Donald Hoffman - Why Did Consciousness Emerge?

There was a time when there was no consciousness in our universe. Now there is. What caused consciousness to emerge? Did consciousness develop in the same way that, say, the liver or the eye developed, by random mutation and fitness selection during evolution? Inner experience seems to be radically different from anything else. Are we fooling ourselves?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on consciousness: bit.ly/3UC6owM
Donald D. Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine and author of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See and coauthor of Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory Of Perception.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@friedpicklezzz]

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]

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]

That's what happens when you and your team do your homework

[@chrispark5755]

Rude

[@KoumoriOtokoSoS]

Paying attention during debates is a lost skill.

[@bobjazz2000]

But he interrupted just when the speaker was about to explain his alternative theory of the Big Bang from a conscious standpoint.

[@jmiller2032]

I love this channel so much I can't even say. It's my antidote to the nihilism of modern politics.

[@Dr.Pancho.Tortilla]

Aww, did you come up with that all by yourself?

[@HORNGEN4]

Contribute something to the conversation or at least be kind. It's impossible to be curious and miserable at the same time.

[@gregw322]

This video is more an antidote to the nihilism of existence.

[@tuneandsmash9346]

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]

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]

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]

@@codywhite1427 pretty much semantics to me..

[@codywhite1427]

@@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]

@@Galvvy piss poor job? this is what you call the universe? i do like the rest of your thinking though

[@fred_2021]

It's reassuring to hear one's convictions expressed by others, no matter how strong one's convictions have seemed to be :)

[@mikefinn]

Exactly my feeling.

[@shadoworksphilosophy120]

Yes, it is.

[@theTranscendentOnes]

ah yes, validate and stroke your ego.

[@SrinivasanDasasathyan]

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]

Being conscious is the dance of matter. Dance is an abstraction.

[@shrutisarangi8387]

No proof

[@odonodave]

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.

[@BillGivens]

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]

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]

@@waldwassermann - pure bunk.

[@cynthiaayers7696]

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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@docsoulman9352]

It’s wonderful seeing more scientists coming around to the understanding that consciousness is the source of matter and all else…

[@hsbdkdndn]

modern science comes around to ancient knowledge 😀

[@fullyawakened]

consciousness is definitely not the source of matter and all else. hoffman does not believe anything like that. read his book

[@hsbdkdndn]

@@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]

​@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]

@@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

[@steppahouse]

One of the most interesting concepts in a series/channel full of interesting concepts.

[@markupton1417]

I love reading the comments to videos like this...makes me feel like a genius!

[@waldwassermann]

Genie is one.

[@BulentBasaran]

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]

Same here Mark 😊

[@SyedaSamanGulzar]

@@BulentBasaran 💖🌷

[@davidspencer8233]

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.

[@JustAThought01]

The key to understanding reality is that assumptions are required. Important finding. Philosophical insight.

[@psterud]

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.

[@Shane7492]

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]

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]

Everyone having their own perception of ‘blue’ sounds fine to me. Rectangular though? No because we have shared maths

[@Shane7492]

@@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]

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]

@@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).

[@PassportGods]

Awesome! Love the interviewer pushing and then letting the response breathe. 🙏

[@michaeltrower741]

yeah, they have a nice rapport.

[@ZubairKhan-vs8fe]

The Hindu Mystics have been saying this for 3000 years

[@entropy-happens]

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]

Non Duality.

[@dapaulson1]

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]

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]

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.

[@georgecc]

Been watching this channel for a year or two. This was the most profound clip I've seen here.

[@georgecc]

@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]

It’s truly frightening to live in a world where other people experience this as profound. I hope you get better soon.

[@georgecc]

@@jamesfranklyn8547 - Why, thank you. Your mom said I indeed was getting much better!

[@jamesfranklyn8547]

@@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]

@@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.

[@FabianReschke]

I love the big smile that Robert has on his face after Hoffman explains his computer file metaphor. Brilliant explanation. :D

[@koraamis5568]

Usually I am very skeptical from channels called truth something, but this was actually interesting, would dig into some papers by this guy

[@uninspired3583]

I really enjoyed the case against reality

[@wet-read]

This channel is great. Kuhn talks to all sorts of intellectuals and scientists, and has good questions for them.

[@quantumkath]

Donald Hoffman presents a powerful metaphor. I like it!

[@readynowforever3676]

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]

@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]

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]

@@garysteven1343 no, they are not arguments. They're just an explanation tool.

[@quantumkath]

@@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. 🙂

[@ColinChristie1]

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]

Energy busy buzzing about¿

[@mikefinn]

Thank you for sharing. Great reinforcement.

[@BulentBasaran]

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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@NEXTMARKDESIGN]

Love Donald Hoffman! Great interview

[@Matt-hs9gw]

Donald Hoffman knows what's up.

[@robo5013]

He's a hack

[@frojojo5717]

To me at least almost everything he said seemed incredibly stupid and clearly wrong. I don’t get it at all, makes no sense.

[@vm-bz1cd]

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]

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.

[@ymab-styleshoot]

Sanna-Tunni spotted.

[@dare-er7sw]

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]

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]

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.

[@fifthfreedom7]

David Hoffman is a genius. His angle on perception awareness mind ... 'consciousness' is novel and compelling... and he articulates his ideas exceptionally

[@v3le]

Stephen King is a genius as well

[@KpxUrz5745]

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?

[@blijebij]

Ah so this is an end stage! I thought just a stage.

[@MixedCompany2020]

I don't know but those shows are consciously fun to watch! 😁

[@johnmalone5693]

An excellent topic: one that merits further cogitation

[@ryanhunter5594]

I've followed his work and believe me he is on to something.

[@Ddub1083]

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]

@@Ddub1083 Is the professor saying that in the beginning there was consciousness and that consciousness preceded evolution?🌱

[@Ddub1083]

@@berniv7375 hes saying that consciousness is "fundamental" and therefore preceded evolution.

[@filosophik]

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."

[@alittax]

Thank you for all of the amazing content!

[@nrajanala]

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.

[@iamstillthinking]

Incredible insights, Mr. Hoffman.

[@JustAThought01]

The question to focus on is not how, rather it is why? What is the objective? Why does reality exist?

[@ComfortRoller]

After watching most of this series I feel like the setting is planned to reflect the topic in these videos subtlety.

[@phillipdyson2689]

Donald Hoffman that is the best analogy of consciousness I have ever heard. Made perfect sense.

[@hermannpallasch2153]

I think the desktop metaphor of consciousness was already used by Tor Norretranders and also by Daniel Dennett around 1990.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

But conscious lives on this side of the screen, not behind it.

[@stianmathisen4284]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Manifested on this side that is.......

[@stianmathisen4284]

@@hermannpallasch2153 Yeah but we now have more quantum physics to verify this.....

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@stianmathisen4284 - The universe consists entirely of analogies. Not literally, metaphorically. My self is one of the analogies. Literally.

[@hstanekovic]

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]

Could it be that consciousness wants to know and understand itself?

[@davidstrevens9170]

@@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]

Yes. A model. Thinking scientifically/asking questions. To answer, find a model to explore it.

[@mikefoster5277]

@@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]

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.

[@Dbs326326]

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.

[@werquantum]

Hoffman’s elevator speech continues to evolve. Excellent.

[@katherinestone333]

"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

[@MegaW3rd]

This reminds me somewhat of the premise of Nagel's book 'Mind and Cosmos'. recommend it for adamant physicalists

[@toreoft]

Billiant argument and idea, this should be further elaborated and developed scientifically/philosophically.

[@tterb777]

Every time someone comes on the show, please ask them to define consciousness

[@catalinul1461]

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]

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.

[@themathsprofessor6962]

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]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@medina4600]

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.

[@bastianray6334]

I think one of the few scientists that Robert Lawrence Kuhn has never interviewed is Tom Campbell who has a very interesting book about Consciousness, Physics and Philosophy called "My Big TOE" ( Big Theory of Everything )

[@millermc74]

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]

🥲

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"consciousness is experienced" No, consciousness is experience.

[@Ddub1083]

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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@Nicoladen1]

Finally someone who can think outside the box. Like actually outside the box.

[@marcv2648]

I can finally understand this guy's idea with this metaphor. I think his paradigm is one that would bring the most comfort to people.

[@shanethompson8730]

This is one of the most profound clips I’ve seen on this channel. Can anyone help me out in terms of subject of study or something I can do to gain official credibility on such a subject? I’d like to be able to talk about this in my career. (I’ve been exploring these topics personally for many years) Cheers

[@Ddub1083]

descartes. just look up the mind-body problem, its been a hot topic of philosophy since like the ancient greeks.

[@JustAThought01]

What is consciousness? Is it the awareness of our surroundings or our ability to think about our surroundings?

[@fineasfrog]

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]

@@fineasfrog He does not show that matter looks like mind at large when viewed back on itself.

[@Hank254]

"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]

@@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]

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.

[@MonisticIdealism]

Consciousness didn't emerge, it's that everything else emerged from consciousness.

[@JungleJargon]

I thought your comment was mine at first and then your avatar appeared. 😂

[@highvalence7649]

Is there anything else?

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@highvalence7649 Other than consciousness? No. Everything that does emerge from consciousness is just more mental phenomena.

[@dongshengdi773]

@@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]

@@dongshengdi773 We are a major component in the equation..

[@josephhruby3225]

Wow . . . What a concept

[@caiusKeys]

Great point! Explains why both the iPhone and William Blake were so successful!

[@theotormon]

Please unpack that one.

[@blengi]

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]

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]

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.

[@seansmith6745]

Is the computer interface metaphor Plato’s Cave 2.0?

[@evfast]

Donald is such a great speaker on this channel. He might be completely wrong but he makes compelling arguments that provide fuel for better answers.

[@sdutta8]

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.

[@dongshengdi773]

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]

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]

@@johnyharris Interaction with another universe?

[@ronniedahlgren2733]

​@@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.

[@dongshengdi773]

Every particle contains functional information. Thoughts are information. Therefore consciousness exists everywhere. Cosmic consciousness.

[@CMVMic]

You havent even defined consciousness yet lol

[@mikefoster5277]

@@CMVMic According to this scenario, consciousness = existence itself. How does one define existence?

[@markupton1417]

No.

[@beehappy7797]

​@@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.

[@christopherwall444]

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]

The book "Being You" by Anil Seth is a great book on consciousness.

[@christopherwall444]

@@darrenjones9789 thanks for that! I'll look for it

[@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done]

Dude is really onto something. Space-time is a subset of consciousness, a kind of cosmic Virtual Reality within consciousness.

[@andygoldensixties4201]

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]

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]

WTF!

[@sebastianschubert7945]

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?

[@rodrigocampos55]

Robert, I really enjoy all of your videos, but I have to say this one was of special significance to me. Thank you so much.

[@levanmelikishvili4373]

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.

[@jimsmith1549]

this is a brilliant talk by Donald Hoffman----ALL IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The way it manifests changes [evolves]

[@andregomesdasilva]

This is just a guess, actually. Nothing more.

[@nataliep6385]

Consciousness is such a mysterious thing

[@WritingCountingOriginal]

I bet it defeats materialism

[@Shane7492]

Anything independent of consciousness is far more mysterious.

[@jsar5409]

@@WritingCountingOriginal doubtful unfortunately

[@highvalence7649]

@@Shane7492 and unintelligable

[@jsar5409]

@DM definitely could be

[@philosophicallyspeaking6463]

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

[@HakWilliams]

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]

A simple and good thought.

[@syzygyman7367]

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.

[@potheadphysics]

Finally! I’ve been trying to explain this for a year on my channel! The observer is everything and brings reality into existence.

[@darrennew8211]

Go read the sci-fi novel "StarPlex". It's great, and it addresses this.

[@xtrofilm]

What if nothing is the real reality and the reality our observations bring into existence is wrong.

[@darrennew8211]

@@xtrofilm Why would that matter? What difference would it make to anything at all?

[@potheadphysics]

@@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.

[@potheadphysics]

@@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.

[@dapaulson1]

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]

@DM What do you mean by “it”?

[@dapaulson1]

@DM Which assertion? It is difficult to carry an intelligent conversation with three undefined words.

[@cnewtonc]

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.

[@jimbo33]

Excellent. Brings it all back home. Earth shattering or should I say materialist shattering. Consciousness reigns supreme and precedes matter.

[@clownworld-honk410]

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 :-)

[@roypueschel8655]

Don Hoffman is a colorless cloud of gas but we see a talking icon that appears to be Charlie Macarthy

[@Broeckhoest]

“A colorless cloud of gas” is all evolutionary references.. “a thing” maybe?

[@TheSpeedOfC]

When you think to yourself "why is the universe exactly this way"? then you realize that we have some idea of the universe but we really dont understand it... then theories like his start to make more sense.

[@joshuaschooping6227]

So, persons a, b, c, and so on, are conscious... within, say, Prime Consciousness. What is the suggested (causal?) relation between the serial instances of consciousness a, b, c, on the one hand, and Prime Consciousness, on the other?

[@simulationsecrets6540]

Consciousness is the computer running this (and others, e.g. dreams) simulation. Tom Campbell (physicist) had been demonstrating this for many years as well…

[@Cardioid2035]

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]

- Donald reminds me of Joscha Bach . . . minus . . . the charming accent . Both gentlemen . . . . . . charming . . . by exhibiting profound // precise logic . - -

[@Cardioid2035]

@@reubennichols644 are you writing like an AI because you are an AI?

[@phillipgreene2564]

Well... about this episode... What a gift.🌟 Best that I say... Seasons Greetings.🎄

[@kfwimmer]

When was this video made? Fantastic!

[@philcarter2362]

Consciousness did not emerge. It was there in the beginning, and then our experience in time-space arises out of that.

[@waldwassermann]

You understand. Impressed.

[@realcygnus]

A trigger for materialists 🤪

[@ricklanders]

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]

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]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'm not familiar with that title, but it sounds interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@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!

[@julenrojo4624]

For me this is the most convincing theory of all.

[@Kostly]

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]

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]

How do you know trees say hello to each other? And how do you know love is universal

[@catherinemoore9534]

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]

Totally agree with you my friend!

[@colinjohnrudd]

@DM Thus spake Zarathustra!

[@jacquesberger9515]

Ruprt Spira presented this metaphor in `the Nature of Consciousness`` back in 2017!!!

[@peterphilstacey4698]

as our brains developed , did consciousness develop to adapt to awareness of death and to comfort us ? i just feel confused with over thinking sometimes,

[@beehappy7797]

Through meditation comes the answer. Stop thinking and just observe. We are consciousness. No birth no death. Fear nothing.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

or we became conscious to overcome the problems that arose when we tried to run civilization on instinct.

[@hexbinoban6170]

So by following this logic, no one can actually know what happens after death.

[@este4955]

? Yes, no one knows. Do you know any dead people who told you what's after death?

[@jemijohn3779]

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]

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]

We are consciousness. We are never born and will never die. Through meditation comes the answer. Don't think. Just observe!

[@waldwassermann]

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.

[@Jeff-bi7jn]

Love this point of view. Anyone who has gone deep down the mushroom rabbit hole has experienced this truth.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL 3:39 this highlights your point. I'm with you all the way.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@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.

[@sgs261]

Isn't consciousness linked to memory (and therefore time) - what mechanism is there for recalling those memories (and therefore not repeating past mistakes *within a lifetime*, rather than waiting for evolution) if not consciousness?

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

And, sometime during a phase of a new life, a share of default consciousness is dropped in. Some of it contains the machine code for being able to "keep in touch", if you know what I mean. The rest is up to the user.

[@AtheistCook]

One of the best arguments that conciouness could be fundamental and the ground of reality.

[@kos-mos1127]

Not really. The argument works against consciousness being fundamental and ground of reality.

[@wolwerine777]

This is exactly what says vedanta. They knew this in india thousands years ago. Swami Sarvapriyananda gives great talks about this subject.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

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. 🙏

[@eyebrid]

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.

[@leoteng1640]

The perspective that is more accurate is to say the icon guides our behaviours and has nothing about hiding the truth nor the complexities. We can know how to do something using another tool but we don’t have to understand how it works. Consciousness is the undergirding factor in engaging with reality. Since reality is embedded with intelligence, consciousness interpreters the intelligence and engages it to achieve a certain goal with a certain will.

[@eagledon7199]

When one can't convince, one must confuse.

[@Scientificirfann]

Consciousness is as real as nightmare "

[@mabalbhat9392]

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]

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.

[@seansmith6745]

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?