[Comevius]

Blowing minds is a cheap trick, cult leaders do it, politicans do it. These books are exciting, it's like finding out that Harry Potter is real, but it's all intellectually lazy. There are more plot holes than plot in these books.

Never trust entirely anything about consciousness or physics that's not boring and downright indecipherable to the layman.

[Sol2Sol]

I agree about not trusting entirely anything about consciousness. I said Hoffman's theory was fascinating, not that I bought it entirely as there are too many unanswered questions. But for me it was a paradigm shift in terms of how one could look at what we call reality. Hoffman is a serious scientist a professor emeritus at UC Irvine with impressive credentials in neuroscience and cognitive psychology.

[pierrebai]

I'll say this colloquially and rhetorically (as I have little real interest in what the probably contorted answer might be), but I wonder how it can possibly account for the vast early period of time since the big bang when there was no consciousness.

Or was consciousness-created reality all made up on the spot on the birth of the first conscience?

And how has it been kept consistent through the life of all different consciences?

I think the simple fact that, for example, separated tribes of people have lived for millennium within a physically identical world is kinda a dead give-away that reality lives independently of consciousness.

[Sol2Sol]

Based on Hoffman's theory the reason there is consistency in how the world is viewed and experienced across tribes is because we are born with similar gear - something akin to a built in VR headset. Hoffman gives several examples in the book of objects we create on the fly that are not really there - we call them visual illusions - based on our unconscious visual intelligence logic rules.

[pierrebai]

So, hum, multiple consciousnesses create the same reality because our bodies, which are part of reality, are similar? Sounds to me this implies reality came first, but I'm just a simple man, not a book-writing philosopher.

... and the good old "visual illusions therefore 'anything'". About the level of argument sophistication I expected.