Posted: 5/29/2025 10:02:25 PM EDT
|
We often talk about shadow biospheres, inter dimensional, hidden realities, and consciousness. We ask about our reality and perception. But what does all of that mean? Donald Hoffman has a long history of explaining the mind and more importantly, what we don’t see or perceive, and why we don’t actually experience reality as it is. First, a decade old TED talk. This is probably the most mind blowing explanation of perception there is.  Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman | TED Next is a sidetrack abstract of how we don’t actually experience the present, but the past, and we respond with predictions of the future.  This Man Discovered a Glitch in Reality Finally, a recent talk on being outside of spacetime. I wont spoil it, but it’s long and if you liked the first two videos, you will like this.  The Emerging Science: “We Are ONE Consciousness” - Life, Death & The Simulation | Donald Hoffman |
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
|
Originally Posted By Gthirteen: Cliffnotes on the first one please? This sounds interesting We are a nebula of particles and energy, in the universe which is full of particles and energy. Our sensory organs are bombarded with information, so our brains create what we call reality from the inputs. There is too much information so we filter it down to only the essentials. Our brains use shortcuts too. Evolution has refined us to ignore almost everything. |
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
|
This is one of my current passions, learning about the nature and source of consciousness. Very much looking forward to getting into these (AKA adding to the weeks long mix of podcasts I have going lol). |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Perception has extremely narrow bandwidth and is easily spoofed by any number of natural environmental conditions. Add a jabbering, hallucinatory, control freak chimpanzee(your conscious mind) on top of that...and it's easily hacked, and has been for thousands of years by "magicians". Apollo Robbins on Decisions | Brain Games You have a finite amount of attention that can be focused at any given time, so your mind selectively edits it to what seems important.  selective attention test Present the facade of what is expected, or looked for, and you can lead someone to the conclusion you want. Humor, propaganda, women's makeup, and rhyme all depend on these cracks in the perception of reality. |
|
Originally Posted By sq40: We are a nebula of particles and energy, in the universe which is full of particles and energy. Our sensory organs are bombarded with information, so our brains create what we call reality from the inputs. There is too much information so we filter it down to only the essentials. Our brains use shortcuts too. Evolution has refined us to ignore almost everything. |
|
Originally Posted By WorkDroid: Sounds like an example ive heard before: just like our use of computers, we dont interface with the ones and zeros or the electron flow between PNP junctions. We interface with the GUI screen that translates all that for us. Originally Posted By WorkDroid: Originally Posted By sq40: We are a nebula of particles and energy, in the universe which is full of particles and energy. Our sensory organs are bombarded with information, so our brains create what we call reality from the inputs. There is too much information so we filter it down to only the essentials. Our brains use shortcuts too. Evolution has refined us to ignore almost everything. Circling back to simulation theory. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: Circling back to simulation theory. |
|
Hoffman’s ideas and His 'interface theory' of perception at the least offers us a lens through which to explore consciousness and reality. I appreciate the boldness of asking: What if we don’t see reality as it is, but as it’s useful to survive? Personally, I come from a slightly different angle. Continuing my passion for building a framework known as the Final Unified Nature Theory (FUNt). While Hoffman sees perception as a user interface, FUNt treats reality as a recursive, resonance-based lattice, shaped by choice, faith, randomness, and coherence. Perception isn’t just a shortcut to survival, it’s a participation in a fractal entangled field, where observer and observed co-create the waveform of our reality. Where Hoffman suggests our senses “hide” the truth, FUNt suggests they translate a deeper harmonic truth. A truth that can be partially decoded through mathematics like φ (phi), scalar waves, and bioresonance patterns. Instead of illusion, it’s harmonic reduction. A way of converting a puzzle into computer simulation, so we can all form our own opinions using the exiting technology of AI and associated mathematics expertise as a brand new perspective on what most already know. tldr/ no mathematics or physics degree required. In a way, I agree with Hoffman. reality isn’t what it seems. FUNt proposes that it's coherence, not illusion. Coherence is the scaffolding of experience / reality. We are not just seeing what helps us survive, but we are recursively reshaping our reality in pico-seconds. Just one opinion but it damn sure beats what's currently accepted. If curious how Hoffman’s interface might fit into a deeper, fractally entangled cosmos… Check out my Google drive for specifics. It's refreshing to find others who have an intuition we may not have been given the full story. From black holes, to whale speak to reality it's all connected. Look on the drive for a folder called from cosmos to quanta. Small math to prove concept but concise summary on things of all scales and realms. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13z0o9V2ZhWbVwpunkEvqfvGesTjTWuEd Attached File |
-$T has changed the zeitgeist!
- In an age where definitions are used as weapons, there can be no laws.
-History will remember Snark as the language of ignorance.
- In an age where definitions are used as weapons, there can be no laws.
-History will remember Snark as the language of ignorance.
|
https://zenodo.org/records/17497241 The Fundamental Unified Nature Theory (FUNt) – 2025 Public Release * Thanks to Brass for early patience. It's surreal I'm even here for the show. My theory has taken some interesting turns. Some of you brushed against it in your posts. It's all in pdf form now. Lots of open projects for science students. I made it to be tested. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17496328 Spectral Periodicity in Prime Gaps and Riemann Zero Spacings For reference; The Most Important Unsolved Problem In Pure Math”: Where Is Humanity At With Prime Numbers? I'm submitting for the Clay Institute bounty. (see 2nd link). It's pledged to St Jude's Children's Foundation. It will be years before proven. But there will still be kids in need. Wish those kids good luck! For reference - https://www.iflscience.com/the-most-important-unsolved-problem-in-pure-math-where-is-humanity-at-with-prime-numbers-81342 Keep on, keeping on in this forum. It's where the inquisitive and inquisitors both hang out. Just exactly what need more of. Thoughts and intelligent debate. Rare in 2025. Attached File |
13,000
2100
# Atmospheric Relocation
FUNt - Final United Nature theory of, EVERYTHING
2100
# Atmospheric Relocation
FUNt - Final United Nature theory of, EVERYTHING
|
Haven't watched OP's vids yet (I Are UFOs matrix-shaping machines responsible for simulating reality itself? Do they exist outside the “cave” of our epistemological filters? Philosopher James Madden argues that the UFO mystery reveals a deeper truth: humanity is trapped inside a kind of Plato’s Cave, manipulated by “guardian” forces (possibly non-human) that use belief, disinformation, and performance to shape our reality. Drawing on Plato, Heidegger and Cold War psyops, Madden shows how the phenomenon points to a deeper truth unfathomable to those inside the cave but available to those seeking the light.  Plato’s Cave & UFOs: Consciousness Is Key (ft. James Madden) 00:00 Introduction 02:08 Plato and the Philosophy of UFOs 05:47 Understanding Plato's Republic 08:18 The Allegory of the Cave 12:07 The Nature of Enlightenment 15:49 The Role of Technology 16:22 UFOs and Human Perception 30:11 The Intersection of UFOs and Philosophy 43:57 The Limits of Human Cognition 58:00 Technology and Human Identity 1:00:59 Exploring the Nature of UFOs 1:01:40 Conspiracy Theories and Government Disclosure 1:05:48 Placebo Effects and Credentialism 1:07:50 Testimony and Believability Spectrum 1:11:24 Disclosure and Public Skepticism 1:17:06 Consciousness and Reality 1:25:51 The Role of AI and Technology 1:32:56 The Myth of Er and Virtue 1:37:16 Language and Communication Challenges 1:42:39 Protocols for Ascension 1:50:37 The Politics of Science 1:55:33 Truth Seeking in a Complex World 2:00:47 The Unconscious and UFOlogy 2:03:38 The Challenge of Trust and Change 2:06:13 Philosophy and Esotericism Great thread. Lots to look into here. |
| When thinking about some of the bizarre accounts of UAP/"otherworldly phenomena" from eyewitnesses, it occurred to me that perhaps what they witnessed was so far outside of our perception of reality that instead of comprehending what they actually saw, their minds transformed it into something that at least fit their conceptual framework. |
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
|
Interesting stuff. But the brain has plenty of autonomous activity (breathing, heart rate, etc) that you never consciously think about. The conscious brain only really thinks about such actions when they’re impeded. |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Originally Posted By absael: When thinking about some of the bizarre accounts of UAP/"otherworldly phenomena" from eyewitnesses, it occurred to me that perhaps what they witnessed was so far outside of our perception of reality that instead of comprehending what they actually saw, their minds transformed it into something that at least fit their conceptual framework. I think so. I also think we are being “trained” to better understand what we see so we can “compute” it. I think AI image generation and vision gives an example of how abstraction can lead to clarity as training and refinement progresses. Perhaps we are being trained, but so is the phenomenon too. Attached File Attached File Attached File |
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” - Henri Bergson
|
On the ROgan podcast they has Andrew Gallimore on recently. Talks a ton about perception and how the brain interfaces with it. Mostly about DMT though, where it blows that perception away and interfaces you with something else. He likened it to you brain speaking and understanding a language it has never nor could ever know, fluently. "Andrew Gallimore, PhD, is a chemical pharmacologist and neurobiologist. He is one of the world’s leading experts on psychedelics and the author of several books, including his most recent, “Death by Astonishment: Confronting the Mystery of the World’s Strangest Drug.”  Joe Rogan Experience #2403 - Andrew Gallimore |
So this just dropped earlier… Hoffman is getting a wider audience! Everything You See Is a Lie: How Your Consciousness Creates Your Reality! | Dr. Donald Hoffman |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: So this just dropped earlier… Hoffman is getting a wider audience!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebT03UQWlsI always look to see just how many views these videos are getting. This one has a pretty large audience so far! |
|
Originally Posted By WorkDroid: Sounds like an example ive heard before: just like our use of computers, we dont interface with the ones and zeros or the electron flow between PNP junctions. We interface with the GUI screen that translates all that for us. I didn't see this the first time when it was posted but... I'll nit pick Computers don't use junction transistors (PNP/NPN) in the processors, at least for >95% of them. They have millions (billions) of transistors so power needs to be very, very lightly used so CMOS works great for that as it doesn't really need current to maintain the state it is, unlike the computers in the early 80s. They used matched pairs, think of it like a door and the current is the door moving. The only time that gate uses current is when the door either goes from open to closed or closed to open. Both MOSFET transistors (both the "top" and "bottom" of the complimentary latch) change state at the same time letting only a drop of current during that transition. On that note, just some geek trivia: Reducing the size of the transistors changes literally everything. First is the obvious, you can stick more on a wafer of CPUs so there's more to work with in the same die size, second is the smaller they get, the less current each CMOS pair uses when changing state which leads to the last major part of less power used meaning less heat generated. So basically everything from battery life to how long it takes to render a video is determined by element size for transistors, they're already smaller than UV light and are masked using extreme UV with interference to get to 12µ feature size and they've been trying to get X-ray masking reliably enough for 1/10th that size down in the 1-2µ range for each feature. There have been big advances in batteries, but the main advances for speed, battery life, size and other features almost all has feature size as a fundamental which is kind of crazy. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I didn't see this the first time when it was posted but... I'll nit pick Computers don't use junction transistors (PNP/NPN) in the processors, at least for >95% of them. They have millions (billions) of transistors so power needs to be very, very lightly used so CMOS works great for that as it doesn't really need current to maintain the state it is, unlike the computers in the early 80s. They used matched pairs, think of it like a door and the current is the door moving. The only time that gate uses current is when the door either goes from open to closed or closed to open. Both MOSFET transistors (both the "top" and "bottom" of the complimentary latch) change state at the same time letting only a drop of current during that transition. On that note, just some geek trivia: Reducing the size of the transistors changes literally everything. First is the obvious, you can stick more on a wafer of CPUs so there's more to work with in the same die size, second is the smaller they get, the less current each CMOS pair uses when changing state which leads to the last major part of less power used meaning less heat generated. So basically everything from battery life to how long it takes to render a video is determined by element size for transistors, they're already smaller than UV light and are masked using extreme UV with interference to get to 12µ feature size and they've been trying to get X-ray masking reliably enough for 1/10th that size down in the 1-2µ range for each feature. There have been big advances in batteries, but the main advances for speed, battery life, size and other features almost all has feature size as a fundamental which is kind of crazy. Isn’t there a limit to feature size? I mean, at some point actually pushing electrons through those circuits will be impossible, right? |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
 The Secret Power You Were Never Taught About |
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: Isn’t there a limit to feature size? I mean, at some point actually pushing electrons through those circuits will be impossible, right? Originally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By brass: I didn't see this the first time when it was posted but... I'll nit pick Computers don't use junction transistors (PNP/NPN) in the processors, at least for >95% of them. They have millions (billions) of transistors so power needs to be very, very lightly used so CMOS works great for that as it doesn't really need current to maintain the state it is, unlike the computers in the early 80s. They used matched pairs, think of it like a door and the current is the door moving. The only time that gate uses current is when the door either goes from open to closed or closed to open. Both MOSFET transistors (both the "top" and "bottom" of the complimentary latch) change state at the same time letting only a drop of current during that transition. On that note, just some geek trivia: Reducing the size of the transistors changes literally everything. First is the obvious, you can stick more on a wafer of CPUs so there's more to work with in the same die size, second is the smaller they get, the less current each CMOS pair uses when changing state which leads to the last major part of less power used meaning less heat generated. So basically everything from battery life to how long it takes to render a video is determined by element size for transistors, they're already smaller than UV light and are masked using extreme UV with interference to get to 12µ feature size and they've been trying to get X-ray masking reliably enough for 1/10th that size down in the 1-2µ range for each feature. There have been big advances in batteries, but the main advances for speed, battery life, size and other features almost all has feature size as a fundamental which is kind of crazy. Isn’t there a limit to feature size? I mean, at some point actually pushing electrons through those circuits will be impossible, right? For a simplified explanation this is pretty good;  World‘s First 0.2nm Technology If you are interested in what it takes to make chips;  America’s New Chip Factory — $50B Disaster |
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” - Henri Bergson
|
Originally Posted By macman37: So this just dropped earlier… Hoffman is getting a wider audience! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebT03UQWlsSo I’m getting through this one, and another with Hoffman on the Diary of a CEO podcast (gahhhh, the host tries so hard to sound like an intellectual he actually sounds cringey at point) and he’s using similar - almost identical - examples and analogies so far in both even though they’re years apart. That said, his overall theory is pretty good, and I see Tom Campbell is on another pod… I kind of want to marinate on both their theories and see where they net out. Try to find a synthesis. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By FredMan: Isn’t there a limit to feature size? I mean, at some point actually pushing electrons through those circuits will be impossible, right? Originally Posted By FredMan: Originally Posted By brass: I didn't see this the first time when it was posted but... I'll nit pick Computers don't use junction transistors (PNP/NPN) in the processors, at least for >95% of them. They have millions (billions) of transistors so power needs to be very, very lightly used so CMOS works great for that as it doesn't really need current to maintain the state it is, unlike the computers in the early 80s. They used matched pairs, think of it like a door and the current is the door moving. The only time that gate uses current is when the door either goes from open to closed or closed to open. Both MOSFET transistors (both the "top" and "bottom" of the complimentary latch) change state at the same time letting only a drop of current during that transition. On that note, just some geek trivia: Reducing the size of the transistors changes literally everything. First is the obvious, you can stick more on a wafer of CPUs so there's more to work with in the same die size, second is the smaller they get, the less current each CMOS pair uses when changing state which leads to the last major part of less power used meaning less heat generated. So basically everything from battery life to how long it takes to render a video is determined by element size for transistors, they're already smaller than UV light and are masked using extreme UV with interference to get to 12µ feature size and they've been trying to get X-ray masking reliably enough for 1/10th that size down in the 1-2µ range for each feature. There have been big advances in batteries, but the main advances for speed, battery life, size and other features almost all has feature size as a fundamental which is kind of crazy. Isn’t there a limit to feature size? I mean, at some point actually pushing electrons through those circuits will be impossible, right? Feature size is getting close to the size of an atom is the absolute limit unless we find something different in the quantum realm. Single Atom Transistor That would take a bit of re tooling at the fab plants and in the overall design to make them work in the sizes we use now. Basically Frequency can't increase by all that much so they've been relying on faster and smaller transistors. The Frequency thing is a problem since it's already where one end of a trace is receiving a state change when another change is coming down the wire, so to speak. I think the next thing to keep it going is going to 3D dies, like putting memory on the CPU and selling it as a unit, it would be similar to going to cable modem from DSL but current fab technology is still working on the stack and inter layer connections. Now they're going back to the mid 90s and putting the memory really close to the CPU as SRAM Cache (remember the Pentium 3 cartridge slot CPUs? Same thing, but light speed faster since our current bulk memory of DDR5 is faster than the cache they used on the Pentium 3s) For our old a minds, here's what I'm referring to. Processor on the left, cache on the right, (now the cache is in the processor)  The doubling every every 2 years roughly of Moore's Law has held true. There have been people everywhere saying both that Moore's law (well, more of an observation) isn't working or will stop working or doesn't apply. Strangely enough, it is still pretty accurate when people were saying the peak was reached once fab plants couldn't use "visible" light to mask the system and laying routing for PC boards is a piece of cake compared to getting a masking correct and fully unit tested in software (try every input, including illegal inputs and make sure response is good).  |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By absael: When thinking about some of the bizarre accounts of UAP/"otherworldly phenomena" from eyewitnesses, it occurred to me that perhaps what they witnessed was so far outside of our perception of reality that instead of comprehending what they actually saw, their minds transformed it into something that at least fit their conceptual framework. Something sure seems to be trying to get us to break through and realize our true potential without fully scaring the shit out of everybody. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
Ternary computing is interesting. The World's First Ternary Computer |
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” - Henri Bergson
I found this last night. It may or may not have been posted yet. The Unexplained Simulation Theory Using a DeWalt Laser |
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: I found this last night. It may or may not have been posted yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T2fPCe2or0I’ve been easing in to the Chase Hughes stuff for a bit now. Cautiously. Trying to figure out why he’s coming forward with this stuff. He’s recently posted on some potential brain disease he has. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
 Scientists Refused to Continue After Google's Quantum Chip Showed Something in the Superposition |