Is Reality an Illusion? | Dr. Donald Hoffman | EP 387

[@teresadurocher8969]

I loved listening to Dr. Hoffman, and I think this is one interview that Jordan should have listened more than spoke.

[@AldoRaine43]

As someone said below, "Peterson has been the only smart enough host to discuss his theories. Everyone else just agrees without understanding". His questions are quite valuable.

[@AldoRaine43]

@user-wb4em9pw7m LOL

[@Bruhaha9]

@@AldoRaine43 Not mostly. If you spend a while absorbing Hoffman's theories, you can see in a few seconds that Jordan is off to a false start as it relates to Hoffman most of the time he gets wound up. It may be all interesting, but he's not waiting to know what Hoffman is saying. Knowing the theory fairly well, I was able say out loud the reason JP's comments just weren't connecting, and it was just what DH would say next. like "no, your whole point is still stuck in spacetime, Jordan". I'm not really throwing shade on JP, just saying he wasn't really on it. But that's not surprising. It's a really fundamentals shaking theory. You can see Peterson boggle a few times unlike I've ever seen. It takes a week or two just to get your head around, and you can see JP sort of realizing that a couple times, which shows he was tracking at least how far out it was at times. JP's whole interview style is doing most of the talking and trying to shoehorn his ideas into what someone else thinks and see what they say. That didn't work so well here. But it's ok.

[@Bruhaha9]

@user-wb4em9pw7m Well yes, but to be fair, lack of prep doesn't fully track a person's general intellectual level. He couldn't bring it to bear here, I fully agree.

[@creedsc1399]

The first part of discussion gives that impression, you can find a bunch of Dr.Hoffman's interviews basically laying out the theory on repeat, but JP uncoveres interesting depths of ideas and that is the point.

[@Fierbepere]

More than once in the past ideas such as those of Dr. Hoffman crossed my mind. I am a neurologist and psychiatrist. Although my background and my readings have been significant primers, I still felt slapped in the face by the powerful and concise presentation of Dr. Hoffman. Like he felt when becoming aware of the significance of his findings. I wouldn't be surprised if others watching him felt slapped in the face. I consider myself fortunate for watching this video.

[@davidcorrin7309]

I too felt slapped when I first encountered his work. Slapped awake that is...

[@st1nkh3ad]

I feel the same its like hes opened your eyes for the first time as if we are under hypnotic control hard to describe when you watch his talks

[@adamvicari3295]

I am just a layman, I am not an expert in neuroscience. However, do you know how ridiculous this sounds to an outsider and non-neuriscientist? How can anything possibly exist outside of space and time? Everything in the universe takes up space and exists in a frame of time. The life cycle of every object or entity, animate or inanimate, necessarily depends on time, and that object takes up space in the universe. To think of something outside of space and time is to think of literally nothing. The human mind can not conceive of nothing because everything it perceives is within space and time. This sounds like some half baked attempt to try to justify or explain the existence of "god". Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I fail to see how anyone can rationalize something outside of space and time because the idea on its face in plain language at its essence makes no logical sense. It is a fundamentally inconceivable and irrational thought. Is this man an evangelical Christian?

[@adamvicari3295]

So the whole crackpot theory described here is just one big attempt to rationalize the god hypothesis and provide false "evidence" for the "existence" of god to the credulous and indoctrinated masses of believers. No wonder his theory is fringe, dismissed, and largely ignored or rejected by the scientific community.

[@jerm2011]

I was interested and I enjoyed hearing his ideas but its just theory. Just a way to think of things. It needn't shake you to your core or even surprise you. It could well be that he's ultimately wrong.

[@roddevere2975]

Donald Hoffman is a very patient man.

[@jorgetorres6162]

Goodness sake, Peterson keeps interrupting him.

[@FullCircqle]

When the host waffles on with zero structure to his questions and comments

[@copaito2008]

What a bunch of nonsense!!!!

[@dunki-dunki-dawg]

@@copaito2008 Metaphysics is the most astonishing subject I have ever discovered.

[@ilovetech8341]

​@@jorgetorres6162Peterson has been the only smart enough host to discuss his theories. Everyone else just agrees without understanding.

[@donaldberry4181]

Always fun to listen to Dr. Peterson interview himself.

[@thetruthexperiment]

Uh.. no

[@russberry3240]

🤔 fun to think down these paths… we got to the “we need more funding sign” ! 🤗

[@woodedape]

😂

[@alejandronunez7650]

he is stupid.. talks a bunch a stupid stuff and then throws a random word that no body uses to sound smart.. i cant listen to him for 5 minutes before my brain becomes a pulp.. i am here for Dr Hoffman!!

[@georgegraham472]

does seem like that sometimes doesn't it.

[@Ppstate32]

You need to get Bernardo Kastrup on the podcast. He’s the leading idealist philosopher (also a computer scientist). You can discuss pretty much anything with him, but the major points of interest could be idealism, artificial intelligence, Carl Jung and Christianity.

[@charlesp7504]

Kastrup is too ideologically possessed to have a productive conversation with JP. I doubt he would even allow himself a conversation with JP.

[@marycatherinelin]

the Kabbalah

[@ellekay5241]

This conversation most definitely requires a part 2! You stopped at the very moment that it was getting most interesting!

[@Arjunanke]

Donald Hoffman is phenomenal ❤

[@VolodymyrPankov]

Zero proofs. Only verbage.

[@dunki-dunki-dawg]

@@VolodymyrPankov Zero proofs? What about 'Non Local Realism is False'..! That statement won the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize and it is wrapped up in Hoffman's theory. Everything Hoffman and his team are doing has to be able to project 'Spacetime' and Darwinian evolution or else Hoffman must reject it...all of it..! He couldn't really be anymore further away from verbage. He mentions how all these must fit together in every interview he speaks about his work. I can't fault Hoffman's integrity, willingness to be as transparent and openly truthful and also trustworthy about all of it.

[@andrewbud]

This is the sort of interview where Jordan's tendancy to interject really does the topic a disservice. I've seen many interviews with Donald Hoffman handled much better. He's really on the frontier and intersection of cognitive science, neuroscience, computer science, and philosophy, and Jordan ends up needlessly muddying the waters with his tangents and detours. I can tell Jordan meant well and was genuinely interested in his ideas, but if anyone is interested in understanding Hoffman's work (and the incredible implications that arise out of it), I'd recommend pretty much any other podcast he's done.

[@lieutenantbl4ck]

Alternatively. Why would you want them to cover the same grounds that have already been explored in other podcasts?

[@andrewbud]

@@lieutenantbl4ck I wouldn't for my own sake, but for many people I would imagine this is their first exposure to Donald Hoffman's ideas. It would have been a more informative podcast if Jordan had cut down on the analogies and asides. Although, I suppose that's kind of a calling card of his, so I don't know. Perhaps I'm just disappointed that, because of the way Jordan views the world, he's ended up filtering Hoffman's ideas through a less revolutionary and disruptive lens than they deserve to be.

[@amphimrca]

Peterson..OMG 🙈

[@huntforberries]

Indeed. Especially because the interruptions tend to be clarifications of points still yet to be fully made, and when they don't match his presumption of where they're going, he spirals into a conclusion that he doesn't understand when perhaps had he let the guest complete their point, he would know what the concept is in completion.

[@andrewbud]

@@huntforberries Agreed. It's frustrating, but that's just how he rolls.

[@katyaloban]

One of the most fascinating interviews I’ve seen. Man, it might make believers out of some who stumbled across this dialogue. I’m so excited to see the continuation of this conversation about the topics Jordan proposed at the end. I’m into math and spiritual, too, so it’s so refreshing to hear scientists to talk about how science points in the direction of existence of One consciousness- it’s unbelievably exciting❤

[@behnaz5097]

Have you t listened to bernardo kastrup?if not i totally advice you to try .

[@nderesearchproject]

'make believers out of some'... That statement is a red flag

[@MarcBenjamin-p3o]

I've listened to pretty much every podcast you've done, Jordan, but this was the first one that broke my mind. Thank you so much. Wonderful, humbling, thought-provoking stuff.

[@bryfrancis3593]

I'm sure it did break your brain into a racist and a bigot. Try to get your brain fixed if you can.

[@quantumpotential7639]

I hope you can fix your mind soon. Now let us pray 🙏 the C A S O D E X opens for you and let's the light in. OK? Okay GOOD!! Thanks 😊

[@delavan9141]

I would much prefer that Jordan bring the discussion to his audience instead of expound on his own lovely thoughts. Throughout I was skipping over 4-5 minute expositions that seemed rather meaningless with respect to bringing out his guest's work and ideas. He seems too often to use his guests as a foil for his own desire to pontificate. Here we are at 37:20 and finally he seems ready to let him speak, but instead immediately launches into some analogy about something connected to a past lecture series. He held the floor for another five minutes on that tangent.

[@subatomicmystery]

Some of us actually prefer interviews that flow naturally in conversational style.

[@measententia3473]

Agree. Listened to the whole interview and enjoyed it. But phrases like “generically chosen payoff function” were not easily grasped.

[@JhonnyNexen]

I genuinely think Hoffman dropped the coldest statement I've ever heard in the closing segment, when he said that we are just multiple projections of the consciousness looking at each other I felt chills down my spine, something I've never felt before.

[@misterla9683]

time stamp please?

[@rebelraccoon9018]

What did he mean by that?

[@iggle6448]

@@rebelraccoon9018 He says that what he's discovering through his study and the math of consciousness is that consciousness is what comprises everything (though we don't know where, when, why, how it is - space and the universe seem to be a very elaborate stage set, rather like a video game). Pieces of this consciousness break off to animate, inhabit, inspire, operate human bodies (and presumably every creature). That is every living thing is a part of The Consciousness temporarily playing a role. When our avatar bodies die, our consciousness doesn't die, it returns to the The Consciousness. Of course, in principle this is what many sages and philosophers have posited for millennia. Dr Hoffman believes he's proving it through the work he and his team are doing.

[@Nettamorphosis]

@@rebelraccoon9018 I think he means we’re all branches stemming from the same consciousness.

[@dominicjan]

this is basically what my mushroom trip was all about

[@mariobartholomew]

You can tell Donald Hoffman meditates nearly 50% of his waking day. His patience is amazing and easy to undertand, and his conclusions are basically non-dualist, but mathematical precise.. The patience to listen to Jordan is a real challenge and times I feel he could simplify his conclusion, in less words. Reminds me at times we spend too much time in thoughts, too much time analyzing and thinking in our heads, rarely spending time in stillness being a witeness to our thoughts.

[@NatarajaYogi]

Not just a witness to our own thoughts but witness to awareness itself. Somewhere in this witnessing of witnessing, and realising that all that arises within awareness is not separate from awareness, comes the direct experiential insight into the nature of consciousness: that which cannot be philosophised or intellectualised.

[@Allplussomeminus]

I love conversations like this. Wandering through reality and attempting to make sense of it and pinpoint things. Even if it's futile, the journey is still so much fun.

[@madcat61207]

I think it seems like intellectual masterbation.

[@childofkhem1.618]

​@@madcat61207but it's fun tho! Maturation of the mind!! Especially when u have no arms!

[@quantumpotential7639]

If you have too much fun, you transcend the C A S O D E X. Now let us pray 🙏. Okay? OK good!! Thanks

[@shefalichow7917]

@@madcat61207 The latter drains you of your vitality and purity, and the former bolsters your sense of awareness and makes you literally more thoughtful. They are nowhere close to one another.

[@AHouston06]

Agreed 👍

[@Thomas-ot5ei]

Intellectual giants of our time. Thank you so much for your work and for showing it publicly. It is awe inspiring.

[@bblueangel2]

Time is an illusion. Everything happens now. All of intelligence it's a matter of being conscious enough to manifest it.

[@adrianbenedictmendoza6818]

Indeed.. but also wait for him to have Dr. Robert Gilbert in his show

[@ericcricket4877]

Hilarious. One is genuinely building a scientifically valid model of fundamental reality, while replacing the dogmatic physicalism rampant across the scientific community since the 1700's and possibly solving the cosmic expansion, dark matter, the mind-body problem and the entropic arrow of time in the process too, while the other is telling incels to clean their rooms by using big words and quoting the bible. Awe inspiring indeed, but the other is an influencer while the other may turn out to be the Copernicus+Newton+Einstein of 21st century, posthumously receiving multiple nobels, as he will likely die before any of his theories are validated to the extent that the nobel commitee will bend the knee.

[@bblueangel2]

hes done more of influence then your ignorant comment will be acknowledged to even matter@@ericcricket4877

[@dunki-dunki-dawg]

The very things they discussed are not new things. People were debating these things 4000 yrs ago, albeit slightly differently. They were talking about consciousness and what is fundamental and what things were within themselves (ontology) before Baghdad and early India from the old kingdom which is really wild.

[@JulianCrowe]

I love a JP podcast where I only understand 0.1% of it because it shows me how much room there is to grow.

[@anialiandr]

Rafter 12 years of Jordan plus my ow work I feel aligned with Jordan’s thinking. I started with his Harvard lectures by accident. Then his maps of meaning ❤

[@madcat61207]

@@anialiandr Wow, that's some really great news.

[@IvikosDigital]

Yes, the search for knowledge is more addictive than video games for some of us

[@fury_saves_world]

People are losing their lives.

[@digitalgifted9563]

Peterson makes his points unnecessarily complex, and at their core are poorly articulated. Don't be so hard on yourself

[@robmastin7964]

Please continue these conversations!!!! I beg you! I find this to be one of the most enlightening and stimulating conversations I have had the great pleasure of sharing in. Thank you both with the most sincere of hearts.

[@robmastin7964]

@@Rocksteady246 and.....?

[@ReactiveTraction]

​@@Rocksteady246yeah but to be fair, he most likely did a lot of other mistakes aswell. He is just a dude at the end of the day.

[@YarHarFD]

I'm 24 minutes in and the theories brought up are so complex and mind blowing I need a break to think about them before moving forward

[@PandosII]

@@Cryptic_TriptychComdescension isn’t a good motivator

[@YarHarFD]

@@Cryptic_Triptych there is a difference between mindless listening and active thought

[@callum7081]

Yes my intellect is straining a bit to keep up 😅

[@YarHarFD]

It's amazing you are unable to fill in the blank when you have 12/13 of the pieces. Please continue to display your intelligence, everyone is just riveted by how smurt you are@@Cryptic_Triptych

[@YarHarFD]

it's not a matter of intelligence, just a lot of things I haven't considered before with regards to reality and perception@@callum7081

[@ashuraam]

Sir I highly respect you, but I think Dr. Hoffman shouldn't be interrupted as much. Also I understand the excitement of Dr. Peterson at encountering the most beautiful concept that tries to point towards the ultimate reality. Consciousness. In our nondual tradition, we call this bliss. Pure Consciousness is bliss, it is unchanging, undying, unborn, and it is you.

[@martinwhitehead6247]

He can’t help himself! A mix of excitement and selfishness to show how smart he (thinks) he is. As a result, we get an interview that is only a fraction of what it should have been.

[@_simplelad_1809]

@@martinwhitehead62471. He is smart 2. there are a bunch of podcasts where Donald Hoffman presents his ideas without many interruptions plus typical less complex questions being asked. So it is good to have a more unique set of questions being addressed.

[@SomePrinter]

I agree. Jordan needs to drop the 'big guy' persona and listen when being spoken to.

[@carlosalcedo1242]

Jordan I listen to you everyday 100% focused. I enjoy it and learn a lot. But Dr Hoffman here I wish you let him speak more. I wish you just asked questions, some input but let Hoffman say what he has to say. What hes talking about is very precious too and new and intriguing.

[@arzuakca5248]

I am so proud to hear your way of thinking and sharing your universal needed knowledge. As a writer also wish to thank you for feeding people with genuine information. May your journey be flowing and reaching millions. Thank you.

[@jeffj4440]

For the first half of this conversation, it was interesting how Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hoffman were approaching the topic on different levels. Practical psychotherapy vs. computational psychology. Very challenging but enthralling.

[@markfromct2]

Yes, he had no clue

[@edujyoung]

Oh wow. After listening to more of this, I realise this is the thought I had when I was very small and young, like 4. I had these ideas. I was playing hide and go seek at night with a torch, but I was staring at the spotlight on the wall. I saw where the light was and where it wasn’t. When I moved the torch, I saw new terrain but lost the original position. I felt that the light represent things we learned and understood. The darkness around it represent that which we didn’t know. So I dreamed up an inifinitely large spotlight, but the problem was it had an infinitely expanding circumference of darkness to follow it. I realised that God or whatever this thing was I was thinking about represented the forever unknowable thing. The more you learn, the more you don’t know. That’s God. And we pursue the explanse of improvement or knowledge and it can go infinitely.

[@aleksandrkutko5439]

I think the above was the best textual and emotional response. Realisation of my own nativity is so humiliating and inspiring at the same moment.

[@tatooinemoor]

Difference between us and Prof. Hoffman is that he's not only got the thought or intuition, but a rigorous mathematical formulation of it. There lies the work. See, we're literarily all of genius, but most of us aren't ready to pay the price to make their idea as plausible as possible to everybody around them who is interested in it.

[@janetajanemcneil1531]

I adored this talk.... Having been raised Catholic, hating the religious aspect, I couldn't wait to move out of my parents home & escape the religiosity of it. Interestingly, a profoundly powerful mystical experience happened to me a few years later and set me on a path of discovering the meaning of life. After myriad courses, studies, psychedelics, a particular interest in the Tao te Ching, and decades of meditation, I came to Dr. Hoffman's conclusion here intuitively. Bless you Jordan and Howard for furthering our exploration of these crucial issues, especially at this challenging time on Earth! :)

[@nrich99999]

Me too. I also came to Dr. Hoffman's conclusion intuitively. My intuition came from spending my entire life being scared of death, logical and critical thinking about such and the total denial of it along with an actual grasp of what infinity actually means - infinite possibility, of which this 'reality' is but one. ♾️

[@DirtyLifeLove]

@@nrich99999Don’t you agree our fear of death lends itself to clever engineering of “escape hatches.”

[@Dhruvbala]

While I wish Jordan interrupted less, I do appreciate Jordan for driving the interview to places that Don wouldn’t usually go - avoiding a repeat of Don’s other interviews. This has been fun to watch

[@gazzyb85]

I'm only 13 minutes into the video, but so far, I agree with your point. It's interesting to hear Jordan's perspective and Hoffman's response to it. It feels like he's being challenged more than usual.

[@nigelbryant7980]

Of of the best talks on the channel for a while, Hoffman makes for a great and intelligent conversation.

[@kaledon6]

It was the best rational explanation for the metaphysics of the ressurection of the dead, specially when Hoffman says "We´re all gonna laugh when we thought it was all over"

[@joegrant413]

I greatly enjoyed the Lex Friedman interview, and have read Dr. Hoffman's seminal paper and his book The Case Against Reality. Can't tell you how much I look forward to this convo with Dr. Peterson.

[@johns2220]

It's funny because it's scientific rationalism turning on itself. How can you trust your own senses or logic models if they were born out of a system designed for fitness - not necessarily truth. An atheist is someone who hasn't taken science far enough.

[@zr5438]

@@Rocksteady246he holds a phd in psychology

[@joegrant413]

@@Rocksteady246 yep

[@zr5438]

@@Rocksteady246 I'm well aware of the replication crisis in psychology and other fields. It's also observed in economics, medicine and probably all soft sciences.The inability to replicate seems to be worst in social psychology and oncology, with oncology possibly having replication rates of as dismal as 10 percent, or so I've heard. Does even that discredit oncology as a field? To some degree, yes, but psychology is a more serious science than oncology eith much higher replication rates and lesser Big Pharma influence. I would separate psychology from from actual social sciences though. Psychology is somewhere between the soft sciences and the hard sciences. I agree that we should take some things from psychology and generally other science as well with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean that psychology hasn't discovered something useful about people and the world around us. It also doesn't discredit jordan, right?

[@BobDingus-bh3pd]

@@Rocksteady246what is your point? That the “Dr” in Dr.Peterson doesn’t mean he does heart surgery?

[@StevenAbbott]

From a very young age, I have had precognitive dreams. At the intersection where the dream intersected with its realization, sometimes 10 months later I would experience what I can best describe as an out-of-body experience. From my perspective, very few people on this physical plane, actually understand our space and time.

[@leondbleondb]

Yeah...? Prove it.

[@kasarajaxen5793]

Same!

[@catoochi510]

I'm so glad these two are finally talking!

[@catoochi510]

I don't think Dr. Peterson understands his theory very well.

[@montelvontaviouspore]

I fully understand and believe you 🙏

[@juniva11]

Thank you Jordan and Donald for this very insightful episode. The reality of reality itself being a part of a larger consciousness, where we essentially are experiencing our lives as such. Thank you looking forward to your next conversation. My mother lost a son to a tragic vehicular accident at the age of 3 years and 11 months. I, myself was born the following year and named after him. I attribute a lot of my decisions since young as honouring my late brother, due to my Mum sharing with me stories of my late brother and why she gave me the name I have today. That his consciousness exists independently makes sense to me purely in a spiritual sense, particularly with living my life in memory of him. Allthough I prefer that theory than the possibility of the movie Matrix starring Keanu Reaves and being physically plugged into a computer system and being a part of the code within :)

[@johnc.356]

This interview is by far the best discussion on consciousness I have seen to date. It provides deep insights into that ever elusive question, who are we? Can't wait for Pt. Bravo Gentlemen!

[@horacelidenbrock3905]

Very impressed with Dr. Hoffman. Articulating such complex notions in a way that is understandable by the layman without ever over-simplifying or generalising is no small feat.

[@peterstmartin87]

I'm not sure he achieved that. I'm pretty intelligent, and I'm still scratching my head.

[@bwmclaurin]

​@@peterstmartin87most people think they're pretty intelligent...

[@bwmclaurin]

​@@Rocksteady246if you put half the energy you put into trolling, into maybe improving what seems to be a sad, unhappy existence or maybe improving your fellow man's experience...you might finally accomplish something? Also, maybe seek professional help with your weird, borderline stalking, and seemingly homoerotic obsession with Dr Peterson and his commenters ASAP... 🤔👀🥴🤡🌎💩🙄🤷‍♂️

[@stri8ted]

@@peterstmartin87 I think his book does a better job at articulating the idea. The discussion was fragmented due to the frequent (interesting) interjections by Dr Peterson.

[@JeffThomas-ld3cz]

u still stuck in the headset then 😆 noob @@peterstmartin87

[@JoshuaRosaaen]

Wow...this was exceptionally insightful and I am looking forward to the part 2 of this at the metaphysical ethical level and where responsibility lies. Thank you both for this great discussion.

[@bryfrancis3593]

Jp talking about ethics 😂 he's a bigot who actively seeks the destruction of a group of people he's evil.

[@fury_saves_world]

@@meepmeep8728 It could be done by enhancing the very means by which perception is availed of perceptive beings to the utmost extent possible within the current manifold of the universe. It may even be able to reach a self-improving state at the highest levels anything ever could.

[@albertoverenzuelamia]

Definitely worth watching. Thank you Dr Hoffman and Dr Peterson, great debate. My emotions ranged from anxiety to awe. Amazing.

[@theothermebutwhoami]

We need part 2 immediately. Thank you both, or to that which we are, for such a meeting of minds, & to the dedication of such endeavors.

[@XanaxMilf]

These ideas he and many scientists have confirmed were already before there before them in religions focused on spirituality like Hinduism or Buddhism and more

[@isabellawolgoth9447]

I read and reread Hoffman's "The Case Against Reality" in order to get it. And listening to this interview drove home one important point regarding Hoffman's idea of "one consciousness." As a reader and follower of Advaita Vedanta, I can't help but smile and nod my head.

[@AbdullahMQureshi]

Right at 57:45, Jordan challenges the entire function of Hoffman's theory. If i had to summarize Peterson's point, he's said that if everything is a projection and thus the nature of truth is entirely subjective, then your subjective reality is the most fundamental thing you can rely on. This argument is a great functional critique of the theory. What's the point of studying it all if we are not sure of the other person's world and we can never be completely sure of that in the future, either. People here say that Peterson is interrupting too much, but he is really testing Hoffman out pretty deeply. It's like how an examiner or supervisor is sifting through a complex PhD dissertation.

[@maesk52]

This would be true if our subjective reality resembled even just a bit of or what we’re experiencing or what we call reality. Cognitive dissonance is very real and very dangerous so disregarding this danger as “fundamental” could really lead us to extinction pragmatically speaking. That’s the value that I take from Hoffman’s theory as a whole, it is merely trying to explain how conscious works to its core and how the rest is just an artifact, subjective reality is just this, it is in no way fundamental, just useful in the game of evolution that we are able to measure.

[@NatarajaYogi]

I agree with @maesk52 and I would add that yes, the appearance of our subjective reality occurs through the lens of perception, and whilst the way I interpret this experience that I'm having through my 'headset' might not be fundamental reality, by the simple fact that I am aware of an experience occurring must mean that I am at least connected to fundamental reality. Everything in my awareness might be false, filtered and distorted through sense perception, but I cannot deny that 'I' am aware. I put 'I' in quotes because everything I think of as myself is also a construct. Yet that there is awareness, this I cannot deny. That I can have a conscious interaction with you, I can assume that I am having an interaction with another conscious agent, and that whether both of our realities create false appearances, if you exist as a conscious agent, which from my perspective admittedly is just an assumption, I could safely conclude you also have the experience of being aware as fundamental to your reality. Even if the later is false, I have at least verified in my own experience that there is such thing as awareness, and an experience within that awareness, and even if this is some hallucination or dream, I still can't deny that there is still an experience going on and an awareness of an experience. So even if we throw the concept of subject-object away: that what I experience as myself is a projection, and what I experience as objects within my experience are all projections, awareness still exists beyond this subject-object duality. So we can begin at awareness as being beyond subject-object appearance as fundamental, and work from there. Your 'what's the point' question in my opinion is going beyond simply critiquing Hoffman's theory, and goes into contemplating whether we can come to any verifiable reality in science at all! IMHO we can't, until we understand the true nature of the subject itself: the experiencer. The 'observer' phenomenon is still a complete mystery in quantum physics, for example. Your question however, makes the assumption that there is no entry to reality through our subjective experience, but Hoffman has said there is: through 'consciousness'. So one can extrapolate from there mathematically, from zero-dimensional consciousness to see if I can reconstruct my own 3-dimensional reality as I experience it: to see if I can explain taste, smell, touch, the experience of the passing of time and passage through space, etc., etc. Though as Hoffman said, first you begin by explaining the nature of our observed experience of fundamental particles, and go from there. As to the other person's experience, if all stems from 'the one consciousness' as Hoffman implies towards the end, then if I can confirm this through the mathematics, then the conclusion could be that I could extrapolate that there are other conscious agents also having experiences, and so I could assume with high probability that your experience stems from the same mathematical principles as mine. Of course Hoffman pointed out that all science is based on assumptions, so we can never reach an end point, a final theory of everything. Theory only ever points to reality, it can never be reality. In terms of utility, well if this goes more fundamental than relativity and quantum physics, then utility is way beyond our imagination. Forgive me for getting carried away with my answer, it is my way of working through my own understanding. And I agree, Jordan's probing is useful testing.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

very high quality comment and thread

[@theloniousscalliwag]

This is awesome! Although i will say that many spiritualists have come to this realization literally millennia ago. Listen to Alan Watts, he covered this notion really rather thoroughly in the sixties. It's nice to see science finally catching up with reality

[@bryfrancis3593]

You're falling for a snakeoil salesman. JP cares about money and glout he doesn't give a F about you or any of his fans.

[@nivek2223]

Reminds me of an argument that C.S. Lewis makes in “Miracles;” or the philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s argument, the “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.”

[@sleeperino3054]

Advaita Vedanta

[@adrianbenedictmendoza6818]

Watts.. the sexiest way to understand reality.. hes so amazing

[@assortmentofpillsbutneverb3756]

It's kind of the human default perception tbh. It's basically the belief in the material world with a metaphysical world on top of it

[@nick_t]

Good stuff. I always appreciate a conversation so substantial that I know I'll get more out of when I listen to it a second time.

[@zaqsiefert5508]

​@@Rocksteady246chill

[@zaqsiefert5508]

@@Rocksteady246 for sure

[@nick_t]

​@@Rocksteady246 Haha, well I haven't actually listened to it twice. Believe it or not, you can "get out" and still listen to podcasts at the same time. It's called multitasking.

[@nick_t]

​@@Rocksteady246 This is what we would call the "appeal to hypocrisy" logical fallacy. He had an issue with benzos once, so I guess everything he says must be invalid.

[@trinsic6652]

Jordan has to stop cutting people off. It's kind of getting ridiculous. Love Peterson's questions as a Podcast Interviewer. Would love to hear the people he interviews actually finish their explanations...

[@jamescooper1702]

Jordan is an unfiltered sort of linguistic ADHD genius. His absolutely extraordinary ability to articulate complex concepts appears to be beyond the control of that part of his brain that is supposed to impose restraints. He becomes too excited and consumed by his conceptual articulation to experience the need to constrain himself. Very much like an ADHD sufferer who lacks impulse control. I can't see him changing (unfortunately). And what with his suit choices ??

[@ParallelNewsNetwork]

Normally I would agree but there is a lot of Hoffman and his conscious agents theory available. In this case it’s actually really cool seeing Peterson trying to orient himself with hoffmans claims. And through Peterson grappling with Hoffman and stopping him when things got cloudy for him, there is a lot that was uncovered. Peterson is forced to retreat into his reading and gives you a genuine look at how well read people like Peterson lump large swaths of datapoints and map those onto philosophers and literary works to help him with the discussion it was interesting to watch. If this is your first exposure to Hoffmann ideas then I could see how you could say this. But it was cool to see someone grapple with Hoffman in real time and not someone just trying to coax out hoffmans talking points.

[@SillyMonkeysLikeApples]

Nah, you just wanna interrupt to understand what you wonder, its part of questioning the ideas in my opinion

[@trinsic6652]

@@SillyMonkeysLikeApples Yeah but then you end up thinking about what you want to say next instead of listening to what the person has to say. Wait until someone finishes talking then take a moment of pause to think about what you will say next. That is what I see the best Podcast interviews do.

[@ElizabethTasripin]

Lvvñnnñññ MN ɓ😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@nishamartin4793]

The quality of this production and the complexity of the subject material is presented fairly well by both of you professionals. I hope all of us who got the privilege of watching this or hearing it. Are reminded that some days more than others it's awesome to be conscious and alive. We get to hear these wonderful individuals provide us with such awesome content. You can't get this kind of content on regular TV, cable tv or many other news and media platforms. I for one-- will not be taking for granted the hard work and dedication of the speakers involved in each episode. And I am grateful for any staff that either gentleman in this production have-- that allow them to bring this to life. So that we are able to listen to these highly intelligent individuals. These individuals who are trying to be intellectually Honest. And to conceptualize these rather abstract concepts in a way that all of us can understand by map out these complex ideas in a generally and high-resolution manner. You can only navigate as good as the map that you have when you're in the wilderness... A discussion like this is to complicated to complete in one sitting. Based on the comments sections I hope-- both men would be willing to have a continued conversation. Seeing conversations like this and seeing some of the comments-- some days make me more hopeful. Reconfigure some important things out that we need to figure out. If we are to change and grow individually and together.

[@nishamartin4793]

Sorry for the typos and grammar errors I'm very tired where I am and I didn't get much sleep so I apologize out of respect for everybody... I hope all of you have an awesome next few days.

[@MELO.5020]

omg please let hoffman talk

[@damaris1530]

I’ve never been drawn to Science yet I’m here listening to Dr. Peterson.

[@Kaizen747]

pero si estan bien chingonas las ciencias

[@dashcammer4322]

This seems more metaphysic than scientific.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

@@dashcammer4322 Hoffman's science is grounded in rigorous mathematics but he deals with entities beyond spacetime and conventional physics. Depending on how you define metaphysics, you may identify his work as such, but in the traditional sense of the word it is anything but.

[@glutenfrei628]

@@sophiamarquishaha sure sure, of course

[@johndymond6588]

Wow! I really like where professor Hoffman is going with this. This is very exciting work! The fact that he's using mathematics to show the work involved is also really astonishing. I hope to hear updates whichever way his experimentation goes.

[@chickenmonger123]

I’ll have to check that out. I saw it, but not everyone he hosts is interesting to me.

[@edujyoung]

You can tell when JBP has someone to learn from, or someone who wants to learn from him. This one’s the former and his brilliance shines in his intense curiosity to learn paired with his humility to get a concept wrong initially. He is one of the best “understanders” to witness and observing him has helped me understand, merely from embodying his head tilt, in ideating what questions he might ask. Bizarre. This is so good.

[@bryfrancis3593]

Jp is a dumb persons smart person. Please read a book that actually has some value.

[@ltwig476]

Yes well, I have been watching Jordan off and on sense his debates 15-20 years ago with Hitchings , Sam Harris and Dawkins. He kind of has an m.o. that he tries to find substantiated sciences and relate his Christian spin to them. So he is always searching for newest greatest science. He has very much relaxed his will to debate atheists. He already did that with fairly poor results. Yet I have very high respect for the man for his accumulated knowledge about the human condition and willingness to learn more.

[@bryfrancis6915]

​@@ltwig476Jordan Peterson is a pseudo psychologist and bigot.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

​​@@ltwig47615-20 years ago with Hitchens et al? I don't think so. Afaik he NEVER spoke with Hitchens and his first talk with Sam Harris was on Waking Up within the last decade. I'll grant that he started off badly due to many wrong preconceptions about where they were coming from, but you seem to have some pretty basic facts quite wrong.

[@AbdullahMQureshi]

​@ltwig476 Yes that's what you do when you're trying to research on a mental level. Welcome to the world of hypothesis testing

[@NotRiansLuke]

I've been following Hoffman even longer than Peterson -- why this was JUST NOW suggested to me is a mystery. KZbin algorithm gets an F on this one. Great talk, should have more views!

[@Storm_.]

That was probably the most insightful interview with Dr. Hoffman that I've seen so far, Jordan asked some very challenging questions and it really pushed Hoffman to construct some excellent explanations and analogies to go with the theory.

[@XanaxMilf]

He didn’t ask complex questions. He just said his views and kept interrupting when someone else is explaining their theory acting like he knows their theory better than them

[@Guitarist166]

Have you listened to his interview with Curt Jaimungal? It's far more in depth to his theory and Curt is educated enough in physics to ask Hoffman the right questions.

[@sweetgal38]

I wish J.P. would let Dr. Hoffman speak. His questions are so long-winded and Dr. Hoffman is a guest who should be freer to speak. I have watched many of Dr. H's interviews and he has a brilliant mind, to explain how things work and his theories- he needs to not be interrupted as he is explaining as the subject matter is quite complex. But overall a great interview!

[@jimeddy1316]

A national treasure that Canada is fortunate to have and such a thinker to share with the World. Stay safe and be aware Sir. Good luck.

[@garrysekelli6776]

Apparently he got some heat (oct 8) from David Icke. Hope they can work that out.

[@KoolT]

Check out the threads man, he's a rock star❤❤❤❤

[@smashingtwoscoops4999]

Wow! This is a wonderful combination of two intelligent gentlemen, to have a conversation like this!! Praise the Lord! Amen! 🙏❤️😊

[@simoncarrier9910]

Juden peterstein is actually a charlatan.

[@ftmrivas3043]

Hoffman makes extremely good points. However, there is so much to be discovered. I am just so happy to have access to this content. 🙏

[@akastenas]

Constant interrupting was unnecessary to say the least. A bit more of Mr Donald, a bit less of Jordan so to speak.

[@pbot6593]

Yeah I hate it when people ask thoughtful questions that help flush out the deeper and nuanced issues surrounding a concept. Literally every question he asked was relevant to the issue at hand. The real shame is that there wasn't time to ask more. I had the same questions, or at least immediately understood their relevance and value to the broader conversation. But I mean, if you already have the answers to all those questions, what was it Jordan was even getting in the way of you finding out? ...The conversation was clearly presented as an introduction to the concept, so obviously more technical and detailed information exists...why not enjoy some of that if you already have intermediate or advanced knowledge on the topic The only other possibility is that you didn't actually understand the questions or why they were EXTREMELY relevant to an introduction of this concept Not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it, I really just don't understand your protest or takeaway. All I saw was a very interesting, informative, and thought provoking conversation for anyone new to the concept

[@goodleshoes]

Incredible you're giving Donald a platform for his theory. Thank you so much. This is amazing!!! To me, he's the next Kant.

[@rebelraccoon9018]

Emmanuel Kant is one of my favourite philosophers. 😎 🧡

[@oliviergoethals4137]

More Schopenhauer

[@EmberAsh]

@@oliviergoethals4137 Heheh! That comment made me quite giddy. Have a great day. That reference really brightened mine.

[@RickMacDonald19]

Descarte?

[@sampillsbury9337]

Dr. Peterson, kudos to you . The breadth of your knowledge is astounding. I find your ability impressive to instantaneously recall amazingly numerous relevant quotes from other learned people. Thank you for sharing this interview. Dr. Hoffman managed to bring what I hope is the essence of his theory to a layman’s level of understanding. Thanks to you both my paradigm is open to a new perspective.

[@strikerorwell9232]

Mainstream media here in Sweden told Jordan Peterson to "crawl back under his rock", the last time he was here. Just because Jordan Peterson said a woman was a woman?

[@saidaabukar4937]

Everything has cause and effect. Misunderstanding or ignorance, without limits. In some cases of our society. You both have covered a lots of scientific evaluation. Many thanks Dr.Peterson, Dr. Hoffman.

[@bryfrancis3593]

You support a bigot and psuedo psychologist, Jordan is unhinged and is knowing spreading narcissistic propaganda that is actively hurting people. You a bigot too like JP?

[@CSMcVay]

What an excellent dialogue! I may have to listen again, and I will definitely try to catch your next one. Thank you 🙏

[@auriuman78]

🎉 this for me, while i cannot deny some of the remarks about the occasional interjections, was one of the better interviews with Hoffman I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. There have been several interviews that i felt were left far too open ended (and yes, i do realize this is a newborn field of study and thought, so it's not that aspect that i felt left open ended) Jordan may have done his thing a little too hard at points but the questions he asked and the spots he poked at with the questions and interjections were the perfect spots to apply pressure. We got answers and comments from Hoffman that i haven't heard him say in any other interviews with him. Chiropractors usually don't apply pressure where it's not going to be painful because nothing is wrong there. They put the pressure on the points that need adjustment, which often hurts 🤕 let's not forget Peterson is a chiropractor of the neurons.

[@brandoncoleman4013]

I know this may seem crazy or you could just as well write it off as a nonsensical experience with psychedelics, but... In hoffmans closing systement ive felt this to be true so many times on psychedelics! Ive actually already theorized it as a teen, exactly what he said. There are times where i was innately aware of the idea that everything is intimately connected everything everywhere all at once lol. Seriously, also had many times where i confused myself and thought i was my friend or my girlfriend at the time and they thought they were me. My conclusion i could not put into words but me and my friend swore we would try to bring knowledge from inside the trip to our normal lives by writing it down and it came out as this "everything is everything no matter what" what were we doing? Trying to figure "it" out whatever that means. Its strange that we thought those simple words were the most important thing to write down about all of our ponderings. Ill tell you though that i have felt deeply and intimately the interconnectedness of everything and felt on such a high level that this wasnt a questionable theory but an absolute reality. Was it? Who will ever know?

[@madcat61207]

Yes, and what does it even matter, and who cares?

[@brandoncoleman4013]

@@madcat61207 what do you matter and who cares?

[@anialiandr]

Donald’s paper was a breakthrough I had with my students . Thank god because it was going uphill and his insights, documented with beetles etc, were very helpful.

[@milesmungo]

Yes, the example of the beetles was a great summation of Darwinian evolution's bend towards adaptation rather than 'truth'.

[@anialiandr]

⁠@@milesmungoon the contrary. It showed that if continued the silly beetles would have gone extinct unable to adjust to truth . We grew better brain for better capacity yo adjust. How well we chose our paths life will show.

[@ellekay5241]

This conversation absolutely needs a part 2. Pick up right from where you left off here. We have the background let's hear where it goes!

[@iangraham9050]

This blew my mind because I understood what was said. I never thought of life and Darwinian principles in such a profound and abstract structure. Thank you Jordan, and Prof Hoffman, for this fantastic and highly interesting podcast.

[@whitjones9395]

Wow I love Donald Hoffman, always looking for new interviews with him. Thank you!

[@noobandfriends2420]

18:50 Good to hear this being spoken of. I contemplated this possibility years ago when introduced to the oddities of quantum physics. We're only observing the interface of reality, not the Truth of our reality. I call this progress.

[@demetriusmiddleton1246]

that word truth is very tricky period. it seems like. to you truth is what is at the bottom layer of reality period, but I think what dr Peterson is. suggesting is that there are higher levels of reality that are just as much true as the bottom fundamental levels period. just because it's not at the bottom level does not necessarily mean it is not truth

[@attilaszekeres7435]

The idea you are referring to isn't actually new. It's simply a modern reiteration of Plato's cave allegory. This isn't meant to belittle Hoffman's contribution, but rather a remark on the philosophical roots of the headset metaphor and the interface theory of consciousness.

[@walsergomez]

It’s called analytical idealism

[@iggle6448]

@@attilaszekeres7435 YES! Thank you! Sages in many cultures have been avowing this same interpretation of our being for millennia. Dr Hoffman's contribution seems to be the math which may (or may not) prove it.

[@CH-RC]

Yes but is the math he’s using based in the time space continuum? lol should he not consider using a calculative math based on a new model, assuming living outside of what we call time and space. Sorry but this guy is what we call “fake smart” - listening to this discussion is interesting if you’re willing to practice warping your mind around something that’s impossible to wrap your mind around. Ie - a reality that doesn’t exist unless you’re really deep into the drugs :) lol

[@jennymcgowin9140]

Whoa! That was a wild ride! I think I understand what he was saying, maybe. It was so interesting. Nobody asks better questions than Jordan! Please do a second podcast on this.

[@rodacampos]

Jordan's question about homomorphism (red Ferrari) in the VR analogy was brilliant. One of the best questions I've seen being asked to Donald. Even Donald did not expect that!

[@demetriusmiddleton1246]

:and I've only heard his immediate response comma, so I hope after talking to him a little and thinking about it, he feels comfortable enough to address. the question more directly. but I'm starting to get frustrated because I feel like every time dr Peterson asks him something. he doesn't address what dr Peterson says directly, he simply tells what he thinks. period, it's kind of like he's not having a conversation. comma, he's just listening to what dr Peterson says and. merely responding as if he was asked the question directly for the first time

[@H4ymaker]

​@demetriusmiddleton1246 I felt the same way. I thought JP was onto something, and when Hoffer responded with the explanation that it was analogous because there are a cascade of functions, I thought that perhaps that is why we can't perceive reality in its fullness because we only exist (in relation to the computer analogy) as merely the computer and perhaps our conscience would represent the person outside of the computer directing it. Idk if that articulates properly what I'm thinking because it's hurting my brain to try to conceive the idea.

[@jerm2011]

I agree far more with Dr. Peterson's homology theory than I do with this guys explanation that reality and its representations in both higher and lower orders of magnitude are simply causally linked.

[@NathanGuerraTV]

Yes, it does feel like we are havjng more of a discussion about the phenomology of math/numbers mixed with a mind body problem...like the theory got stuck in how it was mapped in the equations, therefore making its assumptions based on the system it used to discover.

[@jerm2011]

@@Rocksteady246 You make the false equivalency claim that because of his field and level of cognitive ability that, in his day to day life, should allow him to easily eschew choices such as taking benzos. The man was losing his wife and the mother of his children. He was facing oblivion. Until you've found yourself in that position, you can make no claim nor judgement. You wish to postulate publicly that somehow Peterson "isn't as smart as people think." In your case, you are "not as smart" as you think or at least lack the life experience to understand the position grief can put you in, causing you to take chances and do things that you normally might not in order to achieve some level of relief. But you just wanted to take the piss out of him in front of his fans because seeing how much he's appreciated by people makes you feel like a mental midget by comparison. Which is accurate.

[@RilkeForum]

This is the best and most challenging and rewarding video in dialogue form I have ever seen. Dr Hoffman‘s view was new to me and opens up an entirely new perspective to me… 🙏

[@stressless2997]

This particular conversation has jogged a notion in my mind which I think Dr. Peterson may find amusing and or helpful when addressing the topic of consciousness in relation to living a meaningful life. Assuming the headset is present and fundamental to our experience, from there one MUST agree to play the game of existence in this world. Behaviors that interfere interrupt or physically change the chemical balance of an otherwise basic framework (brain), such as alcohol or drug use, could be the manifestation of attacking the game console. Like we must agree to play or else we’re doomed

[@thewillsfamilyaccount6486]

I love this sort of talk!! Gets me so excited! Two great brains debating some deep stuff.. 😊

[@Emmanuel_Ramirez717]

Yooo I love Donald Hofmanns theory and work. Saw a couple of his interviews and podcasts in the last few years. Never thought he would talk to Jordan. Cant wait to watch this podcast!

[@libertequeliberteque3521]

@@Rocksteady246 Yes that is insane and so stupid of him. I once read three books on how to protect myself against wasps and then many years later I got stinged by a bee. I am not worthy ;-)

[@darthtater4655]

Would love to see a much longer interview

[@syrionus]

Best Podcast ever! Best interviewer and interviewee! Please have another one in the very near future. My sojourn has led me to Professor Hoffman and many other people whom are pioneers of our time.

[@VenomCruster]

Why are the ads overlaying the interview, literally missing parts of it 😡 42:40 Shopify and while video running

[@adrianespinoza2306]

First, I can’t think of a better suit for such a conversation. JBP is at his best when he’s grappling complex theories, building them up and tearing them apart. Also, bring the best out of Donal Hoffman. You can see that special place of child like play at a high level on display here. Hopefully we don’t have to wait to long to resolve that cliffhanger.

[@jennymcgowin9140]

Hehe!

[@iggle6448]

I don't understand what he's doing with these bizarre suits. By all means, people can dress as they like within the bounds of decency. But outre dress is often 'look at ME!' and gets in the way of a person's credibility.

[@ashleygatewood]

I feel this conversation between these two only scratched the surface of the deep. And Hoffman's background in fundamental Protestantism, very intriguing. I was thinking of various Biblical references and trails throughout this conversation. Looking forward to reading your thoughts in this upcoming book. Praying for you, your tour and that the ARC gathering is wildly successful - I know it will be. May the peace of God rest upon you and yours~

[@patm6704]

While the majority of religious believers are good and sincere in their beliefs, the powerful, wealthy religious institutions are firmly embedded with the ruling elites in every religious country. Humanity will be much better served when the majority rejects divisive religious myths based on the Bible i.e. a fictional 6,000 year-old Earth where Neanderthals never existed. In the real world, most people have some Neanderthal DNA because our human ancestors migrating from Africa mated with Neanderthals. Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA. But religion still thrives because of its very real attributes for its many powerful, wealthy vested interests i.e. mega cash-cow and powerful tool of political control. All of this, because no evidence is required to support religious claims. Tragic for truth, facts, justice, peace etc. Tragic for humanity.

[@ashleygatewood]

@@patm6704 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. How you got all these talking points out of my simple comment is the real miracle. “mega cash-cow and powerful tool of political control” This would be the Catholic Church. (You can ask Constantine how that all happened.) The denominational Protestant Churches are too separated to have major cash flow throughout or political control. However, there are a few who seem to forget that Jesus was not politically ambitious or focused. I love these brothers and sisters but I do not follow them. Ah, but what do I know? You can be sure, in whatever fashion is most beneficial, the watered down ‘church’ will be a major role player in the New World Government being setup across the world today. The real Christians will be either stripped of power, or worse, of their lives, livelihoods, or imprisoned. No where in the Bible that I know of does it state the age of the Earth is 6000 years. That’s perhaps the religious establishment just trying to counter evolution and science. But I’m not the one to consult about this because my beliefs are not similar to most Christians where this is concerned. The keys to the age of the earth are in Job and some of the prophets. There was an earth before Lucifer fell and he is far older than Homo sapiens…the serpent was, after all, in the garden already slithering about. There was also a different race of beings on the earth (the King of Tyre tells us something about Lucifer’s fall and the peoples?/races?/beings of that time…perhaps millions of years ago.) You may call them Neanderthal - and maybe that race was akin to human - but I’m not so sure it’s the same human as was Adam and Eve. Anyway, it’s too radical to go into so I won’t. But I absolutely know the earth is far older than 6000 years and Neanderthals, or that which scientists have decided to call this race, are also millions of years or at least tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. Humans on the other hand, might be closer to 10K in my estimation. I do not believe Homo sapiens is millions of years old. Religion thrives because of man’s power, this is absolutely true. The power of the children of God, however, thrives because of the power of the Holy Spirit who lives and moves and has His being within them. ‘My speech is not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

[@tzelemelohim]

⁠@@patm6704 Respectfully, I disagree. The majority of Christians don’t fit the strawman caricature of the young Earth creationist, southern fundamentalist preacher you have in your mind. I hear and see this comment repeated ad nauseum by atheists, antitheists, panentheist, pantheist, universalist, humanist, materialist, reductionists etc. This is a mischaracterization and misrepresentation of Christianity. There are a number of views on the creation narrative in the Bible. The word for day in Hebrew is “yom” and can mean a 24 hour period or indefinite expanse of time. The Hebrew word for “the Earth” that God flooded in the story of Noah is “eretz” which consistently and soley refers to arable land i.e. the waters covered the localized land in the Middle East they had discovered at the time the text was written. The majority of educated Christian’s don’t reject the geological record or age of the earth/universe. There is the theistic evolution view (see BioLogos.com), progressive creationism (see Dr. Hugh Ross or Stephen Meyer), etc. I encourage you to give Christianity more than than a superficial, cursory glance before you oversimplify it. I speak as someone who used to be guilty of the same thing. It’s just not a good faith argument and does everyone involved a disservice even if we are couched within the limitations of an illusory phenomenological spatiotemporal VR like reality as Hoffman posits. And despite any predisposition you may have against the Bible, there is a preponderance of historical, archaeological evidence for the claims of Christianity. The leap of faith lies only in the belief in the resurrection of Christ. There were eyewitness accounts and testimony, but the belief in the resurrection of Christ is largely based on the personal experience of transformation that people, including myself, have had after repenting of their sins, dying to their self, and believing that Jesus is who He claimed to be. This is why Christianity will never die off as some atavistic, antiquated belief system because the experiences of many Christians are so palpable and transformative, that combined with the preponderance of evidence for reliability of the OT and NT, that it can’t just be easily dismissed as behavior modification or a comfort pillow for people to lay their heads on at night, as inconvenient and uncomfortable as I know that may be for someone who espouses your worldview.

[@goodleshoes]

As I'm watching this I'm realizing JP doesn't get the big idea but it seems like he's slowly getting to understand it, hopefully by the end he will get it for real.

[@JeffThomas-ld3cz]

hated everytime he cut donald..to talk about some bullshit, and everytime ,saying big words, complicated sentences to say so little..wtf is he on..sadge

[@applefishmusic]

Agree. For some, Hoffman's understanding is intuitive. JP proves that being a giant intellectual doesn't equate to wisdom.

[@lennartradoy]

@@applefishmusic I think what Jordan knows is that intuitive understanding, although a hunch and the first starting point of science, isnt sufficient to pose as a sufficient theory and therefore also unable to be embodied as a philosophy. Hence he is trying to articulate Hoffmans intuitive theory of reality and mirror it back to him. I think he does get the big idea concerning Hoffmans idea of reality as a headset but intuitively disagrees with the fact that there is no commonality of patterns in the headset and the thing (Hoffmans metaphor was the computer here) governing the headset or creating the atmosphere the headset observes. I think that what Hoffman doesnt understand that at some level of analysis the casuality of things even vastly qualitatively different (or at least perceived as such) is proof that there is a pattern that corresponds to another pattern, meaning that its homogynous (or whatever the word was Hoffman used for it). I think that Hoffmann is stuck on the fact that the qualitative experience is incomparable, while Jordan goes beyond the qualitative experience and tries to argue that even though different in quality per se, a quality that emerges as a consequence of another pattern is still tied to that pattern by a commonality. Not sure if that made sense so I am open to feedback but thats the core disagreement I felt between these two in the first fifty minutes.

[@ericcricket4877]

@@applefishmusic Giant intellectual... What has he published that makes you think he's a giant intellectual?

[@ericcricket4877]

@@lennartradoy Hoffman's theory isn't intuitive, it's extremely counter-intuitive and backed by very hard science and mathematics, and he isn't the only one working on it. I have read nearly all of his teams publications. Hoffman's theory states that all of perception has emerged only as a result of an evolutionary game, where success is defined by varying degrees of adaptive behavior relative to an unperceivable true environment guided by ontologically false - but increasingly adaptive - perceptions of said environment. Correspondence between two systems doesn't make them homogenous. Any loss of information makes the mapping between two systems non-homogenous, so perceiving nothing of the "true" environment makes the mapping between perceptions and the environment non-homogenous. In his theory the relationship between perception and true reality isn't even causal, it's correlative. Some change in perceptions of space-time objects is correlative to the "true" environment, but nothing in space-time has a causal effect to the "true" environment. Observed interactions within space-time merely deliver vital information of action potentials and relative system state (your state), but the actual action (the causality) happens outside of space-time, as with monitors, keyboards and transistors. The keyboard isn't "real" to the transistors, neither is the monitor, and both of them merely allow for a limited set of interactions and monitoring of system state, interaction which doesn't even happen in the keyboard nor the monitor, but in the processor. "[Jordan] intuitively disagrees with the fact that there is no commonality of patterns in the headset" Patterns in perception don't reflect true ontological reality, they don't map to reality, they reflect contextual action potentials, ever changing, and true reality contains infinitely more content than what those patterns reveal, and due to the contextuality those patterns objectively reveal nothing but something relative to you. Nothing on your monitor is a transistor, and can never be, however everything is there to make it efficient to alter their states. Hoffman has studied perception for decades, he isn't missing something that Peterson can point out in a casual 90 minute conversation.

[@vladimirsmusic]

What a wonderful meeting between two great thinkers. I've certainly been waiting for this. I think that for the next discussion between the two, the audience could benefit a lot if they explored together the field of autopoesis, kybernetics and, in particular, the work of Francisco Varela.

[@tawsifahmed1070]

I have stopped watching Jordan Peterson after I stopped needing to, but topics like this are exactly the the kind of topics I am currently exploring in my current journey to understanding the truth of life and reality.

[@adityaaundhakar3556]

Beyond words... Spectacular talk... Kudos

[@ravindramehta9087]

This conversation is intriguing and complex. As a physician and a psychiatrist in simple sense,this is what I understood. The physical world around us is influenced by our thoughts /the consciousness and our observation, that we pay attention to. The idea is strikingly similar to our spiritual beliefs “as you think you behave.’ That’s why prayers are powerful in the healing process.. The realization of quantum super position means anything is possible, inspire us to pursue our dream, explore new possibilities, and shape the world, according to our intentions, ultimately ready for a more fulfilling and purposeful life.

[@ReyFelipe00]

Seems like the comment above has nothing of value to contribute so they look to bring others down. Ironically though I’ll add that theoretical physics should also be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as it’s our modern attempt to apply the concept of physical matter to every realm of existence. Constantly assuming that everything is matter/derived from matter will get us nowhere. It’s like putting on a blindfold, then earplugs, then attempting to discover the secrets of the universe. We should start by putting aside modern pride and seriously investigating older myths, spirituality, beliefs of other cultures, etc. Without them our current culture wouldn’t exist, and we need to understand why our culture, despite our apparently amazing science and discoveries, is now deteriorating. As they say in the East, the material world is an illusion.

[@iggle6448]

All very well said, thank you . @@ReyFelipe00

[@ReactiveTraction]

​@@ReyFelipe00well said.

[@XbigXswordX]

I have thought a lot in the same direction since I was little (6 years old), when it comes to reality and how we live in it. But the concept that I see through my eyes and live in this body, and everyone else does the same. Always led me to believe there was something more. You hear it often from religion, from all over the world. Is this a coincidence? Awesome video! 😏😄

[@RicardoSantos-bt3dc]

It's very nice to see these JP podcasts where he talks for long periods of time and the guests just... Waits without rage quitting

[@worldnotworld]

I also love the idea that space and time are projections made by finite beings of a deeper reality outside space and time. The Church Fathers and every good mystic already know this, though it is wonderful to see a scientist find his way toward the insight!

[@msandiip3033]

Dr. Hoffman mentioned eastern mystics briefly, I kind of got this strong sense of understanding that he was referring to a very specific person called Osho.. 😊😊 I can't thank enough Dr. Peterson for bringing this for us.. great great podcast.. 🙏🙏🙏

[@jeffms2]

One of the best interviews I've ever heard. Incredible! Thank you.

[@robindampier40]

Your coat🔥🔥🔥 …and the brilliant discussion…

[@godwho5365]

Please, we need a part two with Dr. Hoffman. Also it'd be a miracle if Dr. Bernardo Kastrup were interviewed by Dr. Peterson.

[@koldunya2002]

What Hoffman talks about is EXACTLY and beautifully presented in the film Samadhi. Highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get a continued and a very musical and artistic presentation on these concepts.

[@PaulWilkinsonMusician]

Wonderful conversation 🙏 As they Sufism ‘Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God’

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Two of my heroes. Peterson came across as trying hard to be validated but seemed somewhat out of his depth while being hell-bent on playing. On the other hand, Hoffman was super focused and abstract - he probably can't even reenter spacetime at this point.

[@juliannadawson]

Disagree on the trying hard to be validated part, but your, “he (meaning Hoffman) can’t even renter space time at this point” I think is spot on. So spot on that you prompted my 1st comment on JBP’s podcast after watching 80 episodes.

[@_modiX]

Remember the double slit experiment and how it clearly shows the limits of reality? I hope you can continue this talk, I also do believe there is a higher root from us that interconnects us, Hoffmans conclusion and his look on himself aligns in some way with mine.

[@whippet71]

I could not get my mind off the 'Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser' experiment when I listened to these two, especially Hoffman.

[@Guitarist166]

Yes this is the first experiment to give us real time local feedback of observational causation. That is to state that observation appears to be a fundamental property of reality.

[@rduse4125]

Two brilliant thinkers…and my comment is to tell you how much I appreciate the way you handle advertisements. There are other people that I watch (Shapiro, Walsh etc.) who just break into their own conversation and try to sell me something - and it cheapens their platform. You’ve found a way to do it and maintain the platform’s integrity. BTW - this was a fabulous episode!!!

[@vaneakatok]

a tip for the editing team try to make the cuts in such a way, so that the interruptions are less obvious. the host will look better, and we will get a more enjoyable viewing and listening experience.

[@vaneakatok]

after all, I bet not all of them are intended, some are just caused by the lag of the singal during the call.

[@nuqwestr]

1:18:44 “We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time." - T.S. Eliot

[@iamithink]

We are rapidly accelerating to the next density of consciousness.

[@jacksonelmore6227]

Based

[@ResoluteRonin]

You are not your thoughts. You are not your feelings. You are not your egoic identity. You are the awareness that notices these things. They are your tools to navigate life. The thoughts your focus on dictate the emotions you feel. So, Take control of your focus and aim it wisely. Ego is the root of all evil. It is what enables greed and other negativity. Ego is the devil that fooled the world into thinking it does not exist. Transcend the ego and realize the kingdom of god.

[@ResoluteRonin]

@@Cryptic_Triptych You may want to read what I wrote again. Ego is what enables greed (the love of money) therefore ego is the root of all evil. It is also what enables narcissism. Don't be so quick to serve your own ego. One should analyze the information they take in thoroughly before responding.

[@ResoluteRonin]

@@Cryptic_Triptych I am very aware that everyone has an ego. My point is that we must Transend the ego. Recognize it as a tool. It can be a great servant but a terrible master. You are not your thoughts. You are not your feelings. You are not your egoic identity. You are the awareness that notices these things. They are your tools to navigate your life with. The thoughts you focus on dictate the emotions you feel. Therefore how you feel is up to you! Take control of your focus and aim it wisely. The uncontrolled ego is absolutely the root of all evil.

[@JarodM]

Speaking of "ego", wouldn't you say someone who wears a flahy suit with their own name on the side may be considered "egotistical"?

[@ResoluteRonin]

@@Cryptic_Triptych I have experienced an ego death. I know what I'm talking about, maybe you are just not ready to accept the truth. and That is ok. but don't think you are going to gaslight my own personal experiences. It never ceases to amaze me at just how many people try to tell me I'm wrong when they have no clue about me, what I have been through or the knowledge I have acquired. So many egoic humans are blinded by their ego. One should always keep an open mind and never come to a battle of wits unarmed. Intelligence isn't knowing everything, its the ability to challenge everything you know.

[@ResoluteRonin]

@@JarodMMaybe so, but I might also question why it bothers you? Is it important? What is lacking in your life that you feel the need to focus on such a thing? There can not be world peace before self mastery. I have noticed some egoic traits in Jordan but I relate to him and focus on the positive he is trying to put into such an egoic and lost world. We all have an ego, being in control of it is the task that is always at hand.

[@josecastillosolis]

Amazing! Mr. Peterson, please invite Rupert Spira to your podcast and please talk about non-duality. Him and Dr. Hoffman agree almost on everything, coming from two different angles, and I think having Rupert on your show would be incredible as well! Thank you!

[@celebratedrazorworks]

1:02:00 Jordan.. You are indeed correct. Causality still exists, Kind of. Look at it this way: it is like an upside down pyramid of obfuscated data, each level genuinely is what it is to it's runtime environment but there is a deeper level that can be broken through to be more intricately navigated and hence yields more specificly articulate purposes. However, all of that is balanced on the source code, that isn't even seen yet so simple and everything would come crashing down without it. You change that and each level must shift and realign, in their own languages respectively. Sorry but coding is my language. 😁 *Mind>Matter*

[@eleannakritikaki4811]

Excellent podcast! Looking forward to number 2

[@ramashish28]

One of the best podcasts of all time right alongside the one he did with Lex Friedman

[@whippet71]

I knew you two would have to hookup sooner or later. Great questions and humbly approached in an open and honest manner. What more can an observer ask for?

[@swenmeinert3967]

What a leap was that for Donald to talk to the master of cutting edge conversations himself. Congratulations and well done. I enjoyed every second. Hopefully more great things come out of that spark.

[@FrankBennin-ly9ze]

I don't understand half the things Jordan talks about but it feels good to listen to