[Music] How do you think of death, given all that we're talking about, and sort of the first-order, second-order, third-order implications of all that? How do you think about death? So physicalism has a very clear implication for death. If space-time is fundamental

and elementary particles like electrons and quarks and protons and so forth are the fundamental nature of reality, and what you are, what your body is, is just an assemblage, a complex assemblage of particles, and your consciousness is somehow an emergent property of

certain activities of those particles, say brain activity, then it's very, very clear that that in death, when the brain dissolves, your consciousness dissolves, and that's the end of the story. That's that's the end. That's it. That's a very, very clear implication of

physicalism. We can talk about panpsychism, but but physicalism, strict physicalism, that's that's the end of the story. If consciousness is fundamental and space-time is just an interface, and our bodies are merely icons that we use to represent certain assembly interactions of

conscious agents, and we can go into how I think about that, then on that approach, there is the possibility that some aspect of my consciousness survives death. Now, there I have to look at, you know, the mathematics of the model and and go into it, but

it may be, for example, that the bare awareness that's associated with me, just awareness without content, that that survives, but all the details of Donald Hoffman and his life story within this interface, maybe that all dissolves. Maybe we can, and that that's a story about what is

consciousness up to we can talk about what is, you know, if consciousness is fundamental, what is it doing and why? What, what, what is the dynamics of consciousness about? And we really to answer the question about death, we might have to answer that question too.

It's a big one, please continue. [Laughter] So I'll try a stab at that question because I think it relates to the death question. So what is consciousness doing and why? You know, the, the right answer is I don't know, and I've only seen one idea

that seems deep enough to at least be worth thinking about. I'm not saying it's the right idea, but the only one idea that seems deep enough to at least be a candidate, and it again comes from Godel and his completeness theorem. Godel says that

essentially, no matter how much you explore within a particular conceptual system, there's you can't get all the truth. There's, there's always going to be more to explore mathematically. So if consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality and consciousness is

all there is, then mathematical structure is only about the possibilities of consciousness. That's all that there is to be about. And so what if what consciousness is doing, since the exploration of mathematical structure is in principle unending, then perhaps the exploration of the possibilities of consciousness itself is

in principle unending, and therefore consciousness, what is up to is exploring all of its potentialities. And the reason it's continuing to do that, from our perspective, is continuing to do that is because there's no end to it in principle. So consciousness itself is in some sense

always learning about itself and so perhaps then what we are, what you, what people are, and what cats are, and what dogs are, and what amoebas are, and so forth, is consciousness trying on different headsets, different realities, and exploring, and and losing itself. I mean, so this very

interesting idea that consciousness chooses to really explore so deeply that it loses itself in the exploration. It doesn't even know what it is. It becomes a physicalist. It actually thinks that consciousness isn't fundamental. It goes through the whole bit and then slowly has to wake up

and and so doing it really explores what it's not and what it is. In some sense, to know what you are, you have to know what you're not. And so, so on that point of view, the Hoffman icon is simply consciousness ex taking a perspective on itself.

Looking at itself through a particular space-time headset. Taking a little projection and from that headset, there's a finite, there was a birth, there was growing strong until your 20s and 30s, and then after your 40s, you start

declining and you know in your 80s and 90s, you die. And that whole process is just consciousness exploring itself from a particular perspective. In which case, maybe the Hoffman icon and and maybe a lot of stuff can be left behind, but in some sense

consciousness itself has has learned something through that experience and the 8 billion other people and the quadrillions of amoebas and the who knows how many viruses and and so forth. Consciousness is just trying on innumerable headsets, and when it's done

with that headset it takes it off and awareness is is perfectly fine the the raw awareness is fine but the the the detailed icons that happen to appear space-time icons objects in space and time brains neurons all those things those were you know those are just

those were just icons and you know you studied them and then you realized pretty cool really you know Mount Everest what a beautiful icon Death Valley what a beautiful icon these are really but I'm not that I'm something even more transcendent than space and time I'm more transcendent

than Death Valley and so so consciousness is just waking up I mean again I'm trying to tell a story I'm not saying that it's it's correct but it's just it's the only story I've seen so far that at least is deep enough that is

worth taking seriously who is the origin of this this story and can you ever know that it's accurate do you think through testing or experimentation the story that I'm saying right now has an interesting way that you might be able to test it so this

dynamics of conscious agents as I mentioned is a Markovian dynamics right you can make it so-called stationary dynamics in which the entropy of the dynamics doesn't change but you can show that even if you have this Markovian dynamics of consciousness

in which the entropy never changes any projection by by conditional probability any projection looking at that dynamics will see it as increasing an entropy in other words the arrow of entropy the arrow of time is an artifact of the projection so consciousness itself has no arrow of

time, but you can prove from this mathematics that you get an arrow of time by projection. The proof is trivial, like two or three lines. So here's a project that I think would be really fun: Can we show that when you look at all the different ways that you could project

consciousness in this mathematics, the conditions under which all these different arrows of time, the entropy that you get, satisfy the Lorentz transformations? In other words, can we get special relativity out of this? We would have to model also the space aspects of it, what's happening to

space as you know, projection of the dynamics of these conscious agents, but we see the time aspect. So could we actually show how special relativity arises as just different perspectives that consciousness can take, can take on a fundamental dynamics of consciousness that's that's that has no arrow of time?

That's the kind of thing where we could start to make brand new predictions that could be testable. You

Does Consciousness Survive Death? | Prof. Donald Hoffman | The Tim Ferriss Show

Tim Ferriss has been listed as one of Fast Company’s “Most Innovative Business People” and one of Fortune’s “40 under 40.” He is an early-stage technology investor/advisor (Uber, Facebook, Shopify, Duolingo, Alibaba, and 50+ others) and the author of five #1 New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestsellers, including The 4-Hour Workweek and Tools of Titans: The Tactics, Routines, and Habits of Billionaires, Icons, and World-Class Performers. The Observer and other media have called Tim “the Oprah of audio” due to the influence of The Tim Ferriss Show podcast, which is the first business/interview podcast to exceed 100 million downloads. It has now exceeded 900 million downloads. 

Listen to The Tim Ferriss Show podcast: https://tim.blog/podcast
Sign up for Tim's "5-Bullet Friday" free email newsletter with 1.5M+ subscribers: https://tim.blog/friday 


Tim Ferriss

물리주의에 따르면 의식은 뇌 활동의 출현적인 속성으로, 사망 시 뇌와 함께 용해됩니다.

바디는 복잡한 파티클의 집합체로 간주됩니다.

물리주의에 따르면 죽음은 의식의 종말입니다.

범정신주의는 의식이 죽음 이후에도 살아남을 수 있다는 대안적인 관점을 제시합니다.

기본으로서의 의식과 인식의 생존

의식이 근본적인 것이라면, 어떤 측면은 죽음 이후에도 살아남을 수 있으며, 어쩌면 의식을 드러내지 않을 수도 있습니다.

의식의 본질은 죽음 이후의 운명을 이해하기 위해 탐구가 필요합니다.

의식의 역학을 이해하는 것은 죽음을 이해하는 데 매우 중요합니다.

발표자는 불확실성을 인정하지만 괴델의 불완전성 정리를 기반으로 한 이론을 제안합니다.

의식은 끝없는 수학적 구조를 탐구하며 잠재적으로 자신의 잠재력에 대한 탐구를 반영합니다.

의식은 내재된 끝이 없이 그 잠재력을 끝없이 탐구합니다.

생명체는 의식이 다른 현실을 탐구하는 것으로 간주되며, 그 과정에서 잠재적으로 자신을 잃을 수 있습니다.

의식, 탐험, 그리고 물리주의의 환상

의식은 스스로를 너무 깊이 탐구하여 스스로를 잃어버릴 수도 있는 물리주의적 관점을 채택합니다.

육체는 하나의 아이콘이며, 원근법적 의식이 그 자체로 존재합니다.

탄생, 성장, 죽음은 의식의 자기 탐구의 일부입니다.

육체는 남겨질 수 있지만, 의식은 경험을 통해 학습합니다.

의식은 무수히 많은 '헤드셋'(경험)을 시도하고 이를 버립니다.

원시 인식은 지속되지만 특정 시공간 아이콘은 일시적입니다.

의식은 공간과 시간을 초월합니다.

마르코비안 의식의 역학에 초점을 맞춰 이론의 검증 가능성을 논의합니다.

엔트로피 증가(시간의 화살표)는 의식에 내재된 것이 아니라 투영의 산물입니다.

제안된 테스트: 특수 상대성 이론은 다양한 의식의 투영으로부터 도출될 수 있을까요?

이 연구는 특수 상대성 이론이 나타나는지 확인하기 위해 시간과 함께 공간 측면을 모델링합니다.

Does Consciousness Survive Death? | Prof. Donald Hoffman | The Tim Ferriss Show

Does Consciousness Survive Death? | Prof. Donald Hoffman | The Tim Ferriss Show

스크립트