@@philosophybabble yeah :) And this discussion has quite a few synergetic moments. I am still in progress of listing some interesting moments while I continue listening.
I’ve been following Hoffman for a few years and Levin for just over a year now. It didn’t even occur to me. They would know each other to do a search for both of them together. Hoffman is so heady I easily get lost so I appreciate him in conversation with Levin who is able to ground the concepts in reality in ways I have a better chance of understanding. I am a medium and have felt a strong need to know how communication with non-physical entities is possible. Hoffman’s User Illusion was the first piece of anything close to a direction in science I came across that might explain the reality of a larger dimensional space or stage on which what I was routinely seeing acted out. When I came across Levin on TOE, I believed I was seeing someone whose ideas of morphogenetic fields was the realest direction I had seen on the nature of discarnate souls. I’m no scientist, only intuitive, but for me these two together are like lightening in a fireworks factory. Thank you Ivy!
Do you know the Yogachara school of buddhism? A lot of Hoffman discourse and models mirrors their thinking, the only thing is that they used dreams as examples instead of virtual reality.
It is exactly hoffman who warns us about the illusory nature of our deeply intuitive systems. Only intuition is a recipe for disaster. I'm still waiting for the first self proclaimed 'medium' to convince me about the reality of their abilities.
I just love this. The pairing of these two was brilliant. Hoffman brings out another dimension of brilliance in Levin. Levin is the sort of mastermind you want contemplating these things. I am excited to see what he figures out in the years ahead.
@@RogueElement. when 10yos go around sprouting YOLO ie. physicalism, i dont think further endless physicalism is whats needed how about, I dunno, going over the data showing that not a single emergent property of consciousness has ever been prayed into existence at its asserted basis of emergence location. hoffman touches this but only every minimally. every time the physicalist babbles on about his religions hoffman needs to pretend he has no idea what the physicalist is talking about, cos by definition he doesn't
@@backwardthoughts1022 lol right. The world WILL annihilate itself if Materialism and related views are not abandoned. I am an analytical Idealism person. (Bernardo kastrup) you are right 🤣 I agree. But well kids these days are into genders anyway 😭🤷🏾♂️🤣
As an armchair Buddhist I am in deep awe of the dimension of Michael Levin's grasp and take of reality and the concept of very selfhood as constantly recreated from the memories of past events, and constantly laying foundations for our future versions - to be created from the memories of now.
At 54:07 he is talking about interface into the nature of our reality and this is exactly what McLuhan's theories are about - the medium is the message. It's a profound aphorism but addresses many of the points made in this fascinating discussion.
Really this is the first time I've heard scientists actually propose theories that match up to my understandings from personal enlightenment investigations. I've been waiting a while. Refreshing.
I absolutely loved this presentation! These "reality-building consciousness" reflections confirm the intuitive writings of Ortega y Gassett, specifically as he outlined them in his seminal work, _Man and People_ ("El Hombre y La Gente"), from lectures presented in the early 1930's but published in book form in 1957. About time folks yanked this mind-blowing topic out of obscurity. Man not merely makes himself, he constructs a universe where he _focuses his attention_ and seeks consensus/validation for it. Ah, the human condition! Keep up the great work, professors Hoffman and Levin. Be well.
Fascintating... and how about this... since we´re aknowledging past intuitions of these truths, regarding the concept of memory having to recreate it´s past at every instant, I think of Jorge Luis Borge´s sentence in A History Of Eternity: ¨Thus they say that the conservation of this world is a perpetual creation and that the verbs, 'conserve' and 'create', so much at odds here, are synonymous ...¨
Excellent discussion. Interesting to see Donald Hoffman refer to Leibniz. It may be of value to have these two individuals back in the future when additional research as been done.
At 30:00 where the either/or question is posed, I would ask to have the memory of having the experience in the present moment, now. A memory of being present.
At 31:50 Hoffman talks about Agreements. We can apply Aumann's Agreement theorem and related ideas to this and make a lot more sense of how required consensus is at the root of our "objective reality".
Thank you for posting and sharing this conversation, it provides a wide range of areas to look at when trying to get your footing in such fields. Peace
Bravo Michael, The practical level is much more interesting, useful, and discoverable. I'll take the excitement of experience, and if the memory is gone, go do it again! I'm a doer, hobiecat 17 hull flyer, wind surfer, scubadiver, marathon runner, pilot of RC and full-size planes, build and fly FPV Drones, worked in Bolivia. Colombia, Texas, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, in Geophysics, system and network engineering, commercial software developer in natural gas trading, wrote flight simulation games in Unity3D. I bow hunt in my primitive south Texas land, gun hunt, and I get to remember everything!
They’ll probably be learning Newtonian physics and not understanding it- I guess I haven’t seen much evidence of high schools pushing the envelope of learning 🙂
alpetkiewicz6805 seriously trips me the hell out when i find myself sitting around and pontificating on the strange fact that i've literally learned practically more and in a copious dense fashion learning outside of my 12 year schooling career. using youtube and google as a tool
I've often asked myself if two heads are better than one, is that why some of us are better at problem solving and analysis than many individuals. Conflicts in the mind can lead to a balanced hypothesis... For some of us.
@@philosophybabble The commentator was making a pun. "Two heads are better than one" is a idiom in English language, and simply refers to the point that two people are more often able to solve a problem than one person is. The commentator was riffing on 'split brain' surgeries (mentioned by both guests), wherein patients wake from their anaesthesia to find that "they" now have a twin persona - one that often holds very different views than "they" do (it is, of course, impossible to determine which was the pre-surgery "original"). The commentator was wondering whether people with good critical analysis skills are more adept than others because they have a more well-balanced brain - that is to say, because they tend to interact with, question, and ultimately argue against, "themselves" more than others do. It's a question that I would answer in the affirmative. As the Dunning-Kruger effect clearly demonstrates, the more certain a person is in their subjective knowledge the less they will objectively know - questioning oneself is thus an essential tool in solving complex problems. Moreover, it is not at all a trivial task to learn good critical thinking, as the dominant left hemisphere of the brain has no natural desire to forego its self-proclaimed intellectual mastery! And as to your response, no, the brain doesn't work like that - a very small trauma to one area of the brain can quite often lead to major cognitive dysfunction that cannot then be remedied simply by severing the corpus callosum. Michael and Don simply raised the topic to demonstrate that _whoever_ it is that we think "we" are, we are _not,_ in fact, whoever that person thinks "we" are! 🤷🏻♂️🙅🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Since we don't have a good intuitive understanding of physics at the fundamental level where space & time don't exist, & we have no idea how space & time emerge on our level in classical physics, how do be we know that there aren't structures at the fundamental level that are extremely analogous to space/time in classical physics that fully separating what exists in classical physics, merely a shallow interface, from actual reality at the fundamental level to be possibly a dangerously presumptuous mistake?
Excellent. Great to have this awesome topic addressed in this conversation. P. Hoffman & Michale Levin perspective on the subject are away and ahead of mainstream thought . Greetings from Chile🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱. Btw subscribing to your channel.
@@grosbeak6130 Well, I'm not going out of my way to be difficult to be impressed. I am impressed with Donald because he is truly a scientist, seeking the truth and not preoccupied with defending a particular world view. He is capable of observing and researching and changing his mind. A lot of ''scientists', ironically, can't do this.
@@glenemma1 okay, well said and fair enough, but Donald and Bernardo and the like offer very clever ways of thinking or mind candy which I personally don't find really all that solid i.e. their thinking or philosophy does not have any ontological certainty or status.
@@grosbeak6130 I think Donald would agree with you to an extent. He himself says that his theory is almost certainly wrong. He adds that his students will find answers. Donald's major contribution is to be a scientist who seriously looks at the premise that Space and Time are not fundamental. We are all children at the moment playing in a sandbox in dealing with this. But everything begins with baby steps.
Where “cognition” denotes input-to-output attribution, it is more general than consciousness and applies to the processes of any scale of matter, but where “consciousness” denotes “raw experience”, it converts the properties of processes to qualia or qualitative properties. Both terms, at least connotatively, serve complementary purposes.
Qualia are the functions of processes? I have been reading Berkeley recently and he struck me with an intuitive comment that what Locke called “primary qualities” (e.g. physical extension) are only ever known in virtue of “secondary qualities” (qualia)-for example, one’s coming to have the conception of a triangle is cashed out in terms of the qualia which distinguish it against a background. From that point of view, I think processes are conversely properties of qualia. How does this proposal sit with you? (and does it seem I’ve actually understood what you are saying?) Many thanks always
I was asleep while listening and Dr. Levin was in my dream he was speaking in front of a star chart and he circled three star systems on the chart. Strange but neat.
Yeah Levin understands that metaphysics is not woo woo, but rather an.essentual component of any scientific theory. Sure, tell us whats going to happen, but what's it really happening to?
We're entering an era where the most powerful scientific ideas come from people who are capable of seeing beyond the physical realm that we've been so obsessed with for 100+ years (Hoffman and Levin are foremost here). It's not an indictment of physics - the study of the physical has been essential for moving to a deeper understanding of nature, which will eventually come to include consciousness.
My previous eastern philosophy teacher was a physicist before he had a transition in his level of awareness beyond thought. He said the problem for scientists is that they were always looking at phenomena and not seeing that some thing was aware of the phenomenon, and then that was even more important. He claims that science will never actually be able to measure, or even find awareness because it’s not a thing. But these discussions help loosen that attachment to this examination of what is basically a dream. I don’t know if Donald Hoffman says it any place else, but since he has said that in the visual field, something like an apple represents something useful, but it’s not actually the Apple, and it’s way more complicated than we are equipped to understand. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it’s any different for anything else that appears to the senses, including thoughts. Even thoughts that seem to be expressing a very profound idea are made of some thing that we are experiencing but even it is not what it seems like. I can’t claim to have experience this deeply, but I think getting used to these ideas is part of what can help open the door.
@@HeronMarkBladewe live in a culture obsessed with observations, but with little consideration as to what these perceptions appear to and completely within.
@@RRR1-z9c It is pseudo when you throw out one-liners with no substance or content at all. And this is the nature of your comment. The idea that space/time is dead, so to speak, is not fundamental, is said by learned scientists. The fundamental nature of consciousness has been espoused by people who have given their lives to an earnest study of the nature of reality and the essence of anything they perceive. Being conscious, consciousness/awareness itself is recognised as this fundamental reality.
@@RRR1-z9c People like Donald Hoffman and thinkers the world over have given their lives to studying the nature of Reality. They conclude that its fundamental nature is not the world of appearances, the space/time of our apparent reality, but awareness/consciousness itself. This is the fundamental reality, is reality Itself. To dismiss this with a clever one-liner that it is pseudoscience is pure glibness and very insulting.
@@RRR1-z9c No. If the subject material is beyond your comprehension, then please go watch some Taylor Swift videos. The sophisticated adults in this channel would like to have some intellectual conversation without your name-calling.
We cannot use language to understand the universe. But it would seem that this is the foundational tool which we use to design any tool we use to search or understand. Understanding is circular by nature likewise all things. By language we achieve and by language we are bound. The beginning of understanding is also the end.
Brilliant. Can anyone reccomend the best concise introduction ( video or pamphlet) to Decorative permutations, scattering amplitudes , chase trains etc ? Gosh Id like to do a few mushrooms with these dudes. Respect. ps" perception of truth leads to extinction" reminds me of Nietzsche" the birth of tradjedy" , or is that something else entirely , perhaps Monkeys "Awareness of Vaccuity "
1:41:05 - Donald Hoffman saying he will have a testable prediction of his theory. Someone, remind me when this paper gets published. This could be groundbreaking.
A Course in Miracles showed up in this illusionary reality fifty years ago. It states clearly that we perceive what we believe and what we want to perceive. It says a lot about real reality too!
The thought experiment about the skydive or whatever presupposes that the desire for a pleasurable experience is inherent or fundamental to human existence. The point of the experiment falls apart when the desire for any experience is removed. This of course opens up to the question, if you let go of desire and agency, what will be left? The identified-as-a-self mind is afraid of finding out because it cannot comprehend anything outside of its identification with itself as an agent.
So using Donald’s’ framing, what is going on where ‘object permanence” doesn’t take hold by 3 months and becomes permanently unstable rather than stabilising? Why is the ‘ programming ‘ going wrong and how should we view the problem, anew? In light of Donald’s theory about recreating objects every time, what does his theory tell us about object impermanence ? Is there something new to be understood in the outcome, in the the malfunctioning ? Should we understand it differently from what Psychiatrists understand currently? What would Jean Piaget need to know to understand object permanence differently if these “new” meanings of “ object permanence” were available back in time, if we can even refer to the past that way now, but of course, that’s another ball game.
Can somebody explain in Layman's terms what they are basically saying? Can you elaborate what the implications are? Also, any good books that would delve into these topics? Thanks in advance!
Plato was absolutely correct. So is Qabala. There is mathematical realm of perfect form outside of space and time in which all of the material realm derives from. So western science is finally caught back up with where it was 2500 years ago! I am so thankful everyday that this information can finally be shared without having to be burned by the church.
The lack of an entropic-arrow of time in Markovian dynamics of conscious agents makes sense to me. Just as Copernican astronomy simplified celestial calculations, this seems logical.
Thank you so much for offering the platform for those brilliant spirits to reach us. I'm grateful to come across these talks. If schools would just skip a few hours of grammar and math and replace them by these talks, it would be so beneficial for humanity. I grew up in the pre-internet era, and I was conditioned to think otherwise. They had me wasting so much time. I have some catching up to do.
The Space-Time construct is an added semantic component to phenomenal perception by the mind. The modern human brain’s abstract mentation abilities is the basis for language and concept formation among other things like an ego or illusory sense of personhood. Sensory perception is filtered through the lens of the thinking mind. Direct perception is possible but is a further refinement of one’s neural network.
Am having doubts about the liver being intelligent like the brain, also multiple separate conscious agents don’t seem to be equivalent to one singular conscious agent
When Levin say the liver is "intelligent," they don't mean it in the same way as the brain's intelligence. Here's what they might mean: 1. Adaptability: The liver has an amazing capacity to regenerate. It can grow back even after 75% of its tissue is removed. This adaptability is a form of "biological intelligence." 2. Multifunctional: The liver performs over 500 different functions, including detoxifying harmful substances, producing important proteins, and helping with digestion. Its ability to manage so many roles could be seen as a form of intelligence. 3. Responsive: The liver can change its function based on what's happening in the body. For example, if you eat something sugary, your liver will work to process that sugar. If you consume alcohol, your liver will work hard to detoxify it. This responsiveness to body needs is another form of "intelligence."
There is a huge gap between physics and biology, but with computers and AI that gap could become smaller. I like the Wolfram Physics Project model, where time is simply the iterations of a simple graph. And all of space, energy and matter is that graph on the most fundamental level. Edit: Michael Levin mentioned a good point, that there is top-down control in the universe. And I think maybe even as true strong emergence, but then the Wolfram model can still be used by replacing the computational rules with for example a complex attractor which can account for things like top-down control and strong emergence. Regarding Michael's question about choosing between having a pleasant experience but no memories of it or only having the memory without the actual experience, I choose neither!
Oh this is a great question!! No memory no experience!! Like a dream without a memory of it would suggest no dream!! How about past lives??? No memory no past lives!!! Omg !!!!
They do but conjecture. P.s. reading many of the comments here you would think that this kind of discussion is actually some kind of new religion that people are enamored of. But a cautionary note here folks, mind candy can be addictive.
Where’s the conjecture? I see scientists doing science and pushing the boundaries rigorously. Any science is a victim to conjecture from the moment the priors of any theory are settled. I believe we have problems when someone challenges our understanding of reality in a way that might doubt your own cognitive experience.
Common sense is the behavioral disposition that keeps an organism in balance with its environment. An example of this common sense can be seen in evolutionary behavior: Organisms that live in water developed their anatomy differently than organisms that live outside of water. Another prism of common sense is day-to-day behavior, For example, each organism, according to its physical capabilities, obtains the resources it needs to survive. Now, consciousness appears when common sense interacts with sensory experiences. When we talk about consciousness, we are aware of something, for example: We are aware of what we see, what we hear, etc... But to be aware of something, you must first perceive it; And if the organism does not perceive anything, there is no consciousness about that something. The sensory experience of sound begins with the interaction between audible waves and the receptors in the ear. If we combine the audible experience with other senses, such as touch, we can conceptualize increasingly complex ideas such as distance, space, even time, etc. I believe that as long as there is an organism, receiving and processing information from the environment, we call that cycle consciousness. And the more complex the organism, the more complex its consciousness.
Wondering if there's a relationship between the various combinations of uncertain, stochastic and chaotic dynamics and power sets relate to the structure and processes of the Mandelbrot set and the binary processing chains of the Hopf bifurcations. At a certain point, the M-set may serve as an embodied brain filter to capture vast computational relations and sort into IN-set and OUT-set, depending on how deep in the MSet each computational pathway can go during the synchronizing timeframes dictated by the need for immediate action. With enough available time, it becomes possible to enter into virtually infinite imaginal universes of thought (going down the rabbit hole, in some cases) governed by the infinite recursive representational logic of the MSet.
The great thing about Donald Hoffman is that he explains some CTMU concepts and implications in an understandable way (or sometimes John Wheeler's ideas).
25:42 - This issue (falsity of object permanence) always throws me because it always seems like Hoffman is saying that the non space-time structure is perfectly fine as far as causality goes and that you're seeing 'something', it's just not the thing as you'd understand it in 3D space. That said why would a doll behind a pillow that you can't see not be there if it's the same underlying structure that shows you the doll and the pillow side by side from another vantage point? Lets say that what Hoffman is describing is a Minkowski eternal block hyperobject, how are the relationships between whatever's real that looks like a pillow and whatever's real that looks like a doll being permutated to such a degree by not seeing the doll that the doll doesn't exist? I can't imagine that he's actually claiming that last point (that vision or lack of vision changes existence outside of spacetime). Another side point - I've loved seeing Levin, Friston, Fields, Hoffman, Joshcha Bach, etc. mixed in together but I've never seen Michael Silberstein brought in (and I don't know, it could be that he's not big on these formats) but I have to think his 'adynamic global constraints' idea has to slot in here somewhere if we are talking about reality as an eternal hyperobject.
@@philosophybabble I think either Curt Jaimungal or Luis Razo Bravo tried that and Kastrup wasn't wild about them bringing up the Aharanov objection to the basis of his theory. You could probably get them both together but would need to check with Kastrup first.
Why does the "object permanence" topic analogize in my head to Schrodinger's cat theory? The _relationship_ of the observer to the object "defines" her reality, I suppose. Up till the moment the _relationship_ "exists" in the observer's universe, it's all theory and nothing "certain" can be said about it by the observer. Hmm. Be well.
Imagining a beam of light once passed through the must safesticated device to be analyzed we could see all colours and frequencies but by définition we can't see at quantum level if we do then there would be no colours no properties of ultra Violet (heat) and things like that that would be the lose of information
I would love to hear this too. Michael seems to be edging close to this when he talks about the intelligence of the liver etc. I suspect Don would have no problem at all with chakras but would fundamentally view them as part of the space time interface.
Help me to understand. If Don's view that local reality is false and there is really no moon or sun until you look at it, how do physical objects still effect the visually impaired? How are they rendering the wall in front of them? This is testable even by yourself. Walk around blindfolded. You are obstructed by physical objects that you've never previously created a story for or visually rendered.
Don’s model suggests that what we perceive as reality is a ‘user interface’ hiding a more complex underlying reality that we cannot directly perceive. Objects like the moon or sun are not exactly as they appear; they're more like icons on this interface. For the visually impaired, their experience of reality is still valid and real within Don’s framework. They perceive the world through a different 'user interface' - one that relies more on sound, touch, and other senses. The 'wall' they detect, is still an interpretation of underlying reality, just perceived through a different modality. When you walk around blindfolded, you still 'encounter' objects because you're interfacing with reality through other sensory inputs. Don suggests that reality exists beyond our perceptions but is interpreted through our sensory 'interfaces', whether visual, auditory, or tactile. Hope that help! :)
maybe consciousness is a kind of 'Intelligent Algorithms' which is 'intangible' as the 'property' any kind of 'things' in physical realm.. this 'Intelligent Algorithm is not bounds to 'space-time' continuum just like the physical things.. and the phenomena that exist in spiritual or mystical domain or 'meta consciousness' is deal with this kind of 'Intelligent Algorithms'.. for example the incarnation is how the 'Intelligent Algorithms' from past be transferred to the next living things or how 'Intelegent Algorithms' that has 'particular purpose' can be transferred to non living things such as virus, amulet etc, or even Artificial Intelligence.. so entertaining 54:32 love to hear that kind of stories, thanks it make life so beautiful..🙏
If our reality is a simulation, who authored the scenario characterized by life forms engaging in predatory behaviors, where survival is contingent upon hunting, consuming one another, and the emergence of malevolent actions as a consequence?
Professor Hoffman is the epitome of a scientist. His vocation for truth is complete. I am sure that if tomorrow he was shown, beyond controversy, that matter is essential, he would accept it in a heartbeat. I hope that in the future he would bring things like the Markovian dynamics and decorated permutations to us in a more intuitive fashion. 99% of the people that see these videos don’t know what Markovian Dynamics are.
You know how when you get a energized feeling from discovering something new about yourself or your environment? I think... maybe "reality" has some to do with novelty.
The payoff functions are not generically chosen. They are selected for environmental fitness, which exists at the fundamental level of objective reality
Well in order to have the "experience" at all this has to be so. If we are to assume that none of it would exist at all without "consciousness" both the "experience" itself and the "processes" behind the experience. And if we were to be consciously aware in the moment that we are actually creating both the "experience" and the "processes", then we could not have that individuated kind of experience. A lot of it goes back to Jung and his theories/concepts of the conscious and the unconscious mind, and even subconscious. The conscious mind creates the persona or the Ego, which is nothing more than a (temporary) "conceptual self" (ego) and this ego creates a "veil" that blocks access to the actual (permanent) "knower" or sometimes called the Real Self. (that resides in the unconscious or subconscious) If something is actually permanent (eternal) then time has no real meaning, it only has a meaning to that which is temporary (the ego) that is subject to dissolution and entropy. This Conscious Agents theory will be interesting as it develops, on how it will reconcile the "changing" (material events) with the "changeless" nature of consciousness behind it.
As much as I'd like to "see" the world this way, since it has ramifications for life after death so to speak. But I can't rap my mind around it fully. I get that we really don't perceive reality as it actually is due to the limited perception of our senses, but that nothing at all is real is a bridge to far.
The hardest bit for me is the idea that the moon isn't there when I look away. It's very counter intuitive. The simulation theory is probably the easy way to grasp it. I sometimes find that Don's words just send me into a meditative state and then I stop trying to grasp it 🤣
33:38 - For the dinosaur question I think the virtual reality model actually damages the integrity of what's being said. Maybe a better redux of the same dinosaur question - is it the case that Komodo dragons are real but the bones of Komodo dragons are a simulation that implies that that there was a Komodo dragon but without any ultimate reality tracing back to the specific living Komodo dragon that it belonged to? Is this augmented by a zookeeper having cared for the Komodo dragon of which we are inspecting the bones who can verify that this was once a living Komodo dragon at the zoo he or she worked at? It seems inescapable that the birth, life, and death of Komodo dragons (at least at a cosmological level where we aren't dealing with mathematical absurdities like Boltzmann brains) causes Komodo dragon bones and we aren't far enough into the statistical long-tails for Komodo dragon bones to be created by statistical absurdities in infinities like enough monkeys with typewriters to make Shakespeare. Let me know if this is a more accurate unpack but, for the non-pedestrian interested reader / listener, couldn't we go back to saying that we're dealing with something like an eternal block universe, Minkowski space, and use the analogy that time is like a spatial dimension that we simply can't retrace, like forever going westward and living, breeding, conscious dinosaurs are 65 million miles behind us but their bones are the only thing that go as far west as we are? All of that could fold into a hyperdimensional space but what we're examining is still roughly some description of a 4D aspect of that space. That seems to be the idea unless someone suggests that this is a simulation that's only accurately had a temporal aspect since X date and everything before that is a made-up story (of which there's no place you can make that cut where adult people and/or animals don't just 'pop' into existence). I think the east-west substitution is describing the right thing but let me know if I've misunderstood the core idea here.
Chronologically we have time, psychologically do time exist? What he’s proposing is that the experience we have is the whole of the experience + experiencer ie the analyser is the analysed 🙏
@@philosophybabble my question to the virtual nature of dinosaur as well as Komodo dragon bones, any bones for that matter, is that the only way you get them - other than lifeform breeding and metabolism, is mathematical absurdities in infinite space which wouldn't explain a density of them on the earth. This is why I can't help but think that 'time' is better equated with a spatial dimension of sorts (ie. 1/10^100x odds that bones aren't signs of particular lifeforms they belonged to), this suggest that both now and 'back then' are equally real but separated by something, and that seems to rhyme with how, in Michael Silberstein's idea of adynamic global constraints, consciousness wouldn't move (eternal block universe) but the 'read head', for lack of better analogy, would be what plucks what we experience as the present moment. Maybe it would be good to get Hoffman and Silberstein together because it would be interesting to hear him and Hoffman flesh out whether Hoffman and Prakash's social network of conscious agents may be, in fact, a kind of Minkowski eternal block universe, just a granular idealist one.
@@philosophybabble I've watched one or two lectures, I'm going to try the one Don mentioned (2019 lecture 1) to see if it helps me get a better grasp for the set and setting of where this object seems to be nested. The way it gets described (other than being a 30x reduction for particle collision math) it almost sounds, saying this as a complete outsider to higher mathematics, like a similar kind of thing to the E8 Lie Group but much more complex and multifaceted (more in 'monster' territory).
19:40
43:50
48:00
55:30
1:05:20
1:08:00
1:11:00
1:13:30
1:37:30
1:50:30
55:30 One of the best moment of Levin during the conversation! Thanks for mentioning it 😂
@@philosophybabble yeah :) And this discussion has quite a few synergetic moments. I am still in progress of listing some interesting moments while I continue listening.
@labudewa3034 Artefact as in everything is object of consciousness through the perception
So, what is going on when ‘object permanence” doesn’t take hold or isn’t programmed in the 3 month old’s brain, that is, in Donald’s framing?
Thank ya
I’ve been following Hoffman for a few years and Levin for just over a year now. It didn’t even occur to me. They would know each other to do a search for both of them together. Hoffman is so heady I easily get lost so I appreciate him in conversation with Levin who is able to ground the concepts in reality in ways I have a better chance of understanding. I am a medium and have felt a strong need to know how communication with non-physical entities is possible. Hoffman’s User Illusion was the first piece of anything close to a direction in science I came across that might explain the reality of a larger dimensional space or stage on which what I was routinely seeing acted out. When I came across Levin on TOE, I believed I was seeing someone whose ideas of morphogenetic fields was the realest direction I had seen on the nature of discarnate souls.
I’m no scientist, only intuitive, but for me these two together are like lightening in a fireworks factory.
Thank you Ivy!
Thank you for your comment, much appreciated. Glad you found our channel. :)
Do you know the Yogachara school of buddhism? A lot of Hoffman discourse and models mirrors their thinking, the only thing is that they used dreams as examples instead of virtual reality.
It is exactly hoffman who warns us about the illusory nature of our deeply intuitive systems. Only intuition is a recipe for disaster. I'm still waiting for the first self proclaimed 'medium' to convince me about the reality of their abilities.
I just love this. The pairing of these two was brilliant. Hoffman brings out another dimension of brilliance in Levin. Levin is the sort of mastermind you want contemplating these things. I am excited to see what he figures out in the years ahead.
unless you want to subject your audience to nauseating stupidity, a physicalist should stick to engineering, not topics relating to the mind
@@backwardthoughts1022no. It's not about the audience. He finds. Other people can do the explaining to "weaker audiences"
@@RogueElement. when 10yos go around sprouting YOLO ie. physicalism, i dont think further endless physicalism is whats needed
how about, I dunno, going over the data showing that not a single emergent property of consciousness has ever been prayed into existence at its asserted basis of emergence location. hoffman touches this but only every minimally. every time the physicalist babbles on about his religions hoffman needs to pretend he has no idea what the physicalist is talking about, cos by definition he doesn't
@@backwardthoughts1022 lol right. The world WILL annihilate itself if Materialism and related views are not abandoned. I am an analytical Idealism person. (Bernardo kastrup) you are right 🤣 I agree. But well kids these days are into genders anyway 😭🤷🏾♂️🤣
If they have a kept this hidden. Why would they let us find out about it as you have? Why keep it hidden anymore?
People who are this insightful and this profound deserve better audio.
As an armchair Buddhist I am in deep awe of the dimension of Michael Levin's grasp and take of reality and the concept of very selfhood as constantly recreated from the memories of past events, and constantly laying foundations for our future versions - to be created from the memories of now.
Why mention that you are an armchair Buddhist? Well I have to say that your comment following that statement proves that you are.
In some presentations you can see his desktop background prior to starting the slide deck, and it's one of Roerichs works..
He knows.
Armchair Buddhism 🕉️, perfect 👍🏼
Levin is very important to the future of humanity and unlocking the secrets of existence. Hoffman is easily the same. Great show!
At 54:07 he is talking about interface into the nature of our reality and this is exactly what McLuhan's theories are about - the medium is the message. It's a profound aphorism but addresses many of the points made in this fascinating discussion.
Really this is the first time I've heard scientists actually propose theories that match up to my understandings from personal enlightenment investigations. I've been waiting a while. Refreshing.
Im revisiting this again! An AWESOME CONVERSATION! So many really important and profound points being made!!
I absolutely loved this presentation! These "reality-building consciousness" reflections confirm the intuitive writings of Ortega y Gassett, specifically as he outlined them in his seminal work, _Man and People_ ("El Hombre y La Gente"), from lectures presented in the early 1930's but published in book form in 1957. About time folks yanked this mind-blowing topic out of obscurity. Man not merely makes himself, he constructs a universe where he _focuses his attention_ and seeks consensus/validation for it. Ah, the human condition!
Keep up the great work, professors Hoffman and Levin.
Be well.
Fascintating... and how about this... since we´re aknowledging past intuitions of these truths, regarding the concept of memory having to recreate it´s past at every instant, I think of Jorge Luis Borge´s sentence in A History Of Eternity: ¨Thus they say that the conservation of this world is a perpetual creation and that the verbs, 'conserve' and 'create', so much at odds here, are synonymous ...¨
11:21 YOU are not your memories, YOU are the eternal I / YOU / ME.
Excellent discussion. Interesting to see Donald Hoffman refer to Leibniz. It may be of value to have these two individuals back in the future when additional research as been done.
At 30:00 where the either/or question is posed, I would ask to have the memory of having the experience in the present moment, now.
A memory of being present.
We should talk. Hoffman connected to me.. I can explain it. But it rocked me and daily rocks me. I’m now watching all of his videos.
At 31:50 Hoffman talks about Agreements. We can apply Aumann's Agreement theorem and related ideas to this and make a lot more sense of how required consensus is at the root of our "objective reality".
This talk gives incredible insights into fields of reality that, up to now, was hidden from us! To me, it's more than fascinating!
Thank you for posting and sharing this conversation, it provides a wide range of areas to look at when trying to get your footing in such fields. Peace
THANK YOU FOR SHARING ALL THIS BEAUTY!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just enjoyed The Origin of Time In Conscious Agents -Donald D. Hoffman plus Levin clips of late and am looking forward to this interplay.
I love the mind-bending content! The more radical the better as far as I'm concerned.
Bravo Michael, The practical level is much more interesting, useful, and discoverable. I'll take the excitement of experience, and if the memory is gone, go do it again! I'm a doer, hobiecat 17 hull flyer, wind surfer, scubadiver, marathon runner, pilot of RC and full-size planes, build and fly FPV Drones, worked in Bolivia. Colombia, Texas, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, in Geophysics, system and network engineering, commercial software developer in natural gas trading, wrote flight simulation games in Unity3D. I bow hunt in my primitive south Texas land, gun hunt, and I get to remember everything!
Yawn!!! Another kid in his mom's basement claiming achievements in areas he has never been involved in.
You sound like a schizo
WELL DONE. GREAT AND INSPIRING CONVERSATION. THANK YOU.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Imagine what high school students will be taught in science in 100 years from now ❤
They’ll probably be learning Newtonian physics and not understanding it-
I guess I haven’t seen much evidence of high schools pushing the envelope of learning 🙂
I definitely agree....and that's a topic of a deep podcast and collaboration in itself which would be quite an awesome discussion to watch!! ❤
Could go two ways. More dumbing down, or more knowledge.
They'll probably still be debating what a "woman" is.
alpetkiewicz6805
seriously trips me the hell out when i find myself sitting around and pontificating on the strange fact that i've literally learned practically more and in a copious dense fashion learning outside of my 12 year schooling career. using youtube and google as a tool
This is like the most interesting interview of the century or so.
Exciting stuff from Mr Hoffman. Real work being done ❤
great pairing of guests, a shame about the audio hiccups.
Thanks for that great video and hello from the Dominican Republic!
I've often asked myself if two heads are better than one, is that why some of us are better at problem solving and analysis than many individuals. Conflicts in the mind can lead to a balanced hypothesis... For some of us.
Not two Heads, we have two Hemisphere which mean, if anyone of those damage we still left with one that could function!
@@philosophybabble The commentator was making a pun. "Two heads are better than one" is a idiom in English language, and simply refers to the point that two people are more often able to solve a problem than one person is. The commentator was riffing on 'split brain' surgeries (mentioned by both guests), wherein patients wake from their anaesthesia to find that "they" now have a twin persona - one that often holds very different views than "they" do (it is, of course, impossible to determine which was the pre-surgery "original"). The commentator was wondering whether people with good critical analysis skills are more adept than others because they have a more well-balanced brain - that is to say, because they tend to interact with, question, and ultimately argue against, "themselves" more than others do. It's a question that I would answer in the affirmative. As the Dunning-Kruger effect clearly demonstrates, the more certain a person is in their subjective knowledge the less they will objectively know - questioning oneself is thus an essential tool in solving complex problems. Moreover, it is not at all a trivial task to learn good critical thinking, as the dominant left hemisphere of the brain has no natural desire to forego its self-proclaimed intellectual mastery!
And as to your response, no, the brain doesn't work like that - a very small trauma to one area of the brain can quite often lead to major cognitive dysfunction that cannot then be remedied simply by severing the corpus callosum. Michael and Don simply raised the topic to demonstrate that _whoever_ it is that we think "we" are, we are _not,_ in fact, whoever that person thinks "we" are!
🤷🏻♂️🙅🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
I concur unreservedly! Or at least I thought I did... Sigh 😕
@@simesaid 😁😆😆
Since we don't have a good intuitive understanding of physics at the fundamental level where space & time don't exist, & we have no idea how space & time emerge on our level in classical physics, how do be we know that there aren't structures at the fundamental level that are extremely analogous to space/time in classical physics that fully separating what exists in classical physics, merely a shallow interface, from actual reality at the fundamental level to be possibly a dangerously presumptuous mistake?
This is insanely amazing. I could sit for an entire night listening and learning ❤
Excellent. Great to have this awesome topic addressed in this conversation. P. Hoffman & Michale Levin perspective on the subject are away and ahead of mainstream thought . Greetings from Chile🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱. Btw subscribing to your channel.
wenaaaa, viva chile jsjsjs
@@davidmadariaga9675 wenaaa
These two just get better and better 🥰
This is an amazing debate/discussion and we need more of this
Thank you for your encouragement!
Donald Hoffman is brilliant.
Nothing wrong with you being a fanboy of Donald, but could it be that you are easily impressed?
@@grosbeak6130 Well, I'm not going out of my way to be difficult to be impressed. I am impressed with Donald because he is truly a scientist, seeking the truth and not preoccupied with defending a particular world view. He is capable of observing and researching and changing his mind. A lot of ''scientists', ironically, can't do this.
@@glenemma1 okay, well said and fair enough, but Donald and Bernardo and the like offer very clever ways of thinking or mind candy which I personally don't find really all that solid i.e. their thinking or philosophy does not have any ontological certainty or status.
@@grosbeak6130 I think Donald would agree with you to an extent.
He himself says that his theory is almost certainly wrong. He adds that his students will find answers. Donald's major contribution is to be a scientist who seriously looks at the premise that Space and Time are not fundamental. We are all children at the moment playing in a sandbox in dealing with this. But everything begins with baby steps.
Donald Hoffman is incomprehensible.
Where “cognition” denotes input-to-output attribution, it is more general than consciousness and applies to the processes of any scale of matter, but where “consciousness” denotes “raw experience”, it converts the properties of processes to qualia or qualitative properties. Both terms, at least connotatively, serve complementary purposes.
Qualia are the functions of processes? I have been reading Berkeley recently and he struck me with an intuitive comment that what Locke called “primary qualities” (e.g. physical extension) are only ever known in virtue of “secondary qualities” (qualia)-for example, one’s coming to have the conception of a triangle is cashed out in terms of the qualia which distinguish it against a background. From that point of view, I think processes are conversely properties of qualia. How does this proposal sit with you? (and does it seem I’ve actually understood what you are saying?)
Many thanks always
I was asleep while listening and Dr. Levin was in my dream he was speaking in front of a star chart and he circled three star systems on the chart. Strange but neat.
Hi 👋 this kind of thing happens to me too. I like it. It’s your right brain telling you something visually, at least that’s how I think about it
@@starxcrossed thank you
Michael Levin is very insightful. Donald also. I love where the science and philosophy is focused on this conversation. This was a treat. 🎉
I did not expect my biology hero ( I said what I said ) Levin to be here discussing metaphysics. The more you know ...
Yeah Levin understands that metaphysics is not woo woo, but rather an.essentual component of any scientific theory. Sure, tell us whats going to happen, but what's it really happening to?
We're entering an era where the most powerful scientific ideas come from people who are capable of seeing beyond the physical realm that we've been so obsessed with for 100+ years (Hoffman and Levin are foremost here). It's not an indictment of physics - the study of the physical has been essential for moving to a deeper understanding of nature, which will eventually come to include consciousness.
My previous eastern philosophy teacher was a physicist before he had a transition in his level of awareness beyond thought. He said the problem for scientists is that they were always looking at phenomena and not seeing that some thing was aware of the phenomenon, and then that was even more important. He claims that science will never actually be able to measure, or even find awareness because it’s not a thing. But these discussions help loosen that attachment to this examination of what is basically a dream. I don’t know if Donald Hoffman says it any place else, but since he has said that in the visual field, something like an apple represents something useful, but it’s not actually the Apple, and it’s way more complicated than we are equipped to understand. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it’s any different for anything else that appears to the senses, including thoughts. Even thoughts that seem to be expressing a very profound idea are made of some thing that we are experiencing but even it is not what it seems like. I can’t claim to have experience this deeply, but I think getting used to these ideas is part of what can help open the door.
@@HeronMarkBladewe live in a culture obsessed with observations, but with little consideration as to what these perceptions appear to and completely within.
I love donald and co, please rread The Physics of Consciousness by Ivan Antic.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner/ Landstreicher translation.
There are countless conscious agents, so to speak, but they are all aspects of the One Consciousness.
One consciousness experiencing itself subjectively
This is pseudoscience.
@@RRR1-z9c It is pseudo when you throw out one-liners with no substance or content at all. And this is the nature of your comment.
The idea that space/time is dead, so to speak, is not fundamental, is said by learned scientists.
The fundamental nature of consciousness has been espoused by people who have given their lives to an earnest study of the nature of reality and the essence of anything they perceive. Being conscious, consciousness/awareness itself is recognised as this fundamental reality.
@@RRR1-z9c People like Donald Hoffman and thinkers the world over have given their lives to studying the nature of Reality.
They conclude that its fundamental nature is not the world of appearances, the space/time of our apparent reality, but awareness/consciousness itself. This is the fundamental reality, is reality Itself.
To dismiss this with a clever one-liner that it is pseudoscience is pure glibness and very insulting.
@@RRR1-z9c No. If the subject material is beyond your comprehension, then please go watch some Taylor Swift videos. The sophisticated adults in this channel would like to have some intellectual conversation without your name-calling.
We cannot use language to understand the universe. But it would seem that this is the foundational tool which we use to design any tool we use to search or understand. Understanding is circular by nature likewise all things. By language we achieve and by language we are bound. The beginning of understanding is also the end.
two absolute legends speaking facts, love it 🫦
Brilliant.
Can anyone reccomend the best concise introduction ( video or pamphlet) to Decorative permutations, scattering amplitudes , chase trains etc ?
Gosh Id like to do a few mushrooms with these dudes. Respect.
ps" perception of truth leads to extinction" reminds me of Nietzsche" the birth of tradjedy" , or is that something else entirely , perhaps Monkeys "Awareness of Vaccuity "
I like the Buddhist idea that phenomena are self liberated due to the presence of awareness
I have insisted for this interview of these two brilliant gentlemen's for lex friedman at his podcast months ago. Thanks lady
Lex is a putz
1:41:05 - Donald Hoffman saying he will have a testable prediction of his theory. Someone, remind me when this paper gets published. This could be groundbreaking.
Too bad about the sound quality and how keeps cutting out on this great conversation.
❤ loved this !
A Course in Miracles showed up in this illusionary reality fifty years ago. It states clearly that we perceive what we believe and what we want to perceive. It says a lot about real reality too!
The thought experiment about the skydive or whatever presupposes that the desire for a pleasurable experience is inherent or fundamental to human existence. The point of the experiment falls apart when the desire for any experience is removed. This of course opens up to the question, if you let go of desire and agency, what will be left? The identified-as-a-self mind is afraid of finding out because it cannot comprehend anything outside of its identification with itself as an agent.
Excellent & enlightening, thank you very much.💖💖💖
Thanks!
So using Donald’s’ framing, what is going on where ‘object permanence” doesn’t take hold by 3 months and becomes permanently unstable rather than stabilising? Why is the ‘ programming ‘ going wrong and how should we view the problem, anew? In light of Donald’s theory about recreating objects every time, what does his theory tell us about object impermanence ? Is there something new to be understood in the outcome, in the the malfunctioning ? Should we understand it differently from what Psychiatrists understand currently? What would Jean Piaget need to know to understand object permanence differently if these “new” meanings of “ object permanence” were available back in time, if we can even refer to the past that way now, but of course, that’s another ball game.
th-cam.com/video/mitw2XcXY98/w-d-xo.html
Can somebody explain in Layman's terms what they are basically saying? Can you elaborate what the implications are? Also, any good books that would delve into these topics? Thanks in advance!
11:02 The self is not the slice of spacetime; it is an eternal Self that experience the eternal now shifting forever
fantastic!! two of my favourite thinkers
Mine too!
Plato was absolutely correct. So is Qabala. There is mathematical realm of perfect form outside of space and time in which all of the material realm derives from. So western science is finally caught back up with where it was 2500 years ago! I am so thankful everyday that this information can finally be shared without having to be burned by the church.
Im going the tell the pope.
Where can I find you papers so I may read what you are stating.
Advaita of Upanishad spoke of consciousness at least four thousand years ago.
The lack of an entropic-arrow of time in Markovian dynamics of conscious agents makes sense to me. Just as Copernican astronomy simplified celestial calculations, this seems logical.
why are there times of no sound? almost seems like this video was censored
It was technical issue with the connection
great discission, thank you
Thanks for watching!
The sound quality is low and I am trying very hard to not let the small "hiccups" get to me.
Very sorry about that.
Thank you so much for offering the platform for those brilliant spirits to reach us. I'm grateful to come across these talks. If schools would just skip a few hours of grammar and math and replace them by these talks, it would be so beneficial for humanity. I grew up in the pre-internet era, and I was conditioned to think otherwise. They had me wasting so much time. I have some catching up to do.
If you look at somebody they are there when you look away they arent. So what if they speak to you while you re looking away? You can hear them.
The Space-Time construct is an added semantic component to phenomenal perception by the mind. The modern human brain’s abstract mentation abilities is the basis for language and concept formation among other things like an ego or illusory sense of personhood. Sensory perception is filtered through the lens of the thinking mind. Direct perception is possible but is a further refinement of one’s neural network.
Am having doubts about the liver being intelligent like the brain, also multiple separate conscious agents don’t seem to be equivalent to one singular conscious agent
When Levin say the liver is "intelligent," they don't mean it in the same way as the brain's intelligence. Here's what they might mean:
1. Adaptability: The liver has an amazing capacity to regenerate. It can grow back even after 75% of its tissue is removed. This adaptability is a form of "biological intelligence."
2. Multifunctional: The liver performs over 500 different functions, including detoxifying harmful substances, producing important proteins, and helping with digestion. Its ability to manage so many roles could be seen as a form of intelligence.
3. Responsive: The liver can change its function based on what's happening in the body. For example, if you eat something sugary, your liver will work to process that sugar. If you consume alcohol, your liver will work hard to detoxify it. This responsiveness to body needs is another form of "intelligence."
There is a huge gap between physics and biology, but with computers and AI that gap could become smaller. I like the Wolfram Physics Project model, where time is simply the iterations of a simple graph. And all of space, energy and matter is that graph on the most fundamental level. Edit: Michael Levin mentioned a good point, that there is top-down control in the universe. And I think maybe even as true strong emergence, but then the Wolfram model can still be used by replacing the computational rules with for example a complex attractor which can account for things like top-down control and strong emergence. Regarding Michael's question about choosing between having a pleasant experience but no memories of it or only having the memory without the actual experience, I choose neither!
Oh this is a great question!! No memory no experience!! Like a dream without a memory of it would suggest no dream!! How about past lives??? No memory no past lives!!! Omg !!!!
This is the awakening of eternal life
Could give new meaning to why the word “now” preceded the serpent in the garden of eden
They do but conjecture.
P.s. reading many of the comments here you would think that this kind of discussion is actually some kind of new religion that people are enamored of. But a cautionary note here folks, mind candy can be addictive.
Where’s the conjecture? I see scientists doing science and pushing the boundaries rigorously. Any science is a victim to conjecture from the moment the priors of any theory are settled. I believe we have problems when someone challenges our understanding of reality in a way that might doubt your own cognitive experience.
Common sense is the behavioral disposition that keeps an organism in balance with its environment.
An example of this common sense can be seen in evolutionary behavior:
Organisms that live in water developed their anatomy differently than organisms that live outside of water. Another prism of common sense is day-to-day behavior, For example, each organism, according to its physical capabilities, obtains the resources it needs to survive.
Now, consciousness appears when common sense interacts with sensory experiences. When we talk about consciousness, we are aware of something, for example: We are aware of what we see, what we hear, etc... But to be aware of something, you must first perceive it; And if the organism does not perceive anything, there is no consciousness about that something.
The sensory experience of sound begins with the interaction between audible waves and the receptors in the ear. If we combine the audible experience with other senses, such as touch, we can conceptualize increasingly complex ideas such as distance, space, even time, etc. I believe that as long as there is an organism, receiving and processing information from the environment, we call that cycle consciousness. And the more complex the organism, the more complex its consciousness.
Why are some parts muted??
Wondering if there's a relationship between the various combinations of uncertain, stochastic and chaotic dynamics and power sets relate to the structure and processes of the Mandelbrot set and the binary processing chains of the Hopf bifurcations. At a certain point, the M-set may serve as an embodied brain filter to capture vast computational relations and sort into IN-set and OUT-set, depending on how deep in the MSet each computational pathway can go during the synchronizing timeframes dictated by the need for immediate action. With enough available time, it becomes possible to enter into virtually infinite imaginal universes of thought (going down the rabbit hole, in some cases) governed by the infinite recursive representational logic of the MSet.
The great thing about Donald Hoffman is that he explains some CTMU concepts and implications in an understandable way (or sometimes John Wheeler's ideas).
Is there a version without the audio gaps?
I can't guarantee the audio version is better but there a raw uncut audio version on Clubhouse. Inbox us if you would like the raw material.
You had me at decorative permutations
omg ty so much
25:42 - This issue (falsity of object permanence) always throws me because it always seems like Hoffman is saying that the non space-time structure is perfectly fine as far as causality goes and that you're seeing 'something', it's just not the thing as you'd understand it in 3D space. That said why would a doll behind a pillow that you can't see not be there if it's the same underlying structure that shows you the doll and the pillow side by side from another vantage point? Lets say that what Hoffman is describing is a Minkowski eternal block hyperobject, how are the relationships between whatever's real that looks like a pillow and whatever's real that looks like a doll being permutated to such a degree by not seeing the doll that the doll doesn't exist? I can't imagine that he's actually claiming that last point (that vision or lack of vision changes existence outside of spacetime).
Another side point - I've loved seeing Levin, Friston, Fields, Hoffman, Joshcha Bach, etc. mixed in together but I've never seen Michael Silberstein brought in (and I don't know, it could be that he's not big on these formats) but I have to think his 'adynamic global constraints' idea has to slot in here somewhere if we are talking about reality as an eternal hyperobject.
How about Bach with Kastrup?
@@philosophybabble I think either Curt Jaimungal or Luis Razo Bravo tried that and Kastrup wasn't wild about them bringing up the Aharanov objection to the basis of his theory. You could probably get them both together but would need to check with Kastrup first.
@@carbon1479 Kastrup objected the invite? He's been on our club last year for AMA session and he did mentioned simulation is absurdity!
@@philosophybabble I''d still say try it and see if they're interested in having a discussion. I'm sure it would be interesting / informative.
Why does the "object permanence" topic analogize in my head to Schrodinger's cat theory? The _relationship_ of the observer to the object "defines" her reality, I suppose. Up till the moment the _relationship_ "exists" in the observer's universe, it's all theory and nothing "certain" can be said about it by the observer. Hmm.
Be well.
Wait a sec is that guy asking the question Willi ..is he on the panel? He needs his own podcast..too long interaction for a question.
Best discussion in this subject I have heard in while! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Imagining a beam of light once passed through the must safesticated device to be analyzed we could see all colours and frequencies but by définition we can't see at quantum level if we do then there would be no colours no properties of ultra Violet (heat) and things like that that would be the lose of information
I want these topics studied and discussed in regard to chakra's.
I would love to hear this too. Michael seems to be edging close to this when he talks about the intelligence of the liver etc. I suspect Don would have no problem at all with chakras but would fundamentally view them as part of the space time interface.
Mega ważne. Obejrzyj nie raz a parę razy.
What is Hoffman talking about?
I think its bad that I was thinking for a few minutes this may be an AI generated video is there a link to the clubhouse?
What make you think it is an AI?
Help me to understand. If Don's view that local reality is false and there is really no moon or sun until you look at it, how do physical objects still effect the visually impaired? How are they rendering the wall in front of them? This is testable even by yourself. Walk around blindfolded. You are obstructed by physical objects that you've never previously created a story for or visually rendered.
Don’s model suggests that what we perceive as reality is a ‘user interface’ hiding a more complex underlying reality that we cannot directly perceive. Objects like the moon or sun are not exactly as they appear; they're more like icons on this interface.
For the visually impaired, their experience of reality is still valid and real within Don’s framework. They perceive the world through a different 'user interface' - one that relies more on sound, touch, and other senses. The 'wall' they detect, is still an interpretation of underlying reality, just perceived through a different modality.
When you walk around blindfolded, you still 'encounter' objects because you're interfacing with reality through other sensory inputs. Don suggests that reality exists beyond our perceptions but is interpreted through our sensory 'interfaces', whether visual, auditory, or tactile.
Hope that help! :)
26:17
1:22:09
High! It's 420 am from Oklahobo
maybe consciousness is a kind of 'Intelligent Algorithms' which is 'intangible' as the 'property' any kind of 'things' in physical realm..
this 'Intelligent Algorithm is not bounds to 'space-time' continuum just like the physical things..
and the phenomena that exist in spiritual or mystical domain or 'meta consciousness' is deal with this kind of 'Intelligent Algorithms'..
for example the incarnation is how the 'Intelligent Algorithms' from past be transferred to the next living things or how 'Intelegent Algorithms' that has 'particular purpose' can be transferred to non living things such as virus, amulet etc, or even Artificial Intelligence..
so entertaining 54:32 love to hear that kind of stories, thanks it make life so beautiful..🙏
Michael Levin have a great sense of humour, agreed !😄 Thank you for your comment. Welcome 🙏
If our reality is a simulation, who authored the scenario characterized by life forms engaging in predatory behaviors, where survival is contingent upon hunting, consuming one another, and the emergence of malevolent actions as a consequence?
Professor Hoffman is the epitome of a scientist. His vocation for truth is complete. I am sure that if tomorrow he was shown, beyond controversy, that matter is essential, he would accept it in a heartbeat. I hope that in the future he would bring things like the Markovian dynamics and decorated permutations to us in a more intuitive fashion. 99% of the people that see these videos don’t know what Markovian Dynamics are.
Markovian dynamics is like playing hopscotch and thinking only of your next jump
You know how when you get a energized feeling from discovering something new about yourself or your environment? I think... maybe "reality" has some to do with novelty.
54:18
The commercials killed it.👎🏽
Try the podcast on Spotify!
The payoff functions are not generically chosen. They are selected for environmental fitness, which exists at the fundamental level of objective reality
“perceived”
What exactly does Hoffman mean by this? Certainly not what is normally meant….
#Reality #SpaceTime Scales of SpaceTime #FundamentalObjects #FundamentalLaws
#FundamentalReality
#Evolution #Neurobiology
#RER #ReverseEngineerReality #Entropy #Markof #Agents #DPs #DecoratedPermutation #ConsciousAgents
Well in order to have the "experience" at all this has to be so. If we are to assume that none of it would exist at all without "consciousness" both the "experience" itself and the "processes" behind the experience. And if we were to be consciously aware in the moment that we are actually creating both the "experience" and the "processes", then we could not have that individuated kind of experience. A lot of it goes back to Jung and his theories/concepts of the conscious and the unconscious mind, and even subconscious. The conscious mind creates the persona or the Ego, which is nothing more than a (temporary) "conceptual self" (ego) and this ego creates a "veil" that blocks access to the actual (permanent) "knower" or sometimes called the Real Self. (that resides in the unconscious or subconscious) If something is actually permanent (eternal) then time has no real meaning, it only has a meaning to that which is temporary (the ego) that is subject to dissolution and entropy. This Conscious Agents theory will be interesting as it develops, on how it will reconcile the "changing" (material events) with the "changeless" nature of consciousness behind it.
Two great candidates to sit on the presidential ufo disclosure board as outlined in the 2024 NDAA legislation
As much as I'd like to "see" the world this way, since it has ramifications for life after death so to speak. But I can't rap my mind around it fully. I get that we really don't perceive reality as it actually is due to the limited perception of our senses, but that nothing at all is real is a bridge to far.
The hardest bit for me is the idea that the moon isn't there when I look away. It's very counter intuitive. The simulation theory is probably the easy way to grasp it. I sometimes find that Don's words just send me into a meditative state and then I stop trying to grasp it 🤣
Conscious Mind Mechanics is the true nature of reality.
It’s not mind over matter, it’s only mind that matters.
Swami SriDattaDev SatChitAnanda
33:38 - For the dinosaur question I think the virtual reality model actually damages the integrity of what's being said.
Maybe a better redux of the same dinosaur question - is it the case that Komodo dragons are real but the bones of Komodo dragons are a simulation that implies that that there was a Komodo dragon but without any ultimate reality tracing back to the specific living Komodo dragon that it belonged to? Is this augmented by a zookeeper having cared for the Komodo dragon of which we are inspecting the bones who can verify that this was once a living Komodo dragon at the zoo he or she worked at? It seems inescapable that the birth, life, and death of Komodo dragons (at least at a cosmological level where we aren't dealing with mathematical absurdities like Boltzmann brains) causes Komodo dragon bones and we aren't far enough into the statistical long-tails for Komodo dragon bones to be created by statistical absurdities in infinities like enough monkeys with typewriters to make Shakespeare.
Let me know if this is a more accurate unpack but, for the non-pedestrian interested reader / listener, couldn't we go back to saying that we're dealing with something like an eternal block universe, Minkowski space, and use the analogy that time is like a spatial dimension that we simply can't retrace, like forever going westward and living, breeding, conscious dinosaurs are 65 million miles behind us but their bones are the only thing that go as far west as we are? All of that could fold into a hyperdimensional space but what we're examining is still roughly some description of a 4D aspect of that space. That seems to be the idea unless someone suggests that this is a simulation that's only accurately had a temporal aspect since X date and everything before that is a made-up story (of which there's no place you can make that cut where adult people and/or animals don't just 'pop' into existence). I think the east-west substitution is describing the right thing but let me know if I've misunderstood the core idea here.
Chronologically we have time, psychologically do time exist? What he’s proposing is that the experience we have is the whole of the experience + experiencer ie the analyser is the analysed 🙏
@@philosophybabble my question to the virtual nature of dinosaur as well as Komodo dragon bones, any bones for that matter, is that the only way you get them - other than lifeform breeding and metabolism, is mathematical absurdities in infinite space which wouldn't explain a density of them on the earth. This is why I can't help but think that 'time' is better equated with a spatial dimension of sorts (ie. 1/10^100x odds that bones aren't signs of particular lifeforms they belonged to), this suggest that both now and 'back then' are equally real but separated by something, and that seems to rhyme with how, in Michael Silberstein's idea of adynamic global constraints, consciousness wouldn't move (eternal block universe) but the 'read head', for lack of better analogy, would be what plucks what we experience as the present moment.
Maybe it would be good to get Hoffman and Silberstein together because it would be interesting to hear him and Hoffman flesh out whether Hoffman and Prakash's social network of conscious agents may be, in fact, a kind of Minkowski eternal block universe, just a granular idealist one.
@@carbon1479 Let me check with Silberstein and we can do another dialogue with Hoffman on that matter. Have you look into Nima Arkarni-Hamed's work?
@@philosophybabble I've watched one or two lectures, I'm going to try the one Don mentioned (2019 lecture 1) to see if it helps me get a better grasp for the set and setting of where this object seems to be nested. The way it gets described (other than being a 30x reduction for particle collision math) it almost sounds, saying this as a complete outsider to higher mathematics, like a similar kind of thing to the E8 Lie Group but much more complex and multifaceted (more in 'monster' territory).
@@carbon1479 I think it will help you shift to the dimensionless space. Let me know how it goes? ☺