The Mathematics of Consciousness: Donald Hoffman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- You can watch all our videos at scienceandnonduality.com
Donald Hoffman describes his mathematical theory that ties in with consciousness touching into neuroscience, computer science, perception, and how we construct reality.
Donald David Hoffman (born December 29, 1955) is an American cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science.
Science and Nonduality is a community inspired by timeless wisdom, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. We come together in an open-hearted exploration while celebrating our humanity.
This was absolutely brilliant. I'm convinced all lines will converge on this manner of thinking moving forward
Now we’re getting somewhere! Thank you Mr. Hoffman and good luck!
This is the most insightful approach to consciousness I have ever seen. Once upon a time people thought the world was flat… I’ll leave it there.
Yeah "once upon a time"
He speaks as an expert in his field, he is a trailblazer. I hope that he changes the assumptions of the larger scientific community and even the society at large. He is speaking of very complicated ideas, yet manages to express them in language that is understandable to ordinary people. ( Well, maybe ordinary people who listen twice to the video, LOL!)
I would loved to have understood him but just wasn't able to tune in to his vocabulary and mathematics at all. But he sounded good all the same.
@@annemckeon6532 I have a broad education inside physics, matematics, chemistry and computer science, and I need to pause the video at some places to think through what he says - and also many places to go back 3 or 4 minutes to repeat some stuff. May be you could improve your understanding in this way? Good luck!
I think he is absolutely brilliant. Over the last 50 years I have gradually moved from materialism to idealism. I think the weirdness of quantum physics and the countless NDE experiences etc. clearly converge into the world view of Hoffman. Starting with consciousness we arrive at the world we know with no artificial tricks, but the opposite way, starting with matter, time and space consciousness never shows up.
Twice?? Yeh right. I have been listening to everything Hoffman and still having problems. I wished I was as smart as you.
Thank you, thank you, and thank you. I'm a long-term Buddhist practitioner. Your scientific explanation gave me the clarity and logic to guide my students on the wisdom and truth of the Illusionary and Emptied Nature of all things. It resonates profoundly with my inner core. I have my own understanding and realization; however, to help the younger generation cut or even just reduce the level of attachment to the illusioned value of this material world that is the cause of suffering, this video clip is a beneficial tool that speaks with the youngsters in their own language. I just found this channel by chance today; I believe that a special force of enlightened energy led me to it. Will be back to check and learn more from these compassionate masters here. With gratitude and appreciation.
True for me too. There is an anecdote in "Autobiography of a Yogi", where swami Yukteswar ji predicts a vagabond like person to turn around at a point in the road. Although a small event, I wondered then how a person can read the consciousness of another person so clinically. As you said, Hoffman's approach from the other end is interesting and easily digestible for the scientifically oriented.
The inquiry into consciousness in the field of science shows that material scientistis have come up against a rocky bottom. The only way forward is to correct our perception of the illusive material reality and accept it as a construct of higher spiritual realities. This juncture in mankind's spiritual evolution invites more widespread acceptance of our spiritual nature.
Indeed. The last serious contribution to epistimology (was understood as ontology at the time) was a little over a hundred years ago.
Can you formulate your spirtual nature in a logically tight way? Otherwise I must accept that you are not even wrong ...
Thank you for supporting his research. Thank you for this presentation. I really love this guy. I love how he’s trying to turn it upside down and inside out and I pray to God he’s successful. I love it, that you are willing to present him on your forum. 👍🙂🙏❤️💯💪
7:31 Best question I’ve heard. The correlates do not imply causation unless you are a materialist/physicalist.
excellent composite! Thank you! Donald Hoffman presents a brilliant pathway leading to a more 'real' scientific understanding of consciousness.
How can we get more people listening to this wonderful gent? I so enjoy this style of presentation.
His TED talk is more accessible. Better entry point as an introduction.
All those that disagree with him don't understand what he really means. All is Brahman, in the literal sense, all is consciousness, in the literal sense..
Bingo. Non-duality. This is A Course in Miracles metaphysics in scientific terms. Gives me hope!
Ahh, but can you write Brahman as an equation? Otherwise you are not even wrong ...
@@martinmuller3244 Let’s take a shot at it; how about 1=1
@@glenndespres5317 Aaah, {{}} = {{}}. Simple meaning ...
One orange is one orange
One cat is one cat
One brahman is one brahman
One (one brahman is one brahman) is One (one brahman is one brahman)
Ok, works for me. Not sure what follows, though.
@@martinmuller3244 Saguna Brahman is discoverable mathematically. Nirguna Brahman is not. Nirguna Brahman is the one premise upon which the logical system relies, but which cannot be explained by or within that system. See Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
This man is awesome !!!!!!!!
As a production note, I would suggest that whenever you have a question card you have somebody say the question instead of playing music to allow people who are visually impaired or not watching the video to follow the whole story. It would be much more cohesive.
Very interesting, I needed to watch twice, thanks for sharing!
Amazing speaker! What a wealth of insight! Thank you🙏
Music to my ears.. 🎼🎶🎸
I started watching the video a little hesitantly as it was 25 minutes long, but good Lord was it captivating!
8:58 the search strategy is brilliant in it’s simplicity. What’s to lose except maybe your bias?
It would be nice to see a date reference as it seems to me this interview is at leat 5 years old (but rather 7 - 2015 when this theory came out)
A self-enlightened charming person.
You should have seen my face when I saw this title … for yrs I’ve intuitively felt that there’s a mathematical formula for creation.
& BRAM!
Here it is.
Thank you for putting that piece of the puzzle together … I feel complete!
(almost)
Much LOVE from The USVI.
I can't help but draw a parallel between the ideas of Leibniz and Hoffman. For Leibniz, monads - what Hoffman calls "conscious agents" - are distinct substances that cannot interact directly with each other:
"There is no way to explain how a monad can be altered or changed internally by another creature, since one cannot transpose anything in it, nor can one conceive of any internal motion that can be excited, directed, augmented, or diminished within it, as can be done in composites, where there can be change among the parts. The monads have no windows through which anything can enter or leave. Accidents cannot be detached, nor can they go about outside of substances, as the sensible species of the Scholastics once did. Thus, neither substance nor accident can enter a monad from without." (G VI, 607/A&G 213f.)
Leibniz seems to think that causal interaction between two beings requires the transfer of some parts of those beings. But substances are simple unextended entities: they contain no parts. Hence, there is no way to explain how one substance could influence another. This is a huge problem.
Leibniz's ad hoc solution is to assume a pre-established harmony between (created) monads. Hoffman, on the other hand, argues that conscious agents are all "individuals" made of the same "stuff", and thus can readily interact with each other. I found this view to be inconsistent for the very reasons given by Leibniz. According to the proposal at hand, it is not a very large step to assume the existence of one single conscious agent. Indeed, if time, space, and matter are all fictional representations of reality, then so is the individuality, the "thisness" of conscious agents since there are all made of the same stuff, consciousness. On this view the world, "reality", consists of a single conscious agent, and the apparent multiplicity of conscious agents and their relationships is merely an illusion. On Hoffman's view, the argument would go on: there is only one all-encompassing universal consciousness. This is not a new idea, and it doesn't get us very far.
How can I sign up for some of these magnet on the head experiments?
Love from India..... Hare Krishna❤️
Gotta love this guy! 🙂
Hi! How are you?
The first week of the new year, January, is already Friday.
I wish you good health and good things on both weekends and holidays.
Thank you very much.
this man is a hero!
Hola , faltan más subtítulos en Español , por favor .
That's a great interview really, but please check your audio balance, the song played for each questions is ripping my ears apart.
Thanks.
Please work on your sound mix so that the audio during the title card interludes isn’t so loud!
Why Donald Hoffman says that his model has no time, and at the same time his model has the counter (which is kinda a tick in a processor, or a run loop, or, voila - time), and his conscious agents are interacting- interaction doesn’t occur in static environments
This resonates well with the paper Free will theorem by John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen, which states "if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles"
Thanks for the interesting video, but it seems the music in between the spoken fragments is a bit too loud.
You have not given me enough to follow your reasoning. I would appreciate the references you would recommend so that I can follow the mathematics.
I collect meaningful Ansatses to the problem of consciousness. There really are only three that I have found viable so far:
1) Kant's take (it is essentially the same as the nonduality take, except that it has a more modern interpretation of material reality). Essentially he points to the ordering principles of the mind that does the thinking. The immediate ones he finds are space and time.
2) The functional description of the mind. It's problem is essentially that it is too complex to reach a meaningful Myth of Mind, so essential for understanding. The problem would be akin to us understanding nuclear physics with modern equipment. There is too much detail, so it is hard to see the organising trends.
3) Maxwell's Daemon. There is an intimate link between the nescessary complexity of a mind in order to be able to control a particular system and the system's entropy.
Wow, sound impressive. I haven't gotten any of it.
We need more quantum experiments.
Whether this conscious agents cannot interact directly. They may be interacting through us? Through our events?
If people like this, check out bernardo kastrup, he's done great (phd) work on describing a consciousness-first reality, it's basically this in other terms
Yes!!! How about a dialogue between them?!
What do you think about memory and resurrection in the same body?
yall should read Be as you are from David Godman ( Teachings of Ramana Maharshi )
Great video, brilliant guest, but the constantly interrupting music is so annoying. Please just let Prof. Hoffman talk!
It sounds like he explained the consciousness process and then went on to say we don't know what it is, it's exactly what you said and what the magnet test showed, an ongoing process of brain cause and effect activity which when disrupted disrupts the whole conscious experience or a part of it, seems self explanatory. What confuses them is trying to pinpoint the conscious experience as some extra organised entity when it is in fact a collective effect of these processes. The fact that you can gas this effect into non experience should be enough proof.
W/ all respect, that's not really an explanation at all, and I can prove it w/ a simple question: explain to me how what you said translates to the experience of the taste of chocolate or the smell of a rose.
It doesn't.
As you say, what he points out, is that there is no real "Myth of Mind". A simplifying principle that allows us to understand what is going on in a big picture kind of way. We have done quantum mechanics for nearly a hundred years, but we still don't have an overarching 'myth' that makes it understandable; so this is nothing new in science.
Since conscousness is an emergent property, it may actually not be reducible in any way other than to model the interacting functional units accurately and have consciousness be described (accurately?) in terms of the interaction of these functional units.
This would be like the way in which we are beginning to understand chemical pathways working in us, that cannot be understood except as dozens or hundreds of interacting chemicals.
@@martinmuller3244 Calling consciousness an "emergent property" doesn't change the fundamental problem. It's just kicking the can down the road.
Unless one can explain how fundamentally unconscious ingredients, like neurons in the brain, could ever produce their polar opposite in conscious experience - it's an unjustified and unscientific presumption to assert otherwise.
It's one thing to talk about how some new combination of drugs produces an entirely new effect. At the end of the day you're still talking about chemical reactions; but to say that consciousness could somehow arise from some unbelievable number of neurons (or whatever unconscious ingredient you wish to work with) working in insanely complex enough ways is no different than saying that if you add enough legs to a caterpillar and they work furiously enough then eventually the little guy will fly.
Ridiculous, right? But because consciousness is such a mysterious thing people give themselves elbowroom to entertain nonsensical ideas that they wouldn't entertain for a moment w/ most anything else.
@@ryanashfyre464 To tell you the truth, Chemistry emerges out of physics, and yet we often have no clue as to how, because we cannot solve the physics. So saying you accept one form of emergent property (chemistry), but not another (consciousness) would be weird to me ...
Basically in terms of neural nets, your architecture determins function. So an explanation along the lines of: "we have sixty or so functional units in the brain; in this one these chemicals produce this architecture, in this one these chemicals produce this architecture ....
And then these chemical gradients are used for these neurons to connect to that ...
This functional unit can be simplified to have these connections and then this function (ideally reduced to a mathematical model) ...
Then saying something like: Chocolate stimulates these sensors in the nose and tongue and allows a unique pattern to be stored in the system. Additional stimulation of Chocolate together with social behavious allows very distinct memory patterns to be linked tightly to the Chocolate pattern. These patterns are related to each other and often recalled together with each other.
If the functional description along these lines were presented to me, I would accept that we understand the taste of chocolate. I would accept this, even if the model would only exist in a computer, and not be intuitively obvious.
Remember, I take at face value that chocolate is special to you, rather than what it is to me, and that is a rather unpleasant, sweet sensation; something I would rather avoid, but people keep giving it to me at christmas ...
@@martinmuller3244 "And then these chemical gradients are used for these neurons to connect to that ...
This functional unit can be simplified to have these connections and then this function (ideally reduced to a mathematical model) ...
Then saying something like: Chocolate stimulates these sensors in the nose and tongue and allows a unique pattern to be stored in the system. Additional stimulation of Chocolate together with social behavious allows very distinct memory patterns to be linked tightly to the Chocolate pattern. These patterns are related to each other and often recalled together with each other.
If the functional description along these lines were presented to me, I would accept that we understand the taste of chocolate."
My dear fellow, w/ all due respect, you haven't answered the question at all. You're conflating pattern recognition w/ the experience of a sensation - and there is nothing about electrical signals in the brain to justify this. You're putting the proverbial cart before the horse:
- You assert that the taste of chocolate should somehow allow a "unique pattern" to be stored in the brain, but this says precisely nothing about how neurons in the brain (however many of them working in however furious a manner) converts to an actual experience. Why should they?
You're effectively appealing to complexity in the same vein as Rey Kurzweil and Douglas Hofstadter to hand-wave away the hard problem of consciousness. Do you honestly think this problem would've gone on for as long as it has if it were really something as simple as pattern recognition in the brain?
C'mon now.
Mind and consciousness is wave (fuzziness) and brain is particle duality.
The world we live and thus perceive is not two dimensional 😅😅😅 in reality it is 3D. It is our eyes that takes it into two dimensions and construct 3D?
There is only zero and next. All else is illusion ...
2D and 3D are the same thing ...
The retina is 2D. The instrumental space we seem to move through is left/right, forward/back and sometimes up/down. If the mind is big enough it can create space ...
The human spirit is powerful. We have a spirit which is our internal voice and represents our consciousness subconsciously. The spirit is a (constructor) by that I mean it paints the world around us subconsciously using conscious correlations. When you go to sleep at night and you wake up inside of a dream that is the spirit placing your consciousness into a world it constructed from your own subconscious. If you look up node edging, weighted and unweighted, once you understand that function apply that to the nuclei of the proton. Specifically the plasma strings connecting the quarks together in the gluon field. This is how gravity actually works. When scientist say they observe sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence inside the nucleus of the proton. They are simply describing the weighted measure being applied. When we are in free fall inside a gravitational field, we are in an unweighted state of measure (this just means the force that would normally apply your physical weight forces you to rest in the field so it can apply your weight). When we are at rest in the field it applies our weight. The reason why quantum entanglement works is because the quark gluon plasma field is a unified field and spacetime represents the memory emitted from that field. Electromagnetic radiation and electrical charges represent memory being emitted from the quark gluon plasma which is a unified field. The memory emitted from that field travels through spacetime but that field has a connection internally through the field itself that exist outside of spacetime. So the quark gluon plasma has no cosmic speed limit. No amount of spacetime can separate that field.
So once you realize the above and you understand the spirit is a constructor you can make a little more sense of perception. The spirit is a subconscious constructor and represents our consciousness on the network. We are all connected subconsciously neurologically. We are connecting and entangling our neurology consciously through interaction and experience. When we run into each other in the world my brain and your brain make conscious neurological branch connections bewteen us inside both of our brains depending on our location on the network. The cones in our eyes are pointed inward which represents the fact that our perception is currently directly internally and that is because we are having a temporal experience which is created by underlying processes. It's like the universe is having a dream that it just hasn't woken up from yet. We are the fractal representatives of the universe having a temporal experience helping it eternalize itself.
This could mean god created a son and gave him a conscience and that conscience was his own and we are helping him find it.
What is true perception? Where do i know what true perception is? Isnt perception always subjective?
❤️🙏🏽
Perfect presentation by Donald Hoffman, to explain this Hadist Qudsi :
يَقُولُ اللهُ تَعَالَى: أَنَا عِنْدَ ظَنِّ عَبْدِي
“God the Almighty said: I am as my servant (you) thinks I am “
“Tuhan berfirman: Aku adalah prasangka hambaku..” Muhammad (600)
"Manunggaling kawulo - gusti", "You, are your own God" “You, are the creator of your own reality” Syech Siti Jenar, javanese scientist (1481)
“I think therefore i’am” Rene Descartes (1637)
“Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking (believe) at it?“ Albert Einstein, the confused scientist towards quantum physics and reality (1921)
Donald Hoffman is one icon I will not drag to the trash!
we share the same bday bro! dec 29. great stuff. dont forget that it is Thought that creates Cause. cause creates form. deep in the Blue pearl of your meditation, there is a Person. meet me there
🤯 ❤
I think particles are toroidal in nature. Pos and neg flow in the center. Like a tesla coil.
You and I are the only one here. Consciousness is all that exist. All possibilities exist.
What is mathematics founded on?
"If the doors of perception were cleansed, every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite."
William Blake
"Perspectives within existential theory
which emphasize that authentic meaning
comes from personal experiences of a
transpersonal or sacred nature."
"Existential theory is rooted in the philosophical idea that humans have free choice, and because of that free choice, we can create purpose and meaning in our lives. Existential theory suggests that we have a choice in who we desire to be."
This man is full of wisdom!
Hey u should do dmt lsd and ayahuasca its life changing we're all the same consciousness creating reality through the mind🧠👁 our souls are all connected we're all God having a human experience
The magnet on brain effecting the consciousness perception of motion or colour, doesn't necessarily mean that consciousness comes from the brain,maybe it interferes with the reception of consciousness.idk,at the end of the day I ain't no scientist I'm just a window fitter, but my own experiences have convinced me that my own consciousness comes from the one consciousness.
Yaeh, senses evolve,
that flowers close at dark, and opens at light,
is the first fase in developing of our Eyes.
Senses is developed endless, in a eternal perspective,
all based on our Eternal Ability, Feeling.
So, all senses is diffirent ways of Feeling.
Just very short
I would like for the algorithm to recommend good content. This is good content therefore I´m writing this comment.
Clearly, consciousness arises when there are two conflicting sensory inputs.
Cockeyed format w each silent question comes that swami music interlude is crazy distractive production failure..
18:08 When he says "I didn't create this thing! hah maybe I did! I don't know"! he should be pointing to a Supreme self experience probably happened to him through his meditations.
Nothingness can’t exist because potential of something is the substrate of reality and that’s still something. Paradox quite literally gives logic utility.
That’s enough for syntax to self create consciousness which then projects spacetime.
May I suggest the removal of the music in between the questions from this, for me it breaks the conversation and the audio fluctuation is distracting
Did someone delete my comment? if so, could you explain why ?
do long deep meditations, and you feel this theory intuitively.
Really. I wish.
I wish the questions were spoken. I listen to these rather than watch them.
At 17 min, he starts laying out his view as an assumption that the universe is like this and there are conscious agents. In doing so, he just became an Aristotelian. That’s exactly how Aristotle solved the same problem albeit without modern scientific insights.
Does consciousness exist? Absolutely. Was I conscious yesterday? No, but now I am conscious as long as my nervous system vibrates like the strings of a musical instrument. After the strings have ceased to vibrate in the present manner, or I have dropped dead, my present consciousness will have disappeared. I can speak to what is built up in my past and that is consciousness.
You need two sounds and an intervall that lead to the third sound. Music is one of the expressions of consciousness and you also need to see two things in order to see a third thing. Hearing and seeing inclusive other senses are partly the same and contripute to our environment of consciousness. Consciousness is ongoing and not stationary.
If we grew a brain without thinking about it, maybe the actual purpose of the brain has little or nothing to do with thinking and/or consciousness. If you would be so kind, I'd like to propose a new and rather strange idea. Namely, the actual purpose the brain isn't thinking; it is for holding a form (body) in space and time. I would further suggest that the human body is like space suit. At some point in time we put on; and at some other point in time, we take it off. What remains? Sincerely.
Emotions are important aspects of consciousness, but emotions are irrational and illogical placing those aspects of consciousness outside of mathematics which is rational and logical. Hence math is not sufficient to model consciousness.
He and Bernardo Kastrup should talk
why a need for green screeen?
Ancient Hindu Scriptures refer to sudden attracted super consciousness enters the physical space time universe.There are different levels of intelligence,e.g. water has intelligence,so also plants ,animals and humansAt the base is the sound vibration.
Don't take my following negative sentiments as a rejection of thinking outside the box. But it is also stupid to accept outside of the box as being intrinsically better than conventional thinking. Often conventional thinking is conventional because it is right, or at least productive. I see a number of problems with Hoffman's claims. First, he throws water on neural research saying they've looked and looked but can't explain everything. Of course they can't, but they are making progress. His dismissive attitude isn't a good look as it ignore that fruitful research.
Second, the human brain has on the order of a quadrillion synaptic connections. No shit nobody can pinpoint that "here, this spot here, is where the experience of green happens." In fact, many (most) models assume that experience is a distributed phenomenon; there is no locus, an inner experiencer. Keep in mind that this is the criteria he has used for rejecting conventional neural research.for
Third, he talks about his intelligent agent model, that everything can be explained by one intelligent agent or a system (of apparently unbounded number) of intelligent agents. Part 3a: calling them intelligent agents is just a phrase he made up. What makes them intelligent? By giving them that name, it seems like he is leaning on that arbitrary name to do part of the lifting of his claims. What if I called an individual synaptic junction as being an intelligent agent, and then I just flatly state that consciousness can be explained by the interaction of these intelligent agents (aka synaptic connections)? Part 3b: although he has dismissed neuron-first approaches for not being able to explain the experience of green, his theory absolutely doesn't either, far from it! If this failure is reason enough to reject other approaches, why isn't that sufficient to reject his own approach? Notice how he puts the burden of proof for others to disprove his claims. Great, he can show in the limit what his is calling an XXX agent can be used to derive the Shrodinger equation. Neat, but how is that any closer to explaining consciousness than saying Schrodinger himself had figured out consciousness.
His claims are a lot like saying there is no need for chemistry. In theory, one could derive all of chemistry by application of the fundamentals of physics. But the fact is we have chemistry as a discipline because the Schrodinger way equation approach is impractical for everything except the most trivial of interactions.
Some of the things he claims are novel about his theory sound pretty standard to me. Show me the person/theory that claims that a conscious person has perfect knowledge or perception of every particle of their environment. None do. So his knowing smile at 20:17 is really grating. Every theory of consciousness and even any ordinary person's understanding of consciousness knows that what is perceived is a tiny fraction of the information available, and that the information that is available is subject to all manner of distortions and inaccuracies before all the winnowing that happens in the information processing funnel.
At 21:15 he simply asserts that each intelligent agent has free will simply because he gave it that meaning. No discussion of free will is meaningful with a definition of what one means by "free will," so his claims are vapid. Naturalists can accept that quantum effects have random/non-computable effects, but that doesn't amount to free will.
At 22:00 he says, as if it is an insight, that correlation is not causation. No duh, but it doesn't mean it isn't. One needs other experiments to show causation... such as the fact one can stimulate very particular spots in a brain during non-sedated surgery and cause specific, repeatable experiences. One can use TMS to inhibit activity to specific regions of the brain and the test subject will have predictable, repeatable experiences as the result. These are exactly points he brought up earlier.
As you say, what he points out, is that there is no real "Myth of Mind". A simplifying principle that allows us to understand what is going on in a big picture kind of way. We have done quantum mechanics for nearly a hundred years, but we still don't have an overarching 'myth' that makes it understandable; so this is nothing new in science.
Since conscousness is an emergent property, it may actually not be reducible in any way other than to model the interacting functional units accurately and have consciousness be described (accurately?) in terms of the interaction of these functional units.
This would be like the way in which we are beginning to understand chemical pathways working in us, that cannot be understood except as dozens or hundreds of interacting chemicals.
Very different words, but I think we have the same sentiment. Do you have a good reference to his work? I find his words too ambiguous to follow what he says...
What I would find fascinating is how his intelligent agents work together to create a collective consciousness. Our models of reality, when we engage in science) are not really created by a random collection of agents, but very tightly controlled (possibly unstable) interaction that spews out collected knowledge.
Humans have language. Language is acquired using concepts. We read a text, currently in english. If one were to type in a foreign lingo like in Russian text, for egzample, это если вы раньше не изучали русский язык..you see stars. Thats why, mind consciousness , as the sixth sense is most powerful. Other sensed consciousness, via our senses can only be perceived in the present. You can read only what i write , only , due to your presence or mindful attention in the here and now. But mind cinsciousness is multi dimensional and could be recalled beyond the here and now. Think about these theory on human beings are linguistically conditioned beings. We read using sounds and phonetics in our mind consciousness. Citta is a mind stream. Sankhara is our mental formation. Vinnana are our sensed consciousness. Mind is the forerunner of all things. Those who can perceive what is written here is due to the silence between the words pr sentences expressed. Its in the silence that we really perceived the enlightenment
Isnt this missing the point? Has anyone considered that what we call "consciousness" derives from the transition out of tribal life to society roughly as we know it today? With this change came a profound "stranger fear", as people became hyper-aware of the potential dangers represented by those they didnt and dont know occupying their lives and minds practically constantly.
The converse of this hyper-awareness of others is what we call, "self-consciousness", which was later spun up to "conscious self-awareness". In short, consciousness is simply fear of others, which isnt PC to articulate. But sometimes you've got to say the quiet part out loud, lest the basic facts of life get buried in academia.
E(J)=mc2
I'm assuming this is like 15 years old at least right?
Truly fascinating though. I've watched it three times and sent it to loads of my friends. Thanks for posting.
I respect Hoffman’s work, but I sense a confirmation bias at work here, in this explanation of consciousness. Mr. Hoffman, do you believe all this information resides in the memory of the brain and body only? Or have you found any evidence that you’re willing to admit to that the brain stores memory and experiences in the Akasha and accesses it telepathically through some natural process of the brain, such as the pineal gland transceiver?
The brain would be a representation of consciousness, but not consciousness itself.
Its like being in a virtual reality and seeing the body of your avatar and think that this is your real body. But its just a representation.
dude shut up
Consciousness is an entity in and of itself. It does not arise in the brain nor does the brain produce it. Consciousness is what we arise into and there is only one consciousness. The universe is a conscious mathematical structure. Math is the universal language, understood anywhere in the universe. Math is about thought and we use it to describe what we cannot see. Neither math nor consciousness have dimensions of space or time, thus, they do not enter into causal, temporal or spatial relationships and as a result a mathematical equation, composition or mathematical structure cannot be written for it.....Don
There is only one Consciousness
When humans go unconscious for a medical procedure or induced coma, why is there no experience or awareness of anything. Isn't this more indicative of reality? Eternal unconsciousness?
Consciousness can never be proven by science nor from side of the scriptures. All there is is consciousness. There is no space, there is no time they are the consciousness.
"In fact, the weak points in the Darwinian theory are easily found out by the student of science or natural philosophy. One is, that he makes the doctrine of the theory of selection and evolution account for the existence of distinctive types. In our opinion this is most erroneous; there is no such progress going on in nature; there has never been known to be such a process in nature as the one type of existence ever becoming merged into or becoming another type. There is no change going on in the lower orders that are said to resemble man by which it is possible that they become future men. The gorilla and the ape, though resembling man in appearance, fail to resemble in any distinctive qualities of expressed intelligence, and there has never been known in the history of the world a specific change from the lower to the higher degree of existence. Besides, that which is said to be the organic and continuous property of evolution applies not to the change and transition from one type to another of existence, but to the perfection and development of the type already formed; so that if nature does select her types, it does not and has not been shown that she has ever confused those types, interblent them, or in anyway lost them, but persistently, sacredly preserved the germs of every specific type in existence up to the present time."
Beware when someone says that's the best we can do with mathematical models ...
The loud music in between comments makes this unwatchable for me.
This is the quantum leap that science is supposed to be taking.....but I see flat out stubborn attitudes that purposely deny any of this.
Mathematics, another dreamt up scenario?
These claims are extremely precise; so they are extremely falsifiable.
Annoying music transitions 🫥
Pseudo-science.
This is the basis for machine learning in cognitive imagery, what part do you feel is pseudo science?
@@gb4375 That's the irony about this. Does the AI governing the automobile construct its reality or does it observe what really exists in front of the automobile in order to navigate around objects in reality? If it constructs its reality, then does it not also have to have a consciousness that examines the past as memories and is attached to desires for the future, but that does not appear to be the case...yet.
Or perhaps there's a case to be made that processing input data is constructing a past that then can also project desires (goals) to predict how to deal with the oncoming future?
@@gb4375 Donald's theory of conscious agents is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. If it were, he would be able to formulate a concrete and falsifiable prediction. This he has never done.
Not at all. Very elegant, mathematical theories. We ordinary folk do not attain.
He certainly seemed to jump to conclusions that it's all about having kids. Of course, consciousness is the only force present in the Universe with the ability to change anything from it's otherwise inevitable position and the Universe seems to have been planned out before it even began. I think his science has just been biased by his family life as evidenced by his using the purchasing of life insurance as the example of his belief in a future for his children and I presume his wife who was probably nagging him about getting life insurance.
⬜📐🎲🙏
So not funny. This guy is not worth listening to. What is his point.
I would say his point is that we have to take the idea that consciousness (the one great mystery that reductionist materialism has utterly failed at) is fundamental seriously - but also keep in mind that we're not hapless here either. Mathematics and science can help us make insight into consciousness if we don't let ourselves be tethered down by the dogmatic concepts of the past.
Even though I disagree with his suggestion that it's possible to come up with a formula for exactly how consciousness works without mixing in some miracles or what I call, some kind of way's; it seems to me that his premise of consciousness as being foundational as the cause of what appears to be, is mostly agreed with among the greatest scientists and discoverers throughout history like Planck, Schroedinger, Tesla, Davinci, Pythagoras, Einstein... Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge, I think that is because he knew everything is made of imagination. His formula E equals MC2 is actually the formula for how imagination works which I feel is much simpler than a formula for how consciousness works. The formula for imagination begins with the presumed miracle or something that happened some kind of way as consciousness. 🙏
@@imaginaryuniverse632 You can't come up w/ a theory for how *anything* works without presuming a miracle of some sort.
For materialist physicists, they have to grant the miracle of space-time (which they can't explain) for all of their theories.
As he points out, is that there is no real "Myth of Mind", and he is attempting an Ansatz in a different direction. A "Myth of Mind" would be a simplifying principle that allows us to understand what is going on in a big picture kind of way.
Since conscousness is an emergent property, it may actually not be reducible in any way other than to model the interacting functional units accurately and have consciousness be described (accurately?) in terms of the interaction of these functional units. These functional units must be at a level larger than the neuron, as we simply do not contain enough genetic material to encode our brains at the neural level.
This does not mean that an overarching "myth" with decent explanatory power is not valuable, and it may be that if we pivot to another perspective, parts of consciosness start to make sense. It may actually be, for example that a part of our 'fitness' is the evaluation of cognative abilities, and particularly our ability to act as collaborating conscious agents. In other words, it might actually be that our females select mates based on how effectively they can get others to work with them in our current society. From there it is not a big leap that some of these functional units are more easy to understand in terms of collaborating conscious agents.
So to summarize, Hoffman thinks that if you imply mathematics in philosophy theory of conciousness or metaphysical view of idealism in Hoffman's case, this alone should give extra weight on his proposition, and it brings seriousness into research? Well...
After looking at his "math models" I laughed, sincerely...
Donald thinks if you propose conciousness as fundamental aspect of reality, you are free of obligation to explain the actual matter of conciousness, which is hard problem of conciousness. As I've understood, objective reality is realm of concious agents and the physical universe is a product from that realm.
"Great Work (Latin: magnum opus) is a term used in Hermeticism and occult traditions descended from it, such as Thelema. Accomplishing the Great Work, symbolized as the creation of the philosopher's stone, represents the culmination of the spiritual path, the attainment of enlightenment, or the rescue of the human soul from the unconscious forces which bind it.
The Great Work signifies the spiritual path towards self-transcendence in its entirety. This is the process of bringing unconscious complexes into the conscious awareness, in order to integrate them back into oneself."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Work_(Hermeticism)
It seems to me that E equals MC2 is the formula for the process of Creation which could be called imagination. Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge because he knew everything is made of imagination, including knowledge.
🙏⬜📐🎲🌍🙏