Another brilliant piece of writing, Thankyou. I have been fortunate enough to interview Donald twice, and think he would actually agree with you - that experiencer and experiences are not separate - but only seem to be. Fundamentally, the maths point to one Being, and the avatars share that Being. So he acknowledges duality is an illusion.
The question that arises for me when hearing where maths all point to, is whether those maths were invented or discovered. I think this is an open question any answer to which may be beyond human ken.
Having interviewed Donald, you would have a better sense of where he is coming from, but I do not hear from him that the duality he proposed as one of his two axioms is only an illusion.
If it is an illusion, then why state it as an axiom, use that axiom in a proof, and then regard what you have proved as offensive to your ordinary experience? I critiqued the axiom as begging the question, by which I mean answering the question by implication before actually addressing it.
Gödel showed that for any internally logical system, there are true propositions that can be neither proved nor disproved from the axioms. With that in mind, I wonder if Donald gives too much importance to his findings. Do they really have much to say about ultimate matters?
Talking about "agents" already begs the question. In conversations about determinism vs. free will, an "agent" is usually considered an entity that can step outside of hard determinism and inject a new influence into the flow of events. There may be such entities, but Donald seems to simply assume that agents exist, even going so far as to argue that the powers of human agency are low on the totem pole and that our human feeling that death is real and central to our lives is only a figment of a weak headset. All that may be, but I doubt that any mathematics can prove it or even strongly suggest it. As Hofstadter said he got from Gödel, "I am a strange loop."
And to repeat a point in my little essay, Donald took pains to discuss his early religious background. I wonder how that ties into seeking mathematical justifications for eternalism.
I found Hoffman's book of deep interest and he expressed some powerful ideas. But, at some point,, his feet lifted off the ground and he lost himself in conjecture-space. Sad. People see what they want to see. It is that wanting that needs to be dropped in order to see a bit further.
Thanks for this thoughtful, well considered answer Robert. Perhaps the scientific method cannot be other than inherently dualistic. Me here the scientist investigating phenomena there. This model has obviously given us a tremendous amount of information about the phenomenal world, not to mention that it's provided us with many benefits in numerous fields. So I'm not disparaging science. Once the absence of separation between observer and observed is seen, the limitation of the scientific method becomes apparent, more specifically with regard to being able to come up with an all encompassing theory of everything, or any factual statement about first causes. As you rightly ask, how could we know?
A very provocative post. Thanks. Science is a wonderful tool for many things including understanding of the universe. But ultimately as with everything else in the end it exposes our limitations.
Saying "there are experiences and experiencers" seem like a matter of fact assumption to me. Not knowing that it is illusory in nature means one is ignorant, but it seems like a very reasonable assumption with regard to what he was speaking about.
In our experience as a human primate animal, we are either not experiencing (sleep, etc.), experiencing the subject/object "illusion," in a flow state or an average moment (mini flow state) like chopping vegetables when the subject/object experience is not present for a short time.
The only time when an axiom could even be tested or make any sense, is when there is awareness of experience, a.k.a. subject/object. That is what he's investigating. Since it is a test of "experience" itself, surely it can be logically applied to those other conditions as well?
Yes. I agree with your point that testing an axiom seems to require a split between a kind of observer/agent and the material that's being observed, but that's not the point that I was getting at. I was responding to Simon's saying that Donald was aware of the dualism inherent in his procedure. If he does see it, why would he feel so strongly that his ordinary human experience--the 165-pound man from Irvine--could not co-exist seamlessly with the endless avatars thingy?
Ah thanks Robert. I didn't realize this was a reply to Simon, nor that Don had implied his 165 pound self could not coexist seamlessly with said endless avatars thingies 😁.
Insofar as there *are* such thingies, he's already coexisting with them!
I will try to locate that to understand better his point, and your reply 🙏🏻
Thanks Robert. I actually re-watched it, even though I watched it back when you first posted it and made extensive comments. It's quite a thing!
Can you briefly explain what you mean that he implies his "ordinary human experience could not coexist seamlessly with the endless avatars? I heard all the words, but I did not take that from it, so I'm wondering what you mean by it?
Donald said that the 165-pound man from Irvine (himself) struggles to accept the metaphysical implications of his mathematics. But his logic is based on splitting experience--which for me is seamless and indivisible--into experiences and the experiencer of them. That split was one of the initial assumptions on which his findings are dependent. OK so far?
Now, Simon commented that he thought Donald would agree with me that “experiencer and experiences are NOT separate - but only seem to be.” But I doubt that Donald and I would agree on that.
Why? Because if you base your logic on a false premise, why would you find the implications of the logic robust enough or meaningful enough to constitute a challenge in accepting them?
If experiencer and experiences are not separate but only SEEM to be, then why not conclude that other "headsets" and the agents that wear them do not genuinely exist but only SEEM to exist within the false logic grounded on splitting?
If agents and headsets only SEEM to exist due to starting out with what I know to be a false premise, then why would I struggle to accept agents and headsets as if they were more credible than ordinary human experience?
The idea, as Carl Sagan put it, is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. Douglas seems compelled to believe in avatars and headsets--but how can evidence be compelling when its based on questionable techniques in the first place?
Another brilliant piece of writing, Thankyou. I have been fortunate enough to interview Donald twice, and think he would actually agree with you - that experiencer and experiences are not separate - but only seem to be. Fundamentally, the maths point to one Being, and the avatars share that Being. So he acknowledges duality is an illusion.
Thanks so much for the kind words, Simon.
The question that arises for me when hearing where maths all point to, is whether those maths were invented or discovered. I think this is an open question any answer to which may be beyond human ken.
Having interviewed Donald, you would have a better sense of where he is coming from, but I do not hear from him that the duality he proposed as one of his two axioms is only an illusion.
If it is an illusion, then why state it as an axiom, use that axiom in a proof, and then regard what you have proved as offensive to your ordinary experience? I critiqued the axiom as begging the question, by which I mean answering the question by implication before actually addressing it.
Gödel showed that for any internally logical system, there are true propositions that can be neither proved nor disproved from the axioms. With that in mind, I wonder if Donald gives too much importance to his findings. Do they really have much to say about ultimate matters?
Talking about "agents" already begs the question. In conversations about determinism vs. free will, an "agent" is usually considered an entity that can step outside of hard determinism and inject a new influence into the flow of events. There may be such entities, but Donald seems to simply assume that agents exist, even going so far as to argue that the powers of human agency are low on the totem pole and that our human feeling that death is real and central to our lives is only a figment of a weak headset. All that may be, but I doubt that any mathematics can prove it or even strongly suggest it. As Hofstadter said he got from Gödel, "I am a strange loop."
And to repeat a point in my little essay, Donald took pains to discuss his early religious background. I wonder how that ties into seeking mathematical justifications for eternalism.
I found Hoffman's book of deep interest and he expressed some powerful ideas. But, at some point,, his feet lifted off the ground and he lost himself in conjecture-space. Sad. People see what they want to see. It is that wanting that needs to be dropped in order to see a bit further.
Yes, Dennis. I concur.
Thanks for this thoughtful, well considered answer Robert. Perhaps the scientific method cannot be other than inherently dualistic. Me here the scientist investigating phenomena there. This model has obviously given us a tremendous amount of information about the phenomenal world, not to mention that it's provided us with many benefits in numerous fields. So I'm not disparaging science. Once the absence of separation between observer and observed is seen, the limitation of the scientific method becomes apparent, more specifically with regard to being able to come up with an all encompassing theory of everything, or any factual statement about first causes. As you rightly ask, how could we know?
Thank you, John. Any method, scientific or otherwise, must be limited. We humans seem prone to forgetting that.
A very provocative post. Thanks. Science is a wonderful tool for many things including understanding of the universe. But ultimately as with everything else in the end it exposes our limitations.
Interesting!
Saying "there are experiences and experiencers" seem like a matter of fact assumption to me. Not knowing that it is illusory in nature means one is ignorant, but it seems like a very reasonable assumption with regard to what he was speaking about.
In our experience as a human primate animal, we are either not experiencing (sleep, etc.), experiencing the subject/object "illusion," in a flow state or an average moment (mini flow state) like chopping vegetables when the subject/object experience is not present for a short time.
The only time when an axiom could even be tested or make any sense, is when there is awareness of experience, a.k.a. subject/object. That is what he's investigating. Since it is a test of "experience" itself, surely it can be logically applied to those other conditions as well?
Hi, David--
Yes. I agree with your point that testing an axiom seems to require a split between a kind of observer/agent and the material that's being observed, but that's not the point that I was getting at. I was responding to Simon's saying that Donald was aware of the dualism inherent in his procedure. If he does see it, why would he feel so strongly that his ordinary human experience--the 165-pound man from Irvine--could not co-exist seamlessly with the endless avatars thingy?
Ah thanks Robert. I didn't realize this was a reply to Simon, nor that Don had implied his 165 pound self could not coexist seamlessly with said endless avatars thingies 😁.
Insofar as there *are* such thingies, he's already coexisting with them!
I will try to locate that to understand better his point, and your reply 🙏🏻
Watch the video in the original post.
Thanks Robert. I actually re-watched it, even though I watched it back when you first posted it and made extensive comments. It's quite a thing!
Can you briefly explain what you mean that he implies his "ordinary human experience could not coexist seamlessly with the endless avatars? I heard all the words, but I did not take that from it, so I'm wondering what you mean by it?
David--
Donald said that the 165-pound man from Irvine (himself) struggles to accept the metaphysical implications of his mathematics. But his logic is based on splitting experience--which for me is seamless and indivisible--into experiences and the experiencer of them. That split was one of the initial assumptions on which his findings are dependent. OK so far?
Now, Simon commented that he thought Donald would agree with me that “experiencer and experiences are NOT separate - but only seem to be.” But I doubt that Donald and I would agree on that.
Why? Because if you base your logic on a false premise, why would you find the implications of the logic robust enough or meaningful enough to constitute a challenge in accepting them?
If experiencer and experiences are not separate but only SEEM to be, then why not conclude that other "headsets" and the agents that wear them do not genuinely exist but only SEEM to exist within the false logic grounded on splitting?
If agents and headsets only SEEM to exist due to starting out with what I know to be a false premise, then why would I struggle to accept agents and headsets as if they were more credible than ordinary human experience?
The idea, as Carl Sagan put it, is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. Douglas seems compelled to believe in avatars and headsets--but how can evidence be compelling when its based on questionable techniques in the first place?