Deepak Chopra and Donald Hoffman: Reality is Eye Candy

This remarkable dialogue between Deepak Chopra and cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman explores the fundamental nature of reality. Starting with the assumption that conscious experience is all we can know, Don Hoffman describes his program of the mathematical investigation of reality, and explains the value of a mathematical model of consciousness. In a statement that draws applause from the audience he says, "by having a rigorous way to kill off bad stories, we can make progress."
www.scienceandnonduality.com
Science And NonDuality is a community inspired by timeless wisdom, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in personal experience. We come together in an openhearted exploration to further our individual and collective evolution. New ways of being emerge. We embody our interconnectedness and celebrate our humanity.

[@seshsampath]

Chopra is coming from a position of consciousness very clearly explained in Indian Vedic scriptures clearly. Chopra’s disadvantage is talking to people who have grown up in the Abrahamic religions. Vedic concepts like Brahman, the ultimate consciousness, and how maya (Illusions) affect perception and conditions species from not seeing the truth and there is conscious agent within each one of us which we fail to realise and how we lead a mundane life influenced by maya or illusions. Hoffman’s work and concepts are validating what Vedic scriptures have been talking about. Except that Hoffman is trying to prove it. Chopra gets condemned because he is always in the wrong crowd of people grown up in the Abrahamic religions and formats.

[@JoelSimbrow]

I was thinking almost the same thing. I was thinking how Hoffman is at a disadvantage while speaking with Chopra on this subject. Chopra; who is coming from a rich background of stories of non duality as reality, as opposed to the sharp precision evolved from Abrahamic thought.

[@summerbreeze5115]

Now he's assuming that C can be expressed in maths.. Scientists have a little lust on materials you know :)

[@glenndespres5317]

@@JoelSimbrow Interesting idea. I was not aware that sharp precision (scientific thought?) has it’s roots in Abrahamic thought. Where can I learn more about this?

[@JoelSimbrow]

@@glenndespres5317 sharp things tend to do more damage

[@84sahi]

Right I have seen the struggle

[@johnwilhelm]

I don’t know about anyone else but I have been following Hoffman for awhile and the more I work this out the more sense it makes. The overall basis is brilliant. He admits he is probably wrong but if he is not then, WOW!

[@blackspace5342]

I feel he knowsvHe is not wrong, and he know it-MAYBE because he LIVES this lifestyle- as do I. DO YOU? When I'm LIVEin IT YOU can't help VISUALLY WITNESSING the reality changE AROUND YOU, IN REAL TIME. we can't wait for you guys to come out and play

[@solarionispirit2117]

His basic ideas are correct but looking through his lectures I see the same thought package over time and do not see where it evolves. Besides I am a great fan also.

[@conscious_being]

"Give me these few miracles and I can build a precise story, that explains all your experiences, without need for any more miracles". Just brilliant from Hoffman describing what science is! Don't know whether he will succeed, but definitely a worthy enterprise. The only issue is, if his hypothesis can make any falsifiable predictions. He hints at being disproved if it can be shown that fundamental particles have _any_ properties when not observed, but that part is already covered by Quantum Mechanics. Don't need a new hypothesis for it. A new hypothesis needs to make a new and unique falsifiable prediction. Perhaps, he will get to it, after developing the mathematics. After all, that is how all scientific hypotheses make their falsifiable predictions, after developing them, not before.

[@richperkins5192]

Brother not that I want to campaign too hard for Terrence McKenna but he has experienced way more than me.. “ as for modern science give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest” . Great concept and so true nonetheless.

[@MurrayCowell]

Watch this other Hoffman video, where he goes into the question of a falsifiable hypothesis in more depth. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJa6eGqulJuMa7c

[@iloverumi]

enjoyed this. thank you!!!

[@ezza88ster]

Hoffman's the new Einstein! Finally, a mathematical link between current physical theory and consciousness!

[@mfb3042]

Einstein presented the theory of relativity. Your soul vibrates faster than the speed of light. Your soul is eternal.

[@plato2030]

He look up to the mathematical genius of our generation, Nima Arkani Hamed who proofed the general relativity theory is not working anymore, Hoffman mentioned his name a lot in his interviews

[@osterlaich6395]

Conciousness is linked to reality more profound than the observer rebranded as conscious agents. Jesus christ you lot really HAVE TO THINK.

[@sumitraghani]

Unmm, NO

[@sumitraghani]

You know how I know? Because "Genius" Chopra is tooting his own horn through his work and I am only 2 min into the video

[@kahlread5537]

As for mathematical forms of emotions et cetera, Hemingway wrote: Courage is grace under pressure. To me this offers a structure. Other human consciousness traits might be similarly put or mapped.

[@brydonjesse]

I feel like my body and my mind are tools I use to interact with the world. I know who I am, I am the universe and this is weird! And I love it

[@bitkurd]

You can only perceive yourself through someone else’s eyes. For instance, I say my phone, my car, my home and MY HAND 🤚!! but who is it owning your hand? You can not identify with your hand or body but you can feel, perceive and see yourself through your hand, body and eyes. There is no difference between you and the universe because nothing is not an option, you wouldn’t even know there is nothing if there is not someone to talk about it, so you, I and the universe are one. The dude that sees behind your eyes is also the same that sees behind my eyes.

[@weareallinthis3668]

THANKS FOR SHARING! ❤️❤️❤️

[@GornubiusFlux]

@@bitkurd We're spiritual beings having a human experience and it's a wonderful thing to be here for it.

[@curtcoller3632]

And then you woke up and noticed you peed in your bed.

[@ramigm75]

Always love Donald's talks. I just wish he would drive the research a bit harder ... there hasn't been much progress on the research side of his hypothesis for a while now.

[@surfinmuso37]

that is because it is twaddle. He preaches scientism-all conjecture with very little substance. Views like his are rapidly becoming outdated useless theories, nothing more. Lay people coming from different perspectives actually have a better grasp of reality than this hack. He is part of a rapidly expanding group-the ridiculously over-educated. Their schooling makes them blind and ignorant.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@surfinmuso37 If you have an actual argument to rebut his theory, then by all means feel free to share. All you seem to offer is reflexive disagreement without anything to back it up, which is how a child behaves.

[@kennethcook8857]

@@surfinmuso37: "Over-educated"? Really? So where does the proper "stopping point" exist? What is its nature? Of what is it constituted? Over-educated... Get serious. There is no such thing. One can NEVER learn too much... period.

[@downhillphilm.6682]

you know, i took a lot of pure lsd in the early '70's, the thumb anecdote was very apparent to me from those experiences and it never left me, as well as volumes of other observations that have elevated my life.

[@tyriliusmc9798]

Chopra and Hoffman are both tremendous minds of our generations.

[@gotohellfast]

Hoffman is.

[@raz0rcarich99]

4:34 "So for us simpler people, a conscious agent is the ontological primitive that evokes experience". LOOOOL yeah, Deepak, that made it so much simpler...

[@AfterBurner369]

😂😂👏👏

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

The poor man's got it backwards. What is the case, it's just too obvious, when one remembers the early years of one's life, that ontologically primitive experiences build one's conscious agency, brick by tiny brick.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@Selfless Will "not helping Bro" I see, my mistake to use their vocabulary. I'll try it my way... Hoffman asserts that everything is conscious and that is why we are. But if everything is conscious then how is it possible to NOT be conscious like fer instance when we are in dreamless sleep, breathing nitrous oxide, passed out drunk, etc.? Conscious is not a 'something', not ghostly, not a property of matter. Conscious is a process. Process is abstract, immaterial, conceptual and the reason why mind feels aethereal. It should be clear to all who don't believe in magic, that matter is the substrate of the conscious process, that which must exist for the process to be OF. The deepest existential nature of material 'reality' is completely irrelevant because we don't exist, the process of being conscious does not exist, at that lower level. That help?

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Conscious is a process, but matter is also a process so... It's practically undeniable by now that all physics are just about processes, not "things". What we see as our "brains" is just what "light" can say about some specific kind of dynamics. It's not actually a material thing, but a system dynamics. There's just "information exchanges", to point it in some comprehensible extent.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Hello @@MeRetroGamer My comment, to which yours is a response, is incomplete and contains only preliminary considerations for answering the question, "What is the nature of that to which the word 'conscious' is referring"? My fault for not returning to complete it. "Conscious is a process, but matter is also a process so... It's practically undeniable by now that all physics are just about processes, not "things"." Conscious is a mode. Being conscious is the process. The existential nature of matter is irrelevant to the conscious process (but acknowledging the necessity for matter to 'behave' the way it does in order to be able to serve as substrate for the being conscious process. It does not matter if matter is a process of energetic ripples in some ultimate substrate or whatever. The fine grained matter process is quite separate and unrelated to the much larger conscious process that involves the behavior of neurons (each consisting of many trillions of atoms organized in many different types of dynamic structures from molecules to organelles to cell walls etc.)). When environmental energies impinge on a body's sense organ, the organ adjusts the firing rate of the neuron that connects the organ to the brain. That change in rate thereby encodes the energetic impact. Millions of sense organs operating in parallel are the source of all one's raw information input. Encoded representation is practically the definition of the word 'metaphor'. This naturally suggests that the firing rate of the axon of a neuron is the manifestation of a metaphor. Thus we are here confronting the very border between the mind and body. Clearly the body, which exists, is serving as the substrate for the being of metaphors. Metaphors are nought but thoughts and the mind, being made entirely of thoughts, is metaphoric in its entire nature. And of course a metaphor cannot be without an existent substrate to provide the components whose behavior IS the metaphor's instantiation. (Which points us at 'movement' as the heart of the matter, i.e. there is no such thing as a standalone movement. Something, matter, must exist before the word 'movement' can have an actual referent). So one of the metaphors that constitute my mind is my 'self' and I have no doubt that there are plenty of neurons participating in its instantiation and that lots of neurons are being dynamically attached and detached according to what I'm thinking. In addition, my self has modes of operation one of which is called conscious and another dreamless sleeping. Those metaphors not currently participating in my self deserve to be referred to as my unconscious, the place where my memories persist when they are not being remembered. It is the modulation of my self metaphor by the metaphors of my unconscious (accomplished via the synapses) that is to what the word 'conscious' is referring. Pretty sketchy and there's lots of details deserving of inclusion but I think this outline is enough to communicate the basics of my understanding of the fundamental nature of my being conscious process.

[@bigcheech1937]

Thank you for the video. I just subscribed.

[@jasminejones9937]

"" what the bleep do we know" !? Is a good documentary that describes what Hoffman is saying...

[@YOumeanMe]

ya i needed deepak to interpret the self assured mathematician's observational statements.

[@AnneWilkynson]

I love this, my 2 favorite subjects complimenting each other! Whoot lol I love both if these Men!

[@sridharr4251]

Awesome. The desktop physical objects or interface introduced by Don is referred to as Maya in Hindu mythology. The universal truth that's outside the space and time (consciousness) is denoted as the bhraman - idealogies postulated several thousand years ago. Now, they were not subjected to any scientific tests, rigor. In that regard Hoffman's work must be really significant🙏

[@sngscratcher]

On demand rendering.

[@anterpants]

Donald is the most important person in science right now.

[@surfinmuso37]

he is a tosser

[@gangsterkami1]

@@surfinmuso37 why do you think he's wrong

[@gangsterkami1]

I agree

[@surfinmuso37]

Lol everyone is entitled to an opinion i suppose, but few have even heard of him, let alone entertain his "theories"

[@morbidmanmusic]

Well that faded quick. He's a joke.

[@spiralsun1]

This one video has saved my life. I was losing hope for the future of life before I viewed this. My life reflects the hope of life itself in many ways I have discovered over the years. My mood fluctuates based on this hope. Thank you for saving my life. I used to be Steven E Romer and at one time I wrote a book about these things they are now discussing. In these ideas is the future and salvation of life itself and an end to wars and the blindness that destroys us.

[@grahamblack1961]

You're a racist lunatic.

[@raz0rcarich99]

It's just a model though. How did it revitalize your life?

[@raz0rcarich99]

@@grahamblack1961 ????????? LMAO WTF IS GOING ON

[@melonieprice9855]

Wonderful

[@hufclufc]

"Is reality overated?" ........ I need a drink!

[@philippemartin6081]

Hi and good Day all. I juste arrive, seem like great. I START Watching.

[@goodwayinlife111]

Thank you

[@blackspace5342]

Finally! This man is describing my EXTREMELY FAR OUT THERE daily experiences as a TETRA FEME/CROMAT. He speaks of women like me at 21:00

[@jzonkel]

u see beyond the usual visual spectrum? i envy you

[@MurrayCowell]

Yeah, my wife has that. We have some interesting conversations about what colour things are, given that we've got the same colour vocabulary but she can see millions more colours than I can.

[@anshanshtiwari8898]

It must be cool how you see the world. But you yourself don't have anything to compare it with.

[@blackspace5342]

@@jzonkel yes & others have see beyond too-in my biofield (6ft!). All had same heart intention- see what eachother sees, be open minded, unclutch from old beliefs and be childlike. It gave us a glympse of the MAGNIFICENT POWER of HUEman Co- Creative Consciousness ( real reason I think they want us 6ft apart). Our Possibilities are infinite! TRULY.

[@blackspace5342]

@@MurrayCowell so fun! I love this

[@damonm3]

They are oddly close 😂

[@stellabandante2727]

Fascinating conversation. I hear you.

[@futureselfnow]

i was hoping deepak would mention something from the seth books, which he read, which discusses at length the nature of consciousness and of “reality”. seth offers much that could be useful to donald’s explorations, such as underlying thoughts are incipient particles made of electromagnetic energy. i wish donald would read seth.

[@PascalsWager5]

Hoffmann is a patient person. His woo defence was strong..

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

Woooooooooooooooo

[@joegodfree2524]

I love the "fact" that we are possibly wrong, on most levels, objectivism is definitely wrong. ! Subjectivity is half wrong.! INTUITION, is % 2. Wrong . Experiences are nearly right, introspection is always right.

[@adrianobildhauer5104]

I’ve been reading and watching Donald Hoffman for a while and there’s something I can’t understand yet. If we live in a word of conscious agent. What was there before any conciseness? We perceive the world around us because we’re conscious, but consciousness is a really new fenomenal comparing to the history of the universe itself.

[@briancunningham8557]

before consciousness? there was consciousness of course

[@vickey4sure]

My best guess...There is no concept of space/time in consciousness. Hence, there is no "before". Consciousness gave rise to the universe and space/time as we know it.

[@kumar2ji]

Very entertaining program. Nice fellows too. After silence is more silence. No need to go further.

[@SanjeevKumar-hn2ml]

One of the deepest conversation

[@isa-manuelaalbrecht2951]

Very well explained..😁😊🤩👏👏👏💥💯

[@rileyhoffman6629]

Thanks for this. Seems probable and true. How is it, though, we all agree, essentially, on what is 'out there'?

[@John-ob6eh]

Mathematics is an interface that not all can understand. Song and storytelling are interfaces that everyone can understand. We will never fully understand creation, all we need to do is be aware of it, know it and respect its creations.

[@aangeledarryanani8523]

Wow… love it

[@abdulazuzadel4768]

Thank you're, Mr. Chopra and well done. I appreciate your calmness and graciousness. I hope Mr. Hoffman was able to comprehend your lead and take away something from this convrsation.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Hopefully he " took away " the realisation that Chopra is a con artist and shyster whose millionaire lifestyle is funded by gullible idiots like you ?

[@wecas9596]

@@2msvalkyrie529 Such judgmental hubris about a about man politely discussing about our lack of understanding of reality. Overconfidant worthless piece of shite like you should have more humility, if you have to even begin to understand what these two men are talking.

[@muthucumarasamyparamsothy4747]

Hi, Gentleman , I have a doubt about the statement that had been made during your conversation , " Evolution Of Consciousness ". What I understand in Consciousness is that Conscious Agent can only undergo evolution not the Consciousness itself . Thank you.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Consciousness itself" Do you think Consciousness is a something? Agents are conscious because A. evolution makes entities who become, who ARE conscious or because B. evolution makes entities who participate in consciousness (conceived as a property suffusing the entire universe or even as the entire universe itself taken as a conscious being). Most of Western thought takes A. to be the case because most Westerners have come to value individuality over collectivity. Those who are convinced by B. think there is only one entity in the universe perusing materiality through myriad eyes. Being a Westerner and understanding A., I ask of those convinced by B., why is there war? Are we trapped in an insane universe?

[@restorationofidentity]

A crude yet simple way to see consciousness is simlier to "cymatics" functions. The higher the frequently sound the more elaborate the design is! Higher consciousness is like when we turn up the frequency.

[@philipose66]

higher consciousness comes from a better use of language in the discussion between brain and its flesh and blood part of brain we call mind---it is bio feedback. Memory plays a big role, in that the better we recall those discussions, the better we are at using those discussions to move us to a better/safer/more productive place

[@mts4428]

Pretty deep!

[@TheFreddieFoo]

"What's in the belly of the computer?" -> can we even imagine this for current computers?? I'm sure many computer scientists who know everything about a computer can't answer it clearly. It's hard, you can't answer it in an interview. The only thing we can do is increase our resolution on reality, via science and math. Math and Science tools are like magnifying lenses.

[@morbidmanmusic]

No, you can totally explain everything that makes a computer.. code is different. Human error shows up in strange ways.. but that is human based. We can explain computers down to the sub atomic particles that make it up..

[@OneBigPuzzle]

I have had the experience of non self through psychedelics. It was extremely scary but the most liberating thing in my life. Its one thing to conceptualize these ideas, but then to experience the reality is very different. Consistently thinking about these things and having those aha epiphany moments will allow you to move between self and non self with ease, experiencing a new perspective free of the boundaries of time and space.

[@jaylinsa]

Personally, I wouldn't call it non self, I'd call it non-ego. I feel like it's more like a revealing of true-self beyond the evolved narrow conception of self.

[@OneBigPuzzle]

@@jaylinsa that is certainly a better way to put it. More of the realization that self is more than ego

[@glenndespres5317]

@@jaylinsa Yes. Ego consciousness is separation consciousness. Ego-less consciousness is Unity consciousness. Only one is Real.

[@wecas9596]

This is a great discussion. But I was waiting for them to mention Kant at some point, but they didn't; and that's my only disappointment. The sync between the Chopra & Hoffman was exhilarating.

[@marcusantebi4896]

Donald Hoffman comes off in all interviews I have seen him do as a compassionate, humble, brilliant, Yogi! I love Donald Hoffman…….

[@bobgreen9897]

I'm confused with an idea guys. Can we just create a machine that can collect data to prove Hoffman correct? Like the way machines we create can capture light we cannot see for example. (X Rays)

[@spacejunk0074]

Great to see that "modern" science is proving emptiness that the Buddha realized 2500 years ago. Bravo!

[@syk9855]

If what anything Donald said is true then through the process of evolution we lose more the ability to see the truth. So, it's quite possible that people many years ago were able to see truth easier than us

[@Subudhdh]

Not Buddha but Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka 500 years earlier than Buddha.. the Upanishads.. they teach in no uncertain term that all is divine, thout art that and aham brahamasmi.. all three from those two Upanishads..

[@heavyatheart]

Vedas, upnishadas and Bhagvad Geeta describe Maya in more detail. Both predate Buddha by thousands years.

[@johnkan5619]

The Buddhists had no obligation to be correct

[@bilguunnyamaa7767]

Wtf r u talking about

[@NWLee]

So many of these theories rely on "constants" which aren't constant and are approximations instead.

[@surfinmuso37]

nothing is constant...except change.

[@yakirey.2745]

How can that be beyond time if it is based on evolution, which is an event that is based on the flow of time - evolvement?

[@dustietu]

Thanks! New nemesis directed me here.

[@RickDelmonico]

Two interpretations for the single particle creating a wave pattern; 1, the particle has a wave like property and 2, the direction the particle travels in is constrained in some wave like manner. Note; these directions or dimensions could be virtual. My guess would be that reality is emergent and these particles are virtual along with the dimensions, including the time dimension. The idea would be that the macro world in being constructed by the micro world. The constraint is fractal in nature. Truth as a time coordinate; truth lives in the past, the future is uncertain. Truth as a scale coordinate; truth lives in the macro world, the micro world is uncertain. Truth lives in the macro past and uncertainty lives in the micro future. The inside of a seed is larger than the outside of the seed. Inside of the seed is an entire forest. No matter how much information we use to describe a tree, it will always be incomplete. The only complete description of the tree is the tree itself.

[@nobodyspecial2835]

Rick D. Well said.

[@theway5258]

I love questions and notes of Chopra! It seems like behind of his questions there is a huge background of Indian's philosophy and meditation retrospective analysis. Thanks to all of you!

[@superfitatpowerhouse4006]

Very interested. It's humans representation as far as what consciousness is or reality. Is one objective point of view.

[@RIMJANESSOHMALOOG]

They are too close, not enough space between these two icons 😜

[@rockybalboa8378]

Yes, no masks

[@rockybalboa8378]

Oh, this was 2018:)

[@hemant05]

space is an illsuon...duh

[@beatasosinska3368]

Really??

[@RIMJANESSOHMALOOG]

@@beatasosinska3368 didn't get the joke?

[@jugsewell]

If Deeppockets Chopra can be taken seriously, then I have no qualms about mentioning (along with others) The Critique, with a special emphasis on Schopenhauer's analysis.

[@zatoichiable]

So far so goooood ... Thank you Dr Hoffman.

[@EskeAndersen]

I'm sure this is just me not getting it, but it seems that Hoffman is saying two things that seem to contradict each other. He notes that 1) "our experience is the final reality", but 2) he also doesn't believe in solipsism, i.e. he does not believe that the symbols we experience correpond to nothing. I guess this is a question of definition, but can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?

[@alloneword154]

He says our experience is actually only existing in A reality that hides the true reality. Basically we can only comprehend the desktop icons because the true inner workings of reality would be to complex for a homo Saipan to understand. We see just a tiny sliver of reality so that we can keep ourselves alive. If we saw everything the way it really is then we would basically be so overwhelmed that we would not be able to survive. We see symbols of mathematical code that we associate to objects. Their waveform collapses into what we decode and construct as an icon. Most likely the real reality is just wave probability

[@walteralter9061]

@@alloneword154 This transcendental reality that is dangled like a carrot in front of humanity, is our stolen birthright and the thieves who took it need to pay. We're all spiritual hostages. War in Heaven.

[@ther6989]

There are no facts, only interpretations. Variant translation: Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

[@oocloudoo1549]

How do multiple conscious agents work though? I get that my reality is a UI, but what about you looking at the same thing I am. Am I seeing your data structure or mine? Are you people all part of my data structure? Or are you sharing my same experience? I’m confused how this All works when you factor that in

[@martinhasson4942]

SERIOUSLY!

[@vladdraq8186]

Everything is consciousness, experiencing itself, which is experiencing itself, which is experiencing itself into infinity like a fractal.

[@marneninagavenkat7149]

Panpsychism

[@donfields1234]

I wonder if Don has met or is familiar with Tom Campbells work as well. I assume yes, and know Tom would agree with Don's theory as well. I also wonder how long until science and the population in general becomes aware of this? Not to sound boastful or anything but I realized this quite young to a large degree.... that everything we percieve of as being "out there" is merely what and how our minds have compiled our sensory data. I always wondered exactly how another even percieves the world... if we were to swap bodies say, would we notice a difference in the world?

[@hydrorix1]

I tried several times to sign up to SAND and kept getting a message that I had not completed a Recaptcha field, when none was ever available. Help, please?

[@scienceandnonduality]

It has been fixed. Sorry Aaron. It was an issue with the site that lasted almost 12 hrs. For any reason like this contact us via the contact email on the website footer... We only check youtube comments every other day at best...

[@ernestweber5207]

Awareness, in its pure form, logically can have no actual referent. We all are aware. It is irreducible. It pervades all experience. Abstractions are not actuality since they are always about the objects and phenomena. In that sense direct experience is crucial. Consciousness, by distinction, requires an object experienced by a subject as in "consciousness of...". Within the field of consciousness a multiplicity of phenomena appear/arise spontaneously in a continuous, dynamic fashion. It is a dynamic flow of energy. The mind, by way of the "structure" of our nervous system and conditioning, fills in or evokes the details of past precedence and future results that provide a narrative that also arises spontaneously and creates the illusion of continuity. It is like swinging a firebrand around on a chain and seeing a contiguous circle of fire that is not really there.

[@sunnyla2835]

Fascinating! Thank you 🙏💕

[@katiemarte5354]

i wonder how we can apply this to our personal lives.. so does that mean we shouldn't take our sufferings literally? and the people around us.. are they real??? how does this tie to parallel universes?

[@summerbreeze5115]

Yes dont suffers.. they're all in you...you have created the universe :)

[@shabanaa723]

So the table was constrocted by his software or by an artisan?

[@GroovismOrg]

When we are all entrained with The One Groove, in our higher states. we will experience reality!!!

[@morbidmanmusic]

Massive woo woo statement. Meaningless.

[@Sarah33Kaufman]

I don’t get it! Can somebody simplify this for me?

[@ricodelta1]

Love this guy

[@bmillerbiop]

Why Mathematics is Likely Not Fundamental to “Big C” Consciousness This interview wonderfully articulates many things I’ve suspected about the ultimate nature of reality. In the interests of furthering the discussion, I’d like to take issue with one particular point - namely how far down the existential ladder does the discipline of mathematics reside? Around minute 9:40 of the interview, Hoffman suggests: “I think that mathematics is going to be part of the fundamental apparatus of consciousness.[…] that mathematical structure is not divorced from the fundamental conscious reality.” However, he seems to largely walk this back near the end of the interview where, around minute 36, he indicates “… the mathematics is never the territory […] the fact that I can give a mathematical model of consciousness does not mean that mathematics is the consciousness or that it creates consciousness”. The map-vs-terrain analogy was going to be my first point of dispute. A map of San Francisco can be extremely useful - may even save your life - but it is merely a vastly simplified model of the city in entirety. (“Data compression”, as Hoffman refers to elsewhere) Tourists won’t get the full joy of the city simply be reading the map in their hotel room. Secondly, there is a near unbridgeable gulf between conscious experience and what we perceive as physical reality. (That’s why I don’t believe there will ever by true AI.) The physical world is a quantum affair, whereas inner experience is continuous. Mathematics pertains in a physical world composed of discrete units (quanta) that can be measured, counted, and manipulated. Inner experiences however, like love, joy, beauty, artistic appreciation and the like cannot be readily quantified - at least not without degrading them. When such are quantified (and in Western economies priced), then a majestic redwood forest is reduced marketable board-feet of lumber, or love becomes prostitution. That said, I have to acknowledge that I’m not a mathematician, and perhaps there are other maths and logic that are not so dependent upon quantification. In any case, I applaud the efforts to find the union between the spiritual and the scientific realms. In the final chapter of “The Case Against Reality”, Hoffman points out that the pursuit of understanding through argumentation is when reason is at its best. In that sense, perhaps the tension between science and spirituality is ultimately more a blessing than a curse.

[@coachmurphy100]

Bill Miller maths is a symbolic story telling media .. it is not fundamental to anything only the story is fundamental so nothing can be fundamental nothing. It is a story of a thing that tells the story of the other thing that came first and math is just symbolic story representations... 4x4 =8 4 what times 4 what equals 8 what. Story telling is the basis of God and his story is the reason we have the dreams of life. Learn the story of God and you will know that God is and when you know god is you will know that god is that we might have joy. And joy cannot be found without the contrast of pain and anguish so God is that we might have joy and joy is because we transcend pain.

[@doji-san]

Deepak was actually trying to hint at what you are saying.. i think that mathematics is also just a construct of reality (icon on the desktop) that we "made" up to understand the material world... (Mathematics = Material World ) < Consciousness

[@stephennixey]

The physical reality is 'real' (and not simply eye candy - as used to be dismissive of actual reality to 'prove' a 'point') unless you take your meaning to the atomic level (which no one could live, enjoy or even experience the 'wholeness' of life)! Reminder - we do not live at the atomic level we live in the 'real' world we see and interact with around us. Simply as atoms interact at an atomic level that is simply 'what is' I prefer to call a human being a human being not a group of atoms! We can break things down far too much and in those moments we loose what is actually reality this is typical of a 'Materialistic Reductionist Belief System' these people are talking about 'Fragments' which are simple aspects of reality, how things interact and although it's seemingly 'amazing' and 'profound' it is simply tiny aspects of the whole of 'what is' and not actual reality in itself.

[@josephmasterleo8941]

Note that in the entire 40-minute dialogue, the word God, spirit or spiritual never was spoken. As with all scientists, accepting mystery is taboo and verboten, because everything has to be precisely figured out. The closest the discussion ever came to hinting at the spiritual came from Deepak, who quoted the Vedanta, careful to protect Don from hearing the word, and then it was only intimated. This is what science and scientists will not allow in their vocabulary or conceptual apparatus. Says here, such is owing to an absolute intolerance for knowing (heart), as opposed to having knowledge (head) of something beyond the empirical, logical, and mathematical. And yet, the numinous will not allow you to relate to or come to terms with itself primarily in that way. Because "that way" (the empirical) can only be a concept of same, and not the unitive experience of it at the foundational level. Truth be told, consciousness is the scientific term for spirit, something that mystics and indigenous folk have told us about for centuries that encompasses all things. One needn't have a Phd to experience same, or be able to explain it mathematically. By Don's logic, he could never be fully satisfied nor fully understand the experience of loving spouse and family, until he reached that point in his satisfaction that, in addition, he could conceptualize the experience mathematically. Really? Science at best can suggest the spiritual (consciousness) in and beyond space-time, it cannot figure it out, lest by dint of absurdity, it attempts to make itself equal to, as opposed to a subset of all things conscious/spiritual. A scientist can never be content with doffing his hat to mystery. He insists that all things must be understood rationally, refusing to bow to anything but reason as his God.

[@whippet71]

Math is not the truth. It just points to truth.

[@dwivedys]

I fail to understand just how do we know that while ALL of what we know is merely an interface but not the consciousness that helps us in knowing? How do we know that in this world - which according to the claim Dr Hoffman proposes - natural selection hides the true reality and allows us access merely to an Interface to let us live - how do we know that our claim of Consciousness being the real true reality isn’t faulty itself?

[@aamirhussainshaikh1637]

Om=mc^2 , is wrong statement whenever you talks about things which are out of space and time . Because energy is as well creation .

[@arjun_life_itself]

Implies Life is the Ultimate VR.

[@Ray3645]

I thought that trying to understand Tom Campbell was tough, but this guy's even harder to follow.

[@ITSALLFYA]

Its nice to free your mind of anything recognizable, to be as open minded as you can, question every perception, and accept nothing. None of these theories is true, and it's unlikely to be useful except in the sense that mysticism is stimulating and entertaining. Happy 4/20 everybody!

[@Videot99]

It's an age old question: Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one there to hear it? After studying quantum mechanics for years, I still have to believe it does. But people will believe whatever supports their world view. Meanwhile, if Dr. Hoffman is on to the essence of consciousness, it seems likely that the AI singularity will soon follow. Will it be long after that before organic creatures are obsolete?

[@jr6200]

I tended to think that the falling tree with no one around does not make a sound, since sounds are what are heard

[@morbidmanmusic]

Yes. It does.

[@TheFreddieFoo]

"if he stepped on tail the dog would yelp, so, there's some cross species exchange of what?" -> information?

[@level1dodo896]

I'm very curious to know what Don Hoffman thinks about the Fundamental consciousness, more in depth. To me it sounds like he believes it could be a single entity almost.

[@esbenandreasen6332]

I actually think this is it. This is the solution to the hard problem and so many other challenges to our understanding of the physical world. Will this be the next Copernican revolution? Also, does anyone know of any relevant criique of Hoffman's theory? Thanks.

[@spiralsun1]

Esben Andreasen Yes, logically you make an awesome point. It IS. I know this because I have thought the same things independently for several decades and basically wrote and presented papers for years on these same issues. I have written a book about this myself that complements and expands these ideas greatly. (I used to be Steven E Romer when I wrote the book and papers including the paper: “Going Beyond our Evolutionarily-Limited World View”... and my book: “The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God”. etc. ) These ideas are the key to the unified theory we have been seeking but we need to unify all our knowledge- not just physics. Information theory is part of the key too. Anyway yes, you are so correct!! The fact that I came up with these ideas independently and connected them to more basic problems in science shows that this is a solution based on the state of information now. I came up with them to solve the “hard problem” of consciousness before we even had named the problems of consciousness. It has been a long wait. Lol. It reminds me of the idea of heliocentrism spreading or scientific revolution in general in a Kuhnian sense. This is the real deal. :-) I am just hoping that some day I will be able to continue thinking and writing about these things full-time. I have solved many more problems and related this to so many things since I wrote the book that it’s overwhelming and somewhat painful to be truthful. Thanks for the comments!!!!

[@illipopovic4556]

So the conclusion is that we really don’t know❓😂

[@nn-uj1iv]

yeah complete bullshit.

[@charlesgallagher1376]

Matter matters

[@j.h252]

True, different species have different impressions of a tree, hence they have different sensorial systems and also a different processing of the tree inputs inside their consciousness, since all agents even of the same kind are different in interpreting these sensual inputs. How Depak comes to the idea, if all would see the tree in the same manner predator and prey animals would lose their difference and the garden of Eden opened its doors, is so superficial and esoterically blind as a lot of Depaks views are sounding paradisaical but are a bit dull. Think Depak is scanning selectively all fields supporting his views, if not they are false or are getting made to fit.

[@JH-ji6cj]

You're not wrong, but think how perfectly your description of Chopra's bias fitting into a fitness payoff view. The Religious and the tribalism/group think that supercedes scientific knowledge is exactly the type of thing Hoffman is exploring here. Not that we all aren't doing the same on some level, which I can expect is the truth.

[@sabrina1625]

the collab i never knew i needed

[@carlhammill5774]

What Hoffman is ultimately saying is its likely we can't comprehend true reality so in mean time lets create some math models that allow us to sleep at night.

[@fineasfrog]

Now that is a good sense of humor. Thanks.

[@dankleffmann2473]

This might seem unimportant and silly to most, but I think it would be a good idea to use a de-esser on Deepak's audio. His "s" sounds are atrocious! Great talk though!

[@mimiseton]

Totally agree! And so does Hoffman. Bad sound mix (too many high frequencies in an acoustically bright setting -- allowing the hissing that drives us nuts)

[@anterpants]

Well, I didn't hear it earlier but now you've altered my conscious experience and I can't stop hearing it.

[@moesypittounikos]

How do dreams fit into Hoffman's model? Dreams are also projections of the mind. If this universe is a shared 'x', and the dream is a personal 'x', then who is the dreamer?

[@PaulHoward108]

Moesy Pittounikos The Vedas describe everything that occurs in time with a past, present, and future is a dream, and the ultimate dreamer is Kṛṣṇa. The contribution from Kṛṣṇa is in creating the possibilities, and the contribution from regular living entities is making choices that actualize events. I don't know what Hoffman might say about dreams.

[@gangsterkami1]

You are the dreamer my friend. Essentially the universe is a dream we are all dreaming. Since we are all dreaming it, it is reality. We have all decided to dream this reality because we are all one. I mean we are literally all the same entity. We are all pure awareness. Dreams are just personal ones we have constructed for ourselves.

[@carlhammill5774]

I agree that dreams and our life experiences are both projections of the mind.

[@Peter-rw1wt]

What is science trying to do ? They asked the question, but what is the answer ? We (most of us) think that we really are the thinker, and that thinking is therefore the best way of addressing any question. But thinking is not intelligence; it is process, and all of science is process, and process offers the advantage of efficiency in understanding, in comparison with what it replaces, which is intuition. How does process offer efficiency ? What is intuition ? Is intuition the understanding that belongs with stillness of mind. ? Meditation cultivates stillness, and therefore cultivates intuition, which comes, and goes again, completely. When thinking begins, intuition is delegated to ideation, and thoughts can be remembered, or delegated further to language and communication. This ensures continuity through time, but continuity and time are the creations of process. How can a human being, who is alive and therefore only present, be convinced of the reality of time ? Is time a device in understanding, a present device, that is creating continuity, that can be interpreted as space or time ? How would that be possible ? In a reality that is always present, can a continuity of process create the subjective reality of time, and can many subjective realities create the objective reality of time ? Is process self-referential ? Is self-referentiality efficient ? Does efficiency reach a maximum in automation ? Is automation totally self-referential ?

[@thomassoliton1482]

According to Dr. Hoffman, scientists have 2 beliefs: that spacetime and physical matter are objective, and that we have evolved and are shaped by natural selection. ... These ideas are in conflict and cannot both be true. His reasoning is that the more accurate ("true") the representation of external reality an organism has, the less its fitness for survival. This conclusion is only true in a limited context, in particular, within individual species and their specific niche. Do humans, for example, not have a more accurate representation (not necessarily "true", but more detailed) of the external physical world than a bear? And yet which species is more threatened? While in a major armageddon, what species is most likely to survive? Cockroaches! But we can survive in the Arctic, whereas cockroaches cannot (outside of human habitation at least). We all have conscious experiences, and every conscious experience is different because the experience itself must be different. But we should not mistake "consciousness" for conscious experience. When you see leaves floating down a river, you do not mistake the leaves for the river. But the "river" of consciousness is the bioelectric activity of the brain, and is not present if the brain is dead. Without water, the river does not exist; without brain activity, consciousness does not exist. Conscious agents are symbolic representations and thus also generate a conscious experience when contemplated. They are not themselves conscious nor are they made of "consciousness". The core activity of the brain, and its fitness for survival, rests in its ability to compare and separate. This is what Dr. Hoffman has elegantly done, to separate an idea - "consciousness" - from reality. Does that make it real?

[@thanci]

What about the unknowns outside the Universe? For example what is nothingness? How do the inexsitances arrive to discoveries? Render on demand?

[@bumslotfeatures752]

enyone noticed Don having same voice than Hawkings had, just with less distortion? :D

[@TimoDcTheLikelyLad]

Donald Hoffman is a genious!!!

[@morbidmanmusic]

How wouldn't you know? You'd have to be one to know for sure... Time saver... he Is not!

[@gariusjarfar1341]

Lessons in reality, infinity, sit us in reality, philosophy from the blind our see, reality, what may it be.

[@glenemma1]

Deepak : ''What is in the belly of the''computer"? Answer: Awareness....Awareness Being Aware is It. It is not a thing. It is really Nothing. Hoffman : ''We are conscious agents communicating with other conscious agents''. Possibly, it is just one conscious agent ( so to speak ) communicating with Itself. It creates things in order to experience things. And it creates selves in order to experience self awarenesses.

[@coachmurphy100]

Not sure your location but it would be very fun for us to all get in a groups and hash out some this and that’s maybe even with some hash🌿

[@Sethan777]

I call it Abba ;-) 👍👍👍🕊🐑❣

[@AnthonyJohnson-kh8vi]

@@Sethan777 Sprinkle some dmt and we can talk about it. I've seen timeless void and interconnected realities where in between them nothing exists. It gets crazy....👾

[@Sethan777]

@@AnthonyJohnson-kh8vi 👍👍👍 No-thing, but not a nothing. 🕊🐑♥️

[@sanjivgupta1418]

Even if ' some ' mathematical equation is ' drawn' how would someone establish veracity of that equation ?

[@kyraocity]

17:00 The interface is a hack of limited access to finite resources.

[@travislawrencemusic]

Oh no! Don't tell me Hoffman is associating himself with Chopra🙄

[@JH-ji6cj]

Are you this adamant that free speech needs to be governed and that people get hurt by hearing ideas that don't confirm to their beliefs? If so, I feel sorry for you. Hoffman does an excellent job calling out Chopra for Chopra wanting a free pass to disregard all scientific law if he has a grand mental narrative to supposedly supercede them. Calling Chopra out in a non defensive way also allows Chopra to (hopefully) modify his models that he relays to his audience. Hell, Hoffman himself says that his model may be wrong and that he is working towards exploration of how to proof it (and yes, proof, not prove as it will need many mathematical proofs).

[@travislawrencemusic]

@@JH-ji6cj: to answer your question: no. I bought Hoffman's book precisely because I respect the way he presents himself and his ideas. However, the first blurb on the back of his book is by Chopra and then I'm seeing the association here too. It has made me stall in opening the book, for concern he'll just be another Sheldrake-type hack, I got duped by in my last science-topic book purchasing venture. I didn't bother to watch this video either, as I don't need to hear anymore poo from Chopra's face-hole. I'm glad to see u r reporting that Hoffman is calling Chopra out and setting himself apart.

[@JH-ji6cj]

@@travislawrencemusic well, I'm not sure either. That's the problem with snake-oil salesmen, they either know enough to know more than you and use it as advantage, or they know just enough to believe it themselves and are probably even MORE convincing that way. I've seen Michael Shermer talk with Chopra too and I think it comes down to how carefully you listen to him. My point would be that a lot of what he says has merit and it's the bits on the edges (where his thought experiments are used as proof of concept) that I have issue with. I give him slight passes (or at least I engage with his ideas to see what I think) given how often those with new ideas are squashed and discouraged. I think Chopra uses such scenarios to his advantage at times, and it's why I don't like him myself, but socially I see why others do. Confirmation bias is hard to pinpoint in myself, so I do appreciate you bringing up that he's also in Hoffman's book. Hoffman is human after all, so him using his own fitness payoff of Fame and money isn't a far stretch either, but I think the icon structure of interface and perspective is an interesting model that explains a lot to me.

[@AcerbusCastus]

Humble enough perhaps to be open to points of convergence? Good lesson for the rest of us 😉

[@amantin]

Bro, he associatez with the chair, the carpet, the air....everything. Just cuz he associatez with the cluster of things called chopra... Thats what bothered ypu?

[@GeorgWilde]

The crank and the mystic. Beautiful. Only the Atilla is missing.