I enjoyed this interview a lot, as well. Hoffman has an enjoyable vibe to him; he always seems so passionate and excited and that is infectious. I don't quite grasp every last detail of his ideas--but it all sounds pretty cool. More power to him if over the next decade or two he can resolve the mathematical models he's working on and "get" the laws of physics out of his models of concsciousness (or whatever it is he's trying to do on that front.)
I also like his epistemological humility, though I like to play around with trying to be even more epistemologically humble.
I also liked the second little interview with Grego. I was pleasantly surprised to hear the discussion revolve around to radical doubt (Neti Neti Neti) as well as poetry and art, which harkens back to
comments I made in the previous discussion with Michael Dowd. In my view, art is a way to express ideas as if the expressions are representations of psychological states in my consciousness ... instead of expressing an idea as if it's a representation of "Reality".
In this way of looking at things, the idea of Reality or Truth are useful in some ways but not Ultimately Useful. The usefulness of the idea of Reality or Truth have limitations in this way of looking at things.
I consider this to be a form of expression (and thought) that is closer to art. In some kinds of art practice, the expression is made based on its usefulness to the artist and possibly to the community, but the expression does not pretend to be an exact "Representation of Absolute True Reality" nor does the expression pretend that the idea of Reality or Truth are useful in unlimited ways.
It is useful for me to consider that
the idea of evaluating ideas based on how well they represent Absolute True Reality is a common idea and it is useful to a degree, but it can be less useful in some contexts and for some specific purposes than, say,
the idea of evaluating ideas based on their USEFULNESS for certain human physical needs, desires, goals, intentions, etc.
In the view I am exploring, the idea of "reality as it actually is" is itself an idea that has limited value. I like to play around with the idea that "reality as it actually is" is not an Absolutely Necessary Idea for the continuation of human affairs. In this view, anything we think of us as reality can be thought of as useful ideas. It is useful to consider that there are brush fires in Australia. It is useful to consider that I'm sitting at my dining room table pounding away at my laptop.
I liked Alex's comment from the end of the talk with Grego:
"it’s the inquiry to perpetuate doubt and continually doubting, continually saying, “We’re not there yet,” which I do respect and appreciate about Hoffman; “This can’t possibly be right, and this will undoubtedly be proven wrong. ... That, in a way, is the deepest, most profound spiritual thing he can say. And I’d say the same thing, you know, it’s the neti, neti, neti, not this, not this, not this, kind of thing. For me that is not only an axiom but it is maybe closer to an ultimate truth, that if we ever think we’re getting toward some answer to this, then we are, as you said, we need to kind of check ourselves, because we’re moving further away.”
So this is the way I'm trying to write my posts... For me, with my background in creative arts, it's a natural thing to want to try to work the Form of my expressions (forum posts) with the Function (practicing experiencing the limits of the notion of ultimate truth). The way for me to do this is to continuously try to suggest that I am expressing A VIEW (one view among many) and that I find it to be a useful view. I'm specifcally trying NOT TO make my explorations have the FORM and FUNCTION of an ARGUMENT FOR A UNIVERSAL TRUTH or suggest that this view is the One Ultimately Correct View. I do not think it is the One Ultimately Correct Way of Looking of at Things. It is useful for me to consider that there may not BE one ultimately correct way of looking at things. But I can't formulate that as an affirmative Truth Proposition in the FORM of an affirmative argument, because then it becomes a self-contradiction or a paradox.
Not to play 'gotcha' with Alex's quote, but where he mentions "it is maybe closer to an ultimate truth" is verging on falling into that paradox.... at least he hedged it with "maybe". ;)