What I find so extraordinary about this interviewer is that he knows when to shut up, and when he asks a question or has an observation, it is always spot on, regardless which topic. 👍
@user-cg3tx8zv1h
Жыл бұрын
To be fair, he exactly knows what DH's ideas are about. He is not hearing them for the first time. :) And his having hard time to grasp Donald's idea, yet he uploads this at this given time!? That's interesting but also commendable... He obviously doesn't have difficulty to understand him, I meant, DH's ideas doesn't rub him the right way... He is phisicalist...
@Carlos-fl6ch
Жыл бұрын
That's what happens when you and your team do your homework
@chrispark5755
Жыл бұрын
Rude
@KoumoriOtokoSoS
Жыл бұрын
Paying attention during debates is a lost skill.
@bobjazz2000
Жыл бұрын
But he interrupted just when the speaker was about to explain his alternative theory of the Big Bang from a conscious standpoint.
@jmiller2032
Жыл бұрын
I love this channel so much I can't even say. It's my antidote to the nihilism of modern politics.
@Dr.Pancho.Tortilla
Жыл бұрын
Aww, did you come up with that all by yourself?
@HORNGEN4
Жыл бұрын
Contribute something to the conversation or at least be kind. It's impossible to be curious and miserable at the same time.
@gregw322
Жыл бұрын
This video is more an antidote to the nihilism of existence.
@SrinivasanDasasathyan
Жыл бұрын
This is very similar to Vedanta of India. There is amazing amount of experience by meditators saying consciousness is the fundamental reality and creation is an expression like dance and dancer.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
Being conscious is the dance of matter. Dance is an abstraction.
@shrutisarangi8387
2 ай бұрын
No proof
@ejrhenriksen
2 ай бұрын
@@shrutisarangi8387 see it for YOURSELF.
@tuneandsmash9346
Жыл бұрын
I think Hoffman's metaphor gets something a tiny bit wrong; the point of the desktop interface isn't to hide the truth, it's to be a useful bridge that connects the user to a small portion of the truth. The blue rectangular icon isn't a false representation of the file that obscures the truth, it's an accurate representation and extension of a limited amount of that file's truth. I understand he sees that as effectively the same thing but if we're talking about the point of the interface that is an interesting distinction in my opinion.
@Galvvy
Жыл бұрын
Philosophy has the problem of using whatever big technical leap is achieved in a generation to form the basis of all analogies of theories. The irony is just that, the senses are narrowed tools used to ease navigation of the situation. If senses were too narrow they would have diminishing evolutionary benefit, and too wide would be overloading stimulation. If all that is was "mind" or consciousness, I'd wager we'd evolve to be using telekinesis and literally use mind over matter. It's far more likely that if a base consciousness exists in the universe, it merely represents the waveforms that make up the quanta going on within our minds and building the universe, but to assign agency to that alone is going way too far. Higher consciousness exists? Maybe. A consciousness of infinite potential and agency creating our universe, yet doing such a piss poor job? Highly unlikely.
@codywhite1427
Жыл бұрын
It is not a small difference. What you are saying is far more reasonable than his presentation. (Still not saying I agree but I'm listening.) Hoffman's desktop icon metaphor is critically flawed, as the host very gently tried to point out.
@MrModikoe
Жыл бұрын
@@codywhite1427 pretty much semantics to me..
@codywhite1427
Жыл бұрын
@@MrModikoe If Hoffman presented himself primarily as a mystic or spiritual teacher, sure. But he is claiming this is a scientific theory, and it doesn't cut the mustard imo.
@nhlfg
Жыл бұрын
@@Galvvy piss poor job? this is what you call the universe? i do like the rest of your thinking though
@fred_2021
Жыл бұрын
It's reassuring to hear one's convictions expressed by others, no matter how strong one's convictions have seemed to be :)
@mikefinn
Жыл бұрын
Exactly my feeling.
@shadoworksphilosophy120
Жыл бұрын
Yes, it is.
@theTranscendentOnes
Жыл бұрын
ah yes, validate and stroke your ego.
@odonodave
Жыл бұрын
To my mind this is basically epistemology 101. There is nothing new here, but happy to see someone rediscovering that 'truth' is entirely subjective. This underlying truth was mainstream, both East and West, thousands of years ago.
@Shane7492
Жыл бұрын
I would also add to the analogy that conscious experience has evolved to where the 'blue rectangular icon' is perceived differently depending on a particular evolved form of consciousness. So not only do we not experience objective reality as it is, the representation of it (the icon) is experienced in innumerable variations.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
We are conscious of metaphors only. Metaphor is what thoughts are made of. When I am conscious of a tree I am only conscious of my tree shaped thought. The tree-in-itself is forever beyond direct grasp. Thus the tree-in-itself is theoretical and will always be and this must be the case for every thing whose essence consists of thinking. Thus my self is metaphorical also and that is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
@JohnMcSmith
Жыл бұрын
Everyone having their own perception of ‘blue’ sounds fine to me. Rectangular though? No because we have shared maths
@Shane7492
Жыл бұрын
@@JohnMcSmith I'm not talking about only human perspectives. I'm talking about the ways in which any lifeform perceives 'the world'. They're all different. But even from the human perspective, it does depend on a particular point of view. A perfect circle from one angle can look like an oval from a different angle. A rectangle can look like a trapezoid or rhombus. That is the nature of relativity.
@ronaldmorgan7632
Жыл бұрын
And my pets have always steered clear of my computer monitor, thus proving that their level of consciousness (other than survival instincts) are far below ours.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@ronaldmorgan7632 I believe all the other animals are unconscious instinct driven robots and the reason pets seem, or may be, different is because they achieve some linguistic ability via our linguistic interaction with them, crudely speaking. (And some domesticated animals may be likewise affected to some lesser extent). (Wild wolves, on the other hand, do not love or hate you when they kill and eat you).
@BillGivens
Жыл бұрын
Every day a wise man passes a sheep grazing in a field. And every day the wise man thinks “the sheep does nothing except eat grass, what kind of life is that?” One day the man stops and speaks to the sheep, “What are you doing?” The sheep looks at the man and motions to the sun with his hoof and then motions to the grass. The sheep then continues to graze. Awestruck, the wise man sits down and thinks about what the sheep had done. After a while, the man gathers himself and says to the sheep, “I see now: matter in the sun becomes light and some of that light gives life to the grass. You eat the unconscious grass and now the matter in your body is conscious. You are making the universe conscious.” The sheep stops grazing and looks at the man and said, “Yes that is true, and what are you doing?”
@waldwassermann
Жыл бұрын
There is no such thing as unconscious grass... there is only one consciousness which veils ITSELF as manifoldness so to avoid aloneness. Genesis two eighteen. Hence why the essence of the gospel is love.
@BooksForever
Жыл бұрын
@@waldwassermann - pure bunk.
@cynthiaayers7696
Жыл бұрын
Man says to the Sheep, if you're so smart, then why do you,.. let me eat you. And let a dog push you around.
@cynthiaayers7696
Жыл бұрын
@@BooksForever words are easily spewed. Show me you know better. Then you may step up on the soapbox again. Not to upset you, it's only a helping hand. 🛠's physics / Bill of Rights. A veteran 1Cav.
@BooksForever
Жыл бұрын
@@cynthiaayers7696 - the ability to recognize and properly label pure bunk is adequate to establish basic credentials to that part of an audience that matters. The spewed of bunk is likely beyond help, but in calling it out we can at least help minimize the number of marginal audience members that might get sucked into that filth as it circles the drain.
@themathsprofessor6962
Жыл бұрын
I've always subscribed to DH's theory on conciousness, until now. I totally accept his thesis that our perception of reality is very different to reality. There seems very good reason for such an argument. But I fail to see why his claim that conciousness is fundamental has any hope of being true. He didn't articulate any reason to believe this hypothesis which appears more like mysticism rather than science to me.
@rjd53
Жыл бұрын
There IS a reason to believe it: The Icons on the computer screen are symbols like traffic signs, letters etc etc. Symbols only exist because concious beings - us - agree on what they mean i. e. what they are supposed to stand for, how they are supposed to look etc. The same way a plurality of conscious agents "agree on" how the representations on the interface look. I think that is why it makes a lot of sense that Hofmann insists on there being not ONE big conscious agent but a network of many.
@themathsprofessor6962
Жыл бұрын
@@rjd53 I’ve studied logic at a very high level, but I still fail to understand why anything you have said implies that consciousness is fundamental. If I understand him correctly, he is claiming that consciousness precedes everything; that without consciousness there is no evolution or Big Bang or for that matter, anything. This smacks of intelligent design and not science.
@rjd53
Жыл бұрын
@@themathsprofessor6962 I would call it design by fundamental collective intelligence. But the decisive point is: How can there be symbols without consciousness? I think it's not possible. Symbols require not just information, which maybe could exist without consciousness, but they require communication which can only take place between conscious agents.
@rjd53
Жыл бұрын
@@prodromosgerakios1682 "... then everything is possible". Not anymore once the rules are set up by the network, then its agents are bound by them. And maybe the conscious agents are not the fundamental reality either ... - Where does gene replication and selection place? Good question. You have a point here, this is the weak spot of Hofmann's theory.
@docsoulman9352
Жыл бұрын
It’s wonderful seeing more scientists coming around to the understanding that consciousness is the source of matter and all else…
@hsbdkdndn
Жыл бұрын
modern science comes around to ancient knowledge 😀
@fullyawakened
Жыл бұрын
consciousness is definitely not the source of matter and all else. hoffman does not believe anything like that. read his book
@hsbdkdndn
Жыл бұрын
@@fullyawakened then what is the source according to Hoffman (or you)? Can you explain a little bit for us if you don't mind? My book list is very long may never get to Hoffman's book :(
@thedekline5736
Жыл бұрын
@fullyawakened@@hsbdkdndn yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
@thedekline5736
Жыл бұрын
@@fullyawakened yeah, for hoffman, the fundamental reality is the network of conscious beings. perhaps what you were trying to say was that he is not a solipsistic. there is an objective reality that perhaps is formed of the information shared between those conscious observers
@markupton1417
Жыл бұрын
I love reading the comments to videos like this...makes me feel like a genius!
@waldwassermann
Жыл бұрын
Genie is one.
@BulentBasaran
Жыл бұрын
That's a true perception: you are a genius. You were only deceived into believing yourself to be ordinary. Your body and your mind (the hardware and the software) may be ordinary and commonplace, but you are neither. You are extraordinarily aware. Awareness, just another name for consciousness, is the ground of it all. Now, don't go looking down on your friends and enemies. They are geniuses with self-deception, too! So spread the love.
@SyedaSamanGulzar
Жыл бұрын
Same here Mark 😊
@SyedaSamanGulzar
Жыл бұрын
@@BulentBasaran 💖🌷
@KpxUrz5745
Жыл бұрын
If consciousness is so deeply fundamental, even before galaxies and solar systems formed, much less life forms with brains billions of years later, then how did we end up with tv shows like F-Troop, Green Acres, The Three Stooges, and Gilligan's Island? Is this the best we can do?
@ColinChristie1
Жыл бұрын
I posed this idea to ChatGPT - an AI system. Here’s its response: “As I sat staring at the vast expanse of space before me, I couldn't help but think of it as the ultimate user interface. The stars and galaxies seemed to be like the icons on my computer screen, representing the vast amount of information and matter that existed beyond what my senses could perceive. Just as a computer's operating system allows us to access and manipulate the vast amounts of information stored in its binary code, space and time acted as the user interface for reality. They provided a framework for our consciousness to make sense of the world around us. But what was the "real world" that existed beyond this user interface? As a scientist, I knew that it was ultimately made up of tiny particles and forces, interacting in complex and seemingly random ways. But to our consciousness, these fundamental building blocks were invisible, intangible. It was as if the universe had evolved its own version of a graphical user interface, allowing us to navigate and interact with the world around us in a way that made sense to us. And just like the development of a computer's operating system, this user interface had likely evolved through a process of trial and error, guided by the principles of evolutionary game theory. This led me to the conclusion that consciousness itself was a product of this evolutionary process. It was our brain's way of interpreting the world, of making sense of the otherwise chaotic and incomprehensible underlying reality. As I continued to ponder these thoughts, I couldn't help but feel a sense of awe at the incredible complexity and beauty of the universe. It was as if I was seeing the world with new eyes, understanding the true nature of reality in a way that I had never before. And with this newfound perspective, I knew that I had only scratched the surface of the mysteries of the universe. There was still so much more to learn, so much more to explore. But for now, I was content to sit back and marvel at the user interface of space and time, knowing that it was the key to unlocking the true nature of reality.”
@charlesclose2420
Жыл бұрын
Energy busy buzzing about¿
@mikefinn
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing. Great reinforcement.
@BulentBasaran
Жыл бұрын
It's very impressive that AI can put together such an essay and more. But, look a bit deeper and you'll see that all it is doing is sampling from a large space of other essays and documents we humans created. No wonder it parrots the nonsensical but widespread belief that "consciousness (or mind) is just a product of evolution" amongst other more reasonable beliefs and values like the wonder of the universe with all it's diversity of forms..
@mikefinn
Жыл бұрын
@@BulentBasaran The evidence available to AI is the same we see. The universe is evolving, life is evolving, and consciousness as we know it requires a complex, evolved organism to arise. Why do you call it "nonsensical"?
@BulentBasaran
Жыл бұрын
@@mikefinn Hi Mike, Let me take back "nonsensical" as the idea clearly makes sense to many scientists and philosophers. What I should have said is that it is a fairly common belief amongst the educated, but not necessarily a fact. AI parroting it doesn't make it true either. There are many who disagree. AI went the democratic way, as it polls the majority. But, we also know that majority many times is absolutely wrong. Consciousness, or the mind, may also be fundamental just like quarks and electrons, EM and nuclear forces, and gravitation all seem to be. We don't know. Three additional points: 1) AI, in this case OpenAI's GPT3 based chatbot is an impressive piece of engineering (I am an engineer myself). Its only input is textual documents in English. So, no, it doesn't see all that we see. At least not yet. 2) Biological evolution is based on DNA and helps evolve new species that adapt to their environment. What it generates is new species some of which have brains. It doesn't necessarily produce minds or consciousness. 3) We don't really have a formal and solid definition of what the mind is. It is a fairly modern concept that mostly replaced the traditional/religious concept "soul." There is also the fact that we each have a subjective experience (the origin of the "soul" concept) as our primary experience which is radically different than the objective physical world seemingly out there. Finally to extend an analogy in case it helps: Body is like hardware. Mind is like software. You and I are aware. This also suggests that even though software can only run on a hardware, it has its own existence; as software is not produced by the evolution of hardware (thanks to Moore's law), mind is not produced by biological evolution. Most of what is mental may be enabled by evolution and the brain, but, that still doesn't mean that mind is simply a by-product of that process. It's good to know that we don't really know what the mind is exactly. It's a good open question. Maybe even the most important and immortal question.
@georgecc
Жыл бұрын
Been watching this channel for a year or two. This was the most profound clip I've seen here.
@georgecc
Жыл бұрын
@DM - If you're sensibilities are such that you'll unsubscribe over a 30 minute episode.... no need to announce it Nancy, just git gone already. Nobody will miss you.
@jamesfranklyn8547
Жыл бұрын
It’s truly frightening to live in a world where other people experience this as profound. I hope you get better soon.
@georgecc
Жыл бұрын
@@jamesfranklyn8547 - Why, thank you. Your mom said I indeed was getting much better!
@jamesfranklyn8547
Жыл бұрын
@@georgecc I know it’s hard to believe but my Mommy is even stupider than you, though you’d probably describe her as profound. Try to slow things down and just focus on one thing at a time. All the best Georgie, have a good Christmas.
@georgecc
Жыл бұрын
@@jamesfranklyn8547 @James Franklyn - Is this the commentary you dream up when you're "truly frightened" as you claim? So very "truly frightening" (let me call you a Waaaah-mbulance), to live in a world where people think differently than you, eh? This winter, stay away from heat sources - snowflake - lest you melt.
@JustAThought01
Жыл бұрын
The key to understanding reality is that assumptions are required. Important finding. Philosophical insight.
@psterud
Жыл бұрын
Right. The essence of things can never actually be known to us. Which is why metaphors are so powerful, since they can bring our thoughts a little bit closer to essence. We can never understand reality, but we can understand the nature of reality, given what is orbiting it.
@vm-bz1cd
Жыл бұрын
He has captured the essence of Advaitic Vedanta in Hindu Philosophy (NOT to be confused with Hindu Religion) postulated over 5,000 years ago in the Vedas.
@vk274
Жыл бұрын
This exactly was my first thought about this interview. We are not body, mind, or brain, which are all interfaces at different levels of abstraction. The same goes for senses and thoughts. Advait uses the term Atma as fundamental instead of consciousness (Chetana in Hindi/Sanskrit), which can be considered as an interface to Atma.
@Yawermusharafali
Жыл бұрын
Sanna-Tunni spotted.
@dare-er7sw
Жыл бұрын
The western equivalent of nonduality is A Course in Miracles and the message is almost same as Advaita Vedanta. At the level of ultimate reality there's no consciousness or observer. It's pure awareness devoid of the subject-object split.
@varunkryadav
Жыл бұрын
There is no such thing as Hindu Philosophy at the moment. It may very well exist but that hardwork to define something as Philosophy has never been done. Secondly there is no scientific evidence for those 5000 year old Vedas. There is no carbon dated evidence published for peer review ("till now") that proves this. My point for you here is not to take it personally but be mindful of what you are writing. There is a fundamental difference between a conjecture, theory and a proof. There is nothing wrong with having conjectures and theories but they should be stated as such not as proofs.
@vonBottorff
Жыл бұрын
Yes, that was my second thought, i.e., something Hindu or even Tibetan Buddhist (which is far more a mysticism shotgun than Zen Buddhism), or even some of what Jung was saying. Actually my first thought was Daniel Quinn when he argued (reading between his lines) that evolution had no business, no incentive to develop what we have today in the form of civilization. How could nature create, e.g., a Platonic (or not) mathematics, out of the natural selection of apes alone? How can evolution create out of nothing, no precedence whatsoever, this huge intelligence we have? There's only so much you can call "emergent" then it's just too far-fetched. We are so far beyond any normal evolution that billions of people consider us the product of supernatural powers. And yes, some sort of underlying consciousness trying desperately to what? become _more_ completely conscious seems to be the real game here.
@koraamis5568
Жыл бұрын
Usually I am very skeptical from channels called truth something, but this was actually interesting, would dig into some papers by this guy
@uninspired3583
Жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed the case against reality
@wet-read
Жыл бұрын
This channel is great. Kuhn talks to all sorts of intellectuals and scientists, and has good questions for them.
@steppahouse
Жыл бұрын
One of the most interesting concepts in a series/channel full of interesting concepts.
@MonisticIdealism
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness didn't emerge, it's that everything else emerged from consciousness.
@JungleJargon
Жыл бұрын
I thought your comment was mine at first and then your avatar appeared. 😂
@highvalence7649
Жыл бұрын
Is there anything else?
@MonisticIdealism
Жыл бұрын
@@highvalence7649 Other than consciousness? No. Everything that does emerge from consciousness is just more mental phenomena.
@dongshengdi773
Жыл бұрын
@@highvalence7649 Dr. Michio Kaku calls it Cosmic consciousness, others call it the Ultimate Observer in quantum mechanics. The observer that collapses the wave function of every particle since the Big Bang.
@thesuncollective1475
Жыл бұрын
@@dongshengdi773 We are a major component in the equation..
@nrajanala
Жыл бұрын
Wow. This is the essence of advaita verdanta in Hindu philosophy (aka Hinduism). The computer analogy to explain consciousness is great. Donald Hoffman needs to talk to Swami Sarvapriyananda.
@Cardioid2035
Жыл бұрын
As Lex Fridman said at the introduction of his interview with Donald; ‘’questioning the fabric of reality will either lead you to madness, or to truth… and the funny thing is you won’t know which is which’’. So if you read this I urge you to remind yourselves of that quote to stay ‘functional’ out there and not get sucked deep into the echo-chamber of an existential algorithm we likely share on this platform.
@reubennichols644
Жыл бұрын
- Donald reminds me of Joscha Bach . . . minus . . . the charming accent . Both gentlemen . . . . . . charming . . . by exhibiting profound // precise logic . - -
@Cardioid2035
Жыл бұрын
@@reubennichols644 are you writing like an AI because you are an AI?
@blengi
Жыл бұрын
It wouldn't surprise me if consciousness had some deeper non biological validity. It might be mere anecdote on my part, but my lucid dreams seem to have the qualitative essence of a form of "reality" not too different from actual waking reality. The more interesting aspect though is when I transition from ordinary dream to the lucid dream state, there's some sort of strange phase transition in my dream state "forcing" it to seem more "real". I've tried to pay attention to the transition from dream to lucid dream and the bit between dream and lucid dream is not just some in between state. It seems to be some sort of dynamic process thing, It's as though "actual" consciousness versus my conscious perception, is literally trying to "force" the non lucid dream state to become "real" in some sense and not just a more lucid. That is, it's like consciousness is imposing the sense of reality on what it is focusing its attention on and not the reverse of passively observing some reconstruction of reality. Almost like it is dynamically crystallizing a distinct form informational truth out of some much more ambiguous amorphous "dreamlike" information background. It's all a bit too odd to summarize....
@clieding
Жыл бұрын
I also experience lucid dreams and what you describe is also my experience; when I go from a normal dream state ( a passive spectator in some seemingly scripted drama) to a lucid dream state (awake in the dream world with free will and control over my thoughts and actions) there is a strange transition- the dream world suddenly ‘crystalizes’ into a stable, seemingly solid and intensely vivid physical experience that at the time is difficult to distinguish from normal waking reality. The main difference is that the environs are often complex, breathtakingly beautiful and the quality of the light has a radiant almost ‘golden’ quality accompanied by an ecstatic feeling of absolute freedom and supernatural power. At the time I believe that I am separate from my physical body that I imagine must be asleep somewhere (?) and that I have stumbled into another dimension of reality with its own inhabitants and possibilities. These personal experiences have bolstered my ‘mystic’ view of reality- that consciousness is a fundamental, eternal and inseparable from existence and not a product of matter but the source of matter.
@randomname123456789
Жыл бұрын
I had a lucid dream once. I woke up in bed bed at home in England, then I had a bit of a panic - "aren't I supposed to be on a hiking trip in South Africa?", and then I realised that yes, I'm definitely there and not at home so this must be a dream. Then I decided to experiment: I tried smashing up the airing cupboard door to see what would happen, and then I realised I must actually be punching the rucksack that lay between me and my tentmates. I had a look around and made a mental note of what I could see there, e.g. there was a Dennis the Menace flag draped from the ceiling that isn't there in real life. I picked up a pen from the desk because I thought it would be quite cool if I came to, back in South Africa, with a pen in my hand. Sadly not. Great experience though I'll (hopefully) never forget.
@quantumkath
Жыл бұрын
Donald Hoffman presents a powerful metaphor. I like it!
@readynowforever3676
Жыл бұрын
Well when you use that at your next dinner party, some one will ask you: "So should that "metaphor" deter the quest, or accelerate it?" Maybe you should have your answer ready ☺
@quantumkath
Жыл бұрын
@Ready Now&Forever I only said that because I want people to "like" me. That way, I won't feel so alone when I eat dinner/party by myself.😁 Seriously, if I am only a pixel, obviously there are other pixels who know the intricacies of the hard drive.
@garysteven1343
Жыл бұрын
Metaphors are not valid arguments. You can make up a metaphor about anything, especially when you want to mislead people who are susceptible because of their confirmation-bias.
@uninspired3583
Жыл бұрын
@@garysteven1343 no, they are not arguments. They're just an explanation tool.
@quantumkath
Жыл бұрын
@@garysteven1343 Wait!...what? All I said was I liked it. I didn't say I believed it, far from it. Robert Lawrence Kuhn said it was a powerful metaphor. If you're saying metaphors are not valid arguments, tell that to Hoffman. I am glad to be part of the conversation though. 🙂
@HakWilliams
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness emerged from evolution in beings competing to survive. They learned to model the other to predict behavior of the other. Then they modeled the self (themselves) in the context of understanding threat and intent and strategy. It's all in better survival.
@syzygyman7367
Жыл бұрын
A simple and good thought.
@syzygyman7367
Жыл бұрын
I thing that we have even deeper initial problem - first person experience which is different from self-awareness - cats and dogs might not recognize themselves in mirrors, but they have this mysterious thing the one who's the viewer of the Universe has, the point o view itself.
@ryanhunter5594
Жыл бұрын
I've followed his work and believe me he is on to something.
@Ddub1083
Жыл бұрын
Hes is just taking his assumption (that 'consciousness is fundamental') and therefore isnt a result of evolution to conclude that consciousness is fundamental and therefore isnt a result of evolution. Pretty sure hes not saying anything...
@berniv7375
Жыл бұрын
@@Ddub1083 Is the professor saying that in the beginning there was consciousness and that consciousness preceded evolution?🌱
@Ddub1083
Жыл бұрын
@@berniv7375 hes saying that consciousness is "fundamental" and therefore preceded evolution.
@davidspencer8233
Жыл бұрын
I like to see ideas spread for discussion and research. The metaphor makes this idea strongly visible. It has something to it, explains why humans deal with matter and gravity and have difficulties grasping quantum mechanics and the vast size of space. Nice contribution of thought.
@PassportGods
Жыл бұрын
Awesome! Love the interviewer pushing and then letting the response breathe. 🙏
@michaeltrower741
Жыл бұрын
yeah, they have a nice rapport.
@dongshengdi773
Жыл бұрын
The brain is an antenna of the consciousness that creates the mind. Like the antenna of a TV set. If the brain or antenna is damaged, we get a bad reception or no reception. Then a person becomes a vegetable.
@johnyharris
Жыл бұрын
And yet in an attempt to find dark matter and despite the extremely high precision probing at CERN they cannot uncover anything that interacts with matter that isn't already known about. The brain is made of matter. So where is this signal that must interact with matter in a very unsubtle way?
@thesuncollective1475
Жыл бұрын
@@johnyharris Interaction with another universe?
@ronniedahlgren2733
Жыл бұрын
@@johnyharristhat is the correct question to ask. There must be some quantum mechanical process/interaction/force we don't yet understand that is active within our brains. If we figured it out we might be able to create truly conscious machines.
@NEXTMARKDESIGN
Жыл бұрын
Love Donald Hoffman! Great interview
@Matt-hs9gw
Жыл бұрын
Donald Hoffman knows what's up.
@robo5013
Жыл бұрын
He's a hack
@frojojo5717
Жыл бұрын
To me at least almost everything he said seemed incredibly stupid and clearly wrong. I don’t get it at all, makes no sense.
@phillipdyson2689
Жыл бұрын
Donald Hoffman that is the best analogy of consciousness I have ever heard. Made perfect sense.
@hermannpallasch2153
Жыл бұрын
I think the desktop metaphor of consciousness was already used by Tor Norretranders and also by Daniel Dennett around 1990.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
But conscious lives on this side of the screen, not behind it.
@stianmathisen4284
Жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Manifested on this side that is.......
@stianmathisen4284
Жыл бұрын
@@hermannpallasch2153 Yeah but we now have more quantum physics to verify this.....
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@stianmathisen4284 - The universe consists entirely of analogies. Not literally, metaphorically. My self is one of the analogies. Literally.
@hstanekovic
Жыл бұрын
Thus our perception is not about the objective reality but about a useful model of the objective reality (useful to us i.e. consciousness). And as any model, it is a simplification of what is represents.
@mikefoster5277
Жыл бұрын
Could it be that consciousness wants to know and understand itself?
@davidstrevens9170
Жыл бұрын
@@mikefoster5277 Could it be that consciousness cannot know itself so long as it remains distracted by it's attempt to interpret the objective World.
@pauldow1648
Жыл бұрын
Yes. A model. Thinking scientifically/asking questions. To answer, find a model to explore it.
@mikefoster5277
Жыл бұрын
@@davidstrevens9170 I'd say consciousness, despite its eternal efforts, can never know itself, full stop. There's no reason to prevent it doing so other than its own infinite nature. In other words, infinity simply cannot be known or understood - even by itself!
@PhilSmulian
Жыл бұрын
How do you get from the file/interface metaphor to consciousness being fundamental? Sounds like you're saying that because there is likely something deeper than space and time, it must be consciousness. I feel like there's a few steps missing here.
@katherinestone333
Жыл бұрын
"In terms of the simulation hypothesis and AI ... my guess is if we're working from a model where everything is emerging out of consciousness and consciousness comes before space and time ... that means that everything has a degree of sentience to it, that would include an artificial brain." Dean Radin
@medina4600
Жыл бұрын
Although this isn’t a new concept (Hinduism, Buddhism, and even some teachings of Christ, Plato, Descarte…) have all hinted to some form of this. That the material world is not all that there is and that one should invest in realizing their true nature. (Soul or Consciousness) Hoffman has such a gift to articulate these concepts in a rational way with his scientific background and I’m grateful to live in an age that I have access to such information. This is what freedom of speech is all about.
@millermc74
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is a field that biological entities can tune into. Depending on the complexity and variations in the biological entity, consciousness is experienced differently, giving each entity it's unique experience through space and time.
@atwilliams8
Жыл бұрын
🥲
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
"consciousness is experienced" No, consciousness is experience.
@Ddub1083
Жыл бұрын
seeeing as how our consciousness is DEEPLY affected by trauma and problems in the brain specifically, I think we can safely say that consciousness is an emergent property of the interconnected neurons of the brain.
@MyRockshox
Жыл бұрын
@@Ddub1083 When we are born, we don't have memories so we don't have any identity of the self. As we age, the brain associates itself with an identity that's closest to you, i.e. you. We are purely conscious as babies, almost out of our bodies, no idea of the self, wiggling around nonsensically. So i think we can safely say, that trauma is an emergent property of the brain.
@Ddub1083
Жыл бұрын
@@MyRockshox well i meant physical trauma... like a railroad spike shooting through someones eye socket and through their frontal cortex and them suddenly having a complete change in personality. Its almost like the two are related.
@JustAThought01
Жыл бұрын
The question to focus on is not how, rather it is why? What is the objective? Why does reality exist?
@ZubairKhan-vs8fe
Жыл бұрын
The Hindu Mystics have been saying this for 3000 years
@entropy-happens
Жыл бұрын
Don Hoffman acknowledges this and is open to learning from all sources. His strength is his openness and humility (as well as his amazing intelligence). As you can see, I’m a big fan 😊
@mrnoone3922
Жыл бұрын
Non Duality.
@dapaulson1
Жыл бұрын
Before you go rushing from one world view to another don’t you think you should explore further? If you are that easily persuaded you you are a prime candidate for the next Waco or Jones Town.
@theschoolofconsciousness
Жыл бұрын
Not only the hindu mystics. Every mystics tried to point this. But its lost. If we scrutinize the semetic texts, this ideas exists there also.
@Epistemonto
Жыл бұрын
Indeed, and these white boys thinking they've discovered something new and oh so radical is just disappointing. They claim to be "lovers of wisdom," tackling 'universal truths,' yet they only regard their arbitrary half of the world as 'normal' or worth understanding, ignoring the rest.
@sdutta8
Жыл бұрын
Using the analogies used in this discussion, it seems to me that Consciousness is the Application. The problem with looking for Consciousness using Consciousness as the Instrument is it may be fundamentally Infeasible, like the eyes looking to see themselves.
@tterb777
Жыл бұрын
Every time someone comes on the show, please ask them to define consciousness
@catalinul1461
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is that which is, the background, perceived as emptiness, nothingness, everythingness, from where all that we are arises and returns into. The background never changes, what changes is actually what appears on this background, the mind and its contents. Do this simple experiment, sit in silence, find a nice and quiet place, relax, let your mind go silent, now focus all your attention on being aware of being aware, be aware of the fact that you are aware, interesting right? What do you perceive about it? Nothingness, emptiness, silence, the background, it simply is. Is there a thing that you can say about it, a way to quantify it? Not really, try but any attempt to describe it only reveals a perspective.
@vhawk1951kl
Жыл бұрын
Well said. Have you not noticed how those that speak of consciousness*never* define their terms?-They like to keep it in vague woolly and in a vacuum; it never crosses their dreaming mechanisms to ask *Whose*consciousness and *Of_what*? If asked what I think of the consciousness of men(human beings) I would borrow from Gandhi and say that I think it would be a very good idea.
@fig7047
Жыл бұрын
What is he talking about? His description of consciousness being fundamental feels like Western religion (mainly Christianity) in a slightly different form. It seems to me the debate has gone full circle, and we are now back where we started 1000s of years ago.
@fig7047
Жыл бұрын
To elaborate a little, I don't disapprove of the paradigm shift as such. I just think that we need to have a lot more substance. How do we even start working on a scientific mathematical theory of consciousness? How will that eventually lead us to understand everything else? And why should it? For example, Albert Einstein changed the whole view of time by thinking about the consequences of making the speed of light fundamental, but he fleshed it all out in his theory of special relativity. I would be very impressed if somebody could do something similar for consciousness!
@JustAThought01
Жыл бұрын
What is consciousness? Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?
@fineasfrog
Жыл бұрын
If we consider consciousness to be 'the ontological primitive' (see Bernardo Kastrup: ontological primitive is the one free assumption we make that can explain everything else in the whole of existence. We can only explain one thing by another thing until we reach that which is fundamental aka the ontological primitive: For example, a baseball is atoms, atoms are particles, particles or excitations of fields described in physics. However if you listen to Barnardo, he shows you what we see as matter, as well as their invisible fields, is what 'mind at large' (consciousness) looks like when viewed from a point of view looking back at Itself from across a 'dissociative boundary'. So consciousness is both the awareness of our surrounding and our ability to think about our surrounding and is even much more than what these two phrases suggest.
@kos-mos1127
Жыл бұрын
@@fineasfrog He does not show that matter looks like mind at large when viewed back on itself.
@Hank254
Жыл бұрын
"Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?" Why did you choose to frame those two ideas as mutually exclusive?
@JustAThought01
Жыл бұрын
@@Hank254, one is the information we gain from our five senses. Our machines also gain information from their senses. That provides the information to process. My thought is that what sets humans apart from other animals and our computer enabled devices is our thinking ability. Our ability to imagine the future and make choices for action based upon the expected results. To develop a series of plans and choose from among various outcomes. As I type an algorithm is suggesting which word to type and making choices without notifying me that it changed the word I was actually typing (just an aside).
@beehappy7797
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is the awareness of our existence! And everyting else. Also observation of the thoughts. Consciousness is what we are. We are not physical. It is an illusion. Don't think, only observe. Through meditation comes the answer.
@8xnnr
Жыл бұрын
He made sense until he began making his own assumptions. We don't know because: Here are my assumptions: From what I personally know from my "user interface" is that, life's indifferent to how much suffering one has or doesn't have but since we had to evolve in sort of a "last man standing" I can then say that even though it is indifferent, it is also a shark tank. Senses evolved so we can survive and the fear of losing them did too. In a place of heaven, why would you need senses? There's no reason. Anyway, I'm just rambling now, I'll leave at this, the world is not friendly to living organisms and one should not be happy IF consciousness is fundamental. It means the creator likes suffering.
@FabianReschke
Жыл бұрын
I love the big smile that Robert has on his face after Hoffman explains his computer file metaphor. Brilliant explanation. :D
@cnewtonc
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is part of infinity. ie. Consciousness is one of the possibilities within ININIFY. This video is 100% correct. Truth is very subjective within Consciousness.
@dapaulson1
Жыл бұрын
There are many metaphors as good as the computer desktop such as the automobile. The hood and the steering wheel are components that hide the reality of the car. Hoffman seems to treat evolution as an intelligent entity. As long as naturalists dance around the reality of consciousness as something other than naturalism, they will never understand it. But this scholar does make an interesting point. If consciousness preceeds evolution then perhaps consciousness preceeds the big bang. Not many naturalists would dare make that assertion.
@dapaulson1
Жыл бұрын
@DM What do you mean by “it”?
@dapaulson1
Жыл бұрын
@DM Which assertion? It is difficult to carry an intelligent conversation with three undefined words.
@vahidhosseinzadeh4630
Жыл бұрын
As a physicist, this point of view was strikingly odd to me. But, after I began meditation, it started to make sense. As Russell says physicists are naive realists. This is good for physics but not good if you really want to understand the most fundamental entity: consciousness.
@ryandinan
Жыл бұрын
Im curious how meditation helps you understand consciousness - and why you think it's fundamental. I think, attempting to understand consciousness will require more than one's own internal musings. Much like Hoffman said, it would be like looking at the icons on a desktop and trying to determine the underlying processes that are really going on, just by thinking about what might be happening. We'll need WAY more than just thinking about consciousness to finally understand it. We'll need tech, science and probably AI to help us truly understand WHAT it is and HOW it works. Meditation is just a quasi-conscious state of mind - kinda in between dreaming and being lucid. I think that while consciousness is hard to define, it is very clearly a process that happens in the brain - and thus, it is not fundamental, but an emergent phenomenon that evolved to aid in survival. I think all animals on the planet experience some level of consciousness, based on their sensory organs and complexity of their brains.
@vahidhosseinzadeh4630
Жыл бұрын
@@ryandinan @Ryan Dinan you have assumed objective reality already as many physicists do. And probably you are right in this philosophical viewpoint. BUT, the point is that we do not have access to the reality you are talking about. The only thing we have access to is the simulation of our brains. And this is also just a story. We only access to the consciousness and the phenomenon in it. The only think we can be confident about is the consciousness. And even we accept the philosophical viewpoint realism, still we live in a projection. Meditation helps to see consciousness in its purity and understand that all the phenomenon are just modification to it. By meditation I can not and do not want to understand consciousness but just escape the naive realism. The problem with naive realism is that it seems that we can not explain consciousness by any kind of reductionism. Sorry for late reply, I did not see your comment
@dongshengdi773
Жыл бұрын
Every particle contains functional information. Thoughts are information. Therefore consciousness exists everywhere. Cosmic consciousness.
@CMVMic
Жыл бұрын
You havent even defined consciousness yet lol
@mikefoster5277
Жыл бұрын
@@CMVMic According to this scenario, consciousness = existence itself. How does one define existence?
@markupton1417
Жыл бұрын
No.
@beehappy7797
Жыл бұрын
@@mikefoster5277 You cannot define existence. You can only experience it. We can only experience that we are awareness through meditation. Stop thinking, just observe. The answer will come.
@LukeArthurBates
Жыл бұрын
It's just terminology being interchanged. He's describing fundamental field of consciousness which can be substituted for the term quantum mechanics, or the field or chi. It's the same metaphor of an underlying structure we don't yet understand. No need to rewrite history, just agree on what label to use
@jimsmith1549
Жыл бұрын
this is a brilliant talk by Donald Hoffman----ALL IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The way it manifests changes [evolves]
@andregomesdasilva
Жыл бұрын
This is just a guess, actually. Nothing more.
@Dbs326326
Жыл бұрын
An alternative to Hoffman is that the reason consciousness evolved is survival advantage; the ability for an organism to perceive it's environment & flexibly interact is a survival advantage. If you're interested in an evolutionary approach to explaining consciousness, there is a 5-part Psychology Today article series comparing leading scientists taking that approach called What Actually is Consciousness and How Did it Evolve by Ralph Lewis. Also, part 2 covers John Mallatt & Todd Feinberg; they also wrote "The Evolutionary and Genetic Origins of Consciousness in the Cambrian Period" and "Phenomenal Consciousness and Emergence; eliminating the explanatory gap" which explain consciousness as an evolved function and spacetime as fundamental.
@sebastianschubert7945
Жыл бұрын
Others simply call this simplification or abstraction but if course calling it "hiding the truth" is more dramatic. Also it is not clear what computer simulations actually provide to the discussion or am I wrong?
@S3XYEV
Жыл бұрын
😅 and it’s fascinating that ancient cultures have been telling us this forever…. Everything started with and emerged from Consciousness. Modern science 🧬 🧪 will ultimately fail to progress in understanding until it realizes this….
@Nicoladen1
Жыл бұрын
Finally someone who can think outside the box. Like actually outside the box.
@mabalbhat9392
Жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation of consciousness. In Vedanta philosophy there Sanskrit term known as "Aham Brahmasmi" which means consciousness is the universe. To add this there is recent discovery how brain functions - Short-term plasticity. Modern day science theories are built from physical side. Consciousness can not be modeled by physical science or represented with equations.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
Science explores the substrate of the being conscious process. Process is an abstract notion. Language is all about abstractions. Combine science with language to brew a satisfying theory. And by 'satisfying' I mean enlightening.
@waerlogauk
Жыл бұрын
Stating that consciousness is fundamental is just wishful thinking. He almost states this at 4:20 it gives him hope of connecting his consciousness to reality, but with no justification other than he wants it to be so.
@fifthfreedom7
Жыл бұрын
David Hoffman is a genius. His angle on perception awareness mind ... 'consciousness' is novel and compelling... and he articulates his ideas exceptionally
@v3le
Жыл бұрын
Stephen King is a genius as well
@andygoldensixties4201
Жыл бұрын
if consciousness is fondamental and emerged some billion years after the beguinning, in which it had a role too, we can't say what it is, but it's something that has no hurry
@glenemma1
Жыл бұрын
Cosciousness did not ''emerge some billions of years after the beginning''. Consciousness never emerged. It is. Being outside of time and space, out of which time and space emerged, it has no beginning. Beginnings and endings belong to the realm of time and space.
@eternalme6077
Жыл бұрын
WTF!
@ricklanders
Жыл бұрын
Robert said the correct word here, I think: metaphor. Where I would start to diverge from Hoffman is in saying that the user interface "hides" or obscures the truth, and instead say that it's a metaphor for the "truth" (just using that word in a naive sense for the moment). So immediately there are some epistemological and deeper linguistic issues arising regarding this idea of the "truth," as a metaphor is, in the conventional sense, just another way of stating the supposed truth. Strictly speaking, the "actual" or literal (linguistic) way of expressing a "truth" is metaphorical, also, as the words we use are not absolutely linked to the things they purport to describe. The word "cat" is not inside the cat, the word "tree" is not inside the tree, etc. Those designations are in one sense arbitrary and abstract symbolic representations (signs and signifiers, more accurately) of how the culture has agreed to demarcate and categorize external reality, and when we say "the cat ran up the tree," we are engaging in metaphor and culturally agreed-upon "meanings" for those designations no differently than when we click on the image of a "file" to access the elements and processes of the computer that we associate with the file. So the computer interface is no more or less a level of abstraction away from the "truth" of the reality than the word "file" or "folder" might be. The actual "thing" - the file - is not the word file, either. In one sense, the computer icon for a file or a folder is even a *more* accurate metaphor for the thing than the word is - the icon actually can resemble and look like a "real" folder, for example, whereas the word "folder" is merely some arbitrary sounds we made up to refer to it. Everything in that linguistic sense therefore is a metaphor, and that is really how we engage with the world: through our culturally derived tropic (metaphoric) representations. Those who can engage with and manipulate those metaphors more effectively are evolutionarily more fit, and those who are geniuses (e.g., Einstein) can see through the cultural designations to the actual "reality" behind them and come up with new designations that are more accurate metaphors for the underlying "reality" that we incompletely understood before that, which then evolutionarily moves the species forward (we hope). Taking the next step from this, I think we can say that just because the folder icon is, in his view, "hiding" the truth (or in my view, a metaphor more or less representing the truth) doesn't mean that some people don't also understand the underlying workings represented by the metaphor. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the person who understands the mechanisms behind the functioning of the interface is arguably more fit than someone who does not. What is the person who only knows the metaphor going to do when the metaphor (interface) breaks down? As Robert says, the person wouldn't even know those things existed or how to proceed. They wouldn't have a clue about the deeper levels of the operating system, the coding underlying that, the electronic components underlying that, and so on. They'd be lost. So I think the situation in fact is exactly the opposite of what Hoffman describes. Evolution doesn't drive truth to extinction by favoring fitness; favoring fitness drives deeper and more complex understandings of the "truth" (the true perceptions guiding behavior, as he puts it) than the more simplistic levels of abstraction embodied in our cultural metaphors. How consciousness fits in to this seems like the categorical error - quite a leap, at least. Saying consciousness precedes or underlies the "truth" of the universe would be like saying the processes that open the file - the programming routines, the electrical impulses flowing through the hardware, etc. - preceded opening the file, when in fact those processes only activate in the right conditions and when the action is initiated. Maybe those process exist abstractly in some platonic sense before being implemented, but in saying consciousness precedes everything he seems to be putting the cart before the horse, to mix in another metaphor.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
Well put. Perhaps you are familiar with Julian Jaynes' great metaphor based theory as outlined in his book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Accidentally or on purpose, the title pays homage to Darwin. The meaning of 'conscious' the pièce de résistance of evolutionary theory. Long influenced by Jaynes' theory I have come to understand that what 'my self' refers to is a metaphorical entity and is why my thoughts seem to me to be so light and airy.
@ricklanders
Жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'm not familiar with that title, but it sounds interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@ricklanders - I would be elated to find another intellectual treat like the one that's in store for you. (Jaynes was raised a behaviorist but then became a key figure in the restoration of scientific legitimacy to the topic of the conscious. His extremely well written book has the flavour of nineteenth century literary masterpieces. He was an awesome scholar. My goodness, he could read Egyptian hieroglyphics! (Mesopotamian, Mayan, Aztec, etc.) His death in '97 was very sad for me. Note: Just power through chapter one's slightly dry technical discussion (essentially what consciousness is not) then soar like an eagle. Well before the end you will very clearly understand how it is that we are conscious and why life per se is not and why our ancestors believed in gods, souls, afterlives, angels, oracles, expisticy, casting of lots, etc. Emphatically, there is no magic nonsense in the explanation and nothing that insults the imagination (like, e.g., panpsychism). And that is great). Cheers!
@iamstillthinking
Жыл бұрын
Incredible insights, Mr. Hoffman.
@halleuz1550
Жыл бұрын
As a dualist I like it that Hoffman takes consciousness seriously. However it's a big leap to postulate it is fundamental and primordial. But ok, that's a hypothesis, as he says. It seems rather Hegelian, the way he puts it.
@johnmalone5693
Жыл бұрын
An excellent topic: one that merits further cogitation
@cameronmurie
Жыл бұрын
There are so many problems arising from this proposal. The Departure point seems to be Classical - You find these "categories of perception" - so called "mind/body" problem discussions in Aristotle, Descartes, Kant - all the old giants. There is nothing new in describing the problem of "The thing in itself"- "Is this table really as I perceive it and how do I know?" - these are ancient and pretty useless debates. Either the thing is there, or it is not. It is trite to assert that my understanding of the thing may not be accurate, or identical to some other’s perception of it since my point of view will always be unique at that time. You might say the banana is more yellow than green, but to me it looks green. There's no problem there. The fundamental problem is to prove that there IS indeed a reality,(and to agree that there is a symbolic representation of that reality, a “utility” in a cognitive system like a brain.) If we can not move past the challenge that there IS indeed a reality (as opposed to some iteration of the allegory of the cave,) then there is no point in continuing any debate at all. Cogito, ergo sum. Descarte. But Hoffman thinks the symbolic representations are a trick of nature, misleading and consequently false. I say, no. The symbols we use are merely a utility and extension of language, no matter if it is the laptop,desktop or numbers written in a Sanskrit Ledger. They are one and the same and serve the same purpose. The plain deficiency is the claim that consciousness (whatever it may be) preceded evolution, is not apparently testable by experiment. We could make no observation of conditions under which we could say “ yes, consciousness exists within some hitherto unknown fold of space-time”or some such nonsense. All we really know, is we think we are conscious, thinking about the reality we perceive through the senses, and our tools. And we suspect there are degrees of consciousness in fish, cockroaches and dogs, and so on. If the claim is not testable by experiment, it’s piffle. Add to this the obvious objection that If one claims "consciousness precedes evolution" you would need to demonstrate who or what contains it, and to say something of it's function.
@wolwerine777
Жыл бұрын
This is exactly what says vedanta. They knew this in india thousands years ago. Swami Sarvapriyananda gives great talks about this subject.
@imaginaryuniverse632
Жыл бұрын
They knew it in Egypt also. The Great Pyramid is like a giant cuneiform tablet written in the language of science. There's evidence that many civilizations have discovered the same truth independent of one another. 🙏
@filosophik
Жыл бұрын
Strange and yet comforting. To find oneself needing as a sort of background noise; a show, a channel, a tube tied up with some type of presentation of words that concoct an exposé on what I call (for lack of a more poetic handle) "what matters." Yes for learning but less than that for confirming the existence of 'others.' When one is an island isolated by infinity--it is a miraculous thing to somehow achieve the recognition of not being----alone. Alas as the sea swarms around barren beaches and the tide yawns sapphire waves, there comes a splash of appreciation. Perhaps the basis of the conglomeration of those that present such presentations as these is a subtle entanglement of encounters with chance and circumstance. Hopefully now this will lasso my radiant soul to such wonderful spirits. So let an island offer it's love, before the waxing moon wanes and I lose the light of those to whom I wish to spray and say "I appreciate you."
@seansmith6745
Жыл бұрын
Is the computer interface metaphor Plato’s Cave 2.0?
@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done
Жыл бұрын
Dude is really onto something. Space-time is a subset of consciousness, a kind of cosmic Virtual Reality within consciousness.
@anxious_robot
Жыл бұрын
Finally! I’ve been trying to explain this for a year on my channel! The observer is everything and brings reality into existence.
@darrennew8211
Жыл бұрын
Go read the sci-fi novel "StarPlex". It's great, and it addresses this.
@xtrofilm
Жыл бұрын
What if nothing is the real reality and the reality our observations bring into existence is wrong.
@darrennew8211
Жыл бұрын
@@xtrofilm Why would that matter? What difference would it make to anything at all?
@anxious_robot
Жыл бұрын
@@darrennew8211 oh really? i had these revelations on marijuana i had no idea people believed it or knew about it or wrote about it. that's awesome. thanks.
@anxious_robot
Жыл бұрын
@@xtrofilm that could be. i think consciousness is the fundamental thing. or something like that. it's going to wind up being something super weird and counter-intuitive. if it's not consciousness it's something crazy that we're not seeing or maybe even can't see 'cause we're the flee on the butt of a lion and just see hair.
@BaritoneUkeBeast4Life
Жыл бұрын
Before you can even ask the question, "Why did Consciousness Emerge?" You first need to find out who or what is asking the question. Follow the question to it's source, can you physically locate a thinker or one that has this question? Where did this question originate. That is the true source of all questions at the core and a far more important one to ask. When you discover the answer to that one thing, there will be no further need of any questions as there will no longer be a questioner.
@garychartrand7378
4 ай бұрын
Only some people regard consciousness as being an emergent property. Others say (and I am one of them) that consciousness is fundamental.
@nataliep6385
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is such a mysterious thing
@WritingCountingOriginal
Жыл бұрын
I bet it defeats materialism
@Shane7492
Жыл бұрын
Anything independent of consciousness is far more mysterious.
@jsar5409
Жыл бұрын
@@WritingCountingOriginal doubtful unfortunately
@highvalence7649
Жыл бұрын
@@Shane7492 and unintelligable
@jsar5409
Жыл бұрын
@DM definitely could be
@bobbabai
Жыл бұрын
The very question presupposes there's a "why". Start with "how", and once you've demonstrated that, you can investigate why. I think there's always a buried assumption when you ask "why": purpose. It's a bad assumption to declare that there was a purpose to any origins in the universe. Purpose requires a thinking agent of some kind and I think you need to produce this agent before you can talk about anything the agent did.
@Samsara_is_dukkha
Жыл бұрын
Is it a "good" assumption to declare that there was no purpose to the origin of the Universe? "Thinking agents" are not entities separate from the Universe looking from the outside in (aka "scientific objectivity"). Thinking agents are integral expressions of the Universe, I.E.: something the Universe did. In other words, thinking agents did not produce thinking, the Universe did. That being the case, removing purpose from the Universe logically implies that anything the Universe produces is purposeless which puts humankind in the worst possible living nightmare for anyone experiencing purposelessness invariably falls into a deep depressive state that can easily lead to suicide. As matter of fact, we are not too far off taking that last step as a species.
@bobbabai
Жыл бұрын
@@Samsara_is_dukkha I didn't say there was no purpose to the universe. I just actively refrain from agreeing with the people who claim there is. They have to demonstrate it in order for me to agree with it.
@bobbabai
Жыл бұрын
@@Samsara_is_dukkha It's not a nightmare at all to think that the universe is purposeless. We make our purpose, each of us individually and each of us in larger society. We've always done this.
@Samsara_is_dukkha
Жыл бұрын
@@bobbabai If the Universe is purposeless, then everything is purposeless, including Life that becomes meaningless and valueless under such view, regardless of whatever subjective purpose any organism sees fit to apply to its own existence. On the other hand, if you support the notion that your life is meaningful, then all Life must equally be meaningful which implies that the Universe is also meaningful since meaning and purpose cannot be exclusive properties of a given organism produced by a meaningless Universe. It seems obvious that the demarcating factor is consciousness since to deny meaning is to deny consciousness. Meanwhile, consciousness is probably the only fact that anyone can be absolutely sure of without the need of any demonstration by an external agent.
@werquantum
Жыл бұрын
Hoffman’s elevator speech continues to evolve. Excellent.
@philosophicallyspeaking6463
Жыл бұрын
Philosophy 100: Emmanuel Kant, 12 underlying conditions that are behind the curtain constituting consciousness, a priori' (prior to experience) conditions that, like a computer operating system, are requisite to the minds ability to process any thing proposed to it through experience. Quantity: Unity, Plurality, Totality Quality :Reality, Negation, Limitation Relation: Substance-Accident, Cause-Effect, Reciprocity Modality: Possibility, Existence, Necessity
@alittax
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for all of the amazing content!
@mikem3779
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness IS fundamental. A mini-big bang happens every time we we wake from deep sleep, from nothing comes something. Time is only a measurement of change. Change is evolution, god becoming. “ I will become what I will become” “I am that.”
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
Yes but paraphrasing slightly... Consciousness IS fundamental to me. A mini-big bang happens for me when from dreamless sleep I awaken. From absolute nothing to an entire universe... and back... on a daily basis. Time is a concept only and derived entirely from thoughts about the relative movements of objects. God is a concept too and one I can apply however I choose.
@mikem3779
Жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL god is a concept, or god “is” and you have a concept of what that isness is
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@mikem3779 The isness appears to me identical to absolute nothing. When I think hard about absolute nothing my effort is always ruined by the inescapable presence of a space around the non existent point where I've crushed the entire universe out of existence and in addition there is the knowledge of my own existence that I simply can't eradicate except by becoming unconscious. (Just try it and you'll discover the problem for your self and if you ever have trouble getting to sleep this exercise can do it for you). I think that's probably because thinking evolved to always be about something. Evolution saw no point in thinking about nothing probably because nothing is not dangerous and cannot be eaten.
@Jeff-bi7jn
Жыл бұрын
Love this point of view. Anyone who has gone deep down the mushroom rabbit hole has experienced this truth.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
If you chemically adjust every analogy that constitutes your mind why do you imagine the resulting configuration is any more reflective of reality than the unadjusted?
@Jeff-bi7jn
Жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I like this question. I would say that many different factors contribute to our perception of reality or how we reflect on what reality is. The food we consume, environment we live in and the culture we grow up in all seem to play a role. I'm not sure why certain natural compounds lead to intense introspection of the nature of reality, or if that same level can't be accomplished without the compounds. Some people have talked about reaching very similar states of mind through meditation or even dreaming. However these altered states of mind do lead us to perceptions of reality that are very different from what is experienced when the mind is functioning in what you are pointing out as the unadjusted mind. I'm not sure one is more reflective than the other just that they are viewing the nature of reality from different perspectives. It's like from one perspective you're dreaming and the other you're awake. Both sides lead us to insights of the nature of reality.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@Jeff-bi7jn I agree with all you say except for one thing. We cannot perceive reality. We are not conscious of reality. We are conscious only of our thoughts. Thoughts are representations. There's a vast difference between a thing and its representation. There's a vast difference between a pipe and a painting of a pipe. (See René Magritte) Just so you know, I am experienced. My long ago acid trip was utterly extraordinary and of all my long life's experiences its the one I remember best. During one segment of the trip I experienced massive vivid insight into a sequence of monstrous cultural absurdities each accompanied by visual representations in the form of crystalline networks hovering in the air before me. So, insights, yes but not reality which must remain forever beyond the ken of every thinking thing. Cheers!
@Jeff-bi7jn
Жыл бұрын
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3:39 this highlights your point. I'm with you all the way.
@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Жыл бұрын
@@Jeff-bi7jn Happy to meet you, like minded Jeff. Wonder what you think of this... At 4:05 H says, 'because we cannot know we have to make assumptions'. That's fine but we want to hear a clear explanation of what consciousness is and exactly how it's caused. The assumption H makes, that there is a something called consciousness constituted by some property or attribute of every particle of matter in the universe, is where our thoughts diverge. My assumption leads me to assert that my conscious self is an abstract entity that exists in the coded form of discharge frequencies going on in a neural substrate. (aside: and my conscious self owns my body, not vice versa). Thoughts are also abstract entities. Their abstract nature is of the type that is analogy. (i.e. that represent) These analogies are 'materially' instantiated in discharge frequency encoded form in the neural substrate. I put 'materially' in quotes because frequency is an abstract notion. Clearly abstract frequency is ideally suited for encoding abstract analogy. When these thoughts, these analogies, are synaptically linked to the self analogy they modulate it. These induced modulations, in the self, are the self, being conscious. i.e. changes in the self are of what the self is conscious which is to say, as we all know, experience changes the self. Immediately or later, these changes sometimes generate signals that culminate in moving muscles. You could say these changes are the foundation of the will and the moving muscles are the will in action. So, instead of some mysterious part of every particle in the universe being responsible somehow for our being conscious, the mystery is simply in the nature of abstract entities and that's not really mysterious at all when we think about it.
@stewartthomas4193
Жыл бұрын
Leonardo da Vinci said "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions " Plato shared with us wisdom he learnt from Egypt, wisdom that was a death sentence in Greece, Rome (Christianity)..Pythagoras, Socrates and later Hypatia of Alexandria. Plato in his dialogue "The Republic " tells the parable of "The Cave " Plato starts by telling us of prisoners being held in a underground den, let us examine this den via the geometry of Bernhard Riemann and Felix Klein..Klein bottle..3rd and 4th dimensions. Plato tells us that the prisoners are bound up unable to move their heads, let us examine this bondage via the psychology of Erich Fromm..socialisation of consciousness..aware-unaware. Plato tells us that the prisoners mistake shadows for substance, let us examine this mistake via the philosophy of Thales, Hume and Kant..synthetic a priori judgement..not thing in itself. Plato tells us that one of the prisoners is released, let us examine this release via the wisdom of T Lobsang Rampa..stilling the mind and conscious astral travel..leaving the cave/body. Plato tells us that the prisoners will reject this release, let us examine this rejection via the psychology of Stockholm Syndrome..Plato quotes Homer..forgive them for they know not what they say. Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds. Mathew 23 13 31.
@philcarter2362
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness did not emerge. It was there in the beginning, and then our experience in time-space arises out of that.
@waldwassermann
Жыл бұрын
You understand. Impressed.
@stianmathisen4284
Жыл бұрын
I asked my uncle after he had suffered a major stroke in the right part of the brain if he considered himself more or less himself after the stroke, his answer was "the same", this indicates that the core consciousness is the same despite major changes in the brains physical condition.
@Dion_Mustard
Жыл бұрын
the same can be said for my grandma who has severe alzheimers. her entire brain is slowly deteriorating and yet she has FULL consciousness. i rest my case.
@stianmathisen4284
Жыл бұрын
@@Dion_Mustard Interesting comment!
@Dion_Mustard
Жыл бұрын
@@stianmathisen4284 if brain neurons produced consciousness then, according to my nana, she should be constantly unconscious, but she is 95% aware and very much has her consciousness in tact. so my argument is brain does not produce consciousness, but instead, works in synchronicity with the brain, a bit like an internet signal entering the internet box. if you smash the box you lose the connection but you don't lose the essence of the signal.
@stianmathisen4284
Жыл бұрын
@@Dion_Mustard Correct my friend! With todays computing capasity, it would have been possible to simulate sentient consciousness, so far they have not made that happen.
@ryandinan
Жыл бұрын
@@Dion_Mustard I'm not sure I understand your argument - but let me see if I can steelman it... If consciousness is like an internet signal and the brain is like the modem, smashing the modem doesn't destroy the signal, but prevents the signal from being received? So, in other words, our consciousness is being "received" by our brain? If damage is done to the brain, it doesn't change the signal, but rather, the signal isn't interpreted correctly or at all? The problem I have with this idea, is that it doesn't really propose a mechanism for where our consciousness resides, or how it enters the brain. I think a much more logical idea, is that our brains create our consciousness. You damage the brain, you damage the consciousness. This is evidenced in nearly every case where someone has traumatic brain injury, or a cognitive disease, such as Alzheimer's. My father has Alzheimer's and he is definitely not the same person he was 5 years ago when he was first diagnosed. His ability to communicate verbally is nearly gone. He gets very easily confused and doesn't seem to have a reliable grasp on what is going on around him. I'd argue, that his consciousness is greatly affected. I have no idea what he experiences, but it is clearly different than what it used to be.
@eagledon7199
Жыл бұрын
When one can't convince, one must confuse.
@highvalence7649
Жыл бұрын
The title assumes consciousness did emerge at some point in the past. When this assumption gets questioned and people who endorse the claim that consciousness is emergent from physical phenomena are asked to substantiate their claim, they usually appeal to certain empirical evidence regarding how affecting the brain in certain ways affects consciousness in certain ways. However when asked to explain how this evidence constitutes definitive evidence for their claim they either can't or won't give a clear reply, and sometimes they'll even flee from the interaction.
@hexbinoban6170
Жыл бұрын
So by following this logic, no one can actually know what happens after death.
@este4955
Жыл бұрын
? Yes, no one knows. Do you know any dead people who told you what's after death?
@jemijohn3779
Жыл бұрын
I guess death is only a transient metaphysical form. In this approach consciousness is defined as fundamental and everything else is only a layer built one up on the other. So you only have to worry about your consciousness and not the material reality which is transient. Consciousness exists and takes care of it all as an everlasting fundamental.
@MrModikoe
Жыл бұрын
physical life is more like the eternal dance, the play of infinite potential..or God's dream if i'm to be more philosophical..all in all consciousness retains its infite nature, so theres no void or some space in which death can occure..its all consciusness
@beehappy7797
Жыл бұрын
We are consciousness. We are never born and will never die. Through meditation comes the answer. Don't think. Just observe!
@waldwassermann
Жыл бұрын
There is no death. We are the eternal one. It is just that it isn't really good to be alone which is why the essence of the gospel is love.
@eyebrid
Жыл бұрын
Considering that science is basically measurement of reactive properties, we still don't know what things and forces really are fundamentally, just the way they behave, so the UI analogy is apt.
@ManiBalajiC
Жыл бұрын
consciousness is just our brain evolving to understand our environment better ,to survive and also explore.
@S3RAVA3LM
Жыл бұрын
The consciousness might be a predication of, whereas humans have the pyscho physical. There seemingly are functions outside of ourselves that act in an intelligent manner. Might the cosmos be the mind of God, so we predicate consciousness.
@transcender5974
Жыл бұрын
The Vedic Tradition says exactly what Hoffman is saying. That consciousness is pre-existing and fundamental to the existence of everything. That there is an unborn, uncreated, etermnal infinite field of pure consciousness that, while remaining pure consciousness without trelative attributes, creates through self-referral dynamics of knowing itself in infinite ways all that we experience on the desktop of our relative perceptions. For a good expalnation of this persppective look for KZitem videos of Dr. Tony Nader.
@catherinemoore9534
Жыл бұрын
Without a tenth of a thousand capacity to understand computer technology or maths as he must certainly do, I sense the truth of what he says and accept his take on consciousness and reality. It seems not only plausible but compelling.
@colinjohnrudd
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree with you my friend!
@colinjohnrudd
Жыл бұрын
@DM Thus spake Zarathustra!
@notrnchs1623
Жыл бұрын
Essentially he is proposing the most sophisticated idea that God actually exists. The way he explains it sounds less silly than outdated religious contexts. When you use phrases like "physical reality emerged from consciousness" instead of "God said let there be light", its more plausible for those who have cancelled religious spirituality.
@garychartrand7378
4 ай бұрын
I like the way you think!
@someonenotnoone
2 ай бұрын
And it's just as sensible as the least sophisticated idea that God actually exists. It explains nothing, but is a great way to question.
@garychartrand7378
2 ай бұрын
@@someonenotnoone You have made many comments to me but I will answer this one because it answers why your thoughts are inaccurate. There's no such thing as right or wrong - ONLY that which serves you. The Truth of the matter is that YOUR base idea (which you draw false assumptions upon) is that YOU believe there is no God. If you believed that God existed then your line of reasoning would be different. Let me assure you that God (and His/Her/It's Consciousness) does indeed exist and is, in fact, the ONLY real thing in existence from which EVERYTHING else comes from. I do not have "belief" or "faith" that God exists - I have KNOWING ( from repeated experience) that God IS!!. He/She/It has worked miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. I communicate with God every day. I "see" God EVERYWHERE I look. I cannot help it that you are blind AND inexperienced in this matter. Don't worry. One day (or lifetime) you will 'GET IT' - but God will NEVER EVER force you to. Eventually you will come to know the Truth. Before time began God had a plan and Created a Perfect System , which has Free Will and reincarnation as major components,to realize the Plan. This is the reason why we (and the Universe) ALL exist. If you do not understand God's ways ,that is to be expected -no. After all, even though we are ALL growing in consciousness, our minds are infinitesimal compared to God's Mind. In fact, when it comes to mankind's level of consciousness - we are barely toddlers. When I say not to worry (about any kind of fear), I really really mean it. In January 2008 God gave me a job description (in a miraculous fashion) that says " I am sending you out by the power of My Spirit to Release those bound by Fear, to Proclaim Forgiveness, and to Show Love to ALL men ". Ironically I don't have to like you but it is necessary that I love you. I am not special. ANYONE can have a close personal relationship with God. Even though much in the bible (and every other religious Scriptures) is bull, God has revealed to me that He has protected important information such as how to get close to Him (with ALL of your heart, mind, soul, and strength) and MOST of the words of Jesus. In any case, God's Plan is that we will ALL eventually return to Him - but He will NEVER EVER force you to. Still, God's Will shall be done and your silly mind's thoughts will not make any difference on God's Will - AT ALL. If you could trust God and drop all of your fears, you have no idea just how wonderful and enjoyable life really is. Bless you friend 🙏 ❤️
@simulationsecrets6540
Жыл бұрын
Consciousness is the computer running this (and others, e.g. dreams) simulation. Tom Campbell (physicist) had been demonstrating this for many years as well…
@FigmentHF
4 ай бұрын
I think the simplest way to intuit this is- a human and 4D space time is just a course grained approximation of a staggeringly complex quantum system being experienced by itself. It’s a chunky generative model of itself.
@Kostly
Жыл бұрын
Just think of these tiny particles that manifest themselves into the world you see around you, it's happening at every instant. Literally, this action is happening all around you all of the time. Think if you sing...the breath being pushed out of your lungs are influencing everything that's happening around you. Same thing when you dance with some energy. These waves of consciousness wash over those around you. It's the same thing when a tree connects with another tree. They say hello to each other. Realize they're not a threat. Interact with one another. Grow with each other. It used to be PLUR (Peace Love Unity Respect)....But, I've found that PUCK works better. Patience, Understanding, Compassion and Kindness works better than anything.
@LungaMasilela
Жыл бұрын
Humans can't see particles, by definition particles are a minute portion of matter and the human eye can't simply see such things. That's why we create machines to see them for us.
@LungaMasilela
Жыл бұрын
How do you know trees say hello to each other? And how do you know love is universal
@seansmith6745
Жыл бұрын
I remember reading something years ago from Karl Popper about how he thought consciousness was an evolutionary response to painful stimulus. This ring a bell with anyone else?
@roypueschel8655
Жыл бұрын
Don Hoffman is a colorless cloud of gas but we see a talking icon that appears to be Charlie Macarthy
@Broeckhoest
Жыл бұрын
“A colorless cloud of gas” is all evolutionary references.. “a thing” maybe?
@feebieloo
Жыл бұрын
Wow. Why do we believe that life before modern humans wasn't conscious? What if all life has always been conscious? I never thought about historical life like this before. We could be completely wrong about what we believe regarding the emergence of consciousness
@clownworld-honk410
Жыл бұрын
So, he's paraphrasing the plot of The Matrix. I better dust off my leather trench coat and go looking for Morpheus....Or the woman in the red dress :-)
@levanmelikishvili4373
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting talk. I think that this approach is highly rational and may be more fruitful for many scientific disciplines. No need to deny or reduce consciousness as a byproduct of a random physical events. First of all there is no good scientific evidence to do it and secondly conscious experience is the main reason, I believe, why there is some value and logic to life. Remove subjective experiencer and all the events loose meaning. Why would there be some "movie" going on, unless there is some subject to perceive it. On the other hand, everything makes sense when you take consciousness as a basic reality and all the "icons" as a symbolic representation of his "play". And finally consciousness is the closest reality to us. Even if you deny everything, you can not deny your sense of subjective experiencer, who is denying.
@TheMagicgardenfilms
Жыл бұрын
What exactly is consciousness, how it works and what role it plays in our lives is called 'The Hard Problem' Donald has not solved the Hard Problem. He is correct that it came first. But even mentioning the big bang is ignorant. Everything emerging in an instant from an explosion are the ravings of nerds that were bullied. One must get out of their own way and tap into true consciousness to solve the hard problem. One must free themselves of all beliefs and overcome the fear that freedom brings to receive the answer. Something tells me we all know the truth of it. I am in the process of defining consciousness in simple terms.
@christopherwall444
Жыл бұрын
This question of what is and why is there consciousness..is the big question that I love the most. No one has a manageable answer that doesn't sound convoluted to the average joe
@darrenjones9789
Жыл бұрын
The book "Being You" by Anil Seth is a great book on consciousness.
@christopherwall444
Жыл бұрын
@@darrenjones9789 thanks for that! I'll look for it
@AtheistCook
Жыл бұрын
One of the best arguments that conciouness could be fundamental and the ground of reality.
@kos-mos1127
Жыл бұрын
Not really. The argument works against consciousness being fundamental and ground of reality.
@TheUltimateSeeds
Жыл бұрын
The *"emergence"* of consciousness is easy to visualize if one is able to accept the possibility that literally everything - from the fusion cores of the stars, right down to the keyboard you are using to access KZitem - is imbued (saturated) with the essence of life. This would also explain the phenomenon of *"abiogenesis."* For *if* the essence of life (the basis of mind and consciousness) is already present within the fabric of matter itself, then it is simply a tiny little step in imagining how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro-organisms) that can then be guided... _(through long-term teleologically-directed evolution)_ ...into becoming higher (conscious/self-aware) forms of life. _______
@erawanpencil
Жыл бұрын
The issue is that I'm not sure 'consciousness' is the best word Hoffman can use for this fundamental essence. He needs to change things up a little and stop describing it the same way with the same metaphor over and over. Consciousness implies memory, sensation, etc... and clearly those aren't necessarily the fundamental ground of being since they apparently vanish subjectively when we die or sleep.
@TheUltimateSeeds
Жыл бұрын
@@erawanpencil Agreed. And that's precisely why I used the term - "essence of life" and not "consciousness," for, as you say, the word "consciousness" implies too much.
@ripgore6196
Жыл бұрын
Pretend the word 'consciousness' doesn't exist. What's left? An exotic entity. An exotic entity is driving the universe as we know it. Humans are the first life in nature to become profoundly self-aware than anything before it. This entity literally became self-aware. Before it became self-aware, it was just an inanimate consciousness - an invisible force minding its own business with no self-awareness. It just manifests itself without observing itself. It seems like the evolution of consciousness is headed to a more intelligent and self-aware state. A.I. may be the next stage of this evolution and who knows what comes after it? It's truly astounding the universe made it this far. And it isn't done yet. That's what's even more exciting about it: it isn't done yet. A.I. is learning, gathering, and spitting out information more than any other thing we know of in nature. The human brain and A.I. are hoarders of information processing. Information processing seems to be the core job of the exotic consciousness. It's a consciousness of will and even power. It has intent. It has attachment. It is the thing that bonds the whole of existence.
@realcygnus
Жыл бұрын
A trigger for materialists 🤪
@cajones9330
Жыл бұрын
Seems like Consciousness evolved to sense/perceive changes in time. Beter yet take advantage of ?
Пікірлер: 1,5 М.