Exciting news! Donald Hoffman will be joining the lineup at the IAI's festival in London this October! HowTheLightGetsIn returns to the heart of the capital city on October 1st-2nd, and promises a weekend like no other - full of world-leading thinkers, the biggest debates of our times, and music and parties into the night. To learn more: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?TH-cam& Book tickets: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london/festival-passes?TH-cam&
Hoffman: The brain is created by consciousness as a symbol. Participants: Their brains keep talking and fail to create the internal silence required to apprehend what Hoffman just said.
I'm about to watch the full topic! I was searching for Halloween horror films and this popped up! I'm also an amateur follower of this topic and I absolutely love the members of the panel. ❣️❤️✔️💯
An observation process exists fundamentally, and likely that observation process is not limited living beings. The collapse of the wave function during an observation likely shows that it is fundamental.
Science is a concept, but the scientific process is whatsy tangible because it is a thing/process. It's a misnomer to talk about science as explaining everything. The scientific process is so valuable though because it weeds out inconsistencies and bias'.
there's also contingentism, which is different from dualism, idealism, or materialism. consciousness is contingent on living systems dynamics, which are related with as they are, contingent on phenomenal consciousness. as of now, we cannot really escape our strange loops. read interdependence by kriti sharma!!
@@rahulranjan9013 From what I gather, McGilchrist does not subscribe to the instrumentation aspect. For him, reality is an interplay between experience and the world. Where they meet, reality happens. Reality is not, as Kastrup conveys, out there to be discovered by our senses. It exists independent of experience, but when we encounter it, we interpret it. In the end, Kastrup is an Idealist (Analytic Idealist) and McGilchrist is a Realist, including experience as an aspect of the real.
The projections of Consciousness within Itself are phenomenological, but we can address Consciousness as Aristotle did, calling it "Being-In-Itself", the One of Plotinus, the Ousia of the Stoics. Going a step further, we can tap into and merge with Pure Consciousness (the Sat-Chit-Ananda of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta), by accessing "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listening to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will experience the state of Samadhi that transcends the mind. (Cf. "Samadhi Movie" - 1, 2, and 3).
Sawing back and forth from the mystical view of consciousness and the materialist view generates piles of dust. But that analogy is too generous because real saw dust can be used for life serving purposes. Neither of these views can. Eva, the neuroscientist, was very interesting; I liked her honest approach to the question, and, the phenomenalist, Michelle, was also interesting in hers. Even Iain, the pantheist, patted the back of phenomenialism. But, the staunch mystic, Hoffman, was odd man out because of his insistence on explaining consciousness as all that there is and that the material universe is merely within it. That he is given a seat at the table surely draws the starkest contrast to materialism in gerneral and to the other (non-materialist) guests in particular. Maybe that is why Kuhn invited him. But when will hosts, like Kuhn, give up the ghost? Hoffman is like a car accident in the middle of a highway because people slow down to gape for survivors. Wouldn't discussions such as these be better served by accepting the inescapable starting points? That reality is real. That things are what they are and nothing more. That consciousness is a faculty of living beings, i.e., for the awareness of reality for living. That human beings can choose to be aware of reality or not. All these clear the way for genuinely meaningful thought and action in any area of life and certainly would light up the board, so to speak, of any podcast host. . .
Jim , what is your take on the double slit experience? Doesn’t that suggest that matter is not quite as it seems, as it shows matter does not exist with a particle format but instead it’s a wave of potential of something else until observed or at least measured
@@theliamofella HI Liam. What's the matter with Matter. Some day?, Science will be able to measure, but for now it hasn't discovered a standard of measurement. I am curious as to why you cite the double-slit experiments when the subject of discussion is consciousness. .
@@jimbrown1576 hey, I refer to the double slit experiment because you said that “things are thing, but matter is not just a true representation of what is really happening and also consciousness seems to be directly involved in collapsing the wave function and creating our subjective and objective reality
@@jimbrown1576 😆, very sorry, you didn’t, I have no idea how I replied to your comment when I was actually trying to reply to a different one , im glad that I know now 😆👍✌️
IMO, the here and now is what's fundamental, not necessarily the word that we refer to as consciousness but rather all that is. Disregard any subjective or deterministic stuff, and we are left with a reality of complex patterns. Even the fundamental laws themselves are patterns..patterning that breaks down when you try to look through it. Without consistency everything would be nothing.
Consciousness evolves from steps as gravity gets trapped towards points. It breaks down into 7 pieces due to kissing number patterns, so consciousness changes to 6 points, and a central hole as the 7th point. Then it requires a way in, and a way out which uses up one of those points as a pole. The final result therefore being incremental steps of 6. hands, feet, use 5 plus wrist and ankle. Body structure of an animal tail spreads through the central hole as a 6th point. We use the energy from that 6th point towards our brain to have higher intelligence.
@@real_pattern Because all the observations that we make are that things move towards their area of least resistance, which means that gravity moves towards its area of least resistance.. holes in gravity. So the centre of mass must be a hole in gravity for gravity to move there. To keep flowing in one direction all of the time it has to escape, and to escape from the centre of mass would mean scaling down to escape. To scale down, and fit between the inflow of gravity without us detecting gravity it would have to become trapped at 6 points, because using kissing numbers of the same scale you get 6 points around a single point. Being as that is also the most common fractal for life.. 5 fingers, and a wrist, five toes, and an ankle. It would suggest that the universe breaks down into 7 points all of the time, and that would be the cause of evolution, and would have a relationship to consciousness. Scientists however cheat by using imaginary pull forces which have never been observed, so they eliminate your ability to discover the true physics of the universe.
@@real_pattern Everything that we observe moves towards its area of least resistance. Our hands always move things from high resistance towards low resistance. This works for all observations right down to air which is barely visible. Air moves from high pressure towards low pressure, so that covers everything visible. As soon as things turn invisible we are supposed to say that they too must be moving towards their area of least resistance, but scientists call magnetism a pull force going against every observation ever made. the same with nuclear bonding, and the strong force they ignore all observations. Now a vacuum cleaner moves air out of the way, and you get suction as a result. Or we drink milk through a straw and the milk moves towards us... high pressure towards low pressure. Which means that we are only allowed to say that gravity moves towards holes in gravity, and that nuclear bonding is moving something out of the way. Well gravity moves towards the centre of mass, and nuclear bonding is said to happen at the nucleus of atoms which is the same thing. So gravity has to move out of the way from the nucleus of an atom to get the strong force. Being as gravity moves inwards from all directions the only way it can create an area of least resistance is to scale down. To allow gravity to scale down you need to work out the mechanics of scale, and we observe scale from spinning tornados, and such. Tornados have spin, and scale from small to large, so by spinning gravity inside holes in gravity we get scalar physics that allow gravity to scale out of the way at the nucleus of an atom like putting your hands on a potter's wheel. Now you have an area of least resistance constantly inwards, and an arrow of time. That scaled down gravity has to fit through the gaps of the in-flow which is how you work of the step for consciousness evolution, because Galaxies would have to use the same scaling technique from the black hole at the centre.
My hunch is that the way to make progress scientifically will be to measure aspects of what a huge number of someone's neurons are doing simultaneously with introspective reporting by the subject about what s/he is thinking and experiencing.
@@george5464 : Multifinality and equifinality are coarse and misleading. No two people, not even identical twins, have an identical history of experiences. They imply nothing about the nature of consciousness and how it may be studied.
in a sense consciousness dawned when Akhenaten (supposedly) recognised there being only one god (which is experienced within via the imagination btw). Prior to this people believed in many gods. That is they gave the power of their own consciousness to all manner of external things. This is the way animals think. A great movement forward of consciousness occurred when the ancient Egyptians recognised that man was paramount in his thinking through understanding that there was one god which 'spoke' through man unleashing the full potential of consciousness by the reduction of distractions / increased focus of thought. Counterintuitively in todays world, the notion of one god which was the direct 'parent' of each individual gave people the wherewithal to think independently. Instead of subjection to groupthink they now had the means to commune directly with god ie work it out for themselves. ( "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High")
The questions are embebed in ontologic physicalist believes. For people who believes Phycalism is an absolute and inquestionable true, Physicalism is dogma. There are no logical answers for dogmatic people. Donald Hoffman is a scientist beyond dogma, but not only him. I'm tired of physicalism science priests.
I THINK BECAUSE I SAY SO THINKING IS NOT USING A CAVE WALL FOR TOILET PAPER WRITING A BOOK OF ARGUMENTS IS NOT THE SAME AS WIPING YOUR BOTTOM ON THE CURTAINS
Say whaaat? Entities as a perceptual fallacy? Are you referring to perceptual awareness given by the five senses? If so, what is lacking in perception, i.e., what is fallacious about the senses?
@@jimbrown1576 Yes, perceptual awareness in the fives senses is structured in such a way that leads us to apprehend the ontological continuity between things as separate, discrete entities by default. Perception, insofar as it is understood as an interpretation is infinitely lacking. There could be no perception without obscuration of the infinitude of information located at any particular spatio-temporal point.
Everything must change so that implies that everything evolves. Hoffman makes statements as if they are facts when in reality he is making unsubstantiated speculation.
Actually he has done computational experiments that offer some support for his claims. While not proof they are compelling. I'd recommend watching a few more of his interviews, I find his approach fascinating.
@@yoyoma17 It's certainly an interesting area of research. (Proof is used in Mathematics and logic which has nothing to do with science. The Scientific method doesnt deal with proof. Science is a tool that generates reproducible data through experiment and observation that can support or refute a pre-stated hypothesis. Science has not been able to prove anything since its invention by Eratosthenes in about 200 BC. But as a tool it has discovered a myriad of patterns and knowledge that "appear" to be present in nature.
WATCHING THIS I GET A SENSE THAT HOFFMAN IS ON ANOTHER KEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE OLD GUARED IS STUBURN IN THERE OLD WAYS OF SCIENCE ON THIS SUBJECT THAT DONT LEAD TO NOTHING.
Exciting news! Donald Hoffman will be joining the lineup at the IAI's festival in London this October! HowTheLightGetsIn returns to the heart of the capital city on October 1st-2nd, and promises a weekend like no other - full of world-leading thinkers, the biggest debates of our times, and music and parties into the night.
To learn more: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?TH-cam&
Book tickets: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london/festival-passes?TH-cam&
Extremely counterintuitive irritating presentation of these materials. Why not the full video on TH-cam or at least a watchable format?
Money
Hoffman: The brain is created by consciousness as a symbol.
Participants: Their brains keep talking and fail to create the internal silence required to apprehend what Hoffman just said.
Exactly. I was surprised that Iain fall in the trap of "left hemisphere" too.
BS
I'm about to watch the full topic! I was searching for Halloween horror films and this popped up! I'm also an amateur follower of this topic and I absolutely love the members of the panel. ❣️❤️✔️💯
What a brilliant video! Phenomenal guests and great hosts! Such a great TH-cam channel. Want more!
An observation process exists fundamentally, and likely that observation process is not limited living beings. The collapse of the wave function during an observation likely shows that it is fundamental.
Science is a concept, but the scientific process is whatsy tangible because it is a thing/process. It's a misnomer to talk about science as explaining everything.
The scientific process is so valuable though because it weeds out inconsistencies and bias'.
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
there's also contingentism, which is different from dualism, idealism, or materialism. consciousness is contingent on living systems dynamics, which are related with as they are, contingent on phenomenal consciousness. as of now, we cannot really escape our strange loops. read interdependence by kriti sharma!!
We evolve gradually and once reached a a certain stage we never go back. We can be frozen but we will never become a dog.
Our changes are like quantum leaps, we don't really know what happens between thoughts.
What does it say about consciousness and life that both are manifested and experienced physically?
At the start, consciousness feels like a Sorites challenge. I lean more toward Donald Hoffman but closer to Bernardo Kastrup (not present).
Interessante le idee e visioni di kastrup valido educatore un grande educatore.
What's the difference between Kastrup & Hoffman's Theory ? Are they both non-dualist ?
@@rahulranjan9013 From what I gather, McGilchrist does not subscribe to the instrumentation aspect. For him, reality is an interplay between experience and the world. Where they meet, reality happens. Reality is not, as Kastrup conveys, out there to be discovered by our senses. It exists independent of experience, but when we encounter it, we interpret it.
In the end, Kastrup is an Idealist (Analytic Idealist) and McGilchrist is a Realist, including experience as an aspect of the real.
The projections of Consciousness within Itself are phenomenological, but we can address Consciousness as Aristotle did, calling it "Being-In-Itself", the One of Plotinus, the Ousia of the Stoics. Going a step further, we can tap into and merge with Pure Consciousness (the Sat-Chit-Ananda of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta), by accessing "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listening to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will experience the state of Samadhi that transcends the mind. (Cf. "Samadhi Movie" - 1, 2, and 3).
It's a big world of cultures that developed in isolation.
What do you mean?
I think the speakers should declare where they think they fit on the Myers Brigs assessment?
Sawing back and forth from the mystical view of consciousness and the materialist view generates piles of dust. But that analogy is too generous because real saw dust can be used for life serving purposes. Neither of these views can.
Eva, the neuroscientist, was very interesting; I liked her honest approach to the question, and, the phenomenalist, Michelle, was also interesting in hers. Even Iain, the pantheist, patted the back of phenomenialism.
But, the staunch mystic, Hoffman, was odd man out because of his insistence on explaining consciousness as all that there is and that the material universe is merely within it.
That he is given a seat at the table surely draws the starkest contrast to materialism in gerneral and to the other (non-materialist) guests in particular. Maybe that is why Kuhn invited him. But when will hosts, like Kuhn, give up the ghost? Hoffman is like a car accident in the middle of a highway because people slow down to gape for survivors.
Wouldn't discussions such as these be better served by accepting the inescapable starting points? That reality is real. That things are what they are and nothing more. That consciousness is a faculty of living beings, i.e., for the awareness of reality for living. That human beings can choose to be aware of reality or not. All these clear the way for genuinely meaningful thought and action in any area of life and certainly would light up the board, so to speak, of any podcast host.
.
.
Jim , what is your take on the double slit experience?
Doesn’t that suggest that matter is not quite as it seems, as it shows matter does not exist with a particle format but instead it’s a wave of potential of something else until observed or at least measured
@@theliamofella HI Liam. What's the matter with Matter. Some day?, Science will be able to measure, but for now it hasn't discovered a standard of measurement. I am curious as to why you cite the double-slit experiments when the subject of discussion is consciousness.
.
@@jimbrown1576 hey, I refer to the double slit experiment because you said that “things are thing, but matter is not just a true representation of what is really happening and also consciousness seems to be directly involved in collapsing the wave function and creating our subjective and objective reality
@@theliamofella hmmm. I didn't say that.
@@jimbrown1576 😆, very sorry, you didn’t, I have no idea how I replied to your comment when I was actually trying to reply to a different one , im glad that I know now 😆👍✌️
IMO, the here and now is what's fundamental, not necessarily the word that we refer to as consciousness but rather all that is. Disregard any subjective or deterministic stuff, and we are left with a reality of complex patterns. Even the fundamental laws themselves are patterns..patterning that breaks down when you try to look through it. Without consistency everything would be nothing.
A STEP FUNCTION IN NATURE REQUIRS MASSIVE ENERGY SO EACH STEP HAS A SIGMOID FUNCTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT
Hoffman is awesome
The answer to question is ‘yes’
Consciousness evolves from steps as gravity gets trapped towards points. It breaks down into 7 pieces due to kissing number patterns, so consciousness changes to 6 points, and a central hole as the 7th point. Then it requires a way in, and a way out which uses up one of those points as a pole. The final result therefore being incremental steps of 6. hands, feet, use 5 plus wrist and ankle. Body structure of an animal tail spreads through the central hole as a 6th point. We use the energy from that 6th point towards our brain to have higher intelligence.
aight
lmfao. y tho?
@@real_pattern Because all the observations that we make are that things move towards their area of least resistance, which means that gravity moves towards its area of least resistance.. holes in gravity. So the centre of mass must be a hole in gravity for gravity to move there. To keep flowing in one direction all of the time it has to escape, and to escape from the centre of mass would mean scaling down to escape. To scale down, and fit between the inflow of gravity without us detecting gravity it would have to become trapped at 6 points, because using kissing numbers of the same scale you get 6 points around a single point. Being as that is also the most common fractal for life.. 5 fingers, and a wrist, five toes, and an ankle. It would suggest that the universe breaks down into 7 points all of the time, and that would be the cause of evolution, and would have a relationship to consciousness. Scientists however cheat by using imaginary pull forces which have never been observed, so they eliminate your ability to discover the true physics of the universe.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591 explain your 1st assertion.
@@real_pattern Everything that we observe moves towards its area of least resistance. Our hands always move things from high resistance towards low resistance. This works for all observations right down to air which is barely visible. Air moves from high pressure towards low pressure, so that covers everything visible. As soon as things turn invisible we are supposed to say that they too must be moving towards their area of least resistance, but scientists call magnetism a pull force going against every observation ever made. the same with nuclear bonding, and the strong force they ignore all observations. Now a vacuum cleaner moves air out of the way, and you get suction as a result. Or we drink milk through a straw and the milk moves towards us... high pressure towards low pressure. Which means that we are only allowed to say that gravity moves towards holes in gravity, and that nuclear bonding is moving something out of the way. Well gravity moves towards the centre of mass, and nuclear bonding is said to happen at the nucleus of atoms which is the same thing. So gravity has to move out of the way from the nucleus of an atom to get the strong force. Being as gravity moves inwards from all directions the only way it can create an area of least resistance is to scale down. To allow gravity to scale down you need to work out the mechanics of scale, and we observe scale from spinning tornados, and such. Tornados have spin, and scale from small to large, so by spinning gravity inside holes in gravity we get scalar physics that allow gravity to scale out of the way at the nucleus of an atom like putting your hands on a potter's wheel. Now you have an area of least resistance constantly inwards, and an arrow of time. That scaled down gravity has to fit through the gaps of the in-flow which is how you work of the step for consciousness evolution, because Galaxies would have to use the same scaling technique from the black hole at the centre.
From this video I've learned one thing. Everyone gave up eccept Hoffman. Go Don I can't wait for new data
My hunch is that the way to make progress scientifically will be to measure aspects of what a huge number of someone's neurons are doing simultaneously with introspective reporting by the subject about what s/he is thinking and experiencing.
Neuroscience already shows us this isn’t realistic, just look at multfinality/equifinality
@@george5464 : Multifinality and equifinality are coarse and misleading. No two people, not even identical twins, have an identical history of experiences. They imply nothing about the nature of consciousness and how it may be studied.
in a sense consciousness dawned when Akhenaten (supposedly) recognised there being only one god (which is experienced within via the imagination btw). Prior to this people believed in many gods. That is they gave the power of their own consciousness to all manner of external things. This is the way animals think. A great movement forward of consciousness occurred when the ancient Egyptians recognised that man was paramount in his thinking through understanding that there was one god which 'spoke' through man unleashing the full potential of consciousness by the reduction of distractions / increased focus of thought. Counterintuitively in todays world, the notion of one god which was the direct 'parent' of each individual gave people the wherewithal to think independently. Instead of subjection to groupthink they now had the means to commune directly with god ie work it out for themselves. ( "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High")
The questions are embebed in ontologic physicalist believes. For people who believes Phycalism is an absolute and inquestionable true, Physicalism is dogma. There are no logical answers for dogmatic people. Donald Hoffman is a scientist beyond dogma, but not only him. I'm tired of physicalism science priests.
Did he just set up the question?
I THINK BECAUSE I SAY SO
THINKING IS NOT USING A CAVE WALL FOR TOILET PAPER
WRITING A BOOK OF ARGUMENTS IS NOT THE SAME AS WIPING YOUR BOTTOM ON THE CURTAINS
I THINK THEREFORE I SAY SO
la visione etica e teologico politico del Faust e Leviatano di Hobbes , che furono studiate epoche fa tante tante epoche fa secondo me .
Who is asking ?
Who is quantifying ?
That is consciousness…..
Consciousness is depth and breadth of direct interaction as resolved to its own realisation as experienced…
I think we can all agree that which is not yet understood and yet to be discovered by man is stored in the realm of conscious unconciousness.
It’s not here yet !
A poem/ koan to share please
You are alpha and omega
The Beginning and the end
There is NO start or finish
There is ‘nothing’ to contend
By JAWelsh©️
Until we enter the mystical realm it’s all academic
When the mystical is realised the Mystery unfolds but now as YOU
Haha 😂
Cheers 🍻
A non hologram.
The reluctant hologram.
Networking different senses is the entire process. With pause and off options.
Belief in discreteness of entities is just a perceptual fallacy created by the evolved brain's criteria of identification and signification.
Say whaaat? Entities as a perceptual fallacy? Are you referring to perceptual awareness given by the five senses? If so, what is lacking in perception, i.e., what is fallacious about the senses?
@@jimbrown1576 Yes, perceptual awareness in the fives senses is structured in such a way that leads us to apprehend the ontological continuity between things as separate, discrete entities by default. Perception, insofar as it is understood as an interpretation is infinitely lacking. There could be no perception without obscuration of the infinitude of information located at any particular spatio-temporal point.
These videos never get to the bottom of anything. 😂
There is no bottom, it’s turtles all the way down 😀
😂😂
Everything must change so that implies that everything evolves.
Hoffman makes statements as if they are facts when in reality he is making unsubstantiated speculation.
Actually he has done computational experiments that offer some support for his claims. While not proof they are compelling. I'd recommend watching a few more of his interviews, I find his approach fascinating.
@@yoyoma17 It's certainly an interesting area of research.
(Proof is used in Mathematics and logic which has nothing to do with science. The Scientific method doesnt deal with proof. Science is a tool that generates reproducible data through experiment and observation that can support or refute a pre-stated hypothesis.
Science has not been able to prove anything since its invention by Eratosthenes in about 200 BC. But as a tool it has discovered a myriad of patterns and knowledge that "appear" to be present in nature.
maybe consciousness as energy evolve from time?
ALL EVOLUTION IS A STEP FUNCTION IF THE FRACTAL MEAURING STICK IS SMALL ENOUGH .... LARGE MEASURING STICK IT BECOMES FRACTAL TRENDS
WATCHING THIS I GET A SENSE THAT HOFFMAN IS ON ANOTHER KEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE OLD GUARED IS STUBURN IN THERE OLD WAYS OF SCIENCE ON THIS SUBJECT THAT DONT LEAD TO NOTHING.
Sadly enough consciousness in humans seems to devolve and that's why we are still in the Kali Yuga... that is just beginning.