Spacetime is just a headset: An interview with Donald Hoffman

I'm taking the critic side to generate conversation and debate.
And yes, the claim that that space, time, and physical objects are data structures CREATED BY CONSCIOUSNESS, it total crap to me. I totally despise all versions of simulations, or mind projected reality, or that the human brain is doing anything but participating.


The ego behind the idea that we are behind some created reality, or projecting it, or that it is all a simulation, is a mental health problem, likely created by too much exposure to electronic media during critical brain development stages. It is an ego out of control to think that we are doing anything but participating in an already existing environment that is real and solid, and follows linear time all by itself.
Human beings are not the center of any universe, and have no power to model or create anything but fantasy nonsense like his.
He is obviously, like so many others, milking the spotlight and feeding the lemmings.

I think the challenge is I don't know what to debate here. 

Why can't space, time, and physical objects be created by Consciousness? If you could debate Donald Hoffman, telling him he has a mental health problem won't be convincing.

What is the actual argument that invalidates his position that you are proposing?

I think the challenge is I don't know what to debate here. 

Why can't space, time, and physical objects be created by Consciousness? If you could debate Donald Hoffman, telling him he has a mental health problem won't be convincing.

What is the actual argument that invalidates his position that you are proposing?

I wouldn't waste my time debating Hoffman any more than I would waste my time debating with a schizophrenic trying to argue that hallucinations were real things. They have no valid argument in reality.
Hoffman, the one making claims, needs to prove his claims. That is always up to the person making claims, not to any challenger of that claim.
The argument is simply, why are we wasting time on this, or the people who blindly want to believe or support this? Are we seriously out of other subjects that have actual value and evidence? Or are we propping up mental illness and acting like insanity has a valid reason to intrude into our brains and pollute it with garbage? We don't have to allow this sort of nonsense thinking, and we don't have to try and debate or support insanity in any format.
 

Objective reality exists independently of our observation. Critics argue that ignoring physical reality violates scientific realism and that complex simulations are computationally infeasible. 

The fact that different people of different cultures can independently measure and observe the same things, build monuments that last thousands of years and which can be observed and witnessed in the same way by generations and different cultures shows that this is a real place, with real linear time, and that we are simply taking part in something that exists regardless of our mental health issues and beliefs. This world will kill you quickly, dead and done. The ego of anyone who wants to just think it is not real or some simulation is the problem, and a serious one that needs to be put in it's place before it becomes a contagious cult.

We can observe and share, and the next generation confirms the observations because we are participating in a real place, not a simulation or some brain fart. Not accepting reality is a serious mental health problem, and not scientific at all.

I wouldn't waste my time debating Hoffman any more than I would waste my time debating with a schizophrenic trying to argue that hallucinations were real things. They have no valid argument in reality.
Hoffman, the one making claims, needs to prove his claims. That is always up to the person making claims, not to any challenger of that claim.
The argument is simply, why are we wasting time on this, or the people who blindly want to believe or support this? Are we seriously out of other subjects that have actual value and evidence? Or are we propping up mental illness and acting like insanity has a valid reason to intrude into our brains and pollute it with garbage? We don't have to allow this sort of nonsense thinking, and we don't have to try and debate or support insanity in any format.
 

The fact that different people of different cultures can independently measure and observe the same things, build monuments that last thousands of years and which can be observed and witnessed in the same way by generations and different cultures shows that this is a real place, with real linear time, and that we are simply taking part in something that exists regardless of our mental health issues and beliefs. This world will kill you quickly, dead and done. The ego of anyone who wants to just think it is not real or some simulation is the problem, and a serious one that needs to be put in it's place before it becomes a contagious cult.

We can observe and share, and the next generation confirms the observations because we are participating in a real place, not a simulation or some brain fart. Not accepting reality is a serious mental health problem, and not scientific at all.

I think it's difficult to find what there is to debate with you here if you aren't familiar with Hoffman's actual ideas and arguments? I mean he has to prove his theory, but that's true of any scientist making claims that extend beyond the known evidence.

As far as I understand your argument it's that the immediate reality that we experience is the most reliable and known, and claiming there some higher reality that cannot be verified by consensus can cause a person problems.

But it seems to me many scientists would say that the true nature of the world is different than what we experience. Is the issue with Hoffman's that it suggests there is some greater more important reality than the immediate one?

I wouldn't waste my time debating Hoffman any more than I would waste my time debating with a schizophrenic trying to argue that hallucinations were real things. They have no valid argument in reality.

But... you haven't debated him, so how do you know his theories have no valid argument? I think he has something of interest to say ~ that is, his language differs from mine, so I must read between the lines.

Hoffman, the one making claims, needs to prove his claims. That is always up to the person making claims, not to any challenger of that claim.
The argument is simply, why are we wasting time on this, or the people who blindly want to believe or support this? Are we seriously out of other subjects that have actual value and evidence? Or are we propping up mental illness and acting like insanity has a valid reason to intrude into our brains and pollute it with garbage? We don't have to allow this sort of nonsense thinking, and we don't have to try and debate or support insanity in any format.

The challenger of a claim needs to have a stronger case than the person making the claim ~ to convince others that the claim is erroneous. Emotional language does little to make me consider not consider his theories. Any positive claim needs to be substantiated ~ stuff like "it's not real".

Phrasing like "is it real? How does he support his claims" is better, because it allows for one to think and consider their thought processes, examining and look for flaws in their argumentation ~ they could always have some point that is logical and coherent that you could be missing.

Remember ~ every theory and hypothesis is a model, so it may have value, but also be flawed in some way.

The fact that different people of different cultures can independently measure and observe the same things, build monuments that last thousands of years and which can be observed and witnessed in the same way by generations and different cultures shows that this is a real place, with real linear time, and that we are simply taking part in something that exists regardless of our mental health issues and beliefs. This world will kill you quickly, dead and done. The ego of anyone who wants to just think it is not real or some simulation is the problem, and a serious one that needs to be put in it's place before it becomes a contagious cult.

We can observe and share, and the next generation confirms the observations because we are participating in a real place, not a simulation or some brain fart. Not accepting reality is a serious mental health problem, and not scientific at all.

I don't think that's what Hoffman means by "simulation"...

I have considered the idea of this reality being akin to grand, shared dream ~ a dream where the structure is stable and solid, where we must interact with it through avatars composed of the same substance as the dream itself. That means that there are real consequences. While we are in the dream, it appears that the dream is so strong as it limit our senses, memories and awareness to a state corresponding with the nature of the dream.

Intuitively, it appears to me that we know this before coming into the dream, knowing we will forget while within it.

I think it's difficult to find what there is to debate with you here if you aren't familiar with Hoffman's actual ideas and arguments? I mean he has to prove his theory, but that's true of any scientist making claims that extend beyond the known evidence.

As far as I understand your argument it's that the immediate reality that we experience is the most reliable and known, and claiming there some higher reality that cannot be verified by consensus can cause a person problems.

But it seems to me many scientists would say that the true nature of the world is different than what we experience. Is the issue with Hoffman's that it suggests there is some greater more important reality than the immediate one?

Suggested ideas are not facts. Higher reality? LMFAO. I hear that often, with higher vibrations or other this and that nonsense. He has no special powers, no Psi skills, and what he is preaching does nothing to help anyone with anything. A useless waste of time. If we are locked in to what this is, as it is, it doesn't matter at all unless you can alter or change things because of this knowledge, which he can't, because he is not right about it and can't prove anything he is blubbering about.

You know, if he could materialize things or alter anything, had any form of Psi going on that he was skilled in, I might pay attention to what he is saying. But he is simply a nobody in the Psi community. 

I'm very glad we are stimulating conversation and debate here. I just find this is a piss poor subject with nothing to debate. It is simply a waste of time.

I can say that the world is a prison planet.
I can say that we are all fallen angels trapped here.
I can say that the life we live has already happened and we are simply re-experiencing it like a dream.
I can say that the 3 fates have spun your life thread, woven it into an experience, and then snipped that thread causing your death. Or that all things are destiny and the gods have already decided your entire life.
I can say many things that don't add any value to the life we are living, and nothing about anything changes because of the way we wish it to be, or whatever perspective we pick to uphold false beliefs.
He can say whatever he wants and I don't have to accept or consider it as anything but spotlight whoring. Show some facts that support it, oh that's right, he can't.
A belief is not, and never will be, a fact, unless it is a fact. Facts most often become facts because they can be proven independently.

He needs to find a way to prove his nonsense, or step down and stop hogging the spotlight and spouting garbage. It is that simple.

I find more interesting materials in string theory and quantum theories. They might actually be helpful and useful, and tie in with the known in special ways.

He can't even tie what he is preaching to any reality that would be helpful or useful to anyone on any level. 

You need added value, some kind of understanding that helps or assists us on this journey.

The bottom line is, what difference would any of this make to your actual life? You can't stop a bullet, you still die, you still have to breathe and eat. It doesn't fix or help with anything at all. Therefore, it really doesn't matter in the end. His ideas are useless.

When you waste all your time listening to or debating these useless no-skill people and their useless ideas, you don't have time for the people who can perform, who are skilled, and what they are actually presenting as real evidence.

When you waste all your time listening to or debating these useless no-skill people and their useless ideas, you don't have time for the people who can perform, who are skilled, and what they are actually presenting as real evidence.

I still don't think you've actually engaged with Hoffman's ideas. 

Repeating how terrible you think his ideas are isn't giving much to work with.

I still don't think you've actually engaged with Hoffman's ideas. 

Repeating how terrible you think his ideas are isn't giving much to work with.

Work with? What is it that YOU want to debate here? Pick something you think is meaningful and adds value to everyone's existence.

He is stuck in a simulation nonsense debate that has no value and no evidence. How can you even entertain that except as some biased cult idea?

I'm certainly not interested in hashing out nonsense like this, or trying to defend the obvious position of reality from a stupid cult idea that is equal to flat Earth nonsense.

You go ahead and waste your time on it, or debate away over what you think you want to support or defend. Don't expect me to cherry pick anything from a pile of horse manure and say it looks like a gem to me.

I think "simulation" to carry too many connotations to make much sense. Computer simulations are imitations of the physical world.

So that almost implies that this world is an imitation of what lies beyond, which feels... off, to me, in some way.

It certainly doesn't match with my transcendent spiritual experiences.

Perhaps Hoffman uses a different definition, though?

I think "simulation" to carry too many connotations to make much sense. Computer simulations are imitations of the physical world.

So that almost implies that this world is an imitation of what lies beyond, which feels... off, to me, in some way.

It certainly doesn't match with my transcendent spiritual experiences.

Perhaps Hoffman uses a different definition, though?

I mean there's two parts to his ideas - Interface Theory of Perception and Conscious Realism.

Interface Theory is just the idea that evolution favors creating a reality of "icons" by which you navigate the world around you. This doesn't mean the world is illusion, just that you perceive a very edited version of it to enhance your survival.

Conscious Realism, for Hoffman, is the idea the the world is mental in some way.

You could accept one part of this and reject the other. None of this is really Simulation in the Matrix sense necessarily.

I still don't think you've actually engaged with Hoffman's ideas. 

Repeating how terrible you think his ideas are isn't giving much to work with.

Let's pick one of his basic nonsense blubberings, that is likely a fundamental problem with everything his insane mind thinks.

"What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields. Those particles and fields are icons in the MUIs of conscious agents but are not themselves fundamental denizens of the objective world.

This is such blatant nonsense, given the very basics of physics, that I refuse every other idea he then pukes up that is supported by this nonsense.

It is that simple. The basics are wrong, everything else is wrong.

So, @Sci , yes I have 'engaged' with this nonsense, and i reject it, and I find it to be seriously stupid and some mental health issue that matches the ignorance of flat Earth beliefs.