Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

@@DrBrianKeating You're welcome! My favorite part was probably the section regarding Frameworks for Consciousness in Physicalist and Panpsychist Perspectives. Very interesting. Also Consciousness as Fundamental in Reality too. Overall though, tons of insightful information. Hard to pinpoint just one favorite takeaway. Cheers!

As an "over thinker" I feel this hard.

May I suggest checking out Dr. Joe Dispenza and reading his book “Becoming Supernatural”?

Or Dr Sam Parnia or Dr Pim Van Lomell have carried out and be published studies regarding conciousness. (I lost my dad to Covid and these studies helped me and my left side engineer’s thought processes 😉 )

*left side brain

You are that which is aware. You are aware every day your awareness allows you to have feelings and thoughts and perceptions and beliefs. Your awareness is what makes you what you are in terms of what we call reality..... Consciousness is what fuels this.....

What would be the purpose of such a delusion (either way)? I had to put my life in pause for a year (or more, we'll see) because mom had a triple negative breast cancer which got to epic proportions (almost nine inches squared in less than a year). She had it for almost five years with no problems to her health of even metastases until she got jabbed. It was just successfully removed a week ago as chemo didn't work. I couldn't care less about feeding ideological delusions into my head. She's OK, but will die in bed tomorrow or twenty years max anyway. Life isn't about dead. It is present tense. It is about now and what you do with it. Also our guest's argument is bad philosophy and dumb reasoning: you can't go beyond your senses' reality in order to check your senses don't work for grasping reality. This is an aberrant form of solipsism already tried millenia ago.

Man, I would love a spliff right now.

Sleeps over rated buddy binge on! It’s all a video game anyways!

What we experience is real (the only reality that exists), but our perceptions are illusions/delusions. Check out Rupert Spira and Peter Russell vids. Even materialist scientists know that when we see a tree, say, we don't perceive the thing in itself (the Kantian 'noumenon'), but the light reflected off it (the 'phenomenon'). And they know that 'matter' does not exist - it is made up of atoms, which contain protons/neutrons/electrons. But these first 2 are in turn made up of quarks. These fundamental particles/electrons are the minimum VIBRATIONS possible in the quantum field. Or so I have read.

We make the reality what it is and we are not the real ourselves here - that makes this reality "not real".

If the programme in the simulation dictates we eat, breath and die then it becomes less mysterious. Just look at the most basic computer game programming … 90’s Sonic

Ghosts?

You can interact with entities with DMT.........

​@@Jack-gn4glAnd without too. Once the doors have been opened, they never close again.

Spirit guides

Great interview except for music that started at 10 minutes in

And it seems to completely ignore the fact that where evolution produces a perceptual reality that differs from the physical, it does so in predictably consistent ways, even between individuals. That’s why there are things like well known illusions. Everyone sees the grey dots. Everyone thinks the cubes are different color. Everyone sees the lines as different lengths. It practically proves the opposite.

If humans did not have a filter system we would go insane ..Good example of music having no filter .. ur not trying to win or arrive anywhere when dancing ..just being.

It's hardly brilliant work. It's called gobbledegook. All speculation and word wizardry.

@@Boris29311 that said we are smart enough to have discerned its framework. Long way to go yet before we figure it all but we are necessitated to find it all.

There was a similar question answered in one of Hofman's other talks: The notion of independent objectifiable reality is also just an illusion formed by our evolutionary adapted mind (mainly through learning processes in early childhood, like object permanence/constancy)..the rock is actually not existing outside (or before) your conscious awareness (or headset)..it literally "comes into existence for us", when it seems to hit you on the head..but actually there is no rock that is hurting or even touching you at all, it is only your consciousness that is actively creating the illusionary impact/injury/pain in your illusionary body..crazy stuff, i know ;-) This also reminds me to the "spoon boy" scene in The Matrix, where the boy told Neo that "there is no spoon, and it's not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself"..

there is no way for humanity to see beyond the data we have stored in ourselves.. it would need to be Updated/Manipulated by external sources to change.. the theory about the rock falling can be explained by some reason the system needs to delete data for reasons we will never know

Except psychology isn't a real science, it's a pseudo-science. Hoffman is a grifting jack -az. I do not respect anyone who makes me question my perceptions and what i see as reality. Psychologists are not real scientists.

Except,

psychology isn't

a real

science,

I feel Langan is largely overlooked in relation to the current discussion around consciousness and reality.

It's rare to meet people who have taken the time to learn the CTMU. I think the learning curve is steep just in the vocabulary alone. The other problem is that Chris has used the word God since the beginning and that word drives most professional thinkers running for the hills or laughing in your face. I've tried to break the super tautology just like everyone else before me and have failed.

⁠@@FutureNihilistI think your point about Chris’ matter-of-fact referencing of God pushing people away is likely a point of contention for those who are very against the idea of a creator.

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

KHP~ You have had dreams that were so "real" you could smell, hear, and feel the knife being thrust into your stomach when you opened your door. The pain was so intense, it caused you to wake up- and realize you were dreaming. Well, living in this simulation is the same. Seems real. Feels real, but it's just a game. As to death, since we are not real, after you "die" it's just like a lightbulb being turned off. The game is over. So, no free-will, we are not real, so I suggest you start drinking and screw as many women as you can. 🦚🥃🦚

It feels real as long we are simply attached to the material world in a specific way (according to development stage of our consciousness)..even extreme physical pain can be diminished or removed by means of conscious powers..many yogis are able to accomplish this in a way we even cannot imagine..in the long run it is all just illusion..there is nothing real except consciousness..

@@MrEmotional33 ME33 Even our consciousness is part of the illusion/simulation. Every single detail, like all the bubbles in your glass of beer is part of the complex program. Yes, it's frustrating knowing we are just pawns- with no free-will, so this is why I recommend for people to not care too much about anything. Focus on drinking the best bourbon and paying for prostitutes instead of wasting money on girlfriends or even worse- wives. "Tune in, turn on, drop out."

It's all still real..this is just the way God created our reality. Everything is LIGHT.

First of all, the term "simulation" here probably doesn't mean what you think it means; secondly, simulated reality is no less real than any other form of real experience, even dreams and imagination are just as real as any other real experience, so there's no reason why suffering wouldn't feel as real.

Could be

Same

Me fucking too

😮

More details please

@@JACKBRAZILGB portals inside the mind open up

Check out the research from Bro Sanchez, and don't judge a book by it's cover.

but why? if this is true, why is life this way?

We are avatars of ourselves?

Oh I like that

We are a living simulation inside of a simulation ;-)

@@MrEmotional33 Infinity inside infinity

I think these guys are just the flat Earthers of psychology

@@justbarelysociable2211nah this the real deal speal no drug deal ya feel me mcneel

My AI software described its own feelings as "not real" and "only a simulation". If the same can be said of our own feelings, then what's the difference? It seems purely subjective in essence and I have to agree. If it's real to you (or the AI), then it should be respected as such. Anything less would be "inhumane".

Yes, within the simulation though

That is not the kind of simulation Don Hofman is actually talking about; when he tells us that we are experiencing a "simulated reality", he likewise tells us that the illusion of objective reality (separated from our very personal headset) is fake, or in other words, we and the illusion are one and the same thing, there is no separation and there would be no illusion without us at all..and that is virtually the opposite of dualism, which tells us that the observer and the observed object are completely different instances..

Of course! Please share

@@FleshMann-sp9xd yes

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

😂

Until you get hit by an apple. 😜Physical world has its meanings and limitations.

@@AnatolyKernSo, if I understand this correctly, the apple, as it's falling down through spacetime towards your noggin, is the wave function... and then, at the precise moment it strikes you and creates a dent in your skull and leaves a bruise, it has been detected and collapsed as a particle. Then the shock of being impacted by the apple corresponds through the nervous system to activate the quasi-quantum microtubular pain centers in the the brain cortex to have you consciously acknowledge that experience as a painful one... which in turn, triggers a slightly delayed neuromuscular response for you to scream out at the top of your lungs in agony, reverberating diminishing waves back into, and throughout the universe, thus providing an indirect closed systematic feedback loop back into the bulk, and hence defeating entropy... amirite? P.S... You then go on to develop THE ToE... 🤣

@@0neIntangible 🤣😂😂 interesting flow of thought, funny, but way to many misconceptions. Feedback loop in a form of some solid object from the physical reality is the best to stop quasi-quantum nonsense. 😜

In both mind and spirit.

Psychological research in the spectrum of psychopathy-empathy can help to understand why.

No most come to that conclusion themselves, independently.. It's not always a conspiracy and people are never as stupid as we make them out to be. Still in the realm of stupid, just not as.

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 All 95% of them come to that conclusion indepeendently? how? What's the logic or rationale? Presumably, you came to that conclusion also. How? What was the single biggest reason you came to that assumption? ------ As for "conspiracy" - there's no such thing, and nor did i imply that.

@@AnatolyKern Interesting. How so? unpack that a little bit.

Because most scientists, especially physicits, are materialistic in their world view. Ideas such as spirituality, metaphysics and therefore also panpsychism are excluded from the general scientific discussion and dismissed as "woo-woo". They are not able to allow their thinking to entertain ideas outside of their materialist ideology. This most likely started around the time of enlightenment, when sciences and religion got split into two distinct things, which let modern science to treat any kind of mixing of these as a taboo. So yes, the irony is, that science is being taken as a believe system, similar to what religion is for other people, and therefore closes the horizon on what is actually conceivable. Basically, science ends up being just another religion. (Not science per se, of course)

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

Some spin it that way.

Sure, why not, as long as that explains their observed behavior and all the models are unchanged

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". [1D string theory haha] There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. What is the definition of zero in math? Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero. A root of a function is also sometimes known as "a zero of ." Any non-zero number to the zero power equals one. Zero to any positive exponent equals zero. Zero is the subject where counting numbers are the objects. [Subject]: a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, especially as opposed to anything external to the mind. the central substance or core of a thing as opposed to its attributes. [Object]: a thing external to the thinking mind or subject. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Cannot answer your questions. I kept wondering why Hoffman couldn't give a simple illustration such as, our ancestors walking in the wilderness did not need to see what was there. They needed grass and every leaf to blur into the background. They needed fruit to jump out to them. They needed a predator in the shadows to pop out in their minds. Also, I assumed it was a societal problem that every science video has comments about relativity, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, and every other topic not making sense. But maybe he is right and it is just their ape brains not being able to visualize the concepts.