USER INTERFACE THEORY EXPLAINED - Don Hoffman PHD #29

[@pameladaley955]

I've seen many interviews with Hoffman but this one, Freddy Drabble, is by far and away the best! I have found myself shouting at interviewers who really want to show their own educated informations off even if they have NOTHING to do with Hoffman! Egoism to the max. You, however, your questions were on topic and, even better, guided the conversation into depths I've never seen Hoffman talk about. Thank you so very much.! I watched this interview several times over several weeks to get it before I commented and I am so impressed. I'm not a scientist but I am a secular Buddhist and the Heart Sutra is about this very topic and Hoffman is the first scientist I've read and watched who's applying science to consciousness. I get so excited about this I can't sleep sometimes - what a thrill!

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"Seeing the truth will make you extinct." ~ Hoffman (2022) " 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" ~ Nietsche (1882)

[@TokyoShemp]

@@jamesbarlow6423 "Donald Hoffman is overrated, repetitive and narcissistic." ~ Tokyo Shemp (2023)

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@TokyoShemp proof?

[@Mac-zl4po]

@@jamesbarlow6423 perspective. Based on fitness pay-offs

[@2kt2000]

I've been following Hoffmans interviews..lots. In short I think he's positioned himself to be atleast a part of a major paradigm shift. Consciusness is fundamental. I hope we're all here when it peaks.

[@JorJor812]

Indeed. If we could regress past planck, all that exists is information. That information is derived from syntax that is self created. The reason this is true is by looking at logic derived from axiomatic method versus the scientific method. The scientific method only covers spacetime which is a projection of this syntax through consciousness/awareness. The reason it’s self created is because logic needs paradox to have utility. Consciousness/awareness exists in the abstract. It’s very difficult to explain, but it’s along the lines of a medium of pure potential.

[@2kt2000]

@@JorJor812 Yes "pure potential" as per information. The possibilities to lower entropy & evolve with this potential are basically infinite. I sincerely hope we give our selves the chance to. Evolution is slow...but I do my part, even just by making my bed up lol.

[@simonedefilippo6389]

@@JorJor812 the CTMU

[@JorJor812]

@@simonedefilippo6389 Yep

[@simonedefilippo6389]

@@JorJor812 i knew you knew

[@PetraKann]

I must say that I had difficulty connecting with Hoffman's main ideas on various issues but this detailed interview has cleared much of the confusion I had. Excellent questions with detailed answers. I can see where he is coming from now and some of his ideas and conceptual frameworks are very interesting. Cheers

[@chrisballer2672]

Pretend God is a void of nothing. You can exist as this nothing and the nothingness is concious and can think. Then the void randomly starts playing a movie of your life. I remeber watching Hoffman when I was like 16 in school and thinking this guy is crazy I'm now 34 and finally understanding what he is saying

[@PetraKann]

@@chrisballer2672 I will pretend nothing. We understand nothing Mr Random

[@nowhereman9463]

It's easy, everything is one, no space no time, enjoy the game and be kind.

[@javadhashtroudian5740]

In 1971 when I was a neurochemist I became a radical monist because of my knowledge of the brain physics and subjective experience with LSD-25 and meditation I became a Panpsycist However, more knowledge much more meditation has convinced me of the primacy of consciousness I look forward to reading your paper Thank you for making me think

[@gendashwhy]

Did you ever try DMT? Meet Nick Sands? I think Hoffman is right there... knocking on the door! Quantum goodness.

[@javadhashtroudian5740]

@@gendashwhy kind off but I did not like it so I made synthetic Ahtuaska I mixed my DMT with some MAO inhibitor This made the experience last about 5 hours which convinced me that I have no free will rather than 5 minutes with no memory of the actual trip and no spiritual or philosophy gains

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"Seeing the truth will make you extinct." ~ Hoffman (2022) " 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" ~ Nietsche (1882)

[@skyotter3317]

Not only primary but All That Is. Matter is an idea. It does not actually exist!

[@sharonhearne5014]

What Hoffman’s new approach of this yet unclear non-reality can mean is that we accepted that we had to be focused on specific sets of ways to view existence but we are restricted as human creatures in believing we exist in only these limited perceived ways of what we believe we see around us. Think of dreams, psychic experiences, people who are diagnosed legally dead yet see other realities. Even those realities may be just as unreal but they show that human consciousness is capable of going “elsewhere” than typical day-to-day pre programmed visual norms.

[@rickwyant]

There are no "other realities".

[@weareeternalbeings]

Wonderful interview 👏 This clarified Hoffman's theory for me in really helpful ways.

[@yuliaperch5953]

Marvellous conversation, Freddie! I watched many interviews with Donald Hoffman. I must say I enjoyed yours a great deal! Your questions probe deeper than many others. You even asked what I thought no one will ever ask - the origin of the metaphor. In a sense, you asked us all to imagine what other metaphors can be applied to Don’s theory. What his answer reveals, in my opinion, is that, indeed, the limit of your world is the limit of your imagination.

[@alynnglo9172]

Can you recommend other works - I just found this theory and want to go further

[@mstrG]

I'm simple man, I listen to everything that Donal Hoffman have to say. You can find in it plenty golden nuggets.

[@crucifixgym]

Knowing by being is by far Hoffman’s most important message in the framework of science and math.

[@Sapientiaa]

Hoffman stated something very wrong at the beginning. We know that no biological organism is capable of seeing the truth in its entirety thanks to the free energy principle. Your brain would turn into an entropic soup if that were the case. So no organism would even be able to reach such a state.

[@Daniel-Six]

I've had decades to ponder these matters now, and a lifetime of computer science and simulation design. I do think consciousness could be seen as the fundamental _artifact_ of reality, but not its fundamental phenomenon. Some technical substrate or fabric must exist in which it is possible to differentiate one thing from another in order for a logic to manifest which in turn endows the possibility of feedback loops, recursion and the other primary mechanisms of evolution (in a purely generic capacity--not earthly evolution). But if you accept the existence of this substrate--which could either be material like transistors or conceptual like numbers--you're staring at the same proposition we face now: either reality organized inside a compute-suitable fabric, or some unseen mechanism does background computation on the natural numbers for us. Either way it still smells like a simulation. Tom Campbell--who is largely aligned with Hoffman's thesis but probably farther along spiritually--said that in his out-of-body travels he has come close enough to the edge of our simulation to perceive its nested relation to an older and larger one, and one behind that too. I think it's turtles all the way down to a binary floor of some kind.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

A tool is just a tool, kid. I liked Star Trek too!🤣

[@Daniel-Six]

@@jamesbarlow6423 I got to you somewhere in there. Ponder.

[@Braun09tv]

I disagree because you just make it look "normal". The fundamental thing is nothing else but non-repetitiveness. If you know a better English term pls advise.

[@user-lu9hq6jv4v]

You are correct, Sir! Consciousness is beyond fundamental.

[@woz7948]

And Occam's razor stands true here as only two assumptions exist at the beginning of this theory: That evolution exists and that consciousness exists. That's all. And I don't think you would find many people who would disagree with those obvious facts.

[@Daniel-Six]

This is precisely how Tom Campbell approaches the situation too.

[@woz7948]

@@Daniel-Six I probably upset a few materialists writing that! I just love old Uncle Tom's theory it answers questions others don't. Cheers Dan hope you're well all the best

[@prettysure3085]

Tom cruise: i want the truth! Jack Nicholson: u can't handle the truth! Donald: listen to him tom, he aint lying.

[@0ptimal]

This has given me some new revelations. All of this feels intuitive. It resonates w many of my own thoughts about things. I've been obsessed with perception for some time, strongly suspecting that somehow it was the hidden key to everything. One question I have still, is how far does this go. What's the extent of what's possible for something with this user interface. If we construct fitness payoffs, from some source, how much flexibility is there. Is this source hardware like, capable of producing anything, or is it sort of like predefined code. Somehow I suspect that the subconscious has a major role in all this. Need to ponder more.

[@thomasstanford80191]

You gave such great, relevant questions!! Thank you!

[@MedSlate]

Consciousness defined in the Mandukya Upanishad (since Dr Hoffman mentioned the Upanishads) - Translation by Purohit Swami & Yeats He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined. He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is He the sum of all that might be known. He cannot be seen, grasped, bargained with. He is undefinable, unthinkable, indescribable. The only proof of His existence is union with Him. The world disappears in Him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second. This is the fourth condition of the Self - the most worthy of all.

[@skyotter3317]

1:32:00 for a couple of minutes nails it!

[@GiedriusMisiukas]

10:00 "he would have given us wings" Lol, this made my day 48:00 good one, the question and the answer

[@hgracern]

Just fab, thank you. Yes it seems that colour is our continuity not space time. The red Camino can’t be ‘out there’ because red is created in cortex. Rods n cones vibrate the optic nerve. ❤

[@LaSek-q6t]

Awesom conversation, really touching deepest questions of mankind. Of course the idea that fundamental consciousness (or God) by creating universe, life and human is evolving to something new is not new, but if mathematics can support it, would be great.

[@Jim-jx5ds]

Loves me some Don Hoffman. I would like him to speak much more regarding humans and aliens.

[@Mac-zl4po]

Is don is good

[@gregoryallen0001]

i like julian barbour's book THE END OF TIME ❤️ thanks for this awesome diacussion [edit: DISCUSSION*]

[@user-C8onIm4]

This is what Professor Donald Hoffman is trying to say. Gödel’s incompletely theorem proofs divine creator, GOD being as all knowing and omnipotent as it and will ever be, there are always experiences where IT itself cannot experience. Thus it create fractal piece of itself being a soul into a human body to experience the world.

[@rickwyant]

😂

[@robertscrivner698]

The paradigm of materialism, and the idea that conciousness arises from matter is evidently false. The concept of panpsycheism is also appearing to be dubious. The evidence continues to pile up in favor of idealism. The Nobel prize in physics was just awarded for showing quantum entanglement unequivocally destroys local realism. I am very intrigued to hold Hoffman's model up to Tom Campbell's, they do not contradict each other but describe a similar reality from very different perspectives.

[@Daniel-Six]

I'm a huge fan of Tom's work. Spent hundreds of hours on his forums too. Hoffman and Campbell are very alike in demeanor, it's interesting to note. I think Tom has had more time to digest the practical and spiritual implications of their conjectures, thus his unfaltering advice to simply be compassionate and helpful to your fellow adventurers in life.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"Seeing the truth will make you extinct." ~ Hoffman (2022) " 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" ~ Nietsche (1882)

[@rickwyant]

Materialism is false? LoL, there is no evidence for just a "mind" existing independent of a brain. The comment section is full of starryeyed individuals looking for a way out of the truth that we are just meat machines following the laws of physics. No self, no free will.

[@dinoveiga9406]

Incredible presentation and well structured theory, however I have a couple of issues with the consciousness agent theory. First, is measuring that which is the subject(consciousness)science can only talk about that which is observed ( object). So this theory predicts that the likelihood that this world as we see it is real is zero… so this is not real. But this implies that even our math is also unreal. But this obviously implies that even if we experience REALITY, our math; instrument par excellence to measure, tells us that that REALITY is false…. From here, we can only see unreality….incompleteness… even if what I experience is from the real….In other words one can not measure reality from the unreal… hence the math( instrument of the unreal) that predicts zero probability of seeing the reality is an incapable(but yet the best we have) instrument to speak of the most fundamental… consciousness

[@mstrG]

If You watch everything from Donald Hoffman, wild stuff You are searching for starts from around 55:00 till end. Thanks

[@mstrG]

regards Rumi quote from around 1:23:00 silence is frequency above or beyond our sense of hearing, like cymatics

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Lol

[@glenliesegang233]

Experience is awareness of what is happening within the flickering dance of electromagnetic energy as it dances on the stage of neurons which direct the flow and limit its possibilities. Neurons are built from an almost infinite set of dancing molecules which can never be simulated because all is dancing as well with reading frames of DNA code with hormonal, vitamin levels, epigenetic properties. And every neuron has a huge number of synapses which each have their own variable strength of connections.. As Penrose said, brain function is not computable. PS: Goedel's theorem probably points to the incompleteness of physical models of "mind."

[@optimusprimevil1646]

but that's like saying "why does the universe exist?" and answering "there is no problem here, it just exists. it's only a problem to our human minds because we can't know the answer"

[@okayokayokaydokay]

I’m extremely curious about the timing of this theory and outlook now that VR is actually at hand. What are the odds that a theory about consciousness related to interface tech would emerge at the same time that technology emerges in the market? Synchronistic or opportunistic?

[@visancosmin8991]

For consciousness, see my papers, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

[@Constantinesis]

How is his theory different from the religious views about soul, afterlife and God? He is basically explaning there is truth behind...

[@jimiijimii1111]

Distilling it down to it's core without human's corrupt touch.

[@euginrobinson]

The objects of hobbies, what fitness payoffs they offer, curious to know.

[@dequationblog]

Evolution as a theory is predicated on time. Time is necessary for any process to unfold, and therefore, you cannot use evolutionary theory to explain why time wouldn't be real. A process is, in fact, a change in some object over time. So by definition, if that is invalidated, so is any concept resting on it, including the theory of evolution. Without time, evolutionary theory has no explanatory power, because it explains current observations through gradual change, and without time, change isn't possible. This dooms most of Hoffman's claims, actually (those that include causality). You can't use a user interface to make inferences about the structure of the computer that enables that user interface. There is no way the existence of physical reality, including electronic circuits, would ever be predictable or even plausible from a standard Windows OS-interface, if you had never seen anything but the inside of the Windows Operating System (heaven forbid.) So if we assume that our consciousness is a user interface, we can't use anything resulting from operations happening or models built using that interface to make predictions about the state of reality - supposing that there is an underlying reality. No explanation formulated on such a platform would ever say anything about the constraints of the platform itself. If you think you're investigating the processes behind the representation of files and folders, because you're looking at the actual code the platform is running - you can only look at the code which is accessible from the platform, and you can only represent what is going on within the constraints of the system. Subsequently, even if you discover that a folder can be broken into lines of code - those lines of code are no more real or unreal than the folder. They're simply a different level of reality, and since your investigation of the algorithm that leads to their existence takes place within the OS, there is no priority To verify this for yourself, just imagine that the contents of your consciousness is replaced by a Windows OS. Unless that OS contains files that depict the existence of the OS the result of electricity moving around circuits (and how would you verify that data?) how would you ever come to any conclusion about the underlying nature of the user interface? What would you be able to say?

[@mauricemeijers7956]

Hofmann rocks 😀👍

[@0ptimal]

1:05:56, 1:10:55, 1:23:17

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"Seeing the truth will make you extinct." ~ Hoffman (2022) " 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" ~ Nietsche (1882)

[@Cat_Woods]

I've read Dr. Hoffman's book and watched a bunch of his talks and interviews, but something about it never adds up to me: For fitness rewards to work at all, there has to be something that one is perceiving at least somewhat accurately. Even if it's somehow a substitution (like seeing an icon that represents a file), it still has to actually represent that file or else you don't get the payoff or even get a punishment or taken out of the game. So what is THAT reality then? Is he saying that it's all a simulation? Who programmed it? Always seems to me that the resources required to simulate an interface reality of the resolution we have (from subatomic particles to the CMB) would be prohibitive, especially when it's all about maximizing fitness rewards. There would have to be this other reality that not only connects to every aspect of this interface reality, down to every subatomic particle and out to the furthest reaches of the observable universe, but also provides fitness rewards and punishments at every single point of connection and presumably has reasons for all its rewards and punishments. (Pretty extreme violation of Occam's razor.) I'm interested in understanding what he's proposing, but I just can't get it to cohere. It seems that he's using the "user interface" as a metaphor -- but a metaphor for WHAT? What is he suggesting is the larger REAL reality that we can't perceive? Doesn't perceiving a potential fitness reward (e.g., a ripe fruit) or fitness hazard (e.g., a high cliff over rocks) in itself count as some kind of perception of reality? [The red Camaro in Grand Theft Auto can't kill you by running you over in the game. A real Camaro in actual reality can. I would say that's the difference between perceiving a simulated interface reality and perceiving at least the most relevant-to-you aspects of actual reality. Even if our perceptions are not "truth," there's enough truth in them (>0%) to be able to survive and continue.] If not, what aspects of our interface reality should we regard as fake? If you look in a telescope, are you supposed to think someone simulated what you see through it? Why? Where is this approach supposed to lead to? It always feels as if something's missing in the proposal, so I just can't get my head around it. I have tried many times now.

[@projectmalus]

No idea if this is right, but if there are levels that allow intelligence then perhaps the non-object creativity as the top level allows the perception of objects by this same relational self creativity. Power objects indeed, the planet subdividing into ecosystem as bounded objects sharing what the object of the planet Earth has as relation with Sun, suns with galaxy supermassive black hole, the suns as a spiral qualia collector like the human ear, the black hole ear drum and the solar system as the qualia mimicking hammer and stirrup interpretaion. Life as qualia on all levels, self non-object observer characterized by the tools of the qualia collector. So, changing these tools might be informative, but the built object of the knowledge pool is fragile. What humans do in the ecosystem is ride a symbiosis of grass, ruminants and wolves. The interaction of those three counter the dark side, the self smothering aggressive grass, the greedy dumbing down of the ruminant, the lazy dog. Humans by intruding get the dark side as the dark triad, but not the counter effect except by scapegoating, essentially objectifying other self and therefor ones own. The scapegoat on one level is civilization, when the non-ruminant makes grain etc a staple. Knowledge pool and participation in that is civilization, not the concrete built objects. Life is the vibrational qualia that is objectified by the collector - as the observer - but I could be wrong. It's like the material perceived is the "moving" and that top level emanation thru levels as creativity is the "being", the two sets of adverb and adjective, verbs and nouns as respectively being and moving. Everything moves, it's the relational "quickly" which informs the observer. The green of a plant is that not used by that object, we infer from that truth while the shape and texture are approximated. For the red ball, the red is true, the material form changing or moving. Language as a tool of sets that the agent can manipulate in response to what is perceived as objects on different levels, for power of creativity. Which is killed by over objectification because that commits one to a sort of false ceiling of one level in which verticality is restrained, and the movement between levels as the strength of self non-object.

[@samirjiries2353]

I can see lots, but I wish I was smart enough to see more. It could be the lacking in background.

[@ChasingConsciousnessPodcast]

Thanks for listening Samir, i hope the rest of the episodes help fill in some of the background.

[@MalkyTalky]

We are an advanced simulation. For me, the question is whether our consciousness exists or if we're AI.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Lol. Sure. I like Star Trek too

[@Mac-zl4po]

@jamesbarlow6423 no we are in a shared dream. When we sleep we are in solo dream. Then there's death dream. When you realise you are the God, having all dreams.

[@flashingturtle6505]

Bravo

[@jabster58]

This talk just proves that Mankind has no clue as to what this place is or where it came from..and it seems like they will never know for sure...I think if I had to believe anyone it would be the millions of nde that may have saw a glimpse of the truth.

[@SeiroosFardipour-sy3sh]

The best things about this new approach make invalid things like , superiority,uniqueness,smartness, competition, differentially either sexually, racially, evolutionarily,...

[@LuciFeric137]

Love Dr. Hoffman. A lot of these ideas resemble what Castaneda wrote down.

[@rickwyant]

Castaneda was a fake. His stories though entertaining were made up. People are always looking for an exciting way to look at the world when the truth is very simple.

[@Meditation409]

New Subscriber!! 😀🙂❤

[@dequationblog]

47:54 Look, we have zero (0) observations of consciousness, apart from our own. We have tons of behavior of objects we classify as humans, with speech patterns, facial expression, movements, apparent purpose, etc. But no amount of observations of objects will ever imply the existence of subjective phenomena. It's just a non sequitur. Subjective experience does not follow from objective behavior. This says nothing about the existence of other consciousnesses - i.e., it does not imply solipsism - simply about our ability to infer anything about their existence.

[@louiscastillojlc]

It makes sense, after taking the red pill I thought why reproduce.

[@sciencefordreamers2115]

We don't need explanations my man, only direct experience

[@Jim-jx5ds]

Commercial advertisements during such an important talk...God were so trapped in our ideas.

[@2kt2000]

I've seem similar comments on KZbin, I however never get commercials during. I'm on a laptop at moment and recall I did install some free ad blocker over a year ago..just an idea .

[@mstrG]

@@2kt2000 buy a premium, i hate to focus on topic to be disrupted by commercial, i pay yt but i hate them

[@2kt2000]

@@mstrG I think you misunderstand friend or your comment was directed to Jim though my names on your comment. I dont get interrupted. I simply installed a "free" ad blocker, no premium needed.

[@Daniel-Six]

I pay for YT premium. Absolutely worth it. Practically everything that is worth watching on the internet has its home base on KZbin. Hate the damn censorship that's arisen over the last few years though. Nasty stain on an otherwise amazing platform.

[@aliceinaddiction]

Perhaps our eyes are an evolutionary VR headset.

[@alexgzbro101]

Eyes are the head set, our brains keep record of what is experienced through it

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

Godel's incompleteness therem is kinda like georg cantor's proof of the transfinite, you are looking at osmething that belongs to the system that generates it in a sequenced kinda way, but also it belongs in truth to a larger set, in truth it doesnt belong to the set that created it due to its p[roperties. that is cantor's proof in a sense. Godel's incompleteness theorem runs into that which is unquantifiable, but its effects so to speak are still known.

[@jmp01a24]

You do not need math in the decimal system. Learn to use binary in stead, we can all get along.

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

Any class at UCI?

[@Jay-kk3dv]

Fitness > Truth; means human species is doomed as we become more advanced

[@johnjackson3885]

People. I'm having a really hard time with this theory. There is so much difficulty I'm having with it.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

So, I'm just pick out short and sharp. Without our Day-Consciousness, there would be NO awareness, Feeling is our Window to Reality, Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip make Feeling into Sensing, all experiences is Feeling-Experience, first hand. Rainbow picture our Over-Consciousness, Colors the Under-Consciousness = Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic/Order, (*), Harddisc. in technical composition, make 'This Device', work. Intuition is a Deeper study. We are Gravity-Beings, our Night-Bodies is Deep-Sleep, the Circuit-Princip is in everything, at all levels, at Life-side and Stuff-side.

[@Mac-zl4po]

How about a chat with CHRIS LANAGAN

[@BGerdes]

Although interesting, it was off-putting how many times the guest said "we use simulations to prove theorems". Simulations are not proof, they are indications. Even then, a simulation's indicative value relies upon how accurately and exhaustively any given simulation maps to reality. This is not to say the theory is right or wrong - just that simulations are not enough to prove something.

[@FrancisGo.]

The simulation didn't literally prove the theorem. A human mathematician wrote more than one game theoretic math proof after thousands of simulations made it clear there was maybe something there worth pursuing. The proofs aren't just conjectures. They're actual math proofs that you can look up and study.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Well said. That naive aspect of this is troubling.

[@chrisd6736]

Simulations only prove that you can set up a simulation to support literally any argument and naive people might be tricked into thinking the results have anything to do with reality.

[@glenliesegang233]

I disagree with electrons not existing when not perceived. It is the opposite!!!. In order to know anything exists, it must interact with matter. Not conscious matter! It is NOT that it isn't there. That is utter insanity. The tree falling in the forest absolutely, unequivocally, makes a noise!!!

[@clocksfinle7]

if i can hear your saliva in the mic with every word its time to lay off the compression.. its gnarley.. good content tho.👌

[@ChasingConsciousnessPodcast]

Thanks for the feedback, i hope the new mic is helping!

[@rickwyant]

The lungs were compared to a bellows, the heart a pump and now the brain is compared to a computer and the mind to software. See a pattern?

[@yifuxero9745]

Hoffman's evolutionary theory based on game theory is bogus. His model concludes that agents looking deeper into the nature of reality had no fitness payoff and died out Ridiculous!. Say you're trying to escape from a saber toothed tiger 30,000 yrs ago. Right, there's no fitness payoff for the quest for Reality immediately. Its a fight for flight situation, but at nite, everybody crowds around the Shaman, and with the use of chants, dances, psychedelics and music, people engage in low fitness endeavors that over the course of thousands of years, forge the societies we have today. Certain cultures such as the ancient Egyptians spent vast resources and time on accommodating the dead. Such endeavors had no DNA fitness payoffs in the short run but had incalculable influences on the course of human evolution. The Hoffman mathematical model based on game theory is an example of "garbage in, garbage out". and so is the Dawkins "selfish gene" theory.

[@farhadtowfiq6767]

The only thing fundamental is nothingness. Conceinsness and God must be compatible with nothingness.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

No consciousness is fundamental. Nothingness is just a concept.

[@FromRootsToRadicals_INTP]

Dude i want your into song! Lol

[@ChasingConsciousnessPodcast]

DM me through the website www.chasingconsciousness.net and i'll send you the full track, it's genius!