Donald Hoffman Puts Forth Perfect MATHEMATICAL Theory of Consciousness

[Carl-Richard]

@luckieluuke I've actually been inside a cult, and this forum is nothing like it. People with a common mission get together in groups all the time. 

[Jacobsrw]

On 03/06/2020 at 0:27 PM, Saba said:

@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!

@Saba So I watched the fair majority of this interview with an open mind, since you appeared to detest views in opposition to it who had not. I have some points to share that may be of interest. Buckle up, it’s a long one.

First off, usually I find value in Tom Bilyue’s content and his take on rudimentary self-development, but here he just hindered the progression of this conversation. Tom is clearly a naive realist who believes in a dualistic material objective reality. The way he used this paradigm I feel created many problems throughout.

On the other hand, hats of to Hoffman, as he seems to have some interesting points that may supersede his conventional predecessors. Some of which, I disagree with but some I do not. Nonetheless, they are still worthy to note. Since no one has taken the time to mention the main points he covered I will do so here.

(1) Hoffman claims his Mathematical theory proves: “An organism that sees reality as it is, in whole or in part, is never more fit than an organism that is of equal complexity and sees none of reality”. Basically reality is independent of the organism in which perceives it. This is interesting and leads to what he further stipulates. In part, it seems he may be inferring the assumption of duality.

(2) Hoffman believes in an subjective relativism in which is projected through an interface he calls “the social network”. 

This is interesting and far more comprehensive than simulation theory. Although it’s cumbersome what he reasons the core of this to be. Since the network is assumed as an inextricable reflection of ones own experience it’s as if he believes this subjective relativism creates objectivism. This seems stray away from consciousness as the primacy and leans toward an emergent materialism.

(2) conscious agents inform experience and experience is a vast field of sensory perceptions that are fundamental. Here I feel there is an assumed duality in his proposition of consciousness. Hoffman states sensory experience is fundamental (just what that means is left to the imagination since Tom interrupts). However, it appears he assumes that sensory experience is a central domain of experience and so too are the are conscious agents through which the experience is known. He does pluralises “conscious agents” and assigns them to the social network conception. This is an advanced perspective but appears to assume a subjective consciousness which perceives experience. I feel this undermines the distortion of mind. Whereby, experience appears subjective through the lens mind but is actually just a derivative of the one consciousness ie. no subjectivity. 

(3) Truth is independent and is very different than survival. The probability that survival equates to an accurate perception is reported as 0. In other words, the patterns of survival contort reality to suit a fitness pay off. 

This is sophisticated conception of survival I feel. Not sure about the mathematics however. Hoffman equates survival as a relative activity dependent on a subjects make. In other words, survival is not absolute. Yet I feel here he is relies too heavily on mathematics, assuming it a valid criterion of measure for survival behaviour. 

(4) time is an illusion. Hoffman explains time as an illusion and suggests it is merely a projection of the a virtual reality headset. This I feel is quite accurate. He provides a fairly solid position on the illusion of space and time. Stating it as a fiction created in the headset purely for purposes of utility. Although, one flaw I came I across in this contention, was that he argued logic and reason as fundamental measures of this truth. I feel he saw past the futility of mathematics and logic in this sense. He equated time and space to be falsifiable through logic and reason, rather than the underling experience used to induct that process.

(5) reality is infinite. He goes on to state reality is infinite and suggests this is supported by Godels Incompleteness Theorem. I agree here, but raise concern in his formulation of infinity. He suggests infinity exists but only through the lens of the headset. Meanwhile, consciousness is just more a subsequence of reality. I feel he has infinity backward here.

Hoffman appears to be provocative in the conventional scientific field. I like his presentation style, persona and mannerism when approaching science. He is extremely humble and seems to have humility in doing so.

But it must be noted that his conceptions of science are conceptually derived, which in no way suggests consciousness can be mathematically represented. Which is what he argues he is working on. This will be a never ending endeavour.

Consciousness is the fundamental phenomenon of reality. It cannot be quantified because whatever is used to quantify it is by definition a subset within it, thus, invariably becomes redundant in its explanatory power. The truth precedes anything that attempts to explain it and cannot be explained by anything proceeds in following to it. Godels Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates this, ironically. If you take a self referential computation and use it to falsify itself, it equally must have to be true in order to be falsified. However, the computation cannot be proven since new computations inevitably derive as a result of the falsification process. Therefore, mathematics is inherently futile in proving phenomena and could not be extended to consciousness. Since the computation used to explain consciousness would just be a further extension of new and necessary computations that are unexplainable. It would go on forever.

Just like the word “tree” does not represent the actuality of a tree. A computation could not represent the actuality of consciousness.

Irrespective of this, Hoffman appears he could be an important figure in science. He made some good points which may be a step in the right direction. Who knows, though. A far majority of the scientific community remains heavily deluded so it would be stretch to see it go very far any time soon.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[luckieluuke]

@Jacobsrw Wow thanks for your long reply. Interesting to hear your take on it issues/questions you have

Hoffman obviously have a different aspect coming from mathematics than a sage such as Rupert Spira, maharishi etc but they really do all point in the same general direction and that is soooo interesting!
Not sure if "spirituality" can change the world by itself, maybe many egos (mine included) needs some scientific proof to really let go and embrace our true nature.

[StarStruck]

Infinity which is consciousness is awareness and awareness is prior to thought and theory. Once you begin to theorize infinity you start putting finite constructs on it and you will lose point.

[luckieluuke]

@StarStruck ...Which is one of the main points/issues Hoffman is exploring....Sorry have to ask: have you even listened to more than 20 random seconds to the interview?

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, luckieluuke said:

@StarStruck ...Which is one of the main points/issues Hoffman is exploring....Sorry have to ask: have you even listened to more than 20 random seconds to the interview?

It's all nonsense. You are imagining Donald Hoffman. You are imaging your parents. You are imagining me.

Stop playing games and wake the fuck up!

YOU. ARE. GOD!

[luckieluuke]

Well yea I wish it was that simple (which it is if I would just stop getting in my way, but I cannot help it  )
Part of me still is Orange stage in Sprial Dynamics (even thou I don´t want to admit it) and that needs some persuation, which Hoffman does brilliantly and he should not be looked down upon in my eyes. He is just explaining the same thing from another point of view. And you have done to Leo. That part of me is a product of most of my life having society/culture tell me that I am this body and it exists in spacetime which probably produces a sense of self. That part is not helped by the Truth you speak of, it simply doesnt apply to that reality, that illusion/headset/nonsense.

[Jacobsrw]

3 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

@Jacobsrw Wow thanks for your long reply. Interesting to hear your take on it issues/questions you have

Hoffman obviously have a different aspect coming from mathematics than a sage such as Rupert Spira, maharishi etc but they really do all point in the same general direction and that is soooo interesting!
Not sure if "spirituality" can change the world by itself, maybe many egos (mine included) needs some scientific proof to really let go and embrace our true nature.

Anytime. I watched this video not because I felt compelled to but because I wanted to squander my ignorance which was earlier criticised. However, I still found the interview relatively empty. It was probing into areas wherein science has been for eons with no success. Not because science is useless but because when it come to the fundamental essence of reality (which is consciousness) science is incompetent. It’s simply just becomes a bed time story to entertain the mind.

Consciousness is beyond the wits of Hoffman and any other scientists that came before him. He proposed some nice theories and presented himself very well, humble indeed, I like him. Nevertheless, I feel he will hit the very same inevitable ceiling many before him have also. Which is, consciousness is primary and nothing precedes it. Meaning, nothing can explain it because whatever aims to is but a finite limitation within it.

2 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

Well yea I wish it was that simple (which it is if I would just stop getting in my way, but I cannot help it  )
Part of me still is Orange stage in Sprial Dynamics (even thou I don´t want to admit it) and that needs some persuation, which Hoffman does brilliantly and he should not be looked down upon in my eyes. He is just explaining the same thing from another point of view. And you have done to Leo. That part of me is a product of most of my life having society/culture tell me that I am this body and it exists in spacetime which probably produces a sense of self. That part is not helped by the Truth you speak of, it simply doesnt apply to that reality, that illusion/headset/nonsense.

Dont get too caught up in relying on theories and concepts. In the end, they become insolubly redundant and irrelevant. Explore reality directly. This is the only way to understand it at the core.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

He is just explaining the same thing from another point of view.

No he isn't. He has no fucking clue. Zero.

He has no idea what God is. He is as far way as a mule is from understanding calculus.