How do people here think about Hoffman’s theory of consciousness?
The underlying principles were partially touched upon in another thread (free will thought experiment).
Here is the short summary below for ease of reference: “Recursive Trace Logic is a foundational mathematical framework proposed by cognitive scientist and author Donald Hoffman. It attempts to model consciousness as the fundamental building block of reality, proposing that spacetime and physical laws are not objective realities, but a “user interface” generated by the interactions of conscious agents”
I’m sympathetic to it. My metaphysical leanings are generally emanationist. Namely, the “material” is a frozen expression a more primal source or ground state. Our awareness of the material (including our bodies as material) is a function of our attunement to that ground state. Indeed, our awareness of anything at all is that ground in us viewing itself through the lens of our material bodies it has crafted for itself as a viewing platform to peer into its self. As the Sufi saying puts it, “God is a buried treasure who wishes to be discovered”.
My general position is that reality has depth dimensions beyond my ability to fathom. (See Gabriel Marcel on problem vs mystery. I lean into the mystery.)
If we are part of reality, why can’t we discern it - if only faintly or through a lens…? We cannot see atoms and the forces holding them together (save through powerful instruments) but we can still feel them indirectly every time we touch something. We are conscious, and if the foundation of existence is consciousness, as Hoffman claims, then we can connect to the underlying source.
If perception is a filter then so too is language, so perhaps a better way of understanding it is to enter new levels of perception and detach ourselves somewhat from the linguistic framework? Herein we may refer to the plant medicines like ayahuasca…
First, here is cross post of a dialogue I was having with @dvdjsph today about somewhat related matters:
"[1:34 PM, 6/10/2026] Robert Bunge: Very briefly, I see your cognitive loop as a process model for information input-output. The interpretant is non-causal (or if metaphysical cause is involved, the causal chain is so complex we may as well call the interpretant “random” from an external POV). Where things get more predictable is actions having consequences. Cultural code stacks complexity over time, which presents interpretants with wider ranges of plausible action outputs. Some of those outputs work better than others. This yields an extended Darwinian framework for the evolution of culture itself.
[1:39 PM, 6/10/2026] Robert Bunge: Our current cultural complexity level affords interpretants considerable degrees of freedom, if they can handle all that ambiguity. (Quite a few will prefer tighter little cultural containers and much, much more structure that a such fully global perspective would afford). What I want out of a 2R OS or practice model is something like a “file system” that is globally scalable and addressable in a way that lets any given interpretant range very widely is its potential interpretations. That OS itself is of course “code”, so the OS updates itself recursively through its own processes."
Now, with respect to your post above, maximum degrees of freedom require stepping away from cultural framing altogether! (Not exactly an original insight with me - plenty of Vedantic, Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi, Christian or Jewish mysticism to suggest exactly that. Or dozens of indigenous flavors - with and without plant medicine!)
I guess my goal here in the Forum is to extend conceptualization to the point at which conceptualization just falls away entirely. With respect to your question about why we can’t see more, I always like St. Paul on that one: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face”.