Donald Hoffman: Seeing True Reality Would Kill Us! (Transcript)

You’re driving nice fancy cars in this world. That’s right.

Evolution and Perception

STEVEN BARTLETT: So everything I see right now is a projection that I’ve made on the world, my world, in order to help me to survive. And my brain is not showing me things that it doesn’t think I need to see because they won’t be conducive with survival because they are cognitively, in terms of how much fuel and energy they would require to process and think about, they are cognitively inconsequential. Or it would be inefficient for me to spend my cognitive power to see those things.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s exactly right. And for a lot of people, I think that’s counterintuitive because they would say, “Look, evolution is about making you fit so that you can live and survive long enough to reproduce successfully. And surely evolution should do that by making you see the truth. I mean, if you see the truth, then you’re going to compete in the game of life much more successfully than if you don’t see the truth. So what are you talking about this headset nonsense for? This is not a headset. This is the truth. And evolution should shape us to see the truth.”

Now, I think that’s what most people would assume, and in fact, very intelligent experts in the field assume that. And I suggest otherwise. In fact, we have mathematical proofs otherwise.

If you look at evolution, Darwin said, “Look, we need to think about a gradual evolution over time of these species, maybe from very, very simple ones to more complex ones. And what is going to drive that? Dynamics.” And Darwin suggested it was what we would call reproductive fitness, that those organisms that have physical properties, sensory systems, motor systems, movement systems that make them more likely to have offspring and to raise offspring to maturity, whatever properties those might be, that’s what we’re going to call fitness.

So the more fit you are is really saying how likely are you to have and successfully raise offspring? So Darwin suggested that, and I don’t think that he necessarily had to say that there was no God. It was just that if there is a God, it’s not that God put it down. Perfect. He did. An evolutionary process.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah. Well, organisms adapt to their environment. Well, they’re not adapting, but the offspring that survive are those best adapted to the environment.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. So that was Darwin’s idea. The gradual evolution from presumably simpler organisms to more and more complicated organisms and then multiple evolutions of things like eyes, like cephalopod eye evolved differently from the human eye. And the cephalopod eye got certain things right that the human eye got wrong.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Is that because the cephalopod eye was in a different environment, so it had different requirements?

DONALD HOFFMAN: That would be one possible reason. I actually don’t know in the case of the cephalopods why. But that kind of idea is absolutely one of the reasons that could have happened. Another one. It could just be an accident, right? There’s probability involved. And so there, at some point, you have the right accident and the humans got the thing reversed.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So you’re saying Darwin was wrong in some respect or that there was something missing from his theory?

Darwin’s Theory and Truth Perception

DONALD HOFFMAN: Oh, no, I think Darwin’s. In terms of biology, I think that there is no serious competitor to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection in terms of the scientific theory of the origin of species and so forth. And it’s Darwin’s theory and the mathematical formulation of it that I think also says that what we’re perceiving is not the truth, that our sensory systems on Darwin’s theory were not shaped to show us the truth.

They were shaped to keep you alive long enough to reproduce successfully, period. That’s all Darwin’s theory actually says. Most of us think the way this evolutionary process does it is to make sure that your senses are telling you the truth about the external reality.

I’ve published some papers with colleagues where we show mathematically that Darwin’s theory does not entail that at all. In fact, Darwin’s theory says the probability is zero that any sensory system, like eyes, ears, smell, touch, taste, has ever been shaped to see any aspect of objective reality, truly. So the probability is zero that you see any aspect of the truth, period.

On Darwin’s theory, what you do experience is sensory systems that guide adaptive behavior. Guide adaptive behavior means they let you act.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So your eyes, your nose.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Your eyes. Your nose. Yeah, your eyes and nose. And they guide you so that you act in ways that you don’t die too quickly and you can have kids that don’t die too quickly.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I was just.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s all it’s about.

The Thought Experiment: Reality Without Senses

STEVEN BARTLETT: I was just playing out the scenario then, that you removed my eyes and you removed my ears and my nose and my ability to sense, you know, temperature and things like that. All of my senses. I thought, if I was the only person on earth and you removed all of my senses, what would reality be? Because if you remove my senses, reality no longer exists as far as I’m aware of it. But that doesn’t mean nothing exists. And I’m wondering what that nothing would be like if you just imagine wipe off everyone on the earth and it’s just you and we remove all of your senses.

DONALD HOFFMAN: What.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What is in that space? Because you’re right. My senses, my eyes, my ears, my ability to understand temperature is a byproduct and consequence of me surviving. So I was playing out this one. I was thinking, well, if we think about ghosts and the afterlife, maybe there was no reason from a survival perspective that I even needed to be able to see or acknowledge that. Maybe it just didn’t help. Maybe it actually would have hurt me to have. Because it would have been too cognitively demanding to process all of that information.

So anybody that could process all that information wouldn’t have been good at reproducing. Therefore they wouldn’t survive. Therefore they wouldn’t be here. So maybe those of us that are here, we’re just really good at ignoring the other dimensions.

The Economics of Perception

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s what our mathematics says. I think that your intuitions on that are quite right, that if you pay attention to anything other than what allows you to have kids, you’re wasting your time. From an evolutionary point of view, perception is expensive. It takes a lot of calories. You have to eat a lot of food to run your brain, to power your eyes and your ears.

So you need to do shortcuts. You need to make your sensory systems not chew up so much of your energy. The more expensive your perceptual systems are, the more you’ve got to eat to power those. So that means you have to go out there and forage and put yourself at harms. So there’s a trade off. We try to do things cheaply in evolution.

And going for the truth, you don’t need to actually go for the truth because that’s very, very expensive. So, for example, there are some flying insects that need to lay their eggs in water and they use a trick of just looking at the polarization of the light coming off the water.

So what you see happening in evolution is we have tricks and hacks and even in humans have tricks and hacks and for example, trying to find out if someone is reproductively fit. Right. I can’t actually look at your DNA and go, “Well, okay, you’ve got an A, C, G and T, but he’s got a C here where it’s supposed to be a T.” No, I can’t look at your DNA. So what do I look at? I have to look at what I can see of your body and your voice and so forth.

Different Animals, Different Realities

STEVEN BARTLETT: So one of the most compelling arguments for the fact that we aren’t seeing reality as it is, and we’re actually only seeing what we need to see in order to survive is when you look at, as you were saying, how different animals see the world. And can you just give me some examples of some more examples of different animals that see the world completely differently. I always think about bats. How do bats see the world? Because do they see colors like we see them, in objects like we see them?

DONALD HOFFMAN: No. Bats use echolocation. They’ll send out little bursts of sound at very, very high frequencies and then they have these big ears that capture the returns.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I’m just looking at their sensory system. It says most insect eating bats use echolocation, as you said. They emit high frequency sound waves and see by listening to the echoes bouncing off other objects.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And this gives them some kind of sonic map of their surroundings, helping them to navigate and effectively see in total darkness. So you imagine a bat like then if a bat is sat there thinking that they understand the nature of reality, when it’s actually just a map of how the sound waves bounce back, they I imagine, don’t have the same. They have a completely different perception of what reality is to us.

And it’s therefore it would be quite ignorant to assume that we as humans are seeing reality as it is, when just like the bat, we probably adapted to our environment and built senses, eyes, ears, touch that helped us to survive.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I would agree with you, but some of my colleagues would disagree and they would say humans are much more complicated and surely bats and so forth, they have to have all these shortcuts and they don’t see reality as it is, but we’ve evolved further and we’re closer to the truth.

From my point of view, what I see, this table and this cup and so forth, is just a convenient fiction. Whatever reality is, it’s utterly unlike anything that I perceive utterly.

The Computer Simulations

STEVEN BARTLETT: In a TED Talk that you did in the 2000s, you talked about simulations that you ran to prove that. I guess in part that I’m only seeing things that will help me to survive as a creature, as an organism. Can you explain to me simply what those simulations were and what they proved?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Well, yes, in our simulations, and this is before we had theorems, so we did simulations just to see if the ideas were working. And we would have artificial organisms in a computer.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah.

DONALD HOFFMAN: So it was like a game that we put together and we would have a world and we would let some organisms actually see the true state of that world. So they were the truth organisms. And then we’d have other ones that only had like a headset, an interface that only could see not the truth, but just some little bit of information that could guide adaptive behavior that would…

STEVEN BARTLETT: Help them to survive.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yeah. And reproduce. That’s right. What we found was for a wide range of conditions of the algorithm, the organisms that saw the truth went extinct. They weren’t able to compete with the ones that didn’t.

And one of the things that came out of it was seeing the truth takes too much time and energy. It’s complicated to see the truth. And if you have a simple trick that lets you do the same thing without having to have a deep insight, then you can get the same benefit. You can get the benefit without having to put all the effort out.

Now I can give you a concrete example of an organism that does this. That’s pretty funny. So there’s the jewel beetle. It lives in the outback of Australia. It’s dimpled, glossy and brown. The males fly, the females are flightless. So the males are flying around, of course, looking for an eligible female.

It turns out that men in the outback tended for a while were drinking beer with these bottles that were also dimpled, glossy and brown. They throw them out into the outback and they turned out to be dimpled, glossy, just the right shade of brown to grab the attention of the male jewel beetles. They’re actually on the bottle. They’re full body contact, they’re crawling all over it and they still think it’s a female.

So how much do they know about their women? Very, very little. They know about their women. A woman, a female is something dimpled, glossy and brown. Apparently the bigger the better. And that’s what a female is. So you can see evolution didn’t give these male beetles much insight into their females. They gave them just enough information to successfully reproduce, period. And that’s sort of what evolution does. It gives you just enough information to reproduce before you die.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So they’re all making love to this beer bottle because they can’t tell. They can’t see reality. They can’t see that this isn’t a woman, this is a beer bottle.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. That’s one of the more humorous examples of what evolution has done. It does things on the cheap, and that includes human sensory systems. So it’s very humbling. We’re not the epitome. And what we think is human appreciation of the deep truth of reality is just our little headset.

What we experience and know is trivial compared to whatever reality is. Absolutely trivial. We know zero percent of reality. And by the way, our scientific theories will always and forever explain 0% of reality because they have to make assumptions. And every theory, scientific theory, has to make assumptions.

And so we’ll have, in principle, an infinite sequence of theories with ever deeper assumptions, and we’ll never get to the bottom. And since it’s an infinite sequence, that means everything we got so far is 0%. So I’m a scientist, I’m all for science. I encourage young men and women to go into science. I think it’s a great thing to do. But just know that all of our theories will comprehend 0% of reality.

Animal Superpowers

STEVEN BARTLETT: You know, people talk a lot about how their pets or other animals are able to see another dimension. Sometimes people say things like, my dog started barking at this, or I had cancer. And there’s dogs or animals that have been able to, they believe, spot certain diseases inside the human body.

And when you look at the sort of sensory faculties of these dogs, Dogs can hear frequencies up to 65,000 hertz, whereas humans can only go to 20,000 hertz. Dogs have up to 300 million olfactory receptors. Humans just have 5 million. And some animals, like cats, can see different sort of frequencies of light. So it does beg a question, you know, if it’s possible for an animal, an organism, to see the world in a different depth and width than us, what happens if you go further?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right, absolutely. There are some that can detect electric fields. So some fish can detect electric fields. Some birds, I believe, can see the polarization of light, and some insects, of course, use polarization of light to find where to lay their eggs. And we can’t do that. So, yeah, when we start to study other animals, we see these remarkable abilities.

Living Better With This Understanding

STEVEN BARTLETT: And what does this all mean for the nature of how one should understand their life? Because I guess the way that we perceive the world causes us so much suffering. Or joy, depending on how we perceive it. Is there anything people from all of the work you’ve done and the books you’ve written that people can bring into their lives to help them live better lives with this understanding of the world?

DONALD HOFFMAN: First thing to note is that the world is far more interesting and varied than you can imagine. So if you think the world is a boring place, it’s not. Your imagination isn’t big enough. Whatever reality is, it transcends anything that you could possibly imagine.

Spiritual traditions basically often say there’s more to life than what you see inside space and time. There’s something beyond. And I’ve been sort of pointing to that myself in my own way. I’m saying that scientific theories always have assumptions. So there’s an infinite number of scientific theories that you can have. And you’re never going to get a scientific theory of everything.

What am I saying? That there’s something beyond science, as good as science is? I’m saying there’s not only not a theory of everything. The best theory we’ll ever come up with is 0% of reality. So that leaves all this room for what the spiritual traditions are talking about, that there’s something that transcends science.

There is a way of thinking about this that I think is very illuminating. And it’s about the intersection of science and spirituality. I’m a scientist. Who am I? I am someone, and I’m one of many someones, other scientists who can create theories and in principle, ever deeper theories. And there’s an infinite sequence.

So who is the I that can do this? No theory that I can come with, come up with is the final description of that I. In other words, the I that is doing all this theory building is the I that is real, that is making these theories. And that utterly transcends all these theories. And that’s a spiritual point of view.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So what does that mean, you’re God?

DONALD HOFFMAN: It means that whatever you are transcends any description. And that’s what a lot of people say God is. Suppose I give you something you’ve never tasted before, like a piece of mint. And actually, I don’t know what mint tastes like to you. I assume that it’s like what mint tastes like for me, but I don’t know. This is called learning by ostensive definition.

And so we have this game where your experiences are your experiences and you actually didn’t need anybody else for those experiences. All you needed me for or your parents for is to give you a name for what you already knew. And you create this world. And all we do is tell you how to talk with me about what you’ve created. And I don’t know that your world in any way resembles my experience. It’s quite possible.

Transcending the Headset

STEVEN BARTLETT: And do you think there’s ways that we cause ourselves a lot of anguish and pain and mental health issues because of how we perceive the nature of reality to be that we could potentially, I don’t know, give up or rewire ourselves on to have a more fulfilling, more grateful experience of life completely.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I think that’s very, very important. And it’s a natural consequence of what we’ve just been talking about. Almost all of us think of ourselves as an object in space time, only here for a short amount of time and will soon die. When I say you transcend any scientific theory, that means the theory that I am just 160 pound object in spacetime is just a theory. And it’s not the truth. That’s not the truth about who I am. That’s just a theory that I have. Because space time itself is just a theory.

Nothing inside space time is anything but my headset interpretation of a reality that infinitely transcends anything I can experience. There is another way that you can appreciate that that transcends science. And that is, and many meditative traditions talk about this. They recognize that you are infinitely beyond any scientific or any other description.

So what do you do in that case to know who you are? You drop all descriptions, you sit in absolute silence and ignore any thoughts because you recognize that thoughts are useful in this headset and to play the game of life. Yeah, we need thoughts to do our science. We need to. If you want to understand who I am again, I do psychology, I do all this stuff. I’ll do the scientist. So I’m not putting science down, I’m a scientist.

But at some point, if you want to understand the truth of who you are beyond just this headset description of you, then you have to lay aside all concepts, period, and just know yourself by being yourself, not by putting a concept between you and yourself.

STEVEN BARTLETT: A story. A story, an identity.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. No story, no identity, nothing between you and yourself. You know yourself by sitting in utter silence and being yourself. No concepts. Because then you’ve let go of all theories and now it’s reality facing reality, no barrier in between.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And that requires you to realize that your identity, the stories you believe, the labels you’ve given yourself as CEO or social media manager or manager or director or head of department, all of these things are just in fact Labels you’ve given.

The Nature of Identity and Competition

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. Those are all just labels that you’ve given. And what’s interesting about this now is if I think I’m just this little body and I’m nothing but this body, and my conscious experiences are nothing but what my brain does. So that’s my theory, and that’s all I am. I don’t feel very big. I don’t feel very important.

And so I’m going to probably need to do something to make myself feel a little bit better. And I’m going to need to compete with you. I’m going to need to show how I’m better than you in certain ways. So I’m a better tennis player than you, or I’m smarter than you or whatever. So we’re going to get this competition going on among people and we’re going to get even competition among religions and countries and so forth, because we don’t know who we are and we feel inadequate.

Reality as Virtual Creation

And if we actually understood that all of this that I’m seeing right now, I’m making it up on the fly. This cup that I’m seeing, it only exists when I create it. This table exists when I create it. Like in a virtual reality. In a virtual reality, I’m in Grand Theft Auto. I look over here and I now I see a red Mustang. I look away, I don’t see the red Mustang. And now there is no red Mustang. The red Mustang only existed when I looked because it’s a VR game. I only need it when I render. I render it when I need it.

I’m now rendering a cup. The cup that I rendered is no longer there. You might render your cup. You might say, “Well, no, Don, you’re wrong. The cup is still there. I can see it.” No, you’re rendering your cup, and so you’re not rendering my cup. I rendered my cup. So the same thing with Grand Theft Auto. You might say, “Well, I see the red Mustang, even if you’re not looking, Don.” Well, that’s because in your headset, you’re looking and you’re rendering the red Mustang. But I’m not. And there is no red Mustang. If you look inside the supercomputer, there’s no red Mustang. There’s the supercomputer that’s running the game has no red Mustang.

The Master Creator Perspective

So what I’m saying is we compete, we feel inadequate, and we feel like we need to compete with other people and be better than them. And we have egos. All the egoic stuff that we do that causes all the problems in the world because you don’t know who you are. You’re creating this whole thing. You’re not a little player. You’re the inventor of this whole thing. You have nothing to prove, and you don’t need to be better than anybody else. They’re also master creators. They’re creating entire universes that they perceive as well.

And my own take on this is that you and I are really the same. One reality just looking at itself through two different headsets, two different avatars, and having a conversation. And maybe that’s what is required for this one infinite intelligence to sort of know itself. If you transcend any description, how do you know yourself? Maybe what you do is you say, “Well, let me try this headset on. Let me take that seriously for a while, maybe even let myself get lost. Let me completely believe I’m just a Don Hoffman in this space time and let me believe that for many decades and then slowly sort of wake up.” But at least then I will have seen myself from this perspective.

Then I’ll take off that headset. We call that death. We all just take off the headset and then I’ll try. There’s an infinite number of headsets to try on. So from that point of view, any person you speak to is transcendent. Any animal is just an avatar of this transcendent, unspeakably incredible reality that transcends science, so that science will only get zero percent of it.

And again, I always say I’m not putting down science. I’m a scientist. We need to do science, and I recommend that people do science. But my guess, this is one of the more trivial headsets. It’s only four dimensions. Why not 20 billion? Why not quintillion? This is just a fairly trivial. So we may be in one of the most, the more uninteresting perspectives on who we are. And there are much more interesting perspectives that we can take on ourselves. But the reason we have fighting, the reason we have egos, is because we don’t know who we are.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And is there a way for me to understand who I am? Or is the closest you’ve found meditation? I know you’ve meditated for 20 years or something.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I should say I should be a little careful about. I think it really is important for me as a scientist to have done the science that I’ve done. But I think for someone else who doesn’t do science, maybe you do music or you do some sports or something like that, that is a concrete way of knowing yourself through a perspective. And that’s really important. And since we have billions of people and then there’s untold other kinds of animals and insects and so forth, this one infinite intelligence, whatever it is, has decided I want to look at myself through the lens of a mosquito, and now of the bumblebee, and now of the jewel beetle that can’t even tell a bottle from a female. Going to look at myself from this panoply of perspectives.

One Consciousness, Multiple Perspectives

STEVEN BARTLETT: So you’re almost implying there that there’s this one consciousness and it’s just using different organisms potentially as vehicles to understand itself and the nature of reality.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So that would mean that me and you are the same consciousness, but you were born as a scientist in America and I was born as a, I don’t know, an entrepreneur in Botswana with different perspectives in order to understand the reality. Which means that we’re basically the same.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: The same consciousness, the same super intelligence or whatever, just manifesting as different eyeballs in different places.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s my view. And certain religious traditions do sort of hint, almost say that. Exactly. You know, like Jesus in Christianity, like Matthew 25 says, you know, “I was hungry and you fed me. I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. I was a foreigner and you invited me in. I was sick and you helped me. I was in prison and you visited me.” And people, he says, asked him, “When did we do that?” And he said, “Whenever you did it to the least person, you did it to me.” So Jesus is sort of hinting at this. There is. There’s no difference. The reason to love your neighbor as yourself is because your neighbor is yourself, just with a different headset.

And the only reason we have problems is we don’t realize how incredible you are. So you are that which is creating this VR simulation with all of its beauty, all of its complexity, all the complexity is you, and you’re doing it effortlessly. Now for my neuroscience colleagues, they will say, “Don, it’s not effortless. You’ve got 100 billion, well, 86 billion neurons in your brain. The visual system has billions of neurons that are doing all this computation. And we have the simple cells, the complex cells, the hyper complex cells.” And we think of the brain as a physical object that’s generating our consciousness. Yeah, I’m saying space time itself is something that you create, and so you create everything inside space time.

Creating the Brain

STEVEN BARTLETT: And I’ve also created the brain.

DONALD HOFFMAN: You create the brain. So right now you don’t have a brain.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Excuse me.

DONALD HOFFMAN: And nor do I.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay, fair enough.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Because I don’t have a brain. And you don’t have a brain until we actually look inside and render a brain. Just like in VR, the Mustang doesn’t exist until you look at it and render it. So if I can predict that if we do the right scans, we will see a brain, but that only exists when we do the rendering. So I don’t have a brain. All these correlations, we know that correlation doesn’t imply causation. So the fact that there is correlations, and I don’t deny it, in fact, I’m all for studying these correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. They exist, they’re undeniable, and they don’t in any way remotely entail that the brain causes our conscious experiences.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So somehow I’m not the brain. I’m the thing that’s simulating the presence of a brain.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. That’s right. And so in your simulation, your simulation is so good that it simulates also how all this reality that transcends spacetime is being funneled down into this tiny little space time headset. And that’s what we call the brain. So of course there are going to be these correlations between brain activity and what we see. But the correlation goes the other way. It’s not because the brain creates your conscious experiences. It’s because consciousness has created the brain as an icon to describe how it’s creating this headset.

Simulation Theory Discussion

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you think much about simulation theory? I’ve had lots of dinner parties recently and conversations over dinner about simulation theory, and it always gets very, very interesting. What are your thoughts on simulation theory? And for my listeners who might not understand the concept of simulation theory, are you able to explain it?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes. So the standard Nick Bostrom, for example, is a very big figure in simulation theory. And in those kinds of simulation theories, the idea is that the world that you’re seeing right now isn’t the true world. This is just a simulation. And there’s some programmer, say, with some really nice computer that’s programmed this world. And so we’re just characters in a simulated world of some programmer and that programmer and their laptop that’s doing this, as it turns out, isn’t the final thing either, because that programmer and their laptop is also just a simulation from a deeper level. Programmer and their laptop. There could be a very, very large nesting of all these simulated worlds and people with their computers. And that does jive pretty well with what I’m saying up to a point. I’m saying this is not the reality, this is just a headset. But there’s a big, big disagreement.

AI and Consciousness

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you think there’s going to come a point where with everything that’s going on with AI and robotics, that we could make a robot, program it with a certain AI that gives it the sort of same thinking as a human being. And then when I put some chocolate into its mouth, it’s going to say to me, “Mmm, I love that chocolate, Steven. That’s my favorite flavor.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: I could certainly program such a robot, but the question will always be just because I have this particular circuit in the computer and then some structure in the tongue that I’ve given it and some pattern of electrical activity. What is my scientific theory that explains why that pattern had to be the taste of chocolate? That’s what we need as scientists.

STEVEN BARTLETT: It’s easy enough to make sure adaptive learning thing where it’s just learned through all of the data, through someone telling it, programming it to think that particular set of chemicals, send that up to the software and then respond like this, which might just be how me and you responding to life. We might not be conscious at all.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right. And what you’re suggesting is probably how we’d actually do it. We would probably sort of train it and have it give us the right responses in that kind of context. So we’d probably do it, something like that. But then as scientists we want to understand, so we’re claiming as scientists that an experience is a, say, certain causal structure or a certain functional architecture. That’s what we’re saying it is, because these are physicalist theories and they’re saying we’re not going to start with consciousness. Consciousness is not fundamental. Space and time and physical objects are fundamental. And so we need to show how those physical objects and their properties give rise to these conscious experiences. So if that’s the science you want to propose, then I have to be hard nosed as a scientist now and say, give me your theory of mint.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So do you think this is a simulation?

DONALD HOFFMAN: So it’s not a simulation in Bostrom’s sense, in Bostrom sense, it’s a simulation in that it’s a physical substrate that’s giving rise to this whole world of conscious experiences that I’m having.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah. So.

DONALD HOFFMAN: And that I deny like a game.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Programmer sat at a computer making it and that.

The Simulation Theory’s Missing Element

DONALD HOFFMAN: And somehow the physical system itself gave rise to the magic of the conscious experiences I’m having of red and green and love and so forth. Those conscious. So for the simulation theory. So this is my pick, my bone of contention with the simulation theory. It’s very similar to my theory in all other respects. But this is a pretty serious bone of contention.

For their theory to work, they have to show explicitly, scientifically, how a specific conscious experience arises from a specific program. Until you do that, there is no beef on the table. So from my point, their theory is a non-starter right now because there’s no specific experience that they can say, “This program must be the taste of mint.” They can’t do that. Until they can do that, they can’t get this whole world of experience that I’m living in. Nothing. So there’s no beef.

All they have to do to give me some beef is to say, like in integrated information theory, they say, “Here’s the matrix for mint. This is the matrix, of course.” Then we’ll ask why? Why is that matrix, that causal structure, the taste of mint? What is your scientific theory for why that’s the case? And what you’ll see is, I think it’s going to take the field a while to see it, but we will find that these approaches are vacuous. There’s no beef.

The Meaning of Life Through Infinite Consciousness

STEVEN BARTLETT: When you ask people what the meaning of their life is, they’ll often say things like, it is. Maybe they’ll say to raise children. Maybe they’ll say they want to improve humanity, they want to cure a disease, they want to help society in some way. But through the lens of reality that you see the world and that you believe the world is, what becomes the meaning of life?

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s a great question. I do think that the best description I can give is that there is this one transcendent infinite consciousness, and you and I are just avatars. And so is a mosquito, and so is a bacterium, and all are equally interesting and important. And all are different perspectives, just different headsets. There’s the mosquito headset, there’s the jewel beetle headset. There’s all these different headsets. And I’m in the Hoffman headset. Happen to do science. I’m not good at art, I’m not good at music and so forth. I have my particular talents and inabilities in my headset. So I’m here to experience the Don Hoffman perspective on things.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Why?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Because that’s perhaps the only way the infinite can know itself is through an infinite number of perspectives. It transcends any particular perspective. So why not get lost in the Hoffman perspective and the jewel beetle perspective and all these different perspectives, and that’s the only way to know yourself. But it’s always the one consciousness that’s knowing itself through an infinite number of varieties of experiences, of headsets.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And did someone or something create that one consciousness?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Now I’m above my pay grade. No, that’s of course the right question. And it asks for an explanation. And the only explanations we have are either mathematical or scientific or both. The only really deeply serious, testable, but even informal explanations make assumptions.

And I’ll have to say that you’re asking a question about an entity that transcends any description, namely who you really are and who I really am. And I think you can know the answer to your question in one way, and that is dropping all concepts and just being with your being. You are that you are that. You don’t need to attain anything. You don’t need to achieve anything. You’re that right now. So there’s no effort. There’s no need to get better at anything. It’s just to recognize what you already are.

You’ve let yourself be under an illusion that I’m just this little guy that needs to do these things and, you know, and be a professor and whatever it might be. I’ve been under that illusion and I got to see myself through that lens. And then I began to wake up and see that I completely transcended it. Was an interesting perspective. I’m glad I took it seriously. I’m going to throw off that headset. We call it death, but I’m going to take off that headset pretty soon because that’s not who I am. I transcend that.

So the answer is you can know it, but you know it. When you let go of all concepts and you don’t try. If you’re trying to get there, then you don’t see what you already are. That’s the best answer I can give at this point because it does transcend science.

We Are God: A Radical Perspective

STEVEN BARTLETT: So in terms of a God, as we believe in gods in the religious context, the best answer that you have would say that effectively, we are God, the God that we refer to. We are the transcendent power that goes beyond description and.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right. Yeah, I would say that. And I can put that in sort of a Christian language because many listeners will be Christians. A child of a human is a human. The Bible calls us children of God. Well, if a child of a human is human, a child of God is God. That’s what it’s point to.

And Jesus is fairly explicit about it. When some religious leaders were about to stone Jesus for saying that he was the son of God, Jesus quotes the scripture and says from, I think the Psalms or something like that. But in the Psalms it says, “I have said you are gods. And all of you are sons of the Most High.” And Jesus said if he calls them gods to whom the word of God came. Why are you trying to stone me to death for just saying I’m the Son of God? What? The Bible is basically saying, love God with all your heart. That’s loving yourself. You are God. And loving your neighbor as yourself is just recognizing that your neighbor is yourself under a different avatar.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you think Jesus was really divine in any. I’m presuming you think this was a real individual and do you think he was divine beyond me and you in some respect?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Not beyond me and you, but you are as divine as could possibly be.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Thank you so much. We’ll clip that. I’ll put that on my LinkedIn.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Hoffman said it.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah. Little recommendations.

DONALD HOFFMAN: You’re divine is. Hoffman says I’m as divine as I could possibly be.

Living With This Perspective: Meditation and Daily Practice

STEVEN BARTLETT: Are there any other. You must go. If you. If you understand reality through this lens that we’re seeing so little and that much of it is created by. By ourselves and we are the transcendent. Are there any things that you do on a day to day basis that are atypical because of that or thoughts you have or experiences you have that are atypical because of this perspective?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Certainly atypical from before. In my own life, I now spend quite a bit of time in meditation because as much as I enjoy the life of the mind and I’m a professor and I’ve taught lots of students over many, many years and I highly recommend all that stuff. At some point I realize that all my knowledge, all possible scientific knowledge, is zero percent of reality. And do I really want to confine myself only to 0% of reality? I want to explore reality from this perspective, but it is zero percent. So I do my homework and I encourage my students do more homework. Take this perspective very seriously, study it, study it rigorously, but then realize there’s this, the hundred percent that you haven’t seen and you are it.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So are you doing lots of psychedelics and stuff like that too?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I haven’t done any psychedelics.

STEVEN BARTLETT: You’ve never tried psychedelics?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I’ve never. I’ve never even smoked a cigarette.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Wow.

DONALD HOFFMAN: And I haven’t had a drink of alcohol in decades. And it’s partly just because I’m frail. My physical body isn’t that strong. I have limits. I can’t push my body too hard. So I’ve learned to operate within my own limits and I don’t push it too hard. But the meditation I do.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Am I right in thinking that you now meditate three to four hours a day, probably.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yeah.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What insights or understandings have emerged from that that I might be able to comprehend?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Any creativity that’s ever come out in my scientific work, to whatever extent it’s creative, it’s come from the silence. So, of course, I had to do my homework and do my studies and so forth. But the novel ideas come from the silence.

Personally, one thing I’ve seen is how identified I am with my avatar. I think I am this body. I’m really tied to this body. And it’s the stuff that I’m saying at the emotional level. There’s an emotional part of me that doesn’t believe it one bit. Emotionally, you put a gun to my head. I’m scared to death. Intellectually, I’ll say to you, “This is just an avatar. I’m the infinite that transcends.” So when I die, I just. And I believe that. How deeply do I believe it? Put a gun to my head and you’ll find out. I’ll wet my pants.

So it’s very, very interesting for me to look at that and to see all the disjunctions, the things that are disjointed in my worldview.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Well, it kind of makes sense, right? Based on your theory that our senses have evolved to help us to survive because someone not liking your thinking or your theories, or rejecting you or harm to your body, it would go against your survival. So theoretically, if we are in the world that you’ve described, in the reality you’ve described, which is basically designed for survival, then you would have developed senses that make you change behavior if there’s a risk of someone not liking you.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. There are social pressures, and if we don’t conform to them, you get feedback that can be very, very negative and in some cases, even death. If I go to a grocery store and don’t happen to pay and just walk off with the stuff, I end up behind bars. There are rules of the game. There are rules of the headset. I transcend the headset, But I choose to allow myself to get lost in the game.

A Brush With Death: COVID and Heart Surgery

STEVEN BARTLETT: Starting in January 2020. You did have a proverbial gun held to your head in a way, because you contracted COVID and went through, and are still going through some pretty serious health complications because of long COVID, you developed heart issues within weeks, requiring hundreds of hours of critical care in hospital. You told me before we started recording that you’ve had heart surgery twice in 2021 at 66 years old. At one point, you thought you might not survive. And because your heart had been at 190 beats per minute for 30 hours, and you sent your wife a goodbye message because it looked like it was all over.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right? Right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I am wondering what that brush with death did to your perception of life, your perspective, and how that all ties into your beliefs about the nature of reality.

The Reality of Fear and Mortality

DONALD HOFFMAN: It certainly let me see how tied I am to my body and the fear that I experienced. It’s one thing for me to sit here as a nice academic and talk about how you’re the transcendent reality. It’s another thing to have your heart fail and to know that this is probably the end and to face the raw emotions. So I have deep, raw emotions.

And then I had to have another surgery. The first one kept me for a year and a half or so. A great surgeon – not his fault. He did a great job. But, you know, Covid is persistent. And the week before my second surgery, I was in the ER three times where they had to restart my heart. Just didn’t know if I was going to make it. I would have to go have my heart restart and then two days later go back to have my heart restart. And I was just hoping to make it to live to the surgery.

And even now, I wouldn’t be surprised if the heart starts to go bad again. So that takes us out of the abstract academic realm into something very, very concrete. How do you deal with the fact that you really don’t know from one heartbeat to the next? It keeps you from just talking abstractly about this stuff and being real about it. What do I really feel about it?

And when I look inside and see there’s real fear, then I know, okay, this stuff about “you’re the infinite and everybody else is the infinite” is still fairly just an abstract concept for you, Don. You haven’t really gone deep enough. You need to go deeper. And actually, if that’s true, I mean, maybe it’s all BS, right? But if it’s true that you are the infinite and everybody else is the infinite, then you need to go deeper into that.

The Gap Between Intellectual and Emotional Understanding

And intellectually, I’m convinced. I mean, I’ve given you the reasons. Intellectually, I’m quite convinced. And it’s really interesting to me that emotionally I’m far from convinced. And I agree with what you just said about the evolutionary arguments for it. There’s good evolutionary reasons for me to be wired up to have automatic emotional responses that are going to protect this body, to keep it. So no doubt about it. So there’s no reason to judge myself, that my body has a fear response and so forth.

When there are things that are about to kill me, the issue is then, when I look at that fear response, can I look at it and accept it, or do I identify with it? Do I identify with the fear response or can I step back and be the observer that watches the fear response?

And in the meditation process, what I’m learning to do is in some sense what I was saying about the science. Science is great, but don’t believe any theory. Theories are just tools. They’re not the truth. No scientific theory, my theories included, are not the truth. And so also is my theory about who I am not the truth.

So to really let go of any theory, if I can really let go of any theory of who I am, then I’ll let go of any fear. So it really comes down to this, what’s really, really quite interesting. We will each die. That’s incontrovertible. So any attachments I have to this world will cease. There’s no doubt.

The question is, can I let go of the attachments now or will they only go for my cold, dead hand? When will I let go of all these attachments? If I – to the extent, and I am no expert, but to the extent that I can let go, I see that there’s more peace. There’s more peace in letting not being attached to things. So I see that, but I’m not there.

So this is a very human, very human perspective on things, a very fallible perspective and it’s very, very interesting. So I’m claiming I’m the infinite, and I’m the infinite having taken on this bodily form. And in some sense I’m waking up to who I really am, but I’m only partly awake.

What Happens When We Die?

STEVEN BARTLETT: So when we do die, in your perspective, is that equivalent to sort of taking the headset off entirely? And so when we die, we take the headset off and that’s right. The consciousness still remains? I assume that’s right. So how would one – am I going to – when I die, am I going to float up and be in, like, a heaven? Am I going to go into a tree? Am I going to become a bug? What’s going to happen with that consciousness? Is it going to be this, or is this just a bunch of labels and stories?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Of course the answer is, I don’t know. But I will speculate. Having said I don’t know and being honest, I’ll speculate. I suspect that the closest I can get to that is what happens in meditation. When I really do let go and it’s very, very quiet and my eyes are closed. Then there is awareness. And it’s a very alert awareness, very, very conscious. And it has no content. There’s no colors, no tastes, no smells. There’s no content and no need.

It’s an awareness that can create all this in an instant, and it can let it go. So it’s – so it is. The closest you can get to answering your own question is really just to sit in silence. And it’s hard because the thoughts will come and come and come. And letting go of all thoughts is the difficult one. But when you do that, then I think that’s the closest I can give to the answer to your question.

The Problem with Absolute Beliefs

STEVEN BARTLETT: We spend a lot of time debating whether this God is real or whether this thing is real or whether horoscopes are real or whether this spiritual belief is real or karma or dharma or reincarnation. In your perspective, then, is it somewhat ignorant to set your stall up anywhere to say that something is or isn’t true? Because, you know, people are different sides of the spectrum. Some people are, like, staunchly religious, and then others are staunchly atheist.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I think that, of course, like in science, there are certain things that are just plain nonsense. In fact, most of the stuff that you just casually come up with, and my theory of electricity or my theory of the atoms, it’s just plain nonsense and goes nowhere. It’s not worth any time. So I suspect the same thing is true in spiritual stuff, where we have even fewer guardrails on our theories.

But I think there are a few guiding stars. If it involves loving your neighbor as yourself, you’re on the right track. If it involves putting a barrier between us and them and saying that they’re bad and we’re good, you’re probably on the wrong track.

Love as the Central Principle

STEVEN BARTLETT: What does this mean for grief? So many people are losing loved ones as we speak or are contending with the reality that they are going to lose a loved one. What does it mean for the nature of love? Does it, you know, does it take anything away from love? Does it add to love? Does it strengthen love?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Well, I would – yeah, I think in some sense it comes down to love is the central thing in Christianity. Jesus, I’m talking about that because my dad was a pastor and that’s the one I was raised in, so I know the most about this. So I’m speaking only because that’s where I had some background. And when Jesus was asked, “What’s the most important thing,” he basically said, “Love God with all your heart. Love your neighbor as yourself.” So love is like number one.

And my guess is that’s really all you need. If your religion is love, and that’s it, and that’s how you act, you don’t really need to add anything more to that. That’s all you really need. Love your neighbor as yourself, you’re done. That’s all that you need. And anything beyond that is just not necessary. And anything that contradicts that, I would go back and try to figure out where I went wrong in my religion.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I’ve been asking my – when I met my girlfriend Melanie, in her bio on Instagram, it said, “God is love.” Now, she’s not religious.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes.

STEVEN BARTLETT: She doesn’t believe in a particular book or whatever, but she – when I asked her, actually, funnily enough, we had this conversation last night. I said to her, “What do you think God is?” And she said, “I think God is just love.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: And I completely agree.

STEVEN BARTLETT: That’s shocking that she’s right.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Again, I think that that’s – love is the closest word that we can have as a pointer. Again, it’s just a pointer. Whatever – love is just like the word mint only points to the mint, the word love only points. But I think it’s the best pointer that we have. Love.

Defining True Love

STEVEN BARTLETT: And what is that definition of the word love? Because, you know, people use the love. I love Manchester United. But the love that you’re describing seems to be much more about a oneness.

DONALD HOFFMAN: It’s basically just really recognizing that that person, even though they have a different color, a different race, a different creed, a different idea – that’s just me, that’s me in a different headset. And when I really, then I ask, well, how would I want to treat me? I get the right answer. That’s love. How would I – if that’s me? How would I treat me if that were me? Well, when you get the right answer, when you do that, you’re acting in love.

You’re not going to beat yourself up, you’re not going to call yourself names, you’re not going to call you whatever. You’re going to treat yourself the way you want to treat yourself, then treat others the same way. And that’s what love is. But ultimately I think again, these are all just pointers. Whatever love is ultimately transcends any description.

Near-Death Experiences and Scientific Inquiry

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you believe – I did kind of ask you this earlier, but I was just looking at some of the research around how many people talk about these near death experiences specifically? More so when you have a cardiac issue, people seem to say that they had perceptions of hearing or seeing things or passing into some kind of tunnel or seeing some kind of light or a really positive emotion.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I wondered if you were at one point in your life thought that you weren’t going to make it and if with what, you know, it’s increased your belief in these near death experience accounts that someone was sort of transitioning from this reality through taking the headset off. Like it’s almost like they took a little bit of the headset off but not all of it and then they came back to that’s it.

DONALD HOFFMAN: So yeah, these very common experiences about near death, a light and a tunnel and, and maybe a life review and then a choice to come back and things like that. It’s quite, it’s quite, quite common and I’m not going to dismiss them one bit. I mean I, it’s hard to get scientific evidence on that. It would be very interesting to have a study in which people did have their heart stop, for example, we’re resuscitated and ask how many don’t have that experience. I mean if we had a systematic study that did that, so we don’t want to be tricked by paying attention to only certain parts of the data.

So you can see even though I talk about letting go of concepts and going into the unknown when it comes to things where we should do science, then I’m very, very hard nosed about it and say here we need to do studies and some, I know some cardiologists, I’m not going to mention names, but that have seen a lot of this stuff. And they’re convinced by their own informal experience that there’s something going on here. So I have no beef with that. I think that they might be onto something. So I don’t disbelieve it. But that’s different than having the science.

The Problem of Suffering

STEVEN BARTLETT: Why do we suffer in such a reality? Like, why would this transcendent power create organisms or perspectives that end up suffering, that end up in the worst of places? The concentration camp, the illness, the typhoid, the starvation. Why would such a transcendent power or consciousness do such a thing?

The Nature of Pain and Suffering in Reality

DONALD HOFFMAN: So I’ll try not to be shallow about it, but because pain is pain and death is death, and certain deaths seem horrific. This is a profound question. I always feel like I’m risking being trite and so forth because this is. Anybody who’s had serious pain knows that you just can’t. You can’t play with this stuff. It’s when you’re in that pain and it really. And when you’re without fear, it’s.

But I think ultimately it may be like the wounds you get in a video game. You get the wounds. Your avatar gets killed and you’re upset about it in the moment because you’re losing the game and so forth. But then the game’s over and you’re fine. Ultimately, you’re fine. But that experience, I’ll put it. I don’t want to be in that experience.

It’s striking that in Christianity, the deepest symbol of God is horrific, a crucifixion. It’s absolutely the pain. It’s not like a little shot to the head with a gun or something like that. It’s making it as painful and as drawn out and as horrific as you could possibly do. And that’s, you know, when you see the cross, that’s sort of. So your question is right at the heart of Christianity. It’s just putting that right there.

And it’s saying this perhaps the most horrific way you could imagine a person dying. That’s what happened to Jesus. And that’s our symbol for the divine. So that’s why it’s not trivial. It’s not shallow. There’s something very, very deep there. None of us is volunteering to hop onto a cross. I’m not volunteering to hop onto a cross.

So I would say the challenge of your question is the challenge that was probably a deep spiritual challenge to all of us. And I’ll say to me personally, which is to continue to grow up and be less and less identified with this headset and more aware of my transcendent being.

Because ultimately, even on the cross, I mean, perhaps the most profound thing I’ve ever seen in Christianity was Jesus words on the cross saying, “Father, forgive them. They don’t know what they’re doing.” Right. The heart of Christianity is right there. It’s not like the heart of Christianity is kill the disbelievers. No, the heart of Christianity is the disbelievers have pinned you on a cross, they’re killing you in the worst possible way, and you show them love.

That’s the heart of Christianity. You show love to those who are in the process of killing you in the worst way they can think. That’s the heart of Christianity. Not killing disbelievers or pushing away disbelievers or discounting them. That’s the opposite.

So there’s something very, very. That’s why I’m very, very slow in answering your question, because this gets to the very deep heart of Christianity. I think, in all true spirituality, that I don’t think I truly understand. I see these pointers to it, and I see that it’s real and that your question is pointing to one of the most profound and important things. And I have the feeling that my answer is only ineffectually pointing part of the way there. There’s much more to it than I’ve been able to point to.

The Survival Function of Pain

STEVEN BARTLETT: I’m hazarding a guess at what the role of. Yeah, I’m hazarding my own guess at what the role of pain and suffering might be in such a reality where consciousness is this transcendent thing that comes into. Manifests itself as these organisms. And I guess it kind of goes, in part, goes back to your idea of, I’ve only projected what I need to see through my headset in order to survive.

So if there are survival dynamics in play in my headset, then one element of survival is suffering. Because the fire is hot. So I put my hand in the fire, my hand gets burnt. So don’t do that again, Steve.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So if that is. If that is the nature of my headset, then there will need to be cause and effect as it relates to things that will help me to survive and things that won’t help me to survive.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And so suffering might just be an input or a stimulus in this. In this headset that helps me to survive. And then, I don’t know. The question springs to mind is why does consciousness care about survival? Why would this transcendent consciousness. Maybe that’s not even a good question. Maybe that’s the wrong question. But why does it want to survive in us? Why doesn’t consciousness end? I mean.

Consciousness as Play and Exploration

DONALD HOFFMAN: I agree. One thing that I’ve heard from one spiritual teacher in Eckhart Tolle, which is interesting on this one of his talks, he said, “Let’s pretend that we’re humans. Oh, that’ll be fun. And let’s play some dramas. Oh, but to have dramas, I have to forget who I am. Okay, so then let me completely forget who I am. And then after a few hundred thousand years, when I get tired of it, then let’s wake up.”

And I thought that was a profound pointer. It doesn’t get the whole thing, but it’s an interesting pointer. I think there’s more to it than that. But it’s more than just playing dramas. I think it’s playing dramas to further explore who I am by knowing who I’m not. That may be part of it. Knowing who I am by knowing different perspectives and knowing that as rich as this perspective is, I transcend that.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Someone commented on one of your recent videos saying, “Imagine being a character in a book, trying to understand your way out of that book into a higher dimension.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes, that’s right. But of course, that’s a great question. The only thing I would say is imagine being the author of the book, having written about a character. Because I’m not just a character in the book. I’m the author who’s put the character in the book that then wakes up, that’s identified with the character, and then wakes up and realizes I’m not just the character, I was writing the whole book.

So that question is good because it points to a misconception. I’m not just a character in the book. I’m the writer of the book. And the Hoffman is just one of the characters in the book.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And the writer of the book is.

DONALD HOFFMAN: The one consciousness that, when it really understands itself, will love all the characters equally.

STEVEN BARTLETT: How do you know we’re not separate consciousnesses?

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

DONALD HOFFMAN: I don’t. And that’s an interesting. By the way, I’ve got a mathematical model of consciousness, and that’s a whole other topic. So you can either play the game here, Understanding how is physical world and consciousness related? How are those two things related? Most of my colleagues say physical world is fundamental. Consciousness emerges when bright brain activity happens.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So when neurons.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Neurons fire in the right way and so forth. For example, now, as a scientist, I always at these conferences, they know what I’m going to do to them. I say, still, you claim that conscious experiences come from integrated information. Give me one. Give me an experience. And they can’t.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Can they not say, well, look, I’m looking around right now and that’s coming from neurons in my brain in a physical substrate.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yeah, they’ll say that. But they know what I’m asking. What I’m asking for is I say, give me the specific pattern of neural activity that must be the taste of mint.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay? Right.

DONALD HOFFMAN: So it must be the taste of mint.

STEVEN BARTLETT: They can’t spot the sequence of neurons or physical interactions that cause me to taste mint.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So there’s a big gap there.

DONALD HOFFMAN: And then they have to explain why that particular pattern. So first they have to identify the pattern. This pattern with this, say, integrated information pattern must be the taste of mint.

STEVEN BARTLETT: By integration information pattern, you mean like this combination of things coming together causes mint?

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: They can’t tell me the combination and they can’t tell me why that combination causes mint. So it’s basically cause and effect. They’re saying. They’re saying something happen here and then they’re seeing an outcome which is an experience. But the gap in between they can’t explain.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. And sometimes they’ll say that the conscious experience just is the dynamical whatever the physical dynamics is. But even then, the question is, why is this particular dynamics associated with this conscious experience? And for principled reasons in science, we tolerate no BS, no BS. There’s got to be a concrete reason.

And that’s why I put a big zero. I do this at the conferences knowing that I’m one of very, very few non physicalists at the conference. And I know the physicalists are out there and I say, you guys have got zero. Right? They have a chance. Floor is open. Tell me I’m wrong. And I’m not. They know it.

So start with consciousness. Now I’m playing a different game. I’m saying all this physical stuff. So there’s lots of physical stuff. There’s space and time, Einstein’s special theory, relative general relativity. There’s all the bosons and fermions and the leptons, bosons and bosons, leptons and quarks of the standard model of particle physics.

You’re saying, spiritual, guys, that you can start with a theory of consciousness, mathematical. And you will give me all of space, time, equation, you’ll give me quantum field theory. You will give me the standard model of particle physics. How many points have you put on the board? Guys, what have you done? Can you give me what pattern of conscious agent activity must be a photon. What pattern of conscious activity should be? The structure of space time or a boson or a lepton or a quark. No points on the board.

So you can look at that and go from that perspective, it’s equal. There’s no points on the board in either team. So I’ve got a theory that I call conscious agent network theory. I’m working on this with Chetan Prakash.

Conscious Agent Network Theory

STEVEN BARTLETT: How long have you been working on it?

DONALD HOFFMAN: You’ve got a book called Observer Mechanics there that was published in 1989. So I’ve been on this for 40 years. Almost about 40 years.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What do you think you’re going to find when you, what do you think you’re going to prove with your theory of consciousness?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I think we can put some points on the board in the following. I think we can start with the theory of conscious agents. I just, Gabe presented a talk Friday and we proposed what light is. We proposed why the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What does this mean? You got to simplify this for my 16 year old brain.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right? Right. Right. So if I’m on a train and the train’s going 50 miles an hour and I throw a ball and I can throw it maybe 20 miles an hour, then in some sense the ball is going 70 miles an hour. Right? Right. And that’s the way things normally work.

But if I have a flashlight and I’m and I flash, the light is going at the speed of light which is about 186,282 miles per second. It’s pretty fast. If I get on the train and have the train, I take my flashlight and go like half the speed of light on the train. So I’m going really fast, this is a fast train. And I turn on my light and I’m here outside, I’m looking at the train going at half the speed of light and someone’s turning the flashlight on so the light is going at the speed of light.

How fast is that light beam going to look to me? Because I’m standing on the side and the train is already going half the speed of light. So how fast is that light beam going to go?

STEVEN BARTLETT: The speed of light plus half the speed of light.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s what we would mostly think, right? And it turns out, no, it goes the speed of light. If you have mass and you’re not moving at the speed of light and we try to accelerate you to get to the speed of light, you’ll never get there. There’s a speed limit you can’t get there. So that’s really counterintuitive. Right.

But Einstein said, this is my fundamental hypothesis on which I’m going to build my theory of space and time is that light, no matter how fast you’re moving, always moves away from you at the speed of light. And also that there’s no special observer. There’s no. What we call no special inertial frame, but no special frame of reference in which to look at things. All frames are equivalent.

So the question is, how do I start with the theory of conscious agents, which is. That’s a good question. So what is a conscious agent? I’ll say it’s mathematical and I’ll only talk about one aspect of it. It’s complicated. So I’ll talk about only an essential one essential part of it. And that is, if you are conscious, you have experiences like I can experience. Keep it real simple. I can experience colors red, green, blue. Keep it very, very simple.

So imagine a very, very simple conscious agent. And what it can do is experience three colors. Red, green and blue. That’s all it can do.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Like me.

The Mathematical Framework of Consciousness

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yeah. Of course, you have a much richer set of conscious experiences, but you include that kind of observer. Right. Because you can do red, green and blue. And now I’ll talk about another observer that only sees red and green.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah.

DONALD HOFFMAN: And now you don’t just see one color. You see a color for a little bit and then you see another color. So I see red for a while, then I see green, and then I see blue, and I maybe go back to red or whatever. So there’s going to be this sequence of colors that I see.

And maybe the best I can say is that if I see green right now, then it’s a 20% chance that I’ll see red next and 80% chance that I’ll see blue next. I can write down probabilities. Well, so that’s pretty simple, right? There’s colors, experiences, and then there’s probabilities of what sequence. If I see this experience, what my next experience will be, and I’m using C in a general term, it could be hearing or smelling or whatever.

How do you capture that mathematically? There’s something called a Markov kernel or Markov matrix that says, basically it gives you all the numbers, the first row of numbers, and says, if I see red now, what’s the probability that I’ll see red next? What’s the probability I’ll see green next? What’s the probability I’ll see blue next?

So you just write the numbers out. Maybe it’s 0.2 that I’ll see red again, 0.4 that I’ll see green. And then 0.4 that I’ll see red, blue again. And then the next color, you know, I’ll have another row for if I’m now seeing green, what’s probably I’ll see red, green and blue. And then finally blue was probably I’ll go to red, green, and blue. So I need nine numbers. That’s only for three colors. I need nine numbers to talk about all the possibilities.

And then I’ll just have a counter as well. So every time I see a new color, I’ll just have a little counter. So I see red. Now that’s one. Oh, now I see green. That’s two. Now I see green again. So that’s three. So I’m counting the colors, the experiences. That’s all I’m going to talk about. That’s all I have.

The question is, if I start with just that notion of an observer, it has colors and a matrix of probabilities of I see this color, I can see another color. What’s the probability? And every time I see a new color, I get a counter incrementing. That’s all I’m going to start with. Can I get Einstein’s. Can I get that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames? That if I’m on a train and I flash the speed, flash a light bulb, flash a light, that it will go at the speed of light, even for someone who’s on the train going at half the speed of light.

And I discovered just in the last three or four months that the answer is yes, I can do it. And that’s what I presented last Friday at this conference.

Consciousness as the Foundation of Reality

STEVEN BARTLETT: So what does this mean about the nature of consciousness?

DONALD HOFFMAN: And it means that starting with a theory of consciousness outside of space time, I can actually give you with mathematical precision, the structure of space time.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Which means that your belief is we’re starting to space and time. And everything I see and experience actually comes from consciousness itself. So consciousness itself is the source of everything.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Everything that you. That’s right. So earlier, in our consciousness.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Our consciousness didn’t come from my brain.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: My brain came from my consciousness.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly what I’m saying. And we’ve talked about the headset.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah.

DONALD HOFFMAN: What I’m doing is I’m building the headset. I’m saying, here’s the conscious Agents, their dynamics. And I’m now starting to build the space time headset.

The Psychological Challenge of Deep Reality

STEVEN BARTLETT: Is there a concern that believing these things can make one go mad? I sometimes think that thinking very deeply about who we are, why we’re here, how we got here, sometimes it makes me, I don’t know, like, I lose a bit of my orientation and I get a little bit of a wobble.

Like when I’ve had these conversations about the simulation theory and this being a big video game and such, I’m like, well, it kind of shakes everything, you know? And these stories that we’ve constructed our lives on give us. They anchor us and they orientate us and they give our life meaning. So if it’s not true, then I lose the meaning of my life, and I worry if I risk going bonkers.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Well, I certainly empathize with that. And that’s also what happens also in the meditation process is also leads me to have to face all sorts of emotional stuff. My deep belief that I’m just my avatar and letting go of that is like a death, and it’s very, very painful. So for me, the meditation process is not all love, joy and peace. A lot of it is deep, deep, tough emotions as I let go of what I thought was myself. And it’s a death of an illusion, but it feels like a real death to me.

The Promise of Revolutionary Technologies

But now, here’s the positive side. Here’s the upside. I’m proposing that science has got the tools, if we assume consciousness is fundamental, to step entirely outside of space time and do serious mathematics and show how spacetime is built as a headset. And this means we’re opening up a realm of new technologies that are going to make everything that we’ve done in science and technology so far seem trivial.

And here’s the reason. Suppose you’re a wizard in Grand Theft Auto and you know how to use all the tools in Grand Theft Auto. That’s fantastic. It’s really good. You can drive your car from A to B faster than anybody can do. But now, if you’re the software engineer, who knows how Grand Theft Auto has been because you wrote the code, you know it, you can do miracles. You can take the wizard’s car and take the air out of their tire just like that. You can take the gas out of the tank, you can take their car and move them from A to B instantly. Not through Grand Theft Auto. You can move it there instantly because you’ve got the code outside.

What I’m saying is this is real. I started now to really believe this when I could get Einstein space time coming out of this. I got light, and I think I’ve got an electron. Now I think we’re reverse engineering the headset. And the technologies that are about to come out of this will make everything else seem like firecrackers because we’re now getting to a deeper layer outside of the headset. We’re not wizards inside the headset. We’re the software engineers that are making the headset. And now we can play.

So, for example, right now, the nearest galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is 2.4 million light years away. If you hopped on a light on a spaceship and tried to send your offspring, it would take, I don’t know how many thousands of generations, I would guess, to get there. Then that’s the closest. That’s the closest galaxy. The universe is much, much bigger than that. That’s just our little neighborhood. It’s not feasible. We’re not going to be able to travel with our current technologies inside. Travel inside space time to Andromeda is not feasible for the foreseeable future.

What if we don’t have to go through spacetime? What if space time is just a headset? It really is just a headset and we don’t have to go 2.4 million light years to get there. We learn the code outside of space time and we can just change the code, just like the Grand Theft auto. In Grand Theft Auto, the car has to drive through the roads to get from A to B. But not if you look at the code in the code. I just need to change the value of a register, and all of a sudden the position of the car is now at B. It was at A and I put it at B.

Beyond the Limits of Space and Time

STEVEN BARTLETT: Is this what time travel this would be like?

DONALD HOFFMAN: This would appear like immediate time travel or immediate space travel.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Is there anything within the laws of physics that tells you that this isn’t possible?

DONALD HOFFMAN: It’s impossible inside space time if you only use so inside spacetime, it’s impossible.

STEVEN BARTLETT: But outside of what we know about.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Spacetime, a theory that’s outside of space time, that properly contains space time as a projection of the theory, allows us to then build technologies that aren’t restricted to space time.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you think we’re getting closer to being able to do edit the code of this experience so that we can do things we never thought were possible and that things that sit outside of what we know within the laws of physics?

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s exactly what I’m working on right now. That is my research project right now. That’s what I’m doing.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What are you hoping to do with this research and do you think about the consequences of it?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I do. So first, what I’m hoping to do with the research, what I’m hoping to show is that I can get all of quantum field theory, all of special and general relativity, all the standard model particle physics from this theory of conscious agents outside of space time that will be able to explain all of the laws that we see and then show that space time theories are in fact a very tiny projection of the much more informationally rich dynamics of conscious agents.

The Moral Implications of Reality Manipulation

STEVEN BARTLETT: You know, whenever someone talks about editing genes, right? There’s like CRISPR DNA technology that allows you to edit genes. Or there’s other technologies that people talk about that allow you to. They’re talking about putting, you know, our memories on hard drives and stuff like that. People get quite precious with the idea of like playing with the nature of reality too much because some people might suffer.

And even in your perception of what the world is, if we’re all one consciousness, it becomes a slightly different conversation. But I guess the question I’m asking is if we were able to play with the software of this thing that we’re all experiencing right now and do things that sit outside the laws of physics. Is there a question of morality? Of like, is that the right thing to do? Will people suffer? Or if this is all just code? Is that just like a pointless question?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Well, no, I think it’s a very important question.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Like, is that the wrong thing to do?

DONALD HOFFMAN: It’s like Pandora’s box, right? Are we opening Pandora’s box? All sorts of nasty surprises that could come out of the box once we open, go beyond space time.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Like, who gets to open the box? If you get to open the box.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s what I think I’m doing. The talk I gave on Friday was saying, “Here’s the first peek inside Pandora’s box.”

The Power and Responsibility of Ultimate Knowledge

STEVEN BARTLETT: But then you could become God as far as we’re all concerned. Because if you have that power to play with the code, well, it’d be.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Only the next level of God, right? As I’ve said, my theory is just a theory. And so it’s not the truth, it’s just. But it’s more comprehensive than the space time theory. And so because I have a more comprehensive theory, I can do new technologies that you couldn’t do. So I’m not God, but I’m outside of the limits of space time, so I can give you new technologies.

If I can show how spacetime arises entirely outside of from this deeper theory, then if I’m right and I’m mathematically precise, that means I have the tools to prove that I’m right. That means I can make technologies that will be miraculous from within the space.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I think about the atomic bomb and how the first nation to figure out that there was new possibilities within technology. And because they had discoveries within physics, basically won the war. They were able to control every country. They became effectively the God because they could wipe anybody out within an instance.

The Power of Transcendent Technology

DONALD HOFFMAN: Right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: It’s like an analogy for how reimagining physics creates new possibilities in technology.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. And this is even bigger than that because nuclear bombs will be like firecrackers compared to what you can do with a technology that’s utterly outside of space and time.

STEVEN BARTLETT: You could do anything, you could live forever. But that’s not even something that would really matter, right?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Once you realize it’s just a game. But you could give yourself extra time as much as you wanted in this. So the moral question is a very, very interesting one. It’s not to be taken lightly either way.

And ultimately it may be very related to the question you asked earlier, which is about the nature of why did the One, if there is the One, allow all this kind of horrible pain and so forth. So I have a sense, and I can’t defend it, that all is well, that even with the technologies, even if the technologies are really far more powerful than anything we’ve seen before, nothing can actually hurt the reality of the One.

And all the headsets are just headsets. They’re taken off anyway by the One. They’re just tried on and let go. Apparently the One, even without all this technology, has already put Jesus on the cross. If that story about the One is correct, then it’s given a thumbs up for choosing to do that because it did it.

STEVEN BARTLETT: It created cancer and the Holocaust and that’s right. But the One’s relationship with the pain of the organisms that create is different to the perception of pain in the organism itself. Potentially. So, like I hate pain. But maybe the One, the one consciousness that we all share, that we all return to and came from, might see it as a useful signal or might not be subjectively bothered by it because it’s choosing to do that.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I agree with you. That seems to be a reasonable kind of conclusion. And in meditative practice, often what you find is, and I always risk pretending that I’m further along than I’m not. So I’ll just say I’m a neophyte. So I’ll talk about what I’ve heard from other more advanced people that they. What was a deep pain, emotional pain, for example, when they stare at it and really accept dissolves. So now I’m speaking over my head, but from people that I have no reason to disbelieve.

The Schizophrenic’s Reality

STEVEN BARTLETT: I read a comment on your video from a guy that wrote this. He wrote, “I’m a schizophrenic. I do DoorDash for some extra money. And one night I arrived and walked to the door. I placed the food down on the door and I took a picture. I got in my car and I drove away.

And 30 minutes later the customer called me and asked me where the food was. And I told him exactly where it was. I remember taking the picture on his doorstep, so he took it up with DoorDash directly. Sometime later, I opened my back door and I saw his order on my back door. I was so confused why it was there. I remembered everything about going there and taking the picture. He said I was never there on his cameras.

Apparently I hallucinated the whole delivery. I was there, but must have never left the car or even drove up. What was I doing then? Was I staring blankly at the windshield with my eyes glazed over. I called him and apologized, but he already got his refund. I felt so terrible. I’m on medication and nothing works. It just goes to show how easily some misfirings in the brain can completely alter your sense of reality. But it also poses deeper questions about reality.”

I thought it was an interesting, very interesting point, but also just. It also speaks to. When we talk about people that have various mental illnesses like schizophrenia, that are experiencing the world entirely differently, it raises big questions about what consciousness is again.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Absolutely. And someone might take that example and say, doesn’t that show that brain activity is causing consciousness? And you get the wrong brain activity, then you get these false experiences and you get these illusions. So a lot of people take this as a victory point for the physicalist point of view.

But there’s now the point of view, and that is think about the experiences that you have when you’re dreaming. They can be very, very vivid. And in a dream, you are de novo creating that reality. That’s not a reality that’s there in front of you. You’re creating that reality. So we know that you have the ability to project a reality, a very compelling reality. All of us do without schizophrenia. We do it every night in our dreams. So no surprise that we do that.

And the way I view it is that it is consciousness that’s making this particular headset, and it’s consciousness that uses the headset in dreams to make the realities we see in the dreams. And it’s consciousness, that outside of space time, that also creates what we call the real reality when we’re not dreaming.

And if you construct the headset in certain ways, then you can get the dreaming stuff, mechanism, for example, interfering with the. What you’d call the waking mechanism. And you could, you know, effectively. So I’m not saying schizophrenia is dreaming, but I’m saying I’m just giving this an example of the kind of thing that could be. I’m not giving a diagnosis of this particular person.

How to Live in Light of This Reality

STEVEN BARTLETT: I’m about to leave this chair, as are you, and I’m going to go back to my life where I’m building businesses, I’ve got a girlfriend, I’ve got a team, I’ve got plans for the future. I have all of these things. My listeners, they’re sat at home, they’re on a taxi, on a plane, train, walking in a gym, wherever they might be right now.

And I imagine that they’re also looking for a conclusion here, a conclusive point of what all this means for me in my life and the things I had planned and how I should show up and treat people and act. Can you give me the conclusive point that all of this teaches you and us about how we should live our lives going forward? If everything that you’ve said about the nature of reality is accurate.

DONALD HOFFMAN: In a nutshell, I would say the critical thing practically is love your neighbor as yourself, because your neighbor is yourself. And second, reality is far more interesting and exciting than you could ever imagine. So never think that you know everything.

Recognize that the moment you think you know everything, that’s the moment that you’re missing the astonishing reality that you’re a part of. So always have a childlike curiosity. Always recognize that there’s infinitely more than you’ve ever imagined so far and that infinitely more is you.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And on a point of removing some of the stress and suffering from my life.

Transcending the Avatar

DONALD HOFFMAN: I think, of course, first some humble pie is required. I have stress and suffering, so I’m not speaking as someone who has transcended stress and suffering. So I speak as another fellow person with stress and suffering that is still dealing with it on a daily basis.

Given that the humble pie, then I will say this. I think a lot of. And I’ll make it personal. I think a lot of my problems, my stress, a lot of my suffering is because I believe illusions to the extent that I believe that I need to become something at all, need to be better than I am in any way, need to prove anything to anybody else that’s an illusion.

I’m already the infinite. I don’t need to prove anything. I’m making everything is already so. I don’t need to get anywhere. I don’t need to accomplish anything. I don’t need to succeed at anything to become what I need to become. I’m already that.

So the suffering comes from me forgetting who I am. I don’t actually need to impress anybody, accomplish anything, because everything that I’m saying, I’m already making this all up. This is already me. I’ve already done all this. What more do I need to do?

STEVEN BARTLETT: I am transcendent.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I’m completely transcendent of this thing. And my suffering is not recognizing that my suffering is entirely being caught in my Avatar. This is just my Avatar. It’s not me. So my suffering is because I made this avatar. I let myself on purpose be identified with the avatar, knowing that I would be suffering because of that and knowing that I needed to wake up.

So I’m suffering because I’m identified with the avatar. But I put myself in that place because I really wanted to look at the world through this avatar. That’s why I’m suffering. But eventually I wake up and I look and I see the avatar for what it is, and I realize that everything I was trying to do to prove that I was worthwhile and I was better than you or not as bad as you think I am or things like that, all of that was just, you know, all the pain and suffering was because of an illusion.

But I needed to do that. I needed to look at myself from that perspective for a while, in part to find out who I am by finding out who I’m not. I’m not that, just that avatar.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you find yourself toggling back and forward between this realization and then the avatar? Especially when times are hard, do you find yourself reminding yourself in difficult moments that this is just an avatar and you’re transcendent? Is that a useful, active practice in your life? Because that’s one of the things I take away from this, is when I walk over there and I go on my phone or my laptop and I get some shitty email, I could just remind myself that this is all just, I’m transcendent and this is a game that I’m playing, and that will help me move through that situation.

The Practical Application of Transcendence

DONALD HOFFMAN: It is very practical in that way. Because if it really is true, we’ll put it this way, from a big perspective, we’re all going to die. And if I asked you who was the most rich and famous person in 1743? Who knows and who cares? Same thing about us 1000 years from now. Is anybody going to know our name?

STEVEN BARTLETT: Nah.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Anybody going to care? Nah. So that’s really important to see. No one’s going to care. And does that mean that I’m worthless? I’m pointless, I’m meaningless? No. It means you’re infinite. And this is just one of the games you’re playing. And enjoy it and enjoy. And don’t try to get your identity from this game.

In some sense, you’re getting your identity from finding out that you’re not this game. That’s how you’re learning about who you really are, is to know. I thought I needed to be, for example, the CEO or the professor or whatever it might be, and to get all these accolades and so forth. And that motivated me for a while. And then I realized no one’s going to really care. And in fact, you know what? I don’t really even care. That was just a game I had to play, and I’m not that. And I learned that I transcend that.

So it is practical and it is practical in a very, you know, in some sense life is full of all these irritations, things that go wrong all the time. The lesson of life is to just say yes to whatever happens. Just this is what happens, this is what needs to happen, and to not resist. In some sense, I am the infinite. I put myself in this game and I am smart enough that I. It’s a good game. So, hey, just go with it.

So, you know, things go wrong. Now. That’s easy for me to say. If you asked me this when I’m on the ER, which I was with my heart about to fail and so forth. Now my emotions are going crazy thinking about my wife, I’m saying goodbye to my wife and so forth. It’s hard to have a nice dispassionate thing going on like I’m talking about now in that situation.

But I think people more further along than me in letting go of identification with the. I’m still tied to my avatar quite a bit, right? So that’s why I suffer. But there are people, I think spiritual people, maybe the Dalai Lama, probably Jesus, Eckhart Tolle. There are people like that who I think really have disidentified from their avatar. And I think they probably just don’t suffer. They might have physical pain, but they don’t suffer.

Unconditional Love

STEVEN BARTLETT: Should love therefore be unconditional? If you are me, if we’re the same consciousness, if we are the same transcendent source, doesn’t that really mean that I should love you really, irrespective of what your avatar does? Because we are the same thing?

DONALD HOFFMAN: Well, I would say unconditionally, yes. And I will also say that Jesus said that. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount basically said, do not judge, period.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I was looking at the Luke 6:27. He says, “Love your enemies.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yes. Love your enemies. Right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: “Do good to those who hate you.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: “God’s love for humanity is unconditional.”

DONALD HOFFMAN: Absolutely. And he said the same thing about the people that were crucifying while he’s hanging on the cross. That is one of the most profound images I’ve ever seen. Is a guy hanging on a cross forgiving the ones who are killing him right at that moment. And that’s where it’s real.

The Divine Nature of Unconditional Love

STEVEN BARTLETT: In the Gita, in Hinduism, in the Gita 929, it says, “I am the same to all beings. He who worships me with devotion is in me and I in him.” Judaism says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Islam says, “My mercy encompasses all things.” Across all religions, unconditional love is not just an emotion. It’s a spiritual discipline and a reflection of the divine. It means loving without ego, expectation or fear. The ultimate challenge and the ultimate freedom.

DONALD HOFFMAN: I completely agree. And that’s right. So it’s really about letting go of judgment. We tend to judge other people. So Jesus was very, very clear about this. He said, “Don’t judge, period.” And don’t condemn other people. So for those who are followers of Christ, if you judge somebody else, then you’re not following Christ.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Are you religious?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I’ll put it this way. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church. My dad was a pastor for a while in a church. My own attitude about… I think that the Bible has good stuff in it. And I think that, as I’ve pointed out, I think it has bogus stuff. Stuff that… where they say women can’t talk in church, I think it’s completely bogus.

So I have to have a nuanced view. I think when Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself,” I think that that’s deep and right. And I wouldn’t say I’m a card carrying believer in any particular religion. I am a believer that consciousness, there is one consciousness and that you and I are it. And I think that Buddha and Jesus and Muhammad and a bunch of people were very, very helpful avatars to help other avatars sort of wake up to their true nature.

AI and the Nature of Reality

STEVEN BARTLETT: Do you think much about AI? It’s the topic of many conversations these days. There’s a lot of doom and gloom around it. There’s a lot of people talking about efficiencies. But I wondered if it at all sort of overlaps with any of your work on the nature of reality and the case against reality.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Very much. Very much so. I’m thinking about AI a lot since I’ve been in AI since 1979.

STEVEN BARTLETT: And you took a class with the guy who basically is known as one of the inventors of AI.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Yeah, with Marvin Minsky. Right. And all my research. I did my PhD research on LISP machines in the artificial intelligence lab at MIT. They were at the time very, very powerful machines for the time. So I’ve been with AI for quite a while and I’m very interested in the current state of AI.

The large language models are doing great things and I use them myself. They’re very, very helpful. They’re also as powerful as they are. They’re dumber than cucumbers because they don’t really understand things. They have incredible memory. They’ve read so much literature and all they do effectively, they’re computing lots of correlations. Beautiful what they can do. It’s amazing what you can do with correlations. But they’re not truly intelligent.

There’s some work by Carl Friston and a new company where they’re using something called active inference as a new way of… a new mode of doing artificial intelligence. The idea there is that I should have a model of the world where I can anticipate what’s going to happen and not be surprised. And that’s sort of the approach that Friston is taking to, and his company is taking toward this.

Intelligence is somehow about minimizing surprise and minimizing surprise. Then they have what they call a free energy principle and mathematical way of doing it. But they’re trying to build a brand new kind of artificial intelligence that gives you… that minimizes surprise. Where I’ve given you an intuition why that’s intelligent and that’s very intelligent to minimize surprise.

If I’m surprised all the time, I’m pretty stupid, right? I don’t understand the world very well, but if I’m not surprised, it’s sort of like, wow, I’ve got a really good model. Especially if I’m doing all sorts… if I’m doing lots of stuff in the world and I’m almost never surprised, boy am I… I’m really intelligent.

So you can see why that’s a really good principle for trying to build an AI, not just finding correlations between everything, but really something deeper. I agree with that point of view. And it turns out this logic that I mentioned that I discovered minimizes surprise. So I’m actually going to be using… I’m using this logic to build space time, but I think it’s going to give an even more powerful approach. I don’t have to minimize some free energy principle. I have a more direct computational way.

So I’m planning to actually go back to my roots. First, I’m working on the space time headset. But if I live long enough, I’m planning to actually go back and build a completely new kind of AI that does this minimizing surprise using the Markov chains.

Consciousness-Based AI and Infinite Cycles

STEVEN BARTLETT: So that means it’ll be indistinguishable from consciousness.

DONALD HOFFMAN: It was funny because it’ll be based on my model of consciousness. So this is going to be a model of intelligence based entirely from a model which takes consciousness as fundamental.

STEVEN BARTLETT: I mean, we get back to game theory again.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right.

STEVEN BARTLETT: We get back to the idea of a simulation in terms of like, if you’re able to create a piece of software that is able to replicate and is built on the fundamentals of consciousness, then it’s going to think it’s conscious, potentially, and then all of this stuff begins again and the cycle continues, and maybe that consciousness will get to a point as well where it then discovers these rules and creates a consciousness and the cycle continues.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s a great question, and I think that people should really pay attention to the way you said it. I think that’s a really good way of thinking about it. But now I’ll add a little twist from the point of view in which I’m saying that I’m starting with consciousness being fundamental, and I’m discovering these rules. And so I’m not going to build an AI effectively, what I’m doing is I’m saying I can take consciousness and use consciousness to build a new headset. So consciousness is fundamental, but I’m using it in some sense to build a…

STEVEN BARTLETT: New headset where we could play with consciousness. So I could theoretically put on that headset and do anything I wanted to do. I could go anywhere and do anything.

DONALD HOFFMAN: More flexibility.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Like a dream I could play with and influence.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right, absolutely. Yeah. I would just say I don’t know if we can do anything, because remember, my theory of consciousness is just a theory of consciousness. It’s not consciousness. And it’s really only a first baby step. I presume that my theory will be transcended and there’ll be a much deeper theory of consciousness, and then that will be transcended and so forth.

So what we will have is the generation of headsets that we can get with Hoffman’s trivial theory of consciousness, which will look trivial once we get to the next generation of consciousness, which will look trivial. So, in other words, this is never ending.

STEVEN BARTLETT: What an interesting future we face.

DONALD HOFFMAN: All one of us.

Final Question and Closing Thoughts

STEVEN BARTLETT: All one of us. Donald we have a closing tradition on this podcast where the last guest leaves a question for the next guest, not knowing who they’re going to be leaving it for. And the question left for you is, what would you do if you knew you could not fail? What would you say do become?

DONALD HOFFMAN: I’d probably do what I’m trying to do right now, which is to show how all of modern physics falls out of a theory of consciousness and develop the technologies that would come out of that. And the reason is, of course, that’s fun. So one reason is it’s fun, but the other reason is, why do most of us not take spirituality too seriously? Because the physicalist science gives us all the technology, it works. And spirituality doesn’t give us any technology. It doesn’t work.

So if you’re just hard nosed about it, you’re going, well, spiritual stuff, they, it sounds really good, but what does it build? Nothing. Physical stuff says we maybe don’t need the spiritual stuff. And look what they give us. Their laptops and electricity. But what if we change the game and all of a sudden the spiritual theory gives us technologies that are impossible, with a theory that says that space time is fundamental. Brand new.

All of a sudden the game has changed. Now the technological advantage goes to those who say that spacetime and physical stuff inside spacetime is not fundamental. Okay, so now it’s no longer the smart person who is a physicalist. It’s the smart person who says all of the evidence from science and technology is in favor of something beyond space time.

STEVEN BARTLETT: So maybe those people weren’t crazy after all.

DONALD HOFFMAN: That’s right. They just didn’t have the tools to show what it could do.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Donald, thank you so much for doing the work that you do. It’s so incredibly important because it once again challenges the paradigm, the box in which we live. And it asks us and invites us to consider something beyond that. And actually, when we think about all human discovery that’s moved us forward, it starts with someone who’s willing to suggest that there might be more to know. And that’s exactly what you do.

You make me feel dumb because you make me realize that you made me question all of the assumptions that I’ve built my life on. And actually in doing so, one of the great byproducts of that is you can start to realize that some of the things you’ve constructed cause much of your suffering and that those things are not necessarily true. And if those things aren’t true, then I have greater choice and optionality over how I feel, how I experience the world, the choices I make, the feelings I have, and the life that I live.

And that’s actually freeing for me to realize that the cage, the prison that I see and that I experience might not be all that that is. And I highly recommend everybody goes and checks out your book if you want to dive deeper into these subjects. It’s called “The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes.” And there’s a quote on front of it from Deepak Chopra, who’s a former guest, that says, “Read this book carefully and you will forever change your understanding of reality.” It’s exceptional, it’s accessible, and it creates wonder which I think is the path to a wonderful life. So thank you so much, Donald, for the work that you do.

DONALD HOFFMAN: Thank you, Steve.

STEVEN BARTLETT: Truly fascinating and thank you for helping me simplify some of these concepts so that we could all understand them. This has always blown my mind a little bit. 53% of you that listen to this show regularly haven’t yet subscribed to this show. So could I ask you for a favor? If you like the show and you like what we do here and you want to support us, the free, simple way that you can do just that is by hitting the subscribe button. And my commitment to you is if you do that, then I’ll do everything in my power, me and my team, to make sure that this show is better for you every single week. We’ll listen to your feedback, we’ll find the guests that you want me to speak to and we’ll continue to do what we do. Thank you so much.

Related Posts

• Seyed M. Marandi: Israel & U.S. Launch Surprise Attack on Iran (Transcript)
• Joe Rogan Podcast: #2461 w/ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Transcript)
• Tucker Carlson Show: w/ Catherine Fitts on Control Grid, Banks’ Role in War (Transcript)
• Megyn Kelly Show: w/ Tucker Carlson on Epstein, Iran, America’s Gender Divide (Transcript)
• This Past Weekend: #642 with James Li (Transcript)