Donald Hoffman TED talk

[Galeb]

TED isn't perfect and has certainly "sold out" from time to time, but there are some truly, excellent TED talks. It's not a secret amongst thinkers that reality is very much different than what we believe we perceive. Donald Hoffman does an excellent job expanding and illustrating this idea.

https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Cool stuff. For the record I love TED talks, usually, and I certainly enjoyed this one - much better, if less accessible, than the hot model demonstrating how beauty is a construct, by explaining that pictures get photoshopped and makeup makes girls prettier (to your point about the variability of quality.)

I think his central premise - that perceptions that result in fitness are not the same as perceptions that result in accuracy - is great if more modest. His extrapolation is extremely entertaining but less well established. From a communications standpoint, however, the beetle and the bottle is fantastic, and even manages to call to mind Wittgenstein's famous "beetle in a box" at the same time as making the point about evolution and perception. Hats off for that example!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Now I've got to go TED-surfing for more Hoffman stuff. I don't know if you checked out my favorite TED ear/eyeworm, V.S. Ramachandran. Just stick his name in YouTube... I'll start you out...



Now that's a good 8 minutes! (He's got a 2-hour interview on consciousness as well... obviously not a TED talk...)

 

[Galeb]

Now I've got to go TED-surfing for more Hoffman stuff. I don't know if you checked out my favorite TED ear/eyeworm, V.S. Ramachandran. Just stick his name in YouTube... I'll start you out...



Now that's a good 8 minutes! (He's got a 2-hour interview on consciousness as well... obviously not a TED talk...)

Thanks for the link, he's done a bunch of TED talks.. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Ramachandran at a conference a few years ago. He is a truly a unique individual with a confident presence that is both humble and kind. His brilliance is palpable and he has a tremendously broad perspective that enables him to think in abstract and unconventional ways. From anyone else, the frequency with which he brings up the Oedipus complex would be creepy and uncomfortable, but he is somehow able to do it in a way that is both informative and entertaining. As brief as it was , it was both a pleasure and a privilege to socialize with this man. He never did return my e-mail.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thanks for the link, he's done a bunch of TED talks.. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Ramachandran at a conference a few years ago. He is a truly a unique individual with a confident presence that is both humble and kind. His brilliance is obvious and he has a tremendously broad perspective that enables him to think in abstract and unconventional ways. From anyone else, the frequency with which he brings up the Oedipus complex would be creepy and uncomfortable, but he is somehow able to do it in a way that is both informative and entertaining. As brief as it was , it was both a pleasure and a privilege to socialize with this man. He never did return my e-mail.

Never meet your heroes, right? Seriously, email aside - and he must get a lot of them - count yourself fortunate to have met him I suppose.

Is your background in neuroscience?

 

[Galeb]

Never meet your heroes, right? Seriously, email aside - and he must get a lot of them - count yourself fortunate to have met him I suppose.

Is your background in neuroscience?

I'm sure he gets a ton of e-mails, and I simply mentioned it to be funny. I was just happy he gave me his card and said I should e-mail him. The majority of my impression of him was built while eavesdropping on a conversation between Dr. Richards Davidson and him. I respect peoples' privacy, and NEVER eavesdrop, but when I saw those two conversing with an empty seat behind them, I couldn't resist.

I went to school for neuroscience, but before I got a degree, I chased the mighty dollar and left school to pursue a career in technology. Although I make a comfortable living, it was probably the 2nd greatest mistake of my life. That said, my study of psychology, neuroscience and consciousness has never wavered and I have recently returned to school to with the intent to eventually change fields.

Are you in the neuroscience or related field?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Ha! Only through a grandiose stretch. I'm a writer, specifically these days a speechwriter. In the 1980s I first caught the bug through the question of consciousness. I read a few books that told me about structures in the brain, which I typically forget (except for my few favorites) and then remember when I watch talks by real brain scientists.

At that time the one mind-blower of the books I got my hands on was Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. It was the first time I'd seen someone postulate a quasi-evolutionary step that gets you from "huh?" to self-awareness. I must say at the time I was of a spiritual bent and it was appealing to me to see science finally point in the direction of what's been impervious to objective inquiry, i.e., subjective experience. (To me this was actually spiritually fulfilling, not a turn-off.)

More recently as I started seeing what was bandied about at various Comms conferences, I got progressively more interested in how language works - more precisely, how effective language works. Lots of Comms numbskulls look at this as tricks you can use to improve the speech; I look at it as pointing back toward the problem of consciousness.

I double-majored in college (undergrad only I'm afraid) in English and religion. I can now make the world's greatest powerpoint on why engagement is central to effective communication, blah blah blah, and invoke a 2010 Princeton Study to make a smart science guy believe me. Etcetera. But remove the almighty dollar from the equation and I'd probably lock myself in a room with neuroscience lectures 24/7, particularly those that are tilting at the question of life, the universe, and everything - that is, the question of subjective consciousness (and the reality or unreality of same)... and those on how language works. I don't know how anybody can not be concerned with or interested in these questions.

I might now bug you incessantly.

 

[Galeb]

Ha! Only through a grandiose stretch. I'm a writer, specifically these days a speechwriter. In the 1980s I first caught the bug through the question of consciousness. I read a few books that told me about structures in the brain, which I typically forget (except for my few favorites) and then remember when I watch talks by real brain scientists.

At that time the one mind-blower of the books I got my hands on was Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. It was the first time I'd seen someone postulate a quasi-evolutionary step that gets you from "huh?" to self-awareness. I must say at the time I was of a spiritual bent and it was appealing to me to see science finally point in the direction of what's been impervious to objective inquiry, i.e., subjective experience. (To me this was actually spiritually fulfilling, not a turn-off.)

More recently as I started seeing what was bandied about at various Comms conferences, I got progressively more interested in how language works - more precisely, how effective language works. Lots of Comms numbskulls look at this as tricks you can use to improve the speech; I look at it as pointing back toward the problem of consciousness.

I double-majored in college (undergrad only I'm afraid) in English and religion. I can now make the world's greatest powerpoint on why engagement is central to effective communication, blah blah blah, and invoke a 2010 Princeton Study to make a smart science guy believe me. Etcetera. But remove the almighty dollar from the equation and I'd probably lock myself in a room with neuroscience lectures 24/7, particularly those that are tilting at the question of life, the universe, and everything - that is, the question of subjective consciousness (and the reality or unreality of same)... and those on how language works. I don't know how anybody can not be concerned with or interested in these questions.

I might now bug you incessantly.

If you haven't already found it, https://www.mindandlife.org/ is a great source of porn. There are many scientists with roots in Eastern thought that are dedicated to try applying "science" to quantify the strides in understanding consciousness that Eastern practitioners have been refining for thousands of years. Have you read Dr. Rick Strassman's book?

Edit:
Please bug.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Nope - unless (as I doubt) I know it by title and not author (I'd think the lightbulb would go on, no pun intended). What's the title?

(this entire time I've been watching a Susan Greenfield lecture... but I have no idea how important she's considered in the field....)

 

[Galeb]

Nope - unless (as I doubt) I know it by title and not author (I'd think the lightbulb would go on, no pun intended). What's the title?

(this entire time I've been watching a Susan Greenfield lecture... but I have no idea how important she's considered in the field....)

Dr. Susan Greenfield is a Baroness and is very well respected in the field. IMO, people don't necessarily have to be influential in a field to have something profound to say. Even the best and brightest in a field had to start somewhere. Far too often, peoples' brilliance is realized posthumously.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeah, it said the "Baroness" part in the video description... I just felt sketchy throwing in "Baroness" Susan Greenfield...

as approximate as degrees after names are to describe authority, I'm glad to throw in people's letters... but peerage titles? I mean, Baroness ____ OBE just screams "er probably pulled some strings." But she's obviously very smart and very hands-on in her field, not a dilatant

But in terms of bugging... which book by Strassman would you suggest?

Also, slightly off-topic - A few months back I read Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind." Lovely for what it was... observations about a subjective phenomenon from a guy with no training in grasping subjectivity. (Counter-intuitive that one would even need training, right?) He seemed to not "get" the big questions of consciousness... he just had "gee whiz" thoughts on which gadgets did what now, and what they might do in the future.

Did you read that? Thoughts?