I was thinking almost the same thing. I was thinking how Hoffman is at a disadvantage while speaking with Chopra on this subject. Chopra; who is coming from a rich background of stories of non duality as reality, as opposed to the sharp precision evolved from Abrahamic thought.

Now he's assuming that C can be expressed in maths.. Scientists have a little lust on materials you know :)

@@JoelSimbrow Interesting idea. I was not aware that sharp precision (scientific thought?) has it’s roots in Abrahamic thought. Where can I learn more about this?

@@glenndespres5317 sharp things tend to do more damage

Right I have seen the struggle

I feel he knowsvHe is not wrong, and he know it-MAYBE because he LIVES this lifestyle- as do I. DO YOU? When I'm LIVEin IT YOU can't help VISUALLY WITNESSING the reality changE AROUND YOU, IN REAL TIME. we can't wait for you guys to come out and play

His basic ideas are correct but looking through his lectures I see the same thought package over time and do not see where it evolves. Besides I am a great fan also.

Einstein presented the theory of relativity. Your soul vibrates faster than the speed of light. Your soul is eternal.

He look up to the mathematical genius of our generation, Nima Arkani Hamed who proofed the general relativity theory is not working anymore, Hoffman mentioned his name a lot in his interviews

Conciousness is linked to reality more profound than the observer rebranded as conscious agents. Jesus christ you lot really HAVE TO THINK.

Unmm, NO

You know how I know? Because "Genius" Chopra is tooting his own horn through his work and I am only 2 min into the video

Brother not that I want to campaign too hard for Terrence McKenna but he has experienced way more than me.. “ as for modern science give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest” . Great concept and so true nonetheless.

Watch this other Hoffman video, where he goes into the question of a falsifiable hypothesis in more depth. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bMuHepqpxJy9ZYk.html

You can only perceive yourself through someone else’s eyes. For instance, I say my phone, my car, my home and MY HAND 🤚!! but who is it owning your hand? You can not identify with your hand or body but you can feel, perceive and see yourself through your hand, body and eyes. There is no difference between you and the universe because nothing is not an option, you wouldn’t even know there is nothing if there is not someone to talk about it, so you, I and the universe are one. The dude that sees behind your eyes is also the same that sees behind my eyes.

THANKS FOR SHARING! ❤️❤️❤️

@@bitkurd We're spiritual beings having a human experience and it's a wonderful thing to be here for it.

And then you woke up and noticed you peed in your bed.

he is a tosser

@@surfinmuso37 why do you think he's wrong

I agree

Lol everyone is entitled to an opinion i suppose, but few have even heard of him, let alone entertain his "theories"

Well that faded quick. He's a joke.

If what anything Donald said is true then through the process of evolution we lose more the ability to see the truth. So, it's quite possible that people many years ago were able to see truth easier than us

Not Buddha but Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka 500 years earlier than Buddha.. the Upanishads.. they teach in no uncertain term that all is divine, thout art that and aham brahamasmi.. all three from those two Upanishads..

Vedas, upnishadas and Bhagvad Geeta describe Maya in more detail. Both predate Buddha by thousands years.

The Buddhists had no obligation to be correct

Wtf r u talking about

Hoffman is.

😂😂👏👏

The poor man's got it backwards. What is the case, it's just too obvious, when one remembers the early years of one's life, that ontologically primitive experiences build one's conscious agency, brick by tiny brick.

@Selfless Will "not helping Bro" I see, my mistake to use their vocabulary. I'll try it my way... Hoffman asserts that everything is conscious and that is why we are. But if everything is conscious then how is it possible to NOT be conscious like fer instance when we are in dreamless sleep, breathing nitrous oxide, passed out drunk, etc.? Conscious is not a 'something', not ghostly, not a property of matter. Conscious is a process. Process is abstract, immaterial, conceptual and the reason why mind feels aethereal. It should be clear to all who don't believe in magic, that matter is the substrate of the conscious process, that which must exist for the process to be OF. The deepest existential nature of material 'reality' is completely irrelevant because we don't exist, the process of being conscious does not exist, at that lower level. That help?

​@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Conscious is a process, but matter is also a process so... It's practically undeniable by now that all physics are just about processes, not "things". What we see as our "brains" is just what "light" can say about some specific kind of dynamics. It's not actually a material thing, but a system dynamics. There's just "information exchanges", to point it in some comprehensible extent.

Hello @@MeRetroGamer My comment, to which yours is a response, is incomplete and contains only preliminary considerations for answering the question, "What is the nature of that to which the word 'conscious' is referring"? My fault for not returning to complete it. "Conscious is a process, but matter is also a process so... It's practically undeniable by now that all physics are just about processes, not "things"." Conscious is a mode. Being conscious is the process. The existential nature of matter is irrelevant to the conscious process (but acknowledging the necessity for matter to 'behave' the way it does in order to be able to serve as substrate for the being conscious process. It does not matter if matter is a process of energetic ripples in some ultimate substrate or whatever. The fine grained matter process is quite separate and unrelated to the much larger conscious process that involves the behavior of neurons (each consisting of many trillions of atoms organized in many different types of dynamic structures from molecules to organelles to cell walls etc.)). When environmental energies impinge on a body's sense organ, the organ adjusts the firing rate of the neuron that connects the organ to the brain. That change in rate thereby encodes the energetic impact. Millions of sense organs operating in parallel are the source of all one's raw information input. Encoded representation is practically the definition of the word 'metaphor'. This naturally suggests that the firing rate of the axon of a neuron is the manifestation of a metaphor. Thus we are here confronting the very border between the mind and body. Clearly the body, which exists, is serving as the substrate for the being of metaphors. Metaphors are nought but thoughts and the mind, being made entirely of thoughts, is metaphoric in its entire nature. And of course a metaphor cannot be without an existent substrate to provide the components whose behavior IS the metaphor's instantiation. (Which points us at 'movement' as the heart of the matter, i.e. there is no such thing as a standalone movement. Something, matter, must exist before the word 'movement' can have an actual referent). So one of the metaphors that constitute my mind is my 'self' and I have no doubt that there are plenty of neurons participating in its instantiation and that lots of neurons are being dynamically attached and detached according to what I'm thinking. In addition, my self has modes of operation one of which is called conscious and another dreamless sleeping. Those metaphors not currently participating in my self deserve to be referred to as my unconscious, the place where my memories persist when they are not being remembered. It is the modulation of my self metaphor by the metaphors of my unconscious (accomplished via the synapses) that is to what the word 'conscious' is referring. Pretty sketchy and there's lots of details deserving of inclusion but I think this outline is enough to communicate the basics of my understanding of the fundamental nature of my being conscious process.

that is because it is twaddle. He preaches scientism-all conjecture with very little substance. Views like his are rapidly becoming outdated useless theories, nothing more. Lay people coming from different perspectives actually have a better grasp of reality than this hack. He is part of a rapidly expanding group-the ridiculously over-educated. Their schooling makes them blind and ignorant.

@@surfinmuso37 If you have an actual argument to rebut his theory, then by all means feel free to share. All you seem to offer is reflexive disagreement without anything to back it up, which is how a child behaves.

@@surfinmuso37: "Over-educated"? Really? So where does the proper "stopping point" exist? What is its nature? Of what is it constituted? Over-educated... Get serious. There is no such thing. One can NEVER learn too much... period.

Woooooooooooooooo

u see beyond the usual visual spectrum? i envy you

Yeah, my wife has that. We have some interesting conversations about what colour things are, given that we've got the same colour vocabulary but she can see millions more colours than I can.

It must be cool how you see the world. But you yourself don't have anything to compare it with.

@@jzonkel yes & others have see beyond too-in my biofield (6ft!). All had same heart intention- see what eachother sees, be open minded, unclutch from old beliefs and be childlike. It gave us a glympse of the MAGNIFICENT POWER of HUEman Co- Creative Consciousness ( real reason I think they want us 6ft apart). Our Possibilities are infinite! TRULY.

@@MurrayCowell so fun! I love this

You're a racist lunatic.

It's just a model though. How did it revitalize your life?

@@grahamblack1961 ????????? LMAO WTF IS GOING ON

Personally, I wouldn't call it non self, I'd call it non-ego. I feel like it's more like a revealing of true-self beyond the evolved narrow conception of self.

@@jaylinsa that is certainly a better way to put it. More of the realization that self is more than ego

@@jaylinsa Yes. Ego consciousness is separation consciousness. Ego-less consciousness is Unity consciousness. Only one is Real.

No, you can totally explain everything that makes a computer.. code is different. Human error shows up in strange ways.. but that is human based. We can explain computers down to the sub atomic particles that make it up..

Yes, no masks

Oh, this was 2018:)

space is an illsuon...duh

Really??

@@beatasosinska3368 didn't get the joke?

Not sure your location but it would be very fun for us to all get in a groups and hash out some this and that’s maybe even with some hash🌿

I call it Abba ;-) 👍👍👍🕊🐑❣

@@Sethan777 Sprinkle some dmt and we can talk about it. I've seen timeless void and interconnected realities where in between them nothing exists. It gets crazy....👾

@@AnthonyJohnson-kh8vi 👍👍👍 No-thing, but not a nothing. 🕊🐑♥️

nothing is constant...except change.

before consciousness? there was consciousness of course

My best guess...There is no concept of space/time in consciousness. Hence, there is no "before". Consciousness gave rise to the universe and space/time as we know it.

higher consciousness comes from a better use of language in the discussion between brain and its flesh and blood part of brain we call mind---it is bio feedback. Memory plays a big role, in that the better we recall those discussions, the better we are at using those discussions to move us to a better/safer/more productive place

Hopefully he " took away " the realisation that Chopra is a con artist and shyster whose millionaire lifestyle is funded by gullible idiots like you ?

@@2msvalkyrie529 Such judgmental hubris about a about man politely discussing about our lack of understanding of reality. Overconfidant worthless piece of shite like you should have more humility, if you have to even begin to understand what these two men are talking.

Panpsychism

Are you this adamant that free speech needs to be governed and that people get hurt by hearing ideas that don't confirm to their beliefs? If so, I feel sorry for you. Hoffman does an excellent job calling out Chopra for Chopra wanting a free pass to disregard all scientific law if he has a grand mental narrative to supposedly supercede them. Calling Chopra out in a non defensive way also allows Chopra to (hopefully) modify his models that he relays to his audience. Hell, Hoffman himself says that his model may be wrong and that he is working towards exploration of how to proof it (and yes, proof, not prove as it will need many mathematical proofs).

@@JH-ji6cj: to answer your question: no. I bought Hoffman's book precisely because I respect the way he presents himself and his ideas. However, the first blurb on the back of his book is by Chopra and then I'm seeing the association here too. It has made me stall in opening the book, for concern he'll just be another Sheldrake-type hack, I got duped by in my last science-topic book purchasing venture. I didn't bother to watch this video either, as I don't need to hear anymore poo from Chopra's face-hole. I'm glad to see u r reporting that Hoffman is calling Chopra out and setting himself apart.

@@travislawrencemusic well, I'm not sure either. That's the problem with snake-oil salesmen, they either know enough to know more than you and use it as advantage, or they know just enough to believe it themselves and are probably even MORE convincing that way. I've seen Michael Shermer talk with Chopra too and I think it comes down to how carefully you listen to him. My point would be that a lot of what he says has merit and it's the bits on the edges (where his thought experiments are used as proof of concept) that I have issue with. I give him slight passes (or at least I engage with his ideas to see what I think) given how often those with new ideas are squashed and discouraged. I think Chopra uses such scenarios to his advantage at times, and it's why I don't like him myself, but socially I see why others do. Confirmation bias is hard to pinpoint in myself, so I do appreciate you bringing up that he's also in Hoffman's book. Hoffman is human after all, so him using his own fitness payoff of Fame and money isn't a far stretch either, but I think the icon structure of interface and perspective is an interesting model that explains a lot to me.

Humble enough perhaps to be open to points of convergence? Good lesson for the rest of us 😉

Bro, he associatez with the chair, the carpet, the air....everything. Just cuz he associatez with the cluster of things called chopra... Thats what bothered ypu?

Rick D. Well said.

Free will both exists and does not exist. OR maybe its the wrong question all together. Math is the best we can do but its still not "it"

Have you read Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape?

@@adrianobildhauer5104 no is it good?

Adriano Bildhauer his name is sam harris

Is it possible that one could have free will of all possible conscious experiences that are mathematically formulated within an equation that calculates consciousness???...If I'm way off please find comfort knowing that my head hurts now 🤔🤪.

Now that is a good sense of humor. Thanks.

I tended to think that the falling tree with no one around does not make a sound, since sounds are what are heard

Yes. It does.

Massive woo woo statement. Meaningless.

"Consciousness itself" Do you think Consciousness is a something? Agents are conscious because A. evolution makes entities who become, who ARE conscious or because B. evolution makes entities who participate in consciousness (conceived as a property suffusing the entire universe or even as the entire universe itself taken as a conscious being). Most of Western thought takes A. to be the case because most Westerners have come to value individuality over collectivity. Those who are convinced by B. think there is only one entity in the universe perusing materiality through myriad eyes. Being a Westerner and understanding A., I ask of those convinced by B., why is there war? Are we trapped in an insane universe?

Bill Miller maths is a symbolic story telling media .. it is not fundamental to anything only the story is fundamental so nothing can be fundamental nothing. It is a story of a thing that tells the story of the other thing that came first and math is just symbolic story representations... 4x4 =8 4 what times 4 what equals 8 what. Story telling is the basis of God and his story is the reason we have the dreams of life. Learn the story of God and you will know that God is and when you know god is you will know that god is that we might have joy. And joy cannot be found without the contrast of pain and anguish so God is that we might have joy and joy is because we transcend pain.

Deepak was actually trying to hint at what you are saying.. i think that mathematics is also just a construct of reality (icon on the desktop) that we "made" up to understand the material world... (Mathematics = Material World ) < Consciousness

He says our experience is actually only existing in A reality that hides the true reality. Basically we can only comprehend the desktop icons because the true inner workings of reality would be to complex for a homo Saipan to understand. We see just a tiny sliver of reality so that we can keep ourselves alive. If we saw everything the way it really is then we would basically be so overwhelmed that we would not be able to survive. We see symbols of mathematical code that we associate to objects. Their waveform collapses into what we decode and construct as an icon. Most likely the real reality is just wave probability

@@alloneword154 This transcendental reality that is dangled like a carrot in front of humanity, is our stolen birthright and the thieves who took it need to pay. We're all spiritual hostages. War in Heaven.

er......what conclusion should we draw from this astounding revelation ...? Have you informed NASA ?

@@2msvalkyrie529 for you it would be exercising your brain a bit more. This was written very simple so even someone like you should have understood. Instead of being a smartass read it over again and see if you can even get close to an idea..

You're not wrong, but think how perfectly your description of Chopra's bias fitting into a fitness payoff view. The Religious and the tribalism/group think that supercedes scientific knowledge is exactly the type of thing Hoffman is exploring here. Not that we all aren't doing the same on some level, which I can expect is the truth.

Yes dont suffers.. they're all in you...you have created the universe :)

yeah complete bullshit.

I agree that Deepak talk a lot non sense most of the time, bur his point is that mathemathics is not real and can not prove counsciousness beyond the human brain.

@@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc Well mathematics might not be real my friend but what makes you think that his words are any more realer?" Are they? We as the audience are willing to accept that his words can describe conciousness beyond the human brain... but somehow mathematics cannot do that... Why do we accept that? Mathematics is build on top of a much more tangible, observable, consistent Natural framework than the arbitrarily designed Human language that he is using. Mathematics is a language... It is a tool to express ideas... it is not a computer server on which the universe runs. Thats why i believe your assumption is wrong because you are asking the wrong questions. And while we are at it... why not question the fact that Conciousness might not exist beyond the human brain in the first place before announcing that the very mathematics thats bringing you this very video n my comment over the internet... is not real... Just because we cannot describe something that doesnt exist in the first place... doesnt mean that our descriptive skills are wrong n unreal. Deepak Chopra has a scientific vocabulary but his concepts n theories are the same old rehashed "The heavens are more realer than this life" nonsense that we indians grew up with. Our religious leaders have been using this stuff to control n exploit the common man since antiquity... Nothing new here... just some new english words thrown in. Well wishes !

@@crabsynth8761 Thats the counsciousness paradox, uses words to say that words can not define ultimate reality, if counsciousness is fundamental and creates reality, words and numbers are its creation, an illusion, maybe you can use math the same way as words, to point at it but not to prove it. If counsciousness is created by the brain things get worst, in this case counsciousness do not create the illusion of reality, counsciousness is the illusion itself, so how you can prove or define anything at all if thats the case.

@@crabsynth8761 the 3 option may be that counsiousness is real but do not create reality, in this case math can prove it.

@@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc (sorry for the long post... but then again we are discussing the universe so excuse me...) haha the universe and consciousness... those are big words my friend... but at least im not a hypocrite who ignorantly uses Math to watch videos about consciousness on youtube n uses math to send text via the internet but then claims that Math is not Real... haha Im using words to express a concept called Agnosticism .... something that existed in my culture long before western science was born... long before jesus was born... a concept that states we may never completely understand the universe... God becomes the Schrodinger's cat in this philosophy... Agnosticism n Atheism have always been one of the foundational concepts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc... it got side tracked with magic, superstitions n gods later on but this concept has always been there in our scriptures. So dont try to argue with me about this like im some shmuck from down the street. I really dont say this out of ego but to state that i can see farther because i stand on the shoulders of giants... Many smarter people than you and i have thought about this stuff already, thousands of years ago... n i use their framework to establish my own. i can express the same thing in math ... its called the heisenburg principle.... we scientists are not pretentious snobs claiming that we know everything... we claim the opposite...That math cannot completely describe the universe. But just because math cant, it doesnt give ur Quantum Mumbo Jumbo guys the authority to claim that conciousness can describe the universe completely. At this moment your guys are pulling stuff out of their you know what. The only difference between the thoughts of your consciousness n math is that with math... you just write it down... Doing Math itself is an expression of Consciousness!!!!!!!! To do math is to be Conscious! And maybe nothing can describe the universe completely but the universe itself... it need not be conscious to do this... i'll mention a quote i just heard in a sci fi show recently.... "I Dominate, I need not Lead! - the universe". Im completely satisfied with my position now... im not gonna waste our collective time arguing about non sensical semantics with ya buddy... if u got something interesting then please let me know but not gonna waste time on semantics.... ive pin pointed what exactly your problem is... you are confusing the real universe with the model of the universe that your brain creates inside your head. Personally i dont care what you choose to believe... Believe whatever you want... the constitution gives you the right to... but dont hate on my math just cause of your existential crises... just have the humility and the humbleness to stay grounded... just be brave enough to admit that we dont know anything before pulling cosmic theories outta where the sun dont shine... your all Ignorant ... just like the rest of us... climb down from the pedastal.... n join the club... its okay to not know everything n its okay to admit that we dont know. Thanks n Regards

Esben Andreasen Yes, logically you make an awesome point. It IS. I know this because I have thought the same things independently for several decades and basically wrote and presented papers for years on these same issues. I have written a book about this myself that complements and expands these ideas greatly. (I used to be Steven E Romer when I wrote the book and papers including the paper: “Going Beyond our Evolutionarily-Limited World View”... and my book: “The Textbook of the Universe: the Genetic Ascent to God”. etc. ) These ideas are the key to the unified theory we have been seeking but we need to unify all our knowledge- not just physics. Information theory is part of the key too. Anyway yes, you are so correct!! The fact that I came up with these ideas independently and connected them to more basic problems in science shows that this is a solution based on the state of information now. I came up with them to solve the “hard problem” of consciousness before we even had named the problems of consciousness. It has been a long wait. Lol. It reminds me of the idea of heliocentrism spreading or scientific revolution in general in a Kuhnian sense. This is the real deal. :-) I am just hoping that some day I will be able to continue thinking and writing about these things full-time. I have solved many more problems and related this to so many things since I wrote the book that it’s overwhelming and somewhat painful to be truthful. Thanks for the comments!!!!

It has been fixed. Sorry Aaron. It was an issue with the site that lasted almost 12 hrs. For any reason like this contact us via the contact email on the website footer... We only check youtube comments every other day at best...