounds less silly than outdated religious contexts. When you use phrases like "physical reality emerged from consciousness" instead of "God said let there be light", its more plausible for those who have cancelled religious spirituality.
@@someonenotnoone You have made many comments to me but I will answer this one because it answers why your thoughts are inaccurate. There's no such thing as right or wrong - ONLY that which serves you. The Truth of the matter is that YOUR base idea (which you draw false assumptions upon) is that YOU believe there is no God. If you believed that God existed then your line of reasoning would be different. Let me assure you that God (and His/Her/It's Consciousness) does indeed exist and is, in fact, the ONLY real thing in existence from which EVERYTHING else comes from. I do not have "belief" or "faith" that God exists - I have KNOWING ( from repeated experience) that God IS!!. He/She/It has worked miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. I communicate with God every day. I "see" God EVERYWHERE I look. I cannot help it that you are blind AND inexperienced in this matter. Don't worry. One day (or lifetime) you will 'GET IT' - but God will NEVER EVER force you to. Eventually you will come to know the Truth. Before time began God had a plan and Created a Perfect System , which has Free Will and reincarnation as major components,to realize the Plan. This is the reason why we (and the Universe) ALL exist. If you do not understand God's ways ,that is to be expected -no. After all, even though we are ALL growing in consciousness, our minds are infinitesimal compared to God's Mind. In fact, when it comes to mankind's level of consciousness - we are barely toddlers. When I say not to worry (about any kind of fear), I really really mean it. In January 2008 God gave me a job description (in a miraculous fashion) that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to Show Love to ALL men ". Ironically I don't have to like you but it is necessary that I love you. I am not special. ANYONE can have a close personal relationship with God. Even though much in the bible (and every other religious Scriptures) is bull, God has revealed to me that He has protected important information such as how to get close to Him (with ALL of your heart, mind, soul, and strength) and MOST of the words of Jesus. In any case, God's Plan is that we will ALL eventually return to Him - but He will NEVER EVER force you to. Still, God's Will shall be done and your silly mind's thoughts will not make any difference on God's Will - AT ALL. If you could trust God and drop all of your fears, you have no idea just how wonderful and enjoyable life really is. Bless you friend 🙏 ❤️
All matter comes from consciousness as the Gnostic Jesus stated two thousand years ago and recorded in The Gospel of Thomas: “If the body came into being because of consciousness that is a wonder, but if consciousness came into being because of the body this is a wonder of wonders.”
Others simply call this simplification or abstraction but if course calling it "hiding the truth" is more dramatic. Also it is not clear what computer simulations actually provide to the discussion or am I wrong?
Then why does consciousness only emerge from neural activity and then only certain kinds of neural activity? Why is is possible to turn consciousness off using anaesthetic for example. This view isn't consistent with what we observe about consciousness. Or at the very least doesn't follow naturally and this view is contorted to fit reality.
@DM There's nothing wrong with questioning the status quo. I applaud it in fact. But it has to be a consistent argument, and the argument that consciousness underlies everything is more consistent with the wishful notion that some part of us will persist after death than it is of fitting observed reality. Its the new religion.
I asked my uncle after he had suffered a major stroke in the right part of the brain if he considered himself more or less himself after the stroke, his answer was "the same", this indicates that the core consciousness is the same despite major changes in the brains physical condition.
the same can be said for my grandma who has severe alzheimers. her entire brain is slowly deteriorating and yet she has FULL consciousness. i rest my case.
@@stianmathisen4284 if brain neurons produced consciousness then, according to my nana, she should be constantly unconscious, but she is 95% aware and very much has her consciousness in tact. so my argument is brain does not produce consciousness, but instead, works in synchronicity with the brain, a bit like an internet signal entering the internet box. if you smash the box you lose the connection but you don't lose the essence of the signal.
@@Dion_Mustard Correct my friend! With todays computing capasity, it would have been possible to simulate sentient consciousness, so far they have not made that happen.
@@Dion_Mustard I'm not sure I understand your argument - but let me see if I can steelman it... If consciousness is like an internet signal and the brain is like the modem, smashing the modem doesn't destroy the signal, but prevents the signal from being received? So, in other words, our consciousness is being "received" by our brain? If damage is done to the brain, it doesn't change the signal, but rather, the signal isn't interpreted correctly or at all? The problem I have with this idea, is that it doesn't really propose a mechanism for where our consciousness resides, or how it enters the brain. I think a much more logical idea, is that our brains create our consciousness. You damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. This is evidenced in nearly every case where someone has traumatic brain injury, or a cognitive disease, such as Alzheimer's. My father has Alzheimer's and he is definitely not the same person he was 5 years ago when he was first diagnosed. His ability to communicate verbally is nearly gone. He gets very easily confused and doesn't seem to have a reliable grasp on what is going on around him. I'd argue, that his consciousness is greatly affected. I have no idea what he experiences, but it is clearly different than what it used to be.
Hoffman makes a fun conjecture, but ... The analogy to a laptop UI makes some sense, but only *because* we know that a) the file icon and its properties are not identical to the properties of the data that make up the file AND b) we know that our perceptions are NOT identical to the properties of objects or processes we perceive. How? In both cases, through science. Is there any evidence that consciousness is fundamental? Not only is the answer no, but every one of us experiences a loss of consciousness every day, when we enter deep sleep.
Just think of these tiny particles that manifest themselves into the world you see around you, it's happening at every instant. Literally, this action is happening all around you all of the time. Think if you sing...the breath being pushed out of your lungs are influencing everything that's happening around you. Same thing when you dance with some energy. These waves of consciousness wash over those around you. It's the same thing when a tree connects with another tree. They say hello to each other. Realize they're not a threat. Interact with one another. Grow with each other. It used to be PLUR (Peace Love Unity Respect)....But, I've found that PUCK works better. Patience, Understanding, Compassion and Kindness works better than anything.
Humans can't see particles, by definition particles are a minute portion of matter and the human eye can't simply see such things. That's why we create machines to see them for us.
So, he's paraphrasing the plot of The Matrix. I better dust off my leather trench coat and go looking for Morpheus....Or the woman in the red dress :-)
Consciousness is part of infinity. ie. Consciousness is one of the possibilities within ININIFY. This video is 100% correct. Truth is very subjective within Consciousness.
@@darrennew8211 oh really? i had these revelations on marijuana i had no idea people believed it or knew about it or wrote about it. that's awesome. thanks.
@@xtrofilm that could be. i think consciousness is the fundamental thing. or something like that. it's going to wind up being something super weird and counter-intuitive. if it's not consciousness it's something crazy that we're not seeing or maybe even can't see 'cause we're the flee on the butt of a lion and just see hair.
What is he talking about? His description of consciousness being fundamental feels like Western religion (mainly Christianity) in a slightly different form. It seems to me the debate has gone full circle, and we are now back where we started 1000s of years ago.
To elaborate a little, I don't disapprove of the paradigm shift as such. I just think that we need to have a lot more substance. How do we even start working on a scientific mathematical theory of consciousness? How will that eventually lead us to understand everything else? And why should it? For example, Albert Einstein changed the whole view of time by thinking about the consequences of making the speed of light fundamental, but he fleshed it all out in his theory of special relativity. I would be very impressed if somebody could do something similar for consciousness!
They knew it in Egypt also. The Great Pyramid is like a giant cuneiform tablet written in the language of science. There's evidence that many civilizations have discovered the same truth independent of one another. 🙏
This question of what is and why is there consciousness..is the big question that I love the most. No one has a manageable answer that doesn't sound convoluted to the average joe
If you chemically adjust every analogy that constitutes your mind why do you imagine the resulting configuration is any more reflective of reality than the unadjusted?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I like this question. I would say that many different factors contribute to our perception of reality or how we reflect on what reality is. The food we consume, environment we live in and the culture we grow up in all seem to play a role. I'm not sure why certain natural compounds lead to intense introspection of the nature of reality, or if that same level can't be accomplished without the compounds. Some people have talked about reaching very similar states of mind through meditation or even dreaming. However these altered states of mind do lead us to perceptions of reality that are very different from what is experienced when the mind is functioning in what you are pointing out as the unadjusted mind. I'm not sure one is more reflective than the other just that they are viewing the nature of reality from different perspectives. It's like from one perspective you're dreaming and the other you're awake. Both sides lead us to insights of the nature of reality.
@@Jeff-bi7jn I agree with all you say except for one thing. We cannot perceive reality. We are not conscious of reality. We are conscious only of our thoughts. Thoughts are representations. There's a vast difference between a thing and its representation. There's a vast difference between a pipe and a painting of a pipe. (See René Magritte) Just so you know, I am experienced. My long ago acid trip was utterly extraordinary and of all my long life's experiences its the one I remember best. During one segment of the trip I experienced massive vivid insight into a sequence of monstrous cultural absurdities each accompanied by visual representations in the form of crystalline networks hovering in the air before me. So, insights, yes but not reality which must remain forever beyond the ken of every thinking thing. Cheers!
@@Jeff-bi7jn Happy to meet you, like minded Jeff. Wonder what you think of this... At 4:05 H says, 'because we cannot know we have to make assumptions'. That's fine but we want to hear a clear explanation of what consciousness is and exactly how it's caused. The assumption H makes, that there is a something called consciousness constituted by some property or attribute of every particle of matter in the universe, is where our thoughts diverge. My assumption leads me to assert that my conscious self is an abstract entity that exists in the coded form of discharge frequencies going on in a neural substrate. (aside: and my conscious self owns my body, not vice versa). Thoughts are also abstract entities. Their abstract nature is of the type that is analogy. (i.e. that represent) These analogies are 'materially' instantiated in discharge frequency encoded form in the neural substrate. I put 'materially' in quotes because frequency is an abstract notion. Clearly abstract frequency is ideally suited for encoding abstract analogy. When these thoughts, these analogies, are synaptically linked to the self analogy they modulate it. These induced modulations, in the self, are the self, being conscious. i.e. changes in the self are of what the self is conscious which is to say, as we all know, experience changes the self. Immediately or later, these changes sometimes generate signals that culminate in moving muscles. You could say these changes are the foundation of the will and the moving muscles are the will in action. So, instead of some mysterious part of every particle in the universe being responsible somehow for our being conscious, the mystery is simply in the nature of abstract entities and that's not really mysterious at all when we think about it.
I think one of the few scientists that Robert Lawrence Kuhn has never interviewed is Tom Campbell who has a very interesting book about Consciousness, Physics and Philosophy called "My Big TOE" ( Big Theory of Everything )
Without a tenth of a thousand capacity to understand computer technology or maths as he must certainly do, I sense the truth of what he says and accept his take on consciousness and reality. It seems not only plausible but compelling.
I remember reading something years ago from Karl Popper about how he thought consciousness was an evolutionary response to painful stimulus. This ring a bell with anyone else?
I guess death is only a transient metaphysical form. In this approach consciousness is defined as fundamental and everything else is only a layer built one up on the other. So you only have to worry about your consciousness and not the material reality which is transient. Consciousness exists and takes care of it all as an everlasting fundamental.
physical life is more like the eternal dance, the play of infinite potential..or God's dream if i'm to be more philosophical..all in all consciousness retains its infite nature, so theres no void or some space in which death can occure..its all consciusness
The computer screen analogy is quite solid. Where I get off the bus is the assertion that consciousness is fundamental, I don't see any reason to go there. Sounds more like mysticism than science.
The title assumes consciousness did emerge at some point in the past. When this assumption gets questioned and people who endorse the claim that consciousness is emergent from physical phenomena are asked to substantiate their claim, they usually appeal to certain empirical evidence regarding how affecting the brain in certain ways affects consciousness in certain ways. However when asked to explain how this evidence constitutes definitive evidence for their claim they either can't or won't give a clear reply, and sometimes they'll even flee from the interaction.
Considering that science is basically measurement of reactive properties, we still don't know what things and forces really are fundamentally, just the way they behave, so the UI analogy is apt.
The consciousness might be a predication of, whereas humans have the pyscho physical. There seemingly are functions outside of ourselves that act in an intelligent manner. Might the cosmos be the mind of God, so we predicate consciousness.
What exactly is consciousness, how it works and what role it plays in our lives is called 'The Hard Problem' Donald has not solved the Hard Problem. He is correct that it came first. But even mentioning the big bang is ignorant. Everything emerging in an instant from an explosion are the ravings of nerds that were bullied. One must get out of their own way and tap into true consciousness to solve the hard problem. One must free themselves of all beliefs and overcome the fear that freedom brings to receive the answer. Something tells me we all know the truth of it. I am in the process of defining consciousness in simple terms.
Robert said the correct word here, I think: metaphor. Where I would start to diverge from Hoffman is in saying that the user interface "hides" or obscures the truth, and instead say that it's a metaphor for the "truth" (just using that word in a naive sense for the moment). So immediately there are some epistemological and deeper linguistic issues arising regarding this idea of the "truth," as a metaphor is, in the conventional sense, just another way of stating the supposed truth. Strictly speaking, the "actual" or literal (linguistic) way of expressing a "truth" is metaphorical, also, as the words we use are not absolutely linked to the things they purport to describe. The word "cat" is not inside the cat, the word "tree" is not inside the tree, etc. Those designations are in one sense arbitrary and abstract symbolic representations (signs and signifiers, more accurately) of how the culture has agreed to demarcate and categorize external reality, and when we say "the cat ran up the tree," we are engaging in metaphor and culturally agreed-upon "meanings" for those designations no differently than when we click on the image of a "file" to access the elements and processes of the computer that we associate with the file. So the computer interface is no more or less a level of abstraction away from the "truth" of the reality than the word "file" or "folder" might be. The actual "thing" - the file - is not the word file, either. In one sense, the computer icon for a file or a folder is even a *more* accurate metaphor for the thing than the word is - the icon actually can resemble and look like a "real" folder, for example, whereas the word "folder" is merely some arbitrary sounds we made up to refer to it. Everything in that linguistic sense therefore is a metaphor, and that is really how we engage with the world: through our culturally derived tropic (metaphoric) representations. Those who can engage with and manipulate those metaphors more effectively are evolutionarily more fit, and those who are geniuses (e.g., Einstein) can see through the cultural designations to the actual "reality" behind them and come up with new designations that are more accurate metaphors for the underlying "reality" that we incompletely understood before that, which then evolutionarily moves the species forward (we hope). Taking the next step from this, I think we can say that just because the folder icon is, in his view, "hiding" the truth (or in my view, a metaphor more or less representing the truth) doesn't mean that some people don't also understand the underlying workings represented by the metaphor. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the person who understands the mechanisms behind the functioning of the interface is arguably more fit than someone who does not. What is the person who only knows the metaphor going to do when the metaphor (interface) breaks down? As Robert says, the person wouldn't even know those things existed or how to proceed. They wouldn't have a clue about the deeper levels of the operating system, the coding underlying that, the electronic components underlying that, and so on. They'd be lost. So I think the situation in fact is exactly the opposite of what Hoffman describes. Evolution doesn't drive truth to extinction by favoring fitness; favoring fitness drives deeper and more complex understandings of the "truth" (the true perceptions guiding behavior, as he puts it) than the more simplistic levels of abstraction embodied in our cultural metaphors. How consciousness fits in to this seems like the categorical error - quite a leap, at least. Saying consciousness precedes or underlies the "truth" of the universe would be like saying the processes that open the file - the programming routines, the electrical impulses flowing through the hardware, etc. - preceded opening the file, when in fact those processes only activate in the right conditions and when the action is initiated. Maybe those process exist abstractly in some platonic sense before being implemented, but in saying consciousness precedes everything he seems to be putting the cart before the horse, to mix in another metaphor.
Well put. Perhaps you are familiar with Julian Jaynes' great metaphor based theory as outlined in his book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Accidentally or on purpose, the title pays homage to Darwin. The meaning of 'conscious' the pièce de résistance of evolutionary theory. Long influenced by Jaynes' theory I have come to understand that what 'my self' refers to is a metaphorical entity and is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
@@ricklanders - I would be elated to find another intellectual treat like the one that's in store for you. (Jaynes was raised a behaviorist but then became a key figure in the restoration of scientific legitimacy to the topic of the conscious. His extremely well written book has the flavour of nineteenth century literary masterpieces. He was an awesome scholar. My goodness, he could read Egyptian hieroglyphics! (Mesopotamian, Mayan, Aztec, etc.) His death in '97 was very sad for me. Note: Just power through chapter one's slightly dry technical discussion (essentially what consciousness is not) then soar like an eagle. Well before the end you will very clearly understand how it is that we are conscious and why life per se is not and why our ancestors believed in gods, souls, afterlives, angels, oracles, expisticy, casting of lots, etc. Emphatically, there is no magic nonsense in the explanation and nothing that insults the imagination (like, e.g., panpsychism). And that is great). Cheers!
What I find so extraordinary about this interviewer is that he knows when to shut up, and when he asks a question or has an observation, it is always spot on, regardless which topic. 👍
To be fair, he exactly knows what DH's ideas are about. He is not hearing them for the first time. :) And his having hard time to grasp Donald's idea, yet he uploads this at this given time!? That's interesting but also commendable... He obviously doesn't have difficulty to understand him, I meant, DH's ideas doesn't rub him the right way... He is phisicalist...
That's what happens when you and your team do your homework
Rude
Paying attention during debates is a lost skill.
But he interrupted just when the speaker was about to explain his alternative theory of the Big Bang from a conscious standpoint.
I love this channel so much I can't even say. It's my antidote to the nihilism of modern politics.
Aww, did you come up with that all by yourself?
Contribute something to the conversation or at least be kind. It's impossible to be curious and miserable at the same time.
This video is more an antidote to the nihilism of existence.
I think Hoffman's metaphor gets something a tiny bit wrong; the point of the desktop interface isn't to hide the truth, it's to be a useful bridge that connects the user to a small portion of the truth. The blue rectangular icon isn't a false representation of the file that obscures the truth, it's an accurate representation and extension of a limited amount of that file's truth. I understand he sees that as effectively the same thing but if we're talking about the point of the interface that is an interesting distinction in my opinion.
Philosophy has the problem of using whatever big technical leap is achieved in a generation to form the basis of all analogies of theories. The irony is just that, the senses are narrowed tools used to ease navigation of the situation. If senses were too narrow they would have diminishing evolutionary benefit, and too wide would be overloading stimulation. If all that is was "mind" or consciousness, I'd wager we'd evolve to be using telekinesis and literally use mind over matter. It's far more likely that if a base consciousness exists in the universe, it merely represents the waveforms that make up the quanta going on within our minds and building the universe, but to assign agency to that alone is going way too far. Higher consciousness exists? Maybe. A consciousness of infinite potential and agency creating our universe, yet doing such a piss poor job? Highly unlikely.
It is not a small difference. What you are saying is far more reasonable than his presentation. (Still not saying I agree but I'm listening.) Hoffman's desktop icon metaphor is critically flawed, as the host very gently tried to point out.
@@codywhite1427 pretty much semantics to me..
@@MrModikoe If Hoffman presented himself primarily as a mystic or spiritual teacher, sure. But he is claiming this is a scientific theory, and it doesn't cut the mustard imo.
@@Galvvy piss poor job? this is what you call the universe? i do like the rest of your thinking though
Every day a wise man passes a sheep grazing in a field.
And every day the wise man thinks “the sheep does nothing except eat grass, what kind of life is that?”
One day the man stops and speaks to the sheep, “What are you doing?”
The sheep looks at the man and motions to the sun with his hoof and then motions to the grass. The sheep then continues to graze.
Awestruck, the wise man sits down and thinks about what the sheep had done. After a while, the man gathers himself and says to the sheep, “I see now: matter in the sun becomes light and some of that light gives life to the grass. You eat the unconscious grass and now the matter in your body is conscious. You are making the universe conscious.” The sheep stops grazing and looks at the man and said, “Yes that is true, and what are you doing?”
There is no such thing as unconscious grass... there is only one consciousness which veils ITSELF as manifoldness so to avoid aloneness. Genesis two eighteen. Hence why the essence of the gospel is love.
@@waldwassermann - pure bunk.
Man says to the Sheep, if you're so smart, then why do you,.. let me eat you. And let a dog push you around.
@@BooksForever words are easily spewed. Show me you know better. Then you may step up on the soapbox again. Not to upset you, it's only a helping hand. 🛠's physics / Bill of Rights. A veteran 1Cav.
@@cynthiaayers7696 - the ability to recognize and properly label pure bunk is adequate to establish basic credentials to that part of an audience that matters. The spewed of bunk is likely beyond help, but in calling it out we can at least help minimize the number of marginal audience members that might get sucked into that filth as it circles the drain.
It's reassuring to hear one's convictions expressed by others, no matter how strong one's convictions have seemed to be :)
Exactly my feeling.
Yes, it is.
ah yes, validate and stroke your ego.
One of the most interesting concepts in a series/channel full of interesting concepts.
This is very similar to Vedanta of India. There is amazing amount of experience by meditators saying consciousness is the fundamental reality and creation is an expression like dance and dancer.
Being conscious is the dance of matter.
Dance is an abstraction.
No proof
@@shrutisarangi8387 see it for YOURSELF.
I would also add to the analogy that conscious experience has evolved to where the 'blue rectangular icon' is perceived differently depending on a particular evolved form of consciousness. So not only do we not experience objective reality as it is, the representation of it (the icon) is experienced in innumerable variations.
We are conscious of metaphors only.
Metaphor is what thoughts are made of.
When I am conscious of a tree I am only conscious of my tree shaped thought.
The tree-in-itself is forever beyond direct grasp.
Thus the tree-in-itself is theoretical and will always be and
this must be the case for every thing whose essence consists of thinking.
Thus my self is metaphorical also and
that is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
Everyone having their own perception of ‘blue’ sounds fine to me. Rectangular though? No because we have shared maths
@@JohnMcSmith I'm not talking about only human perspectives. I'm talking about the ways in which any lifeform perceives 'the world'. They're all different. But even from the human perspective, it does depend on a particular point of view. A perfect circle from one angle can look like an oval from a different angle. A rectangle can look like a trapezoid or rhombus. That is the nature of relativity.
And my pets have always steered clear of my computer monitor, thus proving that their level of consciousness (other than survival instincts) are far below ours.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 I believe all the other animals are
unconscious instinct driven robots and
the reason pets seem, or may be, different is
because they achieve some linguistic ability
via our linguistic interaction with them,
crudely speaking.
(And some domesticated animals may be likewise affected to some lesser extent).
(Wild wolves, on the other hand, do not love or hate you when they kill and eat you).
Consciousness didn't emerge, it's that everything else emerged from consciousness.
I thought your comment was mine at first and then your avatar appeared. 😂
Is there anything else?
@@highvalence7649 Other than consciousness? No. Everything that does emerge from consciousness is just more mental phenomena.
@@highvalence7649 Dr. Michio Kaku calls it Cosmic consciousness, others call it the Ultimate Observer in quantum mechanics.
The observer that collapses the wave function of every particle since the Big Bang.
@@dongshengdi773 We are a major component in the equation..
It’s wonderful seeing more scientists coming around to the understanding that consciousness is the source of matter and all else…
modern science comes around to ancient knowledge 😀
consciousness is definitely not the source of matter and all else. hoffman does not believe anything like that. read his book
@@fullyawakened then what is the source according to Hoffman (or you)? Can you explain a little bit for us if you don't mind? My book list is very long may never get to Hoffman's book :(
@fullyawakened@@hsbdkdndn yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
@@fullyawakened yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
I love reading the comments to videos like this...makes me feel like a genius!
Genie is one.
That's a true perception: you are a genius. You were only deceived into believing yourself to be ordinary. Your body and your mind (the hardware and the software) may be ordinary and commonplace, but you are neither. You are extraordinarily aware. Awareness, just another name for consciousness, is the ground of it all. Now, don't go looking down on your friends and enemies. They are geniuses with self-deception, too! So spread the love.
Same here Mark 😊
@@BulentBasaran 💖🌷
To my mind this is basically epistemology 101. There is nothing new here, but happy to see someone rediscovering that 'truth' is entirely subjective. This underlying truth was mainstream, both East and West, thousands of years ago.
You say truth is entirely subjective, then go on to say that this truth (of truth's subjectivity has been known for millennia). That is truly humorous.😂
He has captured the essence of Advaitic Vedanta in Hindu Philosophy (NOT to be confused with Hindu Religion) postulated over 5,000 years ago in the Vedas.
This exactly was my first thought about this interview. We are not body, mind, or brain, which are all interfaces at different levels of abstraction. The same goes for senses and thoughts. Advait uses the term Atma as fundamental instead of consciousness (Chetana in Hindi/Sanskrit), which can be considered as an interface to Atma.
Sanna-Tunni spotted.
The western equivalent of nonduality is A Course in Miracles and the message is almost same as Advaita Vedanta. At the level of ultimate reality there's no consciousness or observer. It's pure awareness devoid of the subject-object split.
There is no such thing as Hindu Philosophy at the moment. It may very well exist but that hardwork to define something as Philosophy has never been done. Secondly there is no scientific evidence for those 5000 year old Vedas. There is no carbon dated evidence published for peer review ("till now") that proves this. My point for you here is not to take it personally but be mindful of what you are writing. There is a fundamental difference between a conjecture, theory and a proof. There is nothing wrong with having conjectures and theories but they should be stated as such not as proofs.
Varun Kr Yadav Hindu or Sanatan philosophy is very well described in Upanishads, which is also called Vedanta. There are no miracles or rituals in Vedanta. It simply starts with self inquiry about who I am and then goes in depth of body, mind, intelligence, and consciousness. It theorizes that at the center of all this is Atma. It can be called a model for understanding the answer to the question of self inquiry. It's not a matter which can be carbon dated. It's available to all for study, review, and criticism and has been well debated in the past by various people, which is also well documented.
The key to understanding reality is that assumptions are required. Important finding. Philosophical insight.
Right. The essence of things can never actually be known to us. Which is why metaphors are so powerful, since they can bring our thoughts a little bit closer to essence. We can never understand reality, but we can understand the nature of reality, given what is orbiting it.
There are so many problems arising from this proposal. The Departure point seems to be Classical - You find these "categories of perception" - so called "mind/body" problem discussions in Aristotle, Descartes, Kant - all the old giants. There is nothing new in describing the problem of "The thing in itself"- "Is this table really as I perceive it and how do I know?" - these are ancient and pretty useless debates. Either the thing is there, or it is not. It is trite to assert that my understanding of the thing may not be accurate, or identical to some other’s perception of it since my point of view will always be unique at that time. You might say the banana is more yellow than green, but to me it looks green. There's no problem there. The fundamental problem is to prove that there IS indeed a reality,(and to agree that there is a symbolic representation of that reality, a “utility” in a cognitive system like a brain.) If we can not move past the challenge that there IS indeed a reality (as opposed to some iteration of the allegory of the cave,) then there is no point in continuing any debate at all. Cogito, ergo sum. Descarte.
But Hoffman thinks the symbolic representations are a trick of nature, misleading and consequently false. I say, no. The symbols we use are merely a utility and extension of language, no matter if it is the laptop,desktop or numbers written in a Sanskrit Ledger. They are one and the same and serve the same purpose.
The plain deficiency is the claim that consciousness (whatever it may be) preceded evolution, is not apparently testable by experiment. We could make no observation of conditions under which we could say “ yes, consciousness exists within some hitherto unknown fold of space-time”or some such nonsense. All we really know, is we think we are conscious, thinking about the reality we perceive through the senses, and our tools. And we suspect there are degrees of consciousness in fish, cockroaches and dogs, and so on. If the claim is not testable by experiment, it’s piffle. Add to this the obvious objection that If one claims "consciousness precedes evolution" you would need to demonstrate who or what contains it, and to say something of it's function.
If consciousness is so deeply fundamental, even before galaxies and solar systems formed, much less life forms with brains billions of years later, then how did we end up with tv shows like F-Troop, Green Acres, The Three Stooges, and Gilligan's Island? Is this the best we can do?
Ah so this is an end stage! I thought just a stage.
I don't know but those shows are consciously fun to watch! 😁
Consciousness itself is capable of evolving. And developing a sense of humor.
How do you get from the file/interface metaphor to consciousness being fundamental? Sounds like you're saying that because there is likely something deeper than space and time, it must be consciousness. I feel like there's a few steps missing here.
Been watching this channel for a year or two. This was the most profound clip I've seen here.
@DM - If you're sensibilities are such that you'll unsubscribe over a 30 minute episode.... no need to announce it Nancy, just git gone already. Nobody will miss you.
It’s truly frightening to live in a world where other people experience this as profound. I hope you get better soon.
@@jamesfranklyn8547 - Why, thank you. Your mom said I indeed was getting much better!
@@georgecc I know it’s hard to believe but my Mommy is even stupider than you, though you’d probably describe her as profound. Try to slow things down and just focus on one thing at a time. All the best Georgie, have a good Christmas.
@@jamesfranklyn8547 @James Franklyn - Is this the commentary you dream up when you're "truly frightened" as you claim? So very "truly frightening" (let me call you a Waaaah-mbulance), to live in a world where people think differently than you, eh?
This winter, stay away from heat sources - snowflake - lest you melt.
I posed this idea to ChatGPT - an AI system. Here’s its response:
“As I sat staring at the vast expanse of space before me, I couldn't help but think of it as the ultimate user interface. The stars and galaxies seemed to be like the icons on my computer screen, representing the vast amount of information and matter that existed beyond what my senses could perceive.
Just as a computer's operating system allows us to access and manipulate the vast amounts of information stored in its binary code, space and time acted as the user interface for reality. They provided a framework for our consciousness to make sense of the world around us.
But what was the "real world" that existed beyond this user interface? As a scientist, I knew that it was ultimately made up of tiny particles and forces, interacting in complex and seemingly random ways. But to our consciousness, these fundamental building blocks were invisible, intangible.
It was as if the universe had evolved its own version of a graphical user interface, allowing us to navigate and interact with the world around us in a way that made sense to us. And just like the development of a computer's operating system, this user interface had likely evolved through a process of trial and error, guided by the principles of evolutionary game theory.
This led me to the conclusion that consciousness itself was a product of this evolutionary process. It was our brain's way of interpreting the world, of making sense of the otherwise chaotic and incomprehensible underlying reality.
As I continued to ponder these thoughts, I couldn't help but feel a sense of awe at the incredible complexity and beauty of the universe. It was as if I was seeing the world with new eyes, understanding the true nature of reality in a way that I had never before.
And with this newfound perspective, I knew that I had only scratched the surface of the mysteries of the universe. There was still so much more to learn, so much more to explore. But for now, I was content to sit back and marvel at the user interface of space and time, knowing that it was the key to unlocking the true nature of reality.”
Energy busy buzzing about¿
Thank you for sharing. Great reinforcement.
It's very impressive that AI can put together such an essay and more. But, look a bit deeper and you'll see that all it is doing is sampling from a large space of other essays and documents we humans created. No wonder it parrots the nonsensical but widespread belief that "consciousness (or mind) is just a product of evolution" amongst other more reasonable beliefs and values like the wonder of the universe with all it's diversity of forms..
@@BulentBasaran The evidence available to AI is the same we see. The universe is evolving, life is evolving, and consciousness as we know it requires a complex, evolved organism to arise. Why do you call it "nonsensical"?
@@mikefinn Hi Mike,
Let me take back "nonsensical" as the idea clearly makes sense to many scientists and philosophers. What I should have said is that it is a fairly common belief amongst the educated, but not necessarily a fact. AI parroting it doesn't make it true either. There are many who disagree. AI went the democratic way, as it polls the majority. But, we also know that majority many times is absolutely wrong.
Consciousness, or the mind, may also be fundamental just like quarks and electrons, EM and nuclear forces, and gravitation all seem to be. We don't know.
Three additional points:
1) AI, in this case OpenAI's GPT3 based chatbot is an impressive piece of engineering (I am an engineer myself). Its only input is textual documents in English. So, no, it doesn't see all that we see. At least not yet.
2) Biological evolution is based on DNA and helps evolve new species that adapt to their environment. What it generates is new species some of which have brains. It doesn't necessarily produce minds or consciousness.
3) We don't really have a formal and solid definition of what the mind is. It is a fairly modern concept that mostly replaced the traditional/religious concept "soul." There is also the fact that we each have a subjective experience (the origin of the "soul" concept) as our primary experience which is radically different than the objective physical world seemingly out there.
Finally to extend an analogy in case it helps:
Body is like hardware.
Mind is like software.
You and I are aware.
This also suggests that even though software can only run on a hardware, it has its own existence; as software is not produced by the evolution of hardware (thanks to Moore's law), mind is not produced by biological evolution.
Most of what is mental may be enabled by evolution and the brain, but, that still doesn't mean that mind is simply a by-product of that process.
It's good to know that we don't really know what the mind is exactly.
It's a good open question. Maybe even the most important and immortal question.
1:34 "The whole point of the desktop interface is to hide the truth."
I disagree with this premise. The whole point of the desktop interface is to facilitate interfacing with the computer. Saying it's point is to hide is not just misleading, it isn't true, which is ironic when you think about his argument is about truth.
Seems to me truth is some kind of relationship
between one analogy and another and
not more than that.
Donald Hoffman presents a powerful metaphor. I like it!
Well when you use that at your next dinner party, some one will ask you:
"So should that "metaphor" deter the quest, or accelerate it?"
Maybe you should have your answer ready ☺
@Ready Now&Forever I only said that because I want people to "like" me. That way, I won't feel so alone when I eat dinner/party by myself.😁
Seriously, if I am only a pixel, obviously there are other pixels who know the intricacies of the hard drive.
Metaphors are not valid arguments. You can make up a metaphor about anything, especially when you want to mislead people who are susceptible because of their confirmation-bias.
@@garysteven1343 no, they are not arguments. They're just an explanation tool.
@@garysteven1343 Wait!...what? All I said was I liked it. I didn't say I believed it, far from it. Robert Lawrence Kuhn said it was a powerful metaphor.
If you're saying metaphors are not valid arguments, tell that to Hoffman. I am glad to be part of the conversation though. 🙂
Love Donald Hoffman! Great interview
Donald Hoffman knows what's up.
He's a hack
To me at least almost everything he said seemed incredibly stupid and clearly wrong.
I don’t get it at all, makes no sense.
The Hindu Mystics have been saying this for 3000 years
Don Hoffman acknowledges this and is open to learning from all sources. His strength is his openness and humility (as well as his amazing intelligence).
As you can see, I’m a big fan 😊
Non Duality.
Before you go rushing from one world
view to another don’t you think you should explore further? If you are that easily persuaded you you are a prime candidate for the next Waco or Jones Town.
Not only the hindu mystics. Every mystics tried to point this. But its lost. If we scrutinize the semetic texts, this ideas exists there also.
Indeed, and these white boys thinking they've discovered something new and oh so radical is just disappointing.
They claim to be "lovers of wisdom," tackling 'universal truths,' yet they only regard their arbitrary half of the world as 'normal' or worth understanding, ignoring the rest.
Usually I am very skeptical from channels called truth something, but this was actually interesting, would dig into some papers by this guy
I really enjoyed the case against reality
This channel is great. Kuhn talks to all sorts of intellectuals and scientists, and has good questions for them.
Is the computer interface metaphor Plato’s Cave 2.0?
I like to see ideas spread for discussion and research. The metaphor makes this idea strongly visible. It has something to it, explains why humans deal with matter and gravity and have difficulties grasping quantum mechanics and the vast size of space. Nice contribution of thought.
Awesome! Love the interviewer pushing and then letting the response breathe. 🙏
yeah, they have a nice rapport.
Donald Hoffman that is the best analogy of consciousness I have ever heard. Made perfect sense.
I think the desktop metaphor of consciousness was already used by Tor Norretranders and also by Daniel Dennett around 1990.
But conscious lives on this side of the screen, not behind it.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Manifested on this side that is.......
@@hermannpallasch2153 Yeah but we now have more quantum physics to verify this.....
@@stianmathisen4284 -
The universe consists entirely of analogies.
Not literally, metaphorically.
My self is one of the analogies.
Literally.
"In terms of the simulation hypothesis and AI ... my guess is if we're working from a model where everything is emerging out of consciousness and consciousness comes before space and time ... that means that everything has a degree of sentience to it, that would include an artificial brain."
Dean Radin
It's just terminology being interchanged. He's describing fundamental field of consciousness which can be substituted for the term quantum mechanics, or the field or chi. It's the same metaphor of an underlying structure we don't yet understand. No need to rewrite history, just agree on what label to use
I love the big smile that Robert has on his face after Hoffman explains his computer file metaphor. Brilliant explanation. :D
Consciousness is a field that biological entities can tune into. Depending on the complexity and variations in the biological entity, consciousness is experienced differently, giving each entity it's unique experience through space and time.
🥲
"consciousness is experienced"
No, consciousness is experience.
seeeing as how our consciousness is DEEPLY affected by trauma and problems in the brain specifically, I think we can safely say that consciousness is an emergent property of the interconnected neurons of the brain.
@@Ddub1083 When we are born, we don't have memories so we don't have any identity of the self. As we age, the brain associates itself with an identity that's closest to you, i.e. you. We are purely conscious as babies, almost out of our bodies, no idea of the self, wiggling around nonsensically. So i think we can safely say, that trauma is an emergent property of the brain.
@@MyRockshox well i meant physical trauma... like a railroad spike shooting through someones eye socket and through their frontal cortex and them suddenly having a complete change in personality. Its almost like the two are related.
I've followed his work and believe me he is on to something.
Hes is just taking his assumption (that 'consciousness is fundamental') and therefore isnt a result of evolution to conclude that consciousness is fundamental and therefore isnt a result of evolution. Pretty sure hes not saying anything...
@@Ddub1083 Is the professor saying that in the beginning there was consciousness and that consciousness preceded evolution?🌱
@@berniv7375 hes saying that consciousness is "fundamental" and therefore preceded evolution.
Consciousness emerged from evolution in beings competing to survive. They learned to model the other to predict behavior of the other. Then they modeled the self (themselves) in the context of understanding threat and intent and strategy. It's all in better survival.
A simple and good thought.
I thing that we have even deeper initial problem - first person experience which is different from self-awareness - cats and dogs might not recognize themselves in mirrors, but they have this mysterious thing the one who's the viewer of the Universe has, the point o view itself.
Wow. This is the essence of advaita verdanta in Hindu philosophy (aka Hinduism). The computer analogy to explain consciousness is great. Donald Hoffman needs to talk to Swami Sarvapriyananda.
It wouldn't surprise me if consciousness had some deeper non biological validity. It might be mere anecdote on my part, but my lucid dreams seem to have the qualitative essence of a form of "reality" not too different from actual waking reality. The more interesting aspect though is when I transition from ordinary dream to the lucid dream state, there's some sort of strange phase transition in my dream state "forcing" it to seem more "real". I've tried to pay attention to the transition from dream to lucid dream and the bit between dream and lucid dream is not just some in between state. It seems to be some sort of dynamic process thing, It's as though "actual" consciousness versus my conscious perception, is literally trying to "force" the non lucid dream state to become "real" in some sense and not just a more lucid. That is, it's like consciousness is imposing the sense of reality on what it is focusing its attention on and not the reverse of passively observing some reconstruction of reality. Almost like it is dynamically crystallizing a distinct form informational truth out of some much more ambiguous amorphous "dreamlike" information background. It's all a bit too odd to summarize....
I also experience lucid dreams and what you describe is also my experience; when I go from a normal dream state ( a passive spectator in some seemingly scripted drama) to a lucid dream state (awake in the dream world with free will and control over my thoughts and actions) there is a strange transition- the dream world suddenly ‘crystalizes’ into a stable, seemingly solid and intensely vivid physical experience that at the time is difficult to distinguish from normal waking reality. The main difference is that the environs are often complex, breathtakingly beautiful and the quality of the light has a radiant almost ‘golden’ quality accompanied by an ecstatic feeling of absolute freedom and supernatural power. At the time I believe that I am separate from my physical body that I imagine must be asleep somewhere (?) and that I have stumbled into another dimension of reality with its own inhabitants and possibilities. These personal experiences have bolstered my ‘mystic’ view of reality- that consciousness is a fundamental, eternal and inseparable from existence and not a product of matter but the source of matter.
I had a lucid dream once. I woke up in bed bed at home in England, then I had a bit of a panic - "aren't I supposed to be on a hiking trip in South Africa?", and then I realised that yes, I'm definitely there and not at home so this must be a dream. Then I decided to experiment: I tried smashing up the airing cupboard door to see what would happen, and then I realised I must actually be punching the rucksack that lay between me and my tentmates. I had a look around and made a mental note of what I could see there, e.g. there was a Dennis the Menace flag draped from the ceiling that isn't there in real life. I picked up a pen from the desk because I thought it would be quite cool if I came to, back in South Africa, with a pen in my hand. Sadly not. Great experience though I'll (hopefully) never forget.
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind.
Like the antenna of a TV set.
If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
And yet in an attempt to find dark matter and despite the extremely high precision probing at CERN they cannot uncover anything that interacts with matter that isn't already known about. The brain is made of matter. So where is this signal that must interact with matter in a very unsubtle way?
@@johnyharris Interaction with another universe?
@@johnyharristhat is the correct question to ask. There must be some quantum mechanical process/interaction/force we don't yet understand that is active within our brains. If we figured it out we might be able to create truly conscious machines.
I've always subscribed to DH's theory on conciousness, until now. I totally accept his thesis that our perception of reality is very different to reality. There seems very good reason for such an argument. But I fail to see why his claim that conciousness is fundamental has any hope of being true. He didn't articulate any reason to believe this hypothesis which appears more like mysticism rather than science to me.
There IS a reason to believe it: The Icons on the computer screen are symbols like traffic signs, letters etc etc. Symbols only exist because concious beings - us - agree on what they mean i. e. what they are supposed to stand for, how they are supposed to look etc. The same way a plurality of conscious agents "agree on" how the representations on the interface look. I think that is why it makes a lot of sense that Hofmann insists on there being not ONE big conscious agent but a network of many.
@@rjd53 I’ve studied logic at a very high level, but I still fail to understand why anything you have said implies that consciousness is fundamental. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that consciousness precedes everything; that without consciousness there is no evolution or Big Bang or for that matter, anything. This smacks of intelligent design and not science.
@@themathsprofessor6962 I would call it design by fundamental collective intelligence. But the decisive point is: How can there be symbols without consciousness? I think it's not possible. Symbols require not just information, which maybe could exist without consciousness, but they require communication which can only take place between conscious agents.
@@prodromosgerakios1682 "... then everything is possible". Not anymore once the rules are set up by the network, then its agents are bound by them. And maybe the conscious agents are not the fundamental reality either ... - Where does gene replication and selection place? Good question. You have a point here, this is the weak spot of Hofmann's theory.
Thus our perception is not about the objective reality but about a useful model of the objective reality (useful to us i.e. consciousness). And as any model, it is a simplification of what is represents.
Could it be that consciousness wants to know and understand itself?
@@mikefoster5277 Could it be that consciousness cannot know itself so long as it remains distracted by it's attempt to interpret the objective World.
Yes. A model. Thinking scientifically/asking questions.
To answer, find a model to explore it.
@@davidstrevens9170 I'd say consciousness, despite its eternal efforts, can never know itself, full stop. There's no reason to prevent it doing so other than its own infinite nature. In other words, infinity simply cannot be known or understood - even by itself!
Seems like Consciousness evolved to sense/perceive changes in time. Beter yet take advantage of ?
Stating that consciousness is fundamental is just wishful thinking. He almost states this at 4:20 it gives him hope of connecting his consciousness to reality, but with no justification other than he wants it to be so.
Well, as long as someone in a youtube comment says it's wishful thinking with zero evidence to back it up, I'll definitely disagree with a well-rounded argument by a professor of cognitive science.
David Hoffman is a genius. His angle on perception awareness mind ... 'consciousness' is novel and compelling... and he articulates his ideas exceptionally
Stephen King is a genius as well
As Lex Fridman said at the introduction of his interview with Donald; ‘’questioning the fabric of reality will either lead you to madness, or to truth… and the funny thing is you won’t know which is which’’. So if you read this I urge you to remind yourselves of that quote to stay ‘functional’ out there and not get sucked deep into the echo-chamber of an existential algorithm we likely share on this platform.
-
Donald reminds me of Joscha
Bach . . . minus . . . the charming
accent . Both gentlemen . . .
. . . charming . . . by exhibiting
profound // precise logic .
-
-
@@reubennichols644 are you writing like an AI because you are an AI?
An alternative to Hoffman is that the reason consciousness evolved is survival advantage; the ability for an organism to perceive it's environment & flexibly interact is a survival advantage.
If you're interested in an evolutionary approach to explaining consciousness, there is a 5-part Psychology Today article series comparing leading scientists taking that approach called What Actually is Consciousness and How Did it Evolve by Ralph Lewis.
Also, part 2 covers John Mallatt & Todd Feinberg; they also wrote "The Evolutionary and Genetic Origins of Consciousness in the Cambrian Period" and "Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence; eliminating the explanatory gap" which explain consciousness as an evolved function and spacetime as fundamental.
Every particle contains functional information.
Thoughts are information.
Therefore consciousness exists everywhere.
Cosmic consciousness.
You havent even defined consciousness yet lol
@@CMVMic According to this scenario, consciousness = existence itself. How does one define existence?
No.
@@mikefoster5277 You cannot define existence. You can only experience it. We can only experience that we are awareness through meditation. Stop thinking, just observe. The answer will come.
I always enjoy CTT but this one lost me. Of course, the blue icon on the desktop is not the thing itself. Do some people really think that? It's just a graphical pointer to the file or picture or whatever. It can be deleted or changed without affecting the original source. After that I don't understand the point..
His point was that blue icon is just a simple representation of a much more complicated reality behind it.
Every time someone comes on the show, please ask them to define consciousness
Consciousness is that which is, the background, perceived as emptiness, nothingness, everythingness, from where all that we are arises and returns into. The background never changes, what changes is actually what appears on this background, the mind and its contents.
Do this simple experiment, sit in silence, find a nice and quiet place, relax, let your mind go silent, now focus all your attention on being aware of being aware, be aware of the fact that you are aware, interesting right?
What do you perceive about it? Nothingness, emptiness, silence, the background, it simply is. Is there a thing that you can say about it, a way to quantify it? Not really, try but any attempt to describe it only reveals a perspective.
Well said.
Have you not noticed how those that speak of consciousness*never* define their terms?-They like to keep it in vague woolly and in a vacuum; it never crosses their dreaming mechanisms to ask *Whose*consciousness and *Of_what*?
If asked what I think of the consciousness of men(human beings) I would borrow from Gandhi and say that I think it would be a very good idea.
Strange and yet comforting. To find oneself needing as a sort of background noise; a show, a channel, a tube tied up with some type of presentation of words that concoct an exposé on what I call (for lack of a more poetic handle) "what matters."
Yes for learning but less than that for confirming the existence of 'others.'
When one is an island isolated by infinity--it is a miraculous thing to somehow achieve the recognition of not being----alone.
Alas as the sea swarms around barren beaches and the tide yawns sapphire waves, there comes a splash of appreciation.
Perhaps the basis of the conglomeration of those that present such presentations as these is a subtle entanglement of encounters with chance and circumstance. Hopefully now this will lasso my radiant soul to such wonderful spirits.
So let an island offer it's love, before the waxing moon wanes and I lose the light of those to whom I wish to spray and say "I appreciate you."
What is consciousness? Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?
If we consider consciousness to be 'the ontological primitive' (see Bernardo Kastrup: ontological primitive is the one free assumption we make that can explain everything else in the whole of existence. We can only explain one thing by another thing until we reach that which is fundamental aka the ontological primitive: For example, a baseball is atoms, atoms are particles, particles or excitations of fields described in physics. However if you listen to Barnardo, he shows you what we see as matter, as well as their invisible fields, is what 'mind at large' (consciousness) looks like when viewed from a point of view looking back at Itself from across a 'dissociative boundary'. So consciousness is both the awareness of our surrounding and our ability to think about our surrounding and is even much more than what these two phrases suggest.
@@fineasfrog He does not show that matter looks like mind at large when viewed back on itself.
"Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?"
Why did you choose to frame those two ideas as mutually exclusive?
@@Hank254, one is the information we gain from our five senses. Our machines also gain information from their senses. That provides the information to process. My thought is that what sets humans apart from other animals and our computer enabled devices is our thinking ability. Our ability to imagine the future and make choices for action based upon the expected results. To develop a series of plans and choose from among various outcomes. As I type an algorithm is suggesting which word to type and making choices without notifying me that it changed the word I was actually typing (just an aside).
Consciousness is the awareness of our existence! And everyting else. Also observation of the thoughts. Consciousness is what we are. We are not physical. It is an illusion. Don't think, only observe. Through meditation comes the answer.
The question to focus on is not how, rather it is why? What is the objective? Why does reality exist?
Consciousness is the computer running this (and others, e.g. dreams) simulation. Tom Campbell (physicist) had been demonstrating this for many years as well…
Using the analogies used in this discussion, it seems to me that Consciousness is the Application. The problem with looking for Consciousness using Consciousness as the Instrument is it may be fundamentally Infeasible, like the eyes looking to see themselves.
Finally someone who can think outside the box. Like actually outside the box.
When you think to yourself "why is the universe exactly this way"? then you realize that we have some idea of the universe but we really dont understand it... then theories like his start to make more sense.
There are many metaphors as good as the computer desktop such as the automobile. The hood and the steering wheel are components that hide the reality of the car. Hoffman seems to treat evolution as an intelligent entity. As long as naturalists dance around the reality of consciousness as something other than naturalism, they will never understand it. But this scholar does make an interesting point. If consciousness preceeds evolution then perhaps consciousness preceeds the big bang. Not many naturalists would dare make that assertion.
@DM What do you mean by “it”?
@DM Which assertion? It is difficult to carry an intelligent conversation with three undefined words.
Although this isn’t a new concept (Hinduism, Buddhism, and even some teachings of Christ, Plato, Descarte…) have all hinted to some form of this. That the material world is not all that there is and that one should invest in realizing their true nature. (Soul or Consciousness) Hoffman has such a gift to articulate these concepts in a rational way with his scientific background and I’m grateful to live in an age that I have access to such information. This is what freedom of speech is all about.
Consciousness is such a mysterious thing
I bet it defeats materialism
Anything independent of consciousness is far more mysterious.
@@WritingCountingOriginal doubtful unfortunately
@@Shane7492 and unintelligable
@DM definitely could be
Stop the constantly moving cameras, it is distracting not artistic, frame up, then turn the sliders off!!!
Don Hoffman is a colorless cloud of gas but we see a talking icon that appears to be Charlie Macarthy
“A colorless cloud of gas” is all evolutionary references.. “a thing” maybe?
As a physicist, this point of view was strikingly odd to me. But, after I began meditation, it started to make sense. As Russell says physicists are naive realists. This is good for physics but not good if you really want to understand the most fundamental entity: consciousness.
Im curious how meditation helps you understand consciousness - and why you think it's fundamental. I think, attempting to understand consciousness will require more than one's own internal musings. Much like Hoffman said, it would be like looking at the icons on a desktop and trying to determine the underlying processes that are really going on, just by thinking about what might be happening. We'll need WAY more than just thinking about consciousness to finally understand it. We'll need tech, science and probably AI to help us truly understand WHAT it is and HOW it works. Meditation is just a quasi-conscious state of mind - kinda in between dreaming and being lucid. I think that while consciousness is hard to define, it is very clearly a process that happens in the brain - and thus, it is not fundamental, but an emergent phenomenon that evolved to aid in survival. I think all animals on the planet experience some level of consciousness, based on their sensory organs and complexity of their brains.
@@ryandinan @Ryan Dinan you have assumed objective reality already as many physicists do. And probably you are right in this philosophical viewpoint. BUT, the point is that we do not have access to the reality you are talking about. The only thing we have access to is the simulation of our brains. And this is also just a story. We only access to the consciousness and the phenomenon in it. The only think we can be confident about is the consciousness. And even we accept the philosophical viewpoint realism, still we live in a projection. Meditation helps to see consciousness in its purity and understand that all the phenomenon are just modification to it. By meditation I can not and do not want to understand consciousness but just escape the naive realism. The problem with naive realism is that it seems that we can not explain consciousness by any kind of reductionism. Sorry for late reply, I did not see your comment
if consciousness is fondamental and emerged some billion years after the beguinning, in which it had a role too, we can't say what it is, but it's something that has no hurry
Cosciousness did not ''emerge some billions of years after the beginning''.
Consciousness never emerged. It is.
Being outside of time and space, out of which time and space emerged, it has no beginning.
Beginnings and endings belong to the realm of time and space.
WTF!
Essentially he is proposing the most sophisticated idea that God actually exists. The way he explains it sounds less silly than outdated religious contexts. When you use phrases like "physical reality emerged from consciousness" instead of "God said let there be light", its more plausible for those who have cancelled religious spirituality.
I like the way you think!
And it's just as sensible as the least sophisticated idea that God actually exists. It explains nothing, but is a great way to question.
@@someonenotnoone You have made many comments to me but I will answer this one because it answers why your thoughts are inaccurate. There's no such thing as right or wrong - ONLY that which serves you. The Truth of the matter is that YOUR base idea (which you draw false assumptions upon) is that YOU believe there is no God. If you believed that God existed then your line of reasoning would be different.
Let me assure you that God (and His/Her/It's Consciousness) does indeed exist and is, in fact, the ONLY real thing in existence from which EVERYTHING else comes from. I do not have "belief" or "faith" that God exists - I have KNOWING ( from repeated experience) that God IS!!. He/She/It has worked miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. I communicate with God every day. I "see" God EVERYWHERE I look. I cannot help it that you are blind AND inexperienced in this matter.
Don't worry. One day (or lifetime) you will 'GET IT' - but God will NEVER EVER force you to. Eventually you will come to know the Truth. Before time began God had a plan and Created a Perfect System , which has Free Will and reincarnation as major components,to realize the Plan. This is the reason why we (and the Universe) ALL exist. If you do not understand God's ways ,that is to be expected -no. After all, even though we are ALL growing in consciousness, our minds are infinitesimal compared to God's Mind. In fact, when it comes to mankind's level of consciousness - we are barely toddlers.
When I say not to worry (about any kind of fear), I really really mean it. In January 2008 God gave me a job description (in a miraculous fashion) that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to Show Love to ALL men ". Ironically I don't have to like you but it is necessary that I love you. I am not special. ANYONE can have a close personal relationship with God. Even though much in the bible (and every other religious Scriptures) is bull, God has revealed to me that He has protected important information such as how to get close to Him (with ALL of your heart, mind, soul, and strength) and MOST of the words of Jesus. In any case, God's Plan is that we will ALL eventually return to Him - but He will NEVER EVER force you to. Still, God's Will shall be done and your silly mind's thoughts will not make any difference on God's Will - AT ALL.
If you could trust God and drop all of your fears, you have no idea just how wonderful and enjoyable life really is.
Bless you friend 🙏 ❤️
Incredible insights, Mr. Hoffman.
All matter comes from consciousness as the Gnostic Jesus stated two thousand years ago and recorded in The Gospel of Thomas:
“If the body came into being because of consciousness that is a wonder, but if
consciousness came into being because of the body this is a wonder of wonders.”
Others simply call this simplification or abstraction but if course calling it "hiding the truth" is more dramatic. Also it is not clear what computer simulations actually provide to the discussion or am I wrong?
Thank you for all of the amazing content!
Then why does consciousness only emerge from neural activity and then only certain kinds of neural activity? Why is is possible to turn consciousness off using anaesthetic for example. This view isn't consistent with what we observe about consciousness. Or at the very least doesn't follow naturally and this view is contorted to fit reality.
@DM There's nothing wrong with questioning the status quo. I applaud it in fact. But it has to be a consistent argument, and the argument that consciousness underlies everything is more consistent with the wishful notion that some part of us will persist after death than it is of fitting observed reality. Its the new religion.
@DM Indeed. I thought it was just my view of the exchange.
Hoffman’s elevator speech continues to evolve. Excellent.
I asked my uncle after he had suffered a major stroke in the right part of the brain if he considered himself more or less himself after the stroke, his answer was "the same", this indicates that the core consciousness is the same despite major changes in the brains physical condition.
the same can be said for my grandma who has severe alzheimers. her entire brain is slowly deteriorating and yet she has FULL consciousness. i rest my case.
@@Dion_Mustard Interesting comment!
@@stianmathisen4284 if brain neurons produced consciousness then, according to my nana, she should be constantly unconscious, but she is 95% aware and very much has her consciousness in tact. so my argument is brain does not produce consciousness, but instead, works in synchronicity with the brain, a bit like an internet signal entering the internet box. if you smash the box you lose the connection but you don't lose the essence of the signal.
@@Dion_Mustard Correct my friend!
With todays computing capasity, it would have been possible to simulate sentient consciousness, so far they have not made that happen.
@@Dion_Mustard I'm not sure I understand your argument - but let me see if I can steelman it... If consciousness is like an internet signal and the brain is like the modem, smashing the modem doesn't destroy the signal, but prevents the signal from being received?
So, in other words, our consciousness is being "received" by our brain? If damage is done to the brain, it doesn't change the signal, but rather, the signal isn't interpreted correctly or at all?
The problem I have with this idea, is that it doesn't really propose a mechanism for where our consciousness resides, or how it enters the brain.
I think a much more logical idea, is that our brains create our consciousness. You damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. This is evidenced in nearly every case where someone has traumatic brain injury, or a cognitive disease, such as Alzheimer's. My father has Alzheimer's and he is definitely not the same person he was 5 years ago when he was first diagnosed. His ability to communicate verbally is nearly gone. He gets very easily confused and doesn't seem to have a reliable grasp on what is going on around him. I'd argue, that his consciousness is greatly affected. I have no idea what he experiences, but it is clearly different than what it used to be.
An excellent topic: one that merits further cogitation
Hoffman makes a fun conjecture, but ... The analogy to a laptop UI makes some sense, but only *because* we know that a) the file icon and its properties are not identical to the properties of the data that make up the file AND b) we know that our perceptions are NOT identical to the properties of objects or processes we perceive. How? In both cases, through science. Is there any evidence that consciousness is fundamental? Not only is the answer no, but every one of us experiences a loss of consciousness every day, when we enter deep sleep.
Exactly!
Just think of these tiny particles that manifest themselves into the world you see around you, it's happening at every instant. Literally, this action is happening all around you all of the time. Think if you sing...the breath being pushed out of your lungs are influencing everything that's happening around you. Same thing when you dance with some energy. These waves of consciousness wash over those around you. It's the same thing when a tree connects with another tree. They say hello to each other. Realize they're not a threat. Interact with one another. Grow with each other. It used to be PLUR (Peace Love Unity Respect)....But, I've found that PUCK works better. Patience, Understanding, Compassion and Kindness works better than anything.
Humans can't see particles, by definition particles are a minute portion of matter and the human eye can't simply see such things. That's why we create machines to see them for us.
How do you know trees say hello to each other? And how do you know love is universal
Dude is really onto something. Space-time is a subset of consciousness, a kind of cosmic Virtual Reality within consciousness.
When one can't convince, one must confuse.
So perhaps matter was made for consciousness, not the other way around.
So, he's paraphrasing the plot of The Matrix. I better dust off my leather trench coat and go looking for Morpheus....Or the woman in the red dress :-)
Consciousness is part of infinity. ie. Consciousness is one of the possibilities within ININIFY. This video is 100% correct. Truth is very subjective within Consciousness.
Finally! I’ve been trying to explain this for a year on my channel! The observer is everything and brings reality into existence.
Go read the sci-fi novel "StarPlex". It's great, and it addresses this.
What if nothing is the real reality and the reality our observations bring into existence is wrong.
@@xtrofilm Why would that matter? What difference would it make to anything at all?
@@darrennew8211 oh really? i had these revelations on marijuana i had no idea people believed it or knew about it or wrote about it. that's awesome. thanks.
@@xtrofilm that could be. i think consciousness is the fundamental thing. or something like that. it's going to wind up being something super weird and counter-intuitive. if it's not consciousness it's something crazy that we're not seeing or maybe even can't see 'cause we're the flee on the butt of a lion and just see hair.
After watching most of this series I feel like the setting is planned to reflect the topic in these videos subtlety.
Consciousness did not emerge. It was there in the beginning, and then our experience in time-space arises out of that.
You understand. Impressed.
What is he talking about? His description of consciousness being fundamental feels like Western religion (mainly Christianity) in a slightly different form. It seems to me the debate has gone full circle, and we are now back where we started 1000s of years ago.
To elaborate a little, I don't disapprove of the paradigm shift as such. I just think that we need to have a lot more substance. How do we even start working on a scientific mathematical theory of consciousness? How will that eventually lead us to understand everything else? And why should it? For example, Albert Einstein changed the whole view of time by thinking about the consequences of making the speed of light fundamental, but he fleshed it all out in his theory of special relativity. I would be very impressed if somebody could do something similar for consciousness!
This is exactly what says vedanta. They knew this in india thousands years ago. Swami Sarvapriyananda gives great talks about this subject.
They knew it in Egypt also. The Great Pyramid is like a giant cuneiform tablet written in the language of science. There's evidence that many civilizations have discovered the same truth independent of one another. 🙏
This question of what is and why is there consciousness..is the big question that I love the most. No one has a manageable answer that doesn't sound convoluted to the average joe
The book "Being You" by Anil Seth is a great book on consciousness.
@@findingyourselfandfindinglife thanks for that! I'll look for it
Love this point of view. Anyone who has gone deep down the mushroom rabbit hole has experienced this truth.
If you chemically adjust every analogy that constitutes your mind
why do you imagine the resulting configuration is any more
reflective of reality than the unadjusted?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I like this question. I would say that many different factors contribute to our perception of reality or how we reflect on what reality is. The food we consume, environment we live in and the culture we grow up in all seem to play a role. I'm not sure why certain natural compounds lead to intense introspection of the nature of reality, or if that same level can't be accomplished without the compounds. Some people have talked about reaching very similar states of mind through meditation or even dreaming. However these altered states of mind do lead us to perceptions of reality that are very different from what is experienced when the mind is functioning in what you are pointing out as the unadjusted mind. I'm not sure one is more reflective than the other just that they are viewing the nature of reality from different perspectives. It's like from one perspective you're dreaming and the other you're awake. Both sides lead us to insights of the nature of reality.
@@Jeff-bi7jn I agree with all you say except for one thing.
We cannot perceive reality.
We are not conscious of reality.
We are conscious only of our thoughts.
Thoughts are representations.
There's a vast difference between a thing and its representation.
There's a vast difference between a pipe and a painting of a pipe. (See René Magritte)
Just so you know, I am experienced.
My long ago acid trip was utterly extraordinary and of all my long life's experiences its the one I remember best.
During one segment of the trip I experienced massive vivid insight into a sequence of monstrous cultural absurdities each accompanied by visual representations in the form of crystalline networks hovering in the air before me.
So, insights, yes but not reality which must remain forever beyond the ken of every thinking thing.
Cheers!
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3:39 this highlights your point. I'm with you all the way.
@@Jeff-bi7jn Happy to meet you, like minded Jeff.
Wonder what you think of this...
At 4:05 H says, 'because we cannot know we have to make assumptions'.
That's fine but we want to hear a clear explanation
of what consciousness is and exactly how it's caused.
The assumption H makes,
that there is a something called consciousness
constituted by some property or attribute
of every particle of matter in the universe,
is where our thoughts diverge.
My assumption leads me to assert that
my conscious self is an abstract entity that
exists in the coded form of discharge frequencies
going on in a neural substrate.
(aside: and my conscious self owns my body, not vice versa).
Thoughts are also abstract entities.
Their abstract nature is of the type that is analogy. (i.e. that represent)
These analogies are 'materially' instantiated
in discharge frequency encoded form in the neural substrate.
I put 'materially' in quotes because frequency is an abstract notion.
Clearly abstract frequency is ideally suited for encoding abstract analogy.
When these thoughts, these analogies,
are synaptically linked to the self analogy they modulate it.
These induced modulations, in the self, are the self, being conscious.
i.e. changes in the self are of what the self is conscious
which is to say, as we all know, experience changes the self.
Immediately or later,
these changes sometimes generate signals that
culminate in moving muscles.
You could say these changes are the foundation of the will and
the moving muscles are the will in action.
So, instead of some mysterious part of every particle in the universe
being responsible somehow for our being conscious,
the mystery is simply in the nature of abstract entities and
that's not really mysterious at all when we think about it.
I think one of the few scientists that Robert Lawrence Kuhn has never interviewed is Tom Campbell who has a very interesting book about Consciousness, Physics and Philosophy called "My Big TOE" ( Big Theory of Everything )
Without a tenth of a thousand capacity to understand computer technology or maths as he must certainly do, I sense the truth of what he says and accept his take on consciousness and reality. It seems not only plausible but compelling.
Totally agree with you my friend!
@DM Thus spake Zarathustra!
I remember reading something years ago from Karl Popper about how he thought consciousness was an evolutionary response to painful stimulus. This ring a bell with anyone else?
So by following this logic, no one can actually know what happens after death.
? Yes, no one knows. Do you know any dead people who told you what's after death?
I guess death is only a transient metaphysical form. In this approach consciousness is defined as fundamental and everything else is only a layer built one up on the other. So you only have to worry about your consciousness and not the material reality which is transient. Consciousness exists and takes care of it all as an everlasting fundamental.
physical life is more like the eternal dance, the play of infinite potential..or God's dream if i'm to be more philosophical..all in all consciousness retains its infite nature, so theres no void or some space in which death can occure..its all consciusness
We are consciousness. We are never born and will never die. Through meditation comes the answer. Don't think. Just observe!
There is no death. We are the eternal one. It is just that it isn't really good to be alone which is why the essence of the gospel is love.
Excellent. Brings it all back home. Earth shattering or should I say materialist shattering. Consciousness reigns supreme and precedes matter.
A trigger for materialists 🤪
The computer screen analogy is quite solid. Where I get off the bus is the assertion that consciousness is fundamental, I don't see any reason to go there. Sounds more like mysticism than science.
Consciousness is as real as nightmare "
The title assumes consciousness did emerge at some point in the past. When this assumption gets questioned and people who endorse the claim that consciousness is emergent from physical phenomena are asked to substantiate their claim, they usually appeal to certain empirical evidence regarding how affecting the brain in certain ways affects consciousness in certain ways. However when asked to explain how this evidence constitutes definitive evidence for their claim they either can't or won't give a clear reply, and sometimes they'll even flee from the interaction.
this is a brilliant talk by Donald Hoffman----ALL IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The way it manifests changes [evolves]
This is just a guess, actually. Nothing more.
Considering that science is basically measurement of reactive properties, we still don't know what things and forces really are fundamentally, just the way they behave, so the UI analogy is apt.
consciousness is just our brain evolving to understand our environment better ,to survive and also explore.
The consciousness might be a predication of, whereas humans have the pyscho physical. There seemingly are functions outside of ourselves that act in an intelligent manner. Might the cosmos be the mind of God, so we predicate consciousness.
Robert, I really enjoy all of your videos, but I have to say this one was of special significance to me. Thank you so much.
What exactly is consciousness, how it works and what role it plays in our lives is called 'The Hard Problem' Donald has not solved the Hard Problem. He is correct that it came first. But even mentioning the big bang is ignorant. Everything emerging in an instant from an explosion are the ravings of nerds that were bullied. One must get out of their own way and tap into true consciousness to solve the hard problem. One must free themselves of all beliefs and overcome the fear that freedom brings to receive the answer. Something tells me we all know the truth of it. I am in the process of defining consciousness in simple terms.
Robert said the correct word here, I think: metaphor. Where I would start to diverge from Hoffman is in saying that the user interface "hides" or obscures the truth, and instead say that it's a metaphor for the "truth" (just using that word in a naive sense for the moment). So immediately there are some epistemological and deeper linguistic issues arising regarding this idea of the "truth," as a metaphor is, in the conventional sense, just another way of stating the supposed truth.
Strictly speaking, the "actual" or literal (linguistic) way of expressing a "truth" is metaphorical, also, as the words we use are not absolutely linked to the things they purport to describe. The word "cat" is not inside the cat, the word "tree" is not inside the tree, etc. Those designations are in one sense arbitrary and abstract symbolic representations (signs and signifiers, more accurately) of how the culture has agreed to demarcate and categorize external reality, and when we say "the cat ran up the tree," we are engaging in metaphor and culturally agreed-upon "meanings" for those designations no differently than when we click on the image of a "file" to access the elements and processes of the computer that we associate with the file.
So the computer interface is no more or less a level of abstraction away from the "truth" of the reality than the word "file" or "folder" might be. The actual "thing" - the file - is not the word file, either. In one sense, the computer icon for a file or a folder is even a *more* accurate metaphor for the thing than the word is - the icon actually can resemble and look like a "real" folder, for example, whereas the word "folder" is merely some arbitrary sounds we made up to refer to it.
Everything in that linguistic sense therefore is a metaphor, and that is really how we engage with the world: through our culturally derived tropic (metaphoric) representations. Those who can engage with and manipulate those metaphors more effectively are evolutionarily more fit, and those who are geniuses (e.g., Einstein) can see through the cultural designations to the actual "reality" behind them and come up with new designations that are more accurate metaphors for the underlying "reality" that we incompletely understood before that, which then evolutionarily moves the species forward (we hope).
Taking the next step from this, I think we can say that just because the folder icon is, in his view, "hiding" the truth (or in my view, a metaphor more or less representing the truth) doesn't mean that some people don't also understand the underlying workings represented by the metaphor. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the person who understands the mechanisms behind the functioning of the interface is arguably more fit than someone who does not. What is the person who only knows the metaphor going to do when the metaphor (interface) breaks down? As Robert says, the person wouldn't even know those things existed or how to proceed. They wouldn't have a clue about the deeper levels of the operating system, the coding underlying that, the electronic components underlying that, and so on. They'd be lost.
So I think the situation in fact is exactly the opposite of what Hoffman describes. Evolution doesn't drive truth to extinction by favoring fitness; favoring fitness drives deeper and more complex understandings of the "truth" (the true perceptions guiding behavior, as he puts it) than the more simplistic levels of abstraction embodied in our cultural metaphors.
How consciousness fits in to this seems like the categorical error - quite a leap, at least. Saying consciousness precedes or underlies the "truth" of the universe would be like saying the processes that open the file - the programming routines, the electrical impulses flowing through the hardware, etc. - preceded opening the file, when in fact those processes only activate in the right conditions and when the action is initiated. Maybe those process exist abstractly in some platonic sense before being implemented, but in saying consciousness precedes everything he seems to be putting the cart before the horse, to mix in another metaphor.
Well put.
Perhaps you are familiar with Julian Jaynes' great metaphor based theory
as outlined in his book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?
Accidentally or on purpose, the title pays homage to Darwin.
The meaning of 'conscious' the pièce de résistance of evolutionary theory.
Long influenced by Jaynes' theory I have come to understand that
what 'my self' refers to is a metaphorical entity and
is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'm not familiar with that title, but it sounds interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@ricklanders -
I would be elated to find another intellectual treat
like the one that's in store for you.
(Jaynes was raised a behaviorist but then
became a key figure in the restoration of scientific legitimacy
to the topic of the conscious.
His extremely well written book has the flavour of
nineteenth century literary masterpieces.
He was an awesome scholar.
My goodness, he could read Egyptian hieroglyphics!
(Mesopotamian, Mayan, Aztec, etc.)
His death in '97 was very sad for me.
Note:
Just power through chapter one's slightly dry technical discussion (essentially what consciousness is not)
then soar like an eagle.
Well before the end you will very clearly understand
how it is that we are conscious and
why life per se is not and
why our ancestors believed in gods, souls, afterlives, angels, oracles, expisticy, casting of lots, etc.
Emphatically, there is no magic nonsense in the explanation and
nothing that insults the imagination (like, e.g., panpsychism).
And that is great).
Cheers!
One of the best arguments that conciouness could be fundamental and the ground of reality.
Not really. The argument works against consciousness being fundamental and ground of reality.