The Weekend University
Prof. Donald Hoffman is Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, and the author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence, and The Case Against Reality.
Prof. Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science. His new book: Being You has won several awards and was a Sunday Times Bestseller.
This conversation explores parallels in their theories of consciousness but also the areas where their thinking diverges.
The topics covered include:
— How the reality we experience every day is an illusion
— Whether or not artificial intelligence will ever become conscious
— Mathematical proof that the space-time paradigm is doomed and the early research investigating what might be underneath.
— The practical implications of Donald’s and Anil’s theories – both for society and for every day life.
And more.
You can learn more about Anil’s work at https://anilseth.com/ and follow Donald on X at @donalddhoffman.
Anil’s book: https://bit.ly/3Sw0Ogp
Donald’s book: https://bit.ly/3SCwTTA
—
Prof. Donald Hoffman, PhD received his PhD from MIT, and joined the faculty of the University of California, Irvine in 1983, where he is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences. He is an author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including Visual Intelligence, and The Case Against Reality. He received a Distinguished Scientific Award from the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. His writing has appeared in Edge, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Scientific American and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. You can watch his TED Talk titled “Do we see reality as it is?” and you can follow him on Twitter @donalddhoffman.
Anil Seth is Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and the Co-Director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science. He is a Wellcome Trust Engagement Fellow, and a Senior Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. Professor Seth is Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience of Consciousness, sits on the steering group and advisory board of the Human Mind Project, and was President of the British Science Association Psychology Section in 2017.
He is the author of ‘Being You” (https://amzn.to/3E4PI8K), the co-author of the ‘30 Second Brain’, and contributes regularly to a variety of media including New Scientist, The Guardian, and the BBC. His 2017 TED talk has been viewed more than 9 million times. Professor Seth’s research bridges neuroscience, mathematics, artificial intelligence, computer science, psychology, philosophy and psychiatry. He has also worked extensively with playwrights, dancers and other artists to shape a truly humanistic view of consciousness and self.
You can keep up to date with his work at http://www.anilseth.com.
—
Timestamps:
00:00 – Intro
00:33 – Understanding Consciousness
08:57 – Prof. Seth on Consciousness
17:07 – Exploring Consciousness
21:08 – Theories on Consciousness
27:19 – Beyond Space-time Perspectives
31:41 – Emergence and Scientific Explanation
37:58 – Consciousness in AI
51:30 – Death in a Conscious Universe
58:16 – Consciousness and Existential Perspectives
—
Interview Links:
— Prof Hoffman’s profile: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff
— Prof Hoffman’s book: https://bit.ly/3SCwTTA
— Prof Seth’s website: http://www.anilseth.com/
— Prof Seth’s book: https://bit.ly/3Sw0Ogp
Source
If our perception is a headset, then why would we believe that math can say anything outside of the reality we perceive?
Don at about 19 min
what is the probability that if I see a neuron that means in objective reality there are neurons …
Objective reality is known primarily through sense experience.
The probability of my chainsaw cutting wood without a spark plug is zero.
Knowledge of objective realty (causality) stems from experience
especially sense experience
All parts must be in place for the chain of causality to cut wood.
Each mind needs to know the necessity of sense experience to keep itself grounded in objective reality.
sincerely
d
See article "consciousness arises as intrinsic property of magnetism." See Dewey Larson Reciprocal Systems Theory of Space and Time. light is s/t +1. For Kant, time is a priori intuition!!! 3 different systems all locking perfectly together….
God shared with me that the brain doesn't provide us with consciousness, that it has none, he shared that there brain strictly assist the body in other ways, he shared that the soul enters the body before it is formed and is the consciousness of the body. Just consider all of the reports of near death experiences and the reports of spiritual people journeying out of their bodies, each one report being conscious and out of the body where the brain is
More brain rot for the gullible and uneducated
So it sounds as if Hoffman is just pretending to be pragmatic (because he wants to understand the cause of chocolate taste etc) but in all likelihood he wants to cash in on the ‘consciousness survives death’ grift. Regarding taste – this is more likely explained using the Seth reasoning rather than magical abstract geometry
The host is conflating space-time with reductionism. The statement from Hoffman that “space-time is doomed ” is in fact a reductionist statement
Anil Seth seems to me more softy and sweety than Donald Hoffman but each of them are very smart!
While everybody's pondering these heavy questions, take a moment to just realize that we are all very likely to die in a nuclear holocaust in the next two or three years.
We are afraid to die because we want to live and expirience what a human life can offer. And because of people we love each etc.
Can diffirent interpretations of the data we receive change future outcomes??? All that manifistation stuff .. about health, money etc. From the point of view the virtual reality.
Reality doesn't hold true beyond the mind.
I have been following Hoffman for a decade and I would put my money on his ideas.
Consciousness goes on after the brain stops. People under brain surgery can tell what was going during the in the operation and bring in new information. Just research NDE and/or read about the verified reincarnation stories where 2-3 year old kids can give accurate information about their previous lives. Given these unreasoanable instances it's reasonable to think of consciousness as an entity that can go beyond the skull, time and space. I think we are a biological manifestation of a mathematical radiation.
I wonder if Hoffman should consider using a different term instead of consciousness to describe the essence of everything
I think this discussion is not about the same definition of consciousness. Anil's is a material off on switch. Except his definition kind of falls apart because the type of material conscious he is defining still exists running thou organs while part of the brain shuts down under anesthesia. You could argue that anesthesia is only temporary blocking brain perception of consciousness. In which that is anesthesias purpose, to block certain neurotransmitters. It does not stop Donald's conscious entity, whatever that is, from existing. I think Donald's theory of a consciousness being the 1st mover/cause is good, with exception of what the hell is his described consciousness. You could claim spooky energy, but just like claiming gods, where is it's 1s cause, how do we test said energy's power and so on?
❤
What Im seeing here is that Anil is coming at the question of consciousness from the bottom up whereas Donald is coming at it from the top down. Blindfolded, each are explaining the elephant from a different points of touch, but both are still talking abpout an elephant, an elephant yet to be seen, maybe?
I think the question whether AI can become conscious is the wrong question. I think the question ought to be whether AI can have a self-identity, an ego if you will. Consciousness is much more vast than that in my experience, such that the mere possibilty that particles can relate in such a way to create any intelligence might be where Consciousness takes part in the possibility that AI, trees rocks and humans even exist. Consciousness is just the wrong word here, The question is whether can any of these things can have an Illusion of a self separate from the Universe; an island in the ocean of existence, We are coming at the challenge from the wrong angle. That's my sense of the whole problem.
I'm team Hoffman
I love watching & listening to Donald Hoffman, regardless of whether I agree with him or not, because he approaches everything with humility… and clearly from the position that nothing is truly known for a certainty. He's not defending a position, he's discussing ideas and opinions. It was really discouraging to see Anil Seth being so aggressive… so clearly chomping at the bit to jump on any opportunity to attack. Someone close to him should tell him it makes him look desperate, it makes him look terrified.. not confident. Anil clearly has an opinion to defend, ideas to attack.. and it just makes him look like he's worried he won't sell as many books if he doesn't "win". That's not science, that's politics.. or even worse… it's branding. Yes or No. With us or against us. There's no place for that in these discussions… unless you absolutely know you're 100% right… right? And who is arrogant enough to think that? Aggressive politics and "branding" is great for selling books… not so much for science. Sorry Anil… don't mean to be so hard on you.. but seriously, have you watched how you behaved in this interaction?
People want Hoffman to be correct so badly the bias towards his fantastical ideas is kind of cringe.
Oh man. Hoffman doesn't concretely describe anything about consciousness that you couldn't possibly explain, create or approach using a level of scale separation (I.e. chosen level of description that isn't necessarily the most fundamental), but chooses to insist that you must seek the explanation at the deepest levels of the most edgy Physics you can currently conceive of. To me, this sounds a lot like a God of the Gaps approach (picking theoretical particle physics as God). I'll put my bets on Anil Seth any day.
Btw, scale separation is really about understanding what is the highest (most abstract) level of description at which you can still capture and explain emergent phenomena. One typically tries to find the highest (most abstract) level where that still work in order to have reasonable explanatory power and to easily work with models. It is strange, and possibly driven by other motives, to immediately claim that only the most fundamental level is the relevant level for scale separation.
Don🙌🩵🙌
watched a dozen experts start off by ridiculing DH slowly realising during the discussion that none of their theories are able to disprove or diminish his argument They in turn get frustrated even angry as the inadequacy of words and grudgingly they accept that Hoffman theory raises niggling doubts even partly in their own minds
Super inspiring. Thanks for sharing! Can also highly recommend this podcast and show with Anil Seth, where he talks about consciousness, and whether plants, animals and AI are in fact conscious? https://youtu.be/RnfVQJrK_Cw?si=L3-72VbEOoCmxFpq