Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved

[LMT Shooter]

Those of you who really wanna go down the rabbit hole of reality, will enjoy this discussion. It supports the idea that you don't go from unconscious matter to consciousness for those want to explore such things with God defined as "the one infinite conscious agent" as a model to work from using mathematics and new models of reality. This may be where science and higher consciousness finally meet and one - using the scientific method - may quantify the other. Science may be finally up to the task of showing our perceptions are just tip of the iceberg:

Whoa, that was trippy.... Like a cross between "The Matrix" and an acid trip....

[SteyrAUG]

Those of you who really wanna go down the rabbit hole of reality, will enjoy this discussion. It supports the idea that you don't go from unconscious matter to consciousness for those want to explore such things with God defined as "the one infinite conscious agent" as a model to work from using mathematics and new models of reality. This may be where science and higher consciousness finally meet and one - using the scientific method - may quantify the other. Science may be finally up to the task of showing our perceptions are just tip of the iceberg:

That was interesting and it solves some problems. But like the idea of infinite parallels, I find it more unlikely than likely. He's got some solid foundation, but at some point it's still interpretation.

I think a lot of what he says is true, that we experience our existence from a human centric position and very well may view "reality" from a very limited or skewed way but I don't agree that he has conclusively proven those things, especially given that if his views of reality are true, we couldn't prove it anyway because everything is perception and we aren't viewing true reality.

So if he's right, we could never know he's right. I think all he's done is effectively explain all of our contradictions with reality and conflicting scientific views and present them in a way that gives us a newer more relevant understanding based upon our current tech experiences. And given that new familiarity, his ideas simply seem right because we can relate to them.

My biggest problem is the idea that we can't perceive true reality at all, I think the moon was there before life existed on earth and I think the moon will be there (or at least someplace as it seems to be on an eventual escaping orbit) long after animal life is gone.

I've watched my dog ponder the moon, I don't think canine evolutionary paths gave him a brain where he simply creates the same "reality constructs" as the rest of us, I think the moon is actually there, even if nothing is looking at it.

That said, the problems between our understanding at a relativity level and our understanding at a quantum level, combined with what very much seems to be an observer effect (which is a lot of what he is advocating) that we can't even begin to reconcile with each other does suggest there is a lot we do not know, but I think we knew that.

I also think if our entire reality was an observer interface, as he suggests, it would be a lot more cohesive and we wouldn't have the atomic world at odds with the sub atomic world and we wouldn't notice the observer effect when we apply quantum ideas to distant stars. I think we'd always produce a reality where everything fits and works in a way that is comprehensible to the human brain.

[WillBrink]

That was interesting and it solves some problems. But like the idea of infinite parallels, I find it more unlikely than likely. He's got some solid foundation, but at some point it's still interpretation.

I think a lot of what he says is true, that we experience our existence from a human centric position and very well may view "reality" from a very limited or skewed way but I don't agree that he has conclusively proven those things, especially given that if his views of reality are true, we couldn't prove it anyway because everything is perception and we aren't viewing true reality.

So if he's right, we could never know he's right. I think all he's done is effectively explain all of our contradictions with reality and conflicting scientific views and present them in a way that gives us a newer more relevant understanding based upon our current tech experiences. And given that new familiarity, his ideas simply seem right because we can relate to them.

My biggest problem is the idea that we can't perceive true reality at all, I think the moon was there before life existed on earth and I think the moon will be there (or at least someplace as it seems to be on an eventual escaping orbit) long after animal life is gone.

I've watched my dog ponder the moon, I don't think canine evolutionary paths gave him a brain where he simply creates the same "reality constructs" as the rest of us, I think the moon is actually there, even if nothing is looking at it.

That said, the problems between our understanding at a relativity level and our understanding at a quantum level, combined with what very much seems to be an observer effect (which is a lot of what he is advocating) that we can't even begin to reconcile with each other does suggest there is a lot we do not know, but I think we knew that.

I also think if our entire reality was an observer interface, as he suggests, it would be a lot more cohesive and we wouldn't have the atomic world at odds with the sub atomic world and we wouldn't notice the observer effect when we apply quantum ideas to distant stars. I think we'd always produce a reality where everything fits and works in a way that is comprehensible to the human brain.

His entire premise is to take what has been "just words" until now to actual testing using the scientific method. He's not married to any of his conclusions per se, only that what what we experience as local reality is not accurate, and there are tests demonstrating that much. Apparently "the math" checks out which is how all major discoveries have started, then on to confirming it as they did when the math said the earth was round, or that black holes existed, and so forth. He's also perfectly open to the possibilities of dualism in reality and consciousness, and as a legit scientist, vs say philosopher, makes it clear his to get beyond just words but to mathematical models of consciousness and reality and test them. He also makes it clear the math may simply be smarter than he is or perhaps anyone and beyond knowing what's actually under/behind the math.

At 1;00 even he says "...I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong"

I do think he's 100% accurate in saying that physical-ism has served us very well for the past 300 or so years, but the make the next major leaps in our understanding of space-time, etc, a new approach will be needed. At the quantum level, it appears our basic understanding of physical-ism and space time breaks down, and it has been shown repeatedly the observer (the conscious agent) impacts that local reality. To what end, is unknown, and what I like about him is he does not claim to know it, only that it happens. To make the next big leaps in science, we will need a whole new paradigm how we view space-time, and perhaps consciousness itself.

While I have always found this topic interesting, it was always philosophical navel picking to me, his is the first I have seen that genuinely attempts to apply hard science to the topic of consciousness and reality, and he's clear if the math can't be tested, it's just philosophy. He seems very well aware of that.

I have listened to this interview twice now and worth it, especially about midway on.

[SteyrAUG]

His entire premise is to take what has been "just words" until now to actual testing using the scientific method. He's not married to any of his conclusions per se, only that what what we experience as local reality is not accurate, and there are tests demonstrating that much. Apparently "the math" checks out which is how all major discoveries have started, then on to confirming it as they did when the math said the earth was round, or that black holes existed, and so forth. He's also perfectly open to the possibilities of dualism in reality and consciousness, and as a legit scientist, vs say philosopher, makes it clear his to get beyond just words but to mathematical models of consciousness and reality and test them. He also makes it clear the math may simply be smarter than he is or perhaps anyone and beyond knowing what's actually under/behind the math.

At 1;00 even he says "...I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong"

I do think he's 100% accurate in saying that physical-ism has served us very well for the past 300 or so years, but the make the next major leaps in our understanding of space-time, etc, a new approach will be needed. At the quantum level, it appears our basic understanding of physical-ism and space time breaks down, and it has been shown repeatedly the observer (the conscious agent) impacts that local reality. To what end, is unknown, and what I like about him is he does not claim to know it, only that it happens. To make the next big leaps in science, we will need a whole new paradigm how we view space-time, and perhaps consciousness itself.

While I have always found this topic interesting, it was always philosophical navel picking to me, his is the first I have seen that genuinely attempts to apply hard science to the topic of consciousness and reality, and he's clear if the math can't be tested, it's just philosophy. He seems very well aware of that.

I have listened to this interview twice now and worth it, especially about midway on.

I get all that. I'm just aware that if the math works, that doesn't actually prove anything, it simply means it could be true and the math hasn't disproven it. I also appreciate that his starting point was using the math to attempt to falsify it.

So he's taken an important first step. But we have supporting math (although somewhat specialized math with new spacial dimensions) for membrane theory so while we haven't proven it can't be true, we haven't exactly proven anything else.

[WillBrink]

I get all that. I'm just aware that if the math works, that doesn't actually prove anything, it simply means it could be true and the math hasn't disproven it. I also appreciate that his starting point was using the math to attempt to falsify it.

So he's taken an important first step. But we have supporting math (although somewhat specialized math with new spacial dimensions) for membrane theory so while we haven't proven it can't be true, we haven't exactly proven anything else.

Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.

Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.

[SteyrAUG]

Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.

Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.

I'm aware. Based upon the math and limited observations Einstein theorized black holes must exist but it would be decades later before it could be confirmed. But there has been many a theory where the math supported it, but we were either way, way off or completely wrong from the start.

Also not trying to criticize this guy or his ideas, I rather enjoy theoretical science, I absolutely loved Carl Sagan even though nearly every sentence out of his mouth began with "We might even discover..." or "Imagine if..." and things of that sort.

I'd also rather listen to two hours of Hoffman discussing possible alternate realities than listen to "pop science" morons talk about the latest exoplanet they discovered and what the composition of the atmosphere is even though they have no real way of knowing that at all. We are making shaky guesses based upon stellar light as the planet (or what we strongly believe will be a planet) transits across the star. But we'd probably be more accurate identifying an individual person on the ground from an areal reconnaissance photo taken during WWII.

I also actually appreciate guys like Hoffman who are willing to explore these areas of science, many people have their credibility discounted if they explore non conventional ideas or what others deem to be "fringe" science and the fact that he is actually applying the scientific method rather than using a collection of fragments of scientific ideas to support a very unlikely hypothesis like many do.

I just find the complete premise unlikely even though most of his ideas are absolutely valid such as the fact that we view everything from a human centric perspective and that means we aren't seeing the complete and total picture. It could very well be that sentient alien species walk among us but we can't detect or interact with them and they cannot detect and interact with us because our individuals ways of viewing and interacting with our environment are completely different.

At any rate it's an interesting discussion.

[Pi3]

"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.
'

— James Jeans in The Mysterious Universe, 1930

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jeans

[Adrenaline_6]

Well, remember, every major scientific theory has started with the math, and had to wait for the tech to catch up to confirm it. But, if he's offered a new paradigm of consciousness, where the math checks out, then, as he says, we are just at the very beginning of that new journey.

Without a model to work from, there's no way to move forward beyond words and philosophy.

Although true to an extent, those major scientific theories are usually either debunked and new ones made which has to wait again for tech to catch up or heavily modified once the tech catches up. "Guessing" although highly educated guesses are still just guesses and without the tech, we are notoriously bad at it.

[WillBrink]

Although true to an extent, those major scientific theories are usually either debunked and new ones made which has to wait again for tech to catch up or heavily modified once the tech catches up. "Guessing" although highly educated guesses are still just guesses and without the tech, we are notoriously bad at it.

Name one. None of the major theories (and remember, the term as used in science is not the same as used in common lexicon, see vid below) put forth by Newton, Eisenstein, etc have ever been debunked. Not a one, nor will they ever be if you understood them and how they were derived. Not one major theory nor G (constants) has been debunked that demonstrated the math (what you seem to referring to as the educated guess) was wrong. For non scientist, highly recommend viewing:

[Adrenaline_6]

Name one. None of the major theories (and remember, the term as used in science is not the same as used in common lexicon, see vid below) put forth by Newton, Eisenstein, etc have ever been debunked. Not a one, nor will they ever be if you understood them and how they were derived. Not one major theory nor G (constants) has been debunked that demonstrated the math (what you seem to referring to as the educated guess) was wrong. For non scientist, highly recommend viewing:

At least do a quick google search...just because you know a few that haven't been debunked, that doesn't meant they aren't out there. I made a mistake in writing major, since that could be interpreted differently. Major theories in your view became major because they haven't been able to be debunked for a long time, a debunked one never makes it to the "major leagues". As tech caught up and they couldn't be debunked or actually supported, they became major in your definition. They all started off as theoretical, but some are "bigger" or more "famous" than others which was my interpretation as major. So counting only the major theories in your sense of the word is not being very objective.

https://www.famousscientists.org/10-...ater-debunked/