The Nature of Reality, Evolution, and Consciousness
Reality, evolution, and consciousness are three fundamental aspects of existence that have intrigued philosophers, scientists, and theologians for centuries. In recent years, two prominent thinkers in this field, Donald Hoffman and Philip Goff, have presented compelling ideas about these topics that challenge our traditional understanding of the world.
Donald Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception
Donald Hoffman, a cognitive psychologist and popular science author, has proposed a radical theory of perception called the Interface Theory of Perception. According to Hoffman, our senses do not provide us with a direct representation of the objective reality but instead construct a simplified and useful interface that helps us navigate the world. He argues that natural selection favors organisms that perceive the world in a way that maximizes their fitness, rather than in a way that accurately represents reality. This provocative idea has profound implications for how we understand our relationship with the world around us.
Philip Goff’s Panpsychism and Consciousness
Philip Goff, a philosopher and consciousness researcher, has been a leading advocate for panpsychism, the view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. In his work, Goff explores the implications of this view for our understanding of evolution and the nature of consciousness. He argues that panpsychism provides a compelling solution to the hard problem of consciousness and offers a more coherent account of the role of consciousness in the universe. Goff’s ideas have sparked intense debate and have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the mind and the cosmos.
Collaboration and Dialogue
Both Donald Hoffman and Philip Goff have made significant contributions to our understanding of reality, evolution, and consciousness. Their work challenges us to question our assumptions about the nature of the world and the mind, and to entertain the possibility of radically new perspectives. Through collaboration and dialogue, these thinkers offer the potential for a more holistic and integrated understanding of existence, one that transcends the traditional boundaries of science, philosophy, and spirituality. As we continue to explore the mysteries of reality, evolution, and consciousness, the insights of Hoffman and Goff will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the world.
1:17:13.. we are the same as when we were created. We have not evolved from anything. We've devolved, if anything.
Excellent excellent conversation guys! Thank you for hosting Curt +some really interesting questions. Don LOVE your interpretations here……..wow. A lot to think about)))))
Don H Brilliant ❤
One of my favorite episode!
I really appreciate Donald hoffman. I had a deep, very very deep DMT experience which leaved me baffled and with some answers, but many more questions i couldnt even conceive. It gave me insights which are not human, a non-human experience, literally!
Thats the problem i have with explaining this experience.
Then i heard don hoffman and i really understood his arguments instantly! They feel very closely to my DMT experience. I could understand his explanations quite easily. The basic concept, not everything he said ^^
I also appreciate Philip Goff! I like him very much, although i dont believe in his theory. But his thoughts are still worthwhile & i like how he really tried to understand Donald hoffmans concept.
But he seems to have some problems, there is a mind-bridge he cant cross or see. We all have such different concepts, we cant accept/understand the concepts from anyone so easily!
It seems like a mind barrier many people have.
Have understanding for people who dont think like you!
I really liked this one because Philip Goff poked Donald Hoffman quite a bit in good faith! Could help many people!
Philip proved honesty, intelligence & good faith.
Good reason for me to listen to him, even though i dont agree with his theory.
But thats secondary!
As a Christian, pain and suffering are pretty easy to explain.
14:00
I think it's pretty safe to say that the tissues of all living organisms (including their neural tissues) are continually 'observed', just by dint of hosting the consciousness animating said organisms, and being in interaction with their experienced environment. 'Observation' isn't limited to one's visual sense modality, so it's silly to claim that physical systems like neurons somehow don't exist unless someone's looking at them 😄
Our brains 🧠 are the ultimate VR set
Keep up the great work Curt!
We ARE in a Simulation.
Great to see our physicists going beyond spacetime because that'll be the only way to understand UAPs
The thing about saying something doesn't exist if it's not observed you would not call a video camera a person so I could set up a video camera and see that that chair exists even when I'm not in the room to look at it I don't understand that logic. It's just like schrödinger's cat, I always thought yeah if we have a video camera looking into the box we do know whether it is alive or dead
Philip is fake
I listen to all these conversations, but my brain doesn't understand a lot of it. Still draws me in tho.
Hate to say it but eventually had to fast forward each time Goff spoke. Not sure he brought a lot to the table here.
Then again- I’ve been team Hoffman for years so maybe my mind was already made up.
Great talk overall 🙏🏻
34:18 OMG Kurt "those people don't have any neurons so don't worry about it". Illiterately laughed out loud. This was the most clever, spot on & relevant comment that could have been said. This is why you are a fantastic host. Thank you!!
The double slit experiment proves we live in a simulation discovered over a hundred years ago. They don't want us to know this because your conscience gives you the power to manifest your reality. Mind over matter like the Placebo Effect.
@46:00 that is so bad from Goff it's not funny. Fundamental science is not mathematical. The mathematics is only a tool for describing science, you can give natural language descriptions too, but less precise. There is a clear distinction between science and mathematics, even more than that between syntax and semantics. That's all Russell was really saying. Russell's monism stuff was sheer lunacy otherwise (imho). You cannot have a scientific theory of panpsychism, not until you define what consciousness is in essence, and this they cannot do. So it's meaningless garbage (panpsychism).
@39:00 Curt laying down some truth there. That was superb. Forced Hoffman to admit he is doing pure speculative philosophy. "Directions things are going in…" are not established science. For a while "things were going in the direction" of S-Matrix and bootstrap. For a while "things were going in the direction" of siuperstrings. Nature does not always give is a straight path.
@13:00 the Bell experiments did not prove local realism is false. Hoffman's been reading too many Quanta and NewYorker (or whatever) magazine articles, lol. The experiments show realism is fine (objects have classical observable properties) provided there are exquisite non-local correlations. But these are exquisite, they're the exception, not the rule, for any given randomly selected qubits, so cry out for a realist account, such as ER=EPR conjectures, or similar. ER=EPR is local realism, with non-local correlations (via the Planck scale wormhole bridge — or if you prefer the QFT dual then via metaphysical entanglement).
Point being, while entanglement is ubiquitous, it is fickle, so delicate. So the non-local correlations arising from entanglement are highly susceptible to "decoherence" (breaking and reforming elsewhere) given the slightest external disturbance. Given spacetime is highly dynamic at the Planck scale, this is hard to avoid in a sensible theory. Ergo, "spacetime" need not be doomed, and need not be a fictional "headset". Some humility is required when engaging in such theorising.
@12:00 is this a crux of Hoffman's misconceptions? It can be the case neurons are real, not Idealist "headsets", and they are not causing conscious qualia. If we cannot say that conjuction is false then most bets are off, we just do not have scientific data about qualia.