Episode: The Case Against Reality | Prof. Donald Hoffman on Conscious Agent Theory - 11-09-2019

What's up, everybody? It's Dr. Zubin Dumanya, aka ZDOG MD. And I am just an icon. Okay?

And that will be explained at the by watching this episode. I'm here with professor of cognitive sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and a personal intellectual hero of mine, no bias here, Dr. Donald Hoffman. Professor, welcome to the show. Thank you so much.

Zubin it was pleasure to be here. And thanks for inviting me. Man, it's really crazy to have you in my garage because I've seen your Ted Talk, I've been to workshops with yours. I've read your book the Case Against Reality why? Evolution hid the Truth from our eyes.

And I have to be honest with you. To the extent that a scientist can be a fanboy of another scientist, I am a fanboy because what you've kind of proposed and again, we may be wrong here, but it's the one thing that's actually felt right to me about the nature of reality that we don't see it as it actually is. In other words, we don't see truth. We see a graphical user interface that is a series of icons that are tuned to keep us alive and reproducing, but not tuned to show us the truth. And the underlying truth that is there may be much more interesting than we think.

So, yes, let's start with that. How did you even get interested in studying this? Well, I was interested in perception and artificial intelligence. And the question, are we machines? Are people just machines, or is there something more to us than just machines?

As a teenager, I was very interested in these questions. I was programming, so I knew what programs could do a bit. But my dad was a fundamentalist minister, so there were all these other aspects of spirituality or religion that were interesting about human nature, and I was trying to put all this stuff together. So on the one side, with programming and the new kinds of capacities of artificial intelligence, it was looking like we might be machines. On the other hand, there's supposed to be something about us that's beyond the machine.

And so I was very, very curious. And so I started I went to UCLA and did an undergraduate degree in which I was studying computer science, mathematics with a major in psychology. And then I went to MIT, where I went to the artificial intelligence laboratory. And what's now? The brain and cognitive science department.

And so I was able to then study both the brain and cognitive sciences aspect of human nature and the artificial intelligence kinds of models of intelligence, trying to put together a picture of who we are. What is human nature? What are we? Are we just machines? Are we just biological machines?

Are we just computers? Or is there something beyond the spacetime physical machine? And I wasn't sure, but I kept pursuing the mathematical models. And in 1986, my collaborators and I actually had a mathematical model and studying it, talking with my collaborators, I realized that the mathematics was saying to me, what you are seeing may not be the truth. And I still remember the moment when I realized what the math was saying.

I wasn't trying to get there with the math. I was just trying to get a general theory of perception mathematically. And when I realized the math was saying, you don't necessarily see the truth, I had to sit down. It was such a shock to the system. And so that was 1986.

That was 33 years ago. I've been now following that thread for 33 years and seeing where it takes me, and it's pretty interesting. So basically, that math was like a red pill back then. I took the red pill, or at least it was put in my mouth. I don't know if I swallowed it completely, but I was concerned enough that I wanted to look into it.

Do you ever feel like you wish you were back, you had never taken it, and you were just like everybody else? Oh, no. The blue pill is boring. And so I don't want to be there. I want to actually whatever reality might be.

If it's uncomfortable, I'm ready to go and find out what it's like. That brings me to how I first got introduced to you. So Tony Shea, who I used to work with at Zappos, I think had sent me he's the CEO of Zappos. He had sent me a Ted Talk. And he's like, Zubin, you're interested in consciousness?

You should check this out.

I looked at it. It was your Ted Talk where you were saying it was about not seeing the truth. And I watched it, and I said, oh, here's a scientist. So this is interesting visual perception and how we don't really see things as they are. They're constructions of our mind.

And not only that, but they're not even close to reality. They are purely iconic to help us survive. And we're not seeing the underlying reality on. You present this really interesting case. And I remember having this moment, it was a red pill moment where right towards the end, I was like I was just riveted.

And at the end, I said, oh, my gosh. So what is reality? And you just said, I have a couple of theories of what the world actually is, but we'll get to that another time, or something like that. And I thought, no. So then I went down the Don Hoffman rabbit hole and watched a lot of your lectures on what the theory is.

So maybe we should back up and go. You study visual perception. Why is it that you're saying, and in this book, the Case Against Reality, you actually do this, you build a case chapter by chapter by chapter, starting with things like split brain experiments. Like, how is it that you can cleave conscious experience in two all the way up to how insects can go extinct by trying to have sex with a beer bottle? Because it fools their system into thinking that's a female and all the way into quantum mechanics, general relativity, up to okay.

Everything we see is not what's actually happening. Take us on this ride a little bit, the way you describe it, right? And also the reason why I take this ride. I actually published a book in 1998 called Visual Intelligence in which I actually put out the idea that this is all just a user interface in 88, 98, 98. And in that book, the first nine chapters are sort of standard modern cognitive sciences approaches to visual perception.

But in the last chapter, I go after this idea that we're seeing just an interface, not the truth. And my colleagues use the book as a textbook in various universities and so forth. They like the book, except that last chapter, they go, hoffman goes off the rails on the last chapter. And I realized that there was only one way I was going to convince my scientific colleagues to at least take the idea seriously, maybe not convinced that I'm right, but take the idea seriously, and that was to use evolution by natural selection. If I could show that evolution by natural selection does not favor organisms that see reality as it is, then I would get their attention.

And I thought immediately that maybe it would be because the truth is too complicated, it would take too much time and energy, right? And it turns out that that's correct, but it's not the real deep, interesting reason. So as I explored evolution by natural selection, I realized there was a deeper reason that I'd never understood before. And the reason is this that fitness payoffs, which are like evolution, is like a video game. In a video game, you have to go running around in the screen as quickly as you can, grabbing points to try to get enough points to get to the next level.

If you do, you get to the next level. If you don't, you die. In evolution, you're grabbing what they call fitness payoffs, but they're like the game points and grabbing fitness payoffs to food, the right mates, and so forth. But if you get enough, you don't yourself go to the next level. It's your genes that go to the next level and your offspring.

And what I realized as I started studying this with my graduate students, justin Mark and Brian Marion, we discovered that what's really going on is that the fitness payoffs themselves, which is what we're going to be tracking. That's what our senses are going to be telling us about. It turns out that the fitness payoffs themselves in general do not carry information about objective reality. They just tell you, you're about to die. You're about to get something that you're good, you're bad.

Don't eat this, eat that, have sex with this, don't have sex with that that's all they're telling you. They're not telling you about the truth. And I can say that more mathematically, they're not homomorphisms of reality. So for mathematicians, generically fitness payoff functions are not homomorphisms of structures and objective reality, but intuitively, it's just that fitness payoffs aren't about the truth, they're about what you need to do to stay alive. And that secured it for me.

That was a surprise to me that I learned in around 2008, 2009 that evolution was even further against seeing the truth than I'd ever imagined. And so I published a paper in 2010 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology with my two graduate students where we announced the results of the simulations. We did hundreds of thousands of simulations, and we found that organisms that saw the truth in the simulations went extinct when they competed against organisms that saw none of the truth and were just tuned to fitness. This is equal complexity organisms. And so I proposed then that it was a theorem that organisms that see reality as it is are never more fit than organisms of equal complexity that see of none of reality and are just tuned to fitness payoffs.

And I went to a mathematician, Chaitan Prakash, a longtime friend, who was actually there in 1986 when we were working on that mathematics. And I proposed this theorem to him, and he's a genius mathematician and he was able to prove it. So we actually have a theorem, and then we've done further mathematics where we actually show yeah, in general, fitness payoffs destroy information about the structure of the world. So it's a theorem organisms that see reality as it is cannot outcompete organisms of equal complexity that see none of reality and are just tuned to fitness payoffs. Okay, so let me reiterate this because it's important.

And by the way, for people who want to get a more broad overview of all this, listen to the first show I did with Don, which was an audio only podcast where we went through this whole arc of this. So we're going to go deeper in this episode. So this is for people who care deeply about the nature of reality, how we perceive it, consciousness and things like that from a scientific standpoint. So what you're saying is that if an organism sees the world as it is, it will go extinct relative to an organism that only sees the world in a dumbed down way that hides most of what's actually going on, but only shows the organism what it needs, the bare minimum it needs to survive and to reproduce? Absolutely.

So if you waste any of your perceptual time and energy on the truth, you are wasting your time and energy, it's not going to help you to stay alive. And you will not be able to outcompete organisms that spend none of their perceptual time and energy on the truth and only spend it on looking for the payoff points that help you win the game. So it's like in a video game, if some guy is playing a video game and he's just sort of looking around, enjoying everything and trying to figure out how it works and so forth, looking at the pixels and so forth. He's going to lose to some other woman who is focused on the fitness, on the points, on the game, on the game points and trying to get them and getting to the next level. So if you're doddling around with anything but the payoffs, you lose, right?

And that makes perfect sense because it's the same thing. Trying to understand then a video game. If you're looking at Grand Theft Auto, you're going, okay, so what I'm seeing here is a car and a bad guy and this and that. Is that really what's there? And some people would say, yeah, no, that's there because they're diluted.

But then scientists would say, no, that's not what's there. Don't be stupid. What's there? Take out a magnifying glass and look at the screen. There are pixels there.

So what's really there are pixels. And then if you go back even deeper, it's the little tinier pixels, right? And then if you go behind the screen, you'll see it's circuits and software that are hidden behind the whole screen itself. And in that analogy, is that the true nature of reality there is that base reality. Well, that shows the difference between what we're perceiving and whatever objective reality might be, right?

So it's a good metaphor to help break us from the idea that of course we're seeing the truth. When we see an apple on the table or we see the moon, it's just natural to think, oh, of course I'm seeing the truth. My friends see it, and they can see it when my eyes are closed. So of course I'm seeing the truth. And I'm saying, no, this is all just a headset, a virtual reality headset that we've got on.

And I look at the moon, I render it just like in virtual reality. I look over in Grand Theft Auto with a virtual reality add on. I look at my steering wheel, and so I'm rendering a steering wheel. But now I look over there, I'm no longer rendering a steering. There is no steering wheel because I'm not creating a steering wheel.

There is still in that metaphor the circuits and software and all the program of Grand Theft Auto that I'm not seeing at all. I'm just seeing the stuff that I render as I look around. I see cars and steering wheels and so forth. And not only that, but if you saw the circuits, if you saw the base reality objective, the thing in and of itself, you would not be able to play or survive in the game, right? The guy that just sees the steering wheel and the gas pedal and so forth will beat me if I'm in there trying to toggle voltages in the computer to try to win the game.

Good luck. I won't be able to do it quickly enough. Now, it's important to understand this. There's a few things you said here that will make people go, wait. It made Einstein go.

Wait. So you're saying the moon doesn't exist when I don't look? That's exactly right. That space and time themselves do not exist independent of us. So most of us think that spacetime is fundamental reality and all the objects inside spacetime are on the stage, this preexisting stage of spacetime.

I'm saying that whole idea is wrong, that spacetime is something that you create in this moment. You're the author of spacetime. You're not a bit player that shown up 14 billion years later after this stage was set. So we are the authors of space and time and all the objects that we see. We're not bit players in spacetime.

Space and time are constructs of our interface. Absolutely. So this is where it becomes very solipsistic if you're not careful. So solipsism meaning that, no, I am the only thing that exists and I create the world and everybody else is a figment of my imagination and so on. How is this different than that?

Yes, I'm not a solipsist. So a solipsist would say that, as you said that, yeah, we're creating all this and there's nothing but me and my creation. And I'm saying that there are other consciousnesses out there. I'm talking with you. I believe that you're not just a figment of my imagination.

Why, thank you. Means a lot to me. That's right. And I'm not a figment of your imagination. And that puts certain responsibilities on me.

Even though what I perceive as just an icon of zoopin, I need to be very careful how I treat that icon, because in interacting with that icon, I could literally cause pain to the consciousness of zoopin, and you could cause pain to me. So our interface gives us a genuine portal to other consciousnesses, all human consciousnesses. My cats are my icons, but I believe that my cat icons are portals to real conscious creatures that, again, I don't want to hurt. And a mouse, ants and so forth. The interface, I claim, is all to other consciousnesses, but the interface is like a visualization tool.

And of course, a visualization tool is there to sort of hide the complexity and dumb things down and so forth, because we'd be overwhelmed by all the consciousnesses out there. And so that's what spacetime is. It's a visualization tool. Okay, so there's a lot there. But one thing I want to ask, because I know this comes up a lot well, why don and again, for people who really want to go deep on this, read the book, why don is it that why can't you just say, yeah, okay, we're not seeing the truth?

Maybe we're just seeing part of the truth. Maybe we're seeing a dumbed down version of what's actually there. Maybe there is a dawn in space and time, but we're only seeing enough of it that we need to see to survive. We don't see infrared. We don't see microwaves.

We don't see X rays. I can't see at the microscopic quark level, but this stuff exists. We're just seeing some of it. And wouldn't that help us survive? And that's what most of my colleagues would say.

They would say, of course, evolution didn't shape us to see all of the truth. It only shaped us to see those parts of objective reality that we need to stay alive. And so that's the standard view. And what I'm saying is that if you look at the mathematics of evolution very, very carefully, it's called evolutionary game theory. We don't have to wave our hands about this.

So to my scientific colleagues who are thinking intuitively about evolution, of course they know evolutionary game theory is a precise mathematical model. And when you look at that mathematics, it says very, very clearly that it's not the case that we're seeing just those parts of the truth that we need. We're seeing none of the truth. Almost surely we're seeing entirely a user interface and the whole point of a user interface, like, for example, again, Grand Theft Auto, right. The whole point.

There's nothing in what you see in Grand Theft Auto that in any way resembles the circuits and software and voltages that in that metaphor is the reality. There's just no resemblance whatsoever. And that's not a problem. That's, in fact, an advantage. It allows you to control the reality even though you're completely ignorant about its true nature.

And that's what evolution has done for us. I'm saying we're not seeing just little bits of the truth that we need. We're seeing none of the truth. And that's what allows us to control the truth effectively, because we don't know anything about the truth. It would be too complicated.

And it's just not what we we need simple eye candy that lets us do what we need to do. So the truth is very complicated in order to survive and utilize what actually exists in reality. Because you're saying stuff exists. Sure. Stuff.

Meaning let's put that in quotes. There is a world. Right? It's not a figment of our imagination. It is a construction.

In other words, it's like a desktop on a computer. That's a good analogy you use. You see a trash icon. You can do things to that trash icon. You can throw away stuff that you want to throw away.

You can accidentally delete something and effectively die because the stuff is gone. So you don't take the trash icon literally. You don't say, oh, there's actually a trash icon there, but you take it seriously. Absolutely. But behind that trash icon are zeros and ones and voltage gates and quantum engineering, this microscopic level that you don't see.

And if you saw, you wouldn't be able to compose an email. Absolutely. And we pay good money for these interfaces to hide the truth. There are all these engineers at these high tech companies that are spending untold hours, thousands upon thousands of hours, to simplify and give us this user interface so that we don't have to deal with all the diodes and resistors and voltages. That's right.

And then there's organizations like Epic Systems that makes a big electronic health record that spend hours and hours and hours making it more complicated, more difficult to use. So that being said, okay, so let's say we're not seeing the truth at all. We're seeing a fitness function. We're seeing a user interface that we generate in a species specific way. So in other words, a cat that we see as an icon of this furry thing.

We cannot really get into its conscious experience because the icon we see is kind of just enough of the cat for us to survive. We know we can't really eat it usually. We can pet it. It has claws that could hurt us, but it's also very affectionate, which is a fitness payoff for stress reduction. So we see all those things, but we can't dig into its mind to go, oh, what's its experience of the taste of cat food or of being brushed or whatever?

But we can kind of guess because we can see when it's unhappy or upset or angry. But when you get to the level of this bottle of water yes. Now you're telling me right now that this is an icon. I see it as wet. If I drink it, I'm probably going to do okay if I'm thirsty, et cetera.

But this is where I think now, so you've talked about what the world isn't the world isn't exactly what we see. Right. That's a fitness payoff set of icons. Okay. So interface theory of perception is what you talk about in the book, the theory that you have that, no, we're not seeing things as they are.

And that dates back to your experience early on with the math of that. But then there's a parallel thing that you talk about in the book, which is and they're related, they come together, but it's this. How is it that we are aware of anything? How is it that a mass of goo in our brain, these neurons, gives us the taste of chocolate or the smell of an orange or the feeling of love? And no one has ever been able to explain that in any meaningful way.

And so how does that relate to this whole thing? Because one thing that people would say, Don, is like, well, we're just living in the Matrix, then it's someone's simulation. It makes perfect sense. Of course we're seeing icons as a simulation, but the base reality is there somewhere, right? So that's called the hard problem of consciousness, and it's widely acknowledged as one of the big open problems in science today, we have all these correlations between brain activity and conscious experiences.

Like, if I take a magnet and use it to inhibit area V four in the right hemisphere of your brain visual area V four you will lose all conscious experience of color in your left visual field. So color just drains it just drains away everything. You see the objects, but it's like a black and white television image. And then I turn off the magnet and the color comes back. And we have dozens of these so called neural correlates of consciousness.

So we know that brain activity and conscious experiences are correlated. But scientists, my colleagues and my good friends have been trying for decades very, very hard to come up with a scientific theory about how brain activity could cause conscious experiences. That's the standard view. And they've not been able to do it. And this is not for lack of trying.

So you have information integration theory. You have tanoni. You have even folks like Dan Dennett and others saying that consciousness is a kind of elaborate illusion. Others saying that it has to do with a quantum collapse in neural microtubules. Exactly.

And it seems like in most of these sort of physicalist interpretations they're assuming something and this is how it relates to your original line of reasoning. They're assuming that there's a physical world of matter that exists that atoms build up, molecules build up, cells build up neurons. And these neurons are causal. They actually cause something to happen in a physical world that somehow emerges the taste of chocolate, the feeling of love, the subjective experience. That's right.

And that if you give me that right, then I can spin you up a world and somewhere we'll figure out at some point how that leads to consciousness. We're just not smart enough. Maybe we'll never be smart enough to figure it out. Maybe these theories are on the right track, et cetera. But the truth is we're not even close.

Right? Starting with physical matter, in other words, assuming what you've already said is not a valid assumption just that the world exists as we see it. In other words, matter is real. Atoms are real. Electrons are real.

As such, neurons are real. So the failure of a lot of scientists who have been working on this including people like Crick and others who you've worked with who are colleagues of yours it's been a struggle. And so this is the hard problem of consciousness. Let's just work on it more using a physicalist basis, which is atoms exist. Neurons exist.

But you're saying, what if we're just wrong and we've made a rookie mistake? Right? What's that about? That's right. So we've assumed that neurons exist even if they're not perceived and that neural activity causes our conscious experiences or neural activity in an embodied brain.

Right? So it's your brain and your body interacting with an environment. And most of my colleagues, I'd say 95% to 99% of my colleagues working on this hard problem of consciousness are assuming, of course, that's the form of the solution, neural activity somehow will cause our conscious experiences. But as you pointed out, we've been utterly unable to come up with a scientific explanation for even one conscious experience. And these are all my friends, Stuart Hammer Off, who does the neuronal microtubules idea.

We're buddies, but when we get on stage at a conference, I'll ask him, so, Stewart, we're interested in doing science here. Can you use your collapse of neuronal microtubule quantum states to explain any particular conscious experience? The taste of vanilla, the smell of a rose, a headache? Anyone? Is there any conscious experience that you can explain this way?

And you'll say no. And I say, well, next year I'll ask you the same question. And that's the problem also with integrated information theory. I've asked Julio Tenoni a couple of times, can you use your theory to give an integrated information circuit, a causal circuit that is or causes the taste of chocolate or anything, and you can't do it. And so until we can actually have a scientific theory that actually makes specific predictions, this is the circuit, or this is the microtubule collapse that has to be the taste of chocolate, it could not be the smell of garlic.

And these are the principled reasons why, until then, there's not enough science on the table to actually even falsify these things. What they're really proposing are there are these interesting correlates, and it's true that there are very interesting EEG correlates complexity, correlates of consciousness, and there may be neuronal tubular collapse of quantum state correlates. I'm good with that. I'm not disputing that. The question is not about these correlations.

The question is, where is the theory? Sure, these things are correlated, that's fine. Where is the theory that says what is causing what? Or if it's an identity theory, if you're saying, no, it's not that the activity in the brain is causing the conscious, the activity is the conscious experience. That's one gambit that they'll take.

Fine. Give me precisely the class of neuronal activity that is the taste of chocolate and tell me why it could not be identical to the taste of vanilla. Until we're doing that, we again are not doing science, and there's nothing on the table there. So that's why it was realizing that these really brilliant colleagues and they're good people, they're brilliant, they're trying very, very hard. It's a framework.

Physicalism is a framework that's worked for three centuries. It's done a lot of good stuff, so they're not stupid to use that framework. It has given us all sorts of insights and modern technology, so it's actually a smart move on their part. But I don't think it'll work. I don't think you can start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness.

It's just that simple. Let me say that again. Don does not think you. Can start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness. So either if that's true, it means either there is unconscious ingredients and some outside consciousness, whether it's soul or spirit or consciousness, whatever you call it.

And that's a dualistic kind of philosophy. And so panpsychism is one philosophy that says, oh, no, you're right, don you cannot boot up consciousness from non conscious ingredients. So this bottle is both a bottle, it's a physical thing. It's an ad full of atoms and H 20. But it also has a valence of consciousness that's kind of tacked on and associated with that.

Yes.

What's wrong with that theory? I mean, is there anything wrong with that? Is that well, so I also have good friends who are who take that theory quite seriously. They're panpsychists.

Bertrand Russell, the very famous logician and philosopher, was one of the first to propose this kind of thing. He pointed out that the laws of physics are quite good at describing what matter does, but they don't tell us what matter is intrinsically. And so he proposed, and others as well, that maybe what matter is intrinsically is conscious experiences. And it's an interesting philosophical idea, but what's happened is it has never been turned into science. So panpsychism is a philosophical stance and an interesting one, but no one has been able to turn it into a mathematically precise scientific theory.

So as a scientist, there's nothing on the table for me. And most versions of it are, as you say, dualist. And most scientists are not on board with dualism. We want as simple a foundation to scientific theories as possible, something we call Occam's Razor. Make your assumptions as simple as possible in trying to explain two phenomena, the phenomena of science.

And if two experiments or I'm sorry, two theories can explain the same phenomena, but one is simpler in its premises, then of course choose the simpler theory. And so most scientists, myself included, want what we call a monistic theory, where we only have one kind of assumption. There is, for example, only physical stuff. So a physicalist is a monist. They're obeying Occam's razor except that they can't solve the problem.

So Occam's razor only applies if you can solve the problem, so their theory can't solve the problem. So you could be a dualist. Panpsychism is a dualism, but it's not a scientific theory. It's a philosophical position. And then I'm proposing just go with consciousness.

Let's have a mathematically precise theory of consciousness that starts as simple as possible, and then we have to boot up what we call spacetime and the physical world as conscious experiences within conscious agents that they're using as an interface, a simplifying interface to help them interact with other conscious agents. So your monism, your keeping with Occam's Razor and keeping it as simple as possible is saying, okay, the materialists are saying everything is physical matter. And somewhere from the big Bang up through evolution, a miracle emerges and that's consciousness that we can't explain yet you're saying, well, maybe this is just a rookie mistake. Right. We're mistaking our interface, which sees physical things we think are physical because they're hard when we feel them.

In other words, the experience of holding this bottle is of pressure, solidity, liquidity, color, luminance, these kind of things. And so, of course, since that's how I see the world, I'm going to assume this is fundamental reality. Yes. And it turns out for the last 300, 400 years that's worked really well. We can build iPads and microphones and transmit 4K video signals based on our manipulation of our icons in our desktop interface.

So it makes perfect sense until you go, well, but then how do we boot up consciousness? Right? Why is it that quantum mechanics and general relativity don't really mesh? Exactly. Why is it that quantum mechanics is so strange?

In other words, why is it that the idea of local realism, in other words, that something exists when it isn't observed in a particular spin or momentum or whatever, and that entangled particles can somehow interact in a way that violates locality, meaning things communicating less fast than the speed of light. Let's shelve that and say that physicalism is true and we get a miracle of consciousness and we get the mystery of quantum mechanics. What you're saying is, and this is what compelled me, you're saying scientifically science is not a dogma, it's a method of study. Right? You can study this.

Looking at the other way, the rookie mistake is, well, we confused our interface with reality. What if we said reality was the thing we're trying to explain, which is consciousness. Everything is consciousness exchanging experience. Experience is the currency of everything. And from that fundamental building block, the smallest conscious agent, you can spin up the interface.

Reality, quantum mechanics, every conscious experience, everything from near death experiences, to different levels of consciousness, to higher instantiations of consciousness, all of that. Is that correct? Absolutely. So I'm saying the consciousness is fundamental. So I'm going to try to do, as you say, a scientific theory in which I precisely state with mathematical precision exactly what I mean by what I call a conscious agent.

So it's a mathematically precise term. And I can talk about how conscious agents interact, how they share experiences and how as they interact, they create new conscious agents. And so I get a dynamical system. Think about it as a vast social network like the Twitterverse. These conscious agents are passing experiences and receiving experiences like tweeting and following.

And just like in the Twitterverse, there's tens of millions of Twitter users and billions of tweets and lots of stuff trending. No one could really grasp the whole richness of the Twitterverse. And whenever we have overwhelming social media data, what we do with big data is we find visualization tools to allow us to grasp the gist of what's going on there. And that's what we have in space and time and what we call the physical world. That's just a visualization tool that some conscious agents use to deal with this vast social network of conscious agents.

And we've made the rookie mistake of mistaking our visualization tool for the final reality. So space and time are our desktop. To some extent. They're a data compression tool. That's right.

So by having three dimensions of space you get a little extra error correction because all you really need are two dimensions. Because the holographic principle which we talked about in the past show too, says that really all you need is a two dimensional space with bits of information and you can encode three dimensional truth or experience. So what if the fundamental bits of information are experience, consciousness, awareness outside of space and time? Space and time is our construct.

Then it starts to evolve over time. So you have these one bit conscious agents that can then combine and instantiate. That's a term you use. Higher level conscious agents that evolve compete in this vast social network by exchanging experience. And it turns out the way humans exchange experiences is in a 3D spacetime desktop video game.

Exactly. Where the don icon, whose facial expressions are such that I've evolved to be able to read to the degree that I can, assuming you're not trying to deceive me. And it works very well for us, it dumbs down everything else. We see a rock as a rock, but in your conception then we see this rock. And this is where people get really upset when I talk about this theory.

They get angry. They're like, you're telling me a rock is conscious, bro, that rock doesn't know me, okay? I've thrown rocks, now I feel guilty. But that's not really what you're saying. What are you saying about a rock?

That's right. So I'm not saying that a rock is conscious. And in fact, I'm not saying that when I look at you, the icon that I'm perceiving, I'm perceiving your face and your body. But those are my perceptions. It's my icon.

That icon is not conscious. Zubin Domania, the conscious agent, is conscious. I don't see Zubin Domania, the conscious agent. I just see skin, hair and eyes. And that's my portal in my interface into the consciousness of Zubin Dominia.

When I see a cat, I've got a portal that's not as clear right into the consciousness of my cat. When I see an ant, my portal is really giving up. And when I see something I call the rock, I am interacting with conscious agents, but my interface has to give up. That's the whole point of the interface, is dumbing things down. So of course, at some point I'm going to get no clue into the realm of conscious agents from my interface.

That's the whole point. At some point you're saying it's too much, it's too complicated. I'm just going to ignore all that aspect of objective reality of consciousness. Just like my Zuban domenia icon isn't conscious, the rock isn't conscious. But my Zuban Domania icon is a portal into the consciousness of the real Zuban Domania that allows Zubin to interact with my consciousness and me to interact with Zubin's consciousness.

Whereas with Iraq, the portal is closed. I am interacting with conscious agents, but the portal is closed. There's no way that I know what I'm doing with them and I don't see them really doing too much to me.

So let me see if I can understand this with my monkey mind in my interface. All right? So a rock I'm constructing when I look in the direction of a rock, and when I even say direction, I'm talking in spacetime language, which is our interface. So we're sharing an interface. By the way, the reason you see the rock and I see the rock the same way is that we evolved a similar spacetime interface.

That's right. And we're interacting with the same objective reality. Yes. So people who say, well, then, no, but my car is my interface, it's not yours. No, we have the same species specific interface to a large extent.

We can talk about extents to exceptions to that because they actually prove the rule. We agree there's a rock there because we're looking at the same conscious agent, the same icon that's pointing to this. But it turns out that evolution hid the truth about that rock from us. Because if I actually saw what it was, first of all, it won't help me reproduce, it won't help me survive. What helps me survive is seeing it as a rock.

Because in my spacetime interface there's a certain energy it takes to pick it up. I can use it as a tool, perhaps. Maybe I can pulverize it into its constituent icons, manipulate my icons to build concrete. So that's helpful, but I don't need to know what's the actual experiential substrate of it. That's exactly right.

I am doing something when I take a rock and I crack it in half. I am doing something in the realm of conscious agents, but I'm utterly ignorant about what that is. Whereas in the case of the Zuban Domania icon, there's a lot, of course, that's going on in your consciousness that I'm unaware of. But I am genuinely aware, unless, of course, you're trying to fool me. I'm genuinely aware of some of your emotions, some of your thoughts and some of your feelings.

So there's a genuine portal there. Whereas the portal into the realm of consciousness is very, very obscure with a rock. And one reason why we're so stuck on these objects, why we say, look, there's a rock there. You see a rock. My friend sees a rock.

If I don't look, I can go touch it and I can feel the rock. So there really is a rock there. The reason objects like the rock and a moon and trees and so forth have such a grip on our imagination is something that PSJ called object permanence by the time we're 18 months of age. He points out, before 18 months of age, PJ. Said if you show a baby a doll, it'll play with the doll.

And then you take the doll and you put it behind a pillow. And for the baby that's not yet 18 months of age, they act as though the doll ceased to exist. But after age 18 months, then P-O-J Said you get object permanence and you put the doll behind the pillow, and now the baby is looking for the doll behind the pillow if they want to play with it. And later research showed that P-O-J.

His techniques weren't crude, were too crude. Actually, we get object permanence maybe around four months of age. But the point is that we're built to have this assumption that objects exist and are real even when we don't perceive them. And that's just automatically built into our psychology, to our perceptual psychology before we're of the age of reason, before we can even argue about it. So by the time you come to the age of reason, that's just one of the deep assumptions that we bring to the world.

It's not an assumption we question. And so that's why it's so hard for us to question that. We've always believed it from the time we could ever even start thinking. We've always believed that objects exist and are real and don't depend on us for their existence. And so I'm challenging something that was built into us before we could reason against it.

And therein, I think, lies the challenge in this theory. I think a lot of people intuitively reject it. It's like kind of being shown the red pill and saying, I want to go back in the matrix. This makes no sense to me. Everything I intuit about the nature of reality is that physical objects exist in space and time.

Now, again, I want to double down on making clear that you are not saying there isn't a reality. You are not saying we create objective reality. You're saying we create a representation of what is objective reality. And that objective reality consists of a vast social network of conscious agents interacting with each other and exchanging experience. Absolutely.

I have life insurance, and that's a bet that there is a reality that exists. My wife's consciousness could persist even if I'm dead. Yes. And so I'm betting that there is an objective reality that exists even if I don't perceive it. So much of your experiential world right now is a reality.

And I'm not perceiving, but a tiny little part of your experiential reality, the part that you're letting me see. And even if you tried to let me see most of it, I could never experience all the colors and emotions and things that you're experiencing. So you have an objective reality and every person on the planet has a conscious objective reality that doesn't depend on my perception for it to exist. So I'm not a Solipsist. There is an objective reality, but space and time and physical objects, those are my virtual reality.

We have a headset on. This is all a virtual reality headset. And as I move around, I'm rendering the chair, I'm rendering a bottle, I'm rendering a table, and then I'm garbage collecting. As I move around, the conscious agents that I'm interacting with are still there, whether or not I'm rendering anything. But all I can do is to render my interface as my way of interacting with those conscious agents.

That's pretty awesome. See, to me, that makes perfect sense, and it actually feels more valid than a physicalist interpretation because now there's a lot of weirdness in this that we could talk about for hours. And I think we should make this point that there are quite a few physicists now that are saying things like spacetime as an objective reality is doomed. It doesn't make sense.

You do this in the book very well, going through quantum mechanics and saying, hey, what's going on here? This actually doesn't make sense. If you're trying to say that objects exist in and of themselves in space and time, then you have to kind of say, well, quantum mechanics isn't right, but all experimental evidence shows that it is right. And it's weird in a way that it's more consistent with the conscious agent theory than it is with a physicalist theory. Am I wrong about that?

No, you're right in the following sense that experiments have shown that local realism is false. So the joint claim that objects exist and have definite values of their properties like position, momentum, and spin, and that those properties have influences that propagate through space and time no faster than the speed of light. So the joint of those two has been shown, which is local realism. That's shown to be false. Now, some physicists will then go and say, look, I still want to keep the realism.

Like David Bohem, for example, proposed that electron has a position and a momentum even when it's not observed a definite value, but that there's these non local influences. But there's another aspect, another theorem about what's called non contextual realism, which says non contextual realism. It turns out non contextual realism contradicts quantum theory. So if you're a quantum theorist, you have to say that non contextual realism is false. And that says both that realism.

So it's realism, but also that the properties like position, momentum, and spin have values that don't depend on how you look at them, how you observe them, doesn't depend on the context, doesn't depend on the measurement. That's the claim of non contextual realism and non contextual realism is false. And notice that's false independent of local locality issues. So I think non contextual realism is the real tough one here for our idea of realism, to say that a physical object has definite positions and other properties, momentum, spin and so forth, that don't depend on how we observe them, that is false. And that gets really closer to the heart of saying, well, now the realism is the really bad thing here.

But then you pointed out that state of the art physicists like Nima Arkani Hamed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, they're saying, look, when we try to bring general relativity and quantum field theory, the standard model, of physics together into some kind of theory of everything. Or unified theory. We're finding that we're going to have to let go of spacetime. That physics for the last three centuries has been about what happens inside space and time. And now we're going to have to let go of spacetime.

It's not fundamental. There's something else that's more fundamental from which spacetime arises as an emergent concept or property. And they don't know what that deeper thing is. He's dealing with something called that he calls the amplitude. And what he's finding is in the Large Hadron Collider, when they shoot particles and smash them into each other.

And you start having these interesting events, like two gluons smashing into each other and four gluons spraying away. You try to write down the probabilities, what they call the scattering amplitudes, but the probabilities for these things to happen, all these smashing and scattering events, and you find if you do it inside space and time, so you do all those calculations in space and time. The math is nasty. You get hundreds of pages, even 1000 pages of algebra that you have to compute, and they've discovered. You miss certain symmetries in the data that are there, but cannot be expressed in spacetime.

But if you go to this deeper geometry that he calls the amplituhedron, you capture these deeper symmetries that are not expressible in spacetime, and the math becomes trivial. You can write it on the back of an envelope and calculate it by hand. And so these two things start to convince physicists that, hey, spacetime has had a good run. It was a great horse for 300 years. It's been really, really good.

But that doesn't mean it's the truth. It was a really good vehicle for our thoughts for several centuries. Now it's come to the end of its usefulness. We need something deeper, and they don't know what the deeper thing is. And the really brilliant thinkers at the state of the art aren't worried about that.

For them, this is like, holy smoke, fabulous. There's something new to learn here. The old guys and their spacetime, they did a good job, but us young guys are going to do something even more fun. So what's behind space and time? And how does it give rise to space and time?

Whatever the new theory is, it will be constrained by our old theories. Whatever the new theory is, when we project it into spacetime. We better get back general relativity, or generalization of it, and also the standard model or a souped up version of it, so we can't throw away what we've done. We don't want to throw away what we've done. In fact, it's a good all the work that we've done in the physicalist spacetime science is great work.

It is a constraint on any deeper theory we have. It better project back in spacetime to our current scientific theories. And the same is true of my models of consciousness. I will be able to test them as I develop the theory of conscious agents and get a mathematics of the evolution of consciousness. One constraint on my theory will be when I project it back into space and time.

I better get back all of modern science evolution by natural selection, general relativity, quantum field theory, or hopefully even generalizations of those theories. If I can't do that, I'm wrong. If I'm not smart enough to figure out what the dynamics of consciousness is about, then what I will probably do, or my team, is to look at the dynamics that we know about in space and time, pull it back from the interface into the realm of conscious agents and ask what kind of dynamics would give rise to the dynamics in space. Reverse engineer. Reverse engineer.

And then go, oh, so that's what consciousness is about. I hope to do it from first principles, but if I can't, then I'm going to fall back to, okay, I'm just not bright enough to figure it out. So we'll try to pull it back and reverse engineer, which the Chinese are very good at this. Yeah, they're pretty smart. It works.

Yeah, it works. Okay. All that is again, I'm a doctor. I'm just a medical doctor. Don I'm very limited in my icon, in my desktop understanding of this.

But I'll say this, that physics.

And I'm going to argue this medicine has hit a wall. Yes. And so we've been on a tear for centuries, like you said, and it's because we've really figured out in fine grained detail how to master this spacetime icon desktop that we have. So we're really good at manipulating icons. Surgery is manipulating icons, right?

We don't understand conscious agents or anything underneath it. We're like, I move appendix to outside of this physical space. Patient doesn't die. I take gallstone out of this tube. Patient doesn't die or have pain.

So actually there's an experiential connection, right? Patient no longer experiences pain if I move this icon here. But now we're at a wall where we're like, how do we explain schizophrenia? Our reductionist materialist approaches are no longer working. We're finding that things like the placebo effect, this sort of mind body integration, these kind of ideas, we can't explain them properly because we're using a physicalist framework.

We're mistaking our interface for reality, and we're running up to the boundaries of that. Well, how do you explain this? Well, what I think about your theory is you're saying, well, okay, this is the next iteration. Now let's reframe all this same science. You don't throw anything out, right.

You transcend and include and say, yeah, of course, exactly. In our interface. That makes perfect sense. Here's what's beyond the interface. So maybe now we can solve these bigger problems of how it is that all these we're going to have to get into how it is that conscious agents even work.

So maybe that's the next part of this conversation. Yeah, I think that's where the opportunity is with your theory. If it's true, you have mathematical model of how conscious agents exert dynamics with each other, how they instantiate higher levels of conscious, more complex conscious agents. So in that world, you and me are both perceived decide, act. That's what we're able to do.

Exactly. But we're made up of smaller conscious agents that are nested, that also do that, that feed up experience to us at the higher level, and we feed down to them. And it's this dynamic relationship that creates a human and also keeps psychotherapists employed. That's right. Because our unconscious mind is actually nested conscious agents that are in their own way conscious, but that we can't directly access that.

That's right. And I think there's as we get into the realm of conscious agents and talk about how they're nested and so forth, I think it's good to step back just for a second and say that as you were just saying a moment ago, we've gotten very, very good at the interface. We're like in the Grand Theft Auto example that we're using. We've become wizards at playing grand theft auto. We've become stunningly good.

We used to be really bad at playing our interface, and we died from not being able to take out problems in the body and so forth. So we're wizards at Grand Theft Auto. But now imagine someone who discovers that Grand Theft Auto, that's just the program on the screen that you're seeing. There's all the circuits and software, and they actually get access to the code and they realize that they can hack the code. They can start to do stuff to Grand Theft Auto that the wizards are going to go, that is magical, I had no idea that you could do that.

So the wizards themselves will be left in the dust. And that's what this new level of seeing the conscious agents behind objective reality is going to open up a Pandora's box. It will be allowing us to get behind the screen and get into the source code of the game and even change the parameters perhaps of space and time. So this is going to be the technology that comes out of this is going to be truly, truly stunning. All of our science, our scientific tools and our theories have been about the interface and how it works.

We've been wonderful at that the tools of science are up to the job of going beyond the interface and looking at this realm of conscious agents that are behind the interface and then reverse engineering that whole thing and playing our interface. So this is going to bring a lot of responsibility to us because it's going to open up. Once we understand the mapping from conscious agents into our spacetime interface and we understand how to hack it, who knows what kind of technologies are going to open up. This is great for science fiction to think about the possibilities, but it will leave current scientific technology in the desk. It's going to be a whole new level.

But now we can go after what I think. Right now my ideas are about this conscious agents realm and I should say what you described is exactly how I'm thinking about it, that you can have these simple one bit agents and it's really austere conscious realm. There's only two experiences that this consciousness has. What would it be like to be such an austere conscious agent? It's hard to put myself into the shoes of that conscious agent when they interact.

You can have two bit agents and four bit agents and all the way up to infinity. So you could have infinite conscious agents. And this opens really interesting technical questions. How many infinite conscious agents are there? Is there one biggest, all inclusive infinite conscious agent?

This is going to be a matter of theorems. Now, I don't know the answer. Maybe there are a bunch of infinite conscious agents and not one at the top. Or maybe there is just the one, in which case we're all conscious agents that are part of this one big conscious agent. But we're all genuinely single conscious agents, ourself interacting with the one.

So these kinds of issues which are obviously in the spiritual realm. Now, when we talk about infinite consciousness and so forth, we're talking about things that various Eastern and Western spiritual traditions have talked about. But we've only used words. For the first time we can use mathematics. And my definition of conscious agent is probably wrong.

So I could propose a definition of God. It's the one infinite conscious agent. So for the first time I've proposed a mathematically precise theory of the word God. Of course, I'm probably wrong. That's not the point.

The point is to have something precise on the table. So now science can start, because once you have something precise on the table, then people can jump on it and say, well, I think it's wrong because of that. And if we do this experiment, we'll show you that you're wrong. Now we can actually start to evolve our ideas. And so that's what I want as one feature out of this theory, is that we get a scientific spirituality, the biggest and deepest questions, the most human and personal questions, that for thousands of years we've only had words, lectures, but no.

Mathematically precise statements and predictions. Why shouldn't we use the best tools of understanding that we have, namely the scientific method, to address the questions that are the most important to us as human beings? Science is up to the task. And so what I want to see is an interaction between, I think, the genuine ideas that the spiritual traditions have come up with and the new methods of science that take those ideas, make them absolutely precise, make rigorous predictions that we can test and then go back and forth. That's how we find out which of our ideas are the genuine insights and which are just nonsense.

And of course, we have both, and spiritual traditions have both. They have genuine insights and they'll have nonsense. And how do we figure out which is which? We start to use the scientific method to make all of our ideas precise and then test them and then see what works and what doesn't. I'm very interested in those potential outcomes in science and spirituality to break down what is a bit of an animosity right now between the two non overlapping magisteria.

That's right. As Stephen J. Gould said. Right. And you're arguing no, you can use the scientific method to have a scientifically precise spirituality that has to do with starts with conscious agent theory and boots up everything, because higher agents than us, maybe classically, have been called angels.

Right. Higher agents than that may have classically been called gods. Right. Higher agent than that may have classically been called god. Exactly.

And you can actually start to talk about it in a way where people don't look at you like you're insane because it's not based on belief, it's based on, well, let's test this. Absolutely. By the way, the ideas that I'm putting out here, I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong. So what I believe is that the ideas I've got now are better than the physicalist ideas, which doesn't mean that I believe I'm absolutely right. I think I'm on a better track and we'll see.

So belief gets in the way when dogmatism gets in the way. It's best to hold all of our ideas very tentatively. But on the other hand, you can't be too tentative in the sense that you do need to invest enough emotionally in them to really pursue them. Right. As a scientist, you have this balance.

On the one hand, you don't want to be dogmatic, I don't want to be dogmatic. On the other hand, I need to find the idea exciting enough that I'm going to invest my valuable time trying to write down the mathematics and pursue it. I think it's good enough lead to follow it. So there's this balance that we have to have between the two. Man, I tell you, this is the reason I became such a fan of yours.

And to be honest, all the stuff you just said in general is an answer to the question that I sometimes am faced when I talk about this stuff, which is, who cares? So, in other words, why do I care that everything's reality is consciousness or matter? Or why do I even care about consciousness? It doesn't get me through the day. Well, A, if you can hack into the source code, the technology changes.

B, we're stuck on so many scientific fronts and have been for a couple of decades now, so maybe we're missing something that could help us progress. And three, the fundamental thing that makes us human is our desire to understand our place. Right? And so, like you said, I think you're not supposed to fall prey to belief, but you have to be passionate enough. Passionate enough.

You know, it's funny because I went to, like, a three and a half hour workshop of yours at this conference in San Jose, which I talked about previously on my show. And you took people on this journey like, we're not really doing that here. We're kind of hitting all these different points. Kind of in the book. You do it and it's like, okay, let me make this case that everything we believe about reality is based on an interface and a rookie mistake.

And here's the deeper truth. Here's the math. Here's what a conscious agent looks like. Here's how that relates to different things we've done, like split brain experiments, turning a single conscious agent into two independently conscious agents that argue with each other in the same skull by cutting this meat called the corpus callosum, which we may presume is not meat, but some icon pointing to how conscious agents are exchanging experience. Yes.

And when you cut that physically, physically meaning you do something to those conscious agents, you now have two instantiations of awareness that are independent. And this is shown in experiment to actually be experientially true. So you took us on this journey in this conference, and you have scientists there. You have spiritual kind of people that are like, hey, man, the crystals, man. Is this like drugs, man?

And these guys cold. Like, the guy who invented the graphical user interface for the Mac is there. And these guys and I'm sitting there, and by the end, it was like, you get this feeling of emotion. And I'm speaking for myself, where I felt like, you know what? What you're saying, even if it's not exactly correct, is more correct than anything I've ever felt.

And I've studied science all my life. I do medicine. I take care of people. It's like that's when I said, okay, anything I can do to help promote this understanding, discourse, dialogue, expansion, refutation of this idea, I have to do. And that, I think, is how the intersection of science and inspiration and emotion and the human condition happens.

Absolutely. I agree that it's relevant because these are the questions that drive us. We are curious. Why are we here? What is life about what happens when I die?

These are the big, big questions that we would like answers to. And we have a chance with the tools of science, to take the spiritual insights and fashion them into something so precise that we can get precise answers to these questions. What happens when we die? Don, in your theory. Well, one interesting option is this, and I'll give you a metaphor that sort of spells it out.

Suppose that you go with some friends to a virtual reality arcade and to play virtual volleyball at the beach. So you put on your headset and bodysuits and you're immersed in a beach scene with a net and palm trees and seagulls and so forth. And you see the avatars of your friends and you start playing volleyball. And then one of your friends, Tom, at one point says, I'm thirsty. I need to get a drink.

I'll be back in a minute. He takes off his headset and bodysuit and his avatar collapses motionless in the sand. To you in the interface, in the VR interface, it looks like Tom is dead. But he's not dead. He just stepped out of the interface.

And perhaps death is like that. We see the body dead, cold, sitting there, lying there. But that's just the avatar that wasn't the consciousness in the first place. What I see right now in front of me when I look at Zubin, I'm seeing an avatar that I create. I'm not seeing the true consciousness of Zubin.

So if that avatar ceases to function, that doesn't mean that your consciousness is necessarily dead. I want to explore in the mathematics of this conscious agent theory what does happen. The theory absolutely allows that consciousness persists after what we call physical death absolutely allows it. The technical questions for me are so how much of the eye, how much of the memories, how much of my personality, how much of all those things persist? And those are going to be very interesting technical questions that I don't know the answer to.

So I'm really going to be interested to pursue that.

If we are these sort of nested conscious agents and we have access at a particular instantiation, in other words, we are the sum total of all these unconscious agents unconscious, all these conscious agents that are at this particular level where we are aware. We're not exactly able to access directly the conscious agents underneath us or the conscious agents above us, but both of them exert influence. So our conscious agent that's responsible for auditory perception is probably a nested consciousness that does something with experience out in the objective world of conscious agents that feeds it up to this particular level that we then experience. So death is an interesting thing. Absolutely.

Because what is it? Maybe the stepping back down through the instantiations or a stepping out into a higher absolutely. And I don't know the answer to that. That's going to be very interesting to ask that question. But the interesting thing is it should be a precise question, and the mathematics should allow us to give precise answers, or we'll need to enhance the mathematical framework.

The mathematics that I have to learn is network information theory. It's a fairly new branch of mathematics that's really come on because of the Internet and wireless and so forth. So fortunately, because of all this new technology, we've had to solve these problems. So it turns out the mathematics, graph theory related to agents interacting is a new and well developed and developing branch of mathematics. So I and my team are going to be learning this mathematics and using the theorems to try to understand how conscious agents interact and understand to try to answer the kinds of questions you were asking.

When we die, do we somehow interact with lower level conscious agents? Higher level? What's going on there? So the graph theory is going to be very interesting to go after this. But it's nontrivial math, I must say.

Any math for me is nontrivial math. Me too. I go to the mathematicians. Yeah, I mean, when I looked at your stuff, I've read one of your source papers that you'd published and looking at Markovian kernels and this kind of thing, and it gave me chest pain. But I also enjoyed it because it was a fun ride to try to wrap my particular interface around this kind of thing.

And then the question of artificial intelligence. Yes, how does artificial so we talk about artificial intelligence. The way we think about it now, is there's some ghost in the machine? There's a machine that's physical that we create that either approximates or somehow attains consciousness or at least is behaving intelligently. But you're saying something differently.

First of all, there's not a machine we're saying we can tweak within our interface something that might open a portal into the realm of conscious agents that we currently don't have. Can you explain that? Because this will melt people's heads because it melted mine. That's right. So I've been involved in artificial intelligence since 1979 when I went to the AI lab at MIT, and I've been very interested in it.

And the question of could AIS of course we can make them smart. They're beating us at all sorts of stuff now. So that's not an issue. The issue is, could they actually have genuine experiences? Could an AI feel love?

Could it taste vanilla and actually enjoy the taste of vanilla? Could silicon circuits and software do that? Most of my colleagues think yes. They think that somehow programs, sophisticated programs are in fact what consciousness is. Although they can't tell me the program and they can't say it's just an idea right now, it's a philosophical idea.

There is no scientific theory on the table. But in general, what they're saying is that somehow with these unconscious circuits and unconscious software, we will boot up real conscious experiences. So that's the question typically about could AIS be conscious? The question is could the circuits somehow that originally were unconscious could they become conscious if they're complex enough? I'm saying that's the wrong way to think about the problem.

We're assuming that circuits in space and time are objective reality but in fact that's just a user interface and we know that our user interface, as you said, gives us portals into consciousness. My icon of Zubin Domania is giving me a portal into the experiences of Zubin Domania. Very, very small portal, but a genuine portal. So for me, the question is this once we understand the realm of conscious agents with mathematical precision and we understand the mapping between conscious agents and their dynamics and our spacetime interface so that we understand it well enough to hack it, will we be able to open new portals in our spacetime interface into the realm of conscious agents? Perhaps using technologies like silicon and circuits and software will we be able to re understand that technology in a deeper way that allows us to open portals into this preexisting realm of conscious agents?

For what it's worth, I think the answer is yes. And I say that both with excitement and trepidation because that's unbelievable power and it's not clear what we're going to meet on the other side. I don't know if all those conscious agents out there are what we would call nice. I just don't know.

But notice it's not. Could unconscious circuits and software boot up consciousness? It's rather will we understand our circuit, our interface well enough and what's behind the interface of conscious agents well enough that we can rejig our interface perhaps using silicon and germanium and other circuit kinds of materials and open a new portal into the preexisting realm of conscious agents? So that's one kind of answer. I think the answer is yes.

But in that case we're not creating new consciousnesses we're opening portals to them. So there's another question here. Once we understand this technology could we create new consciousnesses in the realm of conscious agents? And if we look at what we can see in our interface right now we do see cases where it looks like new consciousnesses are being created reproduction, sexual or asexual when cells divide. We may be in our interface getting a pointer to a birth of a new kind of conscious agent.

When two parents reproduce sexually and have a kid we believe that we're being introduced to a new conscious agent and that new conscious agent is having conscious experiences that I don't have direct awareness. So the mother, the father have their consciousnesses. They come together. They have a child which has a consciousness that is opaque to them. They have to interact through an interface the body of that child to see what's going on with the child's consciousness.

So we seem to have hints in our interface of technologies for creating new consciousnesses. Now if that's right if that's the right way to read the interface. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I mean, that's one thing I'll have to find out. When I get the theory of conscious agents more worked out in the projection, I'll be able to see, am I reading the interface wrong?

But suppose that's not wrong, that we really are seeing new conscious agents being created when we reproduce sexually or asexually. That would mean that there are technologies within our interface that we can use to create new conscious agents. The technologies we have are crude right now, having sex. It's not a high tech thing, but it works. Speak for yourself.

Yeah, right.

But eventually, once we understand that and we understand asexual reproduction just mitosis, we then may be able to understand how to use our interface to create new consciousnesses.

The AI thing. We may just open new portals into existing consciousnesses with the new technologies, or we may get to the point where we're creating new consciousnesses. But it's in a different way than the AI. Folks start thinking about it. They're saying, we take unconscious fundamental reality and make it complicated enough, and it creates consciousness.

I'm saying no reality is conscious all the way down. My interface is hiding most of it. But my interface has given me tools to play with the realm of conscious agents. Will it give me the tools to actually open new portals to consciousness and perhaps to create new consciousness? I think the answer might be yes.

Wow. It's a different way of thinking about it. I really like that. One interesting thing. Is consciousness like energy?

The question is, can it neither be created nor destroyed? Is there just an infinite, out of space, out of time conscious pool, and you're subdividing it? And so a child is like a little split off, and it starts to evolve out, which gets to the question of the evolution of conscious agents, their complexity.

That's getting to the limits of my brain.

But here's how I'm thinking about it. And I'm hoping to have a new generation of younger researchers that can help push these ideas further.

I don't think that there's a limited pool of consciousness. I think it's endless, and there's some dynamic that will never end. And one reason I think that is something that's called Godel's incompleteness theorem. Explain that. So Godel was this brilliant logician, mathematician logician, who did some of the most profound research in logic of the 20th century.

He was a friend of Einstein. They hung out together at the Institute for Advanced Study. And among the many contributions of Gerla was this that if you have a mathematical system that has a set of premises axioms, and it's sophisticated enough to actually, like, say, do arithmetic, then you can, as a mathematician, you can grind out all the theorems. You can use the axioms to prove all these various theorems. And what he showed, what Godel showed, was all the theorems that you get by grinding through the axioms mechanically will not get you to all the truths.

There are truths that can't be proven now, that truth that escapes your current set of axioms. Maybe if you increased your set of axioms or changed your axioms, you could get to that truth, but then there would be new truths that you couldn't get to by your proof. And this, I think, bears on science. Science starts with every theory, starts with premises, assumptions. These are the magic, the miracles of the theory.

No theory in science explains everything. There's no theory of everything. Every scientific theory says, please grant me these one or two or three handful of assumptions. If you grant me those, I can explain all this other stuff. But what God seems to be saying to us is no matter how what assumptions a scientific theory has, there will be truths that escape that scientific theory.

And when I think about this now from the point of view in which I say consciousness is the fundamental reality, that's all there is, how does mathematics fit into that? The way I think of it is that mathematics is like the bones within consciousness. It's the structure of consciousness. When we actually study consciousness, a field called psychophysics, we actually have for many decades, studied with precision conscious experiences in the lab. And they're structured.

We can write down mathematics. Math and consciousness are not alien. They're not separate. It's rather, they're really integrated, like flesh and bones into one unit. And that's why I think about, like, mathematics as the structural bones of consciousness.

It's not the whole of consciousness, but it's an essential and ineliminable part of consciousness. And given that now Godel's theoremist is telling us something very important first, my assumption is that all that there is is consciousness. So all that math and structure is about consciousness. There's an infinite variety of structures. And Godel serum is telling us the exploration of this mathematical structure and therefore of the consciousnesses with that structure is never ending.

Never ending. It cannot come to a halt. There is no halt. It's provable that this never halts. Is that the deepest dynamic of consciousness, the endless exploration of all the possibilities of consciousness and its structure?

That's the best idea I've got so far. It's like the kid in the candy store, but the candy store is infinite, and there's all sorts of chocolates and other things that you couldn't even imagine are out there. And go for it, kid. Explore it. It's never stopping.

That's what Godel's theorem seems to be saying to us. That seems to be saying to me that there's no end to the proliferation of consciousnesses. It's never going to stop. And so it's pretty exciting. It's very exciting.

So that's the best idea I have so far. That may be the deepest dynamic.

Wow, man. If that's true, it's beautiful. I hope it's true. It's as beautiful a thing as I've heard. And I have to say maybe that if that's true and everything again, consciousness is primal.

Math is the bones of it. These theorems say that it doesn't end. It's going to constantly keep spinning out and evolving. And we're a kid in the candy shop just making it happen. People ask about the meaning of life.

I can't think of a better meaning of life than that. Explore, explore, grow, evolve, enjoy, experience. That's the currency of everything. And love each other too, because we are all connected. Absolutely.

This is where all the scientists tune out. Okay, he said love, we're out. The interesting thing about all of that is, does it ultimately get at the dynamics of conscious age and evolution, that there is a deep drive, even that because entropy says, well, things go to disorder and so on. But yet evolution seems to be this. It's not truly an exception because the system still goes to disorder, but you're creating increasing complexity.

Maybe conscious agents really just want to connect and exchange and get more complex. I think that's a very, very good point, because it's in the interaction of conscious agents that you get new conscious agents. And so the exploration continues. I could imagine that the genesis of new agents comes from partly the interactions, the love, hopefully all love. We'll see the interactions between conscious agents leading to new ones, and maybe some I may have to postulate also de novo, new conscious agents just appearing.

We'll have to see I won't undo that if it's required, but won't have the minimum magic in any scientific theory. So it'll be interesting to see where that goes. But I think that the notion of love may play a role in it in the sense that it is the connections between conscious agents, the interactions between conscious agents, that does give rise to new conscious agents. So, yeah, I'm on board with that, man. And this is the thing.

People have talked about this stuff for millennia, right? But they've never talked about it with a scientific precision, with actual theorems. And and I think what I thought was so interesting about your work, again, is that you're bringing that to it. And even if they're wrong, at least we're trying this interesting. And if we're going down the wrong route, we'll find out, because those terms will be disproven.

Or you'll find something incompatible with it, and then you have to alter it. That's science. That's right. I think that we all want to understand who we are. We want to understand what this is all about.

And dogmatism gets in the way. Assuming that you know the answers means that if you happen to be wrong, you're stuck. And so it's best to hold our beliefs very, very loosely, have enthusiasm, but be open to be wrong. And the point about science is to be precise, so you can find out precisely why you're wrong. And hopefully, quickly, it's better to be disabused of your wrong ideas earlier rather than later so that you can move on.

It's hard for us because we like dogmatism seems to come natural to us. It seems to be part of our nature to say, I've believed this since I was five, you're not going to dissuade me of it. But that really closes us off to new ideas and new exploration. And so that may be part of this whole dynamic too. Maybe there's an infinite amount to explore and part of the exploration is letting go of what we think we already know.

That may be part of what this whole dynamic of consciousness is about, is this letting go of dogmatism is part of what it takes to be the kid in the candy shop that gets to do all this exploring. Hey, look, kid, if you stick with your dogmatism, you only get to see these candies over here. All these other candies are forbidden to you unless you're willing to let go and open up to a broader perspective. This man, Don Hoffman, you speak my language. These are the only things I am interested in anymore in life are these questions, which is strange because I'm getting older and these are the things, you know, I'm supposed to be interested in the minutiae of medicine and all that.

I'm like just manipulating icons. I want to know what's behind the icons. Okay, now there's a lot oh, man, where to even gosh so good. Could talk to you for like 30 hours. So I want to at least get into all right, let me ask you this question.

You're talking about closing off the candy shop because dogma we evolved reason not to find truth. We evolved reason to persuade others in our tribe that we're correct it's like our conneman's, Daniel Kahneman talking about system one and system two. Jonathan Height talking about elephant and writer. Our mind is really kind of two minds. We have this very conscious, deliberate, strategic, high energy requiring mind that does logic and reasoning and math and verbal and that sort of thing.

And then you have this unconscious, emotional, intuitive, heuristic mind that operates in the background in your conscious agent theory. Actually this actually might unfold in that you have this level of conscious agents emerging. Your current awareness and that's system. One like you can be thoughtful and deliberative, but that emotion you feel or that threat you feel or that fear you feel, that's your quick heuristic are the agents underneath feeding up to you and influencing your quote unquote free will, right? So in your estimation, each of these agents has its own kind of ability to perceive, decide and act based on its world that it's encountering, which is the conscious agent social network, the experience that it has and the action it wants to take.

But the lower agents kind of can constrain what the higher agents can do and the higher agents feedback and constrain. So your mind is this constant dynamic between processes unconscious to you and processes that you're conscious of and maybe even higher processes. When you go into a football game and you feel that connection, or you go to a church or a monument and you see art with other people and you're all tuned in. Like when I was at your conference, everybody was like this. And there was one sort of you could almost feel an emergent understanding, right?

And so it's this constant sort of dynamic. I don't know what I'm getting at with this. Beyond this is me thinking out loud about how our own minds work and how I can think about elephant and writer and condomin. System one, system two in the conscious agent framework. Right.

It's a very, very good point you bring up and I think it's an important issue. You're right that from evolutionary psychology it appears the best understanding from evolutionary psychology is that logic and reason in some sense evolved as a social tool of persuasion. This is the thesis of Dan Spurber and Hugo Mercier and others and it's controversial but it's very, very interesting and there seems to be a lot to it that we evolved logic and reason to persuade others about what we already believe. I mean, I think the right way to take down that woolly mammoth is this way. And we're going to need all 17 of us guys to do it this way together, because we can't do it by her, I can't do it by myself.

And someone else says, no, I think the right way to take down the woolly mammoth is this other way. Or I should run her off a cliff or something.

It's not the dispassionate search of truth tool that we might think it is. It's rather the social persuasion tool and some evidence that that's the case comes from. We are best at our logic and reason when we're in a social debate we find that ideas come quickly, we're quick on our feet and so forth. And a lot of my research is done in a group with other researchers where we're talking because it's in that social setting that the logic and reason that that's its native ground. That's where it evolved to hunt.

And so I get together with my team and we hunt ideas together because that's where the logic and reason evolved to do this kind of hunting of ideas and the back and forth but now at a deeper level. So that's evolutionary psychology and I love evolutionary psychology. It's an incredibly powerful tool so I'm not putting it down at all. In fact, I talk about evolutionary psychology in my book but I think there's a deeper point of view outside of space and time. Evolutionary psychology is a theory within our interface and there's an interesting assumption that goes into evolution limited resources.

If resources were not limited, there would be no need for competition and. There'd be no need for evolution. We could all just have everything we wanted. It's the limited resources. And I have to think is the belief or the idea or the experience that we have limited resources an artifact of our interface and not an insight into reality?

Reality itself. Resources may be totally unlimited and maybe in the realm of conscious agents it's not an issue. I don't know if that's the case, though. Then there would be a deeper dynamics. And when we project it into an interface in which it looks like resources are limited then we get this sometimes bloody competition for resources that leads to evolution by natural selection.

So I want a deeper framework in which we understand evolutionary psychology as a projection of a deeper dynamics of consciousness. So sort of getting at what you're talking about the whole dynamics of how does it relate to evolutionary psychology? I think it's going to be again, we'll have to have a deeper dynamics of conscious agents. And maybe when we project in an interface where we have this appearance of resource limitations we're going to get a lot of the features of evolutionary psychology coming out. This idea of resource limitation.

To me, I've sat and thought about this and by the way, so were you talking about social connection being facilitative towards reasoning and thought? 1000%. And I just want to put a point on that. In medicine, in healthcare, one of the great tragedies of the last decade or so has been the siloification of our communication. So instead of getting in a room in a doctor's lounge or at a nurse's station and exchanging ideas about patients with specialists and people taking care of them at all different levels we go behind a computer interface and we send staff messages.

And it's not the same. No. And so a lot of that fluidity, a lot of the creativity, a lot of the humanity and a lot of the brilliance of medicine has been sucked into algorithms and checklists and things that we think using a computer model of thinking the brain is a computer. We should think more like a computer. We're missing the underlying reality, the conscious experience of our patients, the internal experience and how it affects this physical icon of their.

And it's been a tragic thing. So we need to get away from that or at least use the tools where they're useful and use what we are uniquely human about, which is connecting with other humans that's right. More effectively. Now, resource limitation is fascinating because it's the central driver of everything in our current universe interface. The lack of energy and constantly having to budget.

If we had unlimited resource in other words, we have the hack into Grand Theft Auto where you have unlimited life points or whatever, right? Suddenly it's not much fun of a game, I'll tell you that, because you're just doing whatever you want. But all that competition, all the strategy, all the effort that goes into being frugal, making sure that maybe spacetime evolved as an interface because it tells me how many experience points I need to get to that apple over there means it's going to cost me this much calories. Why do we even need calories? So it's interesting, if you're going to dive into the fundamental nature of an infinite conscious universe, why is there finite resources?

Absolutely. And it may just be an illusion. The appearance of finiteness may be illusion. I'm not secure on that point. I mean, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely sure when I go at this realm of conscious agents itself, I may find resource limitations there as well, but I'm not sure that I will.

And this idea from Godel's therm that there's endless exploration and there's no limit to it makes me think that maybe it's unbounded in its potential. So maybe at this level there's limitation. I think you mentioned in the book, and I think this is an important point to make, that there are limited resources involved in being able to have experiences. In other words, having a large repertoire of conscious experiences is somehow costly. It takes effort and energy.

And so we dumb it down. By definition, at our particular instantiation of complexity, we can't overdo it or we run out of steam. That's right. Kind of like when we're using system two and we're trying to overthink things. Exactly.

It gets exhausting and we rely on our gut. That's right.

This idea of, again getting at this sort of limit. Again, this is a conversation for another time, but I have to make sure by the way, any comment on that beyond what we were talking about? Yes, I think that what you're saying is exactly the right way to think about it from an evolutionary point of view. Right. That's exactly the right way to think about it.

And the question is, is this resource limitation? So, for example, the argument that I've given that we have to have this interface that dumbs things down and so forth, the assumption I was making is let's assume space, time and matter and evolution by natural selection. The reason I did that was that's where my colleagues are. Those are premises that they will accept. So let me start with premises and a scientific theory that my colleagues will accept and show that it means that we're not seeing the truth.

This is just a dumbed down user interface.

Now, given that I've done that, I can now step back and say, well, but I don't need to commit myself to spacetime. I don't need to commit myself to evolution by natural selection being the final true theory. That was just the best theory we have so far and I can use that theory to bring my colleagues hopefully along to a new way of thinking about things. But now when I go to this deeper theory of conscious agents, I don't yet know whether the notion of limitation applies there or not.

That's really weird. When Einstein wrote down general relativity he didn't know that it was going to entail black holes. So that's the thing about scientific theories. That's why we do the math. The theory is smarter than you.

At some point the theory teaches you and you become a student of your theory. And I expect that there are all sorts of implications in the theory that I've written down. And by the way, when I say my theory I should mention my colleagues Chaitan Prakash, Chris Fields, Manish Singh, Robert Prentner, Federico Fajin I mean I'm working with so it's not just me, it's a whole group, whole team, shannon Dobson, so we're all working on this together. But the math is smarter than any of us. There are some pretty smart mathematicians in that group and the math is smarter than them.

It'll be fun to study what it entails. Are there limited resource implications or not? And one thing I got to say we were talking about this a little bit before. Nobody really funds this kind of research and it's just like I forget it was Sean Carroll or who was on Rogan's show recently and he was talking about studying the fundamental foundations of quantum mechanics and this idea that no one wants to pay for that because nobody cares. What they care about is what can you build using the current interface?

And so one thing I want to make sure that people understand is that there's people out there that independently philanthropically fund research they should look at the kind of research you're doing because it is in my mind the most important thing we can possibly study. And then I want to make sure that I mentioned this because this came up as soon as we started thinking about this and at the conference as well, which is you are someone who said, and you've told me privately and publicly you've never done psychedelics, you've never smoked a cigarette. You're a pretty straight shooter. Your father is a Methodist fundamentalist. This is not how you roll, right?

You're not some like yogi in India sitting on a mat all day doing psychedelics and saying the nature of consciousness is there is only consciousness.

What's? That I'm a geek. You're a geek like me. Now, the thing is, as someone who has dabbled in collagen psychedelics and who's talked to other people who have done them, it seems clear from anyone I talk to, I talk about this theory. They say, oh, yeah, of course, whether I've done five meodmt, or whether I've done that comes from a toad, or whether I've done psilocybin, which comes from a mushroom, or whether I've done LSD, which comes from synthetic ergotomines, ultimately from a mold.

I think all those things seem to do is open a different interface that now we encounter. And one of the common things that people say is it's an overwhelming experience that feels as real as our current maybe more real than our current interface, that they feel like they're seeing things that are there always. But that we have no access to and that they're able to make these sort of experiential have these experiences that, again, feel like maybe they're experiencing plant reality or fungal reality or something like that. And they have truly mystical experiences. Is it possible that something in these and these are microgram quantities?

Chemicals? If chemicals are an icon, right, could it be that you're somehow moving some sort of conscious agent that interacts with your network of conscious agents and some has some network effect that changes the interface so that transiently you can experience something even people say they're outside of space and time. They're eternal, right? Sam Harris in his book Waking Up talks about spending an eternal communion with a redwood tree while on acid. Wow is one of his earlier experiences.

He says one thing to think about this, it's another thing to experience it and it's ineffable you can't put it in words because it doesn't make sense in our current interface. Again, you haven't done these drugs. Do you think that's possible in this? Yes, I think that this whole framework allows that psychedelics may be a technology, perhaps an initial and crude technology by which we can hack our interface and either open up the interface to have a more direct perception of conscious agents or to transition to other interfaces. This theory allows an infinite variety of interfaces.

There's an infinite variety of exploration of different just kinds of interfaces and there is an infinite variety of conscious experiences that various conscious agents can have color, vision, taste, smell, touch, emotions. These are our limited range of experiences. The theory says there's an infinite variety of kinds of sensory modalities not just colors but sensory modalities that are utterly alien sensory modalities to explore. And so I would think that as we make progress on understanding the realm of conscious agents and our interface, we will develop technologies that allow us to systematically go beyond our interface and perhaps enter different interfaces and play in different interfaces and that we will go back and recognize that the psychedelics were the first very, very crude technology. We didn't know what we were doing.

It's like we first start playing with fire and then eventually we have rockets that go to the moon, right? But we had to start playing with fire before we could send someone to the moon. So that may be what's going on, the crude technology but eventually we will be not just psychonauts but we'll actually be in the realm of conscious in reality. We'll be in reality and we'll be going through the realm of conscious agents and exploring there and maybe even going beyond all interfaces and experiencing what is it like to be a conscious agent without an interface, without a self. And I think this is all fun to explore.

I think science fiction should explore this, and then hopefully, the science will catch up. With the imagination of science fiction, our mathematics can catch up. Yeah. Do you remember the movie Brainstorm with Natalie Wood? No, I don't.

It's one of these early VR movies from, like, 1979, and now she died in the middle of it. But it was a technology where you could put on a device and experience someone else's experience, and someone dies while wearing the device and recording. And so people have this experience of death. It's really interesting. I'll look at that kind of ahead of its time.

Yeah. So these ideas of opening these portals and this idea of consciousness without self experience, these are ancient spiritual ideas, right. You can access these things through meditation. I've had glimpses of these experiences in meditation. So a selfless conscious awareness that's just still silent awareness, as maybe even the substrate of what awareness is.

You can experience that. And I think we were talking earlier about Rupert SPYRA and other people who are more of the sort of mentors in this, how to discover this type of meditation. And it doesn't require drugs and it doesn't require anything like that, but this idea of this is kind of primitive technology like fire. I used to make this. Smoking marijuana is like being hit on the head.

It shifts your interface slightly. Right. And for some people, this is my theory. For some people who are innately anxious or restless or something's wrong, it shifts the interface slightly so that they can actually get by. Interesting.

For others, like myself, it shifts it to be slightly more paranoid. I see. Tastes are different. Everything's a little bit turned up, and some things are turned down and sleep is disrupted. So again, thinking about it from an interface theory, the effect of drugs make a lot more sense than even thinking about it from a mechanistic causal.

The brain is causal as opposed to a correlate, an icon. How does a tiny compound make the brain somehow create this brand new insane experience? Makes much more sense that it's a rejiggering a little bit of our interface that makes me want to ask you this again, I don't know that we have an answer to this. How are our interfaces passed on? What's encoding them?

Oh, wow. That's a really interesting question, and it's a big open problem for me and my team. What is DNA? What is genetics? That is an interface symbol.

What does it point to in the realm of conscious agents? And why is it when we reproduce, we reproduce a consciousness that's very, very similar to us? Personalities are the same.

I really want to reverse engineer our interface to find out what is the DNA, what is that technology doing? Why would conscious agents in the realm of conscious agents tend to create new conscious explorers that are similar to them? Maybe it's like it's a systematic search that's going on, right? Of course, there are tens, hundreds of millions of different creatures that have been on Earth. So in some sense, there's been a wide range of exploration that's going on.

And maybe it's just a nice search procedure where we're searching this part of the search space. And so our children are really just new conscious agents searching more in the same part of the consciousness search space that we were in before. So that might be but how that cashes out in terms of DNA and understanding DNA in the realm of conscious agents? I am really eager to solve that problem. That's going to be really fun.

It's hugely interesting to me because the epigenetics even beyond DNA, but what does that mean again? What is it pointing out, really, if we believe this to be correct, this sort of interface theory, and by the way, for people who don't still believe that this is just an interface, the example of synesthetes, people who have synesthesia, they are mutants in the interface. That's right. They're variants where they may see tastes or feel tastes. So you give great examples in the books of people who do this, right?

So about 4% of us are synesthetes. So it's not a small fraction. And it looks like it's. From an evolutionary point of view, evolution is tinkering with the interface, and that's no surprise. We're mutating all the time, and that's how we adapt to new situations.

And synesthesia is a really good example for one of the problems that most of us have. Most of us think that when I see a bottle, there is a bottle. I see the moon, there is a moon. Physical objects have a real grasp in our imagination. It's hard for us to imagine that when I see a bottle, that it could be anything other than just seeing the truth.

It really is a bottle. And so synesthetes are helpful because there are some synesthetes that experience three dimensional objects for things that are not three dimensional objects. So Michael Watson, everything that he tasted on his tongue, he felt a three dimensional object in space in front of him with his hands, and he could feel all the way around it. It had a temperature, a surface shape, a texture. It could be pliable, it had a weight.

And so mint, the taste of mint, also made him feel in three dimensional space with his hands, a tall, cold, smooth column of glass. Somehow that seems right to me, but I don't know why that seemed right. So he spun up three dimensions. Three dimensions from a taste. From a taste.

And mint does not resemble a tall, cold, smooth column of glass. And a column of glass is not the right way to do mint, right? It might be that's right. In an evolutionary sense, in the future. It might be, absolutely.

If, for example, we were in a world in which women really prized men who could really cook. It turned out because Michael Watson had this extra dimension of taste. He felt it in 3D as 3D objects. He was a great cook, so he could cook in way with subtleties that maybe most of us. So if it turned out that women really loved men who could really cook, then his genes could have passed on and we would all every time we tasted something, we would not only taste it on our tongue, there would be all these rich three dimensional objects in front of us that we would feel with our hands.

How heritable is Synesthesia. Oh, it runs in families. So it does. So we're seeing this Heritable interface, right? So again, what is it?

What is DNA pointing to? What are the epigenetics? What is the other embryologic development factors that we're ontogeny? Recapitulates phylogeny. And we have gills and a table.

Right.

Lots to explore. I know. And these are going to be endless clues that if we're not smart enough to figure out from first principles what's going on in the realm of conscious agents, these are the clues that we'll pull back, we'll reverse engineer to help our imagination go where it couldn't go. Man, it's an exciting time. I'm telling you.

I really hope that there's more research along the lines of what you're doing, that your own research is well funded and publicized. Listen, the one thing you guys can do, ZPAC, is get this book and read the F out of it. It is fantastic, and it takes you on a journey. And look, if you get to a part about visual perception where you're like, this is too heavy, just skip ahead. There's so much stuff in the last chapter is about conscious agents.

He saves it all for the end. He's like, oh, by the way, here's the nature of reality. I'm like what? That's a whole book. That's like 30 books in and of itself.

The next book. The next book. The next book. Don, was there anything else you wanted to discuss as we pull up on how long are we going, Victor? It's been a while.

We're at 1230 right now. No, I think we've covered it pretty well. I think we yeah, absolutely. Although I could talk for like, another couple, three. It was just endlessly fun.

What we pointed out is there's centuries of work ahead in this framework. Centuries of work. It's exciting. Now people are going to be like, it's all BS and screw you guys, I'm going home. That's cool.

But I will say this topic of discussion is something that has provoked the most outrage from my audience. They get viscerally angry when I talk about this stuff. Wow. And then there's a contingent, maybe, let's say 15%, that are like, this is the only reason I watch your show. And they're like, really?

This is a field of inquiry that they really care about. And I think again, as the science starts to evolve, it's going to be exciting to bring you back and keep talking about your game. That'd be fun. Absolutely. And anything we can do to promote your work, let us know.

Again, get the book. I think the book is so important to really understanding the path that gets you to the realization that, okay, first of all, this is all a construct. Second of all, what's underneath? And if you don't believe conscious agent theory, then come up with a theory of your own. Right?

But one thing you cannot believe is that this stuff is real. I just don't think you can look at the science and believe that. That being said, Don Ha, and thank you so much for coming on the show, man. It was a great pleasure, zoo and I really thank you for having me on. Thank you.

All right, we out.