Entangling Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman

Scientific investigations of consciousness that seek its biological basis typically assume that objects in space-time-such as neurons-exist even if unperceived, and have causal powers. I evaluate this assumption, using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms that study perceptual evolution, and find that it is almost surely false. Our perceptions of space-time and objects are a species-specific adaptation, not an insight into objective reality. In consequence, I propose a formal theory of consciousness-the theory of “conscious agents”-that takes consciousness to be fundamental, rather than derivative from objects in space-time. I use the theory of conscious
agents to solve the combination problem of consciousness, both for the combination of subjects and of experiences. I show that entanglement follows as a consequence of the combination of conscious subjects. I then discuss the relationship of these findings to the account of entanglement given by quantum-Bayesian interpretations of quantum theory.
Donald Hoffman, Ph.D.Cognitive Scientist and Author, Department of CognitiveSciences, U.C. Irvine
Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and author of more than 90 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See (W.W. Norton, 2000). He received his BA from UCLA in Quantitative Psychology and his Ph.D. from MIT in Computational Psychology. He joined the faculty of UC Irvine in 1983, where he is now a full professor in the departments of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research into visual perception, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences for his research on the relationship of consciousness and the physical world.

[@vudu8ball]

This guy is a mind blower. As I approach the end of my life i feel we are making real gains in understanding the mystery of existence.

[@cuchuloholic]

But are you?

[@cuchuloholic]

Approaching the end of your life I mean

[@vudu8ball]

@@cuchuloholic yes

[@multienergy3684]

Are you still with us?!😓

[@vudu8ball]

@@multienergy3684 So far so good.

[@vamsiallavarapu3440]

"We had to give up flat earth, we had to give up geo centric universe. That was just warm up. Now what we have to give up is our very notion of perception, space and time, that physical objects reflect reality " - Donald Hoffman 24:07 Mind- Blown!

[@julieimperl8825]

The math that he used to change from one consciousness observing the world to two consciousnesses observing each other blew my mind. I don't care how "correct" this is about describing our interactions with the physical world, that is some beautiful fluidity of thought and playfulness with the nature of reality. And his whole reason, that he clearly states at the end. He's making a great point about how science really should be moving forward. And really about how we should be living our own lives. "I'm making a very bold scientific hypothesis. I'm trying to be absolutely precise, so that I can be shown where I am precisely wrong."

[@spiralsun1]

Julie Imperl yes! Great point.! This entire talk is about the key issue of life. He is the first person I have encountered that actually gets that life itself is a science propelled by survival. We are all theories and where we get it wrong, we are just having sexual relationships with inanimate things LOL I have written in my own book and papers that there seems to be an end game to the process of evolution though. There is a meta pattern so to speak. Discovering this is the reason for our large brains and for science. We will be moving to another level soon as we take over our own evolution.

[@danpaulson927]

Julie Imperl One of you made a ton of sense. Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[@VperVendetta1992]

That explanation of the Wave/Particle Duality and of Quantum Entanglement using the 2D cube is one of the best I've ever heard.

[@midi510]

The wave/particle duality, just as the lack of resolve between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is the Yin and Yang of the universe. The digital/analog aspects of the interface. They dance with each other to create what we perceive, but only resolve in the unmanifest unity of infinite chaos. Duality is the first level of order followed by trinity, quadrality, etc. Everything we experience fits into a level of this hierarchy. Amps/ohms/volts for example, exist at the level of trinity. Hot/cold and light/dark at the level of duality, like chaos and order. North/south/east/west and physical/intellectual/emotional/spiritual at the level of quadrality, etc.

[@jefffsfff1783]

This is probably the most useful way of interpreting the world that I have ever come across. Thank you.

[@dprfail]

hoffman has no proof of the sh*t he saying

[@crypticnomad]

@@dprfail that isn't a factually true statement. His argument is mathmatically precise and just like he says it is precise so someone can come and show him precisely why/how it is wrong. Unlike with an unfalsifiable claim(meaning can not be proven true or false e.g. existence of a god) a precise claim that is falsifiable(can be proven true or false) can be assumed to be true if it makes accurate predictions until it is proven to be false. The reason is that an unfalsifiable claim is indistinguible from a false claim and a falsifiable claim that accurately predicts things is indistinguible from a true claim.

[@alexbenzie2140]

@@dprfail just because you dont understand it doesnt make it any less true lol

[@sallyrucker8990]

I love the fact that this man has admitted he is sure of nothing, It takes deep thought to come to this conclusion.

[@0ptimal]

After years of learning, thinking, imagining, I've become largely indifferent to most of the theorys of reality that I read about. Eventually, I got to a point where I took what I've learned, and used it all to come to my own conclusion/decision about how reality really works. Well, what this man is saying is generally the same as that conclusion. Of course he describes it much more thoroughly and eloquently than I can. Cool stuff. Wish I could live for a couple hundred more years to see what humans figure out.

[@ddowusmc1970]

M Frusciante I have researched so MANY theories and none have truly resonated with me.. I took all of my learnings over the years and basically came to a very basic similar understanding that he so intelligently hypothesizes.. Brilliant presentation

[@downhillphilm.6682]

you actually believe that humans will be here a couple hundred years from now? respectfully, i do not think you are paying close enough attention. it is already over! we are on the backside now.....i so wish it wasn't so.

[@howtoscienceandmath]

I came to the same conclusion years ago... To get consciousness you can't start with determinism... Fundamentally everything must first be conscious... I love his terminology... What are the implications on theology?

[@anterpants]

Yep, I know deep down this has been exactly my intuition from a very young age. I was just never able to make a case like this.

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

I'm the same, but at the moment I'm still on the materialist side of things (having come from a staunchly fundamentalist Evangelical stance). Hoffman is the first man who allowed me to see what a scientific view of reality as consciousness might look like. It actually makes sense of the data without clinging to obviously false mythologies or dogmatic assertions about that which we cannot know with certainty. Idealism (or conscious realism as he calls it) seems like a very worthy 'opponent' to materialism.

[@e-t-y237]

Tremendous material. I wish he instead of saying "Do we see the truth?" would say something like "Do we see fundamental reality?"

[@sallyrucker8990]

He is trying to find fundamental reality with a cognizant reality or not.

[@mjt1517]

Synonyms

[@sallyrucker8990]

@@mjt1517 I should have said cognizant versus conscience realities.

[@anialiandr]

"We reify the limits of our perception and call it reality" -- Donald Hoffman, UC Irvine

[@bizambo100]

We even go a step further and call parts of it God and God’s creation which is even more absurd

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

@@bizambo100 I mean it's absurd in the fact that we don't know, but it might be anything.

[@rustybolts8953]

It's certainly not nothing and that's all I know so far for certain. What it is exactly is still a mystery to me as is also infinity which fascinates me to the point of obsession almost as beautiful as a beautiful woman to me... Not only physically but in 'reality' something more than physicality... What exactly that is, remains a mystery as yet to me...

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

I appreciate Donald's humility. It allows me to listen to him without feeling forced to blindly agree with his views and then dogmatically defend them. None of us know what's really going on on the grand scale. So a little humility in our opinions goes a long way.

[@supernova11491]

This is one of the best lectures I've seen in years!

[@neil6477]

Absolutely brilliant. For the first time ever I see and sane, sensible way forward for the conscious/physical world dynamic. Just wish I wasn't too old to participate in the research that DH is running. Why couldn't this have occured when I was at my PhD stage, 50 years ago? Still, an excellent letcure, well presented and extremely thought provoking. Thank you!

[@stulee986]

my friends and I worked all of this out at the age of 14 after taking magic mushrooms!

[@neil6477]

@@stulee986 No you didn't - not the mathematics - don't believe you - you wouldn't have understood the mathematical notation aged 14 and I don't know if you understand it now? It isn't the concept of what DH is talking about that is new - the idea goes bcak thousands of years - but I have never seen such an excellent set of mathematically derived equations - that is what makes this special!

[@Guanaalex]

Age has many perks. You might have time and You might want to consider to read the book from Dr. Rick Strassmann, DMT - The Spirit Molecule. That will get you started ;)

[@neil6477]

Guanaalex I do have a well worn copy of such text on my bookshelves. I agree it is wonderful book.

[@Amanmachtmusik]

@@neil6477 no one limits you to study whatever you deem interesting neil

[@sngscratcher]

“Whatever matter is, it is not made of matter” - physicist Hans Peter Dürr "Just as with color and sound, it turns out that matter as we know it exists only in the mind" - physicist Peter Russell

[@antonystringfellow5152]

I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is that … one has to find a possibility to avoid the space-time continuum altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory. - Albert Einstein (1954)

[@jomen112]

Typical examples of quote mining, trying to give the impression the quotes says something it does not. Taken in the whole context of physics these quote does not in any form or shape supports mind/body dualism. Nor that the mind precedes matter/energy.

[@crabsynth8761]

Jump of a bridge, Matter exists only in the mind, we'll just reload at our last Checkpoint - Me :P

[@divineoracle7944]

It was set in stone by Einstein, there is no matter there is only something we call energy or light. We live without question inside a simulated world.

[@mandarkumthekar8565]

So called open minded skeptics ,don't be smart,you couldn't.

[@michaelt1775]

Dr Hoffman is bringing many changes to how science is perceived. His work on consciousness is thought provoking. Genius

[@spiralsun1]

What I have been saying for many years. I said it like this: “There’s no reason to believe that evolution prepared us to see what is really going on when we open up and peer at brains or neurons”. This was the basis for my papers and the book I wrote in 2003... It’s nice to see that someone else gets it and can actually “think beyond Our evolutionarily evolved world view” as I put it. YES! I also thought that existence itself is a binary issue as stated in Shakespeare Lol. To be or not to be, that is the question. Indeed. Why is there something rather than nothing? Best video I have seen in 20 years. Maybe ever... Our species specific way of representing things YES! But there is more to it. All organisms are theories of the universe. We operate according to our theories. There is hope in that we have seen the edges of our theories and can detect that this is so. I think it’s because we have an obstacle to our survival looming in our future that requires us to understand this in order to maintain our existence. TRUTH is life. Even if lower theories are “tricks” of survival they contain elements of truth or reality-even if we are not forming the correct theory or we are generalizing incorrectly from them. This is the first time I have encountered someone who can think around our evolutionarily constructed world view as a direct and basic issue similar to the idea of heliocentric theory becoming central in the past. I use the same example in my book “The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God” Which sees an overall meta-pattern to the overcoming of our evolutionarily limited world view. I take what he is saying as the basic foundation of everything I say in that book and in all my papers I have presented since then. This is the key issue of the 21st century.

[@bobjary9382]

Okay !! A comment worthy of reading at last Blessings

[@dylanvangaalen3527]

Not trying to rebut, but an actual question. Is the “seeing beyond” what we would think of as an evolutionary based world view not in itself a product of evolution? If not, what has freed our species to transcend the “natural”?

[@joblakelisbon]

Do you have a link to your publications? I would love to take a look. Also - the fact that we're attuned to fitness indicators with food, sexuality, shelter etc. Does this explain addictive substances, sugary foods and pornography? They're all hijacking those fitness mechanisms in our organism - so we are drawn to them even if we know they are not particularly good for us.

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

Warning: There are a lot of angry, pseudointellectual, billiard ball type materialists in the comment section who believe that the world exists exactly as they consciously perceive it, but that conscious perception doesn't exist. It's best to stay clear of these walking oxymorons.

[@__Henry__]

hahaha what do you mean by billiard ball?

[@jed8929]

Amen to that, brother. Esp. Mr. Smith insisting on logic while spewing logical fallacies, ad hominems and the like.

[@estring123]

god i want to fucking murder all those materialist shitheads. they are a disease to society with their "consciousness is illusion" and "free will doesnt exist", trying to convince everyone else to join their hedonistic narcisstic lifestyle and making it the norm in the future.

[@nezumifluff]

@@estring123 What a neat, healthy attitude you got there my friend

[@estring123]

@@nezumifluff lol

[@terriensberg5487]

I like Dr. Hoffman’s theory very much and appreciate his open-mindedness. A question about the train metaphor: should I take myself seriously but not literally? Is my physical presence an icon representing a deeper reality, possibly a soul?

[@rolandanderson1577]

Finally, finally! I have grasped the concept of superposition and entanglement. Using the cube was a fantastic analogy. Gave me great insight. Just could not understand the "dead or alive cat".

[@mollyclock8238]

i truly hope you have made progress since this talk.

[@109ARIANA]

So excited to have finally discovered Donald Hoffman...

[@KipIngram]

6:30 - Ah, this description of entanglement is going to make a lot of people happy. A lot of folks are going to suddenly think, "I GET IT!!!" Nicely done!

[@jackpullen3820]

Hoffman nailed it !!! All the way to quantum gravity, which may take a long time to prove, but we already see hints through strange effects such as quantum annealing computers calculating beyond our dimension. Also time is accepted to exist in all possible states in the quantum gravity field. He makes a really good point about our perception of consciousness itself, that much more is actually going on that we are unaware of all the time, processing in our minds awake and asleep.Many people like myself have had strange experiences in our life that were beyond normal explanation.Much of the discourse of this talk in some rudimentary form has been working within my grey matter sense I was 6 years old and trying to understand what it is we call existence. Is it mind, or is it matter? Thank you!

[@marie-pierreblanc3899]

really appreciate this perspective, thank you.

[@synesthesia251]

This guy is the man!

[@Kirby-Krios]

He is a alien! ^_^

[@justappearances]

hybrid green he's got PhD from MIT and he is a professor at UCI

[@bigfletch8]

iwbtssothy To watch this is very humbling.I am quite bright, but had an aversion to the academic road as a young man.Five decades later, I can see clearly why my "near the surface" (consciousness...in--tuition ) lead me down the path I followed, where I can comprehend him, Lanza, Penrose, Sheldrake, Eagleman and and many other " barrier breaking" intellectuals, not from a theoretical perspective, but get conformation that the intellectual road is only a step in the self awareness reality. In other words, not much information, but an endless stream of confirmation.I would love him to have a conversation (as did David Eagleman) with Jaggi Vasidev (Sahdguru) to see how theory meets actuality. . The brain consists of neurons and other than the instinctive reflex actions he referred to, nothing really happens until you start to programme, and like the current a.i. discussion, the neurons cannot programme themselves.In the entanglement world, there is a stream of ,mutual programming going on.I refer to it as mutual sculpting...until "below the surface" consciousness Springs into life. The acorn is a popular Zen style analogy.In each acorn is every leaf yet to manifest...but wait there is ,more 🤔🤔🤔...so is every acorn in the new tree. A unique tree interacting with ""tree consciousness"..it is interesting (and further confirmation) that recently underground communications was identified beyond the root system from tree to tree...like a tree version of the 100 monkey syndrome.

[@evelyneinjeyan9469]

Arnold Nagy .

[@anterpants]

Because matching pants don't serve him any fitness.

[@DennisHelstrom]

A theory hard to dismiss or dispute. Great presentation....

[@robbyr9286]

It seems to line up w/ Ken Wilbur's ideas about everything having an interior & exterior aspect.

[@MrMJSLICK]

Great lecture. For me, almost as if Hoffman had brilliantly constructed mathematical formulas, algorithms and calculations for Indra's Net of Jewels.

[@ori8425]

+MrMJSLICK I must have missed all of those. All I saw was a guy pretending there was math involved by showing a geometric shape with some labels on it then moving on without providing a shred of the so called math involved.

[@ninasvane]

MrMJSLICK Yes, for me too. It is very exciting.

[@name5702]

@@ori8425 if you’re unsatisfied you could always research this theory of conscious agents yourself

[@supernova11491]

I like the art design behind him!

[@gabrielszohner6243]

excellent presentation......surely will lead many to the ultimate question." Who am I "...?!

[@joshc7865]

He speaks a lot like Dr Malcolm from Jurassic Park

[@flaggerify]

Sounds more like Jack Palance.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

If you sound like a scientist, people overlook the silliness.

[@joshc7865]

@@ernststravoblofeld a little naive aren’t we

[@ernststravoblofeld]

@@joshc7865 We meaning you and who else?

[@joshc7865]

@@ernststravoblofeld we would be meaning yourself

[@terrythetuffkunt9215]

Could donalds theory be a solution to the Fermi paradox? Also, could the autism spectrum disorder be a glich in the interface which allows more stimuli in, therefore somewhat affirming what donald is saying?

[@markv2087]

This is a brilliant summary that brings together points Hoffman makes elsewhere. Bonus is that he has a very good sense of humor on display here. Is there anyone else out there who has taken the understanding that our perceived reality is a construction, and not only made a coherent "why" case (fitness competition), but also offered an idea, complete with mathematical model, of what IS the reality behind appearance, and how to test his ideas? He's taken the data where it leads, which most neuroscientists are too hamstrung by their assumptions to do. I really admire him for this.

[@areyouavinalaughisheavinal5328]

21:45 picture on the left, pupils are bigger than on the right. Very clever reasoning for doing so!

[@josdelijster4505]

Brilliant.. i have a few lectures now.. it is mindblowing

[@waituntil3434]

very gratifiing to watch someone else expressing what you have intuitively known to be "true" since quite a while already...also nice to dicover you , monica among the audience , although i didn't quite get the point of your question..... cheers!

[@plejaren1]

GREAT explanation

[@007witharvind]

Life changing knowledge. Thank you Donald Hoffman.

[@tomg2946]

Excellent exposition. I hope enough resources and interest goes into further experimental investigation of this theory or any developments of this theory, as it has enormous ramifications, if it is not wrong.

[@rbecerramiami]

My God. This is stunning. The man has quantified Indra's net of Jewels. Brilliant.

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

True

[@jameseverett9037]

What is Indra's net of jewels?

[@Baleur]

The concious agent stuff is very similar to some aspects of scientology, in the idea of your body being made up of countless smaller entities. Then of course Hubbard had to go and ridicule his own bollocks with the Xenu and volcano stuff. But you get my point. This is more of a "scientific" serious thought about how this would work. Basically viewing all of reality as a collaboratively manifested "multiplayer game". What is ESPECIALLY interesting about this theory, is how interfaces conflict, especially if two space faring civilizations were to encounter each other. Would we even be able to recognize each other, with ZERO evolutionary experience in dealing with such entities? Would we even see each other proper forms? Is this part of an explanation of the UFO phenomena, why it mostly seems to be "lights"? Just as an Ant might not even see a human being as anything more than a mountain, would we even "see" higher beings as anything we deem concious? Or would we just see them as random flickers of light, or stars..... If a human being is (which we know it physically is even if we take the materialist view) simply a collective of an infinity of microscopic bacteria, molecules, cells and so forth, each interacting with nearby neighbors in simple ways (dna replication, enzyme creation, etc), with NO understanding or comprehension of the entity they are COLLECTIVELY creating "higher up", which is YOU..... If that is the case, then, would it not also stand to reason that one might even argue that a metropolitan city is another higher concious agent, composed of millions of human concious agents, which in turn are composed of trillions of bacteria / cell concious agents... This could be stretched all the way up to a whole planet, star, or galaxy.. How do we know that a city isnt concious? Because we assume it cant be, since it has no physical brain. Yet a city evolves, like an organism. It need more and more people, like an organism needs more neurons, or raw resources to sustain itself. A city needs its inhabitants to maintain it, and improve itself, in order to lure more inhabitants there, to grow. The inhabitants act as raw material and energy delivery mechanisms within the organism. The more desire the inhabitants have to make the city "better", the larger the city will grow. The larger it grows, the more inhabitans and raw materials it can aquire. The buildings or parks or industries that the inhabitans collectively create, influence future inhabitants behaviors. A beautiful tourist destination, brings more "neurons" to the collective, as well as more energy (money), which leads to more raw resourses (new districts). Every single inhabitant continually travels and communicates with its connection points, like neurons transmitting data between neurons. Businessmen connect with others to plan new districts, or new buildings. This in turn grows the city, and draws in even more concious agents to the area, which further grows the capabilities of the city as a whole. How can we say for sure, that the city itself, doesnt develop an awareness, not a singular identity, not a god mind, but a collective of every human inhabitants actions and reactions, causing effect and change on a macroscopic level that the individuals are rarely aware of. How does a bacteria in your gut become aware of the conciousness you have right now? It cant, it wont. How does the neurons in your brain become aware of the thought THEY are "individually" taking part in creating right now, as a collective? The specific neurons firing right NOW as you're reading these words, do they know what these words are? No, they dont. They have no concept of it, they simply send and recieve impulses. Completely oblivious of the macroscopic chain effect they have on YOU manifesting these thoughts right now. Could a city be the same, or a planet, or galaxy? How do we know that a galaxy isnt concious? How does an outside observer know that a brain in a jar is concious? He can merely observe the physical activity in the brain, the neurons firing electrons, the synapse receptors reacting to stimuli, but he can NEVER truly know if its more than a reactionary machine, that it has "thoughts".... Only the brain itself knows that. So then, how can we know that a galaxy, or planet, or even city, is not concious? If composed of concious agents interacting, transmitting information, data and raw materials in a vast complicated network within it? How does your neurons create your identity? They merely transmit electrons and chemicals. How does that collectively form your thoughts? Then how does a galaxy create its identity, if it has one? We'd say it merely is composed of stars, transmitting photons and gravity between each other. How do the stars and radiation between them, form a "thought"? We have so much more to learn.... We understand nothing.

[@midi510]

If you keep going up the scale, you get to where everything that ever was, is, will, or even could be is one undivided whole. I assert that this is the source of all things; God. It is the conscious agent that all other conscious agents are expressions of. It is infinite, absolute, God consciousness. And remember that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so it’s not like it’s made up of everything else. It is, and everything else comes from it, is an expression of it. Imagine a hierarchy as a triangle with unity at the peak and multiplicity at the base. Duality is below unity and trinity below duality, etc. Everything we can ever think or say is at the level of duality or below. At that level, we get chaos and order, analog and digital, female and male, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc. For anything in the manifest world to be what it is, it has to not be everything else. We can only experience the world as we do, because It’s all divided or broken up. As one, there is no thing separate from anything else. There is no knowing anything, because to know is to have a knower and what is known. To have experience is to have an experiencer and what is experienced. Whatever anyone might think or say, including what I am saying, is not real truth or reality. Whatever anyone might say about God is not God. It’s just a particular way of connecting the dots or a particular way of understanding our circumstances. We can, however, make a consciousness connection with the source, the oneness; God. Now, how I must write of it is erroneous because to have a connection is to have what is connected and the thing that it is connected to. It’s more like becoming it. The funny thing is, we do not cease to not be it, even when we are it. (Even from a Christian perspective, oneness with God is the goal. It’s through Christ that one has the relationship with the Father that Christ does.) We are expressions of the source that fulfill a cycle by returning to and becoming one with the source.

[@SabreenSyeed]

That desktop example was deep!!!

[@carlos.rberto]

I finally found an explanation about reality that makes sense to me.

[@williamst.george5908]

Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason (1781) presented what Dr Hoffman is now presenting.

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

If that is true, thanks for the tip off.

[@derris3989]

the transcendental aesthetic?

[@psyberking]

Hoffman goes beyond Kant, who stopped at the noumenon or "thing in itself" as being unknowable. Hoffman identifies the noumena with conscious agents (in the spirit of Schopenahuer, who identified these with "The Will"), Also, he presents a precise theory that can be scientifically falsified, unlike Kant's purely philosophical approach.

[@pvybe]

Questions: Is a human being a conscious agent network, or a single conscious agent? Seems to me that it is likely the latter if consciousness is creation. Can we assume that that it takes 2 or more conscious critters to do the double slit experiment? Right and left hemisphere as network of conscious agents? Right hemisphere makes sense of the wave and is cool with the concept of superposition, left hemisphere is not and picks the position. Or a human and a measuring device? Measuring device taking the position of the right hemisphere conscious agent, being cool with the cognitive dissonance, fuzziness, and superposition, and the human serving the function of the left hemisphere and fixing the point; not at all unlike the conscious agent network. Does a singular conscious agent even exist? Can it exist in a closed system?

[@michaelt1775]

1 that has many parts that are all unique. You are 1 of those many parts of the "origin"

[@crazyeyedme4685]

Its kinda tragically funny how our species thats only recently begun to study the nature of consciousness and reality has already forgotten its own miraculous existence.

[@leo333333able]

Exciting ideas

[@robsmith1a]

My dreams feel just as real to me as the 'real world' and I am sure I construct them. Interesting stuff.

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

Your dreams lake entanglement of consciousness with other "agents". That's why they fade quickly. To give your perceptions more energy, and thus greater long lasting impression, you need the input of another entangled conscious agent(s).

[@jomen112]

So mere sensor input is not enough, you actually need to entangle your consciousness with the the stones consciousness to experience and remember the impact in your forehead ? Never heard about that theory before but sounds cool. Man, all this talk about "energy", "reality" and "truth" just want me to smoke more pot.

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

Pot really does help in understanding quantum entanglement.

[@zamoth73]

Maybe when you wake up, you are still dreaming. It's just a dream more suitable for a moving body.

[@midi510]

@@CanisLupusSeesUs That's why there's so much commonality (reinforcement) in our experiences of "the world". I think there's a hierarchy of conscious agents. Those "upstream" influence those "downstream" in a way that those downstream don't affect those upstream. A kind of consciousness entropy. It's like a boat's wake while crossing a lake influences the boats behind it and is influenced by the boats ahead of it. God is the original consciousness who is the first boat crossing the glassy lake influencing all boats behind it. God doesn't need our entanglement for God's existence, but for the experience of the universe. Maybe dark matter and dark energy (95% of the universe) is the "real" world and the 5% that is detectable is the interface. Then there's the matter of transcending the interface to experience real reality.

[@befree8850]

One word Tom Campbell and his already 15 years old virtual reality Model to everyone who get a taste of of what this gentlemen saying great stuff thank you for solidifying what i have came a cross as far as knowledge you are brilliant Mr Donnald Hoffman :).

[@DanielRamBeats]

The idea we’re a network of conscious agents for some reason makes sense. But I wonder what influences the agents to work together and listen to one another to create coherent actions such as feeling an itch and your hand scratching your nose as a reaction. Clearly I am half aware but mostly it is an unconscious process. Another is the expansion and contraction of the lungs to coincide with the beating of a heart. How was it possible for the heart to consciously be aware of when to pump based on the oxygen content provided by the lungs without causing cardiac arrest spontaneously

[@univibe23]

Plato really was on to this 2k yrs ago wasn't he with the cave/shadows metaphor

[@jameseverett9037]

Hey, didn't you write "I Am The Walrus"? That's some gnarly sh_t man.

[@neil6477]

Yes he, or at least his teacher Socrates, were on to this idea - as were the ancient Vedic teachers from 5,000 years ago. However, remember that the idea itself, consciousness preceeds physical, isn't the only thing that DH is arguing. He is trying to place the argument on a firm mathematical foundation in order that it can be demonstarted as a scientific approach to what we call reality.

[@banderastube]

Hey Donald, your ideas are exactly the same with Tom Campbell's theories of everything that it veryy COOL , and i wonder what if D. Hoffman will meet T.Campbell to talk about this things,it will be awesome i bet

[@JamesHolben]

Wow...a lot to think about

[@TheGreatAlan75]

I'm addicted to listening to this guy... He is really into something

[@howtoscienceandmath]

This guy is considerably more intelligent in his thinking than even many of the physicists and mathematicians I have been around... Very impressed right now!

[@sallyrucker8990]

He is so close to discussing spirituality. He cannot do it. He has not been touched by it, as of yet.

[@jeremiahcroswhite2333]

I think the last question was asked by Monica Gagliano who does really interesting work as well. There is a world science festival upload with her as a guest "intelligence without brains" if I'm correct. It is a good one. Good luck y'all.

[@jonnyhandsome5749]

Understanding is the reward of faith. So believe not in understanding but understand that though mayest believe! St. Augustine

[@self-rewardingqbitsunderhu3765]

This is the second talk I watched and enjoyed. But now I have a more eerie feeling about Donald Hoffman's intelligence and / or his motivations. It seems to me he wants to share but for some reason he hesitates. He thinks faster than he speaks and he is limited by time. About limitation: he talks about an infinite conscious network and at the Q&A he says he is finite. Also what is not clear to me if he can (for himself) distinct reality and truth. Reality is subjective and truth is objective. This can become quite slippery. Also defining being conscious. You become (more) conscious if you can see your unconscience. But then, when you go sit on top of your conscience ? He talks about more than ten years of meditation and makes a distinction between left and right hemispheres. Wouldn't the brainstem in the middle of the two halves communicate with each other as a whole in the meantime? All in all: fortunately something meaningful on KZbin and someone who gives my brain something to do (fitness, or survival of the fitness).

[@AlexHop1]

Thank you. These ideas really spark thought!

[@mukeshgupta2919]

Amazing stuff. Just want to share an observation that in 22.39 its told India switched to round earth perception around 300 ad. I think it may be otherwise as one of the oldest scriptures of the world is Rigveda around 5000 years before and it has several references where earth is depicted round . Infact since ages geograohy subject is called bhogol which translates bhu for earth and gol is round.

[@ph7klw1976]

true pioneer

[@bluecafe509]

That was awesome.

[@justappearances]

Brilliant!

[@jstout333]

Thanks! Enjoyed

[@santosg4606]

It might be that consciousness is a splitting of the self into an infinite amount of factions happening through the eyes of the imagination by channeling a separate self as its center point of being therefore identity is shifted and given to this separate self as being the only thing that you are and nothing could be further from the truth because when the realization hits , you would be amazed knowing that you have no particular identity because its all you everywhere , everything, every-time!

[@OceanicMemory]

Yea, with illusion of time that separation could manifest as reality! consciousness don't need time! but in order to experience something else it needs to have a concept of separated other, you need to be conscious of something, be aware of something else! at base it need separation or it can't experience anything! when there is no input there is no experience! So the idea of time is created by consciousness!! so consciousness is always in cycle of changes! it's the same quality that let free will and time exist at the same time!

[@ddownpound6]

I am thou, thou art I

[@marekdrzewiecki3780]

How would you try to define conscious agent, not as a content of its consciousness but as something being aware of the content ? Who is the "I" who sees the interface?

[@midi510]

It's/they're fundamental. Can't be broken down or torn apart. It's/they're the "given" or assumption in the model. It/they just is/are.

[@hanktheblesseddeejay]

I think the pupils are manipulated to look dilated on the image of Jolie on the left. I was more drawn to the image on the right however because I felt it looked 'correct' ie, more natural. Anyone else considered that image?

[@MsConstrued1]

absolute truth. excellent.

[@lindal.7242]

"More complexity requires more time" We have been on this precipice of science merging with spirituality for the last 100 years, and recently at an accelerated rate. So much so that because technology has freed up our time and curbed our dependence on physical exertion for our survival, we have evolved our mental state and will continue to do so at an incredibly fast pace. This was always the plan...man becomes God in every sense and the responsibility of it all, leaves all of life hanging in the balance.

[@PokePersonPower]

If a man were to grow up in some garden or forest entirely by himself, sustaining himself through an endless supply of fruits, what would that network of conscious agents look like? Would it just be one conscious agent where the world W is in fact physical, as he has no other consciousnesses to interact with? Also, is there any contradiction in supposing that every conscious agent is connected to a same world W, rather than with each other?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

It would depend on whether a conscious being is able to come into existence purely as the result of the unfolding of DNA and the experience of eating fruit or not. Many hold that without the experience of growing up in a culture and learning a language, the conscious mode of being will be unrecognizable in such individuals. Reactive, yes but conscious, doubtful. And we must be careful to distinguish between conscious and reactive. They are not the same. You know how you can drive a car while at the same time participate in a fascinating conversion such that when you arrive at your destination you gasp in surprise saying something quite odd like, "How did we get here"? Now just imagine that early humans entire minds were like that part of your mind that was driving the car while the rest of your mind was enjoying the conversation. Now imagine that those who grow up outside culture and language are like that, able to survive but not conscious agents. To stock your mind with relevant thoughts... See the wild boy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron#Study and Piaget: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development and Julian Jaynes: s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf and read Douglas Hofstadter's great Pulitzer winning book, "Godel, Escher, Bach" and take a course called, "Philosophy of Mind" and investigate multiple personality disorder: www.ranker.com/list/famous-cases-of-dissociative-identity-disorder/christopher-myers Cheers!

[@pvybe]

34:53 - WHAT!? Mind blown.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

Can anyone give a reference to "the paper" he references where the detailed mathematics is written down?

[@StellaGardiner]

truth will out and here we see the truth beginning to be discussed in scientific circles.

[@paxdriver]

Very interesting implications stem from some of these ideas. Thanks for the upload

[@naimulhaq9626]

Extremely interesting account of how consciousness is simulated without perception, or erroneous perception. This is not Dan Dennet's illusion or magic, but subset of conscious agents (CA). All subsets of CA makes the universal conscious agent. This new idea of simulation involves observation/measurement, as in quantum mechanics.

[@ezioberolo2936]

You need to review the anatomy of the eye David. The vitreous is clear, no vessels or nerves: those are "coplanar" with the retina. If you can't get this right, how can I believe the rest?

[@reuven1961]

This talk is very interesting, however raises many questions. When I am sick, what does the doctor exactly cure ? If our bodies are interface constructs, what was evolution about? When discussing fitness, ment to keep us alife, what remains alife? And so on ...

[@sergepatlavskiy1530]

For consciousness, it does not matter what the source of physical (sensory) signals is. Consciousness may or may not use the sensory input while manufacturing the new elements of experience. If some physical sensory signal is not necessary strong, or some sense organ functions poorly or is damaged, consciousness either re-processes the formerly memorized elements of experience or even exacerbates the other sense organs. In either case, the mental model of the outer world manufactured by consciousness is always to such or other extent corresponding well to the actual state of affairs (which exists objectively and independently of the cognitive activity).

[@whatsinaname7828]

Verry nice, dependent origination.

[@kantinomus]

Professor Donald Hoffman promotes some very topical ideas in modern epistemology, to which I largely subscribe. The only thing that worries me is that he makes no reference to the Kantian transcendental aesthetics and the myth of the cave, of Plato. His theory is nothing more than a naive reformulation of the epistemological (transcendental) idealism of Plato and Kant. However, for the traditional ”islander philosophy", it is a very bold step - a promising attempt to reconnect with the philosophy of the old continent.

[@genecat]

brilliant!

[@josephnunez181]

No need to be sarcastic

[@genecat]

I'm not, Joe.

[@peachespage2923]

One of the most interesting theories I’ve ever heard. Donald Hoffman is probably right.

[@yoooyoyooo]

It's actually really old checkout Hinduism then when you loose your mind switch to Buddism to fix it again. In the process you will gain this new perception and loose all of your beliefs and gain real insight.

[@yoooyoyooo]

The thing is that our perception is illusion I'm in it self. There are no concious agents there is just conciousness that is and is not the product of material world. Nothing is fundamental.

[@gyro5d]

Vortexes, hyperboloids and the Inertial plane. Consciousness told fractals how to be. Fractals from the Mandelbrot set that has Fibonacci numbered antennas on the knobs and is where magnetism is created.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Its even a esp entaglment like when your back is turned but can detect someone behind you. cant see them but yet you feel there presents.

[@mollyclock8238]

what happens in a multiple agent world?

[@KipIngram]

So, Dr. Hoffman, is the idea here that the feelings / emotions / self-awareness just parts of conscious agents that we don't know how to quantify yet? We can't quantify those, but we can quantify the parts that correspond to our theories of physics? It seems like you're "just" replacing material entities with "conscious agent" entities that can do all the same things material can, but can also do these other things required to express the solution to the "hard problem"? That's actually pretty slick. But - if that's the case, then how different is this from panpsychism? It seems like we could just add a germ of consciousness to material quanta, and then from there on out it would be just the same. We know we have the physics, and with consciousness added they'd be equivalent to your simplest conscious agents.

[@lungflogger9]

at 21:31 the left girl's eyes are slightly bigger than the right girl's eyes....we respond positively to large eyes.....

[@amawalpe]

+Downhill Phil Yep ;) I think that the dilated pupil is more attractive cause it means the girl is in love ;) It's just an interface .. like the brown beer bottle : be carefull !! :D

[@ImanAliHussein]

thanks for explanation!

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

I was wondering about that. There also appears to be a soft filter used.

[@Sekir80]

I realized that using stereogram vision. Very hand comparing to images side by side. But the point is: I finally understand why Manga is so popular now! :D

[@jameseverett9037]

Did anyone notice the faint red bands on the left, that were also outside the picture, but mostly on the left side?

[@richardbrown2521]

This word Truth, as you use it, is it inconcievable?

[@jimmybrice6360]

i have looked and looked. the red line always appears in the front, and the green line in the back

[@lovealwayswins6784]

I wonder if Don knows physicist Tom Campbell because their theories are very similar coming to similar conclusions. I would love to see a meeting of the minds between the two!

[@jeppeholm5432]

what a brilliamt teses, and a supreem presentation .... standing applaus from me but I might have been missing a point. Does the action taken by the concious ageents always and only involve manipulating physical objects? Or is a thougth also an activity eventhough is it not leading to an action in the physical realm? Especially brilliant is the part of the teses stateing that all human conciousness, all concious agents is exstisting in a mesh of interwoven connections i each of us ... and maybe there is only one human ... one body. this surely is parallel to the physical Universe: only one Universe, infinite and unescapeable. this does add to the possibility of the teses actually being right. I think (or the sum of knowledge contained in my consious agents seems to be) the Universe is unfolded from an uncomprehendable small size. Actally the Universe is consisting of one single (microscopic) supersting vibrating, ... albe to syntisize all particles of matter, thus removing the need for concious agents to be the source of the physical realm. I think cousious agents needs a body .. a vessel. And this vessel must be as complex as the number of conciuos agents involved .. or as the possible interactions of all the involved consious agents requiers.

[@prabhatyashi1148]

u are different than others...ossum! u are ahead of hawking more like einstein but lesser than newton...u are exactly like shankaracharya...take help from saamveda..u r beyond atharva veda!

[@valhala56]

Well what doesn't make sense is the camera creates photgraphs of the same thing you see. How is that possible if everything is rendered just when you look at it?

[@santoshbhusal7367]

ValhalaFiveSix but the X-ray machine captures something different than you see.it is because you haven’t created that machine that can see the truth that our eyes can’t see.

[@mycount64]

he asked what is the state of the cube when our eyes are closed. the cube does not have a state whether my eyes are open or not is irrelevant. the state of the cube is an illusion

[@Demagogue777]

Ya he uses language in a very imprecise way. He throws the word truth around way to damn much so that he can hype his stuff. He really has very little to say outside his cute metaphors IMO.

[@ori8425]

Indeed, the cube does not have a state. Hoffman would be seriously confused if he actually believed what he's saying.

[@CanisLupusSeesUs]

Except it fits in with the slit experiments and the observation problem.

[@wogi9412]

Profound

[@archentity]

42:19 Diago Umehara is into some deep stuff outside of street fighter...

[@andreaspapadakis2602]

one can reach this also by trying to see whitch functions of consiousness are fundamental and whitch are emergent...my personal feel for many years ,of time and space being an incomplete translation of reality, was mostly coming A by the fact that linear logic seems to be emergent/secondary and B by the many paradoxes and singularities that were genereted by that type of thinking..linear logic seems to be unable to ever answer grand questions related to here and there before and after and simply collapses..

[@singletron3722]

We are spiritually more evolved which I personally believe is a universal energy and that we are at the early stages of our physical evolution still meaning that the information we process from reality is being sent to our brain through information channels connected to our brain which haven't had time to evolve in relation to our society which has essentially eliminated almost all the direct threats we would face in the state of nature. I imagine given the correct amount of time our DNA will evolve the way we interpret our reality to the brain through faster more accurate neurological networks where signals don't have to operate around instincts but instead more conscious interpretations of reality. Society would have to continue this reduction of threats as we evolve in order for our evolution to make these changes. Sad thing is if over time this is successful and our DNA corrected, society would then substitute the survival instinct in us and we better hope society doesn't collapse or a lot of newly evolved people will struggle in the state of nature

[@dialatedmcd]

In the realm of the theory of evolution, it might not be wise to describe the motivating factor "To stay alive long enough to have kids." You're describing some kind of programmed will. It would make much more sense to describe it simply as, the things that stayed alive long enough to have kids, are what is, are what has survived. Just a quick inversion of the logic gives it a little more up front truth. And this is coming from someone that doesn't necessarily believe the theory of evolution, or rather does but looks at the current world as far too designful, and the leaps between survivability of one iteration and another iteration of evolution too vast to consider a natural progression - there's often far too many stages in between one successful type and another that surely wouldn't be successful, to believe in evolution on it's own.

[@gammaraygem]

soon quantum biology will acknowledge that big evolutionary leaps are possible. To make these jumps, a "need" must be present. Then Consciousness does its "thing". This might mean that the current crisis forces us into an evolutionary jump. It also explains, how, in individual lives, "prayer" actually works...a real need must be present...this is also why religions have survived: the mechanism of "prayer" is an evolutionary function to evoke Consciousness to make the necessary changes. Lets hope we evolve into Cosmic Conscious, and perhaps even shapeshifting beings...our new habitat will be the entire universe...;-)

[@maxavail]

One thing I did not get is how is the perception specificity decided. If it evolves on its own, what is it about it that evolves ? We know consciousness is the witness of perception and perception is the witness of the world. If the world is actually a relations grid between conscious agents, then perception is the act of entering such a relation. How many ways can one enter a relation so that it might be said that it evolved to be different than a while ago ? What could possibly evolve in the entering a relation and most importantly, how ? It's just a protocol, it's not even physical that it may be subject to nature's laws. So, what is it subject to then ?

[@maxavail]

***** Thx for the explanation but I had already gotten that part. What is missing is an understanding of how perception evolves. What is the "stuff" that perception is made of which evolves ? And how ? Since perception is merely a protocol (decoded information using a "language") it is therefore not subject to natural laws acting on matter, therefore unrestricted by the evolutionary paradigm. So, how does it evolve then ?

[@3877michael]

Yeah my mind is smoking after being blown up a bit. He says a lot at the end. conscious agents do not have to be perceived by you or anything. He stopped short of saying every atom and the fields they are in is a conscious agent. He did say that all and everything falls out of consciousness. He kicks physics in the balls. He kicks astrophysics in the butt. Chokes out biology and chemistry, they are all dead ! Hah ! He is smart to be so soft spoken. I am sure the science community wants to lynch him to the highest tree.

[@3877michael]

***** Well if you say it fast you could say that entanglement ( bonded attraction) is love. And what resist or is antithetical to entanglement is indifferent or hatred. When we see social separation and division a form of heartlessness results. Our culture teaches separation to our detriment. I wish they would teach conscious agent entanglement as the foundation of reality. For sure you could make a case for those who profit by breaking bonds and relationships as they dis-impower the masses. Hah? An equation for good over evil.

[@toddbowman1053]

Are the nose and ears the icons on the body, that's just an interface. Do the nose and ears have an icon in the dna?