SCIENTIFIC PROOF: Reality Is An Illusion | Dr. Donald Hoffmann PhD
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- Presentation by neuroscientist Prof. Donald Hoffman during Essentia Foundation's 2020 online work conference. Donald Hoffman discusses conscious realism and how it relates to our perception of reality. Subscribe to the channel: bit.ly/EssentiaYT
00:00 Donald Hoffman introduction
01:14 Conscious realism introduction
04:52 Bottom-up approach
09:28 Mystery of consciousness
12:15 Spacetime is doomed
15:15 Evolution and reality
22:07 Reality is consciousness
26:47 Conscious AI
28:40 Q&A
Did you enjoy this video? Be sure to give it a like!
Do you want to support our cause?
Have a look at our website → www.essentiafoundation.org/co...
----------
Donald Hoffman is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. He is an author of over 120 scientific papers and three books, including 'The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes.' He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. His writing has appeared in Scientific American, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Edge, and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, Ars Technica, National Public Radio, Discover Magazine, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. He has a TED Talk titled 'Do we see reality as it is?' Prof. Hoffman is a member of Essentia Foundation's Academic Advisory Board.
----------
Science of Consciousness conference | Essentia Foundation
The Science of Consciousness' conference 2021 is organized by the Sentience and Science Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study of the University of Amsterdam and Essentia Foundation. During this conference thinkers came together to discuss consciousness and its various states and manifestations. Find all talks from the conference here: bit.ly/ConsciousnessConference
Analytic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup | Essentia Foundation
In the playlist “Analystic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup” you will find a carefully produced but free, online, video-based course on Analytic Idealism with over 6 hours of content, conducted by Essentia Foundation’s executive director, Bernardo Kastrup. Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. Find the course here: bit.ly/AnalyticIdealism
2020 Work Conference | Essentia Foundation
In the playlist “2020 Work Conference” you will find various talks given by scholars, thinkers, scientists, entrepeneurs, professors, authors and journalists during Essentia Foundation's 2020 online work conference. Find the talks here:
bit.ly/EFworkconference
----------
Welcome to the TH-cam channel of Essentia foundation. Essentia Foundation is an information hub that aims at communicating the latest analytic and scientific indications that metaphysical materialism is fundamentally flawed. Our community of authors, including Bernardo Kastrup, lists a growing number of academics, scholars, philosophers, scientists and authors whose works are opening the way for a new, more functional and true understanding of ourselves and reality at large. By closing the communication gap Essentia Foundation hopes to communicate new evidence of metaphysical idealism to human culture at large.
And this is what our TH-cam channel is perfectly suited to do. By posting interviews, discussions, lectures, informational video’s and other short formats we hope to share new developments in the quest to understand reality. Do you also wonder whether we actually live in a physical universe? Then be sure to check out our video’s and subscribe to our channel.
----------
Want to know more?
Take a look at our websites and socials.
Website: bit.ly/EssentiaWebsite
Vimeo: bit.ly/EssentiaVimeo
Twitter: bit.ly/EssentiaTwitter
Facebook: bit.ly/EssentiaFB
Copyright © 2021 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.
#EssentiaFoundation #ConsciousRealism #DonaldHoffman
I really appreciate the modesty and calmness of Dr. Hoffman. I think anybody, whatever the side on this issue of mind-body, should also try to be so for possibly fruitful discussions and outputs based on rational arguments that would avoid the danger of fanaticism.
"Everything in the Universe, throughout all its kingdoms, is conscious: i.e., endowed with a consciousness of its own kind and on its own plane of perception".
H.P. Blavatsky.
A very lucid discussion. The fact that we are presented with a graphical interface to increase our survival chance here in spacetime over the ontological truth of reality has a recursive irony to it considering that consciousness research could prove the existence of the afterlife.
Not seeing the objective reality makes room for the reality of subjective experience, each human has a different and specific name...a unique way of using the human interface...
A mathematical theory of consciousness from which you could derive spactime and the rest of physics opens up unbelievable "sci fi" possibilities. The mind boggles.
Donald Hoffman was interviewed by Tom Bilyeu who runs a comics shop... I think they might work with these ideas :D
The issue I have with this approach is that it is all based on theoretical modelling. Over 2,000 years ago someone told us that the body, our minds and indeed even consciousness are illusory. However, this was not based on a theoretical model of reality, this was based on direct experience. Until philosophers can give me a way of directly experiencing their ideas and not simply coming up with logical arguments to support them, I feel they are still way behind the curve.
@@JudeMalachi Ah my friend, my words, like yours, have no meaning. They are simply echoes from the past. And, as we both know, there is no past, nor are there any echoes from it.
Such a shame Donald is retired, I would love to be a grad student in his group.
It is like the actors in a movie suddenly realizing that they are in a movie and that they are actually actors but they have been so involved they were under the illusion that their characters were real.
Thanks so much!!
The q&a section was the best!
Besides having a theory of Consciousness, learning how to hack space-time might get us to Andromeda Galaxy
Ainda não tem como. Tem um teórico brisando nessas ideias. Nassim Haramein! Porém o modelo dele é bem algébrico e hermenêutico. Não tem muita aceitação na academia... não que isso seja o problema. Se entrar no site dele ou pesquisar aqui no youtube vai encontrar vários vídeos onde ele aborda o tema de ''hackear'' o espaço tempo. Ele inclusive tem um modelo interessante da consciência relacionada com feedback-feedfoward.
Fantastic!
Thank you so much for posting this wonderful lecture
Great discussion. Can’t wait to see more
This is so great thx
How about, spacetime is one formulation of a science of form (like chaos theory, probability, etc.) Having concentrated of the science of force for so long (f=ma, e=mc2), recent advances in form have been exciting. That said, it leads to pure math--not easily tethered to physicalism, but instead, pretty clearly to me, a conscious--if metaphysical--phenomenon. Identifying and working with the root of force in conscious realism seems a fun and perhaps useful study.
27.55 .."so we really got the ability to reverse engineer our interface of space-time will then have the ability to open new portals to rejig our interface to open new portals into this pre-existing realm of conscious agents this is not creating new consciousness it's opening new portals into conscious agents that already exstist,and for what it's worth?I think the answer is yes..."
Woh!!
Remarkable.
I've wanted to see a long discussion between Kastrup and Hoffman for a while, good to see them talking.
Instead of the network of conscious agents, can we figure out the network of nueral cells first?
conscious agents must be part of consciousness i.e., a field. Thus, Consciousness must be unbounded nonlocal and continuous. Hence, everything Is conscious. Life cannot be discontinuous either and thus it must be redefined. Same with freewill, It cannot be discontinuous.
Wolfram has developed a fundamental theory that with a few simple rules can predict spacetime AND matter and make wild predictions beyond Planck constants, other particles, etc. Quantum Gravity Research team are doing remarkable work with geometry and tetrahedrons
@@JudeMalachi I discovered Wolfram’s theory from the Lex Fridman podcast. Lex interviewed him twice over the last few years and I found their conversation very interesting. It seems that Wolfram has inspired the minds of many people (based on the amount of references I’ve noticed by various thinkers I admire). Wolfram has published a second book about his ideas as well, though I haven’t read it. But if you haven’t already, consider doing a TH-cam search for: Lex Fridman Wolfram
Brilliant Ideas from Prof. Donald Hoffman, You need to reach with those ideas to software developers, they will get it in blink of an eye.
Good point!
I think Rupert Sheldrake might be another quite interesting interviewee
well.. if he wouldn't have ashamed himself with bullshit
@@simulation5627 he's just full of shit.. some stuff is interesting.. but mainly loads and loads of pseudoscience, lots of bad research falsely confirmed results etc .. just shameful as a scientist.
@@straizys That's a lot of personal insult with no details to justify it. If you really have arguments to make against his ideas, his research methods or anything else, know that you are hurting your own credibility by attacking the man like this. Care to elaborate about why you see his work as pseudoscience; where, precisely, you believe his research misrepresents the data; where their analysis goes wrong, what you think about their statistical significance?
@@icygood101 dude there are thousands of academics did that for me. i didn't have to repeat them. rupert has very shady history and he ruined his name as a scientist. and thats very unfortunate because honestly I was about to take him seriously at some point in my life as well
I'd be interested in Bernardo's response to Hoffman saying that making a distinction between living and non-living is a rookie mistake given it is a fundamental aspect of his theory.
Yes, but the minerals live in our bodies, where does the mineral world has a clear boundary? In our gut? Blood? Mouth? Just because the minerals are in the bread on the table not in my blood and cells they are dead?
only insofar as distinguishing living and non-living things is about other minds and the problem of accessing other minds. If Hoffman agrees that conscious agents must somehow dissociate and limit access to other minds, I recognize no conflict. The main difference AFAIK is that Hoffman's theory seems to start with two agents to generate a multitude, almost sounding like emergence (but I don't understand his theory any deeper than what I have heard him explain) whereas Kastrup prefers pure monism in ontology as well as substance - so only one agent (mind-at-large) that becomes fragmented.
for evolution (theory) to be true, you need space and time, not?
I like Hoffman's theory but the main issue I have with his theory is that it falls into mereological nihilism. The idea that there are only atomic entities and groups of those are not real. Sure everyone knows we don't see reality in its full granular glory, but who cares? One could say we see a more or less correct version of reality in macroscopic human scales?
So to me, what he is saying seems something more like "You see a chair, but actually its these trillions of subatomic particles...etc". Yeah okay but who cares? If this is his model, then The evolutionary argument against naturalism is a far better argument, since it doesn't assume mereological nihilism.
@@JudeMalachi I think you're misrepresenting what I said. First off, "Mereological nihilism" isn't something I came up with, it's a technical philosophical term that describes the view that only atomic objects are real, and aggregations or groups don't exist. If that's what Hoffman implies by his theory, then it becomes vacuous and trivial. Everyone ALREADY knows we don't see atoms or atomic structures, distances, shapes...etc. This is a very crucial point because he doesn't seem to distinguish the two at all.
I also specifically said I LIKED his theory, I actually watched tens of hours of lectures and presentations and even read his book plus alot of articles, I just want to make sure what the hell he means when he speaks of objects and distances, structures...etc does he mean only and strictly on the subatomic/atomic level or pretty much ALL levels.
You say that who cares if it provides revolutionary advancement, yeah I agree, but that's a BIG IF. No one, not even Hoffman claims his theory has done that, or that it will even lead to that, and he is very careful in how he presents it as merely a very interesting line of inquiry that requires quote" decades of future research". All he has now is a mathematical model, and some interesting computer simulations.
Finally you make it sound as if I'm lampooning QMs, no, I'm lampooning his failure to distiniguish the two levels of discourse, macro and micro, on which depends whether his theory worthwhile and interesting in the first place. You understand now?
That's not what his theory is saying, you're still operating in the psychical framework. His theory goes beyond spacetime.
panpsychism :(
not really, this is more some kind of polyanimus ontological idealism, which he calls conscious realism.
Subtlety its not exactly though I think there will be problems with its constitutive aspects. Whereas BK's Ideas bypass that. But ultimately this has to be scientific & not only philosophical.
Scientists like this fellow will evolve as they continue to rub shoulders with the likes of Kastrup and Chalmers.
Tell me you didn't understand the lecture without telling me you didn't understand the lecture.
Hoffmann ontology is very different from Panpsychism, for one thing he doesn’t presuppose the reality of subatomic particles and their physical properties, a view, if it isn’t internally contradictory, is also externally contradictory (it is inconsistent with the consensus on the behaviour of subatomic particles, namely that they are anything but discrete entities but are instead what could be approximated to excitations of fields - don’t quote me on that, I’m barely an amateur; I’m absolutely not an expert lol).