Donald Hoffman - What is Consciousness?

Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness?



Donald D. Hoffman is a Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[GabrielRodrigues-roep]

Good to know everyone in the comment section already solved the hard problem of consciousness. Guess it wasn't so hard after all.

[CheapRVliving]

That was by far the best explanation I have ever heard of the Hard Problem. This man is a born teacher and thinker.

[onreality]

I like Hoffman's approach to the mind/body 'problem': rather than throw out consciousness in order to preserve mainstream materialism/physicalism (which, as he says, require an unwarranted 'miracle for the emergence of consciousness) he instead attempts to build a mathematical bridge from the other direction, by assuming consciousness is fundamental. I respect his approach and, as someone who spends a lot of time pondering the metaphysics of our existence, I find his insights tremendously inspiring.

[KingaGorski]

I don’t know how I only just discovered Donald Hoffman but I’m on a YT binge of his interviews and I’m not mad about it.

[paulcuntt]

Why doesn't this get more attention? THIS IS HUGE

[brunotrotti]

Awesome, please never stop doing videos. Congrats

[waedjradi]

He's a favorite when it comes to the topic of consciousness.

[danielpaulson]

I find Hoffman's work very interesting and appealing. I have his book, "The case against reality" on audible. Honestly, it's over my head and I keep going back for bits and pieces, growing my own neural pathways as I try to figure out all of his points. But he is very disarming and honest. His theories are fun and his complete interest is intended to advance our understanding of consciousness, and by his own admission, he may be wrong. We don't know for sure. It's a hard problem. At least, True and honest science is spoken here.

[dhammaboy]

I’ve not come across Hoffman before but what an excellent communicator and humble yet clearly brilliant man!

[zenanon]

Hoffman's theories about consciousness are very interesting to me. He's a really smart student of consciousness.

[Topher_]

The soothing birds just adds to this awesome conversation. Loved his 4 hour podcast with Sam Harris and Annaka Harris.

[marcobrambilla]

When I listen to professor Hoffman I understand his questions but not his answers

[silentbullet]

The universe is energy, energy is information, and consciousness is organized information with which we perceive matter, which is also energy.

[continentalgin]

Hoffman is one of my favorite scientists in the Closer To Truth series. I really think he's a pioneer and his concept is real. He's a brilliant guy.

[abhishekshah]

But I guess if Consciousness is fundamental, Hoffman's ambition of formulating a mathematical theory might be too far fetched. Why shouldn't Consciousness behave like the multiverse hypothesis, spawning a multitude of Universes, with different laws of physics and physical constants. Why should math be able to define fundamental reality, where consciousness gives existence to math itself, making it a subset of consciousness. If Consciousness is fundamental, we must accept that truly nothing you can say can encompass it, because by definition, it was already contained inside of concsiousness.

[MichaelKorolov]

Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Seth Lloyd, David Chalmers are my favorites. I think they pursue the most promising approach and push the frontier.

[earl_ankrah_]

The most scientific/intellectual discussion I've watched yet on this pertinent subject of human existence.

[theliamofella]

I really hope Hofmann is correct about this theory, because consciousness being fundamental could just maybe give consciousness after death a possibility

[GUPTAYOGENDRA]

1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in a dream.
2. A dream, Including every body living in the dream is observed by consciousness which is not a part of the dream.
3. The universe, including every body living in the universe is also observed by consciousness which is not a part of the universe.

[DrunkenUFOPilot]

Just discovered Prof. Hoffman and his work on metarising. Came here to find out more, at least at a general introduction level. This is excellent! I've always took the consciousness as primary approach when thinking about reality, metaphysics, scientific mysteries. I know others have taken that approach, including actual philosophers and a few scientists, not just self-appointed armchair philosophers like me. [Takes a couple puffs on the pipe while deciding what to pontificate on next]

So, I had this insight years ago, shortly after leaving grad school. Already believed consciousness, or something like it, was fundamental, since I was a kid and could form such notions. I was reading about neuroscience, physics, and other topics, wondering how far the mechanistic, quantum, material mind-from-matter approach might go. Believing it would fail in the end, but maybe provide insights along the way.

Belief turned into certainty in my conscious mind. [Pokes pipe into the air to emphasize the point]

Neurons firing are mechanism. Whether electronic, mechanic, electrochemical, whatever, it's just blinkenlights. Unthinking matter following simple laws of behavior at the component level. No matter how many components, how they are arranged, in layers, feedback loops, hierarchical layers of multi-level recurrent chaotic feedback loops, whatever, it's still just blinkenlights. A simple input may trigger a long and fascinating light show, affected greatly by the system's history, but still, blinkenlights. It can be contrived in arrangement and function to imitate thinking processes, to play chess or translate Russian into Japanese. No materialism based theory can possibly explain consciousness, the real thing. There will be correlations, sure, but just what are the correlates? We have deep knowledge of the matter-quantum-blinkenlight side, but airy wavy-handed mystic-talk about the other side, or the only side if what I suspected was true. Could there be a scientific way to start on the other side, with consciousness and work out to the matter side? [Takes an long draw on the pipe while looking toward the past]

In the following years I had interesting discussions with fellow self-appointed armchair philosophers, and actual philosophy professors too, at the Theosophical Society, book discussion groups, and churches of the kind where such questions are welcome and explored. A lot of bad ideas go around, some good ideas, some great questions, but no real understanding at a scientific level of what apparently must remain subjective experiential experience. "Experiential experience" because just "experience" doesn't quite do it, if you get what I mean.

Now it looks like Prof. Hoffman has found a way to make some progress on all this. I'll be reading his works as time allows in the near future. This video was fantastic as an general overview of his approach. [Taps gunk in pipe into wastebasket] Well, I better get back to work. Nice having this chat with you!

[Hey, I don't smoke a pipe, or smoke anything, so why was I writing these pipe-smoking comments? Odd. Mysteries no one will ever understand...]