Can You Mathematically Model Dissociation? Bernardo Kastrup & Don Hoffman

If you want to support this podcast, please visit Jack’s Patreon @ / askinganything
Discord / discord
Twitter / askingwithjack
Reddit / askinganything
00:00 Welcome and introductions
01:13 Jack personally thanks both Don & Bernardo
04:32 When have you two last spoken?
05:54 What are your hobbies?
06:18 Bernardo shares his passion for computer engineering @ / @thebyteattic
06:47 Bernardo shows us his Q1 computer
08:03 Don mentions his amateur photography hobby @ flickr.com/photos/DonHoffman
10:04 Are you working on any new things?
10:25 Don talks about his latest paper on how spacetime arises as a projection of the dynamics of consciousness
21:50 Bernardo shares a story about a discussion he had with Eric Cavalcanti
25:09 Bernardo mentions being committed to writing two new books
26:00 What was your reaction to the 2022 Nobel prize in physics?
34:12 Can both of you explain each other's theory in your own words?
34:38 Bernardo briefly explains Don's conscious realism theory in his own words
35:13 Don briefly explains Bernardo's work in his own words
36:26 Bernardo elaborates on his only problem with conscious realism-unification-and proposes a solution
38:52 Don unpacks his own solution to this unification-problem
42:59 Bernardo asks Don if the operation that does the combination of qualia is reversible
45:17 How can each of you improve each others work?
46:41 Could you mathematically model dissociation?
46:56 Bernardo discusses why a mathematically precise model of dissociation would be very difficult
49:04 Don proposes a possible way of mathematically describing dissociation
52:50 What are your thoughts on simulation theory?
55:40 Don explains why he doesn’t believe that physical computers could simulate consciousness
1:03:34 Bernardo explains why he isn't a fan of simulation theory
1:07:28 Why am I me and not you?
1:08:58 Don explains that if [physical realists] had a theory to how brains led to consciousness, then they’d have an answer to why I am me
1:10:46 Bernardo sympathises with the questioner and acknowledges the mystery of “Why am I me?”
1:17:06 Don, is the harmony principle reflected in your theory?
1:18:55 Don clears up the misunderstanding in the question that Bernardo is a top-down thinker, and adds that he agrees with Bernardo’s bottom-up approach
1:19:42 Bernardo's cat Floki makes an appearance (and @ 1:20:17, 1:21:07 & 1:22:25)
1:23:13 Bernardo agrees with Don, and explores the question of “What qualifies as a proper object?”, and why living beings might be the only non-nominal objects
1:29:45 Bernardo adds why he doesn’t believe in the combinations of consciousnesses could combine into a larger one
1:30:53 Don, do you also feel that there is a renewed interest in the topic of consciousness?
1:34:49 Bernardo confirms Jack’s suspicions and speculates on why consciousness is becoming a serious topic again
1:39:39 Bernardo, when it comes to idealism, how do you view Don's usage of mathematical models?
1:45:51 Don stresses the importance of Bernardo’s careful conceptual analyses, and adds why there can’t be a theory of everything
1:49:20 Bernardo confesses his admiration of super-symmetry when he was 23 years old
1:50:35 Bernardo, does consciousness "evolve"?
1:53:24 Don explains that the appearance of evolution is an artefact of the projection of an underlying consciousness that is non-evolving
1:58:12 Bernardo points at the common contradiction in thinking that whatever is outside time must be static
2:01:57 What's your advice to physicalists saying "I'll believe it when I can measure it"?
2:05:16 Don argues why measurements-done very carefully-will force physicalists to let go of spacetime being fundamental
02:06:22 Thank you and good night

[@AskingAnything]

00:00 Welcome and introductions 01:13 Jack personally thanks both Don & Bernardo 04:32 When have you two last spoken? 05:54 What are your hobbies? 06:18 Bernardo shares his passion for computer engineering @ youtube.com/@TheByteAttic 06:47 Bernardo shows us his Q1 computer 08:03 Don mentions his amateur photography hobby @ flickr.com/photos/DonHoffman 10:04 Are you working on any new things? 10:25 Don talks about his latest paper on how spacetime arises as a projection of the dynamics of consciousness 21:50 Bernardo shares a story about a discussion he had with Eric Cavalcanti 25:09 Bernardo mentions being committed to writing two new books 26:00 What was your reaction to the 2022 Nobel prize in physics? 34:12 Can both of you explain each other's theory in your own words? 34:38 Bernardo briefly explains Don's conscious realism theory in his own words 35:13 Don briefly explains Bernardo's work in his own words 36:26 Bernardo elaborates on his only problem with conscious realism-unification-and proposes a solution 38:52 Don unpacks his own solution to this unification-problem 42:59 Bernardo asks Don if the operation that does the combination of qualia is reversible 45:17 How can each of you improve each others work? 46:41 Could you mathematically model dissociation? 46:56 Bernardo discusses why a mathematically precise model of dissociation would be very difficult 49:04 Don proposes a possible way of mathematically describing dissociation 52:50 What are your thoughts on simulation theory? 55:40 Don explains why he doesn’t believe that physical computers could simulate consciousness 1:03:34 Bernardo explains why he isn't a fan of simulation theory 1:07:28 Why am I me and not you? 1:08:58 Don explains that if [physical realists] had a theory to how brains led to consciousness, then they’d have an answer to why I am me 1:10:46 Bernardo sympathises with the questioner and acknowledges the mystery of “Why am I me?” 1:17:06 Don, is the harmony principle reflected in your theory? 1:18:55 Don clears up the misunderstanding in the question that Bernardo is a top-down thinker, and adds that he agrees with Bernardo’s bottom-up approach 1:19:42 Bernardo's cat Floki makes an appearance (and @ 1:20:17, 1:21:07 & 1:22:25) 1:23:13 Bernardo agrees with Don, and explores the question of “What qualifies as a proper object?”, and why living beings might be the only non-nominal objects 1:29:45 Bernardo adds why he doesn’t believe in the combinations of consciousnesses could combine into a larger one 1:30:53 Don, do you also feel that there is a renewed interest in the topic of consciousness? 1:34:49 Bernardo confirms Jack’s suspicions and speculates on why consciousness is becoming a serious topic again 1:39:39 Bernardo, when it comes to idealism, how do you view Don's usage of mathematical models? 1:45:51 Don stresses the importance of Bernardo’s careful conceptual analyses, and adds why there can’t be a theory of everything 1:49:20 Bernardo confesses his admiration of super-symmetry when he was 23 years old 1:50:35 Bernardo, does consciousness "evolve"? 1:53:24 Don explains that the appearance of evolution is an artefact of the projection of an underlying consciousness that is non-evolving 1:58:12 Bernardo points at the common contradiction in thinking that whatever is outside time must be static 2:01:57 What's your advice to physicalists saying "I'll believe it when I can measure it"? 2:05:16 Don argues why measurements-done very carefully-will force physicalists to let go of spacetime being fundamental 02:06:22 Thank you and good night

[@davidchou1675]

2:01:30 "I had a full day of foundations of physics today; my head is exploding"...another longstanding question I have about Conscious Realism/Analytic Idealism is: What's a headache? What is fatigue? Why do we need rest? What exactly is sleep and why would Conscious Agents need it?? The physicalist/materialist explanations, such as they are, seem to make sense -- muscular fatigue is lactic acid buildup, etc., but what could really be going on, then, if all that is just a representation of a process in Cosmic Consciousness/The Field of Mentation??? Why would Universal Mind at Large ever get tired, even if only in its dissociative states (i.e., as individual living beings)??? Is it something to do with dissociation -- or could sleep itself be an artifact of projection into a lower realm/dimension the way spacetime is? Is sleep related to the entropy of spacetime, then? Why, exactly; what in Professor Hoffman's mathematics of conscious agents might entail any of that (though I know he's just getting started tracing a line between those agents to the scattering amplitudes of particle collisions)? Why does Bernardo's Field of Mentation stop "self-exciting" at such regular intervals -- i.e., sleep??? I wish someone would ask them those questions!!!

[@gratefulkm]

Can you mathematically model overassocation

[@gofai274]

If i am all one, then it follows that all painful deaths and tortures are me suffering. But that would be literal HELL having to go through all painful deaths and tortures indefinitely, even if i suffering could be cured eventually. I cannot imagine going through billion-trillion painful deaths and tortures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@asdfjklo124]

Also the super-detailed timestamps deserve praise.

[@HigoWapsico]

Indeed😊

[@tookie36]

God surely exists... and god surely sent an avatar that popularized time stamps.

[@chrisk1208]

I also want to thank Don and Bernardo for changing my paradigm. This helped me during some dark times.

[@Sapientiaa]

A lot of individuals are suffering from nihilism nowadays; it’s mostly held up by baseless suppositions (nihilism). Look at high strangeness phenomena if you want to see a phenomena that contradicts the mainstream ontological position because it cannot be labeled as being epiphenomenal; at least not entirely.

[@casteretpollux]

Why thank them if you and they don't exist?

[@bjw22]

Kastrup, Hoffman and Spira are the 3 most important philosophers we have currently.

[@visancosmin8991]

I'm the most important. See my papers, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

[@jahanshah1538]

Spira is cool but absolutely nothing he says is new, just simplified Vedanta

[@ashwinisarah]

I'd add Iain Mcgilchrist to the list... Perhaps not a philosopher, but someone who very much adds to this conversation with his ideas of the divided brain....

[@karl-heinzvonscharnhorst546]

100%

[@visancosmin8991]

@Infinite Shoeblack You dont know the meaning of the word "delusion". It means something that is not in line with reality. Since you didnt read my papers to see that indeed they are the greatest writings in the history, how can you claim is a delusion ? Only because someone is not famous, it doesnt mean is not the greatest. Getting famous is about other things, not about the quality of ideas one has, but about social circles, charisma, etc.

[@HigoWapsico]

I must say, your opening statement to Bernardo and Donald are exactly what I feel, and I mean exactly! If Bernardo and Donald read the comments by chance, I would like to echo these statements and extend the same gratitude. No question that your ideas lead to clarity in my own world views. I feel a lot less dissociated thanks to the two of you. Much much love ❤️

[@The.Zen.Cyn1c]

I have been expecting this duo on TOE but still happy to see it anywhere.

[@jj4cpw]

I guess I've watched so many videos of these guys separately that I would have guessed they had appeared together before. And, wow, just with Don's possible mathematical modeling of Bernardo's concept of dissociation, it seems to me that this get-together was well worth it and recommends there be future mediated confabs between the two.

[@visancosmin8991]

Is more complex than dissociation. See my papers, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

[@asdfjklo124]

Tuesday just got upgraded! 👀

[@GiedriusMisiukas]

Oh yeah, it sure did.

[@wayou004]

The question, why am i just me and not another person, is actually one of the first questions i remember asking myself, at the age of about 4 or 5 years, standing in front of a mirror. Asking my parents this question didnt help at all, since they didnt understand, what the heck i was talking about. And i have always been wondering on this question. So your theories really speak to me a lot.

[@michaeldillon3113]

Crikey that was brave if you to ask your parents . When I was about 6 I had a very profound experience of my being as awareness rather than personal identity. It deeply upset me but I knew that it wasn't anything I was going to be sharing with my parents. ✌️🕉️

[@richardjames6934]

I remember wondering this so suddenly on the way to school one day at about 6 or 7. I even remember thinking about another boy from school and trying to imagine being then. Don’t think I ever said anything tho. And then I forgot all about it until recently when looking into this stuff

[@davlmt]

Same here brother, this weird alienated feeling looking at 'myself' in the mirror and asking myself 'why am I this person in the mirror' happened many times in childhood but also much less frequently in adulthood too. I always wondered how common this was

[@rahulranjan9013]

1:10:49 Damn! My mind is blown to see how well Bernardo tuned in to the actual absurdity of " Why I'm not you & yoy are not me ? Or why is it that I'm currently me & not you & vice versa" & feels sympathetic towards the questioner. I really feel it's profound & heart touching. He sensed the underlying existential crisis hidden in that deep question. WoW. I'm speechless.

[@sleeperino3054]

Bernardo is HIM

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman are very important scientists and philosophers of our time.

[@infinitifyr]

My two favorite thinkers together on one show!

[@Juanc09051]

Lovely interview, Jack! Thank you! A honor indeed to be the first host to have them in the same interview

[@vartanvartanian4412]

I was really ready and yearning for such a discussion and pop it appeared! Yes do it again. Thanks

[@deepblack67]

Nice to hear Donald properly frame simulation as the head set not an actual simulation programmed by an outside agent.

[@mom4998]

2 genius minds on the topic of mind, LOVE IT! Great interview.

[@DM100]

My two favorites together…thank you!!

[@oliviergoethals4137]

2 conscious agent have 1 Relation... In the relationship lays the nonduality not in the agent because the agent is already dissociated and phenomenally represented but the non dual relationship between the 2 agents will always transcend the agents.

[@keithtaylor63]

1:10:50 onwards - Had such a lump in my throat as I listen. I was 10 years old when I was asking the exact same question, but no one - no one at all - could understand what i was referring to. To this day I have not heard anyone else refer to this experience - but I still feel it strongly. And must be the reason why I keep in touch with what Bernardo and Donald have to say. Thanks so much for this video !

[@wayou004]

I asked myself at age 4 or 5. Nobody around me understood my question. I am also relieved to see, i am not the only one asking this. I remember i felt so stupid after asking my parents this, that i didnt had the courage to seek further. Tried putting it away, but it never left me. So i feel you.

[@keithtaylor63]

@@wayou004 Thank you so much! So great to hear. Hugs.

[@5piles]

youre your mind. other minds are not your mind.

[@keithtaylor63]

​@@5piles Thank you - Your statement while comepletely understandable, appeas to fails to recognise the intuition alluded to here. That there can even be a 'Your Mind' at all, is what is perplexing. There is an obviousness to this in one sense yes (intellectually), but from the perspective of the 'experience of it in the moment', the realisation that there can even be a 'my mind' at all, is what is totally discombolulating. I'm feeling it right now. I fear that the more we speak about it, the more distance we create from that which is being pointed to. I want to say, there is a kind of inevitability about it, which is paradoxical to our mind's sense that we are randomly created, or a statistically very special case. But even though we can appreciate that if consciousness is all that there is, I, as one of its manifestations, must be that consciousness experiencing as I (this however is by deduction). What is missed in that statement, the the sense that 'this I' can even be distinct at all. It feels like insanity! It's basically the same as the idea that there can be existane at all. Perhaps this is just pertaining to dimentional limitations? That is to say, our minds not being able to compute/accommodate totality & infinity within it's insistance of sequence, logic, beginings and endings ? Perhaps a domain issue - the subset being of the superset, but never able to contain the superset?

[@kafkaten]

This entire series of AMA's has been amazing. Thank you so much for putting it together!

[@jilltyrrell7525]

Brilliant! Thank you for getting these two together. Fascinating!!!

[@Sapientiaa]

Thank you for the time stamps!

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

Wow! Two heavyweights of thought! Thank you so much for posting!

[@markwilde5683]

Really lovely introduction. Well done Jack : )

[@thadgrace]

Dream podcast. Thank you! I’ve subscribed! New fan!

[@davidchou1675]

I love these two gents but what most folks don't know is that almost anything can be modeled by mathematics...doesn't mean the thing being modelled actually exists -- cf. Supersymmetry or Suzy back in the '80s. As Professor Hoffman himself often notes, he'd bet himself that he's wrong (but it's still important work to be wrong in a precise way so we can "get the conversation started" in a mathematically rigorous way); what's even more important will be the actual experiments possible that somehow test whether/show that we are actually living in "mind stuff"...exciting times ahead!

[@carlobrayda2951]

Dude. You put together the two world Titans. Amazing work. Amazing interview and I love your dignified and humble approach, rare amongst the hubris if other KZbin facilitators.

[@AskingAnything]

Thank you for the kind words. You’ve just made my day.

[@samrowbotham8914]

What a fine privilege it is to be able to listen to two fine thinkers.

[@Animalis_Mundana]

Love both these guys!

[@MadMax-gc2vj]

Awesome interview.

[@breadbowlpasta]

Great interview Jack

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Two of my intellectual heroes. Over the past year my worldview has been turned upside down by both of them. I recently took that 6 hour course on KZbin on Analytic idealism, it provided it seamless logic refuting materialism. In 100 years, this will have the same gravitus as general relativity, quantum field theory, or Newtonian physics. They will be regarded with the same reverence as Heisenberg or, Einstein. Or I could be wrong!

[@chrisk1208]

Don is talking about complex mathematics and physics, but Jack doesn't know what a pontoon bridge is :-)

[@Truth-seeker_Cy]

@1:45:51 - Quote by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "To be aware of limitations is already to be beyond them...."

[@ChristianSt97]

great job! keep it up

[@GiedriusMisiukas]

49:40 1:04:00 :) 1:10:46 1:41:00 Love it, thanks for posting it. :) Waiting for continuation of this next time please, since it was too little time to get to my questions.

[@user-wo5bp2oi5c]

That’s so cool that he brought up the issue of the disassociation

[@moesypittounikos]

I like the way Donald smiled when the questioner mentioned Terence McKenna

[@pawelvono]

@Asking Anything Thank you for this conversation! One small think however, cloud I ask you for enabling automatically generated captions (CC)?

[@AskingAnything]

It usually takes KZbin a couple of days to generate these captions.

[@pawelvono]

@@AskingAnything ok thank you for explanation 😀

[@birthing4blokes46]

This is just brilliant. Thank you

[@jamesgrey13]

It's always a pleasure when Bernardo introduces Dr. Kitteen Katterson into the discussion!

[@AskingAnything]

Here’s some more Floki footage from that AMA: twitter.com/askingwithjack/status/1596313304313495552

[@suaypordulu6056]

Thank you for this.

[@loushark6722]

This is the dream panel ☺️

[@rooruffneck]

By the way, Jack, congrats on getting such a wonderful conversation put together and creating the context for it to bloom. If you have a list of question for future chats between these two, it would be really great to hear if Bernardo's often repeated problems with the 'combination problem' extend to Donald's model. If they do, fascinating to hear them flesh that out. If they don't, fascinating to hear what exactly Donald is postulating that bypasses all of Bernardo's arguments against combination.

[@AskingAnything]

Thank you for the kind words, man! Maybe I’m misunderstanding your question, but weren’t Don and Bernardo fleshing that out at 36:26, 38:52 & 42:59?

[@rooruffneck]

@@AskingAnything Hi Jack. I hear them talking about their shared notion that there must be one fundamental consciousness, but I don't hear Bernardo responding specifically to the Don's claim that when two agents interact they can become a shared mind. Bernardo often tears this notion apart when a panpsychist suggests it, pointing out that nobody has yet proposed even in principle how two minds could combine. Maybe he is just open to Don having a mathematical answer, but I'd expect that Bernardo would push back about the combination. I love that moment when Bernardo's comment helped Don. I don't get the distinction they are making between combination and fusion.

[@AskingAnything]

@@rooruffneck Don agrees with Bernardo by saying that conscious agents only appear to be separate (39:11), thereby sidestepping the combination-problem the exact same way as Bernardo.

[@AskingAnything]

Coming up in January: an AMA w/ Tom Campbell & Donald Hoffman - discord.gg/4y9pYY6YrH

[@ISAM.001]

I am still in the what am I what are you type problem. I’ve made it worse with tripping tbh and now every time I have a trip I can never go anywhere or blast off anywhere bc I just end up arguing with what I’m seeing that I don’t understand how it isn’t me and I’m here and it’s there and I’m just stuck in that loop. This entity one time was even like “BRO this is a waste of time ur getting caught up on a false premise” and I still cant wrap my mind around how I’m supposed to trust anything else. Hoping my mind gets out of it eventually lol

[@simonhitchenk9]

Just listened to the first four minutes, and agree completely, sometimes listening to different viewpoints on this topic makes all the others click.

[@rooruffneck]

I LOVE how well Benardo and Donald get along. And I love knowing that they even agree on there only ultimately being one consciousness. But Bernardo makes such strong and cutting arguments against ANY claim that two minds can join into one. I never hear him even playfully push back on Donald for this. Am I missing something?

[@eleannakritikaki4811]

More of this with Bernardo, MOAR!!!

[@AskingAnything]

Stay tuned.

[@eleannakritikaki4811]

For sure. Subscribed immediately

[@elyalainlevy]

Thank you!

[@DawnSTyler]

I love that we are living in a time when science and spirituality are coming back to seeing each other once more❤

[@mwishere4925]

So GrEaT! 💫 Thank you! 🙏

[@Ser.gioBueno]

Does anyone have the link of Donald’s new paper ?

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

I must say that these two provide a theoretical model that eerily matches my transpersonal experiences and consciousness as a fundamental of reality certainly resonates. I will be doing a video about idealism and NDEs/OBEs that appear to fit this worldview.

[@noreenquinn3844]

Interesting talk. Two good men come through and the facilitator. If we assume that we start with infinitely flowing good (that perhap split)? Can we trace the paths? Can "will" (as in free will / the will of good and evil) be mapped? Looking forward and back. What does "good's will "do when it comes up against resistance ? Does it find a path around / through? Interact with? Are we, the interactions, the attempts, the fusions? Does dialect/ discussions cause fusions and allow dropping of rank . Which fusions are most stable and why? What is the aim? to reunite? To live on, in harmony with? What is the resistance? Will the two become one? Are the two necessary? Will there be something destroyed in the process and something new created? Will this be better or worse. Is the process finite or infinite? Is compassionate dialect/ discussion/ meditation the key, the path to good and evil, coexisting in harmony? Must we prove that we start from a point of good, to motivate a path/ permutations back to it? Excuse my rambling thoughts.

[@robs.5847]

When Bernardo explains the divergence between his argument and Don's, pertaining to either one or two fundamental elements, I wonder if this represents the endpoint of analysis of a system from within. By this, I mean, does Godel's incompleteness theorem imply that the ultimate collapse of two into one must be outside a dualistic system, and not computable from within the system? The other aspect to this is more metaphysical, which is that at the boundary of twoness and oneness, or duality and non-duality, the distinction may be merely semantic and arbitrary. No oneness can be described except in relation to another (including existence in relation to non-existence), and a set of only two is as close to resolution as is possible, since those two cannot collapse into a unity without self-annihilating. I suggest that at that point, twoness and oneness are equivalent and in constant flux between those two substates of unity (paradox and my limited ability to verbalise this be damned). It's almost like unity can only be "observed" peripherally, out of the corner of one's eye, and to look at it directly is to make it disappear from view, only for it to reappear in the periphery.

[@michaeldillon3113]

Great talk . Historically we wouldn't have had such easy access to geniuses . Here's a suggestion for a book for you Bernardo - ' Quantum theory and advaita Vedanta '🙂🕉️

[@StephenPaulKing]

How does Consciousness determine the form of the "others"? Is there a principled reason why we observe a physical world with a particular set of properties and not just amorphous substances? How is it that the "headset" views are coordinated into space and time and atoms, etc?

[@JakeRoy96]

I’ve seen it as a plane where the point elongates passed it’s parameters into another

[@tyamada21]

Posted below is a segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

[@sherrydionisio4306]

To me , it is insanely simple. I am me and you are you because of our individual genetic inheritance and equally as important if not more so, the particular, nuanced environment we each were born into and live within. Bernardo ❤

[@marinorodriguez255]

I'm agreed with Donald HOFFMAN and BERNARDO, consciousness is fundamental, reality is merely an illusion, we actually live in our minds, but still a big mystery, everything I see,perception, feeling is very real,thank you geat interview very informative.

[@Stumblefuck]

Two gentlemen whose message needs to sptead far and wide.

[@Sethan777]

Thank you 👏👍

[@alexbrown1170]

Dissociation may be our most fundamental hurdle. Human reaction to trauma differs from other mammals. We can’t ‘shake off’ the Freeze. As a survivor of deep sexual abuse and @50 years of dissociation and resultant sufferings- all have receded with steady meditation, curiosity and teaching myself how to BREATHE! Felt senses will act as hormosis and finally as the ‘poison’ of dissociation if not literally’shaken’ off. Qualia of signaling comes from balanced human bodies. The cybernetics of meditating and practice is also completely prove to calm stress and like the Buddha said- I know the path to the end of suffering. The body knows the Reality Score but the Mind can’t see the scoreboard. I hope Hoffman/Kastrup will address this please? Great stuff. Will subscribe!🖖🏼🙏🏼🎸

[@DM100]

Lost in the headset. What a life.

QRI models it in terms of topological segmentation of physical fields. It has causal effects and thus avoids epiphenomenalism. Read up on the solution to the boundary problem in the website.

I'd be very happy to talk about it on a podcast :-)

[@AskingAnything]

I might take you up on that, @

@@AskingAnything awesome 😎 lmk! :-)

[@Jim-jx5ds]

An important show

[@Tea-lw9bj]

44:10 what an amazing moment and what an amazing interview, though i'm not through it yet 🔥 edit 1:14:16 love it

[@patrickl6932]

AWESOME! Thank you for this! The host seems very nervous.

[@timcumper3087]

Beyond Spacetime - it seems that mathematical understanding becomes the mode of perception. Our habitual mode of imagination, fuelled and illustrated by time and space, become perhaps a redundant hindrance

[@Shane7492]

"What's your advice to physicalists saying 'I'll believe it when I can measure it'?" You don't have to believe it. You are always it, and it precedes any belief.

[@mrkcioffi]

This research is revolutionary & fascinating. I think when we get to the top of the mountain, we are going to find the Buddhists were already waiting for us to arrive.🙏

[@jeffk862]

From a metaphysical standpoint it Sounds like the mathematical models Donald Hoffman is working on are a representation of Emanation. Could be reach though

[@Uri1000x1]

They say matter can't be known, so matter is mind?

[@Philosophe422]

so dope

[@henrik2089]

But isnt it a big contradiction to use time (evolution needs time), in order to prove that time does not exist?

[@user-dl8eg9rk1t]

Being your Self reality, is the best experience :)

[@realcygnus]

The Cat's Meow !

[@darkmatter6714]

Donald was the first to make doubt as well

[@Videocontentceator]

What make human so brilliant What make human confident with their answer If let say there is no language or word to express in their mind

[@denistremblay8029]

Two very interesting guests... A remark : the universe is not our headset appearance, it is truer to say that our body is the embodiment of the universe, then our body and the universe are one..... This is very important because in language an arbitrary sign even a sign motivated by Darwinian evolution is not a symbol...Hoffman had not let Cartesianism as he think he should have yet or some Kantism completely ...Bernardo idealism correspond better to my intuition but even with Bernardo i am more akin to a Goethean take on the universe...If i met Bernardo one day i will remind him that his model in philosophy, Schopenhauer, is a "bad disciple" of Goethe who claimed that the thinker must transform itself to merely see and be transformed by what he experienced...And i know that Bernardo like Owen Barfield but Barfield was also a Goethe appendice in the philosophy of knowledge as was Rudolf Steiner , who most people seems not to read nowadays anymore than Goethe... For Owen Barfield "saving the appearances" is not enough, we must learn how to paricipate... Then science as we understand it is not enough to reach knowledge... The best mathematical theory about consciousness, and remember that there is no mathematical theory of consciousness as there is no mathematical theory of music which replace the transcendent experience in a body, the best math take on consciousness nowadays is one from Anirban Bandyopadhyay in his book "Nanobrain"... But at the end consciousness is not an enigma to solve but a participative mystery.. Mind/brain is not spirit... The poetical level of language is not resducible to the prosaic level, if it was possible to reduce the poetic to the prosaic we will kill language science and history and language itself...

[@BalramSingh-dx6su]

Respectfully great souls( gentlemen), permit me to throw some light on the question of whether consciousness evolves. Imagine, for reference only, that consciousness is a ray of light as a source. If You put a piece of plexiglass in front of the ray of light then some of the light become refracted, but some of the light does get through the plexiglass albeit diminished in some regard. Now place a drinking glass in front of the ray of light and still some of the light become refracted, but less so than when it passes through the plexiglass. In other words we get more photons of light passing through the drinking glass than that of the plexiglass, and the result is more brightness( knowing) so to speak. The same principle applies when consciousness passes through a physical entity in order to manifest itself on the other side. The ray of light remains the ray of light except that there is some restriction that causes it to disperse. The ray of light passing through the drinking glass did not evolve, but the medium through which the light passed through improved ( you may say evolved) allowing for better brightness compared to light passing through the plexiglass. In other words, consciousness as a source is not affected by entropy, in the sense that the source remains the source consciousness, albeit distorted by the material which it passes through. I am trying to establish that consciousness recognized as the "mind", say of a human is similarly distorted in various degrees. Further, it is necessary to distinguish life as Biology from " life" as consciousness. The plexiglass and also the drinking glass( as Biology) would eventually disintegrate into it's various original elements such as sandstone and so forth, but the source of light remains intact as a source of light. In other words when everything else is " destroyed" consciousness remains unaffected by entropy. Further, permit me to quote from the word of Jesus in the gospel of John as he said " as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end". Jesus also said " heaven and earth shall pass away but his word ( consciousness ) shall remain.

[@robs.5847]

If I understand Bernardo's dissociation hypothesis, you might apply it to your analogy in considering that the lenses represent local dissociations from the light field. The warping of spacetime applied to a consciousness field equivalent can offer a physical metaphor for the process of lens formation that causes light itself to "dissociate" locally from the light field, thereby beginning to refract the light, and once refracted, the light on the other side of the lens returns to the light field. To be clear, I say that the refraction occurs within the field, and describing it as a lens is simply a post hoc explanation. Once the lens ceases to exist, the dissociation/refraction disappears ("disappears" being a particularly applicable term), and that local portion of the light field is undisturbed thereafter. Your choice of "disintegration" as a descriptor fits nicely here: the local associations disintegrate, the local dissociation ceases, while inviting the notion that what happens is also a reintegration, a return to the general field. (On a side note, because I am suggesting that two processes, namely association and dissociation, are occurring simultaneously, it also occurs to me that this perspectival split contributes to a lot of the metaphysical, spiritual / theological and philosophical arguments that are observed.) Accordingly, an investigation of lenses, of the various optical media, in your analogy is the equivalent to what Bernardo calls the second person perspective, where "self consciousness" or experience is the first person perspective. If we point to the material "narrative" of lenses / optical media across a lifetime, this is a materialistic view of life, but not an ultimate view of reality since the media is a posited representation of the refraction, secondary to the experience / process of refracting light. We might seek to explain the lifetime of the refraction as a function of optical degradation and other material properties, but the experience of refraction is more primary than a material explanation. What I have been pondering is how dissociation occurs, and it may be clear already that I am suggesting that it is local association within the field that reaches a dissociative threshold. This seems to me to be consistent with the relational paradigm that both Kastrup and Hoffman support, since relationality is entirely about association and dissociation. Mine is a gravity-like metaphor, that local associations within a broader field increase local densities and begin to have an effect on the surrounding field. At a certain point, these association complexes are sufficiently dense and intraconnected as to become a dissociated consciousness entity that is distinct from the perturbations of the field yet still located within the field. These dissociated entities may interact with the field itself, albeit in a different way, and can relate to other dissociations, but also in a manner distinct from the motion of the field itself. You can imagine our brains working this way too, with Hebbian learning. Almost random associations (coincidental neuron firings) occur all the time, but the ones that are repeated and strengthened develop sufficient association (ie, density) as to functionally dissociate from the brain field. These become functional networks, not disconnected from the brain itself, but dissociated from the generic mass of neurons that make up the neural "field". This further opens us to discussions of the implications of thresholding, of variable local field strengths, of how these dissociations (as well as pre-dissociations / early associations) intrarelate and interrelate, etc.

[@casteretpollux]

If reality is mental I choose to spend my time watching Donald Duck cartoons than watching 2 guys who don't exist talking to each other. 😅

[@goran586]

1:30:00 About the question whether there is such a thing as an "Angel of China". Isn't that an activated instant of an archetype in the collective unconscious projected on the collective social life in china as the "spirit" of being a Chinese citizen. Did the "Angel of China" existed before the nation of China. Yes, but only as an undifferentiated template (archetype) for binding a family, group, clan, society, etc. together.

[@dubbelkastrull]

21:41 bookmark

[@innerlight617]

THANKS for uploading!Any chance to activate English subs please?

[@AskingAnything]

Give it a couple of days.

[@Upuaut1967]

but "why I am Me?" is already answered by Bernardo's idealism. It is the dissociative process, that urges you to be you and me to be me. That is the essence of dissociation! I don't know why here Bernardo struggle to answer this ancient philosophical question

[@anthonyjohnson1294]

You loved Bernardo's "precision". PLEASE try to be precise yourself!

[@Corteum]

The TheByteAttic link in the description needs fixing. 👍

[@AskingAnything]

Thanks for letting me know! It should be corrected now.

[@gabrielteo3636]

Does idealism make any novel testable predictions over say...materialism? Maybe I missed it?

[@aloisraich9326]

No it does not, it's only Philosophie

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@aloisraich9326 I suppose idealism is no better or worse than solopsism?

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@gabrielteo3636 Are you under the impression that materialism makes novel testable predictions? Idealism and materialism are positions about what the world essentially is, not how it behaves.

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@Sam-hh3ry I understand both materialism and idealism are what the the world essentially is, but it does not matter. We could be Boltsman brain, Decart's demon, in the matrix, a simulation or an infinite number of other possibilities. Using the hypothesis of the world being material, we have had countless novel testable predictions confirmed. Take any of the other possibilities and none have any novel testable predictions confirmed. Maybe Occam had a point? The simplest explanation is the best? There is no good reason to believe any of the other infinite possibilities of what reality is besides materialism. In terms of Idealsm, you can jump off a high building and confirm if all is mind, but i don't suggest it. My guess is the material of concrete will not be your friend.

[@Sigillum22]

Superdonald and Bernardo the Bright.

[@eachday9538]

These guys are either brilliantly wrong, brilliantly right, or brilliantly part right.

[@laika5757]

Giants of our Times. Would add Eckhart Tolle to the list.

[@guaromiami]

If consciousness is "unlimited intelligence" like Hoffman says, why would it choose to inhabit billions of different versions of the same miserable experience with minimal variations between each?

[@george5464]

What about joy? Love? Transcendence?

[@guaromiami]

@@george5464 If you had "unlimited intelligence," why in the world would you choose to embody billions of beings living very narrow variations of the same existence, just for a few scattered experiences of joy, love, or transcendence here and there?

[@Animalis_Mundana]

We could be billions of individuated/fractalized shards of different aspects of an unconscious or the unconscious area of a higher intelligence/force, of its mind. Whatever it is it's for experience for that is what life is about, that's all we can do, the purpose only God knows. Suffering and pain can bring awareness and growth, even strength and empathy. Personally, I can't dismiss solipsism simply because it sounds absurd or egotistical, but it's not something I think is important at this moment. But if my ego/self comes from something higher I have no reason not to think other minds are also from that same source. Perception is an illusion, how far it goes I'm still wondering.

[@craigbowers4016]

@@guaromiami Yeah, why does anything exist? That's basically what you're saying.

[@guaromiami]

@@craigbowers4016 Is that not a valid question?

[@vee985]

Describing the indescribable

[@hmehdi2644]

1:57:30 Bernardo on consciousness "You cannot think of it in static terms" Reminds me of God describing himself in the Quran as: "Whosoever is in the heavens and on earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every day He is in a matter of affair" chapter ArRahman (The Merciful ch. 59 verse 29)

[@timb350]

So let me get this straight...Hoffman is proposing...that the mathematics of physics can be derived from his mathematical models of consciousness!!! Is that what he's saying? In physics...there is a field of philosophy called the foundations of physics. Bernardo, having a philosophy degree, should be familiar with this. What are the implications of Hoffman's ideas... on the foundations of physics?

[@Catholictomherbert]

What dissociation like having severe agony.

[@pittounikos]

I hope they don't fall out like what happened with Bernardo and Langan!

[@moesypittounikos]

After the Langam interview Bernardo acted like he confronted evil personified. He wrote a long Facebook post asking people to forget the interview like he desperately wanted to wash away bad karma. I know Langam writes about Zionism and he has some conspiracy ideas but who doesn't?

[@colquest]

@@moesypittounikos Yes Id have expected Bernado of all people to deal with difficult claims using reason and evidence

[@lawofuniverserealityanalyt3199]

Consciousness is NOT fundamental. Mind is! And it creates deterministically Spirit, the revealer of consciousness, the state that induce actions, filtered to suit the individual. This is Right Hemisphere Dynamics, the new math of life and reality. An irreducible graph theoretical algorithm for creating order. Aka the law of universe(s). Love the author. Timeless deterministic non-stochastic stochastic simulation of reality. I am writing an Essay I hope will be received in love by the EssentiaFoundation. Thank you.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

Mind is experienced in consciousness not the other way around..

[@deepblack67]

Love these two. I think the key to how you rectify their idealist ontologies to physics is through a Resonant Tensile Medium - open, unbounded, and flat - where the Universe (monism) is a wave which forms harmonics, and each of these waves forms its own Harmonics (the Harmonics Theory of economist mathematician Ray Tomes). The pattern of these harmonics within a Resonant Tensile Medium produces a pattern (cymatics), this pattern are the emergent phenomenon we call here, Conscious Agents (particles) disassociated from the underlying universal field i.e. the Medium or Mind. All phenomena, space, vacuum energy, all particles, mind, light, radiation, energy are manifestations of this one Medium/Mind. Phase Change not a Big Bang. Evolutionary, creative, relational, and qualitative. Mass and Gravity/Inertia are just relational phenomena of these connections within Mind between conscious agents. Space is Information. The Medium is the Message.