flowboy

Scientist Claims Consciousness is Primary, and ever self-exploring, keeps his job

7 posts in this topic

Did someone slip this scientist some 5-meo?

Looking at you, @Leo Gura 🤨🤨🤨


I help adults with ADD to overcome self-doubt, function optimally and live their dreams through my proprietary coaching program.

https://calendly.com/erik-coaching/add-coaching-free-strategy-consult

Besides that, ♂ I offer single breakthrough calls for men on social life, dating, relationships and sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald 😁

More scientists will come out with stuff like this in the near future i believe.

He is also a writer and member of Essentia Foundation, a non dual interpretation of reality according to science and logic and reason.

I think bernardo kastrup is one of the founders of Essentia. 

Donald Hoffmann is certainly open minded and was one who had the balls to stick his neck out.


They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this has been posted already.

To keep the discussion unique:

Why do we think this guy doesn't get burnt at the stake for being a heretic, but Rupert Sheldrake did?


I help adults with ADD to overcome self-doubt, function optimally and live their dreams through my proprietary coaching program.

https://calendly.com/erik-coaching/add-coaching-free-strategy-consult

Besides that, ♂ I offer single breakthrough calls for men on social life, dating, relationships and sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, flowboy said:

I see this has been posted already.

To keep the discussion unique:

Why do we think this guy doesn't get burnt at the stake for being a heretic, but Rupert Sheldrake did?

Great question.

Does not Ruperts ideas go way back?

Atleast more then Donalds?

I think Donald has an intellectual honesty in what he is doing.

He is one to firstly admit that he is probably wrong but science is about finding ways and keep exploring the unknown, and he is one who will try to open the door for more science to be done on it.

He want to bridge spirituality and science into one thing.

There is ofcourse crackpotterie in both science and spirituality, but both ofcourse have geniuine insights which is worth exploring from his point of view.

I feel that Rupert has had an issue with materialism science for a long time and is more religious then Donald, so I think that Donald is more respected by academia. 

Sheldrake is tho a smart man and has some pretty solid ideas. 

But it is the "paranormal" which has gotten Rupert into the argument with academia i believe


They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flowboy said:

I see this has been posted already.

To keep the discussion unique:

Why do we think this guy doesn't get burnt at the stake for being a heretic, but Rupert Sheldrake did?

I'm not super familiar with all what Sheldrake has claimed. But the gist I got from Sheldrake, is that he is more outspooken and scattered in his worldview. A bit all over the place if you will and are thereby at higher risk of being concidered woo-woo (not that there is something wrong with being all over though).

While Hoffmans single idea are more in line with the scientific methood at it's core. He present his case, and invite anyone into exploring that way of thinking. I'm more familiar with Hoffman, and I don't even think he himself has said or suggested that this is how reality of consciousness work. But rather that he puts it out there as a plausible explanation for how the mind might opperate to certain extent. Hoffman comes across as more clinical in his approach imo. And that makes him more relatable to his fellow scientists I believe.

 


The absolute truth of thought dwells in it's own absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Metaphor at 1:47:22 is beautiful.

While the idea of having a formal system describes the shape consciousness in a "rigorous" way is attractive, I don't want to be pessimistic, but it seems even the most basic explanations/descriptions of consciousness are entirely paradoxical and absurd. And mathematical models built on top of it will only be useful to obfuscate the shortcomings, when not proving themselves inconsistent or incomplete. For example, describing it as "network of consciousness" implies consciousness being formed by itself. If it is formed by itself then how does it really create itself in the first place? Unlocking the pandora box to infinite candies sounds yummy, but consciousness's gift to itself is itself.

dessin3.png

The holon structure is a good start, but if we go more detailed the model falls apart, and if we avoid details we are left with nothing.

Edited by nuwu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, get used to seeing more scientists opening up to the nondual paradigm and to mysticism.

Over the next 200 years science and mysticism will converge. It will be a slow process but it will happen.

P.S. Hoffman still does not understand what reality is. He's getting closer, but still far away.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now