Donald Hoffman Puts Forth Perfect MATHEMATICAL Theory of Consciousness

[Saba]

Guys. This is the most important scientific theory of our time. 

Science has broken through the paradigm of physicalism. Leo, you have to watch this interview. It explores Gödel's incompleteness theorems, 5-MeO-DMT, meditation, INFINITE permutations of consciousness or "conscious agents"... everything. 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Saba

[Saba]

.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Saba

[CultivateLove]

It gets really sexy when science and spirituality mingle in a cohesive way

[Leo Gura]

Watched 20 random seconds of it and already fundamentally wrong.

Infinity cannot be put into any kind of theory.

[CultivateLove]

@Leo Gura It's still good for the spiral, right? 

To me, it seems like a mix of yellow with a little turquoise that is well suited to help the materialistic, rationalistic orange to see past it's current dominant perspective and kind of trick them into green/yellow 

[Spaceofawareness]

He has an interesting theory. The idea is, there is no world out there, the world is created inside consciousness. Basically instead of trying to fit consciousness into materialism, he’s taking consciousness as fundamental and trying to get materialistic physics out of consciousness.

[CultivateLove]

@Spaceofawareness Yeah it's like a little magic trick

[Free Mind]

Lol, I used to be on this guy’s dick so hard.

Forget it. He’s utterly clueless, neurotic, and lost. It’s actually sad when you see it. 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

Donald Hoffman is an example of a traditional materialist scientist who’s starting to see the writing on the wall but who is still clinging to certain scientific dogmas. 

One example of this is his assertion that in order to “prove” his theory that consciousness is fundamental, he must be able to create a mathematical model of consciousness.  He asserts in one instance that consciousness is fundamental and then turns around and says there must be a mathematical model.  So is consciousness fundamental, or is mathematics fundamental? You can’t have it both ways.  

What he is not seeing is that mathematics arises out of consciousness. Consciousness does not arise out of mathematics. 

That being said: I actually really appreciate Donald Hoffman and what he’s trying to do.  I think it’s great that there is a respectable “non-fringe” scientist (Though, perhaps many in the mainstream scientific community still may consider him fringe) who is at least starting to introduce to the mainstream the idea that consciousness is primary.  He has some critical blind spots, but it’s still a step in the right direction. 
 

Baby steps, right? 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, CultivateLove said:

@Leo Gura It's still good for the spiral, right? 

To me, it seems like a mix of yellow with a little turquoise that is well suited to help the materialistic, rationalistic orange to see past it's current dominant perspective and kind of trick them into green/yellow 

In general I support scientists who think beyond materialism. I'll take Hoffman over Richard Dawkins.

Sure, it's good for those trying to get outside stage Orange.

In general I support anything that's above the current culture's center of gravity. It would be foolish not to.

There is a long way to go from Orange to Infinity.

[Jacobsrw]

On 31/05/2020 at 1:28 AM, Saba said:

Guys. This is the most important scientific theory of our time. 

Science has broken through the paradigm of physicalism. Leo, you have to watch this interview. It explores Gödel's incompleteness theorems, 5-MeO-DMT, meditation, INFINITE permutations of consciousness or "conscious agents"... everything. 

 

Scientists postulating that consciousness can be conceptualised through tangible quantification ?

Its the mind grasping at thin straws, attempting to compress the incomprehensible and unspeakable into a comprehensible representation.

Mathematics is a derivative of mind which is a derivative of consciousness. You cannot simply use concepts to understand what lies beyond it.

This is likely to end up reductionising and over simplifying consciousness.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Saba]

 

 @Leo Gura Maybe I didn't do it justice with my description. I think if you watch it in full you will see that he's moving towards to an actual theory of infinity, with consciousness being the fundamental and irreducible building block. 

He speaks about how "the math" is leading him to believe there are infinite "conscious agents" which exist in any and every permutation, giving rise to an infinite reality. He also speaks highly of others' 5-MeO-DMT experiences, and he's seeking to consult people with those experiences to help him see differently.

I understand that math is within consciousness itself -- in the same vein, he actually uses the theory of natural selection to disprove natural selection itself, and move beyond physicality. Likewise, he's using math to get beyond math. 

I think for a renowned scientist to make the bold leap to explore the metaphysical is quite remarkable! 

Has anyone actually watched it with an open mind, and in full? Or are we dogmatically discrediting everything based on one lone sentence or prior prejudice? The ego is easily deceived. 

[Saba]

@The Lucid Dreamer you're exactly right, he hasn't left the math behind yet. Like I said above, he actually uses the theory of natural selection to disprove natural selection itself, and move beyond physicality. Likewise, he's using math to get beyond math. 

[luckieluuke]

I have just watched half of it and wow, this is exactly what science needs to get its head out of its butt!
Thanks so much for sharing Saba. I do have a aspect of myself still stuck in Orange and this helps alot

[Saba]

@luckieluuke My pleasure  glad you found it helpful!

[Willie]

I listened and found it fascinating! It’s easy to listen to some random sample of something and say it’s entirely bullshit if you disagree with that sample. My only issue with the interview is that the interviewer interrupts him a lot.

He does admit during the interview that we may never know the basis of reality through math. Once you solve one question, other questions occur to you that you were previously unaware of. And I like how he says it becomes a ‘turtles all the way down’ problem, with math substituted for turtles.

It’s similar to something Leo has said in previous videos: how do you effectively communicate about Consciousness (or Love, or God, or Infinity, etc...) when the communication itself is such an insignificant speck within it?

I appreciate his effort, though, just as I appreciate Leo’s!

[The Lucid Dreamer]

@Saba I finally got the time to finish the interview, and I gotta say, he surprised me. It seems like he’s actually starting to drop some of his previously held materialistic biases.  

Either that, or I misunderstood his views before. Though I don’t think I did, cause I used to be very interested in his work and I watched every video of his I could find.  His citation of Gödels Incompleteness Theorem shows that he’s starting to see the paradox that lies within self-referential systems, and seems to be opening his mind to the possibility that there may be a mystery behind consciousness that can never be adjudicated. Though it seems he’s a little hesitant to embrace Infinity. It would be great to see him finally getting it someday. 

[Carl-Richard]

You can elimate spacetime from a model, but you can't elimate concepts from a model.

[Saba]

@Willie @The Lucid Dreamer I'm so glad you guys had the chance to watch it, and did so with an open mind! I also recognize he doesn't have everything perfectly understood, but seeing science go so far is astounding. 

*I don't mean this about either of you*: As an aside, I am sometimes worried that Leo's fans will become a cult of their own, discrediting anything Leo discredits or adopting all of his ideas without thinking about it themselves. Which, of course, is what he explicitly tells us not to do. Critical and independent thinking can be a very deceptive thing! 

Onwards!

[luckieluuke]

@Saba You are def right that there are some cultish tendencies on this forum. Im not so worried thou.
 

On 5/30/2020 at 11:49 PM, Leo Gura said:

Watched 20 random seconds of it and already fundamentally wrong.

Now Im almost finished with it and gotta say its not fundamentally wrong the way Leo judged it to be. I can only guess what Leo is reffering to is: using science that is a part of the whole to explain the whole. And Hoffman talks about exactly that.