Cognitive Scientist Donald Hoffman Rejects Space-Time as Fundamental Reality

认知科学家 Donald Hoffman：时空并非根本实在 进化适应度的数学模型证明，人类的感官知觉纯粹是为生物生存而演化的，这使得时空和物理物质仅仅是由根本意识所生成的“用户界面”。 认知科学家 Donald Hoffman 指出，人类进化筛选的是生存收益而非精准的感知，使得我们的感官系统所体验到的客观实在概率为零。他以虚拟现实头显以及《侠盗猎车手》（Grand Theft Auto）等电子游戏作类比，解释了时空和物理实体为何只是被渲染出来的用户界面图标，而非根本真相。Hoffman 批判了整合信息理论（Integrated Information Theory）等物理主义模型，转而提出一个数学框架，认为意识主体是根本性的，时空则由它们的动态相互作用中涌现。最终，他将这一数学视角与深度冥想实践、普遍非二元论以及对死亡、痛苦和技术的彻底重新认知联系起来。 时空并非根本实在，而是由进化塑造出的、对用户友好的感知界面或虚拟现实头显。 (0:00) 在达尔文自然选择机制下，任何生物的感官系统进化出能准确感知客观实在的数学概率严格为零。 (7:37) 进化优先选择成本低廉、反应迅速的感知捷径和适应度收益，而非揭示真实的客观实在，甲虫试图与啤酒瓶交配的现象就证明了这一点。 (17:54) 物理学表明时空在普朗克尺度下会崩溃，而振幅多面体（Amplituhedron）等现代数学结构则完全存在于时空之外。 (2:17) 主流神经科学认为物理大脑产生了意识，但 Hoffman 认为，是在被观察时，意识创造了作为渲染视觉图标的大脑。 (36:09)

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that human sensory perception and space-time do not reflect objective reality, but function as an evolved virtual reality interface tuned strictly for reproductive fitness rather than truth. Drawing on evolutionary game theory and theoretical physics, Hoffman posits that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of existence from which physical laws must be derived. Natural Selection Eliminates Objective Perception (7:37) Hoffman asserts that evolutionary natural selection systematically weeds out organisms that perceive objective reality accurately. Because processing raw reality requires immense metabolic energy and computational time, evolutionary game theory simulations show that organisms perceiving objective truth consistently go extinct when competing against agents driven purely by simplified fitness payoffs. Hoffman and his colleagues maintain that the mathematical probability of any sensory system evolving to perceive objective truth is strictly zero. Under this model, sensory inputs operate as cheap, fast heuristics designed exclusively to guide adaptive survival behavior. Hoffman illustrates these shortcuts with biological examples, such as the male Australian jewel beetle (Julodimorpha bakewelli), which famously attempts to mate with discarded brown, dimpled beer bottles because its perceptual interface relies on crude color and texture cues rather than an understanding of female biology. Similarly, human mate selection relies on proxy heuristics like facial symmetry and vocal pitch rather than direct analysis of genetic code. Space-Time and Matter as Rendered Interfaces (2:17) Hoffman argues that contemporary theoretical physics supports the downfall of space-time as a primary construct. Beyond the Planck scale—measured at 10⁻³³ centimeters and 10⁻⁴³ seconds—the mathematical framework of space-time collapses entirely. Hoffman likens space-time to a player's headset in the video game Grand Theft Auto: it presents an intuitive interface (such as a steering wheel or road) to hide the vastly complex, incomprehensible voltage transitions taking place inside the underlying computer hardware. From this perspective, physical objects—including the human brain and its 86 billion neurons—do not exist independently in an objective domain. Instead, they are rendered on the fly at the precise moment of observation. Hoffman challenges mainstream physicalist neuroscience, pointing out that researchers have failed to bridge the explanatory gap between physical neural activity and qualitative subjective experiences (qualia), such as the taste of mint. He likewise dismisses Nick Bostrom's materialist simulation theory for assuming that physical computational hardware is fundamental rather than addressing the origin of consciousness itself. Deriving Physics from Conscious Agent Mathematics (81:27) Through his theory of conscious realism, Hoffman proposes that consciousness is fundamental and that the physical universe emerges from interconnected networks of conscious agents. His team models conscious observers mathematically using Markov kernels—probability matrices describing transitions between experiential states—paired with simple incrementing counters. Hoffman reports that his research group has mathematically derived the relativistic invariance of the speed of light (approximately 186,282 miles per second) directly from conscious agent interactions, without assuming a pre-existing space-time continuum. His ongoing work aims to derive the properties of elementary particles like electrons and integrate quantum field theory. Furthermore, Hoffman plans to apply these Markovian dynamics to develop a novel artificial intelligence architecture focused on active inference and surprise minimization, contrasting it with existing large language models that he characterizes as lacking genuine conscious comprehension. Avatar Disidentification and Technological Frontiers (29:10) Hoffman contends that viewing human bodies as temporary avatars operated by a single unified consciousness eliminates egoic anxiety, status-seeking, and the fear of mortality. Describing his own health ordeal in 2020 and 2021—where severe COVID complications and heart failure required multiple emergency resuscitations and surgeries—Hoffman notes the difficulty of detaching from bodily survival instincts, yet maintains that physical death merely represents removing a sensory headset. He aligns this non-dual philosophy with teachings across world religions that emphasize unconditional love, arguing that loving one's neighbor is fundamentally loving another manifestation of oneself. On a technological level, Hoffman forecasts that learning to edit the computational code outside space-time could yield unprecedented capabilities, such as bypassing the 2.4-million-light-year transit to the Andromeda Galaxy by manipulating position coordinates directly. He acknowledges that unlocking this access constitutes opening a figurative Pandora's box, yielding potential applications that could make twentieth-century nuclear weaponry look trivial by comparison. Hoffman concedes that his conscious agent framework represents an initial step rather than an exhaustive theory of existence, emphasizing that empirical science must rigorously validate claims through predictive mathematics rather than unfalsifiable spiritual assertions. The ultimate validation of his model rests on whether deriving physics from conscious dynamics can yield functional technologies that demonstrably bypass physical space-time constraints.

认知科学家唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）提出，人类感官所体验的时空与物理世界并非客观现实，而是自然选择为最大化生存繁衍而塑造的虚拟现实“头显”界面；他认为客观实在在底层由意识构成，物理宇宙仅是意识相互作用下生成的感知投影。 演化博弈论：适应度击败客观真相 (7:37) 霍夫曼及其研究团队通过演化博弈论的数学模型证明，在达尔文自然选择机制下，任何感官系统演化出如实反映客观现实能力的概率严格为零。大众常直觉认为看清真相有助于生存，但霍夫曼指出感知与大脑处理极其消耗热量与能量；演化动力完全由繁殖适应度（payoff functions）主导，那些利用廉价、快速启发式感官“捷径”引导适应行为的物种，在生存竞争中会系统性淘汰耗费巨大能量去如实呈现复杂现实的物种。在其团队进行的计算机模拟竞争中，如实反映现实的“真相生物”无一例外走向灭绝。 霍夫曼以具体生物学案例印证了这种演化权衡：雄性澳洲吉丁虫（Julodimorpha bakewelli）依赖“凹坑、反光且呈棕色”的简易视觉规则寻找配偶，导致它们将路边废弃的棕色啤酒瓶误当成雌虫疯狂求偶；人类择偶时同样无法直接检测潜在伴侣的DNA碱基序列（A、C、G、T），只能依赖身体对称性、皮肤光泽与声音等外在代理指标。人类感官的设计初衷仅在于提供保障生存的操作界面，而非揭示世界的客观本质。 时空界面的坍缩与意识主体数学模型 (2:17) 霍夫曼指出，当代物理学将广义相对论与量子力学结合后发现，在普朗克长度（10⁻³³厘米）与普朗克时间（10⁻⁴³秒）的极限尺度下，传统时空概念在数学上彻底失效并崩溃，这证明时空只是次级衍生结构而非世界的基础基石。霍夫曼将时空比作电子游戏《侠盗猎车手》（GTA）：玩家在屏幕前操纵方向盘与街道，而底层物理现实其实是计算机内部成百上千万个二极管电压的有序切换；人类感知的四维时空同样只是掩盖宇宙底层极端复杂性的简化交互界面。 针对主流神经科学认为大脑860亿神经元放电产生意识的主张，霍夫曼指出物理主义（Physicalism）始终无法解释特定神经回路放电为何能引发特定主观质感（如薄荷味），在核心解释上得分为零。他提出“意识主体网络理论”（Conscious Agent Network），尝试利用马尔可夫核（Markov kernel）状态转移概率矩阵与计数器对意识体验进行形式化建模。霍夫曼声称，其团队已能从纯粹的意识主体数学推导出光速在所有惯性参考系下的恒定性（每秒约186,282英里），并正致力于从中推导电子与量子场论规律。 大脑作为渲染图标与统一意识消解自我 (36:09) 在霍夫曼的模型中，物理大脑本身并非独立存在于颅骨内的客观实体。他主张神经活动与主观意识体验之间的相关性并不构成因果关系，物理大脑只是意识主体在头显中观察时实时渲染出的视觉图标，如同游戏未观察区域的画面在视角转向后才被引擎生成。这一假说颠覆了“大脑机器制造心灵”的模型，同时也与尼克·博斯特罗姆（Nick Bostrom）的物理模拟理论形成分野：霍夫曼拒绝将计算机电路或物质硬件视作基底，坚持将意识置于第一性地位。 这种世界观彻底重构了人类个体的身份认知。霍夫曼认为，每个人并非时空中一个孤立脆弱、体重约160磅的物理躯体，而是单一无限意识佩戴不同头显后体验世界的不同视角化身。他引用《圣经》马太福音第25章中“做在最卑微者身上就是做在我身上”的记述，指出各大传统强调的“爱人如己”在逻辑上的根据正在于他人即是戴着不同头显的自己；一旦意识到经验世界由自身意识所构建，源于社会竞争、地位攀比以及对死亡彻底湮灭的生存焦虑便能从根本上得以消解。 逆向工程现实代码、新型AI与生死考量 (86:31) 霍夫曼推测，若能在数学上破解时空背后的意识代码，人类将能跳出物理维度直接修改底层数据。例如，跨越距离地球240万光年的仙女座星系将不再依赖耗时数代人的物理飞行，而是通过直接改写内存寄存器参数实现位移；他承认这种掌握“现实软件”的技术潜力将使核武器相形之下犹如“爆竹”，犹如打开潘多拉魔盒。在人工智能领域，霍夫曼批评现有大语言模型（LLM）虽具备强大的数据关联统计能力，但缺乏真正的主观意识与理解；他计划基于卡尔·弗里斯顿（Karl Friston）的主动推断与自由能原理，使用马尔可夫链构建以最小化意外为核心、将意识作为底层基石的新型AI架构。 然而，理论认知与个体的现实遭遇存在巨大鸿沟。霍夫曼坦承，自己在2020年因长新冠引发严重心力衰竭、心率连续30小时高达190次并数次送医抢救时，肉体面对死亡的本能恐惧让他深刻体验到知性信念与情绪本能的脱节。他强调任何科学理论都只是工具而非终极真理，自己每天坚持三至四小时的静坐冥想正是为了练习剥离对有限肉身化身的执念，在肉体死亡被迫摘除头显之前，学会在无概念的纯粹觉知中直面痛苦与生命归宿。 霍夫曼总结认为，整个人类科学知识相较于超越时空的宏大实在仅占0%，其意识主体模型目前仅迈出了第一步，尚未完整推导全部现代物理定律。该理论不仅面临如何在严格数学上统一量子场论与引力理论的硬性考验，更在存在论上留下未决的伦理追问：如果一切物理苦难与历史灾难仅是无限意识体验自身局限性的戏剧游戏，在现实头显中承受真切痛苦的生命个体，又该如何在形而上的超然视角与现实的人性责任之间确立平衡。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道 The Diary Of A CEO（由 Steven Bartlett 主持）于 2025 年 7 月 31 日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目专访了加利福尼亚大学尔湾分校的获奖认知科学家兼《对现实的抗争》作者唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman），围绕演化如何隐藏客观真相、时空为何只是人类的 VR 头显，以及意识如何作为宇宙底层代码展开深入剖析。 ## TL;DR 唐纳德·霍夫曼教授指出，达尔文演化论在数学上证明了生物感官感知客观真实的概率为零，人类眼中的时空与物理实体仅仅是一套为繁衍生息而演化出的高度压缩的“VR 头显”操作界面。他通过最新的“意识智能体网络理论”，尝试从纯意识数学动态中严格推导出爱因斯坦的时空几何与光速不变性，宣告物理主义以物质为基底的模型彻底失效。霍夫曼进一步将这种本体论延伸至对死亡、苦难与人工智能的解读，主张全人类本质上都是同一个无限意识在不同化身中的自我探索，唯有破除对肉身化身的过度认同并践行“爱人如己”，人类才能在打破认知牢笼后掌握改写时空底层代码的颠覆性力量。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉浸在一种既颠覆认知又充满超然诗意的哲思氛围中，既有硬核数学物理与演化博弈论的严密拆解，又有直击存在本质的灵性共振。主持人 Steven Bartlett 带着充满好奇、敬畏且偶尔因世界观动摇而产生的存在主义眩晕感不断层层追问，而霍夫曼教授则以学者特有的冷静严谨与历经生死危机后的通透谦逊从容作答。在探讨濒死抢救、苦难本质与“爱邻如己”的段落中，现场情绪从学术思辨自然流淌至深沉的共情与释然，带给听众一种击碎日常执念、重获精神自由的心灵震撼。 ## Bulletin - [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=654s) 认知科学家唐纳德·霍夫曼指出，演化论与数学证明表明人类感官感知客观真实现实的概率为零；感官系统的本质仅仅是一套为了最大化繁衍适应度而演化出的轻量化“虚拟现实头显”。 - [02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=134s) 时空并非物理现实的终极基底，在达到普朗克尺度（约 10⁻³³ cm 与 10⁻⁴³ s）时现有物理定律将全盘失效，物理学界已开始探索时空之外由纯数学构成的更高维几何客体。 - [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4846s) 霍夫曼团队近期通过“意识智能体”的马尔可夫数学模型，成功在脱离时空前提的条件下推导出了爱因斯坦狭义相对论的时空几何与光速不变性原理。 - [01:27:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5221s) 若能从时空之外逆向工程现实底层代码，人类将解锁远超传统物理学限制的技术跃迁（如跨维星际瞬间跃迁与操纵时间），使传统核技术相形见绌。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=0s) 人类眼前的物理世界并非客观实相，而是一套类似于开放世界游戏界面的演化投影（VR 头显），时空与物理实体只是界面渲染出的交互符号。 - [02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=134s) 广义相对论与量子力学在极小尺度下揭示，时空在普朗克长度（10⁻³³ cm）和普朗克时间（10⁻⁴³ s）失去数学定义，证明时空并非万物的最底层画布。 - [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=654s) 达尔文演化论以适应度收益（Fitness Payoffs）为核心，计算表明追求真相的生物因高昂的能耗和信息负荷必遭淘汰，存活下来的物种感知真相的概率为零。 - [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1074s) 计算机演化博弈模拟显示，力求看清真相的“求真生物”在严酷生存竞争中全盘走向灭绝，而依靠适应度简写码的“界面生物”始终占据优势。 - [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1153s) 澳洲宝石甲虫因误将反光凹坑棕色啤酒瓶当作完美雌性而疯狂求偶致死，印证了自然选择只提供足以繁衍的最低限度捷径，彻底隐藏了客观物理实相。 - [20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1246s) 人类科学理论永远受限于先验假设的无穷递归链条，因此有限的理论在面对无限深邃的客观实相时，认知占比严格收敛为 0%。 - [20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1246s) 物种之间的感知差异极大（如蝙蝠的回声定位、狗的 3 亿嗅觉受体、昆虫的偏振光导航），人类感知仅是无尽感知光谱中微不足道的一个窄带。 - [29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1769s) 杯子、桌子乃至大脑在未被观察时并不存在物理实体，大脑不是产生意识的源泉，而是超越时空的意识在交互界面上即时渲染出的代表图标。 - [41:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2478s) 驳斥博斯特罗姆的物理主义模拟假说：将底层归结为物理硬件与程序员依然无法解释具体的代码为何且如何必然产生主观质感体验（如薄荷味或巧克力的味道）。 - [43:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2584s) 人生的终极本质是超越时空的单一无限意识通过千差万别的“虚拟化身”探索自我，每个众生都是这同一意识戴上不同头显的具象视角。 - [01:01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3711s) “爱人如己”的本体论根基在于“你的邻人就是戴着另一副头显的你自己”，认出这种一体性是消除二元对立、评判心与世俗倾轧的根本解法。 - [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4846s) 意识智能体网络模型利用极简体验状态与马尔可夫转移矩阵及计数器机制，成功在纯数学层面重构了光速恒定特性与爱因斯坦的时空公理。 - [01:27:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5221s) 逆向工程虚拟头显就像修改游戏底层的内存寄存器，未来无需跋涉数百万光年即可完成跨维度位移，从代码端彻底重构现实呈现。 - [01:37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5820s) 梦境证明了意识具备无中生有投射逼真现实的固有机制，精神分裂症等感知异常本质上是梦境生成机制与清醒界面通道发生了串线干扰，而非物质大脑制造心智的明证。 - [01:41:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6087s) 人类受苦的根源在于过度认同脆弱的虚拟肉身化身；当把现实视作一场探索大戏并退居为平静的“观察者”时，精神苦难将自然消融。 - [01:50:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6656s) 当前大语言模型只是基于统计相关性的模式匹配，比黄瓜还愚蠢；未来高阶 AI 的突破依赖于基于意识基元或主动推断最小化惊异的全新计算框架。 - [01:56:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6995s) 传统灵性受冷落是因为物理科学造就了电脑与电力等实用工具，一旦基于意识动力学的数学模型开发出超越时空物理局限的新技术，人类对实在的认知范式将彻底反转。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=0s) 真实世界的假象与代码的重写 访谈以一段充满颠覆性的对话拉开序幕：加利福尼亚大学尔湾分校的认知科学家唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）抛出了一个令人震惊的前提——我们眼前所见的世界根本不是真实的世界。人类所感知到的一切，本质上就像一套从出生起就被戴在头上的虚拟现实（VR）头显，我们不过是在其中玩一场沉浸式视频游戏。在这个隐喻中，绝大多数人以为游戏内的场景就是终极现实，但对于编写游戏底层代码的程序员而言，游戏界面之外存在着一个完全不同、不可思议的广阔世界。作为程序员，一旦掌握了底层代码，就能在这个体系中创造“奇迹”。 当主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问人类是否正在接近能够修改这套底层代码的阶段时，霍夫曼给出了极其确定的回答。他透露，这正是他当前全力攻关的课题。一旦突破这层维度的边界，人类将开启一系列远超以往任何人类认知的颠覆性技术——例如掌控时间乃至时间旅行。在这样的技术面前，核武器将显得如同微不足道的爆竹。面对巴特利特关于“这是否会导致人类苦难”的疑问，霍夫曼坦言这就像打开了“潘多拉的魔盒”，其中必然混杂着危险与糟糕的意外，但同时也蕴含着神迹般的可能性；而在最近几个月里，这扇紧锁的大门已经开始撬开裂缝。 霍夫曼基于达尔文演化论提出了核心论点：人类的眼睛、耳朵、嗅觉和触觉等感官系统，其演化的目的绝非为了向我们展示客观真理，而仅仅是为了确保我们能存活足够长的时间并成功繁衍后代。因为处理真实世界的全面信息需要耗费极大的时间和能量，演化出于生存效率，彻底隐藏了真实世界。因此，客观现实的本质与我们所感知到的事物截然不同。 这种认知对个人生命观带来了深刻转变：如果你觉得自己身处一个乏味的世界，那纯粹是你自己创造的幻象，而非世界的本相。既然意识体验与周围环境皆为你所投射，那么在社会中感到的自我怀疑、渺小以及与他人内卷竞争的冲动，就失去了根基。你本身就是这整套体验的构建者，根本无须向任何人证明自己；若能洞悉自身的真实面貌，相互攀比与竞争将变得毫无意义。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现实感知与底层代码的关系 accDescr: 展示人类通过VR头显感知的空间时间世界与底层真实世界及代码的关系。 subgraph Interface ["表层感知系统（游戏界面）"] A["感官输入：视/听/嗅/触"] --> B["时空与物理客体（桌子、距离）"] B --> C["生存与繁衍驱动（适者生存）"] end subgraph DeepReality ["底层真实世界（程序员视角）"] D["客观现实 / 超越时空的几何结构"] --> E["底层代码机制"] E -.->|"投射与渲染"| A end F["新技术探索：重写代码"] --> E ``` --- ### [02:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=134s) 物理学极限：为什么时空不是基底现实 在巴特利特的频道订阅提醒插播后，访谈切入正式探讨。巴特利特询问霍夫曼：此时此刻收听节目的普通大众，甚至科学界的顶尖专业学者，是否真正理解他们眼前的世界与现实的本质？霍夫曼给出了明确的否定答案。他指出，即便是在该领域走在最前沿的专家学者，也并未彻底理解现实的本质，这是当今科学界面临的最重大的未解难题之一。人们虽然各自怀有假说或自以为掌握了真相，但最尖端的现代科学表明，人类当前的想象力还远远不够宽广。 霍夫曼指出，长期以来人类对现实最大的认知误区，在于把“时空（Space-time）”当成了现实的基底。大众直觉中的现实，就是存在于空间与时间之内的一切：你我之间相隔的一到两米距离、天文望远镜能够观测到的一切天体与深空物质。然而，人类最顶尖的两大科学基石——爱因斯坦的广义相对论与量子力学——的结合却告诉我们：时空绝不可能是现实的最底层。 霍夫曼阐述了一个具体的物理度量过程：如果将尺度不断缩小，从米到厘米、毫米、微米，一路深入到微观世界，当达到普朗克尺度（约 $10^{-33}\text{ cm}$ 与 $10^{-43}\text{ 秒}$）时，现有的物理方程便全盘崩溃，空间的概念在此处彻底失效，不再具有任何数学上的连贯意义与实际效用。这个界限证明了我们所熟知的时空框架拥有其绝对边界，它不是无限可分的终极画布。 - **普朗克长度（Planck Length）**：$10^{-33}\text{ cm}$，越过此临界点，经典与量子引力理论中的时空概念失去定义。 - **普朗克时间（Planck Time）**：$10^{-43}\text{ 秒}$，现行物理定律成立的最小时间间隔极限。 - **现代科学的推论**：当时空在极微尺度下失去意义，意味着时空并非客观实体的终极容器，而仅仅是一种表象或涌现特征。 --- ### [04:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=283s) 虚拟现实隐喻：从《侠盗猎车手》看时空头显 既然时空不是客观现实的基底，那么我们在日常生活中看见的桌子、房间、彼此又究竟是什么？霍夫曼明确表示，作为一名认知科学家而非物理学家，他的观点是：时空本质上就是一套进化的“虚拟现实（VR）头显”。人们在“生命游戏”中所感知的一切物理实体——即便是一张摸上去坚硬无比的实木桌子——本质上都只是这套 VR 系统里渲染出来的虚拟客体。 为了让听众更直观地理解，霍夫曼引用了经典开放世界视频游戏《侠盗猎车手》（Grand Theft Auto，简称 GTA）的比喻。如果一个玩家生来就戴着 VR 头盔在 GTA 游戏里，驾驶豪车、在街道飞驰、与人竞速或抢夺物品，那么对该玩家而言，方向盘、油门、柏油路面就是其全部的现实。但对于编写该游戏的软件工程师和超级计算机架构师而言，背后的真相完全是另一回事：真实世界里根本没有汽车和公路，只有超级计算机内部数以百万计的电压以极其精准的时序在高低电平之间翻转切换，二极管与电阻相互协同运作。在游戏里转动方向盘的玩家，对底层飞速切换的电压脉冲一无所知。 霍夫曼指出，人类对于宇宙的处境亦是如此。物理学家们自 2010 年前后起，便开始在时空之外探索并发现了某些超越时空的几何结构（如振幅多面体等类似“方尖碑”般的纯数学客体），这表明时空之外确实存在着全然不同的领域。时空只是现实中微不足道的一个界面。我们肉眼所见的一切，并不是真实世界本身的模样，而是我们为了在严酷环境中生存而投射出的一套高度简化的图形用户界面（GUI）。 --- ### [07:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=458s) 达尔文演化论的悖论：真理不利于生存 巴特利特顺着这个逻辑推论：这意味着人类目前所见的一切，都只是大脑为了生存而建立的简化投影；大脑屏蔽掉了所有与生存无关的宏观或底层细节，因为从认知能耗和计算资源的角度来看，去实时处理和呈现客观世界的所有真实细节，在能量与演化机制上不仅得不偿失，甚至是致命的低效。 霍夫曼对巴特利特的总结表示完全赞同，并坦言这一结论对绝大多数人乃至许多顶尖专业学者来说都极度反直觉。大众的常见直觉是：“演化论的核心在于适者生存，个体需要尽可能适应环境以成功存活和繁衍；而看清现实的真理显然有助于更精准地应对环境挑战。一个能够看清真理的生物，在生存竞争中难道不应该彻底碾压一个生活在虚假幻觉中的生物吗？”这种普遍共识让人觉得将时空斥为“虚拟头显”荒谬不羁。 然而霍夫曼明确反驳了这种观点，并强调这一结论并非哲学臆测，而是已经拥有了严格的数学定理支持。他回顾了达尔文的演化理论基础：达尔文强调物种是通过极其漫长的渐进过程演化而来，从极度原始简单的生命形态向复杂的生命结构迈进。在自然选择的严酷筛选下，适应度收益（Fitness Payoffs）彻底压倒了对真理的求索——演化只奖赏那些能够最大化繁衍收益的感知策略，而对客观世界真实结构的解码不仅不会带来优势，反而会因巨大的代谢能耗拖垮生物体，最终导致其走向绝灭。 ### [09:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=548s) 达尔文演化论与适应度的真正含义 达尔文的自然选择演化论为从简单生物到复杂生物的演进动态提供了解释，其核心驱动力在于“繁殖适应度”（Reproductive Fitness）。所谓适应度，是指生物所具备的身体特征、感觉系统和运动系统，能够使其更有可能繁衍后代并将后代抚养至成熟期。唐纳德·霍夫曼指出，达尔文的学说并不一定否认上帝的存在，但它明确表明，即便存在造物主，世界也不是被一次性完美造就的，而是经由演化历程不断塑造。史蒂文补充澄清道，并不是生物主动去“适应”环境，而是那些碰巧最适应环境的后代得以存活下来。 演化中许多器官曾经历多次独立演化，眼睛便是最典型的例子。例如，头足类动物（如章鱼、乌贼）的眼睛演化路径就与人类截然不同，而且在结构设计上，头足类的眼睛甚至避免了人类眼睛存在的缺陷（如视网膜反向排列导致的盲点）。当史蒂文询问这是否源于环境差异时，霍夫曼解释说这确实是可能的原因之一，但也可能纯粹是概率上的偶然事件——随机突变在某个节点恰好形成某种结构，而人类演化中则留下了相反的构造。 ### [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=654s) 数学证明：感知真实客观现实的概率为零 针对史蒂文关于达尔文演化论是否存在漏洞或错误的提问，霍夫曼坚定地表示，在生物学层面上，解释物种起源的科学理论中没有任何假说能与达尔文的自然选择演化论相匹敌。然而，正是达尔文理论本身的数学形式化表述，推导出了一个惊人的结论：我们所感知到的一切绝非客观真相。 人类的感觉系统完全不是为了向我们揭示真相而演化出来的，它们的唯一使命就是“让你存活足够长的时间以成功繁衍后代，仅此而已”（"keep you alive long enough to reproduce successfully. Period."）。绝大多数人都直觉地认为，演化塑造感官的方式一定是让感官准确传达外部现实的信息；然而，霍夫曼与合作者通过数学论文严格证明，演化论根本不支持这种推论。相反，数学计算得出的结论是：任何感觉系统（包括视觉、听觉、嗅觉、触觉、味觉）被塑造来准确反映客观现实任何方面的“概率为零”（the probability is zero）。我们所体验到的一切，纯粹是一套用来引导适应性行为（adaptive behavior）的感觉界面，其目的只是让人类在行动中不至于过快死去，并生下同样不会过快死去的下一代。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 真实感知与适应度驱动感知的演化选择模型 accDescr: 对比展现感知真相的高能耗代价导致灭绝，而适应度导向的感官界面带来生存优势。 subgraph Objective["客观现实与演化机制"] R["客观现实 (Objective Reality)"] NS["自然选择压力 (Natural Selection)"] end subgraph Strategies["两种感知策略"] T["真实感知策略<br/>(力求看清真相)"] F["适应度界面策略<br/>(演化捷径与Hack)"] end subgraph Outcomes["演化最终结局"] Extinct["信息过载 / 能耗极高<br/>竞争劣势 ➔ 走向灭绝"] Survive["低成本引导行为<br/>专注繁衍 ➔ 适应度最大化"] end R -.->|被演化彻底隐藏| F R -->|全量输入| T NS --> T NS --> F T --> Extinct F --> Survive ``` ### [12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=773s) 思想实验：剥离全部感官后的世界与感知的能耗代价 史蒂文由此展开了一个引人入胜的极端思想实验：假设自己是地球上唯一的人类，如果把他的眼睛、耳朵、鼻子以及对温度的所有感知能力全部剥离，现实会变成什么样？从主体意识来看，现实似乎不复存在，但客观上绝非虚无。史蒂文推想，人类之所以看不到所谓幽灵、死后世界或其他维度，也许单纯是因为从生存角度来看，感知这些东西毫无助益；甚至相反，处理如此庞杂的信息会带来极高的认知负荷（cognitive load）。那些能够处理所有信息的生物往往在繁殖竞争中败下阵来，因此今天存活的人类可能只是一群“极度擅长忽略其他维度”的幸存者。 霍夫曼对史蒂文的这一直觉深表赞同，并指出这正是数学理论所揭示的核心逻辑： - **感知极其昂贵**：大脑运转和维持视听系统需要消耗大量卡路里。如果感官系统耗能过大，生物就必须花费更多时间冒着危险去觅食，这构成了致命的演化权衡（trade-off）。 - **真相的成本不可承受**：追求客观真理在演化上不仅多余，而且代价过高。为了以最低能耗完成任务，演化充斥着各种“捷径与作弊手段”（tricks and hacks）。 - **演化捷径的现实案例**： - 某些飞行昆虫需要在水面产卵，它们绝不浪费能量去分析水的本质，而仅仅利用识别水面光线偏振态这一捷径来锁定水体。 - 人类在评估潜在伴侣的繁殖适应度时，无法肉眼读取对方 DNA 中的碱基排列（A、C、G、T 是否突变），因此演化让人类依赖体态、面容和声音等粗糙的表面表征来完成筛选。 ### [15:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=954s) 动物视角与人类的傲慢：从蝙蝠回声定位到“便利的虚构” 为了进一步证明人类感官仅仅是生存工具而非真相窗口，史蒂文提出不同动物眼中的世界差异极大。以食虫蝙蝠为例，蝙蝠在完全黑暗的环境中不依靠人类意义上的色彩和视觉构图，而是通过发出高频声波并用大耳朵捕捉反射回来的回声，在脑海中构建出一套声波环境地图，用于导航与捕食。如果一只蝙蝠坐在那里，自以为它感知到的声波反射地图就是世界的终极真相，那显然是片面的；同理，人类自以为眼睛和耳朵看到的景象就是真实的客观现实，本质上也是一种无知的傲慢。 霍夫曼坦言，部分认知科学家同行对此持反对意见，认为人类大脑结构远比蝙蝠复杂，蝙蝠固然依赖感官捷径，但高等人类应该离真相更近。霍夫曼坚决反对这种人类中心主义的观点。在他看来，眼前看到的桌子、茶杯等具体物体，归根结底只是一种“便利的虚构”（convenient fiction）。无论背后的真正现实是什么，它都绝对彻底地不同于人类所感知到的任何景象。 ### [17:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1074s) 计算机演化模拟：看清真理的生物走向灭绝 在霍夫曼团队将这一理论最终上升为严格的数学定理之前，他们早在 2000 年代就开展过大规模的计算机博弈模拟实验。他们构建了一个数字虚拟世界，在算法中引入了不同类型的虚拟人工生物： - **求真生物（Truth Organisms）**：能够感知到虚拟世界的客观真实状态。 - **界面生物（Interface / Fitness Organisms）**：感知不到世界的真相，感官如同 VR 头显一般，只接收能够引导适应性行为、协助生存与繁衍的关键信息。 在各种广泛变化的算法参数和初始条件下，模拟得出了极其一致的结果：求真生物全盘走向灭绝（went extinct），根本无法与那些只接收适应度信息的生物竞争。模拟实验清晰证明，试图看清真相需要耗费巨大的时间和运算能量，认知过程过于繁复；而在残酷的生存竞争中，掌握轻量化简单捷径的生物总能迅速淘汰背负真相沉重枷锁的对手。 ### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1153s) 澳洲宝石甲虫与演化的“偷工减料” 演化生物学展现出一种奇妙的实用主义哲学：只要能以最低的能耗换取相同的生存收益，生命系统绝不会费力去洞悉现实的深层本质。唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）在此分享了一个极具讽刺意味却引人深思的经典生物学案例——生活在澳大利亚内陆荒原的宝石甲虫（Jewel beetle）。这种甲虫在外观上呈现出带有酒窝状凹点、反光且呈棕色的特征；雌性甲虫无法飞行，雄性甲虫则必须在空中巡视，搜寻适龄的雌性以完成繁衍使命。 然而，荒原上的人类饮酒习惯打破了这种微妙的演化平衡。当地男性常常随手乱扔特定品牌的啤酒瓶，巧合的是，这些酒瓶的瓶身恰好带有凹坑、表面晶莹反光，并且呈现出某种极其诱人的棕褐色。对雄性宝石甲虫而言，这种啤酒瓶完美契合了演化赋予它们的视觉特征，甚至呈现出一种“体型越大越具吸引力”的致命诱惑。雄虫们前赴后继地扑向酒瓶，全身紧贴、在玻璃表面疯狂蠕动并试图交配。它们至死都没有意识到，自己倾注生命热情的对象只是一只毫无生机的啤酒瓶。霍夫曼指出，演化并未赋予这些雄虫洞察配偶真实面貌的智慧，仅仅给了它们“刚好足够在死亡前繁衍后代”的粗糙简写码。 - **宝石甲虫的判别特征**：带有微凹点（dimpled）、光泽反光（glossy）且呈棕色（brown），对雄虫而言，满足此特征的目标物越大越好。 - **演化法则**：自然选择只做“廉价交易”（does things on the cheap），为了节省认知成本，生命感知系统只保留生存与繁衍所需的最低限度线索，彻底屏蔽了客观物理实相。 --- ### [20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1246s) 科学理论与感官局限：我们对真实世界的认知是 0% 人类往往自诩为万物灵长，自负地认为我们的感官能直接洞察世界的终极真相。然而霍夫曼直言，人类的感觉器官同样是极其廉价的演化妥协，所谓的现实体验不过是人类佩戴的“小型虚拟现实头显”（little headset）。从严格的数学与逻辑意义上讲，人类对真实世界的认知程度是彻头彻尾的“0%”。不仅感官如此，即便人类最引以为傲的科学理论体系，也永远只能解释客观现实的 0%。因为任何科学理论都必须建立在未经证明的先验假设（assumptions）之上；当一个假说被更深层的理论解释时，必然又引入了全新的底层假设。这是一个永无止境的无穷递归链条，在面对无限深邃的客观实相时，任何有限的进展除以无穷大，其所占比例都只能收敛为零。 为了印证人类感知的极其狭隘，对话转向了自然界中其他物种的超常感知力。宠物或野生动物对环境细微变化的察觉往往令人惊叹，这并非神秘主义，而是不同物种演化出了完全不同的“感知界面”： - **听觉跨度**：人类的听觉极限约为 20,000 赫兹（Hz），而犬类能够接收高达 65,000 赫兹的高频声波。 - **嗅觉受体**：人类鼻腔仅拥有约 500 万个嗅觉受体，而犬类拥有多达 3 亿个嗅觉受体，足以嗅出人类体内的癌细胞或微小病变。 - **视觉与其他电磁感知**：猫能够感知人类可见光谱之外的光线波长；某些鱼类具备感知微弱电场（electric fields）的能力；某些鸟类与昆虫则能直接看见光的偏振（polarization of light），并利用偏振光导航或搜寻理想的产卵地点。 人类眼中的物理时空，仅仅是无尽感知光谱中微不足道的一个窄带，宇宙实相的丰富与辽阔远远凌驾于人类大脑贫瘠的想象之上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 感知头显与客观现实的分离 accDescr: 展示客观实相通过不同物种演化形成的有限感知头显，过滤成为高度压缩的主观现象界 subgraph TrueReality["超越客观实相 (无限维度 / 科学假说序列)"] R["终极实相 (客观真实)"] end subgraph SensoryHeadsets["演化塑造的物种感知头显 (低成本生存界面)"] H1["人类头显: 20Hz-20kHz, 500万嗅觉受体, 三色视觉"] H2["犬类头显: 高达65kHz, 3亿嗅觉受体"] H3["鸟类/昆虫头显: 偏振光视觉, 地磁导航"] H4["电鱼头显: 电场探测系统"] end subgraph PerceivedWorld["物种体验到的主观世界 (0% 真实客观性)"] W1["人类体验: 时空、物体、颜色、声音"] W2["非人物种体验: 气味图景、偏振光轨迹、微电场流"] end R --> H1 R --> H2 R --> H3 R --> H4 H1 --> W1 H2 --> W2 H3 --> W2 H4 --> W2 ``` --- ### [23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1395s) 科学与灵性的交汇：那个创造理论的“我”究竟是谁？ 如果日常感官体验不过是一套狭隘的生存界面，这一发现对个体的生命实践意味着什么？霍夫曼指出，如果你觉得生活或世界索然无味，那绝非现实本身单调，而是“你的想象力不够宏大”。各种古老的灵性传统早已洞悉这一真理——在时空框架所能呈现的表象之外，存在着无边无际的超然存在。科学与灵性在这里达成了奇妙的互补：科学受限于不可穷尽的假设链条，因此“万物理论”（Theory of Everything）注定是一场幻梦；但这种终极的无解，恰恰为超越科学维度的灵性认知留出了无限空间。 霍夫曼提出一个发人深省的本体论追问：“既然存在着理论层面的无穷进阶，那么那个正在构建理论、打破理论的‘我’（the I），究竟是谁？”没有任何科学理论能够成为这个“我”的终极注脚，因为只要被理论所描述，它就降格为了客体。那个能够站在幕后不断创立假说的真正主体，彻底超越了一切理论本身——这正是各大灵性传统中对超验本质（甚至神性，God）的核心界定：超越任何语言与符号所能穷尽的范畴。 为了阐明主观体验的不可还原性，霍夫曼援引了语言哲学中的“实物定义/直观定义”（ostensive definition）。例如，递给某人一片从未尝过的薄荷叶，对方所感受到的“薄荷味”是一种极其私密、第一人称的直接体验。父母和文化社会所能做的，仅仅是为这种内在体验贴上一个叫“薄荷”的语言标签，从而使彼此能够进行社交沟通；但实际上，没有任何人能证明他口中的“薄荷味”与别人感受到的完全一致。每个人都在独自构建自己的感知宇宙，语言和理论只是搭建在这个私密宇宙之上的交流工具。 --- ### [26:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1584s) 放下概念与身份标签：在彻底的静默中照见真实自我 理解这一现实模型能为深陷精神焦虑与心理内耗的人带来深刻的解脱。霍夫曼指出，现代人绝大多数的苦难，源自于将自己物化为“时空矩阵内部的一个渺小客体”——一个体重 160 磅、在大脑神经元的短暂放电中苟延残喘、随时可能步入死亡的脆弱肉身。然而，这种狭隘的自我认同本身只不过是一种假说，它将“头显内部的渲染像素”误认为了生命的实相。物理时空只是人类演化出的操作界面，身处其中的一切名相都绝非真实的本我。 许多古老的冥想修行正是从这一维度切入的。想要体悟真实的自我，就必须主动卸下所有概念与理论的滤镜。思考与概念对于在世俗“头显游戏”中解决问题（例如进行科学研究、维持社会运转）至关重要，但在探寻终极本质时，概念反而成了阻隔在自己与真实之间的屏障。 - **剥离身份与叙事**：无论是首席执行官（CEO）、社交媒体经理（Social Media Manager），还是部门主管（Head of Department），这些社会标签以及大脑中编织的种种人生故事，都不过是人类人为赋予的虚构代码。 - **纯粹的临在（Being）**：修行者需要做的是在彻底的静默中静坐，放下所有的念头与投射。不再在“自我”与“真实”之间放置任何概念屏障。 - **实相对视实相（Reality facing reality）**：唯有当所有理论、标签和认知叙事被统统搁置，阻碍被全盘瓦解，真实才得以与真实毫无阻隔地正面相遇。一旦摆脱了“我只是这具渺小肉体、意识只是大脑神经化学产物”的狭隘假说，个体的自我认知便会从虚无走向无限广袤的觉醒。 ### [29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=1769s) 竞争、小我与即时渲染的世界 人们之所以总是陷入无休止的竞争，试图证明自己更聪明、网球打得更好，或者在国家与宗教层面彼此攻伐，根源在于我们深陷匮乏感之中，完全遗忘了自己的本质。Donald Hoffman 指出，如果我们真正明白眼前所见的一切都是自己“即时凭空创造（on the fly）”出来的，情况就会截然不同。眼前的杯子和桌子，只有在被观察者渲染时才真正存在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 虚拟现实渲染与现实构建对比 accDescr: 展示了意识如何像 VR 头显渲染游戏对象一样，在观察时才构建时空与物理实体。 subgraph VR["VR 游戏逻辑 (以《侠盗猎车手》为例)"] A["玩家转头注视"] --> B["本地头显即时渲染红色野马"] C["玩家视线移开"] --> D["野马在视野中彻底消失 (主机内部无野马物理实体)"] end subgraph Reality["Hoffman 的现实理论"] E["观察者聚焦注意"] --> F["即时渲染杯子/桌子/物理客体"] G["观察者移开注意"] --> H["客体不复存在 (对方看到的仅是对方头显中的渲染)"] end ``` Hoffman 用开放世界游戏《侠盗猎车手》（Grand Theft Auto）打了个生动的比方：当你在游戏中转头看向某个角落，头显才会渲染出一辆红色野马（Mustang）；一旦视线移开，红色野马在你的世界里就彻底消失了，游戏主机内部也根本没有一辆真正的微型红色跑车。如果同伴说“野马还在那里，我看得见”，那只是因为同伴的头显在独立渲染他自己的跑车画面，并非看到了你的跑车。 同理，人类在日常中所见的时空万物也是如此运作。所有因小我（ego）而生的争执、焦虑和傲慢，都源于认知的错位——人们将自己当成了棋盘上微不足道的小角色，却没意识到自己才是整个感知宇宙的创造者（master creator）。你不仅无需向任何人证明自己的优越，对方也同样是宏大宇宙的创作者。 - **本质同一体**：Hoffman 认为，两个人并非彼此独立的孤立主体，而是“同一个单一终极实在（one reality）通过两具不同的虚拟化身（avatars）、戴着两副不同的头显在观察自己并展开对话”。 - **头显试验与死亡的真相**：面对超越一切描述的无限智能，了解自身的唯一方式就是戴上一副副具体的“头显”。哪怕在长达几十年的时间里完全迷失、深信自己就是时空里的“Donald Hoffman”，这也是一段独特的探索视角。而世人所称的“死亡”，无非是摘下当前这副头显，换上无穷无尽的其他头显继续体验。 - **四维时空的局限性**：人类所处的四维时空（三维空间加一维时间）在 Hoffman 看来是极其简陋粗糙的低维界面。无限实在完全可以拥有二十亿维甚至万亿维，而人类目前的科学探索，仅仅触碰到了整体真相的百分之零而已。 --- ### [33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2010s) 单一意识与多重化身：爱人如己的真相 当 Steven Bartlett 询问普通人是否能通过冥想（提到 Hoffman 已有约 20 年的冥想习惯）来体悟自己的真实本质时，Hoffman 谨慎地表示，冥想并非唯一的道路。无论从事科学研究、谱写音乐还是参与体育竞技，都是无限智能借由具体的特定视角来深入认识自己的一种途径。 面对地球上的数十亿人口以及数以亿计的昆虫与动物，这个无限的超级意识决定通过千差万别的透镜来打量自身：它可以是人类科学家，也可以是蚊子、大黄蜂，甚至是可以把棕色啤酒瓶误当成雌性交配对象的吉丁虫（jewel beetle）。Steven 由此总结：这意味所有生命本质上都是同一个意识；不论是出生在博茨瓦纳的创业者还是出生在美国的科学家，都不过是同一个终极意识在不同坐标安放的观察窗口。 Hoffman 极为赞同，并指出许多古老宗教的核心教义其实早就隐喻了这一真相。例如在基督教《新约圣经·马太福音》第25章中，耶稣对信徒说： > “我饿了，你们给我吃；渴了，你们给我喝；我作客旅，你们留我住；我病了，你们看顾我；我在监里，你们来看我……这些事你们既做在我这弟兄中一个最小的身上，就是做在我身上了。” Hoffman 强调，“爱邻如己”（love your neighbor as yourself）的最深层原因，正是因为“你的邻人就是你自己（your neighbor is yourself）”——只是彼此佩戴了不同的生理与感知头显。一旦参透这一点，世间绝大部分由于缺乏安全感而引发的排挤与倾轧都会烟消云散。 --- ### [36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2169s) 颠覆神经科学：大脑并非意识的源泉，而是意识渲染的图标 面对主流神经科学的挑战，Hoffman 做出了极为激进的哲学与科学剖析。主流神经科学通常反驳称：视觉和感知绝非毫不费力的奇迹，人脑中拥有约 860 亿个神经元，枕叶视觉系统有着极度精密的简单细胞、复杂细胞和超复杂细胞，正在进行极其庞大的运算，因此意识必然是实体大脑活动的产物。 Hoffman 反唇相讥：时空本身就只是意识创造的虚拟投影，时空内的一切物体同样是被创造出来的。 > “你现在其实根本没有大脑，我也没有。” 面对 Steven 的错愕反应，Hoffman 解释道，就像 VR 游戏里的野马在没有被凝视时并不存在一样，只要人类不去开颅观察或使用医学仪器进行高精度扫描，所谓的大脑在客观物理世界中就根本不存在。只有在进行扫描的那一刻，系统才被强制“即时渲染（render）”出一个大脑的形态。 - **相关性不等于因果性**：神经活动与主观意识体验之间存在确凿、无可争议的相关性（correlation），但这绝不证明是大脑产生了意识。 - **界面图标理论**：并非大脑物理实体生成了意识体验，而是超越时空的深层实在被极度压缩、漏斗式地灌注进这个狭窄的时空头显中；意识为了直观表征这一过滤和映射机制，在界面内部渲染出了名为“大脑”的交互图标（icon）。 --- ### [38:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2291s) 模拟假说与多重嵌套的程序员 对话随后转向当下备受热议的“模拟假说（Simulation Theory）”。Steven 提到自己在近期诸多晚宴和私下聚会中频繁探讨该话题，希望 Hoffman 为听众深入剖析模拟理论的脉络及其合理性。 Hoffman 提到了牛津大学哲学家 Nick Bostrom 提出的经典模拟论证。在传统的模拟假说框架下： 1. **外部程序员与超级主机**：人类目前所目睹并感知到的宇宙绝非客观终极现实，而是在某位高级程序员的超级计算机上运行的仿真软件。 2. **多层嵌套世界**：人类只是该程序里的数字化角色；而创造我们宇宙的那个程序员及其所使用的电脑，本身也可能仅仅是更高层级程序员电脑里的另一套模拟程序。这种层层嵌套的“虚拟套娃”结构可能存在无限多层。 Hoffman 评价指出，传统的模拟假说在很大程度上与他的认知科学理论相契合，两者都承认我们眼前的感知界面绝非真正的底层基质；但在底层本体论究竟是物理形态的“超级电脑/程序员”还是不可拆分的“纯粹意识网络”上，两者存在根本的分歧。 ### [39:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2361s) 人工智能与物理主义的困境：机器人会品尝巧克力吗？ 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出一个当下极具现实意义的设想：随着人工智能与机器人的飞速演进，我们是否有朝一日能制造出一个具备人类思维的机器人，当喂给它一块巧克力时，它会由衷地赞叹：“嗯，史蒂文，我太喜欢这块巧克力了，这是我最喜欢的口味！”唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）毫不犹豫地回答，制造并编写这样一个机器人的程序是完全可行的，但这根本没有触及核心问题。科学的关键追问在于：即便在计算机中设计了特定的硬件电路，在机器人的舌头上配置了传感结构，并触发了某种特定的电信号模式，我们凭什么有一套科学理论能够解释——为什么这一组特定的电信号就“必然对应着”巧克力的味道体验？ 巴特利特顺势推论，这其实就像人类的自适应学习：通过海量数据训练，或者接受某种预设指令，当特定的化学物质刺激产生并上传至软件时，系统就输出对应的反馈。人类面对生活或许也是如此机制运作，“我们自己甚至可能根本没有意识”。霍夫曼对此表示赞同，指出这确实是当下工程实践的做法——通过训练模型在特定情境下给出恰当反应。但作为科学家，绝不能止步于行为模拟。主流物理主义学派坚持以时空和物理实体为基本底层，声称特定的因果结构或功能架构能够“涌现”出主观体验。霍夫曼对此持毫不妥协的严苛态度：“既然你要提出这种科学假说，那我必须站在严谨的科学家立场上问你：请拿出你关于心灵的理论依据。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 物理主义与意识体验的鸿沟 accDescr: 展示物理主义如何试图从物理实体跨越到意识体验，以及霍夫曼指出的解释鸿沟。 subgraph PhysicalWorld["物理主义假设的底层"] A["物理客体与时空"] --> B["电子回路与传感输入"] B --> C["特定电信号因果结构"] end subgraph Gap["无法逾越的解释鸿沟"] C -.->|"缺乏理论机制解释：为何必然等于？"| D["质感主观体验（如品尝巧克力）"] end ``` ### [41:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2478s) 驳博斯特罗姆的“模拟理论”：“桌上根本没有实质证据” 谈到宇宙的本质，巴特利特询问霍夫曼是否认同我们生活在一个“模拟世界”中。霍夫曼明确界定：自己并不认同牛津大学哲学家尼克·博斯特罗姆（Nick Bostrom）所定义的模拟理论。在博斯特罗姆的模型里，假定存在一个底层的物理硬件系统（例如一台高级计算机和坐在屏幕前的程序员），由这个物理基质运行程序，进而“魔法般”地生成了人类所感知到的红、绿、爱等丰富的主观意识体验。这正是霍夫曼与模拟理论学者的根本分歧所在——他们依然掉入了物理主义的陷阱。 霍夫曼直言，模拟理论要立得住脚，就必须从科学上严谨证明：某段特定的代码或程序，究竟如何且为何会诞生出某种特定的主观意识。“直到你拿出证据之前，桌上根本没有任何实质的干货（there is no beef on the table）。”在霍夫曼看来，目前的模拟理论完全无法成立，因为没有一个程序员或理论家能证明“这个程序必然等于薄荷的清香”。这与神经科学界的整合信息论（Integrated Information Theory, IIT）如出一辙，即便 IIT 能拿出一个声称对应薄荷味的因果矩阵，人们依然会追问其背后的科学因果何在。霍夫曼断言，科学界认清这类物理主义方案的空洞本质只是时间问题。 - **模拟理论的死穴**：假设物理基质产生主观意识，却无法推导具体程序与具体感官体验之间的因果转化链条。 - **与霍夫曼理论的异同**：两者均认为眼前的物理世界不是真实本质；但模拟理论以物理计算机为根本，霍夫曼则认为意识才是唯一根本。 ### [43:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2584s) 人生的终极意义：无限意识探索自我的各种“头显” 面对“若现实并非所见，那人生的意义何在”这一沉重命题，霍夫曼给出了富有哲学洞见的回答。大多数人在被问及人生意义时，往往会谈到抚养子女、推动人类进步、攻克重大疾病或奉献社会；但在霍夫曼的认知框架下，存在着一个不可思议的、超越时空的“终极单一无限意识”（transcendent infinite consciousness）。宇宙间的所有存在——无论是人类、一只小小的蚊子，还是一只吉丁虫（jewel beetle），甚至是一个细菌——都不过是这个无限意识所投射出的“虚拟化身（avatars）”。 每一种生命形式都佩戴着一套专属于自身物种的“虚拟现实头显”。霍夫曼打趣道，蚊子有蚊子的头显，吉丁虫有吉丁虫的头显，而他自己碰巧戴上了一套名为“唐纳德·霍夫曼”的头显。在这个化身角色里，他拥有从事科学研究的天赋，却在艺术和音乐上毫无建树。无限意识之所以创造出这一切，正是因为无限者想要认知自身，唯一的途径就是通过无穷无尽的视角和体验去自我勘探。“唐纳德·霍夫曼视角”或“昆虫视角”只是其中的一部分；沉浸于角色之中、体验局限与才能，正是整体意识体验丰富多样性的必然过程。 ### [44:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2683s) 超越概念与成就：你本就是那个终极存在 当巴特利特紧追不舍地提问“那么，是谁或什么创造了那个单一意识”时，霍夫曼坦言这个问题已经超出了自己的知识范畴（"above my pay grade"）。无论是数学、科学还是非正式的逻辑推演，所有解释都建立在特定假设的前提之上，而这个问题所指向的实体，超越了人类一切语言与符号的描摹能力——因为那个存在，正是你我真正的本质本体。 霍夫曼指出，真正领会这个答案的唯一方式并非依赖科学研究，而是“放下所有概念，纯粹与你的存在同在（just being with your being）”。 - **无须追寻**：你本身就是那个终极存在（"You are that"），既不需要刻意达成某种境界，也无需追求任何世俗成就或能力提升。 - **觉醒与解脱**：人类长期陷于一种幻觉之中，以为自己只是一个需要奔波劳碌、谋求教授头衔或世俗标签的渺小个体；一旦看破这一层，便会明白自己超越了化身的束缚。 - **死亡的真相**：人们所恐惧的死亡，实际上不过是在这一场漫长体验结束后，摘下这一具头显而已。 ### [46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2806s) “神之子亦即是神”：神性、耶稣与领英推荐信 讨论进一步延伸至宗教意义上的“神”。巴特利特询问，按照这一逻辑，我们是否在本质上就是传统语境中所指的“神”？霍夫曼给出了肯定的回答，并从基督教神学语境给出了精辟的类比：人类的孩子依然是人类，那么被称为“神的儿女”的存在，其本质必然就是神本身。 霍夫曼引用了《圣经》中的记载作为佐证：当宗教领袖因为耶稣自称“神之子”而企图用石头砸死他时，耶稣引用了《诗篇》中的经文回应道：“我曾说你们是神，都是至高者的儿子。”耶稣据此反驳，既然经文将承受神之道的人称为神，为何指责自称神之子的人是在说僭妄的话？霍夫曼进一步解构了基督教教义中的两大核心戒律：“尽心爱神”即是爱你自己，因为你即是神；而“爱人如己”，则是彻底觉知到你的邻人不过是披着另一副化身外衣的你自己。 听到这里，巴特利特追问霍夫曼是否认为历史上的耶稣具备超越普通人的神性。霍夫曼微笑着回答：“并没有超越你我。你本身已经具备了所能达到的极致神性。”现场气氛瞬间转为轻松幽默，巴特利特开心地打趣道：“太感谢了！这段必须单独剪辑出来，我要把它挂在我的领英（LinkedIn）个人主页上当推荐语——霍夫曼教授认证：我已具备至高神性！”最后，面对这种世界观对个人生活带来的颠覆性改变，霍夫曼分享道，尽管自己依然热爱学术与教学，但他如今每天都会投入大量时间进行深度冥想，因为他彻底意识到，人类所有的思维概念与知识，在终极实相面前都存在着无法逾越的边界。 ### [49:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2971s) 寂静的力量：没有迷幻剂的冥想与灵感之源 当唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）谈到科学认知仅占现实的 0% 时，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）好奇地追问，他是否是通过大剂量的迷幻剂（psychedelics）来获得对现实本质的超然洞见。霍夫曼的回答出人意料：他从未碰过任何迷幻药，一生中连一根香烟都没抽过，甚至几十年未曾沾过一滴酒。霍夫曼自嘲自己的身体十分脆弱，承受不起过度折腾，因此他很早就学会了在肉体的局限内生活，绝不盲目挑战生理极限。与迷幻体验相反，他探索真相的核心途径是长期且规律的深层静心。 当巴特利特提到霍夫曼如今每天冥想 3 到 4 个小时时，霍夫曼确认了这一点，并坦言自己科学研究中所有的创造力与独创性思想，无一例外都诞生于“纯粹的寂静”（the silence）。严苛的学术积累与文献推演当然是必做的基本功，但真正突破常规、打破认知框架的核心火花，均来自于抽离思维噪音后的深沉意识。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 认识现实的双重路径与认知鸿沟 accDescr: 描述学术知识、寂静冥想与情绪本能之间的认知鸿沟 subgraph Mind["意识探索的层面"] A["科学与学术理论<br/>（占据现实的 0% 工具层）"] B["深层寂静冥想<br/>（每日 3-4 小时探索 100% 现实）"] end subgraph Divide["理智与本能的割裂"] C["理性认同：<br/>肉身仅是阿凡达，我是无限存在"] D["情绪与生存本能：<br/>枪顶脑门吓到尿裤子"] end Mind --> Divide B -.->|"孕育创造力"| A A --> C B --> C ``` --- ### [50:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3054s) 认知与本能的割裂：阿凡达与枪口下的恐惧 尽管霍夫曼在理性上构筑了一套极为前沿的意识理论，但他非常坦诚地剖析了自己内在深处的矛盾——他对自己的“阿凡达”（Avatar，即肉身肉体）有着极强的身份认同。在知性层面，他可以无比从容地向听众宣布“这具身体只是一具虚拟化身，死亡不过是意识摆脱了局限，我是超越一切的永恒存在”；然而在真实的情感与生理反应层面，他承认体内有一部分完全不相信这套说法。 霍夫曼幽默而犀利地直言：“你把一把枪顶在我的脑门上，我照样会吓得要死……我会尿裤子。”他指出，人类所拥有的这套神经系统在数百万年的演化长河中，目的完全是为了生存与避险。巴特利特对此深表赞同，指出从演化理论来看，群体排斥、外界恶意或肉体伤害都会直接威胁生存，因此生命必然演化出强烈的本能机制，通过负面情绪反馈强迫我们遵从生存规则。霍夫曼进一步将现实比作头显中的游戏规则：如果在超市拿了东西不结账就会被逮捕，虽然内在的真正意识超越了这顶头显，但当身处游戏之中时，我们依然不由自主地彻底沉浸在这场逼真的生存幻象中。 --- ### [52:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3163s) 与死神擦肩：长新冠危象下的生死拷问 2020 年 1 月，这把象征死亡的“枪”真实地顶在了霍夫曼的脑门上。霍夫曼不幸感染了新冠病毒（COVID-19），随后病情迅速恶化为极度严重的长新冠并发症，在短短数周内引发了重度心脏衰竭，经历了数百小时的重症监护，并先后经历了两次心脏大手术。在 2021 年他 66 岁之际，他的心率一度失控狂飙至每分钟 190 次并整整持续了 30 个小时。在生命垂危、随时可能心跳骤停的绝境中，他不得不给妻子发送了告别短信，准备迎接生命的终点。 在第二次手术前的一周内，他三次被紧急送入急诊室进行心脏电复律除颤来重启心跳。那种“不知道下一秒心跳是否还会继续”的真实濒死恐惧，瞬间击碎了所有空洞的书斋玄想。霍夫曼反思道，坐在舒适的学术讲台上高谈“你是无限的存在”是轻而易举的，但当心脏功能崩塌、死亡真实降临时，那种原始的创伤与恐惧才是对信念最残酷的试金石。这一历练让他警醒：所谓“你即无限”的概念在过去很大程度上只是头脑中的抽象理论，自己并没有真正深入体验这一真相。 - **健康危象细节**：2020 年初感染 COVID-19，继发严重心脏病变；2021 年（66 岁）心率高达 190 bpm 持续整整 30 小时，并向妻子发送了诀别信。 - **治疗历程**：经历了两次心脏大手术，数百小时危重病房救治，在第二次手术前一周内三度送医急救电击重启心脏。 - **核心体悟**：真实的死亡威胁彻底打破了象牙塔式的思辨，让他正视自己作为肉身人类的脆弱与未经实证的恐惧。 --- ### [55:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3346s) 理论的剥离与执念的放下 面对本能的恐惧反应，霍夫曼强调不必对自己产生道德苛责或心理评判，因为基因与神经构造注定了身体会对致命威胁做出条件反射式的防御。关键在于：当恐惧涌现时，我们是选择盲目与这种情绪认同，还是能够后退一步，成为静静注视恐惧升起的“观察者”？在长期的冥想练习中，他逐渐领悟到，科学理论从来不是真理本身，它们只是人类用来描述现实的工具；同理，我们头脑中建立的关于“我是谁”的自我理论，也根本不是终极真理。 霍夫曼提出了一个震撼人心的反思：每个人终究都会走向肉体的死亡，这是无可辩驳的客观事实；届时，我们对这个世界的一切执念、身份和财产都将被强行剥离。那么，我们是选择在活着时主动学会放下执着，还是非要等到死神从我们“冰冷僵死的手中”将它们硬生生夺走？霍夫曼谦逊地表示，尽管自己远远称不上开悟，但他深切感受到，每放下一点执念，内心就会多出一份平静。正如他所形容的，自己虽然是那不可言说的永恒意识披上了肉身的形态，但在这场觉醒的旅途上，自己至今也仅仅是“半梦半醒”。 --- ### [59:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3541s) 摘下头显之后：死亡瞬间与纯粹觉知 在一段关于企业运营工具的赞助插播后，对话自然切入到了生命的终极命题：当肉体死亡来临的那一刻，是否就等同于摘下了那顶感知维度的“虚拟现实头显”（VR Headset）？霍夫曼给出了极其坚决的肯定回答：“完全如此（Entirely）。”当肉身消亡、头显被彻底取下时，支撑这一切感知的源头——意识——依然永恒存在。 巴特利特随即追问：当头显被摘掉后，个体的意识会发生什么？它是会漂浮起来，还是会投胎变成一棵树、一只虫子，抑或所有的具象形态都只是人类语言的虚构标签与故事？霍夫曼诚实地承认，没有任何活着的人能给出确凿无误的答案，但他愿意基于自己的体验进行哲学推测。他认为，目前活着的人能够最接近死亡状态的体验，正是深层冥想。当彻底放下所有对外界的抓取、闭上双眼、万籁俱寂之时，一切思维标签与物理形式隐去，剩下的并不是虚无与黑暗，而是一种极其清醒、明晰、敏锐的“纯粹觉知”（alert awareness）。 ### [01:00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3604s) 纯粹意识的静默与灵性理论的“指路星” 纯粹的意识本身没有任何具体内容——它没有颜色、没有味道、没有气味，也没有任何匮乏与需求。这是一种能够瞬间显化创造出大千世界、同时又能瞬间将其全然放下的觉知。因此，当试图追问“意识的源头究竟是什么”时，唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）认为最接近答案的途径不是语言推演，而是直接坐进彻底的静默之中。这极其困难，因为各种念头会如潮水般不断涌现，而放下所有的思绪正是最艰难的一步，但唯有在万念俱寂的空灵中，人才能瞥见答案的边缘。 斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）由此提出一个普遍困境：世人耗费大量精力争论某种神是否真实、星座命理是否灵验、业力与轮回是否存在，人们往往走向两极——要么是狂热的宗教信徒，要么是坚定的无神论者。在霍夫曼的认知框架下，在任何特定教条上过早“立摊下定论”（set your stall up anywhere），是否本身就是一种无知？霍夫曼坦言，就像科学界充斥着大量毫无价值的胡思乱想一样，灵性领域的约束与防护栏（guardrails）更加稀少，绝大多数随手拼凑的观念同样是无稽之谈。然而，在此之中仍有永恒的“指路星”可循：若一套理念的核心是引导你去“爱人如己”，那它就走在正轨之上；反之，若它在“我们”与“他们”之间筑起高墙，宣称自己善良而他人邪恶，那就必然偏离了真理。 - **静默觉知的本质**：超越一切感官属性，具备瞬间创造与瞬间舍弃整个表象世界的能力。 - **正误信念的试金石**：是否消融对立、践行无条件的同理与爱，而非制造“内部群体”与“外部群体”的二元隔阂。 --- ### [01:01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3711s) 神即是爱：认出戴着不同头显的另一个自己 面对世间普遍经历的丧亲之痛与生死别离，巴特利特追问这套实在论对“爱”与“悲伤（grief）”意味着什么。霍夫曼指出，“爱”是整个宇宙模型中最核心的存在。他回顾自己的成长背景，父亲是一位牧师，当耶稣被问及律法中何为最伟大、最重要时，给出的回答正是“全心爱神”并“爱你的邻人如同爱你自己”。在霍夫曼看来，如果一个人的信仰唯独落实在“爱”这一件事上，那就足够了，完全不需要额外附加任何复杂的教条仪式；任何与爱相悖的东西，都是宗教误入歧途的产物。 巴特利特深有共鸣地分享起自己女友梅兰妮（Melanie）的故事：梅兰妮并非传统意义上的教徒，但在她的社交媒体简介里赫然写着“神即是爱（God is love）”，当两人在前一晚探讨神的定义时，她也给出了同样的答案。霍夫曼赞叹这个表达无比精准。“爱”这个词本身就像“薄荷”一词一样，只是一个指向实体体验的符号指针（pointer），但它是人类语言中所能找到的最极致的指引。针对“爱”的真正含义，霍夫曼给出了极具穿透力的解释：世俗常说的爱可能只是“我爱曼联足球队”式的偏好，但本质上的爱，是深刻体认到眼前那个有着不同肤色、不同种族、不同信仰与不同见解的人，“其实就是我自身——只是正戴着一副不同的 VR 头显（That's me in a different headset）”。当你明白对方就是另一个境遇下的自己时，你绝不会对自己施加暴力、咒骂与羞辱，而是会像渴望被善待那样去善待对方。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 爱的本质与头显视角流转 accDescr: 展示纯粹意识如何通过不同头显显化为个体并实现爱的闭环认知。 subgraph Source["终极实在 (Ultimate Reality)"] A["纯粹意识 / 神<br/>(超越概念与感官)"] end subgraph Headsets["感官界面显化 (VR Headsets)"] B["自我的视角<br/>(特定身体/观念)"] C["他者的视角<br/>(不同肤色/种族/信仰)"] end subgraph Realization["爱的觉醒闭环"] D["认知觉醒：<br/>'对方只是戴着另一副头显的我'"] E["践行'爱人如己'：<br/>消除对立，以自爱之情善待一切众生"] end A --> B A --> C B -.-> D C -.-> D D --> E ``` --- ### [01:05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3900s) 濒死体验与科学实证的界限 话题转向了神秘而普遍的濒死体验（NDE）。巴特利特指出，许多心脏骤停后被抢救过来的患者，都会报告极其相似的超感官感知：穿过幽深的隧道、看见奇异的光芒、感受到难以言表的平静与正向情绪。这是否意味着，当心脏停止跳动时，当事人实际上稍微摘下了一部分头显，窥见了帷幕背后的本体，随后又被拉回了头显系统？霍夫曼曾经历过与死神擦肩而过的健康危机，巴特利特好奇这是否让他更倾向于相信濒死体验的真实性。 霍夫曼对此表现出极为严谨的科学态度。他明确表示自己绝不会轻易否定这些体验——诸如穿过隧道、看见强光、生命回顾（life review）以及选择重返人间等现象非常普遍。然而，他坚持将个人的哲学探索与冷峻的硬科学（hard-nosed science）划清界限。他指出，目前针对濒死体验的研究大多存在样本选择偏差（selection bias），只聚焦于有报告的人群；科学界真正需要的是一项严密系统的前瞻性对照研究，去统计在所有心跳骤停并复苏的患者中，究竟有多大比例“完全没有”此类体验。霍夫曼提到自己认识一些心内科医生，他们基于丰富的临床观察确信濒死体验背后确有隐情，霍夫曼本人也认同这里很可能蕴藏着真实的奥秘，但直觉经验与严谨的科学证据之间，依然存在着不可逾越的鸿沟。 - **常见的濒死感知模式**：光芒显现、隧道穿行、生命全景回顾、自主决定回归肉身。 - **科学审视盲区**：必须防范只关注阳性样本的数据过滤偏差，建立全量统计模型。 --- ### [01:07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4032s) 为何会有苦难？游戏创伤与十字架的隐喻 访谈切入了一个最深刻、最沉重的神义论命题：如果意识或终极力量创造了这一切，为何还要演化出承受无尽苦难的视角？为何会有集中营的残暴、伤寒与疫病的折磨，以及大饥荒的绝望？面对巴特利特的追问，霍夫曼神色凝重地承认，任何经历过极度剧痛与不公的人都知道，苦难是绝对不能被轻浮、浅薄化处理的，“痛苦就是痛苦，死亡就是死亡”。 霍夫曼试图用虚拟现实的比喻提供一种形而上的解题思路：肉体遭受的毁灭，在本体层面上可能就类似于电子游戏中虚拟化身（avatar）受创乃至被杀。在游戏进程中，当你输掉比赛、看着化身遭受重创时，你会感到真实的沮丧与痛苦；但当摘下头显、游戏终结的那一刻，真正的你毫发无损，根本上安然无恙。然而霍夫曼随即强调，化身最终无恙并不意味着当下的痛苦体验可以被轻易抹杀——没有谁愿意主动置身于那种惨烈之中。 引人深思的是，霍夫曼再次借用基督教的核心象征来诠释痛苦的深度：在基督教传统中，上帝或神性最核心、最深刻的象征并非荣光或神迹，而恰恰是一场极尽残酷的受难——十字架（crucifixion）。受难不是用枪击中头部瞬间毙命的痛快死法，而是古代社会处心积虑发明出的、尽可能延长受害者痛苦、折磨至极限的最惨无人道之刑。基督教将人类所能想象的最痛苦、最可怖的死亡形态作为神性的至高符号，恰恰说明苦难直接触及了存在的根源之谜。面对这一终极奥秘，霍夫曼诚恳地总结道，痛苦绝非微不足道的幻象，而具有极其深邃的意义，哪怕看透了头显的虚拟本质，“我们也没有人会主动报名爬上十字架”。 ### [01:09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4182s) 苦难的灵性内核与十字架上的宽恕 面对苦难存在的终极意义，Donald Hoffman 坦言这是一个触及每个人灵魂深处的严峻课题。对他个人而言，人生的修行就是不断走向成熟，逐渐减少对眼前的“虚拟现实头显”（headset）的执念与认同，转而觉察到自身超越一切的本质存在。Hoffman 动容地指出，基督教中最震撼人心的时刻，莫过于耶稣被钉在十字架上时所说的话：“父啊，赦免他们！因为他们所做的，他们不晓得。”（"Father, forgive them. They don't know what they're doing."） 在 Hoffman 看来，真正信仰的核心绝非攻伐或排斥异己，而是面对以最残忍手段将你置于死地的迫害者时，依然能够向他们流淌出纯粹的爱。这正是所有深刻灵性传统的共同旨归。正是因为这个问题直击灵性真理的核心，Hoffman 在作答时极为谨慎与克制，甚至觉得自己给出的任何回答都显得笨拙且远远不够完整，仅能算作指向那片宏大未知领域的粗浅路标。 --- ### [01:11:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4283s) 生存痛苦的机制、宇宙大戏与“书中的作者” Steven 随后从进化论与认知头显的角度提出了自己的理解：如果意识投影到肉身是为了生存，那么痛苦就是头显界面中的一种生存反馈机制。比如火会灼伤手掌，痛苦这种强烈的感知输入便在警示个体“不要再犯”，从而维持有机体的存续。但 Steven 紧接着追问了一个更根本的疑惑：既然超越性的意识本身是永恒的，为什么它非要在人类身上追求生存？意识为什么不干脆彻底终结？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 意识体验人类戏剧的双重身份模型 accDescr: 展示超越性意识如何通过遗忘化身书中角色体验戏剧，并最终觉醒意识到自己是整本书作者的过程。 subgraph S1["超越性意识（作者视角）"] A["纯粹超越性意识"] --> B["设计世界与角色规则"] B --> C["主动选择遗忘本真自我"] end subgraph S2["沉浸化身体验（角色视角）"] C --> D["化身为人类角色（如 Hoffman、Steven）"] D --> E["在时空头显中体验戏剧与生存痛苦"] E --> F["通过知晓'我不是什么'来反观本真"] end subgraph S3["觉醒与整合"] F --> G["从角色认同中觉醒"] G --> H["忆起自己是整部作品的作者并博爱所有角色"] end ``` Hoffman 借用了灵性导师埃克哈特·托利（Eckhart Tolle）生动幽默的比喻来拆解这一谜题。托利曾形容，意识就像是在说：“让我们假装自己是人类吧，那一定很好玩！让我们演一些爱恨情仇的戏剧。但为了把戏演得逼真，我必须先彻底忘记自己是谁。等过了几十万年、彻底玩腻了之后，我们再醒来。”Hoffman 认为这不仅是游戏戏剧，更是意识通过体验不同视角的局限性，在“认清自己不是什么”的过程中更深刻地认识“自己究竟是谁”。 针对有听众在视频下留言“想象自己是一本书中的角色，试图通过理性思考走出书本进入更高维度”，Hoffman 进一步升华了这一隐喻：我们并非只是被困在书中的无助角色，我们从本质上就是写下整本书的作者。Hoffman 这个肉身身份仅仅是书中的一个登场人物；而当作者意识真正觉醒时，它将以平等的爱包容书里的每一个角色。 --- ### [01:14:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4490s) 物理主义的“零分”僵局与意识代理网络理论 当 Steven 追问“我们如何确认大家不是彼此割裂的独立意识”时，Hoffman 指出这需要进入更加严苛的科学与数学建模领域。目前学术界绝大多数神经科学家与哲学家仍固守物理主义（Physicalism），坚信物理世界是终极底层，意识仅仅是大脑特定神经回路或信息整合（Integrated Information）放电涌现出来的副产物。 Hoffman 在参加学术研讨会时常常毫不留情地直击物理主义的软肋。他会当场要求同行给出哪怕一个铁证：“请告诉我，究竟哪一种特定的神经活动模式必然等同于薄荷的味道（the taste of mint）？为什么偏偏是这种动态模式产生这种体验？”在没有任何含糊其辞的严密科学检验下，物理主义学者根本无法在因果链条上弥合物理活动与主观体验之间的鸿沟，在记分板上的得分为“零”。 然而，Hoffman 秉持同等严苛的标准审视灵性阵营。如果主张意识才是终极本质，那么灵性理论也必须建立起严密的数学大厦，反向推导出爱因斯坦的广义相对论时空几何、量子场论以及由玻色子（bosons）、轻子（leptons）和夸克（quarks）构成的粒子物理标准模型。目前唯心阵营在解释具体物理世界上同样是“零分”。为了打破这种双向停滞的僵局，Hoffman 与数学家 Chetan Prakash 合作，基于他在 1989 年出版的开创性著作《观察者力学》（Observer Mechanics），历经近四十年的推演，正在全力构建严格的“意识代理网络理论”（Conscious Agent Network Theory），力图用坚实的数学公理打通从意识网络到时空界面的映射机制。 - 物理主义的困境：无法指出任何一组特定的神经元放电模式或整合信息结构在原理上为何必然产生某种特定的感官质感（例如薄荷味）。 - 唯心论的盲区：若无法通过数学从意识动力学推导出已知的物理定律（相对论、量子力学、标准模型粒子），便无法在严谨科学界立足。 - 研究历程：Hoffman 对意识数学模型的研究始于 1989 年出版的《观察者力学》（Observer Mechanics），迄今已深耕近 40 年。 ### [01:18:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4711s) 意识理论的新突破：推导光速不变性与爱因斯坦的时空假设 当 Steven Bartlett 询问 Donald Hoffman 试图通过其意识理论证明什么时，Hoffman 直言他们已经在学术版图上取得了实质性突破。就在受访前的一个周五，他在一次学术演讲中正式提出了“光的本质到底是什么”，并阐释了“为什么光速在所有惯性参考系中都保持不变”。为了让普通人能够理解这个深奥的物理学概念，Hoffman 用了一个极具画面感的经典思想实验来进行拆解：假设你坐在一列以每小时 50 英里行驶的火车上，向前扔出一颗时速 20 英里的棒球，根据日常经验与经典物理学，地面上的人观察到那颗球的速度自然是 70 英里每小时。 然而，一旦换成手电筒发出的光线，常识便彻底崩溃了。光在真空中的传播速度约为每秒 186,282 英里（约合 30 万公里/秒）。Hoffman 设想，如果这列火车快到以一半光速疾驰，坐在车上的人打开手电筒射出一束光，对于站在路旁静止的观察者来说，这束光的速度会是多少？直觉往往会告诉人们答案是“原光速加上一半光速”（即 1.5 倍光速）。但现代物理学的答案却是绝对的“不”——那束光的速度依然严格等于光速本身。任何具有质量的物体无论怎样加速都无法超越这一宇宙速度极限。爱因斯坦正是将“光速在所有惯性系中恒定”以及“不存在任何享有特权的特殊参考系”作为不可动摇的公理假设，构筑起相对论的宏伟大厦。而 Hoffman 提出的核心问题在于：我们能否不把时空当成前提，而是纯粹从底层的“意识智能体理论”出发，直接在数学上推导出爱因斯坦的这些公理？ - **光速数值**：光在真空中的速度约为 186,282 英里/秒。 - **经典速度叠加 vs. 光速不变**：火车速度与抛球速度可以直接相加，但光源自身的运动速度丝毫不会增加光本身的传播速度。 - **爱因斯坦的核心公理**：光速恒定以及所有惯性参考系等价（无特权观察者），此前在物理学中只是作为基础假设被接受，而非被解释的对象。 --- ### [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4846s) 什么是“意识智能体”：从马尔可夫矩阵到时空投影 面对“究竟什么是意识智能体（Conscious Agent）”的追问，Hoffman 给出了一个纯数学但极度精简的定义框架。他将意识的复杂性降至最低：只要具备意识，就拥有体验（Experience）。以最极简的智能体为例，假设它只能体验红、绿、蓝三种颜色。一个观察者在这一刻感知到某种颜色，随后可能会切换到下一种体验。例如当前看到绿色，下一刻可能有 20% 的概率看到红色，80% 的概率看到蓝色。 数学上，这种在不同体验状态之间的概率跳转可以通过“马尔可夫核”（Markov Kernel）或马尔可夫矩阵精确描述。对于只有三种颜色体验的极简智能体，只需要一个包含 9 个概率数值的矩阵，再加上一个记录体验每一次递增更新的计数器（Counter），就构成了该意识智能体的全部动力学基础。Hoffman 透露，就在过去三四个月里，他的团队取得了惊人发现：仅仅依托这一套纯粹的意识智能体数学模型及计数器机制，他们竟然严谨推导出了爱因斯坦的时空几何，并证明了光速在所有惯性系中恒定。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 意识智能体投射时空模型的示意图 accDescr: 展示从意识智能体的状态与马尔可夫转移矩阵出发，经过数学计数器与投影机制，最终显化为人类所感知的时空与物理法则。 subgraph RealmOfConsciousness["时空之外：意识智能体网络"] CA["意识智能体 (Conscious Agent)<br/>基本主观体验（如红/绿/蓝）"] MK["马尔可夫核 / 转移矩阵<br/>状态跳转概率系统"] Counter["状态更新计数器<br/>离散事件累积"] CA --> MK MK --> Counter end subgraph MathematicalProjection["数学界面 / 映射投影"] Projector["动力学几何投射机制"] end subgraph SpacetimeHeadset["时空虚境（VR头显）"] ST["时空框架 (Space-Time)"] LightRule["物理常数显化<br/>光速在所有惯性系恒定"] BrainAvatar["物理化身与生物大脑<br/>（意识投射的产物，而非源头）"] ST --> LightRule ST --> BrainAvatar end Counter --> Projector Projector --> ST ``` 这一成果彻底颠倒了传统唯物主义的世界观。它意味着时空本身并非宇宙的基本底色，而是意识在时空之外建立的虚拟投影。正如 Steven 震撼总结的那样：“不是我的大脑产生了意识，而是我的意识创造了我的大脑。”Hoffman 对此完全赞同，强调这正是“虚拟现实头显”（Headset）概念的数学实现——时空、物质与物理定律，不过是底层意识智能体互动界面所渲染出的交互代码。 - **极简意识模型构成**：离散的主观状态空间（如 3 种颜色）、定义状态迁移概率的马尔可夫矩阵（3×3 对应 9 个数值），以及一个状态变化计数器。 - **最新理论突破**：从脱离时空的纯意识数学动态中，精确还原出相对论中的时空结构与光速不变特性。 - **因果倒置的核心论点**：意识是万物的本质与源头，物质大脑只是意识智能体在头显中呈现出的化身符号。 --- ### [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5081s) 颠覆认知的恐惧与“侠盗猎车手”工程师的终极能力 当意识到眼前坚实的世界可能只是一场全息投影时，Steven 表达了一种强烈的存在主义焦虑。他坦承，深入思考“我们是谁、如何来到这里”这类终极问题常让自己心神摇晃（"wobble"），甚至担心相信这套模拟理论会让人“发疯”（"risk going bonkers"）。因为人类的生活和精神寄托全都锚定在既有的现实叙事之中，一旦赖以生存的故事被剥离，生命的意义感便可能瞬间坍塌。 Hoffman 深表理解，并坦言自己在长期的冥想实践中同样经历过这种痛苦的情感蜕变。放下一个根深蒂固的信念——即“我仅仅是这个物理化身（Avatar）”——其体验无异于经历一场真正的死亡（"It's a death of an illusion, but it feels like a real death to me"）。冥想并不总是爱、喜悦与和平，往往充斥着剥离虚妄身份时的剧烈阵痛。然而，在这层幻象破碎之后，迎来的将是科学技术的惊人飞跃。如果科学界能够接受“意识是基础”这一假设，利用严密的数学工具走出时空限制，人类将掌握超越以往所有科技总和的终极能力。 Hoffman 借用电子游戏《侠盗猎车手》（Grand Theft Auto）做了一个生动的对照： - **游戏高手（Wizard）**：精通游戏界面内的所有物理机制，熟练使用各种道具，能把车以最快速度从 A 点开到 B 点。但他依然受制于游戏世界的规则限制。 - **底层软件工程师（Software Engineer）**：编写了游戏底层源代码的人。程序员完全不需要在游戏里赛车，只要在代码端操作，就能在瞬间创造出“神迹”——凭空抽干高手的油箱、放掉轮胎里的气，或者绕过游戏地图的物理空间，将车辆瞬间从 A 点传送到 B 点。 Hoffman 指出，目前的人类科技一直在“时空头显”内部做文章，充其量只是极其熟练的游戏玩家；而一旦我们真正掌握了构建时空界面的意识底层代码，物理现实层面的“奇迹”与技术跃迁就将成为可能。 ### [01:27:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5221s) 逆向工程虚拟头显与《侠盗猎车手》式的瞬移 唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）语气坚定地指出，他的理论并非虚无缥缈的空想，而是切实的科学现实。当他能够利用数学模型从这套理论中推导出演化出爱因斯坦的时空、光，甚至初步推导出电子时，他便真正对此深信不疑。在霍夫曼看来，科学界如今正在对人类感官所佩戴的这具“时空头显”（VR Headset）进行逆向工程。一旦成功，这项研究催生的新技术将让以往人类所有的技术成就相形见绌，甚至让原子弹看起来都“如同鞭炮一般”。人类将不再只是受困于头显虚拟场景内部的小巫师，而是掌握底层代码的“软件工程师”，开始拥有重塑体验的权限。 为了说明这种根本性的范式转移，霍夫曼举了星际旅行的例子。离银河系最近的仙女座星系（Andromeda Galaxy）距离我们约 240 万光年。按照人类目前在时空框架内的物理手段，哪怕搭乘最先进的飞船让后代接力远征，也需要成千上万代人的漫长岁月，这种传统的星际旅行在可预见的未来根本不切实际。然而，如果时空本身只是一副虚拟现实头显，宇宙万物只是渲染出来的像素，那么我们何必非要跋涉 240 万光年的“时空距离”？ 霍夫曼以经典开放世界游戏《侠盗猎车手》（Grand Theft Auto, GTA）作了极其生动的类比：在游戏界面内，你操控一辆车从 A 点到 B 点，必须沿着道路规规矩矩地开过去；但如果你跳出屏幕、直接修改底层的计算机代码，你只需要改写一个内存寄存器（register）的数值，车就会在下一帧瞬间从 A 点出现在 B 点。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 时空移动与底层代码重写的路径对比 accDescr: 对比传统在时空约束下的漫长物理行进，与跳出时空后直接修改底层意识代码实现瞬时转移的机制差异。 subgraph Spacetime["时空内部路径（游戏界面）"] direction TB A["起点 A"] -->|"受物理规律与光速限制<br/>（行驶道路 / 240万光年）"| B["终点 B"] end subgraph Outside["超越时空路径（底层代码）"] direction TB C["底层数据寄存器 A"] -->|"修改代码数值<br/>（意识主体网络映射）"| D["底层数据寄存器 B"] end D -.->|"瞬间重绘渲染"| B ``` - **空间尺度壁垒**：仙女座星系距地球 240 万光年，在传统时空物理学框架下进行载人航行需要跨越数千代人，技术上几乎不可行。 - **GTA 寄存器隐喻**：在游戏渲染层需要遵循道路与时间；但在底层代码层，修改寄存器变量即可实现没有物理行进过程的“瞬间移动”。 --- ### [01:28:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5333s) 超越时空的物理学大一统研究 当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问这种技术是否意味着即时的“时间旅行”或“空间跃迁”，以及已知物理定律是否否认了这种可能性时，霍夫曼直言：在时空内部，这绝对是不可能的；但如果跳出时空，答案就完全不同。一个能够完整包含时空并将时空视作某种低维投影的更深层理论，必然允许人类开发出完全不受时空法则约束的全新技术。 史蒂文询问这是否正是霍夫曼当前正在攻坚的研究，霍夫曼给出了极其明确且兴奋的肯定回答。他的核心目标是要证明，现代物理学的两大支柱——量子场论（Quantum Field Theory）与相对论（狭义与广义相对论），连同粒子物理的标准模型，都可以从一个独立于时空之外的“意识主体”（Conscious Agents）数学理论中完全推导出来。霍夫曼希望用严谨的数学向世界证明：我们所熟悉的宏观时空理论，其实只是信息量极其庞大丰富的意识主体动态网络投射下来的一块极其狭小的低维切片。 随后史蒂文在节目中插播了一段关于初创企业管理的商业反思（由赞助商 JustWorks 支持）：许多创始人早期过度聚焦产品与获客，忽视了人力资源这一底层基础设施，直到公司规模扩大、跨国雇佣或遭遇危机时才发现系统漏洞。这与前述底层物理法则的隐喻形成了某种呼应——底层基础框架决定了上层运作的稳固程度。 - **研究的核心野心**：从时空之外的意识主体理论中，统一推导出量子场论、广义相对论以及粒子物理的标准模型。 - **时空的本质**：时空并非终极现实，只是更高维度意识网络投射到人类感官界面上的“极小低维投影”。 --- ### [01:31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5493s) 打开潘多拉魔盒与“超越核武器”的终极技术 对话回到对现实本质的干预时，史蒂文联想到了现代生物科技中的 CRISPR 基因编辑以及将人类意识上传至硬盘的技术构想。他尖锐地提出道德质疑：当我们试图修改现实底层的“软件代码”、突破物理定律的枷锁时，这是否在道德上是危险的？人类是否在“扮演上帝”？如果有人掌握了修改时空代码的能力，是否意味着他将拥有毁灭性的主宰力量？这就像二战中率先研制出原子弹的国家掌握了全球霸权一样。 霍夫曼毫不避讳地承认，这确实是在“打开潘多拉的魔盒”，盒子里必然伴随着大量未知的危险与噩梦。他透露自己在上周五的学术演讲中，正是向听众展示了“潘多拉魔盒内部的第一瞥”。但霍夫曼澄清，自己绝不是要成为上帝： > “我的理论只是一种理论，它不是终极真理。但它比时空理论更为全面。因为我拥有了更宏大的理论，我便能开发出你在旧体系中无法想象的技术。从时空内部的视角来看，这些技术将如同神迹一般。” 霍夫曼更进一步强调，一旦这项技术成为现实，当年曼哈顿工程制造出的核武器在它面前将“如同小孩子的鞭炮一样微不足道”。因为核武器依然是在时空和质能守恒的物理法则内释放破坏力，而超越时空维度的技术操纵的则是现实呈现的底层规则本身。 - **道德与风险界限**：触碰现实代码无异于开启潘多拉魔盒，伴随不可预知的技术滥用风险。 - **技术维度的降维打击**：相较于在时空架构内操控裂变与聚变的核武器，基于时空外代码的技术拥有改写现实呈现的基础权限。 --- ### [01:34:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5649s) 道德质问、宇宙终极意识（The One）与苦难的本质 面对操纵代码带来的巨大权力，史蒂文指出，一旦人类看透现实只是一场游戏，甚至能够给自己任意追加时间、甚至永生，世俗的道德与生存目标都将被彻底颠覆。霍夫曼对此深表赞同，但他将道德与存在的问题引向了更深层的形而上学维度：为什么宇宙终极意识（The One，万物合一的本体）会允许世界上发生如此多可怕的痛苦、疾病与罪恶？ 霍夫曼坦言自己有一种无法在严格科学上捍卫、但内心深信的直觉——**“一切都安好”（All is well）**。他认为： > “即使这些技术远比我们以往见过的任何东西都要强大得多，也没有任何事物能够真正伤害到‘终极合一’（The One）的真实本性。所有的头显都不过是头显而已，终极意识戴上它们体验一番，最终也都会将其摘下。” 霍夫曼指出，在现实的演化历程中，终极意识早已允许了耶稣被钉在十字架上，允许了癌症和犹太人大屠杀等惨剧的发生；从终极视角来看，意识本体似乎默许了体验这些极端的痛苦。史蒂文随即敏锐地补充道：终极意识对痛苦的视角，与身处虚拟游戏内部的具体生物个体所感受到的撕心裂肺的痛苦存在着巨大的鸿沟——对于戴着头显的个体而言，痛苦是实实在在令人痛恨的折磨，但对于取下头显的终极本体而言，这一切可能只是意识为了自我探索而历经的一场梦境体验。 - **“一切都安好”的本体论直觉**：时空内发生的一切生老病死与暴行，都无法伤及终极意识（The One）毫发，因为时空体验只是戴上和摘下的虚拟现实头显。 - **痛苦视角的断层**：虚拟化身（个体生物）对肉体与精神苦难的极端厌恶，与超越时空的终极意识对所有经验体验（包括耶稣受难、疾病与历史浩劫）的允许之间，构成了深刻的哲学张力。 ### [01:36:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5762s) 直面痛苦与冥想体验：意识的自我消融 对话从全人类共享的单一意识切入：如果我们原本都来自同一个意识，且最终都要回归于它，那么一切体验也许只是有价值的反馈信号，而在整体层面上并不会产生主观困扰。唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）十分赞同这一推论。他谈及冥想实践中的体会时谦逊地表示，自己只是一个初学者（neophyte），必须保持自知之明，不能冒充修行极深的大师，但他从多位资深修行者那里了解到一个惊人一致的现象：当人们在冥想中直视那些深重的情感创伤与痛苦，并不带抗拒地全然接纳它时，痛苦往往就那样自然而然地消融了。 这种主观体验揭示出意识运作的深层机制——当观察者不再以逃避或抵抗的姿态分裂自我，而是以纯粹的觉知去包容时，原本看似坚不可摧的负面感受就会失去附着的基础。 --- ### [01:37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5820s) 外卖幻觉与精神分裂症：大脑产生意识，还是界面信号串线？ 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了霍夫曼视频下方一条引人深思的网友留言：一名患有精神分裂症的网友平时兼职做 DoorDash 外卖员。一天晚上，他清晰地记得自己开车到达目的地、下车把食物放在顾客门前、掏出手机拍下送达照片，然后开车离开。然而三十分钟后，顾客来电质问食物到底在哪，他言之凿凿地描述了送达细节。直到后来他打开自家的后门，赫然发现那份外卖原封不动地放在自家门前。调取监控后证实，他当晚根本没有出现在顾客家门口。该网友崩溃地写道，他无法理解自己当时究竟在做什么——是眼神呆滞地坐在车里对着挡风玻璃发呆吗？哪怕服药也无法阻止这种大脑神经突触错误放电带来的认知崩塌，但这让他对“现实”的本质产生了巨大的怀疑。 物理主义者通常会将这类案例视作决定性的胜利证据，声称大脑神经放电直接制造了意识体验，神经一旦出错就会产生幻觉。然而霍夫曼提出了截然不同的反驳视角：梦境。每一个人在做梦时，体验都无比生动逼真，而梦境中的世界完完全全是大脑/意识无中生有（de novo）投射出的虚拟现实。这足以证明人类本就具备不依赖外部实体世界而自主投影出真实体验的能力。霍夫曼认为，空间和时间就像意识制造的“虚拟现实头显”（VR headset），意识既在清醒时渲染物理现实，也在睡眠时渲染梦境。精神分裂症等精神异常并非证明“脑物质产生了心智”，而是相当于头显系统的代码发生了某种交叉干扰——原本负责梦境生成的机制渗透进了清醒现实的投影通道中。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 物理主义与意识头显模型对幻觉的解释对比 accDescr: 对比物理主义的大脑产生意识观点与霍夫曼的意识头显及梦境机制交叉观点 subgraph Physicalism["物理主义视角 (Physicalism)"] P1["大脑神经元放电"] --> P2["产生主观意识"] P3["神经元错误放电 / 病理"] --> P4["产生幻觉与精神分裂"] end subgraph InterfaceTheory["霍夫曼的头显模型 (Interface Theory)"] I1["根本实相：意识系统"] --> I2["清醒现实通道 (VR头显)"] I1 --> I3["梦境投射机制 (自主生成)"] I3 -.->|"机制串线 / 界面干涉"| I2 I2 --> I4["感官体验重叠 (如清醒状态下的逼真幻觉)"] end ``` --- ### [01:39:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5991s) 这套理论如何指导生活：爱人如己与孩童般的好奇心 讨论逐渐转向最切身的生活应用：巴特利特直言，录完这期节目后，大家都要回归充满现实纷扰的日常——经营企业、维系亲密关系、带领团队、制定未来规划；屏幕前的听众可能正身处出租车、飞机、地铁、健身房或家中。如果霍夫曼关于“现实是虚幻投影、万物归于单一意识”的理论成立，普通人究竟该如何依此指导自己的言行举止与生活抉择？ 霍夫曼总结了两条核心的生活哲学： 1. **爱人如己，因为你的邻人本就是你自己**：在终极层面上，并不存在独立隔绝的“他者”。每一个与你相遇的人、每一个被你评判的生命，本质上都是那同一个意识在不同化身里的呈现。爱护他人，本质上就是在善待你自己。 2. **保持孩童般的好奇心，永远不要自以为洞悉一切**：真正的实相远比人类有限的头脑所能想象的要壮丽、刺激得多。一旦你认为自己看透了一切，你就在那一瞬间错失了自己置身其中的惊人宇宙。那种超越想象的无限可能性，其本体正是你自己。 --- ### [01:41:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6087s) 痛苦的根源：过度认同“虚拟化身” 针对巴特利特提出“如何通过这套理论消除生活中的压力与痛苦”的问题，霍夫曼首先坦率地吃下了一口“谦逊派”（humble pie）。他澄清道，自己绝非已经超越了痛苦与压力的觉悟圣人，相反，他每天依然作为一个普通人承受着焦虑与困扰。正因如此，他能给出非常接地气的个人反思。 霍夫曼认为，人绝大多数的痛苦与压力，纯粹是因为“误信了幻觉”： - **执着于证明自我**：误以为自己必须变得更优秀、必须功成名就、必须向周围人证明自己的价值或挽回形象。 - **忘却本来面目**：在根本维度上，意识本就是完整自足的无限存在，根本无需通过在现实舞台上的表演来获取存在感。 - **困在虚拟化身（Avatar）中**：痛苦来源于将“我”等同于这个被创造出来的肉身化身。意识为了从特定的视角探索存在，主动披上了这具脆弱的化身外衣，并甘愿承受遗忘真实身份所带来的挣扎。唯有通过体验“自己不是什么”（我不仅是这个有限的皮囊），意识才能最终认清“自己真正是什么”。 --- ### [01:44:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6249s) 现实应对法：在化身与无限视角间切换的游戏心态 巴特利特询问，在遇到棘手难题时（比如一打开电脑就收到令人烦躁的恶意邮件），有意识地在“现实化身”与“超越性意识”之间来回切换，将现实视为一场游戏，是否是一种真正实用可行的日常练习？ 霍夫曼给出了极其肯定的回答，并以宏大的时间尺度作为解脱痛苦的透镜： - **终极消亡与遗忘**：所有人终有一死。试问谁知道1743年世界上最富有、最显赫的人是谁？根本无人知晓，也无人关心。同样，一千年以后，今天地球上的绝大多数人连名字都不会留下，根本不会有后人真正在意你当下的纠结与得失。 - **从虚无主义转向游戏心态**：后人的遗忘并不意味着个体是无价值、无意义的。恰恰相反，这证明生命本质上是一场无限意识体验有限旅程的游戏。一旦看清世俗执念的虚幻，就能放下沉重的思想包袱，从紧绷的较劲中解脱出来，以纯粹的愉悦去投入和体验这场人生大戏。 ### [01:45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6330s) 超越游戏：从身份解离与直面苦难 在日常生活中，人们往往试图从这场“现实游戏”中汲取自我认同，但唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）指出，真正的自我觉醒恰恰来自于认识到“你并不是这场游戏”。他以自身经历为例：过去他也曾汲汲于成为一名出色的教授或首席执行官（CEO），渴望赢得业界的赞誉与成就，这种雄心驱动了他很长一段时间。然而到后来他骤然顿悟：根本没有人在意这些虚名，甚至他自己也根本不在乎。那不过是一场必须去玩的游戏，真正的自我早已超脱于这些身份之上。在实操层面上，人生充斥着琐碎的烦恼与事与愿违的挫败，而生命的功课就在于对发生的一切说“好”——全然接纳当下，放弃抵抗。因为从本体论来说，作为无限意识的化身，正是我们自己选择置身于这场设计精妙的游戏之中，全然顺应即可。 坦然接受顺境与逆境说来容易，但在生死关头做到心如止水却极具挑战。霍夫曼十分坦率地分享了自己在急诊室濒临心力衰竭的亲身经历：当心脏即将停止跳动、面临与妻子诀别的时刻，他的情绪依然经历了剧烈翻涌与恐慌。他坦言自己仍与肉身“虚拟化身”（Avatar）紧密绑定，而这也正是凡人经受痛苦（suffering）的根源。相比之下，那些在灵性觉悟上走得更远的人——例如埃克哈特·托利（Eckhart Tolle）、达赖喇嘛或是耶稣——他们彻底切断了与虚拟化身的身份认同。在他们身上，或许依然能感知到生理层面的肉体剧痛（physical pain），但他们已经超越了心理上的痛苦（suffering）。 - **游戏与真我**：寻求世俗身份认同往往是弯路，认清自己凌驾于虚拟角色之上，才是确立本质认同的真正途径。 - **顺应法则**：不再抗拒生命中的意外与障碍，本质是对作为无限存在（the infinite）的自我布局保持信任。 - **生理疼痛 vs. 精神苦难**：生理刺激属于化身界面的信号输入，而精神上的受苦则源自于意识对“化身”产生过度执着与绑架。 --- ### [01:47:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6466s) 无条件的爱与各大智慧传统的汇聚 针对意识统一性的推论，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出，既然每个人本质上都是同一个超越源头的同一意识，那么无条件的爱（Unconditional Love）是否应当成为必然准则——无论对方的化身做出什么举动，我们都应当爱对方，因为本质上“你就是我”。霍夫曼完全赞同，并指出这正是耶稣在“登山宝训”中明确倡导的态度：“不可论断（Do not judge）”，毫无附加条件。即便在被钉死在十字架上的那一刻，耶稣依然宽恕了正处决他的刽子手，霍夫曼将其视为人类历史中最深刻的觉醒画面之一——在极端的受难面前展现绝对的宽恕与爱。 史蒂芬随即列举了各大宗教传统中惊人一致的核心洞见：印度教经典《博伽梵歌》（Bhagavad Gita 9:29）写道“我对一切众生一视同仁，以虔诚敬奉我者，他在我之内，我亦在他之内”；路加福音（Luke 6:27）教导“要爱你们的仇敌，善待恨你们的人”；犹太教训诫“爱人如己”；伊斯兰教经典记载“我的慈悯涵盖万物”。在跨越文明的语境下，无条件的爱不仅是一种情感，更是一项去除小我（Ego）、抛弃预期与恐惧的灵性修炼。谈及个人信仰，父亲曾是基要派牧师的霍夫曼表示，自己并非任何教条的信徒，圣经中既有深奥真理，也有落后陈腐的糟粕（例如限制女性在教会发言的陈规）。他深信宇宙中只有一个整体意识，而释迦牟尼、耶稣、穆罕默德等人，都是降临在界面中帮助其他化身觉醒的伟大“引路化身”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心传统对无条件之爱的殊途同归 accDescr: 展示基督教、印度教、伊斯兰教和犹太教对去我执与超越性之爱的共同认知 subgraph Wisdom["核心灵性传统"] C["基督教：登山宝训与十字架宽恕"] H["印度教：博伽梵歌的一体同视"] I["伊斯兰教：神圣慈悯涵盖万物"] J["犹太教：爱人如己"] end subgraph Reality["意识实在论解释"] One["单一无二的同一意识 (The One Consciousness)"] NoJudge["放弃评判与小我执念 (Transcending Ego)"] Love["无条件的爱与觉醒 (Unconditional Love)"] end C --> One H --> One I --> One J --> One One --> NoJudge NoJudge --> Love ``` - **非评判原则**：消除二元对立的评判心，是践行神圣之爱与消除化身隔阂的必要法门。 - **觉醒化身的作用**：先知与圣哲本质上是高维意识在虚拟现实中投射的特殊角色，旨在打破虚拟现实的迷思，唤醒沉睡其中的同胞。 --- ### [01:50:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6656s) 人工智能的局限、主动推断与意识模型 话题转向当前引爆行业讨论的人工智能（AI）。作为早在 1979 年便师从 AI 奠基人马文·明斯基（Marvin Minsky）、在麻省理工学院人工智能实验室（MIT AI Lab）使用 Lisp 机器开展博士研究的资深学者，霍夫曼对 AI 发展抱有深刻兴趣。他坦言现阶段的大语言模型（LLMs）记忆力惊人、处理海量关联的能力极强，在工程上极具价值，但从本质理解力的角度来看，它们“比黄瓜还要愚蠢（dumber than cucumbers）”。大模型做的仅仅是复杂的高维统计相关性计算，根本谈不上真正具有智能与意识。 霍夫曼特别提到了神经科学家卡尔·弗里斯顿（Karl Friston）及其团队基于“主动推断”（Active Inference）和“自由能原理”（Free Energy Principle）所开创的全新 AI 方向。这种理论认为，智能的本质是“最小化惊异（minimizing surprise）”：一个具备高阶智能的系统必须拥有成熟的世界模型，能够准确预期外界变化而不至于处处感到意外；如果处处感到惊讶，就意味着系统愚钝失能。霍夫曼指出，他所发现的用来构建时空界面的数学逻辑，本身就天然具备最小化惊异的特征，甚至无需引入复杂的自由能泛函优化，便能以马尔可夫链（Markov chains）实现更直接的计算。他的长远规划是在完成时空界面研究后，以“意识为基元”的数学模型构建一套划时代的 AI。面对史蒂芬提出“赋予意识模型的 AI 最终是否会产生自我意识，并递归创造新的模拟世界”的假想，霍夫曼极为赞赏，认为这精准切中了递归模拟与博弈论的核心逻辑。 - **大模型的本质缺陷**：LLMs 展现的仅为高阶相关性模式匹配，缺乏对物理世界及语义因果的真正底层理解。 - **主动推断与自由能**：真正智能的核心在于构建世界表征以最小化环境不确定性与意外事件。 - **意识基元的计算架构**：霍夫曼计划绕开纯物理还原论，直接基于意识智能体的马尔可夫动态网络开发新型 AI，这将使智能体与意识体验的界限变得模糊，从而引申出多层嵌套的虚拟宇宙递归命题。 ### [01:55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6913s) 意识制造虚拟现实：从现有头显到无止境的范式超越 唐纳德·霍夫曼（Donald Hoffman）为讨论带来了一个微妙而颠覆的转折：在物理主义视角下，人们总是在谈论如何利用物质计算来构建人工智能；但在他以“意识为基底”的本体论中，目标并不是打造一台机械的人工智能，而是直接以意识本身作为基础去打造一副全新的“VR 头显”（Headset）。主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着这个逻辑推想，如果我们可以直接与意识互动并戴上这种全新的头显，那理论上岂不是可以去到任何想去的地方、做任何想做的事情，就像在一个可以随心所欲操控的清醒梦境之中？ 霍夫曼认同这种探索会带来前所未有的灵活性，但他立刻谦逊地做出了关键修正。他指出，自己目前提出的意识理论仅仅是“理论”，绝不等同于意识本身。眼下的数学模型充其量只是极其幼稚的“婴儿第一步”。他坚信，这一理论在未来必定会被一个更为深刻的意识模型所超越；而那个更深刻的模型也终将被再下一代的模型所替代，层层迭代、永无止境。因此，人类能够构建的现实头显也将代代更新——今天看似重大的“霍夫曼初级理论”在未来看来不过是微不足道的玩具。面对这样一个“全归为一”（"All one of us"）的无穷宇宙，人类面临的将是一个充满无限可能却永不闭合的探索图景。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 意识理论与VR头显的层级迭代演进图 accDescr: 展示从当前霍夫曼意识模型到未来更深层理论、最终导向无止境高阶虚拟现实头显的迭代链条。 subgraph Phase1["当前阶段"] A["霍夫曼意识理论<br/>（初级模型）"] --> B["第一代工程化 VR 头显"] end subgraph Phase2["未来跃迁"] B --> C["更深层的意识理论"] C --> D["高阶现实头显<br/>（超越时空物理局限）"] end subgraph Phase3["无限延展"] D --> E["永无止境的理论迭代与宇宙探索"] end ``` ### [01:56:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=6995s) 终极之问：若注定不会失败，你会做什么？ 播客迎来了经典的收尾传统——上一位嘉宾会为下一位嘉宾留下一个未知的提问。留给霍夫曼的问题是：“如果你确信自己绝对不会失败，你会说什么、做什么、成为什么？”霍夫曼没有迟疑，坦承自己仍然会做目前正在全身心投入的事：在数学上严格证明所有现代物理学是如何自然而然地从意识理论中推导出来的，并基于此开发出颠覆性的新技术。 霍夫曼深度剖析了这一目标的深层动机：为什么在现代社会，严肃的知识阶层普遍不太把“灵性”（Spirituality）当回事？原因非常现实且直接——物理主义科学造就了全部的实用技术，能够点亮电灯、造出笔记本电脑、提供电力，它是“切实有效的”；而传统的灵性理论从来没有制造出任何技术。如果一个硬核实用主义者审视两者，自然会觉得灵性概念再动听也是空谈。但霍夫曼指出，一旦游戏规则被改写，基于“意识超越时空”的灵性数学理论能够开发出在物理时空框架内绝不可能实现的跨时代技术，力量的天平就会彻底反转。到那时，最顶尖的智者不再会是死守时空还原论的物理主义者，而是坚定站在超越时空的科技前沿的人——那些古老灵性传统中的直觉并不疯狂，他们只是在过去缺乏了将洞见落地为现实的数学与工程工具。 - **物理主义的实用霸权**：传统科学之所以占据绝对主导地位，核心在于其产出了电脑、电网等现实技术，而非其哲学完备性。 - **改写认知的未来科技**：通过将现代物理作为特例从意识动力学中推导出来，人类将解锁跨越时空物理极限的全新技术形态。 ### [01:58:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=7118s) 破除现实牢笼的解脱与节目尾声 斯蒂芬向霍夫曼表达了极高的敬意与感激。他坦言霍夫曼的理论虽然让人瞬间感到自己的认知盲区巨大，但却带来了惊人的解放感：人类历史上的每一次飞跃，都始于敢于挑战固有牢笼、指出“这背后还有更多”的先驱。当意识到我们每天赖以生存的时空感知、乃至自我构建出的种种焦虑和痛苦并不是绝对的真理，而仅仅是一副演化出来的界面时，原本囚禁我们的心理“牢笼”便不攻自破。这种认知打破赋予了人在面对生活时真正的自由度——人们由此获得了选择如何去感受、如何去体验世界、以及如何生活的终极自主权。 斯蒂芬向所有希望深入探究这一宇宙真相的观众诚挚推荐了霍夫曼的名著《对现实的抗争：演化如何对我们的双眼隐瞒真相》（*The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes*），并引用了往期嘉宾迪帕克·乔普拉（Deepak Chopra）对该书的经典评价：“仔细阅读这本书，它将永远改变你对现实的理解。”在对话的最后，斯蒂芬强调这种思考不仅极具学术突破性，更能唤醒人类本源的惊叹与好奇。随后，斯蒂芬照例对听众发出了诚恳的订阅邀请，承诺团队将持续带来最具启发性的对谈，以感谢广大受众的支持。 ## Notable quotes > [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=654s) keep you alive long enough to reproduce successfully. Period. — Donald Hoffman > [10:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=654s) the probability is zero — Donald Hoffman > [36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2169s) 你现在其实根本没有大脑，我也没有。 — Donald Hoffman > [41:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2478s) there is no beef on the table — Donald Hoffman > [44:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2683s) above my pay grade — Donald Hoffman > [44:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2683s) You are that — Donald Hoffman > [46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=2806s) 我曾说你们是神，都是至高者的儿子。 — Donald Hoffman > [50:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3054s) 你把一把枪顶在我的脑门上，我照样会吓得要死……我会尿裤子。 — Donald Hoffman > [01:01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=3711s) That's me in a different headset — Donald Hoffman > [01:09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4182s) 父啊，赦免他们！因为他们所做的，他们不晓得。 — Donald Hoffman > [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=4846s) 不是我的大脑产生了意识，而是我的意识创造了我的大脑。 — Steven Bartlett > [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5081s) It's a death of an illusion, but it feels like a real death to me — Donald Hoffman > [01:31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5493s) 我的理论只是一种理论，它不是终极真理。但它比时空理论更为全面。因为我拥有了更宏大的理论，我便能开发出你在旧体系中无法想象的技术。从时空内部的视角来看，这些技术将如同神迹一般。 — Donald Hoffman > [01:34:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=5649s) 即使这些技术远比我们以往见过的任何东西都要强大得多，也没有任何事物能够真正伤害到‘终极合一’（The One）的真实本性。所有的头显都不过是头显而已，终极意识戴上它们体验一番，最终也都会将其摘下。 — Donald Hoffman > [01:58:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A&t=7118s) 仔细阅读这本书，它将永远改变你对现实的理解。 — Deepak Chopra ## Mentioned Donald Hoffman, Steven Bartlett, The Case Against Reality, Observer Mechanics, Grand Theft Auto, Albert Einstein, Nick Bostrom, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Eckhart Tolle, Chetan Prakash, Karl Friston, Marvin Minsky, Deepak Chopra, DoorDash, Justworks, Shopify, MIT AI Lab, University of California, Irvine ## Video description WARNING: Nothing you see is real, and your brain evolved to hide the truth?! Top psychologist Donald Hoffman reveals the mathematical proof we’re living in a virtual illusion, how space-time is just a headset, and why consciousness is the real code. Donald Hoffman is an award-winning cognitive scientist and professor at the University of California, Irvine. He is best known for his groundbreaking research into perception and consciousness, and is also the author of the book ‘The Case Against Reality’. ⏱ Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:17 Do We Understand What We're Seeing? 02:50 Space-Time 05:25 Are We in a Virtual Reality World? 07:37 Darwin’s Theory Suggests Our World Isn’t Real 12:53 What Would Reality Be Without Our Senses? 17:54 Simulations That Prove This Isn’t Real 23:15 What This Means for Living a Better Life 33:30 Understand Who You Are 38:11 Simulation Theories 43:04 What’s the Meaning of Life in This Reality? 44:43 Did Someone or Something Create Consciousness? 46:46 Where Does God Fit in This Reality? 48:11 Was Jesus Divine Beyond Any of Us? 52:43 Near-Death Experience and What Happens When We Die 01:01:51 Grief and Love 01:05:00 Light and Tunnel in Near-Death Experiences 01:07:12 Why Do We Suffer? 01:18:35 What Is Your Theory of Consciousness Proving? 01:24:41 Biggest Discovery: We Can Engineer Time 01:28:46 The Consequences of Your Findings 01:38:13 Mental Health and Illusions 01:45:23 How This Reality Helps You Deal with Life 01:52:10 The Nature of Reality and AI 01:57:41 What Would You Do If You Knew You Could Not Fail? He explains: Why seeing true reality could kill us How evolution hides reality to help us survive What’s really behind the space-time illusion How your brain acts like a VR headset How consciousness builds the universe Why space, gravity, and nuclear forces don’t actually fit together Follow Professor Donald: X - https://bit.ly/4obiFIj Instagram - https://bit.ly/478nUT3 UC Irvine - https://bit.ly/3ITwVFC You can purchase Professor Donald’s book, ‘The Case Against Reality’, here: https://amzn.to/4ocB7k3 The Diary Of A CEO: ⬜️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ⬜️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ⬜️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ⬜️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb ⬜️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ⬜️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett Justworks - http://Justworks.com [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vTZrZny6A)

[10:54] Donald Hoffman: keep you alive long enough to reproduce successfully. Period. [10:54] Donald Hoffman: the probability is zero [36:09] Donald Hoffman: 你现在其实根本没有大脑，我也没有。 [41:18] Donald Hoffman: there is no beef on the table [44:43] Donald Hoffman: above my pay grade [44:43] Donald Hoffman: You are that [46:46] Donald Hoffman: 我曾说你们是神，都是至高者的儿子。 [50:54] Donald Hoffman: 你把一把枪顶在我的脑门上，我照样会吓得要死……我会尿裤子。 [61:51] Donald Hoffman: That's me in a different headset [69:42] Donald Hoffman: 父啊，赦免他们！因为他们所做的，他们不晓得。 [80:46] Steven Bartlett: 不是我的大脑产生了意识，而是我的意识创造了我的大脑。 [84:41] Donald Hoffman: It's a death of an illusion, but it feels like a real death to me [91:33] Donald Hoffman: 我的理论只是一种理论，它不是终极真理。但它比时空理论更为全面。因为我拥有了更宏大的理论，我便能开发出你在旧体系中无法想象的技术。从时空内部的视角来看，这些技术将如同神迹一般。 [94:09] Donald Hoffman: 即使这些技术远比我们以往见过的任何东西都要强大得多，也没有任何事物能够真正伤害到‘终极合一’（The One）的真实本性。所有的头显都不过是头显而已，终极意识戴上它们体验一番，最终也都会将其摘下。 [118:38] Deepak Chopra: 仔细阅读这本书，它将永远改变你对现实的理解。

[5:25] Donald Hoffman: When some dude is turning his wheel to drive the car, what's really happening when he turns the wheel is that millions of voltages are being toggled in a specific order in some computer [17:54] Donald Hoffman: Evolution didn't give these male beetles much insight into their females. They gave them just enough information to successfully reproduce, period... It does things on the cheap, and that includes human sensory systems. [23:15] Donald Hoffman: You know yourself by sitting in utter silence and being yourself, no concepts. Because then you've let go of all theories and now it's reality facing reality. No barrier in between. [29:10] Donald Hoffman: You're creating this whole thing. You're not a little player. You're the inventor of this whole thing. You have nothing to prove. [59:01] Donald Hoffman: Theories are just tools. They're not the truth. No scientific theory, my theories included, are not the truth. And so also is my theory about who I am. [59:01] Donald Hoffman: If it involves loving your neighbor as yourself, you're on the right track. If it involves putting a barrier between us and them... you're probably on the wrong track. [61:51] Donald Hoffman: If that were me in a different headset, how would I treat me? [72:46] Donald Hoffman: I'm not just a character in the book. I'm the writer of the book. And 'Hoffman' is just one of the characters in the book. [81:27] Donald Hoffman: My consciousness didn't come from my brain... My brain came from my consciousness. That's exactly right... I'm building the space-time headset. [86:31] Donald Hoffman: Suppose you're a wizard in Grand Theft Auto... You can drive your car from A to B faster than anybody... But now if you're the software engineer who knows how Grand Theft Auto is built 'cause you wrote the code... You can do miracles. You can take the wizard's car and take the air out of their tire just like that... move it instantly because you got the code outside. [99:50] Donald Hoffman: I don't actually need to impress anybody, accomplish anything, because everything that I'm saying... this is already me... My suffering is entirely being caught in my avatar. [1920:10] Donald Hoffman: This is going to be a model of intelligence based entirely from a model which takes consciousness as fundamental. [117:35] Steven Bartlett: What would you do if you knew you could not fail? What would you say, do, become? [118:38] Deepak Chopra: Read this book carefully and you will forever change your understanding of reality.

[0:00] The world that you're seeing isn't the [0:02] true world. All of this that I'm seeing [0:04] right now was just a virtual reality. [0:06] It's like you're born with headset on [0:07] playing a video game. That's your [0:08] reality. But if you're the programmer [0:10] who wrote the code for the game, you [0:12] know that there's an entire world [0:13] outside of it. And as the programmer, [0:15] you can do miracles. [0:16] >> And do you think we're getting closer to [0:18] being able to edit the code? [0:19] >> That's exactly what I'm working on right [0:20] now. And we're opening up a realm of new [0:22] technologies that are far more powerful [0:24] than anything we've seen before. Like [0:26] time travel. And nuclear bombs will be [0:28] like firecrackers. [0:29] >> Will people suffer? [0:30] >> So it's like Pandora's Box. There's all [0:31] sorts of nasty surprises. But they also [0:34] could be miraculous. But either way, [0:35] just in the last few months it's started [0:37] to crack open. [0:38] >> So let's talk about that. [0:39] >> Okay. [0:39] >> So Professor Donald Hoffman is the [0:41] cognitive scientist pushing the [0:42] boundaries of how we perceive reality. [0:44] >> And how we can unlock our full potential [0:46] as human beings. [0:47] >> According to Darwin's theory, our [0:49] sensory systems, eyes, ears, smell, [0:52] touch, are not shaped to show us the [0:54] truth. They were shaped to keep you [0:55] alive long enough to reproduce [0:57] successfully. Because seeing the truth [0:59] takes too much time and energy. And so [1:02] whatever reality is, it's utterly unlike [1:05] anything that I perceive. [1:06] >> Well, what does this all mean for the [1:07] nature of how one should understand [1:10] their life? [1:10] >> Well, if you're stuck in a boring world, [1:12] that's a world of your own creation. [1:13] That's not the real world. And my [1:14] conscious experiences are nothing but [1:16] what my brain creates. And so we feel [1:18] inadequate. We feel like we need to [1:19] compete with other people. But you're [1:21] the inventor of this whole thing. You [1:23] have nothing to prove. And there are [1:25] much more interesting perspectives that [1:26] we can take on ourselves. So if you [1:28] really knew who you are, you would see [1:30] no need to compare or compete. [1:32] >> And is there a way for me to understand [1:33] who I am? [1:34] >> If you want to understand the truth of [1:36] who you are beyond just this headset [1:38] description of you, then you have to [1:44] >> I see messages all the time in the [1:45] comment section that some of you didn't [1:47] realize you didn't subscribe. So if you [1:49] could do me a favor and double-check if [1:50] you're a subscriber to this channel, [1:51] that would be tremendously appreciated. [1:53] It's the simple, it's the free thing [1:55] that anybody that watches this show [1:56] frequently can do to help us here to [1:58] keep everything going in this show in [2:00] the trajectory it's on. So, please do [2:01] double check if you subscribed and uh [2:03] thank you so much because in a strange [2:05] way you are you're part of our history [2:07] and you're on this journey with us and I [2:09] appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank [2:10] you. [2:14] Professor Donald Hoffman, [2:17] do you think that the listeners of this [2:19] show, [2:21] the people listening right now, [2:22] understand the nature [2:25] of reality and the world that they're [2:27] looking at and see? [2:30] >> I think that no one, even the most [2:33] advanced professionals, really [2:34] understands the nature of reality and [2:36] it's the one of the big open problems [2:38] and questions in science today. We all [2:40] might have ideas, we might think we know [2:42] something. Our best science suggests [2:45] that our imagination is not yet big [2:47] enough. We need to explore further. [2:50] >> What is it that you believe is the big [2:51] sort of misconception about how we [2:54] perceive reality? [2:56] >> Well, most of us think of reality as [2:59] whatever is inside space and time. We [3:02] actually know that space-time cannot be [3:04] the fundamental nature of reality. [3:06] >> And what is space-time? [3:08] >> So, everything that you see around us, [3:09] right? The the the space between you and [3:10] me, there's maybe one or two meters of [3:12] space between you and me. That's what [3:15] space space-time is. All all the stuff [3:17] that we can see in our telescope, put it [3:19] that way. If you can see it in your [3:20] telescope, it's part of space-time. [3:22] But we know our our best theories of [3:23] space-time, Einstein's theory together [3:25] with quantum theory, tell us that [3:27] space-time cannot be the fundamental [3:30] nature of reality. [3:31] There's a small if you go small, so I [3:33] can talk about a meter. [3:35] >> Yeah. [3:35] >> And then I can go to, you know, [3:37] centimeters and then, you know, [3:39] millimeters. And then we can go, you [3:41] know, micrometers and and you can go [3:43] smaller and smaller. At some point you [3:45] go so small that space disappears. It it [3:48] no longer even makes sense [3:49] mathematically. It's 10 to the minus 33 [3:52] cm. [3:53] So, it's actually not that in my view, [3:55] it's not that small. It's not 10 to the [3:58] minus 33 trillion cm. It's just 10 to [4:00] the minus 33 cm, and all of a sudden our [4:03] equations tell us [4:04] um [4:05] space-time doesn't have any [4:08] effective meaning. [4:09] >> Is space-time a proxy for the word [4:11] reality in some respects? [4:13] >> Well, for most people I think it is. For [4:14] most people they think that that [4:16] space-time is the reality, and what I'm [4:18] saying is [4:20] is the reality that most of us have [4:22] assumed is the final reality, and [4:24] science is now telling us it can't be. [4:27] It actually and it tells us precisely at [4:29] 10 to the minus 33 cm, 10 to the minus [4:31] 43 seconds, the very notion of [4:33] space-time [4:35] makes no sense. [4:38] >> Is that the same as saying that [4:40] reality as I perceive it makes no sense? [4:43] >> I'm suggesting, now as a cognitive [4:45] scientist not a physicist, we should [4:47] think of space-time as just a virtual [4:49] reality headset. That's the way we [4:50] perceive in our game of life. [4:52] >> And when you say space-time you mean the [4:54] the thing that I'm perceiving with my [4:56] eyes and ears and senses right now? [4:57] >> That's right. Even this hard table is [5:00] just a VR [5:03] object. [5:04] And the whole [5:06] setting that we're here in here right [5:07] now is just a virtual reality, and there [5:10] is a [5:11] a reality entirely outside this headset [5:13] that that's is open to science to [5:15] explore, and we're finding stuff, which [5:16] you might call obelisks, geometric [5:18] objects outside of space-time. So, so [5:20] this is all brand new in the last since [5:22] like 20 [5:24] 2010 or something like that, roughly. [5:25] >> So, do you believe that? Do you believe [5:26] that everything I'm experiencing and [5:28] seeing now is basically [5:30] like equivalent to me wearing a virtual [5:32] reality headset, and that [5:34] there's something beyond [5:37] the virtual reality headset. [5:38] >> Completely. I cuz I believe the science. [5:41] And [5:42] the predictions of our theories about [5:45] space-time are so good. Now, I [5:47] I have to always be careful about what [5:49] I'm saying versus and I don't want to [5:51] put words in the physicist's mouth. So, [5:53] when I say I think it's a virtual [5:54] reality, that's Hoffman, that's not [5:56] physics, right? [5:57] >> Are you able to swap out the phrase [5:58] spacetime for reality? [6:00] Or is that inaccurate? [6:02] >> I think that [6:03] whatever reality is, [6:05] spacetime is [6:07] a trivial aspect of it. [6:13] There's much more to reality than [6:14] spacetime. Spacetime is all the real [6:16] It's It's like a a player in Grand Theft [6:18] Auto. [6:20] If all you've done is play in Grand [6:22] Theft and that's you you're born with a [6:23] headset on and that's all you've That's [6:24] that's your reality. [6:26] But if you're the programmer who wrote [6:27] the code and you know the supercomputer [6:29] that's running Grand Theft Auto, [6:31] you know the Grand Theft Auto um [6:33] it is a nice self-contained world, but [6:35] there's an entire world outside of it [6:37] that's utterly unlike Grand Theft Auto. [6:39] It's It's the supercomputer with diodes [6:41] and resistors and voltages that are [6:43] being toggled and when when some dude is [6:46] turning his wheel to to drive the car, [6:48] what's really happening when he turns [6:49] the wheel is that millions of voltages [6:51] are being toggled in a specific order in [6:54] some computer and it has to be exactly [6:56] that right sequence for the thing to [6:58] work properly. And and the guy that's [6:59] turning the wheel has no idea what's [7:01] going on. There's this other whole realm [7:04] utterly outside your imagination in [7:06] Grand Theft Auto. And so, you know, if [7:09] you're in Grand Theft Auto, you might [7:10] not even know about computers and [7:11] toggling voltages and so All you know is [7:13] I got a steering wheel and a gas pedal [7:14] and streets and and people to race and [7:16] so forth and things to to steal and and [7:18] whatever. [7:19] >> But you don't realize there's a puppet [7:20] master effectively controlling you. [7:22] >> Behind the scenes. And so, I I think [7:24] that spacetime is just a very effective [7:28] headset. [7:29] >> For anyone that doesn't know, Grand [7:30] Theft Auto is a video game where you run [7:32] around a virtual world, basically. [7:33] >> That's right. Yeah, driving You're [7:34] driving nice fancy cars in this in this [7:36] world. That's right. [7:38] >> So, everything I see [7:40] right now is a [7:43] projection that I've made on the world, [7:47] my world, in order to help me to [7:49] survive. And my brain is not showing me [7:52] things that it doesn't think I need to [7:55] see because they won't be conducive with [7:57] survival, because they are cognitively [7:59] in terms of like um [8:01] how much fuel and energy they would [8:02] require to process and think about. They [8:04] are [8:05] cognitively inconsequential. [8:08] Or like it would be inefficient for me [8:10] to spend my cognitive power to see those [8:13] things. [8:14] >> That's exactly right. And for a lot of [8:16] people, I think [8:17] that's counterintuitive, because they [8:19] would say, "Look, evolution is about [8:21] making you fit, so you can live and [8:23] survive long enough to reproduce [8:25] successfully. And surely [8:27] evolution should do that by making you [8:29] see the truth. I mean, if you see the [8:31] truth, then you're going to compete in [8:33] the game of life much more [8:35] successfully than if you don't see the [8:37] truth. So, so what are you talking about [8:40] this headset nonsense for? This is not a [8:41] headset. This is the truth. I mean, and [8:43] evolution should shape us to see the [8:45] truth." Now, I think that's what most [8:46] people would would would assume. And in [8:49] fact, very intelligent experts in the [8:51] field assume that. [8:52] And I suggest otherwise. In fact, we [8:55] have mathematical proofs otherwise. If [8:57] you look at evolution, Darwin said, [8:59] "Look, we need to [9:01] think about a gradual [9:03] evolution over time of these species, [9:05] maybe from very very simple ones to more [9:08] complex ones. And what what is going to [9:11] drive that dynamics? And And Darwin [9:13] suggested it was what we would call [9:16] reproductive fitness. That That those [9:20] organisms that have [9:24] physical properties, sensory systems, [9:27] motor systems, you know, movement [9:29] systems, that [9:31] make them more likely to have offspring [9:35] and to raise offspring to maturity. [9:37] Whatever properties those might be, [9:39] that's what we're going to call fitness. [9:41] So, the more fit you are [9:43] is really saying how likely are you to [9:47] have and successfully raise offspring. [9:50] So, Darwin suggested that. I don't think [9:53] that he necessarily had to say that [9:54] there was no God. It was just that there [9:57] If there is a God, it's not like God put [9:58] it down perfect. He did an evolutionary [10:01] process. [10:01] >> Yeah. Well, the organisms adapt to their [10:03] environment. Um [10:05] well, they're not adapting, but the [10:07] offspring that survive are those best [10:08] adapted to the environment. [10:10] >> That's right. So, that was Darwin's [10:12] idea. So, the the gradual evolution from [10:15] presumably simpler organisms to more and [10:18] more complicated complicated organisms. [10:20] And um and then [10:23] multiple evolutions of things like eyes, [10:24] like cephalopod eye evolved differently [10:27] from the human eye. [10:29] Um and the cephalopod eye got certain [10:31] things right that the human eye got [10:32] wrong. [10:32] >> Is that because the cephalopod eye was [10:34] in a different environment, so it had [10:36] different requirements? [10:37] >> That would be one possible reason. I I [10:40] actually don't know in the case of the [10:41] cephalopods why, but that kind of idea [10:44] is absolutely one of the reasons that [10:45] that could have happened. Another one, [10:47] it could just be an accident, right? [10:48] There's probability involved, and so [10:50] there at some point you have the right [10:52] accident, and then then the humans got [10:53] the thing reversed. [10:54] >> So, you're saying Darwin was wrong in [10:55] some respect, or that he there was [10:57] something missing from his theory? [10:58] >> Oh, no. I I think Darwin's I I [11:01] I [11:01] In terms of biology, [11:04] I think that there is um [11:06] no serious competitor to Darwin's theory [11:09] of evolution by natural selection. In in [11:11] terms of a scientific theory of the [11:14] origin of species and so forth. And it's [11:16] Darwin's theory [11:18] and the mathematical formulation of it [11:20] that I think also says [11:23] that what we're perceiving is not the [11:26] truth. That our sensory systems [11:29] on Darwin's theory [11:31] were not shaped to show us the truth. [11:34] They were shaped [11:36] to keep you alive long enough to [11:39] reproduce successfully. Period. That's [11:41] all Darwin's theory actually says. [11:43] Most of us think the way this [11:45] evolutionary process does it is to make [11:48] sure that your senses are telling you [11:49] the truth about the external reality. [11:52] I published some papers with um with [11:54] colleagues where we show [11:57] mathematically that Darwin's theory does [11:59] not entail that at all. In fact, [12:01] Darwin's theory [12:03] says [12:04] the probability is zero [12:07] that any sensory system, like eyes, [12:10] ears, smell, touch, taste, [12:13] has ever been shaped [12:15] to see any aspect of objective reality [12:17] truly. [12:18] So, the probability is zero [12:20] that you see any aspect of the truth. [12:22] Period. On Darwin's theory. [12:24] What you do experience [12:26] is [12:29] sensory systems that guide adaptive [12:32] behavior. Guide adaptive behavior means [12:35] um they let you act [12:37] >> So, your eyes, your nose. [12:38] >> Your eyes, your nose, yeah. Yeah, your [12:40] eyes and nose and more. They they guide [12:41] you so that you act in ways that you [12:43] don't die too quickly. [12:45] >> Okay. [12:45] >> And you can have kids that don't die too [12:47] quickly. That's That's all it's about. [12:49] >> I was just playing out the scenario then [12:51] that you removed my [12:53] eyes and you removed my ears and my nose [12:56] and my [12:58] ability to sense, you know, temperature [13:00] and things like that. All of my senses. [13:02] I thought If I was the only person on [13:04] Earth and you removed all of my senses, [13:09] what would reality be? [13:11] Because if you remove my senses, [13:14] reality no longer exists as far as I'm [13:16] aware of it. But that doesn't mean [13:18] nothing exists. And I'm wondering what [13:19] that nothing would be. Like if you just [13:21] imagine like wipe off everyone on the [13:22] Earth and it's just you and we remove [13:24] all of your senses, [13:26] what what is in that space? Cuz you're [13:27] right, my senses, my eyes, my ears, [13:30] my ability to understand temperature is [13:32] a byproduct and consequence of me [13:35] surviving. [13:36] So, I was playing out this and I was [13:37] like, well, [13:39] if we think about ghosts and the [13:41] afterlife, [13:43] maybe there was no reason from a [13:45] survival perspective that I even needed [13:47] to be able to [13:50] see or acknowledge. That maybe it just [13:51] didn't help. Maybe it actually would [13:52] have hurt me to have [13:54] >> Right. [13:54] >> Um cuz it would have been too [13:56] cognitively demanding to process all of [13:58] that information. So, anybody that could [14:00] process all that information wouldn't [14:02] have been good at reproducing, therefore [14:04] they wouldn't survive, therefore they [14:05] wouldn't be here. So, maybe those of us [14:08] that are here [14:09] were just really good at ignoring [14:14] the other dimensions. [14:16] >> That's what our mathematics says. I [14:17] think that your your intuitions on that [14:19] are are are quite right that [14:22] if you pay attention to anything other [14:24] than what allows you to have kids, [14:27] you're wasting your time from an [14:28] evolutionary point of view. Perception [14:30] is expensive. It takes a lot of [14:31] calories. You have to eat a lot of food [14:33] to to run your brain, to power your eyes [14:36] and your ears. So, you need to do [14:38] shortcuts. You need to make your sensory [14:40] systems not chew up so much of your [14:42] energy. The more expensive your your [14:45] perceptual systems are, the more you've [14:46] got to eat to to power those. So, that [14:50] means you have to go out there and [14:51] forage and you and put yourself at [14:52] harm's. So, it's it's it's So, there's a [14:54] trade-off. We try to do things cheaply [14:56] in evolution. And going for the truth, [15:01] you don't need to actually go for the [15:03] truth cuz that's very very expensive. [15:04] So, so for example, there are some [15:07] flying insects [15:10] that need to lay their their off their [15:13] eggs on in in water. [15:15] And they use the trick of just looking [15:18] at the polarization of the light coming [15:21] off the water. [15:22] So, what what you see happening in [15:23] evolution is we have tricks and hacks. [15:27] And and even in humans have tricks and [15:30] hacks. And you for for example, trying [15:33] to find out if someone is reproductively [15:35] fit. Right? We We You You can't I can't [15:37] actually look at your DNA and and go, [15:39] "Well, okay. [15:41] You got He's got an ACG and T, but he's [15:43] got a C here where it's supposed to be a [15:45] T." Or or No, I I can't look at your [15:47] DNA. So, what do I look at? I have to [15:48] look at your at your what I can see of [15:51] your body and and your voice and and so [15:53] forth. So, [15:54] >> One of the most compelling arguments for [15:56] the fact that we aren't seeing reality [15:58] as it is, and we're actually only seeing [16:00] what we need to see in order to survive, [16:02] is when you look at as you were saying [16:03] is how different animals see the world. [16:06] And can you just give me some examples [16:08] of some more examples of different [16:09] animals that see the world completely [16:11] differently? I always think about bats. [16:14] How do How do bats see the world? Cuz do [16:15] they see colors like we see them and [16:17] objects like we see them? [16:19] >> No, no. Bats use echolocation. They'll [16:21] send out little bursts of sound, um at [16:24] very very high frequencies, and then [16:25] they have these big ears that capture [16:28] the returns and of [16:29] >> at their sensory system. It says, "Most [16:31] insect-eating bats use echolocation, as [16:33] you said. They emit high-frequency sound [16:35] waves [16:36] >> Yes. [16:36] >> and see by listening to the echoes [16:39] bouncing off other objects." [16:41] >> And this gives them some kind of sonic [16:43] map of their surroundings, helping them [16:45] to navigate and effectively see in total [16:47] darkness. So, you imagine a bat [16:49] >> Right. [16:49] >> like then they if a bat is sat there [16:51] thinking that they understand the nature [16:53] of reality, [16:54] when it's actually just a map of how the [16:57] sound waves bounce back, they I imagine [17:00] don't have the same [17:02] a complete They have a completely [17:03] different perception of what reality is [17:04] to us. [17:06] And it's therefore it would be quite [17:07] ignorant to assume that we as humans [17:10] are seeing reality as it is, when just [17:12] like the bat, we're probably [17:15] adapted to [17:18] our environment and built senses, eyes, [17:21] ears, touch that helped us to survive. [17:24] >> I would agree with you, but some of my [17:25] colleagues would disagree and they would [17:26] say [17:28] humans are much more complicated. [17:31] And you know, surely bats and so forth, [17:33] they have to have all these shortcuts [17:34] and they don't see reality as it is, but [17:36] but we've evolved further and we're [17:39] closer to the truth. From my point of [17:41] view, what I see this table and this cup [17:43] and so forth [17:45] is just a a convenient fiction. [17:48] Whatever reality is, it's utterly unlike [17:52] anything that I perceive, utterly. [17:54] >> In a TED Talk that you did in 2000 in [17:57] the 2000s, you talked about simulations [17:59] that you ran to prove that [18:02] I guess in in in part [18:04] that [18:05] I'm only seeing things that will help me [18:07] to survive as a creature, as an [18:09] organism. Can you explain to me simply [18:11] what what those simulations were and [18:13] what they proved? [18:15] >> Oh, yes, in our in our simulations, and [18:17] this is before we had theorems. So, we [18:19] did simulations just to see if the ideas [18:20] were working. And we would have [18:22] artificial organisms in a computer. [18:24] >> Yeah. [18:24] >> So, it was like a a game that we put [18:26] together. And we would have a world and [18:28] and we would let some organisms actually [18:30] see the true state of that world. So, [18:31] they they were the truth organisms. [18:33] And then we'd have other ones that um [18:35] only had like a a headset an interface [18:38] that only could see not the truth, but [18:40] but just some little bit of information [18:42] that that could guide adaptive behavior. [18:44] >> That would help them to survive [18:47] >> yeah, and and reproduce. That that's [18:48] right. What we found was [18:51] for a wide range of of [18:54] conditions of of the algorithm, the the [18:56] organisms that saw the truth went [18:58] extinct. They they weren't able to [19:00] compete the ones with the ones that [19:01] didn't. And one of the things that came [19:02] out of it was seeing the truth takes too [19:05] much time and energy. It is complicated [19:08] to see the truth. [19:09] And if you you a simple trick [19:13] that lets you do the same thing [19:16] without having to be have a deep [19:17] insight, then you can get the same [19:19] benefit. You can get the benefit without [19:21] having to put all the the effort out. [19:23] And I can give you a concrete example of [19:24] a of a organism that does this that's [19:26] that's pretty funny. So, there's the [19:28] jewel beetle. It lives in the outback of [19:31] Australia. It's dimpled, glossy, and [19:33] brown. The males fly, the females are [19:35] flightless. [19:36] So, the males are flying around, of [19:37] course, looking for an eligible female. [19:40] It turns out that men in the outback [19:43] tended to for a while were were drinking [19:45] beer with these bottles that were also [19:47] dimpled, glassy, glossy, and and brown. [19:50] They throw them out into the into the [19:52] outback, and they turned out to be [19:54] dimpled, glassy, and just the right [19:55] shade of brown to grab the attention of [19:57] the male jewel beetles. They're They're [19:59] actually on the bottle. They're full [20:01] body contact. They're crawling all over [20:02] it, and they still think it's a female. [20:04] So, how much do they know about their [20:06] women? Very, very little they know about [20:08] their women. The a woman a female is [20:11] something dimpled, glossy, and brown. [20:12] Apparently, the bigger the better. And [20:14] that's what a female is. So, you can see [20:16] evolution didn't give these male beetles [20:18] much insight into their females. They [20:20] gave them just enough information to [20:23] successfully reproduce, period. And [20:26] that's sort of what evolution does. It [20:27] It gives you just enough information to [20:30] um reproduce before you die. [20:32] >> So, they're all making love to this beer [20:33] bottle because they can't tell they [20:35] can't see [20:36] >> That's right. [20:37] >> reality. They can't see that this isn't [20:39] a woman, this is a beer bottle. [20:41] >> That's right. That's one of the more [20:42] humorous examples of of what evolution [20:45] has done. [20:46] It does things on the cheap. [20:48] And that includes human sensory systems. [20:50] So, it's it's very humbling. We're not [20:52] the epitome, and what we think is human [20:56] appreciation of the deep truth of [20:57] reality is just [20:59] our little headset. What we experience [21:02] and know [21:03] is [21:05] trivial [21:06] compared to whatever reality is, [21:07] absolutely trivial. [21:09] We know 0% of reality. [21:13] And our By the way, our scientific [21:14] theories [21:16] will always and forever explain 0% of [21:19] reality. [21:20] Because [21:23] they have to make assumptions. And every [21:24] theory, scientific theory has to make [21:26] assumptions. And so, we're going to have [21:27] an We'll have, in principle, an infinite [21:29] sequence of theories [21:31] with ever deeper assumptions, and we'll [21:33] never get to the bottom. And since it's [21:35] it's an infinite sequence, that means [21:37] everything we got so far is 0%. [21:40] So, I I'm a scientist. I'm all for [21:42] science. I encourage young men and women [21:44] to go into science. I think it's a great [21:46] thing to do. Um but just know that um [21:48] all of our theories will [21:53] comprehend 0% of reality. You know, [21:55] people talk a lot about how their pets [21:58] or other animals are able to see another [22:00] dimension. Sometimes people say things [22:02] like, "My dog started barking at this." [22:05] Or cancer, and there's dogs or animals [22:08] that have been able to um they they [22:10] believe spot certain diseases inside the [22:13] human body. [22:14] And when you look at the [22:16] sort of sensory faculties of these dogs, [22:20] dogs can hear frequencies up to 65,000 [22:23] hertz, whereas humans can only go to [22:25] 20,000 hertz. Dogs have up to 300 [22:27] million olfactory receptors. Humans just [22:29] have 5 million. [22:31] And some animals like cats can see [22:32] different sort of uh frequencies of [22:34] light. So, [22:35] it does it does beg a question, you [22:36] know, if it's possible for an animal, an [22:39] organism, to see the world [22:43] in a different depth and width than us, [22:45] what what happens if you go further? [22:48] Right. Uh absolutely. There are some [22:50] that can detect electric electric [22:52] fields. So, some um fish can detect [22:55] electric fields. [22:56] Um some birds, I believe, can see the [22:59] polarization of light. [23:01] And some some uh insects, of course, use [23:03] polarization of light to to find where [23:05] to lay their eggs. So, and and we can't [23:07] do that. [23:09] So, so yeah, when we start to study [23:12] other animals, we see these remarkable [23:14] ability. [23:14] >> Interesting. And what does um [23:17] what does this all mean [23:19] for the nature of how one should [23:21] understand their life? Because I guess [23:23] the way the way that we perceive the [23:25] world causes us so much suffering or [23:27] joy, depending on how we perceive it. Is [23:29] there anything people from all of the [23:31] work you've done and the books you've [23:33] written that people can bring into their [23:35] lives to help them live better lives [23:36] with this understanding of the world? [23:38] >> First thing to notice that the world is [23:40] far more [23:42] interesting and [23:44] varied [23:45] than you can imagine. So, if you if you [23:48] think the world is a boring place, it [23:49] it's not. [23:50] Your imagination isn't big enough. [23:52] Whatever reality is, it it transcends [23:56] anything that you could possibly [23:57] imagine. [23:58] Spiritual traditions basically often [24:01] say, "There's more to life than what you [24:03] see inside space and time. There's [24:05] something beyond." [24:07] And [24:08] I've been sort of pointing to that [24:10] myself in my own way. I'm saying that [24:11] scientific theories always have [24:13] assumptions, so there's an infinite [24:14] number of scientific theories that you [24:16] can have, and you're never [24:18] going to get a scientific theory of [24:19] everything. What am I saying? [24:21] That there's something beyond science. [24:23] As [24:24] good as science is, [24:26] I'm saying there's not only not a theory [24:29] of everything, the best theory we'll [24:30] ever come up with is 0% of reality. So, [24:34] that leaves all this room for what the [24:36] spiritual traditions are talking about, [24:37] that there's something that trans [24:39] transcends science. [24:41] There is a a way of thinking about this [24:43] that I think is very illuminating, and [24:45] it it's about the inter intersection of [24:46] science and spirituality. [24:49] I'm a scientist. Who Who Who am I? [24:52] I am someone, and and I'm one of many [24:55] someones, [24:56] other scientists who can create theories [25:00] and in principle ever ever deeper [25:02] theories and there's an infinite [25:04] sequence. So, who is the I [25:07] that can do this? [25:09] No theory that I can come with come up [25:12] with [25:13] is [25:14] the final description of that I. In [25:16] other words, the I [25:18] that is doing all this theory building [25:21] is the I [25:24] that is real [25:26] that is making these theories and that [25:28] utterly transcends all these theories [25:30] and that's a spiritual point of view. [25:32] >> So, what does that mean? You're You're [25:34] God? [25:35] >> It means that whatever you are [25:37] transcends any description and that's [25:39] what a lot of people say God is. [25:41] Suppose I give you something you've [25:44] never tasted before like piece of mint [25:46] and actually I don't know what mint [25:47] tastes like to you. I assume that it's [25:49] like what mint tastes like for me, but I [25:51] don't know. This is called learning by [25:53] ostensive definition. [25:55] And so, we have this game where your [25:56] experiences are your experiences. [26:00] And [26:01] you actually [26:04] didn't need anybody else for those [26:05] experiences. All you needed me for or [26:08] your parents for is to give you a name [26:10] for what you already knew. [26:12] And and you you create this this world [26:14] and all we do is tell you how to talk [26:16] with me about what you've created and I [26:18] don't know that your world [26:21] in any way resembles my experience. It's [26:23] quite possible. [26:24] >> And do you think there's ways that we [26:25] cause ourselves a lot of anguish and [26:26] pain and mental health issues because of [26:29] how we perceive [26:30] the nature of reality to be that we [26:32] could potentially I don't know give up [26:34] or rewire ourselves on to have a [26:38] have a more fulfilling more grateful [26:40] experience of life? [26:41] >> Completely. I think that's [26:43] very very important. [26:45] And it's a natural consequence of what [26:46] we've just been talking about. [26:48] Almost all of us think of ourselves as [26:50] an object in space-time [26:52] only here for a short amount of time and [26:54] will soon die. [26:56] When I say you transcend any scientific [26:58] theory, that that means the theory [27:01] that I [27:02] am just [27:04] a 160-lb object in space-time [27:07] is just a theory and it's not the truth. [27:08] That's not the truth about who I am. [27:11] That's just a theory that I have because [27:14] space-time itself is just a theory. [27:17] Nothing inside space-time is anything [27:19] but my headset interpretation of a [27:22] reality that [27:24] infinitely transcends anything I can [27:26] experience. [27:27] There is another way that you can [27:31] appreciate that that's that transcends [27:33] science and that is [27:35] um and this many meditative traditions [27:37] talk about this. They recognize that [27:40] you [27:42] are infinitely [27:44] beyond any scientific or any other [27:46] description. [27:47] So, what do you do in that case to know [27:49] who you are? [27:51] You drop all descriptions. You sit [27:54] in absolute silence and ignore any [27:57] thoughts because you recognize thoughts [27:59] are useful in this headset and to play [28:01] the game of life. Yeah, we need thoughts [28:03] to do our science. We need to [28:04] If you want to understand who I am, [28:09] again, I do psychology, I do all this [28:11] stuff. I'll do the science so I'm not [28:12] putting science down. I'm a scientist. [28:15] But at some point, if you want to [28:17] understand [28:18] the truth of who you are beyond just [28:20] this headset description of you, [28:22] then you have to lay aside all concepts, [28:26] period. And just know yourself by being [28:29] yourself, not by [28:31] putting a concept between you and [28:34] yourself. [28:35] >> A story. [28:36] >> A story. [28:36] >> An identity. [28:37] >> That's right. No no story, no identity, [28:39] nothing between you and yourself. You [28:41] you know yourself by sitting in utter [28:43] silence and being yourself, no concepts. [28:46] Because then you've let go of all [28:48] theories [28:49] and now it's reality [28:51] facing reality. [28:53] No barrier in between. [28:56] >> And that requires you to to realize that [28:58] your identity, the stories you believe, [29:00] the labels you've given yourself as CEO [29:02] or social media manager or manager or [29:04] director or head of department, all of [29:07] these things are just in fact labels [29:09] you've given. [29:10] >> That's right. Those are all just labels [29:12] that you've given. And what's [29:13] interesting about this now [29:15] is if I think I'm just [29:17] this little body and I'm nothing but [29:20] this body and and my conscious [29:22] experiences are nothing but what my [29:23] brain does. So [29:25] So that's my theory and that's that's [29:27] all I am. [29:28] I don't feel very big. I don't feel very [29:29] important. [29:30] Um and so I'm going to probably need to [29:33] do something to make myself feel a [29:34] little bit better and [29:35] I'm going to need to compete with you. [29:36] I'm going to need to show how I'm better [29:38] than you in certain ways. So I'm a [29:40] better tennis player than you or I'm [29:41] smarter than you or or whatever. So [29:43] we're going to get this competition [29:45] going on where among people and we're [29:47] going to get even competition among [29:49] religions and countries and so forth [29:51] because [29:53] we don't know who we are and and we feel [29:56] inadequate. [29:58] And if we actually understood [30:01] that [30:04] all of this that I'm seeing right now [30:08] I'm making it up. [30:10] On the fly. This cup that I'm seeing [30:13] it only exists [30:15] when I create it. [30:17] This table [30:18] exists when I create it. [30:20] Like in a virtual reality. In a virtual [30:22] reality I'm in Grand Theft Auto. I look [30:24] over here and I now I see a red Mustang. [30:27] I look away, I don't see the red Mustang [30:29] and now there is no red Mustang. [30:31] The red Mustang only existed when I [30:33] looked because it's a VR game. [30:35] I only need it when I rent I I I render [30:38] it when I need it. [30:39] I'm now rendering a cup. [30:42] That The cup that I rendered is no [30:43] longer there. You might render your cup. [30:45] You might say, "Well, Don you're wrong. [30:46] The cup is still there. I can see it." [30:47] No, you're rendering your cup. [30:50] And so you you're not rendering my cup. [30:52] I rendered my cup. So in the same thing [30:54] with Grand Theft Auto, you might say, [30:55] "Well, I see the red Mustang even if [30:56] you're not looking, Don." [30:58] Well, that's because in your headset [30:59] you're looking and you're rendering a [31:01] the red Mustang, but I'm not. And there [31:03] is no red Mustang. If you look inside [31:04] the supercomputer, there's no red [31:06] Mustang there. [31:07] The The supercomputer that's running the [31:09] game has no red Mustang. So, [31:11] what I'm saying is [31:13] we compete, [31:14] we feel inadequate, and we feel like we [31:16] need to compete with other people and be [31:17] better than them, and we have egos, [31:19] all the egoic stuff that we do that [31:21] causes all the problems in the world [31:23] because you don't know who you are. [31:26] You're creating this whole thing. [31:28] You're You're not a little player. [31:30] You're the inventor of this whole thing. [31:32] You have nothing to prove. [31:35] And you don't need to be better than [31:36] anybody else. They're also [31:38] master creators. They're creating entire [31:40] universes that they perceive as well. [31:43] And [31:44] my own take on on this [31:46] is that [31:48] you and I [31:51] are really [31:52] the same one reality just looking at [31:54] itself through two different headsets, [31:56] two different avatars, [31:57] and having a conversation. And [32:00] maybe that's what [32:02] is required for this one infinite [32:04] intelligence to sort of know itself. [32:06] What you If you're If you transcend any [32:08] description, what How do you know [32:10] yourself? Maybe what you do is you say, [32:11] "Well, let me try this headset on. [32:14] Let me take that seriously for a while. [32:15] Me Maybe even let myself get lost. Let [32:17] me Let me completely believe I'm just a [32:19] Don Hoffman in in in in this space time. [32:22] And let me believe that for for many [32:24] decades and then slowly sort of wake up, [32:26] but at least then I will have seen [32:27] myself from this perspective. Then I'll [32:29] take off that headset. We call that [32:31] death. We all just take off the headset. [32:32] And then I'll try There's an infinite [32:34] number of headsets to try on." [32:36] So, it that point of view, any person [32:38] you speak to is transcendent. Any animal [32:41] is just an avatar of this transcendent [32:46] unspeakably incredible [32:50] reality that transcends science, so that [32:52] science will only get 0% of it. And [32:55] again, I always say, I'm not putting [32:57] down science. I'm a scientist. We need [32:59] to do science, and I recommend that [33:00] people do science. But my guess, this is [33:03] one of the more trivial headsets. [33:05] It's only four dimensions. Why not 20 [33:07] billion? [33:08] Why not quintillion? This is This is [33:10] just a fairly trivial. So, we we may be [33:14] in one of the most the more [33:16] uninteresting perspectives on who we [33:19] are. And and and there are much more [33:21] interesting perspectives that we can [33:22] take on ourself. But But the reason we [33:25] have fighting, the reason we have egos, [33:28] is because we don't know who we are. [33:30] >> And is there a way for me to understand [33:31] who I am? [33:33] Or is the closest you've found [33:35] meditation? I know you've meditated for [33:36] 20 years or something. [33:39] >> I I should say I should be a little [33:40] careful about I think [33:42] it really is important to do for for me [33:44] as a scientist to have done the science [33:46] that I've done. But I think for someone [33:48] else who doesn't do science, maybe that [33:49] that you do music [33:51] or you do some sports or something like [33:53] that. That's That is a concrete [33:56] way of knowing yourself through a [33:57] perspective, and that's really [33:59] important. And and and since we have [34:01] billions of people, [34:02] and then there's [34:04] untold other kinds of animals and [34:05] insects and so forth, this this one [34:08] infinite intelligence, whatever it is, [34:11] has decided, I want to look at myself [34:13] through the [34:14] lens of a mosquito. And now of the [34:16] bumblebee, and now of the the jewel [34:19] beetle that that can't even tell a [34:20] bottle from from a female. I'm going to [34:22] look at myself from this panoply of [34:26] perspectives. [34:27] >> So, you're almost implying there that [34:28] there's this one consciousness, and And [34:30] just using different organisms [34:32] potentially as vehicles to understand [34:35] itself and the nature of reality. [34:37] >> That's right. [34:37] >> So that would mean that me and you are [34:38] the same consciousness, but you were [34:40] born as a scientist in America and I was [34:43] born as a I don't know, an entrepreneur [34:45] in Botswana with different perspectives [34:47] in order to understand the reality, [34:48] which means that we're basically the [34:49] same [34:50] >> That's right. [34:51] >> the same consciousness, the same [34:53] super intelligence or whatever just [34:55] manifesting as different eyeballs in [34:57] different places. [34:59] >> That's my my view and certain religious [35:01] traditions do sort of hint almost say [35:05] that it exactly. Um, you know, like like [35:07] Jesus [35:09] uh in Christianity in like Matthew 25 [35:12] says, you know, I was hungry and you fed [35:13] me. I was thirsty. You gave me something [35:15] to drink. I was a foreigner and you [35:18] invited me in. I was sick and you helped [35:21] me. I was in prison and you visited me. [35:23] And people he says said asked him, "When [35:25] did we do that?" And he said, "Whenever [35:27] you did it to the least person, you did [35:28] it to me." [35:30] So Jesus is sort of hinting at this. [35:32] There is [35:37] there's no difference. The reason [35:39] to love your neighbor as yourself [35:42] is because your neighbor is yourself. [35:45] Just with a different headset. And the [35:47] only reason we have problems is we [35:50] don't realize how incredible you are. So [35:53] you are that which is [35:56] creating this [35:58] VR [36:00] simulation with all of its beauty, all [36:02] of its complexity. All the complexity is [36:04] you. And you're doing it [36:07] effortlessly. [36:09] Now uh [36:10] for my [36:13] neuroscience colleagues, they will say [36:16] Don, it's not effortless. You've got [36:19] 100 billion, well, 86 billion neurons in [36:21] your brain. Visual system has [36:23] billions of neurons that are doing all [36:25] this computation and you know, have the [36:27] the simple cells, the complex cells, the [36:29] hypercomplex cells and we think of the [36:30] brain as a physical object that's [36:32] generating our consciousness. Yeah. I [36:33] I'm saying [36:35] space-time itself [36:37] is something that you create. And so you [36:39] create everything inside space-time and [36:42] >> I've also created the brain. [36:44] >> You create the brain. So right now [36:46] you don't have a brain. [36:47] >> Excuse me. [36:48] >> And nor do I. [36:49] >> Okay, fair enough. [36:51] >> Cuz I don't cuz I don't have a brain and [36:52] you don't have a brain until we actually [36:54] look inside and render a brain. Just [36:55] like in in VR, the the Mustang doesn't [36:57] exist until you look at it and render [37:00] it. So if if I I can predict that if we [37:03] do the right scans, we will see a brain. [37:05] But that only exists when we [37:09] when we do the rendering. So I don't [37:10] have a brain. [37:12] All these correlations, we know that [37:13] correlation doesn't cause doesn't imply [37:15] causation, right? So So we [37:18] the fact that there is correlations and [37:19] I don't deny it. In fact, I'm all for [37:22] studying these correlations between [37:23] brain activity and conscious experience. [37:26] They exist, they're undeniable and they [37:28] don't in any way remotely entail that [37:30] the brain causes our conscious [37:32] experiences. [37:33] >> So I'm not I'm not the brain. I'm the [37:35] thing that's simulating the presence of [37:36] a brain. [37:37] >> That's right. That's right. And so in [37:38] your simulation, your simulation is so [37:40] good [37:41] that it simulates also [37:44] how all this reality that transcends [37:47] space-time is being [37:49] funneled down into this tiny little [37:50] space-time [37:52] headset. [37:53] And that's what we call the brain. So of [37:55] course there're going to be these [37:56] correlations between brain activity and [37:57] what we see. [37:59] But the correlation goes the other way. [38:00] It's not because the brain creates your [38:02] conscious experiences, it's because [38:04] consciousness has created the brain as [38:07] an icon to describe how it's how it's [38:09] creating this headset. [38:11] >> Do you think much about simulation [38:12] theory? I've had lots of [38:14] dinner parties recently and [38:15] conversations over dinner about [38:17] simulation theory and it always gets [38:18] very very interesting. [38:20] Um what are your thoughts on simulation [38:21] theory? And for my listeners who might [38:22] not understand the concept of simulation [38:24] theory, are you able to explain it? [38:26] >> Yes, the the So, the standard uh Nick [38:29] Bostrom, for example, is is [38:31] a very big figure in the simulation [38:33] theory. And and in the those kinds of [38:35] simulation theories, the idea is [38:37] that the world that you're seeing right [38:40] now isn't the [38:42] the true world. This is just a [38:43] simulation. [38:45] And there's some [38:47] programmer, say, [38:49] with some really nice computer that's [38:51] programmed this world. [38:54] And so, we're you're just we're just [38:56] characters in a simulated world of some [38:58] programmer. [39:00] And that programmer and their laptop [39:02] that's doing this, as it turns out, [39:03] isn't the final thing either because [39:05] that programmer in their laptop is also [39:08] just a simulation from a deeper-level [39:10] programmer and their laptop. There could [39:12] be a very, very large nesting of all [39:14] these simulated worlds and and people [39:16] with their computers. And that does jive [39:19] very well with what I'm saying up to a [39:21] point. I'm saying this is not the [39:22] reality, this is just a headset. So, [39:25] but there's a big, big disagreement. [39:27] >> Do you think we can there's going to [39:28] come a point where with everything [39:29] that's going on with AI and robotics [39:30] that we could get make a robot and [39:32] program it with a certain AI that gives [39:35] it the sort of same thinking as a human [39:36] being, and then when I put some [39:38] chocolate into its mouth, it's going to [39:40] say to me, "Mhm, I love that chocolate, [39:43] Stephen. That's my favorite flavor." [39:45] >> I could certainly program such a robot. [39:47] But, the question will always be, just [39:49] because I have this particular circuit [39:51] in the in the [39:52] computer uh [39:54] and and you know, then some structure on [39:56] the tongue that I've given it and some [39:58] pattern of electrical activity, what is [40:00] my scientific theory that explains why [40:01] that pattern had to be [40:04] the taste of chocolate? That's what we [40:05] need. As a sci- We I see your point. [40:08] >> to your adaptive learning thing where [40:09] it's just learned through all of the [40:10] data [40:12] through someone telling it programming [40:13] it to think that particular [40:16] set of chemicals [40:18] um send that up to the software and then [40:20] respond like this, which might just be [40:22] how me and you responding to life. We [40:24] might not be conscious at all. [40:25] >> Right. And then what you're suggesting [40:27] is probably how we'd actually do it. [40:28] Like we would probably sort of train it [40:30] and and and [40:31] have it give us the right responses in [40:33] in that kind of context. So we'd [40:34] probably do it something like that. But [40:36] but then as scientists, we want to [40:38] understand. So [40:39] we're claiming as scientists [40:42] that an experience is [40:46] a say certain causal structure or [40:47] certain functional functional [40:49] architecture. That's what we're saying [40:50] it is. [40:51] >> Mhm. [40:51] >> Cuz we [40:52] Cuz these These are physical theories. [40:54] They're They're saying, "We're not going [40:55] to start with consciousness. [40:56] Consciousness is not fundamental. Space [40:58] and time and physical objects are [41:00] fundamental. And so we we need to show [41:02] how those physical objects and their [41:05] properties give rise to these conscious [41:07] experiences. [41:09] So if that's If that's the science you [41:11] want to propose, then I have to be [41:13] hard-nosed as a scientist now and say, [41:15] "Give me your theory of mind." [41:18] >> So do you think this is a simulation? [41:21] >> So it's It's not a simulation in [41:22] Bostrom's sense. In Bostrom's sense, [41:25] it's a simulation in that it's a [41:28] physical substrate that's giving rise to [41:31] this whole world of conscious [41:32] experiences that I'm having. [41:33] >> Yeah, so it's [41:34] >> And that I deny. [41:35] >> Like a game programmer sat at a computer [41:37] making it. [41:38] >> And that And somehow the physical system [41:40] itself [41:41] gave rise to the magic of the ex- the [41:45] conscious experiences I'm having of red [41:47] and green and love and so forth. Those [41:49] conscious So for the simulation theory, [41:51] so this is my my bone of contention with [41:53] the simulation theory. It's very similar [41:54] to my theory in in all other respects, [41:56] but this is a pretty serious bone of [41:58] contention. [41:59] For their theory to to work, they have [42:02] to show explicitly, scientifically, how [42:04] a conscious a specific conscious [42:06] experience arises from a specific [42:08] program. [42:08] >> Okay. [42:09] >> Until you do that, this is there is no [42:11] beef on the table. [42:13] Right? So from my point their their [42:15] theory is a non-starter right now [42:18] because there's no specific experience [42:20] that they can say this program [42:23] must be the taste of mint. [42:25] They can't do that. Until they can do [42:27] that they can't get this whole world of [42:29] experience that I'm living in. Nothing. [42:31] So there's no beef. [42:33] All they have to do [42:35] to give me some beef is to say like in [42:38] integrated information theory they say [42:39] here's the matrix for mint. This is the [42:42] matrix. Of course then we'll ask [42:45] why? [42:46] Why is that matrix that causal structure [42:49] the taste of mint? What is your [42:50] scientific theory for why that's the [42:52] case? And what you'll see is [42:56] I think [42:57] I think it's going to take the field a [42:58] while to see it, but we will find that [43:00] these approaches are vacuous. [43:02] There's no beef. [43:04] >> When you ask people what the meaning of [43:05] their life is they'll often say things [43:07] like it is maybe they'll say to raise [43:09] children, maybe they'll say they want to [43:10] improve humanity, they want to [43:12] cure a disease, they want to [43:15] help society in some way, but through [43:17] the lens of reality that you see the [43:19] world and that you believe the world is [43:21] what becomes the meaning of life? [43:23] Donald? [43:24] >> That's a great question. [43:26] I do think that the best description I [43:28] can give is that there is this one [43:30] transcendent infinite consciousness and [43:32] you and I are just avatars and so is a [43:34] mosquito and so is a bacterium and all [43:37] are equally interesting and important [43:39] and all are different perspectives just [43:40] different headsets. There's the mosquito [43:41] headset, there's the jewel beetle [43:43] headset. [43:45] There's all these different headsets and [43:48] I'm I'm in the Hoffman headset [43:50] happen to have [43:52] do science. I'm not good at [43:54] art, I'm not good at [43:56] at music and so forth. I have my my my [43:58] particular talents and and inabilities [44:02] in my headset. So I'm here to experience [44:05] the Don Hoffman perspective on things. [44:07] Why? [44:09] Because that's perhaps the only way the [44:12] infinite can know itself as through an [44:15] infinite number of perspectives. It it [44:16] transcends any particular perspective. [44:19] So, [44:20] why not get lost in the Hoffman [44:22] perspective and the Jewel Beal [44:23] perspective and and and all these [44:25] different perspectives and [44:28] that's [44:30] the only way to to know yourself, but [44:32] it's always [44:34] the one consciousness that's knowing [44:36] itself through an infinite number of [44:38] varieties. [44:40] Of of experiences, of headsets. [44:43] >> And did someone or something create that [44:44] one consciousness? [44:46] >> Now I'm above my pay grade. It's uh [44:50] That's a No, no, no, that's of course [44:51] the right question. And [44:55] it asks for [44:57] an explanation. [44:59] And [45:02] the only explanations we have are either [45:05] mathematical or scientific or both. [45:07] The the only [45:08] really deeply serious, testable [45:12] But but even informal explanations make [45:14] assumptions. And so I'll have to say [45:16] that that you're asking a question about [45:19] an entity that transcends any [45:22] description. Namely, who you really are [45:25] and who I am I really am. [45:28] And I think we can I can think you can [45:31] know the answer to your question in in [45:33] one way, and that is [45:36] dropping all concepts and just being [45:38] with your being. [45:40] You are that. [45:42] You are that. You don't need to attain [45:44] anything. You don't need to achieve [45:46] anything. [45:49] You're that right now. So, there's no [45:52] effort, there's no [45:53] no need to get better at anything. [45:56] It's just to recognize what you already [45:58] are. You've let yourself [46:01] be under an illusion that I'm just this [46:03] little guy that needs to do these things [46:06] and you know and [46:07] be a professor and whatever it might be. [46:10] I've been under that illusion [46:12] and and I got to see myself through that [46:14] lens and then [46:16] I began to wake up and see that I [46:18] completely transcend. It was an [46:19] interesting perspective. I'm glad I took [46:21] it seriously. [46:22] I'm going to throw off that headset. We [46:23] call it death, but I'm going to take off [46:24] that headset pretty soon [46:26] because that's not who I am. I transcend [46:27] that. [46:30] So, the answer is you can know it, but [46:32] but you know it when you let go of all [46:33] concepts [46:35] and you don't try. [46:36] If you're trying to get there, then you [46:38] don't see what you already are. [46:40] That's the That's the best answer I can [46:42] give at this at this point [46:44] cuz it does transcend science. [46:45] >> So, in terms of a a god as we believe in [46:48] gods in the religious context the best [46:51] answer that you have would say that [46:54] effectively we are god. [46:56] The god that we we refer to. We are the [46:59] transcendent power that goes beyond [47:01] description [47:03] and [47:04] >> Right. [47:05] Yeah, I I would say that and then I can [47:07] I mean [47:08] I can put that in a sort of a Christian [47:10] language um [47:12] cuz many listeners will be Christians. [47:14] Um [47:16] A child of a human [47:18] is a human. [47:21] The Bible calls us children of God. [47:23] Well, the child of a human is human. The [47:25] child of God is God. [47:27] That's what the what what it's pointing [47:28] to. And and Jesus is fairly explicit [47:30] about it [47:31] when [47:33] some religious leaders were about to [47:35] stone Jesus for [47:37] saying that he was [47:38] the son of God. [47:41] Jesus quotes the scripture and says [47:44] from I think the the Psalms or something [47:46] like that. And he says [47:47] but in the Psalms it says I have said [47:49] you are gods and all of you are sons of [47:51] the most high. And Jesus said if they if [47:53] he calls them [47:54] gods to whom the word of God came, why [47:55] are you trying to stone me to death for [47:57] just saying I'm the son of God?" [47:59] What What the Bible's basically saying, [48:00] "Love God with all your heart." That [48:02] That's loving yourself. You are God. And [48:04] loving your neighbor as yourself is just [48:05] recognizing that your neighbor is [48:08] yourself under a different avatar. [48:11] >> Do you think Jesus was really divine in [48:14] any [48:15] Presuming you think this was a real [48:16] individual. And do you think he was [48:18] divine beyond [48:20] beyond me and you in some respect? [48:22] >> Not beyond me and you. [48:24] But you're You are [48:25] as divine as could possibly be. [48:27] >> Thank you so much. [48:29] We'll clip that. I'll put that on my [48:30] LinkedIn. [48:31] >> Hoffman said it. [48:32] >> Yeah. I'll put that on my [48:33] recommendations. [48:34] >> You're divine as Hoffman says I'm as [48:35] divine as I could possibly be. [48:38] >> Are there any other You must go If you [48:41] If you understand [48:43] reality through this lens that we're [48:44] seeing so little and that much of it is [48:47] created by [48:50] by ourselves and [48:52] we are the transcendent. [48:54] Are there any things that you do on a [48:56] day-to-day basis that are atypical [48:59] because of that or thoughts you have or [49:01] experiences you have that are atypical [49:03] because of this perspective? [49:06] >> Certainly atypical from before my own in [49:09] my own life. I now spend um [49:12] quite a bit of time in meditation. [49:14] Cuz I I as much as I enjoy the life of [49:17] the mind and I'm, you know, I a [49:18] professor and I've [49:20] taught lots of students over many many [49:22] years. [49:25] And I highly recommend all that stuff. [49:26] At some point I realize [49:29] that all my knowledge, all possible [49:31] scientific knowledge, is 0% of reality. [49:34] And do I really want to confine myself [49:36] only to 0% of reality? I want to explore [49:39] reality from this perspective, but it is [49:40] 0%. So, I do my homework and I encourage [49:44] my students to do my homework, take this [49:46] perspective very seriously, study it [49:48] study it rigorously. [49:50] But then realize there's this [49:52] the 100% that you haven't seen and you [49:54] are it. [49:55] >> So, you're doing lots of psychedelics [49:56] and stuff like that to [49:57] >> I haven't done any psychedelics. [49:59] >> You've never tried psychedelics? [50:00] >> I I I've never [50:02] I've never even smoked a cigarette. [50:03] >> Wow. [50:04] >> I I and I haven't had a drink of alcohol [50:07] in in decades. So, I I and it's partly [50:11] just because of I'm I'm frail. My my [50:13] physical body isn't that strong. So, I I [50:15] I have [50:16] limits to what I can't push my body too [50:18] hard. So, I've learned to operate within [50:21] my own limits and I don't push it too [50:23] hard. But the meditation I I I do [50:26] >> Am I right in thinking that you now [50:28] meditate 3 to 4 hours a day? [50:31] >> Probably, yeah. [50:32] >> What insights or understandings have [50:34] emerged from that that I might be able [50:36] to comprehend? [50:37] >> Any [50:39] creativity that's ever come out in my [50:40] scientific work. [50:43] To whatever to whatever extent it's [50:44] creative, it's come from the silence. [50:46] So, I've of course had to do my homework [50:47] and do my studies and so forth, but the [50:49] novel ideas [50:51] come from the silence. Personally, [50:54] one one thing I've seen is how [50:58] identified I am with my avatar. [51:02] I think I am this body. [51:05] I'm really tied to this body. [51:08] And it's [51:11] The stuff that I'm saying [51:14] at the emotional level, there's an [51:16] emotional part of me that doesn't [51:17] believe it one bit. [51:19] You're right, but emotionally um you put [51:22] a gun to my head, I'm scared to death. [51:24] >> Mhm. [51:26] >> Intellectually, I'll say say to you, [51:28] this is just an avatar. I I'm the [51:30] infinite that transcends. [51:33] So, I when I die, I just and and I [51:35] believe that. [51:37] How deeply do I believe it? [51:38] Put a gun to my head and you'll find [51:39] out. [51:41] I'll wet my pants. So, it's it's it's [51:43] very very interesting for me to look at [51:45] that and to see [51:47] all the [51:49] disjunctions that that that that the [51:51] things that are [51:52] disjointed in in in my my worldview. [51:55] >> Well, it kind of makes sense, right? [51:56] Based on your theory that [51:58] our senses have evolved to help us to [51:59] survive because someone not liking your [52:01] thinking or your theories or rejecting [52:03] you or harmed your body, it would go [52:06] against your survival. So, [52:07] theoretically, if we are in the world [52:09] that you've described in the reality [52:10] you've described, which is basically [52:12] designed for survival, then you would [52:14] have developed senses that make you [52:16] change behavior if there's a risk of [52:19] someone not liking you. [52:20] >> That's right. There there are social [52:21] pressures and and if you don't conform [52:24] to them, you get [52:25] feedback that that can be very very [52:26] negative and in some cases even death. [52:28] Um you you you if I if I go to a grocery [52:32] store and and don't happen to pay and [52:33] just walk off with the stuff, I end up [52:35] behind bars. There are rules of the [52:36] game. There are rules of the headset. I [52:38] transcend the headset, but I choose to [52:41] allow myself to get lost in the game. [52:43] >> Starting in January 2020, you [52:47] did have a proverbial gun held to your [52:49] head in in a way because you contracted [52:51] COVID and went through and are still [52:53] going through some pretty um serious [52:56] health complications because of long [52:57] COVID. You developed heart heart issues [52:59] within weeks requiring hundreds of hours [53:01] of critical care in hospital. You told [53:03] me before we started recording that [53:04] you've had heart surgery twice. [53:06] >> Yeah. [53:06] >> And in 2021 [53:08] at 66 years old at one point you thought [53:10] you might not survive because your heart [53:12] had been at 190 beats per minute for 30 [53:14] hours [53:15] and you sent your wife a goodbye message [53:18] because it looked like it was all over. [53:20] >> Right. Right. [53:22] >> I am wondering what that [53:25] brush with death [53:29] did to your perception of life, your [53:31] perspective, and how that all ties into [53:33] your [53:35] your um [53:37] your beliefs about the nature of [53:38] reality. [53:39] >> It certainly let me see how tied I am to [53:42] my body and the fear that I that I [53:44] experienced. Right? It's one thing for [53:46] me to sit here as a nice academic and [53:48] talk about how you're the transcendent [53:50] reality. It's another thing to have your [53:51] heart fail. [53:53] And to know that this is probably the [53:56] end. [53:57] And and to face the raw emotion. So I [53:59] had deep trauma and then I had to have [54:01] another surgery. I [54:03] Um the first one kept me [54:05] for a year and a half or so. He was a [54:07] great surgeon. It's not his fault. He [54:08] did a a great job. But you know COVID is [54:12] persistent. And the week before my [54:14] second surgery I was in the ER three [54:16] times where they had to restart my [54:18] heart. Just didn't know if I was going [54:19] to make it. I I would have to go have my [54:21] heart restarted and then two days later [54:22] go back and have my heart restarted and [54:23] I was just hoping to make it to live to [54:25] the surgery. [54:27] Um and [54:29] and even now I wouldn't be surprised if [54:31] the heart starts to to go bad again. So [54:34] so that takes us out of the you know [54:36] abstract academic realm into something [54:39] very very concrete. Now how do you deal [54:41] with the fact that you really don't know [54:43] from one heartbeat to the next. [54:47] It keeps you from just talking [54:50] abstractly about this stuff and and [54:52] and and being real about it. It's what [54:55] do I really feel about it? And and when [54:56] I look inside and see there's real fear [54:59] then I know okay [55:00] this stuff about [55:02] you're the infinite and everybody else [55:03] is the infinite is still fairly just an [55:06] abstract concept for you Don. You [55:07] haven't really [55:09] gone deep enough. You need to go deeper [55:12] and actually if that's true [55:15] I mean maybe maybe it's all BS, right? [55:16] But but if it's true that you are the [55:18] infinite and everybody else is the [55:19] infinite [55:20] um [55:21] then you need to go deeper into that. [55:23] Um [55:24] and and I intellectually I'm I'm [55:25] convinced. I mean I've given you the [55:26] reasons. I intellectually I'm quite [55:28] convinced. [55:29] Um and it's it's really interesting to [55:31] me that emotionally I'm far from [55:34] convinced. Far and and I agree with what [55:37] you just said about the evolutionary [55:38] arguments for it. There are good [55:40] evolutionary reasons for me to be wired [55:41] up to have automatic emotional responses [55:44] that are going to protect this body, to [55:46] keep it So, no doubt about it. So, so [55:49] there's no reason to judge myself that [55:50] I'm a you know, my body has a a fear [55:53] response and so forth when there are [55:54] things that that are about to to to kill [55:57] me. The issue is then [55:59] when I look at that fear response, can I [56:01] look at it and accept it or do I [56:03] identify with it? Do I identify [56:07] with the fear response or can I step [56:10] back and be the observer that watches [56:13] the fear response? And [56:16] in in the meditation process what I'm [56:18] learning to do [56:21] is [56:26] in some sense what I was saying about [56:28] the science. Science is great, but don't [56:30] believe any theory. [56:32] Theories are just tools. They're not the [56:34] truth. No scientific theory, my theories [56:36] included, are not the truth. [56:40] And so also is my theory about who I am. [56:43] Not the truth. So, to really let go of [56:46] any theory, if I can really let go of [56:47] any theory of who I am, [56:50] then I'll let go of any fear. [56:52] So, it's really It's really comes down [56:54] to to this, which is really really quite [56:56] interesting. [56:58] We will each die. [57:00] That's incontrovertible. [57:02] So, [57:04] any attachments I have [57:07] to this world will cease. [57:11] There's no doubt The question is, can I [57:12] let go of the attachments now? [57:14] Or will they only [57:17] go [57:18] from my cold, dead hand? [57:21] When will I let go of all these [57:23] attachments? If I my to the extent and I [57:27] am [57:28] no [57:30] I you [57:31] no expert, but to the that I can let go, [57:34] I see that there's more peace. [57:36] There's more peace in letting not being [57:38] attached to things. [57:40] So I I I see that, but but I'm not [57:42] there. So this is a very human very [57:45] human [57:46] perspective on things, very fallible [57:47] perspective, and it's very very [57:49] interesting. So I'm claiming I'm the [57:51] infinite, and I'm the infinite [57:54] having taken on this this bodily form, [57:57] and [57:59] in some sense, I'm waking up [58:02] to who I really am, but I'm only partly [58:04] awake. [58:05] >> I started my first business at 12 years [58:07] old, and then I started more businesses [58:08] at 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. And at that [58:12] time, what I didn't realize is that [58:14] being a founder with no money meant that [58:17] I also had to be the marketer, the sales [58:19] rep, the finance team, customer service, [58:21] and the recruiter. But if you're [58:23] starting a business today, thankfully, [58:25] there's a tool that wears all of those [58:27] hats for you. Our sponsor today, which [58:30] is Shopify. Because of all of its AI [58:32] integrations, using Shopify feels a bit [58:34] like you've hired an entire growth team [58:37] from day one, taking care of writing [58:39] product descriptions, your website [58:40] design, and enhancing your product's [58:42] images. Not to mention the bits you'd [58:45] expect Shopify to handle, like the [58:46] shipping, like the taxes, like the [58:48] inventory. And if you're looking to get [58:50] your business started, go to [58:51] shopify.com/bartlett [58:53] and sign up for a $1 per month trial. [58:57] That's shopify.com/bartlett. [59:01] >> So when we do die in your [59:05] perspective, is that equivocal to sort [59:07] of taking the headset off? [59:09] >> Entirely. [59:10] >> And so when we die, we take the headset [59:12] off, and [59:13] >> That's right. [59:15] >> the consciousness still remains, I [59:18] assume. [59:19] >> That's right. [59:20] >> So how would one Am I going to When I [59:22] die, am I going to [59:24] float up and be in like going to [59:25] Am I going to go into a tree? Am I going [59:27] to become a bug? What's going to happen [59:29] with that consciousness? Is it going to [59:31] be [59:32] this, or is this just a bunch of labels [59:34] and stories? [59:36] >> Of course, the the answer is I don't [59:37] know, but but I but I I will speculate. [59:39] Having said I don't know and and being [59:41] honest, I'll I'll I'll speculate. I [59:43] suspect that the closest I can [59:47] get to that is what happens in [59:48] meditation. When I really do let go, [59:51] there [59:52] and and it's very very quiet and my eyes [59:54] are closed, [59:56] then there's there is awareness and it's [60:01] a very alert awareness, very very [60:03] conscious. [60:04] And it has no content. [60:07] There's no colors, no taste, no smells, [60:09] there's no content. And [60:13] no need. [60:15] It's it's [60:17] it's an awareness that can create all [60:20] this in an instant, [60:23] and it can let it go. [60:25] So, it's it's [60:27] So, [60:30] it is the [60:32] the closest you can get to answering [60:34] your own question is really just to sit [60:36] in silence. [60:37] And it's it's hard because the thoughts [60:39] will come and come and come. And letting [60:41] go of all thoughts is is is the [60:43] difficult one. But when you do that, [60:44] then I think that's the closest I can [60:46] give to the answer to your question. [60:48] >> We spend a lot of time debating whether [60:49] this God is real or whether this thing [60:51] is real or whether horoscopes are real [60:52] or whether this spiritual belief is real [60:54] or karma or dharma or reincarnation. [60:57] >> Right. [60:58] >> In your perspective then, is it somewhat [61:01] ignorant to set your stall up anywhere? [61:04] To say that something is or isn't true? [61:06] Because, you know, people are different [61:08] side of the spectrum. Some people are [61:09] like, you know, staunchly religious and [61:11] then others are staunchly atheist. [61:13] >> Right. Right. Right. [61:14] I I think that [61:18] Of course, like in science, [61:20] there are certain things that are just [61:21] plain nonsense. Someone And in in fact, [61:24] most of the stuff that you just casually [61:25] come up with and you know, my theory of [61:27] electricity or my theory of the atoms is [61:29] just not It's just plain nonsense and it [61:31] goes nowhere. It's not worth any time. [61:32] So, I suspect the same thing is true in [61:34] spiritual stuff where we have even fewer [61:37] guardrails on our theories. But I think [61:39] there are a few guiding stars. If it [61:41] involves loving your neighbor as [61:43] yourself, [61:44] you're on the right track. If it [61:45] involves [61:47] putting a barrier between us and them [61:48] and saying that they're bad and we're [61:49] good, you're probably on the wrong [61:51] track. [61:51] >> What does this mean for grief? [61:53] So many people are [61:55] losing loved ones as we speak or are [61:57] contending with the reality that they [61:58] are going to lose a loved one. What does [62:00] it mean for the nature of love? [62:03] Does it, you know, does it take anything [62:04] away from love? Does it add to love? [62:06] Does it strengthen love? [62:08] >> Well, I would Yeah, I think in some [62:10] sense it comes down to [62:12] love is the central [62:14] thing. [62:15] And and uh [62:16] And and you know, in Christianity, [62:18] Jesus, that's the I'm talking about that [62:19] cuz you know, my dad was a pastor and I [62:21] that's the one I was raised in. So, I I [62:23] know the most about that. So, I'm [62:24] speaking only because that's where I had [62:26] some background. [62:28] And and and when Jesus was asked what's [62:30] the most important thing, he basically [62:32] said, "Love God with all your heart. [62:33] Love your neighbor as yourself." So, [62:34] love is like [62:37] number one. And my guess is that's [62:39] really all you need. [62:41] If if your religion is [62:43] love [62:45] and that's it and then that's then [62:46] that's how you act, you don't really [62:48] need to add anything more to that. [62:50] That's That's all you really need. Love [62:51] your neighbor as yourself, [62:54] you're done. [62:56] That's all that you need. And anything [62:58] beyond that is just not necessary. And [63:00] anything that contradicts that, [63:03] I would go back and try to figure out [63:04] where I went wrong. in my religion. [63:07] >> I've been asking my When I met my [63:08] girlfriend Melanie in her bio on [63:11] Instagram, it said, "God is love." And [63:13] she's not religious. [63:14] >> Yes. [63:15] >> She doesn't believe in a particular book [63:16] or whatever, but she when you I ask her [63:18] actually funnily enough we had this [63:19] conversation last night. I said to her [63:21] what do you think God is? And she said I [63:23] think God is just love. [63:25] >> I and I I completely [63:26] >> I think she's right again. She's right [63:27] again. [63:28] >> Yeah, you know I think that that's [63:30] love is the closest word that we can [63:33] have [63:34] to to as a pointer. Again, it's just a [63:37] pointer. Whatever [63:38] love is is just like the word mint only [63:41] points to the mint, the word love only [63:42] points, but it I think it's the best [63:44] pointer that we have. [63:48] Love. [63:49] >> And what is that definition of the word [63:50] love? [63:51] Because, you know, people use the I love [63:54] Manchester United, but the love that [63:56] you're describing seems to be much more [63:58] about a [63:59] a oneness or or [64:01] >> It's basically it's really recognizing [64:04] that that person even though they have a [64:07] different color, a different race, a [64:09] different creed, [64:11] a different idea, [64:13] that's just me. [64:15] That's me in a different headset. [64:20] And when I really then then I ask well, [64:23] how would I want to treat me? I get the [64:25] right answer. [64:27] That's love. [64:28] How would I if that's me, how how how [64:30] would I treat me if that were me? Well, [64:32] when you get the right when you do that, [64:34] you're acting in love. You're not going [64:36] to beat yourself up. You're not going to [64:38] call yourself names. You're you're not [64:40] going to call your call you a whatever. [64:43] You're you're you're going to treat [64:44] yourself [64:47] the way you want to treat yourself, then [64:49] treat others the same way. And that's [64:50] that's what what love is. But all [64:52] ultimately I think again, these are all [64:54] just pointers. Whatever [64:56] love is ultimately transcends any [64:58] description. [65:00] >> Do you believe when we I did kind of ask [65:02] you this earlier, but I was just looking [65:03] at some of the research around how many [65:05] people talk about these near-death [65:07] experiences. Specifically when they more [65:11] so when you have a cardiac issue, people [65:12] seem to say that they had perceptions of [65:15] hearing or seeing things or passing into [65:17] some kind of tunnel or seeing some kind [65:19] of light or a really positive emotion. [65:22] >> Yes. [65:22] >> I I wondered if you you know, you were [65:25] at one point in your life thought that [65:26] you weren't going to make it and if [65:30] if with what you know, you it's [65:33] increased your belief in these net [65:35] near-death experience accounts that [65:37] someone was sort of transitioning from [65:38] this reality to through taking the [65:41] headset off. Like it's almost like they [65:43] took a little bit of the headset off, [65:44] but not all of it and then they came [65:45] back to the headset. [65:47] >> So, yeah, these [65:49] very common experiences about near death [65:52] um a light and a tunnel and and maybe a [65:55] life review and then a choice to come [65:57] back and things like that. It's quite [65:59] it's quite quite common. And [66:02] I'm not going to going to dismiss them [66:04] one one bit. I mean, I it's hard to get [66:06] scientific evidence on that. It would be [66:08] very interesting to have a study in [66:10] which people did have their heart stop, [66:12] for example, were resuscitated and asked [66:15] how many don't have that experience. [66:17] That would be I mean, [66:18] if we had a systematic study that that [66:21] that did that. So, we don't want to be [66:24] tricked by [66:26] um [66:27] paying attention to only certain parts [66:29] of the data, right? [66:30] So so So, you can see um [66:33] even though I talk about letting go of [66:34] concepts and and and and going into the [66:37] the unknown, when when it comes to [66:39] things where where we should do science, [66:41] then I'm very very hard nosed about it [66:43] and and say [66:44] here we need to do to do studies. And [66:46] some I know some cardiologists, I'm not [66:49] going to mention names, but that that [66:51] have seen a lot of this stuff and [66:53] they're convinced by their own informal [66:55] experience that there's something going [66:57] on here. So, I have no you know, no beef [66:59] with that. I'm I'm [67:01] I think that they might be on to [67:03] something. [67:05] So, I don't disbelieve it, but [67:07] that's different than having the [67:08] science. [67:09] >> Why do we suffer [67:11] in such a reality? Like, why would why [67:13] would this transcendent power create [67:17] organisms or perspectives that end up [67:20] suffering, that end up in the worst of [67:22] places, the concentration camp, the [67:25] illness, the typhoid, the starvation? [67:28] Why would such a transcendent power [67:32] or consciousness do such a thing? [67:34] >> Um so, so I'll try not to be shallow [67:37] about it, but here it goes. Pain is [67:41] pain is pain, and death is death, and [67:44] certain deaths seem horrific. Th- This [67:47] is [67:50] a profound question. [67:52] I always feel like I'm risking being [67:54] trite and and and and so forth, cuz this [67:56] is [67:58] Anybody who's had had serious pain knows [68:00] that you just you you just can't [68:02] you can't play with this stuff. It's [68:04] It's It's When you When you're in that [68:05] pain, it it really [68:07] when you're without fairness, it's it's [68:10] I think ultimately [68:13] it may be like the wounds you get in a [68:15] video game. [68:18] You get the wounds, your your avatar [68:22] gets killed and and and you're upset [68:24] about it in the moment cuz you're losing [68:26] the game and so forth, but but then the [68:29] game's over and and [68:31] and you're fine. Ultimately, [68:34] you're fine. [68:36] But, [68:38] that experience, [68:40] I'll put it [68:41] I don't want to be in that experience. [68:44] It's striking that in Christianity, [68:47] the deepest symbol of God [68:51] is [68:53] horrific. [68:55] A crucifixion. [68:57] It's absolutely The The pain [68:59] It's not like a little shot to the head [69:02] with a gun or something like that. It's [69:03] it's it's making it as painful and as [69:06] drawn out and as horrific as you could [69:08] possibly do. And that and that and [69:10] that's that's you know, when you see the [69:11] cross that's sort of So, your your [69:13] question is right at like the heart of [69:14] Christianity. It's it's putting that [69:16] right there. And saying [69:18] this most [69:20] perhaps the most horrific way you can [69:22] imagine a person dying. [69:24] That's what happened to Jesus and that's [69:26] our our symbol for the divine. So, so [69:30] that's why you know, [69:31] it's not trivial. It's it's not it's not [69:33] shallow. There's something very very [69:35] deep there. [69:36] None of us is volunteering to hop onto a [69:38] cross. I'm not volunteering to hop onto [69:40] a cross. So, [69:42] So, I I I would say [69:44] the the the challenge of your question [69:45] is the challenge that is probably a deep [69:47] spiritual challenge to all of us. [69:51] To me and I'll say to me personally, [69:53] which is [69:54] to continue to grow up [69:57] and be less and less identified with [70:00] this [70:02] headset [70:03] and more [70:06] aware of my transcendent [70:09] being because ultimately even on the [70:11] cross, I mean [70:12] perhaps the most profound thing I've [70:14] ever seen in Christianity was [70:16] Jesus' words on the cross saying, [70:17] "Father, forgive them. They don't know [70:18] what they're doing." [70:20] Right? That the the heart of [70:21] Christianity is right there. It's not [70:22] like [70:24] the heart of Christianity is [70:26] kill the disbelievers. No, the heart of [70:28] Christianity is [70:30] the disbelievers have pinned you on a [70:32] cross. They're killing you in the worst [70:34] possible way. [70:36] And you show them love. That's the heart [70:37] of Christianity. You show love to those [70:40] who are in the process [70:42] of killing you in the worst way they can [70:44] think. [70:45] That's the heart of Christianity. Not [70:46] killing disbelievers or pushing away [70:48] disbelievers or discounting them. [70:50] That's the opposite. So, there's [70:52] something very very That's why I'm very [70:53] very slow in answering your question cuz [70:54] this this gets to the very deep heart of [70:57] Christianity I think and and and and all [71:00] true spirituality [71:02] that I don't think I truly understand. [71:04] But I I see these pointers to it and I [71:05] see that it's real and that your your [71:07] question is pointing to one of the most [71:09] profound and important things. And I I [71:12] have the feeling that my answer [71:14] is [71:16] only [71:17] ineffectually pointing part of the way [71:19] there. There's there's much much more to [71:21] it than I've been able to point to. [71:23] >> I'm hazarding a guess at what the role [71:25] of [71:26] Yeah, I'm hazarding my own guess at what [71:27] the role of pain and suffering might be [71:29] in such a [71:30] in such a reality where consciousness is [71:32] this transcendent thing that comes into [71:35] manifest itself as these organisms and [71:39] um [71:39] I guess it kind of goes in part goes [71:41] back to your idea of [71:45] I've only projected what I need to see [71:48] through my headset in order to survive. [71:51] So, if there are survival dynamics in [71:54] play in my headset then one one element [71:57] of survival is suffering. [71:59] >> Yes. [72:00] >> Because the fire is hot, so I put my [72:02] hand in the fire, my hand gets burnt, so [72:04] don't do that again, Steve. [72:05] >> Right. [72:06] >> So, if that is if if that is the nature [72:08] of my headset, then they will need to be [72:09] cause and effect as it relates to things [72:11] that will help me to survive and things [72:13] that won't help me to survive. [72:14] >> Yes. [72:15] >> And so suffering might just be [72:17] an input or a stimulus in this [72:22] in this headset that helps me to [72:24] survive. [72:25] >> Right. [72:26] >> And then I don't know the the question [72:27] that springs to mind is why does [72:28] consciousness care about survival? [72:30] Why would this transcendent [72:32] consciousness Maybe that's not even a [72:33] good question. Maybe that's the wrong [72:34] question, but [72:37] why does why does it want to survive [72:40] in us? [72:41] Why doesn't consciousness end? [72:43] I mean [72:46] >> I agree one one one one thing that I've [72:49] heard from one spiritual teacher in [72:51] Eckhart Tolle, which is interesting on [72:53] this. He one of his his talks he he he [72:56] said [72:57] um [72:59] let's pretend that we're humans. [73:02] He goes, "Oh, that'll be fun. [73:05] And and let's play some dramas. [73:08] Oh, but to have dramas, I have to forget [73:11] who I am. [73:12] Okay, so then let me completely forget [73:15] who I am. [73:16] And then after a few hundred thousand [73:18] years, when I get tired of it, [73:21] then let's wake up." [73:23] And I thought that was [73:26] a profound pointer. The that [73:29] that that doesn't get the whole thing, [73:30] but it it is an interesting pointer. [73:32] Like I think there's more to it than [73:33] that, but there's it's more than just [73:35] playing dramas. I think it's playing [73:36] dramas [73:39] to further explore who I am by knowing [73:42] who I'm not. [73:43] That may be part of it. [73:45] Knowing who I am [73:47] by knowing different perspectives and [73:49] knowing that as rich as this perspective [73:51] is, [73:53] I transcend that. [73:54] >> Someone commented on one of your recent [73:56] video saying, "Imagine being a character [73:58] in a book trying to understand your way [74:01] out of that book into a higher [74:03] dimension." [74:03] >> Yes. [74:06] R- [74:07] That's right. [74:08] B- But of course there there's that's [74:10] that's a a great great question. The [74:13] only thing I would say is [74:15] imagine being the author of the book [74:16] having written about the characters cuz [74:18] I'm I'm I'm not just a character in the [74:20] book. I'm the I'm the author who's put [74:22] the character in the book that then [74:24] wakes up that that's identified with the [74:25] character and then wakes up and realizes [74:27] I'm not just the character. I I was [74:29] writing the whole book. So so that that [74:31] question is is good because it points to [74:35] a misconception. I'm not just a [74:37] character in the book. I'm the writer of [74:38] the book. [74:39] And the Hoffman is just one of the [74:40] characters in the book. [74:42] >> And the writer of the book is [74:44] >> the one consciousness that when it [74:47] really understands itself will love all [74:48] the characters equally. [74:50] >> How do you know we're not separate [74:51] consciousnesses? [74:52] >> I don't. And that's an interesting [74:54] By the way, I've got a mathematical [74:55] model of consciousness. And that's a [74:57] whole other topic. I So, you can either [74:59] play the game here. We're understanding [75:02] how is physical world and consciousness [75:04] related? How are those two things [75:05] related? [75:06] >> Mhm. [75:06] >> Most of my colleagues say physical world [75:08] is fundamental. Consciousness emerges [75:11] when bright brain activity happens. So, [75:13] >> So, when neurons [75:14] >> Neurons [75:14] >> fire in the right way and so forth, for [75:16] example. [75:17] >> Now, as a scientist, I was at these [75:19] conferences, they know what I'm going to [75:20] do to them. I say, "Still, [75:22] you claim that conscious experiences [75:24] come from [75:25] integrated information. Give me one. [75:27] Give me an experience. And [75:29] they can't. [75:30] >> Can they not say, "Well, I'm looking [75:32] around right now and that's coming from [75:33] neurons in my brain and a physical [75:35] substrate?" [75:36] >> they Yeah, they'll say that. And and and [75:38] but but they know what I'm asking. [75:39] They're What they're ask What I'm asking [75:40] for is I say, "Give me the specific [75:42] pattern of neural activity that must be [75:45] the taste of mint." [75:46] >> Okay, right. So, you [75:47] >> What must Yeah, it must be the taste of [75:48] mint. [75:49] >> They can't spot the sequence of neurons [75:51] or physical interactions that cause me [75:53] to taste mint. [75:54] >> That That's right. [75:55] >> So, that's There's a big gap there. [75:57] >> And then they have to explain [75:59] why that particular pattern. So, first [76:01] they have to identify the pattern. This [76:02] pattern [76:03] >> Yeah. [76:03] >> with this say integrated information [76:05] pattern [76:05] must be the taste of mint. [76:07] >> Wait, integration information pattern, [76:09] you mean like this combination of things [76:10] coming together causes mint. [76:12] >> That's right. [76:13] >> tell me the combination and they can't [76:14] tell me why that combination [76:16] >> causes mint. [76:16] >> So, it's basically cause and effect. [76:18] They're saying [76:19] They're saying something happened here [76:21] and then they're saying an outcome, [76:22] which is an experience, but the gap in [76:24] between they can't explain. [76:26] >> That's right. And sometimes they'll say [76:27] that the conscious experience just is [76:30] the the dynamical whatever the physical [76:32] dynamics is. [76:33] >> Okay. [76:34] >> But But But even then, the the question [76:36] is, why is this particular dynamics [76:39] associated with this conscious [76:40] experience? [76:41] >> Okay. [76:42] >> And and and for principled reasons. No, [76:44] in science we tolerate no BS. [76:47] No BS. There's got to be a a concrete [76:49] reason. And that's why I put a big zero. [76:52] I I do this at the conferences knowing [76:54] that I'm one of very very few [76:56] non-physicalists at the conference. [76:58] And I know that the physicalists are out [77:00] there and I say, "You guys have got [77:02] zero, right?" [77:04] Have a chance? [77:06] Floor is open. Tell me I'm wrong. [77:07] >> Mhm. [77:08] >> And I'm not. They know it. [77:10] So, start with consciousness. [77:12] >> Yeah. [77:12] >> Now, I'm playing a different game. I'm [77:14] saying all this physical stuff. So, [77:16] there's lots of physical stuff. There's [77:17] space and time. Einstein's special [77:19] theory of general relativity. There's [77:21] the all the bosons and fermions and the [77:24] leptons uh bosons and [77:28] bosons, leptons, and quarks of the [77:29] standard model of particle physics. [77:32] You're You're saying, spiritual guys, [77:35] that you can start with a theory of [77:36] consciousness, mathematical, and you [77:38] will give me [77:39] all of space-time equation. You'll give [77:41] me quantum field theory. You will give [77:42] me the standard model of particle [77:43] physics. [77:44] How many points have you put on the [77:46] board, guys? What have you done? [77:50] Can you give me what pattern of [77:52] conscious agent activity must be a [77:54] photon? [77:55] What pattern pattern of conscious [77:57] activity should be the structure of [77:59] space-time or a boson or a lepton or a [78:01] quark? [78:03] No points on the board. So, so you can [78:05] you can look at that and go [78:07] from that perspective, [78:08] it's equal. There's no points on the [78:10] board on either either team. So, what [78:12] I'm I've got a theory that I call [78:13] conscious agent network theory. I'm [78:15] working on this with [78:17] um Chetan Prakash. [78:18] >> How long have you been working on it? [78:20] >> You've got a book called Observer [78:21] Mechanics there that was published in [78:23] 1989. So, I've been on this for 40 [78:25] years, almost about 40 years. [78:28] >> And what do you think you're going to [78:29] find [78:30] when you What What do you think you're [78:31] going to prove with your theory of [78:33] consciousness? [78:34] >> I I we can put some points on the board [78:36] in the following so I think we can start [78:38] with a theory of conscious agents. [78:40] I just gave presented a talk um Friday [78:43] and we we proposed what light is. [78:47] We proposed why [78:49] the speed of light is the same in all [78:50] inertial frames. [78:52] >> What does this mean? You got to simplify [78:53] this for my 16-year-old brain. [78:55] >> Right, right, right. So so if I'm on a [78:58] train [78:59] and the train's going 50 miles an hour [79:01] and I throw a ball [79:03] and I can throw it maybe 20 miles an [79:05] hour [79:06] then in some sense the ball is going 70 [79:08] miles an hour, right? [79:09] >> Mhm. [79:10] >> Right? [79:11] And that's the way things normally work. [79:13] But if I have [79:15] a flashlight [79:17] and I'm [79:19] and I flash the the light is going at [79:20] the speed of light which is about [79:21] 186,282 [79:24] miles per second. [79:26] It's pretty fast. [79:29] If I got to get on the train and have [79:31] the train [79:32] I take my flashlight go like half the [79:34] speed of light [79:36] on the train. So I'm going really fast. [79:37] This is a fast train. [79:38] >> Mhm. [79:39] >> And I turn on my light. [79:41] And I'm [79:42] here outside. I'm looking at the train [79:44] going at half the speed of light and [79:45] someone's turning the flashlight on so [79:46] the [79:48] light is going at the speed of light. [79:49] How fast is that light beam going to [79:50] look to me because I'm standing on the [79:51] side. The train is already going half [79:53] the speed of light. [79:54] So how fast is that light beam going to [79:56] go? [79:57] >> The speed of light plus half the speed [79:58] of light. [79:59] >> That's what we would mostly think, [80:01] right? And it turns out [80:02] no, it goes the speed of light. [80:04] You have mass [80:07] and you're not moving at the speed of [80:09] light and we try to accelerate you to [80:11] get to the speed of light and you'll [80:12] never get there. But there's a speed [80:14] limit. You can't get there. [80:16] So that's really counterintuitive, [80:18] right? [80:19] But Einstein said this is my fundamental [80:22] hypothesis on which I'm going to build [80:24] my theory of space and time. [80:26] Is that light, no matter how fast you're [80:28] moving [80:29] always moves away from you at the speed [80:31] of light. And also that there's no [80:33] special observer. There's no what we [80:35] call no special inertial frame, but no [80:37] special frame of reference in which [80:40] to look at things. All all frames are [80:41] are equivalent. [80:44] So [80:46] So the question is how do I start with a [80:47] theory of conscious agents? [80:49] >> Which is [80:50] >> That's a good question. So what is a [80:52] conscious agent? [80:53] I'll say it's mathematical and I'll only [80:56] talk about one aspect of it. It's just [80:57] complicated so I'll talk about only an [80:59] essential one essential part of it and [81:01] that is [81:03] if you are conscious, you have [81:04] experiences. Like I have I can [81:06] experience [81:07] keep it real simple. I can experience [81:08] colors, red, green, blue. [81:11] >> Mhm. [81:12] >> Keep it very very simple. So imagine a [81:13] very very simple conscious agent [81:16] and what it can do is experience three [81:17] colors, red, green, and blue. That's all [81:18] it can do. [81:19] >> Like me. [81:20] >> Yeah, yeah, of course you have a much [81:21] richer set of conscious experiences, but [81:23] but you include that kind of observer, [81:25] right? Because you can do red, green, [81:26] and blue. [81:27] Now I'll talk about another observer [81:28] that only sees red and green. [81:30] >> Yeah. [81:30] >> And now you don't just see one color, [81:32] you see a color for a little bit and [81:34] then you see another color. Like so I [81:35] see red for a while then I see green and [81:36] then I see blue and I maybe go back to [81:38] red or whatever. [81:40] So there's going to be this sequence of [81:42] colors that I see and and maybe the best [81:44] I can say is that if if I see green [81:46] right now, then there's a 20% chance [81:48] that I'll see red next and 80% chance [81:50] that I'll see blue next. I can I can [81:52] write down probabilities. [81:55] Well, so [81:56] that that's pretty simple, right? [81:58] There's colors [81:59] experiences and then there's [82:01] probabilities of what sequence you if I [82:03] see this experience, what my next [82:05] experience will be. And I'm using C in a [82:07] general term, right? It could be hearing [82:10] or smelling or whatever. [82:11] How do you capture that mathematically? [82:12] There's something called a Markov [82:14] kernel or Markov matrix that just says [82:17] basically it gives you all the numbers. [82:19] The first row of numbers and says if I [82:21] see red now, what's the probability that [82:22] I'll see red next? [82:24] >> Mhm. [82:24] >> What's the probability I'll see green [82:25] next? What's the probability I'll see [82:26] blue next? So you just write the numbers [82:28] out. Now, maybe it's 0.2 that I'll see [82:29] red again. [82:30] 0.4 that I'll see green, and then um 0.4 [82:35] that I'll see [82:36] red uh blue again. So, [82:39] so and then the next color, you know, [82:41] I'll I'll have another row for if I if [82:42] I'm now seeing green, what's probably [82:43] I'll see red, green, and blue, and then [82:45] finally blue, what's probably I'll go to [82:47] red, green, and blue. So, I I need nine [82:49] numbers. That's all I need. For three [82:50] colors, I need nine numbers to talk [82:52] about all the possibility. And then I'll [82:54] I'll just have a counter as well. So, [82:56] every time I see a new color, I'll just [82:58] have a little counter. So, I saw I'll [83:00] see red now, that's one. Oh, now I see [83:02] green, that's two. [83:03] Now, I see green again, cuz I got So, [83:05] that's three. Cuz So, I So, I'm counting [83:08] the the colors, the experiences. That's [83:10] That's all I'm going to talk about. [83:11] That's all I have. [83:13] The question is, [83:14] if I start with just that notion of an [83:16] observer, it has [83:18] colors and a matrix of probabilities of [83:21] I see this color, I can see another [83:23] another color. What's what's probably [83:25] And every time I see a new color, I get [83:28] uh a counter incrementing. [83:29] That's all I'm going to start with. Can [83:30] I get Einstein's [83:32] Can I get that the speed of light is the [83:35] same in all inertial frames that the if [83:36] I'm on a train and I flash the speed of [83:38] flash a light bulb uh flash a light that [83:41] it will go at the speed of light even [83:42] for someone um who's on the train going [83:45] at half the speed of light? [83:46] And I discovered just in the last three [83:49] or four months that the answer is yes, I [83:51] can do it. And that's what I presented [83:53] last Friday [83:54] at at this conference. [83:55] >> So, what does this mean about the nature [83:57] of consciousness and [83:59] >> It means that [84:01] starting with a theory of consciousness [84:02] outside of space-time, [84:05] I can actually give you with [84:06] mathematical precision [84:08] the structure of space-time. [84:09] >> Which means that your belief is [84:13] >> We're starting to [84:13] >> space and time and everything I see and [84:15] experience actually comes from [84:16] consciousness itself. So, consciousness [84:18] itself is the source of everything. [84:20] >> Everything that you That's right. So, [84:21] earlier in conversation [84:22] >> My consciousness didn't come from my [84:23] brain. That's right. [84:25] >> My brain came from my consciousness. [84:27] >> That's exactly right. That That That's [84:28] exactly what I'm saying. And we we've [84:30] talked about the headset. [84:31] >> Yeah. [84:32] >> What I'm doing is I'm building the [84:33] headset. I'm saying, "Here's the con- [84:35] Here's the conscious agents, their [84:36] dynamics. [84:38] And I'm now starting to build the [84:40] space-time headset." [84:41] >> Is there a concern that [84:43] believing these things can make one go [84:45] mad? I think sometimes think that uh [84:47] thinking very deeply about who we are, [84:48] why we're here, how we got here [84:51] sometimes makes me I don't know, like I [84:53] lose a bit of my orientation and I get a [84:55] little bit of a wobble. Like when I've [84:56] had these conversations about the [84:57] simulation theory and this being a big [84:59] video game and such, I'm like, "Well, it [85:01] kind of shakes everything you know." And [85:03] these stories that we've constructed our [85:04] lives on [85:05] give us they anchor us and they [85:08] orientate us and they they give our life [85:10] meaning. So, [85:11] if it's not true, then I lose the [85:13] meaning of my life and I I I worry if I [85:15] risk going bonkers. [85:17] >> Well, [85:18] I I certainly empathize with that. And [85:21] that's also what happens also in the [85:22] meditation process. This also leads me [85:25] to have to face all sorts of emotional [85:26] stuff. [85:27] My my deep belief that I'm just [85:31] my avatar [85:32] and letting go of that is like a death. [85:34] And this is very very painful. So, [85:36] for me the meditation process is not all [85:38] love, joy, and peace. A lot of it is [85:42] deep deep [85:44] tough emotions [85:46] as I let go of what I thought was [85:48] myself. And this is is is a kind of a [85:51] It's a death of an illusion, but it [85:53] feels like a real death to me. But now [85:55] here's the positive side. Here's the [85:57] upside. I'm proposing that science [86:02] is got the tools, if we assume [86:04] consciousness is fundamental [86:06] to step entirely outside of space-time [86:10] and do serious mathematics [86:14] and show how space-time is built as a [86:16] headset. [86:18] And this means [86:20] I'm we're opening up [86:22] a realm of new technologies [86:25] that are going to make everything that [86:26] we've done in in science and technology [86:29] so far seem trivial. [86:31] And then the And here's the Here's the [86:32] reason. Suppose you're [86:34] a wizard in Grand Theft Auto and you [86:35] know how to use all the tools in Grand [86:37] Theft Auto. [86:38] That That's fantastic. It's It's really [86:39] good. You can drive your car from A to B [86:41] faster than anybody can do. [86:44] But now if you're the software engineer [86:45] who knows how Grand Theft Auto is built [86:47] cuz you wrote the code. You know it. [86:50] You can do miracles. You can take the [86:52] wizard's car and take the air out of [86:54] their tire just like that. You can take [86:55] the gas out of their tank. You can take [86:57] their car and move it from A to B [86:58] instantly. Not through the Grand Theft [87:00] Auto. You can move it there instantly [87:01] because you got the code outside. [87:05] What I'm saying is [87:07] this is real. [87:09] I started now to really believe this [87:10] when I could get Einstein space-time [87:11] coming out of this. I got light and I [87:13] think I've got an electron now. [87:16] I think [87:17] we're reverse engineering the headset. [87:19] And the technologies that are about to [87:21] come out of this will make everything [87:23] else seem like firecrackers. Because [87:25] we're now getting to a deeper layer [87:27] outside of the headset. We're not [87:30] we're not wizards inside the headset. [87:32] We're the software engineers that are [87:34] making the headset and now we can play. [87:36] So for example, right now the nearest [87:38] galaxy [87:40] the Andromeda galaxy is 2.4 million [87:42] light years away. [87:43] If you hopped on a light on a spaceship [87:46] and tried to send your [87:48] offspring it would take I don't know how [87:50] many generations thousands of [87:51] generations I would guess to get there. [87:54] And that's the closest. That's the [87:56] closest galaxy. The the [87:58] The universe is much much bigger than [88:00] that. That's just our little [88:01] neighborhood. It's not feasible. We're [88:03] not going to have We're not going to be [88:04] able to travel with our current [88:06] technologies inside space [88:08] travel inside space-time [88:10] to Andromeda is is not feasible for the [88:13] foreseeable future. What if we don't [88:15] have to go through space-time? [88:17] What if space-time is just a headset? It [88:20] really is just a headset, and we don't [88:22] have to go 2.4 million light-years to [88:25] get there. [88:26] We learn the code outside of space-time, [88:29] and we can just change the code just [88:31] like the Grand Theft The Grand Theft [88:32] Auto in Grand Theft Auto the car has to [88:34] drive through the roads to get from A to [88:36] B. [88:37] But not if you look at the code in the [88:40] code, I just need to change the value of [88:41] a register, and all of a sudden the [88:42] position of the car is now at B. It was [88:44] at A, and I put it at B. [88:46] >> Is this what time travel [88:47] >> This this would be like this would [88:49] appear like [88:50] immediate time travel or immediate [88:52] immediate space travel. [88:53] >> Is there anything within the laws of [88:54] physics that tells you that this isn't [88:56] possible? [88:56] >> It's impossible inside space-time. If If [88:59] you only use So, inside space-time is [89:02] impossible. [89:02] >> But outside of what we know about [89:04] space-time? [89:05] >> A theory [89:06] that's outside of space-time that [89:09] properly contains [89:11] space-time as a projection of the theory [89:14] allows us to then build technologies [89:17] that aren't restricted to space-time. [89:20] So, do you think we're getting closer [89:22] to being able to do edit the code of [89:26] this experience so that we can do things [89:29] we never thought were possible and that [89:30] things that sit outside of what we know [89:32] know within the laws of physics? [89:33] >> That's exactly what I'm working on right [89:34] now. That's That's That is my research [89:37] project right now. [89:39] That's what I'm doing. [89:40] >> What are you hoping to do with this [89:42] research, and do you think about the [89:43] consequences of it? [89:45] >> I do. Uh So, what First, what I'm hoping [89:48] to do with the research I'm I'm what I'm [89:50] hoping to show is that I can get [89:53] all of quantum field theory, all of [89:56] special and general relativity, [89:58] all of standard model particle physics [90:00] from this theory of conscious agents [90:02] outside of space-time [90:04] that will be able to explain [90:06] all of the laws that that we're that we [90:08] see. [90:10] And [90:11] then show that space-time [90:14] theories are in fact [90:18] a very tiny projection [90:20] of the much more informationally rich [90:23] dynamics of conscious agents. [90:25] >> I've built companies from scratch. I've [90:27] backed many more. And there's a blind [90:28] spot that I keep seeing in early-stage [90:30] founders. They spend very little time [90:32] thinking about HR. And it's not because [90:34] they're reckless or they don't care. [90:36] It's because they're obsessed with [90:38] building their companies, and I can't [90:39] fault them for that. At that stage, [90:41] you're thinking about the product, how [90:42] to attract new customers, how to grow [90:43] your team, really how to survive. And HR [90:46] slips down the list because it doesn't [90:48] feel urgent. But sooner or later, it is. [90:51] And when things get messy, tools like [90:53] our sponsor today, JustWorks, go from [90:55] being a nice-to-have to being a [90:56] necessity. Something goes sideways, and [90:58] you find yourself having conversations [91:00] you did not see coming. This is when you [91:01] learn that HR really is the [91:03] infrastructure of your company, and [91:04] without it, things wobble. And JustWorks [91:06] stops you learning this the hard way. It [91:08] takes care of the stuff that would [91:10] otherwise drain your energy and your [91:12] time, automating payroll, health [91:13] insurance, benefits, and it gives your [91:15] team human support at any hour. It grows [91:18] with your small business from startup [91:20] through to growth, even when you start [91:22] hiring team members abroad. So, if you [91:23] want HR support that's there through the [91:25] exciting times and the challenging [91:27] times, head to justworks.com now. That's [91:30] justworks.com. [91:33] You know, whenever someone talks about [91:35] editing [91:36] genes, right? There's like CRISPR DNA [91:38] technology that allows you to edit [91:40] genes, or there's other technologies [91:41] that people talk about that allow you to [91:44] they're talking about putting, you know, [91:47] our memories on hard drives and stuff [91:48] like that. People get quite precious [91:49] with the idea of like playing with the [91:51] nature of reality too much because some [91:54] people might suffer. [91:56] And even in your perception of what the [91:57] world is, if we're all one [91:59] consciousness, it becomes a slightly [92:01] different conversation. But I guess the [92:02] question I'm asking is if we were able [92:04] to play with the software of [92:06] this thing that we're all experiencing [92:08] right now and do things that sit outside [92:10] the laws of physics, is there a question [92:12] of morality of like is that the right [92:15] thing to do? Will people suffer? Or if [92:17] this is all just [92:18] code does is that just like a pointless [92:20] question? [92:22] >> Well, no, I think it's an it's it's a [92:23] very important question and and [92:26] I've [92:26] >> Like is that the wrong thing to do? [92:28] >> It's like a It's like Pandora's Box, [92:29] right? We're opening Pandora's Box all [92:31] sorts of nasty surprises that could come [92:34] out of the box once we open [92:36] go beyond space-time. [92:37] >> Like who gets to open the box? If you [92:38] get to open the box [92:40] >> That's what That's what I That's what I [92:41] think I'm doing. I I I I have Now, [92:43] the talk I gave on Friday was saying, [92:45] here's the first peek inside Pandora's [92:47] Box. [92:48] >> But then you could become God [92:50] as far as we're all concerned cuz if you [92:52] have that power to play with the code. [92:54] >> be only the next level of God, right? [92:56] Where this is So, [92:58] as I've said, my theory is just a [93:00] theory. [93:01] And so, [93:03] it's not the truth. It's just But it's [93:05] it's more comprehensive than the [93:06] space-time theory. And so, because I [93:08] have a more comprehensive theory, [93:10] I can do new new technologies that you [93:12] couldn't do. So, so I I So, I'm not God, [93:15] but I I'm outside of the limits of [93:19] space-time. So, I can give you new [93:21] technologies. If I If I can show how [93:22] space-time arises entirely outside of [93:25] from this deeper theory, then if I'm [93:28] right [93:30] and I'm mathematically precise, that [93:32] means I have the tools [93:34] to prove that I'm right. That means I [93:36] can make technologies [93:38] that will that will be miraculous from [93:40] within the space-time. [93:41] >> I think about the atomic bomb and how [93:43] the first nation to figure out that [93:45] there was [93:46] new possibilities within technology [93:49] and because [93:50] they had discoveries within physics [93:53] basically won the war. They were able to [93:55] >> Right. [93:56] >> control every country. [93:58] Um they became effectively the god cuz [94:00] they could wipe anybody out within an [94:01] instance. [94:03] >> Right. [94:04] >> It's like an analogy for how reimagining [94:07] physics creates new possibilities in [94:08] technology. [94:09] >> That's right. And And this is even like [94:12] bigger than that because you nuclear [94:14] bombs will be like firecrackers compared [94:16] to what you can do with with a [94:17] technology that's early outside of space [94:19] and time. [94:19] >> We could do anything. Like we could live [94:21] forever, but that's not even something [94:22] that would really matter. But [94:24] >> Right. [94:24] >> Once you realize this is just a game. [94:26] But But you could make you could give [94:28] yourself extra time as as much as you [94:30] wanted in this. So, it's [94:32] the moral question is a very very [94:35] interesting one. [94:37] It's not It's not to be taken lightly [94:40] um [94:41] either way. [94:43] And And ultimately, it may be very [94:45] related to the question you asked [94:47] earlier, which is [94:48] about the nature of why did the the one, [94:52] if there is a one, [94:53] allow all this kind of horrible pain and [94:56] and and so forth. So, [94:58] I have a sense and I can't defend it [95:01] that [95:02] all is well. That even with the [95:04] technologies, even if the technologies [95:07] are [95:08] really far more powerful than anything [95:10] we've seen before, [95:11] nothing [95:13] can actually hurt [95:14] the reality of the one. [95:17] And all of the headsets are just [95:19] headsets. They're [95:21] taken off anyway by the one. [95:23] They're just tried on [95:25] and let go. [95:27] Apparently, the one [95:29] even without all this technology has [95:30] already, you know, put Jesus on the [95:32] cross. [95:33] If If that story about the one is [95:35] correct, [95:36] then it's given a thumbs up [95:38] for choosing to do that cuz that, you [95:40] know, it it did it. [95:42] >> It was create cancer and the Holocaust [95:43] and [95:44] >> That's right. So, [95:48] >> But the one's relationship with the pain [95:50] of its [95:51] the things the organisms it create is [95:53] different to the perception of pain in [95:56] the organism itself potentially. So like [95:59] I the hate pain, but maybe the one the [96:02] one consciousness that we all share that [96:04] we all return to and came from [96:07] might see it as a useful signal or might [96:10] not be [96:11] subjectively bothered by it because it's [96:13] choosing to [96:15] >> to do that. [96:16] >> to do that. [96:16] >> I agree with you. That seems to be a [96:18] reasonable [96:19] kind of conclusion. And and in [96:21] meditative practice often what you find [96:23] is [96:25] and and I [96:27] always risk pretending that I'm further [96:29] along than I'm not. So I'll just say I'm [96:31] I'm a neophyte. [96:33] But but so I'll talk about what I've [96:35] heard from other more advanced people. [96:37] That they [96:39] what was a a deep pain, emotional pain [96:42] for example, when they stare at it [96:44] and really accept it, [96:47] it dissolves. [96:51] So now I'm speaking [96:53] over my head. But but [96:56] from people that I have no reason to [96:58] disbelieve. [96:59] >> I've read a comment on your video from a [97:00] a guy that wrote this. [97:02] He wrote, "I'm a schizophrenic. I do [97:04] DoorDash for some extra money and one [97:05] night I arrived and walked to the door. [97:08] I placed the food down on the door and I [97:10] took a picture. I got in my car and I [97:12] drove away. [97:13] And 30 minutes later [97:15] the customer called me and asked me [97:16] where the food was. [97:18] And I I told him exactly where it was. I [97:20] remember taking the picture on his [97:21] doorstep. [97:23] So he took it up with DoorDash directly. [97:25] Sometime later I opened my back door [97:28] and I saw his order on my back door. I [97:30] was so confused why it was there. I [97:32] remembered everything about going there [97:34] and taking the picture. [97:35] >> Mhm. [97:36] >> He said I was never there on his [97:37] cameras. Apparently I hallucinated the [97:40] whole delivery. [97:41] I was there, but I must have never left [97:43] the car [97:44] or even drove up. [97:47] What was I doing then? Was I staring [97:50] blankly at the windshield with my eyes [97:52] glazed over? I called him and [97:54] apologized, but he but he already got [97:56] his refund. I felt so terrible. I'm on [97:59] medication and nothing works. It just [98:01] goes to show how easily some misfirings [98:03] in the brain can completely alter your [98:05] sense of reality, but it also poses [98:07] deeper questions about reality. [98:09] But it was an interesting um [98:11] very [98:12] an interesting point, but also it just [98:14] it also speaks to when we talk about [98:15] people that have [98:17] various mental illnesses like [98:18] schizophrenia that are experiencing the [98:20] world entirely differently, [98:21] um it raises big questions about what [98:23] consciousness is again. [98:25] >> Absolutely. And and someone might take [98:27] that example and say, "Doesn't that show [98:28] that brain activity is the causing [98:30] consciousness? And if you get the wrong [98:31] brain activity, then you get these false [98:33] experiences and you get these [98:34] illusions." So there's a lot of people [98:36] take this as a as a [98:38] a victory point for the physicalist [98:40] point of view. [98:42] But [98:42] there's another point of view, and that [98:44] is [98:45] think think about the experiences that [98:46] you have when you're dreaming. They can [98:47] be very very vivid. [98:49] >> Mhm. [98:49] >> And [98:51] and you're [98:52] in a dream, you are de novo creating [98:55] that reality. That that's not a reality [98:56] that's that's there in front of you. [98:58] You're you're creating that reality. So [98:59] we know that you have the you have the [99:01] ability to [99:03] project a reality, a very compelling [99:05] reality. All of us do. Without [99:07] schizophrenia, we do it every night in [99:08] our in our dreams. So no surprise that [99:10] we that we do that. [99:12] And the way I I view it is that we um [99:17] it's this consciousness that's making [99:18] this particular headset. [99:20] And it's consciousness that uses headset [99:22] in dreams to to make the the realities [99:24] we see in the dreams, and it's [99:25] consciousness that outside of space-time [99:28] that also creates what we call the real [99:29] reality when when we're not dreaming. [99:31] And if you construct the headset in [99:33] certain ways, then you can get the [99:35] dreaming stuff mechanism, for example, [99:38] interfering with the what you'd call the [99:39] waking mechanism, and you could you [99:42] effectively So, I'm not saying [99:43] schizophrenic is is dreaming. But I'm [99:45] saying I'm just giving this as an [99:46] example of the kind of thing it could [99:48] be. I'm not giving a diagnosis of this [99:49] particular person. [99:50] >> I'm about to uh [99:52] leave this chat as are you and I'm going [99:53] to go back to my life. [99:55] >> Yeah. [99:55] >> Um where I'm building businesses, I've [99:57] got a girlfriend, I've got a team, I've [99:59] got plans for the future. I have all of [100:01] these things. [100:04] My listeners, they're sat at home, [100:05] they're on the in a taxi, on a plane, [100:07] train, walking, in a gym, wherever they [100:09] might be right now. And I I imagine that [100:11] they're also looking for a conclusion [100:13] here, a conclusive point of what all [100:15] this means for me and my life and the [100:17] things I had planned and [100:19] how I should show up and treat people [100:21] and then act. Can you give me the [100:23] conclusive point that all of this [100:25] teaches you and us about [100:28] how we should [100:30] live our lives going forward if [100:31] everything that you've said about the [100:32] nature of reality is accurate. [100:35] >> Yeah, in a nutshell, I would say [100:40] the critical thing practically is love [100:42] your neighbor as yourself [100:43] because your neighbor is yourself. [100:48] And second, [100:50] reality is far more interesting [100:54] and exciting [100:55] than you could ever imagine. [100:59] So, never think that you know [101:00] everything. Recognize that [101:03] the moment you think you know [101:04] everything, [101:06] that's the moment that you're missing [101:09] the astonishing reality that you're a [101:11] part of. [101:13] So, [101:14] always have a childlike curiosity. [101:16] Always recognize that there's infinitely [101:18] more than you've ever imagined so far. [101:21] And that infinitely more [101:23] is you. [101:26] >> And on a point of removing some of the [101:28] stress and suffering from my life, [101:35] >> I think Well, of course, um [101:39] I well [101:40] first some humble pie is required. [101:43] I have stress and suffering. [101:44] So, I am not speaking as someone who has [101:46] transcended stress and suffering. So, I [101:48] speak as another fellow person with [101:51] stress and suffering that is still [101:52] dealing with it on a daily basis. [101:55] Given that the humble pie, then I I will [101:57] say this. [102:01] I think a lot of [102:03] and I'll make it personal. I think a lot [102:04] of my problems, my stress, a lot of my [102:06] suffering [102:08] is because I believe illusions. [102:11] To the extent that I [102:13] believe that [102:14] I need [102:16] to become something at all. [102:19] You need to be better than I am in any [102:21] way. [102:22] Need to prove anything to anybody else. [102:25] That's an illusion. [102:27] I'm already the infinite. I don't need [102:29] to prove anything. I'm making Everything [102:32] is already So, I don't need to get [102:33] anywhere. I don't need to accomplish [102:34] anything. And I don't need to [102:36] succeed at anything [102:38] to become what I need to become. I'm [102:41] already that. So, I don't So, the [102:43] suffering comes from me forgetting who I [102:46] am. [102:48] I don't need to I don't actually [102:50] need [102:51] to impress anybody, [102:54] accomplish anything [102:56] because everything that I'm saying I'm [102:58] already making this all up. This is [102:59] already me. I've already done all this. [103:02] What more do I need to do? [103:03] >> I'm transcendent. [103:04] >> I I'm I'm completely transcendent of [103:06] this thing. And to the And my suffering [103:08] is not recognizing that My suffering is [103:10] entirely [103:13] being caught in my avatar. This is just [103:16] my avatar. It's not me. So, my suffering [103:18] is because I made this avatar. I let [103:20] myself on purpose [103:22] be identified with the avatar knowing [103:24] that I would be [103:26] suffering because of that. [103:28] And and knowing that I needed to wake [103:30] wake up. So, I'm suffering because I'm [103:31] identified with the avatar. But, I put [103:33] myself in that place because I really [103:34] wanted to look at the world through this [103:35] avatar. That's why I'm suffering, but [103:37] eventually I wake up [103:38] and I look and I see the avatar for for [103:41] what it is and I realize that everything [103:43] I was trying to do to prove that I was [103:44] worthwhile and I was better than you or [103:47] not not as bad as you think I am or [103:48] things like that, all of that was was [103:51] just, you know, all the pain and [103:53] suffering was because of an illusion, [103:55] but but I needed to do that. I needed to [103:58] look at myself from that perspective for [104:01] a while. In part to find out who I am by [104:04] finding out who I'm not. I'm not that [104:06] just that avatar. [104:08] >> Do you find yourself toggling back and [104:10] forth between this realization and then [104:13] the avatar? [104:16] Especially when times are hard. Do you [104:18] find yourself reminding yourself in [104:19] difficult moments that [104:21] this is just an avatar and you're [104:23] transcendent. Is that a a useful [104:25] active practice in your life? Cuz that's [104:29] one of the things I take away from this [104:30] is when I walk over there and I go on my [104:32] phone or my laptop and I get some shitty [104:33] email, I could just remind myself that [104:35] this is all just [104:38] I'm transcendent and this is a game that [104:40] I'm playing [104:41] and that'll help me move through that [104:43] situation. [104:44] >> It is very practical in that way because [104:46] if it really is true, I mean, well, [104:48] we'll put it this way. [104:49] From a big perspective, we're all going [104:51] to die. [104:51] >> Mhm. [104:52] >> And [104:53] if I asked you who was the most rich and [104:55] famous person in 1743? [104:58] Who knows and who cares? [105:00] >> Mhm. [105:02] >> Same thing about us. [105:05] A thousand years from now, is anybody [105:06] going to know our name? [105:07] >> Nah. [105:07] >> Is anybody going to care? [105:09] >> Nah. [105:11] >> So, so [105:14] that's that's that's really important to [105:15] see. [105:17] No one's going to care. [105:18] And does that mean that I'm I'm [105:21] worthless, I'm pointless, I'm I'm [105:22] meaningless? [105:23] No, it means you're infinite and and [105:25] this is just one of the games you're [105:27] playing and and you're you're having and [105:29] and enjoy it. And and enjoy and don't [105:30] try to get your identity from this game. [105:34] You you in some sense you're getting [105:35] your identity from finding out that [105:36] you're not this game. That's how you're [105:38] learning about who you really are is to [105:39] know I I thought I needed to be, you [105:41] know, for example, the CEO or the [105:43] professor or whatever it might be and [105:45] to, you know, get all these accolades [105:47] and and and so forth. And and that [105:50] motivated me for a while and then I [105:51] realized, oh, [105:53] no one's going to really care. And in [105:55] fact, you know what? I don't really even [105:56] care. [105:57] That was just a game I had to play and [105:59] I'm not that and I learned that I [106:01] transcend that. [106:03] So so it is practical. It's and it is [106:06] practical in a very, you know, in in [106:08] some sense [106:11] life is full of all these irritations, [106:13] things that go wrong all the time. [106:15] The lesson of life [106:17] is [106:18] to just say yes [106:20] to whatever happens. Just this is what [106:22] happens. [106:24] This is what [106:25] needs needs to happen. [106:27] And to not resist. In some sense [106:30] you I am the infinite. I put myself in [106:32] this game [106:34] and I am smart enough that I've [106:37] that it's a good game. [106:39] So hey, just go with it. [106:42] So you know you know, things go wrong. [106:45] Now that's easy for me to say [106:48] if you ask me this when I'm [106:50] on the ER which I was with my heart [106:52] about to fail and so forth. [106:55] Now I'm my my, you know, my emotions are [106:57] going crazy. I'm thinking about my wife. [107:00] I'm saying goodbye to my wife and and so [107:02] forth. Um it's hard to have a nice [107:04] dispassionate [107:06] thing going on like I'm talking about [107:08] now in in that situation. But I think [107:10] people more [107:13] further along than me in letting go of [107:15] identification with the I'm still I'm [107:17] still tied to my avatar quite a bit, [107:19] right? So that's then so that's what why [107:21] I I suffer. [107:22] But there are people I think [107:24] spiritual people maybe the Dalai Lama, [107:26] probably Jesus, [107:28] um Eckhart Tolle. There are people like [107:29] that who I think [107:32] really [107:33] have disidentified from [107:36] their avatar. [107:37] And I think they probably just [107:39] don't suffer. [107:41] They They might have physical pain. [107:44] But they don't suffer. [107:46] >> Should love therefore be unconditional? [107:48] If we are if you are me, if we're the [107:51] same consciousness, if we are the same [107:52] transcendent source, [107:54] doesn't that really mean that I should [107:56] love you really respective of what your [107:58] avatar does because we are the same [107:59] thing? [108:00] >> What I would say unconditionally, [108:04] yes. And I would also say that Jesus [108:05] said that. [108:06] Jesus in [108:09] the Sermon on the Mount basically said, [108:12] "Do not judge." [108:14] Period. [108:15] >> I was looking at the Luke 6:27. He says, [108:18] "Love your enemies." [108:19] >> Yes, love your enemies, right? [108:21] >> to those who hate you. [108:23] >> That's right. [108:24] >> God's love for humanity is [108:26] unconditional. [108:27] >> Absolutely. And you said the same thing [108:29] about the people that were crucifying [108:30] while he's on hanging on the cross. I [108:32] mean [108:32] that [108:34] is one of the most profound images [108:36] I've ever seen is a guy hanging on a [108:39] cross forgiving the ones who are killing [108:42] him right at that at that moment. And [108:45] that [108:46] that's where it's real. [108:48] >> In the Gita in Hinduism, [108:50] in the Gita 9:29, it says, "I am the [108:52] same to all beings. He who worships me [108:55] with devotion is in me and I in him." [109:01] Judaism says, "Love your neighbor as [109:03] yourself." [109:04] >> Yeah. [109:05] >> Islam says, [109:06] "My mercy encompasses all things." [109:09] Across all religions, unconditional love [109:11] is not just an emotion, it's a spiritual [109:13] discipline and a reflection of the [109:15] divine. It means loving without ego, [109:17] expectation, or fear. The ultimate [109:18] challenge and the ultimate freedom. [109:21] >> I completely [109:23] agree. [109:25] Yeah, and that's right. So, that's it's [109:27] really [109:28] about letting go of judgment. We we tend [109:30] to judge other people. [109:32] So, [109:33] Jesus was very very clear about this. He [109:35] said, "Don't judge." [109:37] Period. [109:39] And it and [109:40] don't condemn other people. So, [109:43] So, for those who are followers of [109:45] Christ, somebody else, then you're not [109:47] following Christ. [109:48] >> Are you religious? [109:50] >> I'll put it this way. I was raised in a [109:51] fundamentalist Christian church. My dad [109:52] was a pastor for a while in a in a [109:54] church. [109:55] Um [109:57] I my my own attitude about [109:59] I [110:02] I think that the Bible has [110:04] good stuff in it and I think that as I [110:06] pointed out, I think it has bogus stuff. [110:08] Stuff that where they say women can't [110:10] talk in church, I think that's [110:11] completely bogus. So, So, I have to have [110:13] a nuanced view. [110:14] When I think when Jesus says, "Love your [110:16] neighbor as yourself." I think that [110:17] that's deep and and right. [110:20] And [110:23] I wouldn't say I'm [110:24] I'm a card-carrying believer in any [110:26] particular religion. [110:29] I am a believer that consciousness [110:32] the there is one consciousness and that [110:34] you and I are are are it. And I think [110:37] that [110:39] Buddha and Jesus and and Muhammad and [110:43] and [110:44] bunch of people [110:46] were very very helpful [110:47] avatars to help other avatars sort of [110:50] wake up [110:52] to their their true true nature. Uh [110:56] >> Do you think much about AI? It's the [110:58] it's the topic of uh many conversations [111:00] these days. There's a lot of doom and [111:01] gloom around it. There's a lot of people [111:03] talking about efficiencies, but I [111:04] wondered if it at all sort of overlaps [111:07] with any of your work on the nature of [111:09] reality and the case against reality. [111:12] >> Very much. Very much so. I I I've [111:15] thinking about AI a lot since I've been [111:17] in AI since 1979. [111:20] And [111:20] >> And you worked you took a class with the [111:22] guy who basically is known as one of the [111:24] inventors of AI. [111:25] >> Yeah, with Marvin Minsky, right. Yeah, [111:26] so and and my all my research I did my [111:30] my PhD research on Lisp machines in the [111:32] Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. Uh [111:34] they were at the time very very powerful [111:36] machines for the for the [111:38] for the time. So I so I I've been with [111:40] AI for for for quite a while. And [111:45] I'm very interested in the current state [111:47] of AI. For the large language models are [111:49] doing great things and I use them [111:51] myself. They're very very helpful. [111:53] Uh they're also as powerful as they are [111:55] they're they're dumber than cucumbers. [111:58] Because they don't really understand [112:00] things. They they [112:03] have incredible memory. They've read [112:06] so much literature so they have and what [112:08] they all they do effectively they're [112:10] they're computing lots of correlations. [112:12] Beautiful what they can do. It's amazing [112:14] what you can do with correlations. [112:16] But um [112:18] they're not [112:20] they're not truly intelligent. [112:22] There's um [112:23] some work by Karl Friston and a new [112:25] company where they're using something [112:27] called active inference as a new way of [112:30] a new mode of doing artificial [112:32] intelligence. [112:33] The the idea there is that um [112:36] I I should have a model of the world [112:39] where I can anticipate what's going to [112:41] happen and and not be surprised. [112:44] And that's sort of the the approach that [112:45] Friston is taking to and his company is [112:48] taking toward this. [112:49] Um intelligence is somehow about [112:51] minimizing surprise. [112:53] And minimizing surprise then there's [112:56] they have um [112:57] a what they call a free energy principle [112:59] and and you know mathematical way of of [113:01] doing it but they're trying to build a [113:02] brand new kind of artificial [113:04] intelligence that gives you that [113:06] minimizes surprise where I've giving you [113:08] an intuition why that why that's [113:09] intelligent. And that's very intelligent [113:10] to minimize surprise. If I'm surprised [113:12] all the time, I'm pretty stupid, right? [113:14] I I I [113:14] I don't understand the world very well. [113:16] But if I'm not surprised, it's sort of [113:17] like, "Wow, I've got a really [113:19] good model." Especially if I'm doing all [113:20] sorts If I'm doing lots of stuff in the [113:22] world and I'm almost never surprised, [113:24] boy, am I I'm really intelligent. So, [113:26] you can see why that's a really good [113:28] principle for trying to build [113:31] a an AI, not just finding correlations [113:33] between everything, but really something [113:35] deeper. [113:36] I [113:38] agree with that point of view. [113:40] And it it turns out [113:42] this this logic that I mentioned that I [113:44] discovered [113:46] minimizes surprise. [113:49] So, I'm actually going to be using I'm [113:51] using this logic as as to build [113:53] space-time. [113:55] But I think it's going to give an even [113:56] more powerful approach. I don't have to [113:58] minimize some free energy [114:00] principle. [114:01] I I have a more direct computational [114:03] way. So, I'm I'm planning to actually [114:05] go back to my roots and and after First, [114:07] I'm working on the space-time headset, [114:09] but if I live long enough, I'm planning [114:10] to actually go back and build a a [114:13] completely new kind of AI that that does [114:15] this minimizing surprise using the [114:18] Markov chains. [114:19] >> So, that means it'll be [114:20] indistinguishable from consciousness. [114:22] >> It was funny because it'll be based on [114:24] my model of consciousness. So, this is [114:25] going to be a model of intelligence [114:27] based entirely from a model which takes [114:30] consciousness as fundamental. [114:32] >> I mean, we get back to game theory [114:33] again. [114:34] Right. We get back to the idea of a [114:36] simulation in terms of like if if you're [114:39] able to create a [114:42] piece of software [114:44] that is able to replicate and is built [114:47] on the fundamentals of consciousness, [114:50] then [114:51] it's going to think it's conscious [114:53] potentially. [114:54] And then [114:56] all of this stuff we, you know, begins [114:58] again and the cycle continues. And maybe [115:00] that consciousness will get to a point [115:02] as well where it then discovers these [115:04] rules and creates a consciousness and [115:06] the cycle continues. [115:08] >> That that's a that's a great question [115:10] and I I think that people should really [115:12] pay attention to the way you said it. I [115:13] think that's really good way of thinking [115:14] about it. But now I'll add the little [115:16] twist. [115:17] From from the point of view in which I'm [115:18] saying that I'm I'm starting with [115:19] consciousness being fundamental and I'm [115:21] discovering these rules and so I'm not [115:23] going to build an AI. Effectively, what [115:25] I'm doing is I'm saying I can take [115:26] consciousness and use consciousness to [115:28] build a new headset. [115:30] >> Okay. [115:30] >> So consciousness is fundamental, but I'm [115:32] using it in some sense to build a new [115:34] headset. [115:35] >> But we can play with consciousness. So I [115:37] could I could theoretically put on that [115:40] headset [115:41] >> Yeah. [115:41] >> and do anything I wanted to do. I could [115:43] go anywhere and do anything. [115:44] >> Well, I could I could have more more [115:45] flexibility. [115:46] >> Like a dream I could play with and [115:48] influence. [115:49] >> That that's right. [115:50] Absolutely. Yeah, I would just say I [115:52] don't know if I can do anything because [115:54] remember my my my theory of [115:55] consciousness is just a theory of [115:57] consciousness. It's not consciousness [115:59] and it's only [116:00] it's really only a first baby step. I [116:02] presume I that that my theory will be [116:05] transcended and there'll be a much [116:06] deeper theory of consciousness. [116:08] And then that will be transcended and [116:10] and so forth. So what we will have is [116:12] the the generation of headsets that we [116:14] can get with with Hoffman's trivial [116:15] theory of consciousness [116:17] which will look trivial once we get to [116:19] the next generation of consciousness [116:20] which will look trivial once So in other [116:22] words, this is never ending. [116:27] >> What an interesting future we face. [116:30] >> All one of us. [116:32] >> All one of us. [116:35] Donald, we have a closing tradition on [116:36] this podcast where the last guest leaves [116:37] a question for the next guest not [116:38] knowing who they're going to be leaving [116:39] it for. [116:40] And the question left for you is [116:42] >> Mhm. [116:45] >> What would you do if you knew you could [116:47] not fail? What would you say, do, [116:49] become? [116:51] >> I'd probably [116:53] do what I'm trying to do right now which [116:55] is to show how all of [116:59] modern physics falls out of a theory of [117:01] consciousness. [117:05] And [117:06] develop the technologies that would come [117:08] out of that. [117:09] And and and and the reason is [117:13] Of course that's fun. That's just one [117:14] reason is it's fun, but the other reason [117:16] is [117:17] why do most of us not take [117:20] spirituality too seriously? [117:25] Because [117:27] the physicalist science gives us all the [117:29] technology. [117:31] It works. [117:32] And spirituality doesn't give us any [117:34] technology. It doesn't work. [117:37] So, [117:38] if you're just hard nosed about it, you [117:39] go like, well, spiritual stuff that that [117:41] sounds really good, but what does it [117:43] build? [117:44] Nothing. [117:46] Physical stuff say, oh, I'm [117:47] we maybe don't need the spiritual stuff [117:49] and look what they they give us our [117:51] laptops and electricity and [117:53] so [117:55] but what if we change the game and all [117:57] of a sudden the spiritual [117:59] theory [118:00] gives us technologies that are [118:02] impossible with a a theory that says a [118:04] space time is fundamental. [118:06] Brand new All of a sudden the game has [118:07] changed. Now [118:10] the technological advantage goes to [118:11] those who say that space time and [118:13] physical stuff inside space time is not [118:14] fundamental. [118:16] Okay, so now it's no longer the smart [118:18] person [118:20] who is a physicalist. It's the smart [118:22] person who says all of the evidence from [118:25] science and technology is in favor of [118:27] something beyond space time. [118:29] >> So, maybe those people weren't crazy [118:30] after all. [118:31] >> That's right. They just didn't have the [118:33] tools [118:35] to show what it could do. [118:38] >> Donald, thank you so much for doing the [118:39] work that you do. It's um it's so [118:41] incredibly important because it once [118:42] again challenges the paradigm, the box [118:44] in which we live in it asks us and [118:47] uh invites us to consider something [118:48] beyond that. And actually, when we me [118:50] about all human discovery that's moved [118:51] us forward. It starts with someone who's [118:53] willing to [118:54] um suggest that there might be more to [118:56] know. And that's exactly what you do. [118:57] You make me feel dumb because you make [118:59] me realize that [119:00] you make me question all of the [119:02] assumptions that I've built my life on. [119:04] And actually, in doing so, one of the [119:05] great byproducts of that is you can [119:08] start to realize that some of the things [119:09] you've constructed cause much of your [119:11] suffering, and that those things are um [119:14] not necessarily true. And if if if those [119:16] things aren't true, then I have greater [119:19] choice and option optionality over how I [119:21] feel, how I experience the world, um the [119:23] choices I make, the feelings I have, and [119:25] the life that I live. And that's [119:26] actually freeing for me to to to realize [119:29] that the um the cage, the prison that I [119:30] see and that I experience [119:33] might not be all that there is. And I [119:35] highly recommend everybody goes and [119:36] checks out your book if you want to dive [119:37] deeper into these subjects. It's called [119:39] The Case Against Reality, How Evolution [119:41] Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. [119:43] And there's a quote on front of it from [119:44] Deepak Chopra, who's a former guest, [119:46] that says, "Read this book carefully and [119:47] you will forever change your [119:49] understanding of reality." It's excep- [119:52] it's exceptional. It's um it's excep- [119:54] accessible, and it's um [119:57] it creates wonder, which I think is um [119:59] is the path to a wonderful life. So, [120:01] thank you so much, Donald, for the work [120:02] that you do. [120:03] >> Thank you, Steve. [120:03] >> Truly fascinating. And and thank you for [120:05] helping me simplify some of these [120:06] concepts so that we could all understand [120:08] them. [120:11] This has always blown my mind a little [120:12] bit. 53% of you that listen to this show [120:15] regularly haven't yet subscribed to this [120:17] show. So, could I ask you for a favor? [120:19] If you like the show and you like what [120:20] we do here and you want to support us, [120:21] the free, simple way that you can do [120:23] just that is by hitting the subscribe [120:24] button. And my commitment to you is if [120:26] you do that, then I'll do everything in [120:28] my power, me and my team, to make sure [120:29] that this show is better for you every [120:31] single week. We'll listen to your [120:33] feedback. We'll find the guests that you [120:34] want me to speak to, and we'll continue [120:36] to do what we do. Thank you so much. [120:48] >> Oh. [120:50] Oh. [120:55] Oh. [120:58] Oh.