Actually Bertrand Russell says, in his chapter on Pythagoras, that it was the mathematical dimension of Greek philosophy that differentiates it from Eastern traditions, and is one of the principle reasons that it gave rise to modern science (which has now, however, forgotten its Platonist origins). — Wayfarer

If Russell actually intimidated or actually said this, it shows how poor Western education was and continues to be. Incredibly myopic. It reminds me of the world history books I read which cover Western Europe .. period. Ditto for the histories of philosophies.

Technology is just a fancy shovel. It's not living. Life requires life to continue to live and create and it self-organizes in order to do this. As for what it's natural? Well, as with everything, it is in the eyes of the beholder, and there really are beholders and lots of them each with an opinion. I guess for me, natural is something that maintains or increases health. But that is me. To much in front of a computer screen is really bad for health (oh, those backaches!). But that is just me.

The only way to fully appreciate the materialist-determinist point of view is to discontinue the use of pronouns when discussing anything. Forget about survival which is simply one of a myriad things that minds do (consciousness is a very poor symbolic lexicon because of the numerous psychological uses).

For example, the soup of chemicals magically came together and decided that it would like lie down to be amused by the Simpsons.

Or, different soups of chemicals magically bumped into each other and all of a sudden started to fight against entropy and organize it self long enough to casually discuss with each other about whether they have minds. One group of chemicals all of a sudden created wonderous illusions so it would think it would have a mind while the other group did not spontaneously create such illusions so it would magically tell the other group of chemicals that it has illusions.

Such is the naturalness of the magical, fantasy land of the Wonderful World of Materialism. Viewing the world as it actually is. Now, one has to ask, who has the more vivid imagination: Hans Christian Anderson or those who invented this preposterous tale of Chemicals that Came to Life? Isn't it easier to believe in unicorns? And why isn't materialism taught in elementary schools without the use of pronouns. We want to be precise don't we? Maybe because all of the children would start laughing hysterically? Or maybe their parents would be shocked?

Thanks, any time I'm told that I have a special gift (which is exceedingly rare), I will not hesitate to take that as a compliment. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm just thrilled that we have a significant thread that treats minds and humans as real and not just robotic computers that are emeshed in some sort of universal illusion created by .... robotic computers??

I agree with your analysis and anyone who spends just a minimum amount of time analyzing selective evolution will quickly realized how preposterous it is. Even evolutionary biologists are running away from this theory even though it is still bring taught in schools as facts, simply because it is a nice simple story that can be taught to children in opposition to the equally fascinating story of biblical Genesis. Both religions are c competing for young minds.

With that said, it is clear thanks in every day we are constantly using our creative minds to figure out how to adapt to different conditions of all types, some relating to economic conditions and others that are totally parenthetical. Today I tried to figure out how to adapt to a new table tennis table. It's really remarkable how successfully science had peddled this natural selection nonsense.

As for all the self-love that humans have for its own species, I would say from where I stand it is a giant embarrassment to be associated with it.

I think it's more that he wishes to present his thesis in the terms his audience will understand, and so has created a mathematical model, justified with relation to evolutionary theory, which is the only kind of model that the audience he wishes to impress will take seriously. If he instead spoke about the issue in purely philosophical terms, he would then be simply another guy in the philosophy department, with the resulting loss of prestige and social kudos. This way, he gets to wear 'the white coat of authority'. — Wayfarer

I guess in this case we are talking less about the selfish gene and more the urge to impress gene, both of which evolved naturally through selective evolution.

Thanks for taking the time to articulate your views. It seems there are two primary threads in Hoffman's approach:

1) Consciousness is primary, fundamental, irreducible. No way to get around this. There is no way to have consciousness to spontaneously emerge from some soup of dead chemicals and out of no where develop this extraordinary "desire to survive". Ok, this and an endless number of other objects make the scientific model pretty far fetched and it would be ceremoniously rejected as fantasy if it was not so heavily marketed by the neurological medical industry. There's a lot of money riding on this model so the science behind their model has become entirely goal seeking while building an impregnable, moat around its idea (it's very, very big and very, very, complex, and it took a very, very, long time).

2) Then he goes on and tries to couch this simple idea with suffocating verbiage which is self-contradictory within a single paragraph concerning the precise nature of consciousness. This for me is usually a a red flag. Internal contradictions hidden with excessive verbiage and complicated mathematics is almost always a sign of obfuscation.

I would say he probably has one or two ideas which could be presented in a single slide that are derivative of those of others. Nothing new and nothing that even approaches the precision of description of Bergson and Robbins. I would say the only real merit of his presentation is that there is another philosopher who is willing to state, though not clearly, that the neurological model rests on quicksand and there is no reason to buy into it or take it seriously. Consciousness (mind) had to be considered fundamental.

In terms of philosophy, I prefer succinctness and clarity. If someone had something interesting and new to say, then say it so that everyone can understand it. On the other hand, I take this type verbosity and obfuscation as well as obvious internal contradictions as a sign of weakness. Once in a while I am blown away with a simple new thought that may take one sentence to state. In this case, I understand the gimmick but nothing new.

he's decided on what he believes and then supports in what may well add up to pseudo-scientific terminology. (I don't know for sure, as I'm not well versed enough in maths to judge it, but that's my intuitive feel for it.) — Wayfarer

This was my first reaction. He tries to hard to be acceptable to academia. But who can blame him considering what academia (dominated by materialists) had done to everyone who has dated challenge the supremacy of materialism-determinism. They positively crucify everyone who introduces a concept that is not hard-circuited.

As a result, the whole presentation feels almost apologetic in characteristic. I prefer the way Sheldrake treats his inquisators and taunts then for their clownish antics. But by far the most awesome dissection of the question of perception has to be Stephen Robbins's. It's dry, but extremely precise and actually provides a true model using Bergson's insights as the core. Truly way ahead of their times.

You asked for types of constraints. So I used some dinner examples. I could have said trying to barbeque without a fire. There are multitude of constraints both internal and external. All you need to do is observe your choices and how they are constrained. Maybe driving against a red light?

Yes, it is just we are not free to live the life we choose. We can only try.

Going through a brick wall. Stealing a wallet. Flying off a building. A choice can be made to try with unpredictable consequences. It is like the ship in the Perfect Storm when confronted by the huge wave.

It depends on how one thinks of free.

I can make Choices (in which direction), which are constrained, and I have Will to attempt to effect those choices. The results are never known until after they occur. It's all about learning to be a skilled seafar.

We all face all types of constraints in our lives. Living a life is much like navigating ocean waters. We do our best and learn from experience.

What I like most is the idea that I can live whatever type of life I want, — anonymous66

This. There are limitations and constraints.

What I like most is the idea that I can live whatever type of life I want, that I'm free to pursue (or not pursue) whatever system of philosophy I like. Of course, the flip-side is to acknowledge that I'm totally responsible for my choices. I can't blame anyone else for the choices I make or the consequences that follow. — anonymous66

This I am afraid flies in the face of everyday experience. We do make choices but so does everyone else and we are constrained by the choices we make. The best we can do is to try to make movement in the direction of our choices. Outcomes are always unknown.

There are all kinds of people who act in all sorts of ways. There as many types as drops in the ocean with enumerable gradations. Economic security is a major motivator for many and how one perceives the causes of their situation does effect the way one perceives other people. For billions of people it is very rough and they will react to their circumstances in a myriad of ways.

That's what I meant when I said he isn't fully conversant. He he just repeating what he read elsewhere. Bohm' himself write it is causal but non-deterministic. It has to be so since the quantum potential, the initial conditions, is defined as a real probabilistic wave. The probabilistic aspect, Bohm said, could be consciousness.

I tried watching the whole lecture but it is so muddy, I just couldn't. He is trying too hard to be acceptable. A far, far better exposition of the problem and possible theory of perception begins here:

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

I should really point out that I don't necessarily believe in determinism, I am just yet to hear an acceptable scientific explanation of how we can account for genuine agent control in an indetermistic universe. — Mike Adams

The agent is precisely what you experience every day in you life. Call it what you will, consciousness, your mind, the Elan vital, or that which is choosing. The label matters not. You are the agent that is making choices. That which is peering out through your eyes.

What I was wanted to point out that the only reason the super-fantastical Exponentially-Forever Growing- Infinity-Worlds (scientists are being very modest when they refer to it as Many-World) is taken seriously at all is because determinists need it in light of quantum theory and they are desperate. But no matter what, in this world, everything remains probabilistic.

Bohm's quantum mechanics interpretation is very straightforward. It is causal because everything is real, there is no collapse. The quantum potential which guides the "election" (the election can be considered a wave perturbation) is defined by form not distance so it acts in all directions and all distances equally (non-local action). Any change in the quantum potential will immediately affect the election (this explains the Delayed Choice experiment). The equation itself is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation with different ontological implications. Here is a video which explains how it might all work. It's not precise because the narrator doesn't really understand Bohm, but it is good enough as a starting point.

Modern science, relativity theory, and process philosophy, all tend to lead us toward the conclusion that objects are produced by human perception. So if we want to maintain the realist assumption of real independent objects, we must find the physical basis for this assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Using Bohm's Interpretation, not Copenhagen, we have real world that mind is actually viewing. But the real world may be nothing like the image we see just as a hologram is nothing like the image that we see when the reconstructive beam is passed through it. The mind does a transformation.

Many minds will see approximately the same thing, because the brain which is creating the reconstructive is approximately the same, but also different. Different enough in perspective and construction that each mind will perceive something different.

These images permeate consciousness throughout a living organism.

Where Hoffman totally falls apart is where he waffles between conscious agents everywhere and declaring in the same breath not everywhere. Admittedly even Bergson had troubles with this, but he did provide some details by declaring matter as the Elan Vital (mind) moving in the direction against self- organization/creativity.

But if you consider the sheer numbers of atoms in a small piece of coal, or the space between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons, of the size of the universe etc things outside our tiny scale seem far less ridiculous. — Mike Adams

I am totally OK with flights of fantasy in science and philosophy, but if we are to start taking seriously a quantum theory interpretation that calls for a continuous formation of infinity upon infinity of newly made worlds without any evidence or any hope of ever having any evidence, just for the sake of having a determinist theory to hang some hope on, then we should also begin to take seriously the infinity of God, that provides equal determinism and equal hope. Fair is fair.

On the other hand over can instead choose to explore Bohm's interpretation which is causal, non-deterministic, and which is the only one that not only predicts non-locality (already observed) as well as provides explains away all the weirdness in a very straightforward manner, e.g the delayed choice experiment, non-local spooky action, etc.).

The big problem with Bohm's interpretation is that it allows for choice, something that the materialists-determinists just cannot accept because it is contrary to their faith, and faith is exactly all they have to hold onto - other than the fantasy of infinity upon infinity of new worlds springing out of no where continuously. Science indeed has become goal oriented just like the teachings of the Church.

So you or your family have never taken even an aspirin? You or your family have never had a vaccination? Honestly? — apokrisis

We didn't have a bottle for 30 years. Recently, I took about 6 over a two day period. Probably didn't need two, but I figure aspirin had been around for 150 years. I would rather have the natural form though, not synthetic. My wife had no need. Other than this, the closet pharmaceuticals is in Walgreens. BTW, I stopped drinking coffee which I started drinking after 35 years. That was the problem. No doctor needed.

Having studied health for 35 years, I've concluded the the mind permeates the body and if conditions are present, the mind will heal itself one cell at a time, which kind of gets us back on topic. The trick is one had to be very astute in understanding causes am having patience. The good physicians of old, the ones I grew up with and barely ever saw, understood this. The result is a very healthy mind/body that heals on its open. I treat all drugs as toxic.

Nope, no one would go to the hospital. We all agree on that.

As for the mind healing itself, that is precisely the only thing that actually heals. It takes lifestyle changes, good food, good water, proper movement, low stress. The World Health Organisation agrees. But, with that said, if you wish to fill your diet with drugs, it is of no mind to me. I take care of my family. No illnesses, no physicians.

A good philosopher is observant, has developed good intuition, and questions everything. No stone left unturned. This is evolution.

Anyway, in today's news:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/insys-fentanyl-mccaskill-investigation/

Haven't used Big Pharma of any sort in 35 years. Ditto for the rest of my family and we are substantially healthier than those who do. It is a matter of knowledge and not to be taken in by fear that the medical industry pitches, e.g., "If you don't do it you will DIE", which is basically the pitch in your post. It works. Cancer is always a good fear generator and fantastic money maker. The largest gains in cancer are with long cancer because people simply stopped smoking (once the science behind safe smoking collapsed as it was revealed as a fraud).

The U.S spends twice per capita on medicine than other developed nations with the absolutely the worse life expectancy. And it should be noted the same in European countries alternative modalities such as homeopathy and acupuncture are covered by insurance. Science changes as it crosses the ocean. An interesting phenomenon to observe.

Oh, I thought you would call me a crackpot. Nice change of pace.I realize that there is a belief that money never corrupts, and $trillions of money absolutely never, ever corrupts, but I stand opposing this view.

Yes, transferance of wealth from the people to preserve the wealth of the super-rich as been the objective of all types of governments since ancient times.

Normally it is tolerated as a matter of life but at times, such as today's world, it has reached such extremes that it is creating a huge amount of social unrest as wealth inequity had reached extreme conditions last seen during the period before the Great Depression. The consequences if this "theft" is unclear, but it had never ended well in the past.

The problem with Western culture is that it tries to define everything, or everything deemed worthwhile, in scientific terms - if you can't measure it, it isn't real. But one can acknowledge that whilst still respecting science. — Wayfarer

Science is one data point but like any data point, the source has to be considered. To my mind it had been so polluted my money it is no longer trustworthy. That is not too say that v there may not be some laboratory experimentalist somewhere slaving away trying to find something new (as I do in my own way) but I have learned that anyone who has an idea that may disrupt the huge money interests will be quickly be labeled a "crackpot" and disenfranchised (luckily it may be able to actually still hear these new ideas in YouTube). It would be unwise in the world we love in today to trust anything coming out of an industry that had become totally beholden to big money. It would be like someone trusting someone in the banking industry. Neither holds the merit it once enjoyed maybe 70 years ago.

Science is no longer a process of discovery, instead it has become goal seeking.

Whatever veridical truths science arrives at must be respected by philosophy, otherwise that philosophy cannot endure. — Wayfarer

It is because the science industry nowadays controls the educational process, and this is what is drummed into everyone from elementary school. It is not an accident. There is a mega industry that is being protected and watchdogs everywhere to protect it.

However, there are very broad areas across which we do indeed find common experiences, which is essential to science. — Wayfarer

John Bell (of Bell's Theorem) coined a phrase for this: Good enough for all practical purposes (FAPP). That is, if we limit the observation for what it's essential, it is good enough. I ask for a one foot piece of longer. It's it good enough. Yes. Is it exactly one foot? Well then we get into all kinds of issues.

Similarly, with Hoffman. If we limit ourselves, we can reach some consensus. What color is his hair? What did he say? What did he mean?? It can vary.

As for science. Well tolerance of variances and what makes consensus is truly all over the place and is greatly affected by biases and of course money. I read the actual studies and it is amazing how wildly different results can be, if for no other reason than it is almost impossible to replicate - and in any case it is almost never done. But this is a matter for philosophical explorers to discover for themselves.

In some cases, great precision is sought, as in the case of particle location in the early 20th century. And what they found was that it was impossible to find, hence we must settle for good enough FAPP. If there is a real object out there (and I believe there is) each person will necessarily see it differently because we all occupy a different point of perception. Or we can say the experiment is constantly changing.

Hoffman is saying, however, that we should consider consciousness as fundamental and irreducible, which apparently is becoming a more popular conception of the nature of the universe.

And I realise that mass increase is relative to the observer, but everyone is the observer, which means it mass increased, period. — MikeL

You may not realize it, but you have hit upon the reason Special Relativity has no ontological relevance. There is no Twin Paradox because there is no preferred frame of reference.

This may make no sense to you right now, because you are beginning your investigations. Just remember your insight because it is on the right track. In a nutshell, Relativity addresses transformation of measurements and its description of space and time are not real space and time. They are only symbolic. Just remember this. I think it may be too early for you to entirely grasp it.

So, the idea that everytime there is a quantum event, which is happening continuously everywhere in the universe, a new world is created for every possibility of that event, seems reasonable. Yes, now we need to discuss plausibility, taken in consideration that the sole reason for such an interpretation is to maintain some possibility of determinism in this mega-worlds ( not even the universe we live in). It's pretty ridiculous, but on this fine forum it is taken seriously. Why? So maintain nice relationships with determinists. Yes, let's consider this as simply weird, when in fact it is preposterous so the determinists can present such an interpretation which has yet to find any kind of definition whatsoever.

In response to previous assertions that the reality of multiple universe is 'craziness' is it any more crazy than any of the other interpretations?! (Cat both dead/alive etc) — Mike Adams

Much, much crazier than Bohm's straightforward causal non-deterministic interpretation.

Bohm's interpretation implies non-locality which has been experimentally observed at the molecular level. It is also no-deterministic which drives the determinists crazy. As a result they come up with this interpretation which requires an infinitly ever-growing exponentially mega-world interpretation which indeed it's still probabilistic but deterministic in this fantasized infinite-world interpretation. It demonstrates how far materialists-determinists are willing to go to preserve their beliefs. I would say God is much more reasonable.

the Everett interpretation does seem to be more parsimonious than — SophistiCat

This implies that creating a new world for every quantum event, or smearing every thing across infinite works comprising some mega-universe of some sort is parsimonious. Others may call such a theory as unimaginably elaborate.

This is the trouble with this kind of talk. It is without sense but the lack of sense takes a bit of fine surgery to unpick. That's why we need Wittgenstein - a real one, with objective, observer-independent features 'n' all. — Cuthbert

As things stand, each person perceives and understands Donald Hoffman differently, which is different from how he perceives himself. That is why people disagree. There is no objective observer, not even Hoffman himself.

There is a reality independent of my perceptions, — Cuthbert

Probably so, but everyone perceives it differently.

Mike, if you stick with your original question as it relates to current particle theory v it may provide you with some interesting insights.

Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — Donald Hoffman

Actually pretty close to what is happening. What can be said it's that there exists a field that behaves in a certain manner depending upon different conditions. In itself, it is nothing.

When viewed as a reception/transmission vehicle for the mind, then it's value take shape. In it as itself, it is nothing and despite materialist fantasies it doesn't magical take on human characteristics. It needs the mind just as a TV needs the TV studio transmission. By itself, the TV is a dead box which if course can be made even deader it the wrong person starts tinkering with it without understanding what is going on. There are no humans hidden in the TV set.

I know, it's tough being made a fool of by a beginner. Tell me again about my big beginner's mistake?

The complexity becomes an argument for why the complexity exists in the first place. It makes no sense. — John Days

Yes, it is a big closet they can hide in. It's do, so, big, and complex. Someday.

Ah TRILLIONS of connections is where that elusive Cartesian Theater lies now. — schopenhauer1

Yes, materialists always hide their Designer in Very Big, Very Complex, and Very Long Time. But despite the bluster, there remains zero evidence that conscious can arise magically from matter. It would indeed be a miracle. It is as one scientist confessed at the beginning of the video you linked to: He is a scientist, he wants to believe, he has to believe, for the sake of science it has to be. Out of the mouth of babes,it is all faith. Nice video. I bookmarked it for this confession alone. Must have been a weak moment.

OK. Enjoy your exploration into the issue.