Conscious Agents A Theory of Consciousness, Donald Hoffman

  Рет қаралды 34,149

Science and Nonduality

Science and Nonduality

8 жыл бұрын

In 1869, Thomas Huxley wrote: “[H]ow it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djinn, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.” In the years since Huxley,
neuroscience has learned much about brain activity and has catalogued many ways in which brain activity and conscious experiences are correlated. But these correlations remain as mysterious today as they were to Huxley. Most neuroscientists assume that brain activity causes conscious experiences, but they have not yet proposed a scientific theory-or even a remotely plausible idea-about how this might happen. I argue, using evolutionary game theory, that brain activity cannot cause our conscious experiences or our behaviors. The mystery of how brain activity causes conscious experiences has not yet been solved, and never will be solved, because brain activity does not and cannot cause conscious experiences. If we want to have a scientific understanding of consciousness, and of the many well-documented correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences, then we cannot start with brain activity or physical dynamics of any kind. We must start with a brand new, but rigorous, foundation. I propose a new foundation which models consciousness as interacting networks of conscious agents. I motivate and present this new theory of consciousness, and use it to solve some of the open problems in the field of consciousness, such as the problem of combining conscious experiences to create a new conscious experience, and the problem of combining conscious subjects to create a new conscious subject. I then consider how we can try to understand the correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences by using the theory of conscious agents to derive generalizations of supersymmetric quantum theory.
Donald Hoffman Ph.D., Cognitive Scientist and Author
Donald Hoffman has authored more than 90 scientific papers and
three books, including Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We
See. He received his BA from UCLA in Quantitative Psychology and
his Ph.D. from MIT in Computational Psychology. He joined the faculty of UC Irvine in 1983, where he is a professor in the departments of cognitive science, computer science and philosophy. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research into visual perception, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences for his research on the relationship of consciousness and the physical world. cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/

Пікірлер: 92
@bennguyen1313
@bennguyen1313 4 жыл бұрын
Regarding the connection between the brain, and the subjective conscious experience.. Alan Wallace suggests that if you calm the mind, you can penetrate beneath the conscious and subconscious, to get to the stream of non-human consciousness where all memories, collectively, are stored. Our brain and hippocampus are just the 'user interface' to access it. Would love to hear Donald and Alan have a discussion! BTW, Dr. Pieter Elsen says the brain has to be producing theta waves in order to access memories from previous lives. Like a beehive, or an ant colony, Dan Siegel suggests mind/consciousnesses, is an emergent property of the the self-organizing parts of the brain/body. Ira Schepetin / Atma Chaitanya studies the more popular Hindu texts (Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas, Bhagavad Gita, etc ), and suggests the dualism is an illusion, "I am that, that is me". What I would love to ask of all these experts, their thoughts on NDE (Tsuruhiko Kiuchi), ghost, and reincarnation stories, that suggest one's consciousness remains separate from any collective intelligence.
@cj4503
@cj4503 3 жыл бұрын
This is an interesting thought. What do you see as the thing that can perceive the stream of non-human consciousness. Are you suggesting that we have a non-material consciousness that normally is couched within the brain but could be direct outside of it?
@sngscratcher
@sngscratcher 8 жыл бұрын
This guy is brilliant! Cheers.
@safedba
@safedba 4 жыл бұрын
Pablo Picasso was said to have said "Art is a lie, that tells you the truth." To me, the better view is to live and live well one must be good art appreciators.
@Nodenable
@Nodenable 8 жыл бұрын
Ohh guys , my english is poor however i really eager to understand this speech. Could anybody tell me what is basically conscious agent ? i wonder only this basic question because of i read this term many times in Sam Harris's books but i dont know what its mean exactly. (As far as i understand we creatures live limited perspective on reality on basis of this theory ? and we were just evoluated in accordance with our limited needs to survive , to be fitness.. ?
@pbjohnny2201
@pbjohnny2201 7 жыл бұрын
I think that the term "conscious agent" might mean the same thing as "vessel of consciousness" or "vehicle of consciousness." A conscious agent is basically the being the experiences consciousness. Hope that helps.
@istantinoplebullconsta642
@istantinoplebullconsta642 Ай бұрын
1. "As far as i understand we creatures live limited perspective on reality on basis of this theory ?" Yes, humans have a VERY limited perspective. Example, we can only see visible light, which is 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our ability to see, smell and hear is puny compared to many other forms of life. Some insects and other animals can see Infrared, and some can see Ultraviolet - google it for images and see how different flowers look to an insect compared to us. 2.we were just evoluated in accordance with our limited needs to survive , to be fitness.. ? Yes, evolution shaped us to have a narrow range of sensory data - we have been "the fittist" compared to all our hominid relatives! Look into more of Donald Hoffman's work. Our mind (brain?) would be overwhelmed with more data than is necessary to survive and reproduce, and more sensory data actually interfers with survival and reproduction - hence the narrow focus of our sensory system.
@elenabodna5719
@elenabodna5719 4 жыл бұрын
Now I understand avatar “I can see you” thanks
@fredjohnson5993
@fredjohnson5993 4 жыл бұрын
Fascinating lecture.
@howmuchbeforechamp
@howmuchbeforechamp 4 жыл бұрын
Yo top class philosophers in the comment section
@gireeshneroth7127
@gireeshneroth7127 Жыл бұрын
Physical reality is a mere consciousness' perception of itself. It's consciousness about consciousness. Exclusively a consciousness activity.
@rov4905
@rov4905 4 жыл бұрын
Is it possible that there are levels to the perception of self and that this is sort of required training for what's real? a necessity to continue or advance to the next level per se?
@neuroscram
@neuroscram 8 жыл бұрын
Fantastic..! "Consciousness as interacting networks of conscious agents". Or - "windows on Gods infinite potential" as Rupert would put it :-)
@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt
@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt 4 жыл бұрын
Rupert is a gawd.
@SuperStargazer666
@SuperStargazer666 3 жыл бұрын
Fascinating video, I didn’t understand any of it. I did however nod a lot, with a knowing look in my eyes and pretended to understand all of it.
@caricue
@caricue 3 жыл бұрын
Your acceptance of not understanding is the first step toward a real understanding, unless your brain is programmed to not understand in order to protect the trick it is playing to make you more fit. In which case, your lack of understanding actually makes you a total stud or babe who is desirable in the evolutionary way. It's hard to tell.
@85pagesproductions
@85pagesproductions 5 жыл бұрын
Great talk!
@liggerstuxin1
@liggerstuxin1 4 жыл бұрын
0:40 Did not realize that Aladdin came out of Genie’s lamp.
@craigbowers4016
@craigbowers4016 4 жыл бұрын
lol I know. I will admit I feel cautious sharing this post now even though I know that this minor mistake hardly refutes everything else that is said. But it will make claiming it to be valid to require a little more work/quality sarcasm such as your own.
@BlackandWhitecustoms
@BlackandWhitecustoms 4 жыл бұрын
Lol I was wondering if anyone caught that. Also he said they were referring to Aladdin 150 years ago. Not sure if the story is fro. That far back or not
@haitham973
@haitham973 3 жыл бұрын
The conclusion about the evol game theory is not clear from this talk for me. Maybe someone can help me understand. Are those based on pure strategies? If the goal is to maximise profit and we use a strategy that is tuned to fitness, it will of course dominate. The question I am trying to understand is have mixed strategies been attempted? I ask because concluding that seeing non of the truth dominates seeing the truth seems to be an artefact of penalisation of those agents. What would happen if agents used mixed strategies? Thanks for the help, anyone!
@johnwolfe9164
@johnwolfe9164 8 жыл бұрын
I agree we perceive what we need to and that there is more information right in front of our face that we can't see, but I can't agree it's truth, just because there is more. Truth is a perspective and the evolutionary fit could arguably see the "truth." To see "reality as it is" would mean a proper way, or a whole way, but then you don't see the interface, which is the relevant way. Bottom line, this guy is fantastic. Let's see conscious agent applications!!
@dismalthoughts
@dismalthoughts Жыл бұрын
I think this is an issue of perception vs what is. Perception will always be subjective. Existence/being not so much (probably). Donald sometimes uses the example of a 3D cube drawn on a piece of paper. When you look at it, your brain constructs a 3D image and will pick 1 of 2 of the faces as the front (and can arbitrarily switch between them). When you look away, there is no longer a "cube" because your brain constructed it. And I love that as a metaphor for these "interfaces", and it applies to all perception. Whether you're looking at an apple, its most basic physical components at a microscopic scale, or whatever is underlying that, if you're perceiving it, then you're seeing a representation of it. That said, just because you look away from the cube doesn't mean the piece of paper with the drawing stops existing. Some information about it persists somewhere in reality for it to still be there when you look back. There is some underlying data structure which you _perceive_ in a subjective way but which _exists_ in a (likely) non-subjective way.
@AtomicEnergyRu
@AtomicEnergyRu 8 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@jacobchateau6191
@jacobchateau6191 Жыл бұрын
Truths live in worlds
@TheGreatAlan75
@TheGreatAlan75 3 жыл бұрын
Just because we don't have an equation that explains consciousness, it doesn't mean that the brain alone doesn't explain consciousness..... Because it DOES (unless you can prove that some brain-less object has consciousness) and it's obvious to me that billions of brain cells working together produces consciousness.. WHY it's that difficult to understand??
@danohyeah5893
@danohyeah5893 4 жыл бұрын
Change the tomato for a red bus heading towards you at speed. That's reality.
@alphatucana
@alphatucana 4 жыл бұрын
As he said with the train example, it's a representation of something that will terminate your survival if you don't take it seriously - but the idea that it "is" a train, or a bus, is just an icon - a representation.
@fionabell1744
@fionabell1744 4 жыл бұрын
I can understand some of what you say.. thanks for your explanation.. It's a compelling theory. So Consciousness is the driving force for perception and best fitness shapes our ideas of the world. Can consciousness live independently? Does it have to have an interface to exist...is it like a parasite that's looking for a host . X
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
"Can consciousness live independently? " -What? Are we back to the days where magical substances like "Phlogiston" were made up as a desperate way to pretend to have answers on things we don't?
@flux9433
@flux9433 Жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Here we go again, here we go again using our mental state to exsplain the brain and we did explaned we just dont want to accept it!
@downhillphilm.6682
@downhillphilm.6682 3 жыл бұрын
if every aspect of consciousness can be modeled by systems of conscious agents and conscious agents are an aspect of consciousness then what system models conscious agents? simply put, what are conscious agents made of?
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
bovine manure..... I guess!
@caricue
@caricue 3 жыл бұрын
This is an interesting concept, but like he said at the end, don't take it too far. Vision is only one avenue for knowing the world, even if it is our primary source. There are some really obvious lies that our brain is programmed to make us see. We can see that steak and really want to eat it, but in fact we are seeing a bloody slab of dead animal flesh in the earliest stages of decomposition. You get the opposite effect when you see a human steak and recoil, even though it is just as tender and marbled. When you look at a person and see beauty, you are not really seeing the elongated hairless simian body propped up on stilt like legs with a bulbous comically enlarged cranium topped with a mop of protein strands. It's actually something out of a horror story, at least it would be to alien eyes, but your eyes are programmed for fitness, so you see attractiveness in the monster.
@billyog4209
@billyog4209 3 жыл бұрын
Your brain is a receiver receives your consciousness like a radio wave when you die your consciousness or soul leaves there's nothing there to keep you .your reality is only when you're consciousness perceives it to be
@howmuchbeforechamp
@howmuchbeforechamp 4 жыл бұрын
What is truth and what is fitness in the simulation how do you even test that ?
@lazy_ape
@lazy_ape 3 жыл бұрын
With the desktop interface analogy I see a problem. Yes modern computer interfaces thankfully take you very far from the actual code and hardware behind it but interacting with early computers you were very close to the real computer having to pull out and reconnect actual electrical wires to program them. How can we now that reality isn't like our first primitive clunky computers and that we actually are pretty close to the real world when seeing and interacting with it?
@dismalthoughts
@dismalthoughts Жыл бұрын
With older computers, you didn't have to understand how energy flows inside a wire down to a quantum mechanical level. You can take any system and deconstruct it nearly - *if not entirely* - infinitely, so you will always be (nearly?) infinitely removed from the underlying, fundamental system. The only way to answer your question would be to know what that underlying, fundamental system looks like and whether it is discreet. We don't. We don't even know what the likelihood is that we will/won't figure it out. That said, it's worth noting that if there is a single definite point at which you can say _there is nothing below this_ - if reality and its fundamental, underlying systems are all discreet - then that question might make sense and be answerable. But _if_ reality is constructed in an infinite fractal-y sort of fashion, then it might make about as much sense to ask how far removed you are from the underlying structure as it would be to ask how far the number 1 is from infinity.
@jacobchateau6191
@jacobchateau6191 Жыл бұрын
truth will always tell fitness that it can convince it, and fitness will always try to endure :)
@vinylsoup
@vinylsoup 5 жыл бұрын
it sounds like he is saying our only purpose is to survive to reproduce .....but the real question is for what purpose ?
@noisepuppet
@noisepuppet 4 жыл бұрын
vinylsoup not exactly. It is an argument not about purpose but about statistics. The genes that form the basis of our heritable biological endowment, or that of any organism, are present in populations *only* because those genes made an organism that is better at reproducing than alternative genes. "Better at reproducing" is a bit of a nuanced concept. It doesn't mean "having the most offspring." It means more like having the most offspring that reach reproductive maturity, ie, having the most grandchildren. This concept is captured in evolutionary theory in the variable Reproductive Success. A central point is that this has nothing to do with purpose. That is to say, natural selection is not teleological. But human beings, human cognition, is teleological. We form notions of purpose and intent. Evolution by natural selection does not. So the fact that selection is driven by Reproductive Success has no bearing on any question of human purpose. It would be like saying that our only purpose is entropy, based on the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing to do with purpose.
@billyog4209
@billyog4209 3 жыл бұрын
Everyone's reality is different everyone has a different personality different consciousness different people but we are built the same with the brain and a heart liver and kidneys we might not all function the same someone will get cancer some we'll get diabetes some we'll get tall skinny fat and short including things as we all think we see the same we are taught that red is red and your conscious and your reality but someone else it might be purple if you could see through their eyes but they were taught it was red only if we could see through other people's eyes and their realities we might learn more about ourselves
@user-vs1cm8nv5i
@user-vs1cm8nv5i 3 жыл бұрын
consciousness and matter are just different manifestations of the same oneness
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
so you just have to define oneness....and only then your comment wont be an empty deepity!
@indioarmani8209
@indioarmani8209 6 жыл бұрын
this is just modern philosopher, trying to understand reality with mind is pointless, mind need data which gathered by 5 senses which only can perceive 0.000000000001% of reality, so conclusion using mind will not even scratch the surface.
@jackhedeman4969
@jackhedeman4969 3 жыл бұрын
no, u can have a priori knowledge see 17:25
@TheKnowledgeOfTheTruth
@TheKnowledgeOfTheTruth 3 жыл бұрын
All these interacting consciousnesses must coalesce in a hierarchical manner. They must converge to a single all encompassing super conscious monad, YHVH, the Source and the Fullness of reality.
@leo333333able
@leo333333able 8 жыл бұрын
A good deceptively simple question form this guy. ............seeing fitness or truth for evolution.
@gherrocrucible
@gherrocrucible 8 жыл бұрын
Well the concept is definitely not new. The bible and the Qur'an both say exactly what this man has understood and explained. Quite interesting that maybe science could shape the world if it continues on this path...
@eneanavis
@eneanavis 7 жыл бұрын
Where does the bible "say exactly, what this man has understood and explained"? I must have skiped some pages about evolution, consious agents, interface theory, etc. when I read that book.
@gherrocrucible
@gherrocrucible 7 жыл бұрын
eneanavis The concept of mind without matter is written of in Biblical and Qur'anic verses. That which we are is not matter, but the idea of the soul existing as a prisoner within the flesh. The death of Christ for example, is victory over death in that Christ did not fear death of the flesh and was willing to give his life for a cause far greater than anything we can achieve in the physical form. Then you have the name God calls Himself to Moses. Which is YHWH... and you see the actual interpretation of the name which happens to be "He Who says, "'Be'" and it is." Implying that God is beyond matter and He can create from nothing that which we percieve as physical. When indeed the greater of the worlds is beyond this realm. Therefore, you have Christ saying "Do not fear those who can kill the body, but fear Him (meaning God) Who can kill the body and soul in hellfire."
@gherrocrucible
@gherrocrucible 7 жыл бұрын
eneanavis Apart from that I don't know what book you read. But don't try to get all smart with me. If you're an atheist, let me just say, I have no words for you. You've chosen your path and you will know all truth when this life is over. I don't like debating over things people can't prove over things I have taken by faith since it ends at a stalemate except for the things that I can actually prove but most people are unwilling to actually follow to see what happens when people follow the commandments of God. Peace to you. Goodbye.
@stndsure7275
@stndsure7275 7 жыл бұрын
There are several problematic statements in Hoffman’s Videos. This video is sort of in the right direction but not decisive. If evolution does not describe reality why does the language of mathematics or Quantum physics do it any better? If mathematical symbols, atoms and sub-atomic entities are “icons” then what does their relationships or iconic behavior tell us about “real” reality or the nature of consciousness? I think that this is an interesting criticism of evolution which seems to conclude is a useful theory but not an inherent truth or “central dogma” (See: Fodor, Nagel). Computational models can be descriptive but do not explain consciousness or solve the hard problem - to the extent this is positing a pure idealism is also incorrect. (this seems to be at once positing both a pure idealism (there is nothing but agents all the way down) and a true objective reality that exists independent of the agents, which is self-contradictory. The assumption of some kind of truly objective reality independent of consciousness that is somehow not fully “knowable” is provably wrong and more than a little nonsensical (See: Hume, Kant, and Berkeley). But it does help to counter the radical materialism that is so prevalent in the field of consciousness studies and modern life.
@stndsure7275
@stndsure7275 7 жыл бұрын
This is sort of in the right direction but not decisive. If evolution does not describe reality why does the language of mathematics or Quantum physics do it any better? I think that this is an interesting criticism of evolution which is a useful theory but not an inherent truth or “central dogma”. Computational models can be descriptive but do not explain consciousness or solve the hard problem - to the extent this is positing a pure idealism that is also incorrect. The assumption of some kind of truly objective reality independent of consciousness that is somehow not fully “knowable” is provably wrong. But it does help to counter the radical materialism that is so prevalent in the field of consciousness studies and modern lif
@thejackanapes5866
@thejackanapes5866 4 жыл бұрын
So close, I agree with almost all of it. The one flaw doesn't make much difference (consciousness is of something, and cannot be absolutely fundamental, but is surely a fundamental part of probably all baryonic matter). Fitness vs. accuracy long ago lead me to antinatalism - taking conscious urstuff and forcing it to experience helpless aversion to its own existence is torture - unconscionable; and all of evolution is a tragic mistake.
@wuwei87
@wuwei87 9 ай бұрын
When your theorizing leads you to viewing the propagation of the species as immoral... you're going the wrong way. Turn around and go back. Consciousness may be fundamental, but *embodied* consciousness is what allows for novelty and real communion with other conscious agents. That's what our existence is for, and to do that, you need bodies to be born.
@thejackanapes5866
@thejackanapes5866 9 ай бұрын
@@wuwei87 Nah, this isn't a theory. It's a tautology: A sake cannot be instantiated for its own sake, and in a predatory environment its instantiation is an act of predation itself. Additionally, what a priori problem is solved for any specific subject of experience by instantiating that subject? Are there magical souls of some kind out there just longing to suffer predatory evolution like a bunch of idiots? Please. Given the defintion of "immoral" as "infliction of unnecessaryharm" yes procreation is absolutely immoral. One can quibble over oughts and is' but there's nothing necessary about raping more sufferers 'ex materia' into existence. This: "...that's what our existence is for..." is teleological religious nonsense. How can an natural process be *for* anything? The entire line of reasoning is a barbaric but evolutionarily fit legacy of primitive ancestral nonsense like homunculus-fallacy based closed individualism/souls and spirit animism or vitalism and hyperactive agency detection ("god" belief-in feelings and so on). If you want to convince me of something, you have to say coherent and sound things.
@TheGreatAlan75
@TheGreatAlan75 3 жыл бұрын
I really like DH, but consciousness is an emergent property in the universe. The universe was here before conscious agents... BILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE..
@whippet71
@whippet71 4 жыл бұрын
So, this is why sociopaths accumulate wealth?
@johnb8854
@johnb8854 3 жыл бұрын
'Consciousness' is just another title for "LIFE The Real Self".... It is NOT possible for any part of the brain or the anatomy to see electrical signals in the brain, apart from using such technologies as MRI or EEG. The brain also operates in an 'Encoded' format and there is NO 'Decoding' system within the brain. nor is there anything in the brain which is Aware of anything. Decoding takes place externally in another Processing System, the brain (part of a Holographic Simulation displayed in "The Processing System of LIFE") is linked to. Consciousness or "LIFE The Real Self" is Non-dimensional, so it is part of the dimensional world, just one of the reasons Consciousness or "LIFE The Real Self" is so illusive to Neuroscience.
@TheGreatAlan75
@TheGreatAlan75 3 жыл бұрын
Consciousness is emergent ... Period... Sorry to kill his hypothesis here. It's back to the drawing board, Dr Hoffman...
@gorblin70
@gorblin70 3 жыл бұрын
Sorry esteemed scientist Donald Hoffman, Alan Lloyd of KZfaq comment section fame absolutely DECIMATED your theory
@steveblack327
@steveblack327 4 жыл бұрын
I'm probably missing something.. But how can he simultaneously 1) believe there is zero chance humans see reality (even partially) as it, and 2) declare with any certainty that reality is irrelevant to your survival? For all he knows, experiencing or perceiving reality as it is could result in a genie popping out of thin air whispering secrets of gathering food and attracting women to impregnate (while of course casting a magic spell making it impossible to speak, write, or otherwise such information with others). Or maybe in a more realistic scenario, seeing reality as it is might unknowingly make you a bit less of a douche and therefore maybe make you 1) less likely to get clubbed to death around the campfire, 2) more likely for a tribemate to help you not die, and/or 3) more likely to woo a member of the opposite sex. I suppose my question is.. How can he say for certain seeing reality doesn't correlate at all with helping one survive when we have no idea what it is?
@nickolasgaspar9660
@nickolasgaspar9660 3 жыл бұрын
You are not missing anything...he is promoting a pseudo philosophical death denying ideology in a lab coat.
@awakenedhigherself9961
@awakenedhigherself9961 3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 shut up
@dismalthoughts
@dismalthoughts Жыл бұрын
> How can he [...] believe there is zero chance humans see reality (even partially) as it [is?] He does believe we see reality partially as it is. A text document you open is a visual representation of the underlying 0's and 1's and the quantum mechanical processes the create them. The thing you see is not those things, but it is a reflection of them and "real" in that sense, at least partially. > How can he [...] declare with any certainty that reality is irrelevant to your survival? Reality is very relevant to your survival. Without it, you wouldn't exist, let alone have the opportunity to survive. *Perceiving reality perfectly* is irrelevant to your survival. The Australian Jewel Beetle is my favorite example for stuff like this. A few years back, there was a particular beer bottle that was the perfect shade brown with the perfect texture that the male Jewel Beetles thought these discarded beer bottles were mates and tried mating with them. The manufacturer eventually had to change their bottles to help protect the beetles from going extinct. These beetles obviously don't have a 1:1 perfect perception of reality, and yet that imperfect perception has helped them survive for millions of years. You don't need perfect perception of reality, you simply need a perception of reality that enables you to pass on your genes.
@alloneword154
@alloneword154 5 жыл бұрын
Who’s to say that there is a real reality?
@TheYoli182
@TheYoli182 4 жыл бұрын
If this theory is plausiable. How can seeing reality for what it is harmful? Why was this choice made without my consent?
@alloneword154
@alloneword154 5 жыл бұрын
How can he run a simulation and have the simulation know what’s the truth?
@whippet71
@whippet71 4 жыл бұрын
He can do it by back testing the data. The same way China reverse engineers Apple iPhones. 🗿
@howmuchbeforechamp
@howmuchbeforechamp 4 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@dismalthoughts
@dismalthoughts Жыл бұрын
In a simulation, you get to define what the truth is. Imagine it as if you built some AI bots into Mario, and some of the bots saw enemies and power-ups, but other bots saw 0's and 1's. The question is: which characters would perform better?
@alloneword154
@alloneword154 Жыл бұрын
@@dismalthoughts. Hmmm. Nice
@dismalthoughts
@dismalthoughts Жыл бұрын
@@alloneword154 Here's a specific example given by Donald when asked about this. Too little water will kill you, but so will too much. So you could have 2 characters -- one that sees red when they've too little or too much water and green when they've an appropriate amount of water, then another character that simply sees exact volumes of water. Seeing the exact volumes in reality is more accurate, but having a perceptual system that gives you a visual indication of when you do or don't need water is far more effective. It's not an _accurate_ reflection of reality, but that is not the goal of evolution -- surviving long enough to reproduce is.
@frankfeldman6657
@frankfeldman6657 6 жыл бұрын
Dennett demolishes this guy elsewhere.
@CarolaAdolf
@CarolaAdolf 4 жыл бұрын
That’s rather dumb... imho.... i would take a train not only seriously but also literally... but mostly fatally. We live with symbols that have meaning, but how we see or hear or smell or feel may be different than other living beings. Interfaces my foot.
@unclebirdman
@unclebirdman 2 жыл бұрын
How can you have kids if there is no reality?
@howmuchbeforechamp
@howmuchbeforechamp 4 жыл бұрын
No dear god no The desktop icon is nothing like our wolrd , desktop icons are place holders to do something We do things on it , we made it for ourselves I cant watch this crap
Entangling Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman
44:19
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 237 М.
The Death of SpaceTime & Birth of Conscious Agents, Donald Hoffman
38:01
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 286 М.
Miracle Doctor Saves Blind Girl ❤️
00:59
Alan Chikin Chow
Рет қаралды 46 МЛН
Sprinting with More and More Money
00:29
MrBeast
Рет қаралды 49 МЛН
New Gadgets! Bycycle 4.0 🚲 #shorts
00:14
BongBee Family
Рет қаралды 8 МЛН
MOM TURNED THE NOODLES PINK😱
00:31
JULI_PROETO
Рет қаралды 12 МЛН
Being Human | Robert Sapolsky
37:00
The Leakey Foundation
Рет қаралды 228 М.
Mapping GPT revealed something strange...
1:09:14
Machine Learning Street Talk
Рет қаралды 134 М.
Is Reality an Illusion? | Dr. Donald Hoffman | EP 387
1:35:21
Jordan B Peterson
Рет қаралды 400 М.
The Mystery of Free Will: Donald Hoffman
17:32
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 157 М.
Don Hoffman - "Symmetry Does Not Entail Veridicality"
41:49
UCI Media
Рет қаралды 10 М.
Professor Slavoj Žižek | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
1:15:08
OxfordUnion
Рет қаралды 1,1 МЛН
Portals into the Realm of Consciousness: Donald Hoffman
43:18
Science and Nonduality
Рет қаралды 132 М.
Miracle Doctor Saves Blind Girl ❤️
00:59
Alan Chikin Chow
Рет қаралды 46 МЛН