(I categorized it by closest category that seemed fit)
Why you don’t create reality, why there is reality and why it might not be what you think. And a great update on what’s going on lately in these fields. Cognitive science ftw
In my opinion, to which I am obviously not entitled, which I am stealing the rights for anyway : Cognitive science is right there parallel next to Psychophysics and close neighbor to Astrology.
Can probably ignore the guy’s holy emphasis on mathematics, the dude is obviously in a long term relationship with math, hence his reverence. And no it’s not “reality is a simulation” that’s an oxymoron, which means the concept is axiomatically bullshit.
Just curious, why would his ideas about reality be so horrible to you? To me, intuitively, it makes total sense. It’s the only thing that has ever made the most sense.
The whole thing is a game we’re playing with ourselves. Ourselves being the universe itself, plugging itself into avatars to experience itself.
And this is why language doesn’t do a great job at explaining ideas like this. Because in my brain it fills in all the gaps, all the pieces fall into place, but the idea is pretty hard to get across to others. It’s mainly because most people can’t get over the identification with the ego, their delusional construct of individuality based on nothing more than the brain’s job of building memories related to the body’s experiences. The ego is an enormous hurdle that most people fail to clear, and it’s the sole reason that people can’t seem to accept ideas like those the guy in the video is proposing.
Take children for example, they don’t show up with egos. Children have no ego to begin with. They are all very naturally very selfless. They just show up and want to experience everything. They don’t innately have some construct of themselves fashioned right off the bat. It’s built up over time and basically pounded into their brains by society. And it all starts with them being granted a name. And then it continues with being told how “special” and “unique” they are. This is just setting that individual up for failure. They will spend most, if not all, of their lives trying to figure out what makes them “special” and “unique.”
Because when you strip everything away, all the bullshit, we’re all just outwardly different-looking forms of the same thing. (Actually let’s use the term, expressions, rather than forms )
And if this guy was to gather a group of children together and tell them that life is just a simulation, it’s all just a game we play, they would immediately agree with him. Because children naturally see the world like that anyway: it’s just a game and we just want to play all the time: why else are we here if not to play? It’s those mean, serious adults who don’t get it! All they feel like doing is work and making it all not so fun.
Do I want to get myself into this? Probably not.
Can I help myself? Most definitely not.
I wouldn’t, because I don’t think Hoffman is a scientist who got spiritual, but rather he is using maths to translate his Ni vision into a form accepted by scientific standards. This gives me hope that communication is possible and these ideas can be brought into the mainstream.
What I infer from your post (please correct me if I’m misinterpreting it) is that you seem to be saying that who we are and the way we see the world are mostly the result of our environments. Furthermore (thinking of some other posts of yours about personas and masks here), that we can maybe change who we are depending on the situation and our goals? Is that right or I’m off?
Taking that idea further and if my assumptions above are right, then how do you explain that society actually works? By which I don’t mean that it’s perfect or even necessarily going in the right direction, but simply the fact that it’s a coherent whole that holds in place and goes in certain directions guided by universal laws and principles. That we’re able to build things, come up with rules, etc. How could we have ended in this situation if all had started from a place of complete freedom (and randomness) and how could this system be perpetuating and reinforcing itself in such powerful ways, “pounded in their brains”, as you say?
What I get from Hoffman (and everybody is most welcome to correct me/disagree) is that there is reality out there, but we’re unable to see it for what it is, because we’re not built with the capacity to experience it in its raw form. Like he says, humans can’t see infrared, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. So it’s not that reality is a simulation, but our version of reality (kind of) is. We’re subjective beings and, by definition, unable to see the objective. And the most frustrating part, for me, is to hear that this is all to our evolutionary advantage. But yes, it makes sense, it would take too much energy for us to process everything and we’d be unable to function. So we rely on shortcuts and things that work to get the job done instead of (having the ability that would result in) pondering over it endlessly.
Where I wanted to get with this is that I find interesting what he’s saying about interface, this filter through which we experience reality in our subjective ways and it’s fascinating if we link it to the things discussed on Stellar Maze. The interface could be explained in a way that would be saying more than us being human and therefore all different because of the interaction between our genetics and environments, but through the lense of our particular mix of MBTI and astrology types and subtypes in relation to everything else. There are these forces, functions, archetypes, influences out there (and within us) that materialize in different combinations, but there is a structure and there is meaning behind all this. If we’re able to look at it the right way (closely enough, by taking a step back or maybe even by closing our eyes?!! how do we open that portal?), we realize that we can identify and label the pieces. I think we should probably look at this by closing our eyes. I mean, do things the Ni way and not by over magnifying a little detail and losing track of the big picture. The ideal would be to go back and forth between the big picture and the details and fill in the gaps, which is what I assume Hoffman is trying to do.
If I go back to this:
I wonder if what you mean by that is something like saying that there are no structural individual differences and we’re creating our identity freely? If that is the case, I’d say that I can agree, to some extent, with the statement that we’re creating our identities and the way we decide to approach things. But I think there are hard lines delimiting how far we can go in doing that and those lines are given by the objective, real parameters defining our interface. For me, the MB/astrology interplay that is uncovered on this website is a great way to start seeing those lines, make a case for their existence and extrapolate it to a larger scale to explain societal tendencies (see discussions of MB types assigned to certain countries), structures, currents of thought etc. These are all expressions of certain things and, if you go further down the path, stem from the same place, that ONE THING or Conscious Agent as per Hoffman, but there is a reason and there is meaning behind it all!!
I loved watching this talk. And I think these guys would love this place.
I looked again and maybe it was my word choices that increased the likelihood of misunderstanding.
You see, I have no problem with Hoffman’s views. I like Hoffman, I respect his ideas and I would be overjoyed to learn something about mathematics from him.
I just happen to see that he is using fallacious logic by conflation and false dichotomy. Math is language (words). At a lower level of understanding, math seems separate from words, but it’s not. The essence is logic, not math. The hard-code structure of consciousness is logic, not math.
He thinks it’s math because of his work environment, and they’re all a few steps behind still tinged by old-world physics.
But alex wrote “Just curious, why would his ideas about reality be so horrible to you?”
So let me ask you. Did that influence your interpretation of what I wrote? Since that’s obviously Alex’s own feelings being projected onto what I wrote. That’s why I said he’s out of touch. He can’t read people’s feelings for shit, not online anyway.
So now if I question your views it will feel personal to you. Make me wanna tiptooe around you otherwise you could start acting like alex over there.
Now maybe the way I structured my comment might not have been the clearest in moving from that tiny little bit of observation about math (and I can see better now where you stand and didn’t have any particular attachment to it in the first place lol) to then discuss @T_Alex_B’s comment for the most part.
It made me wonder and double check, I saw the misunderstanding and thought it was none of my business explaining him what I thought you meant and I should let you speak for yourself. So I moved on to discussing what I thought about the rest of his comment.
You can question all you want. There’s absolutely no need to tiptoe with me. Really. Feelings come and go, you know. But it’s true that I prefer to feel like the other person is willing to make an effort to go past the miscommunications. Cause, you know, different functions and all, in some cases there’s a higher risk than in others.
All good here! No evil feelings to be unleashed. For now.
I know. That’s because you reason from your feelings. Feelings are also logic, they have axioms. You felt something about what I wrote, whereas for me it was part of my thinking process. You’ve got that Fi dom, through and through. The sooner you learn what this means, you will stop projecting your feelings onto others.
I respect the logic of feelings, but I don’ respect you, Alex. You are a poor representation of the wisdom of feelings.
Fucking THANK you. Fuck off you lazy, ignorant little bitch. All you bring to my threads is your slime and projection. I’m so glad you’re finally going to stop posting on my threads or responding to me, and NOT contradict yourself on this statement of yours.
Alright then, let’s send all Fi users to the guillotine!
Am I being passive-aggressive?
How about actually engaging without making everything personal sooner than it needs to be and simply calling me out on my passive-aggressiveness or anything that you want to criticise when it actually happens? By which I mean, criticise the behavior, not the person. Ask, if uncertain. Are you gonna be more susceptible to everything I say just because you know I’m INFP and you have certain expectations/experiences with that type?
Point out where you think my logic is flawed in a respectful way and I’ll be okay. If you’ll call me stupid and not even try to explain where I’m misinterpreting you, then yeah, you bet that’ll hurt my feelings. By which I mean, it will be extremely frustrating and it will piss me off, therefore further proving to you how I’m an irrational Fi user full of uncontrollable feelings.
I’m here because I’m genuinely interested and willing to make an effort to understand things beyond my default ways. Of course I’ll not always do it perfectly, but I’m willing to work on it.