@@pennywatson8710 by the look of it he was a science conference so his terms should be understood by his audience. Also, he breaks down his theories into layman terms just fine in a dozen other videos easily found on YT. So, yeah, stfu.
I've been listening to most of his videos on youtube I could find for the past week. on one level I agree, and it is true of course, or was true two years ago. it probably has changed a bit since. but not getting the attention one deserves allows one to not be disturbed, contradicted or brought off one's research path, or path in general. media coverage does not always have a net positive effect
The brain is just a receiver of consciousness, not a producer of consciousness; like a radio receiver; the radio doesn’t produce the frequencies, it receives the frequencies and turns them into sound. The brain receives consciousness and turns it into us.
This is a pretty good 5 minute intro to his work. If you find yourself interested but confused, watch his other videos. I suggest his interviews on Closer To Truth, which are all on YT.
Like electromagnetism, Consciousness is a cosmic force which we haven't yet understood. Like electricity needs conductors, consciousness needs neurotransmitters inwhich some particular molecules can expand its conduction such as N,N-Dimethyltryptamine
I love outside of the box thinkers. Real progress is rarely made by those who think only within the current box, within the current standard model. The current standard model routinely changes over time, often dramatically, as we discover new things. And those new things are normally outside the current standard model box; that's why they're new. Witness relatively, quantum mechanics, etc.
Computational models can be descriptive but do not explain consciousness or solve the hard problem - if this is positing a pure idealism that is also incorrect. But it does help to counter the radical materialism that is so prevalent in the field and modern life.
Stndsure it is not the point to explain it, it is a simple abstract description, same as when you hold a map in your hand does not mean you can explain the whole planet, it is not the point.
Estoy trabajando sobre este punto. Si TODO a lo que podemos acceder es a la CONCIENCIA del mundo (incluido el cientifico) y dicha CONCIENCIA es "algo" INMATERIAL que OCURRE "junto" al cerebro (SOLO electricidad neuronal), podemos concluir que dicho fenomeno que somos ESENCIALMENTE como ser SOLO podemos accederlo "entrando" EN SI MISMO como ser CONSCIENTE y luego intercambiar con las otras CONCIENCIAS lo que cada uno OBSERVO en si mismo como CONCIENCIA y llegar a ACUERDOS sobre ciertos fenomenos COMUNES (leyes cientificas) en relacion a si como fenomeno CONCIENCIA "junto" al cerebro sin interpenetrarse con su electricidad neuronal, sino solo convirtiendola EN EL SENO DE SI como CONCIENCIA como IMAGEN SIQUICA MOVIL (singular, inmaterial, metafisica) "en paralelo" a dicha actividad electrica intrinseca del cerebro. Quiza de este modo podamos finalmente profundizar de modo CIENTIFICO en MAYA como ven a este fenomeno en la India hace miles de años, o en el SAMSARA como lo ven los budistas. Para R.Llinas vivimos dentro del cerebro como en una caja cerrada y no en el cuerpo. Sin embargo dentro del cerebro no hay luz, ni sonido, ni sensaciones, ni emociones, ni IMAGEN siquica, es TOTAL OSCURIDAD. Por lo tanto es evidente que ni siquicera VIVIMOS en el cerebro sino "en paralelo" al mismo como fenomeno IMAGEN SIQUICA MOVIL o MAYA como se dice en la India.
There is no hard problem in his model because he's STARTING with consciousness (with the assumption that consciousness is primary) in the form of conscious agents. Materialists start with the assumption than space, time, matter, and energy are primary.
from what I've understood mathematical models help him make precise and therefore falsifiable statements, this is how he can assure progress, for himself and for the field
I'm an avid student in the continuing education on consciousness and its relationships to our universe. This video is burdened with a lot of quantum physics vocabulary and left me completely in the dark. I wish it could have been conveyed more to a laymen's perception.
All fitness pay off or visual interpretations are driven by the one question the universe is asking itself. Turtles all the way down.... we are asking it too, ⚛️ from planets to people to QM. Same question transmogrified. Question the universe and we and everything else is asking, WHERE & WHY AM I. (Interface > Flatland 🪁 up to 2d, 3d.... Agi- bio humans turtles up & down....)
My OpenMind I'll do it for you: Hoffman, D., 2008. Conscious realism and the mind-body problem. Mind and Matter, 6(1), pp.87-121. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
Super smart guy, He’s on to something and not getting the attention he deserves.
@@pennywatson8710 not really. Just because it's not Bible level stupid doesn't mean it lacks intelligence.
@@pennywatson8710 by the look of it he was a science conference so his terms should be understood by his audience. Also, he breaks down his theories into layman terms just fine in a dozen other videos easily found on YT. So, yeah, stfu.
I've been listening to most of his videos on youtube I could find for the past week.
on one level I agree, and it is true of course, or was true two years ago. it probably has changed a bit since.
but not getting the attention one deserves allows one to not be disturbed, contradicted or brought off one's research path, or path in general.
media coverage does not always have a net positive effect
The brain is just a receiver of consciousness, not a producer of consciousness; like a radio receiver; the radio doesn’t produce the frequencies, it receives the frequencies and turns them into sound. The brain receives consciousness and turns it into us.
Thank you!
Yes… we are not our bodies
sounds very convincing except I have no idea what he's talking about
Human brains don't process bovine manure easily....so its not your fault...or mine lol
No one does except him
@@OMAR-vq3yb lol...good one.
This is a pretty good 5 minute intro to his work. If you find yourself interested but confused, watch his other videos. I suggest his interviews on Closer To Truth, which are all on YT.
Like electromagnetism, Consciousness is a cosmic force which we haven't yet understood. Like electricity needs conductors, consciousness needs neurotransmitters inwhich some particular molecules can expand its conduction such as N,N-Dimethyltryptamine
"Consciousness is a cosmic force"... Nope, it's biology. You have been befuddled by spookiness proponents like Robert L. Kuhn!!
I love outside of the box thinkers. Real progress is rarely made by those who think only within the current box, within the current standard model. The current standard model routinely changes over time, often dramatically, as we discover new things. And those new things are normally outside the current standard model box; that's why they're new. Witness relatively, quantum mechanics, etc.
I hear "simple", "so simple" but I don't have a clue what he is talking about.
Computational models can be descriptive but do not explain consciousness or solve the hard problem - if this is positing a pure idealism that is also incorrect. But it does help to counter the radical materialism that is so prevalent in the field and modern life.
Stndsure it is not the point to explain it, it is a simple abstract description, same as when you hold a map in your hand does not mean you can explain the whole planet, it is not the point.
Estoy trabajando sobre este punto. Si TODO a lo que podemos acceder es a la CONCIENCIA del mundo (incluido el cientifico) y dicha CONCIENCIA es "algo" INMATERIAL que OCURRE "junto" al cerebro (SOLO electricidad neuronal), podemos concluir que dicho fenomeno que somos ESENCIALMENTE como ser SOLO podemos accederlo "entrando" EN SI MISMO como ser CONSCIENTE y luego intercambiar con las otras CONCIENCIAS lo que cada uno OBSERVO en si mismo como CONCIENCIA y llegar a ACUERDOS sobre ciertos fenomenos COMUNES (leyes cientificas) en relacion a si como fenomeno CONCIENCIA "junto" al cerebro sin interpenetrarse con su electricidad neuronal, sino solo convirtiendola EN EL SENO DE SI como CONCIENCIA como IMAGEN SIQUICA MOVIL (singular, inmaterial, metafisica) "en paralelo" a dicha actividad electrica intrinseca del cerebro. Quiza de este modo podamos finalmente profundizar de modo CIENTIFICO en MAYA como ven a este fenomeno en la India hace miles de años, o en el SAMSARA como lo ven los budistas. Para R.Llinas vivimos dentro del cerebro como en una caja cerrada y no en el cuerpo. Sin embargo dentro del cerebro no hay luz, ni sonido, ni sensaciones, ni emociones, ni IMAGEN siquica, es TOTAL OSCURIDAD. Por lo tanto es evidente que ni siquicera VIVIMOS en el cerebro sino "en paralelo" al mismo como fenomeno IMAGEN SIQUICA MOVIL o MAYA como se dice en la India.
There is no hard problem in his model because he's STARTING with consciousness (with the assumption that consciousness is primary) in the form of conscious agents. Materialists start with the assumption than space, time, matter, and energy are primary.
from what I've understood mathematical models help him make precise and therefore falsifiable statements, this is how he can assure progress, for himself and for the field
I'm liking this guy's jib.
Hello Daniel Dennett...still think you came through on Dawkin's Ark?
The simplest answer is usually the right answer
I'm an avid student in the continuing education on consciousness and its relationships to our universe. This video is burdened with a lot of quantum physics vocabulary and left me completely in the dark. I wish it could have been conveyed more to a laymen's perception.
Watch his Ted talk.
There is very little quantum physics vocabulary in this video.
Andrew Soep I would say there is almost no quantum physics vocabulary in this vid.
How can you define consciousness with conscious agents? Sounds like an infinite recursion.
it would be consciousness defined by our subjective truth in our own reality only i assume
Donald Hoffman
Cognitive Scientis
seems legit
Do you really think this video needs 15 seconds of intro music? Why do you waste everyone's time?
this is beyond me!
All fitness pay off or visual interpretations are driven by the one question the universe is asking itself. Turtles all the way down.... we are asking it too, ⚛️ from planets to people to QM. Same question transmogrified. Question the universe and we and everything else is asking, WHERE & WHY AM I. (Interface > Flatland 🪁 up to 2d, 3d.... Agi- bio humans turtles up & down....)
0:21 “Cognitive ScienTIST” (check spelling)
So I guess I'm not so smart, after all.
like this comment if you think this guy should be nicknamed wwe's Vince McMahon
Ha ha ha ha 👍👍👍👍👍
Where’s the math? Sounds like quantum woo woo to me.
Has he published he theories anywhere?
My OpenMind
Google scholar is your friend. 😉
My OpenMind
I'll do it for you:
Hoffman, D., 2008. Conscious realism and the mind-body problem. Mind and Matter, 6(1), pp.87-121.
www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
This is a deepack chopra idea. Lawrence Krauss says it's nonsense
@@robmorcette4894 Laurence Krauss is dogmatically opposed to non-materialist ideas. That’s sad! We must stay open minded to make new discoveries.