Groundbreaking Consciousness Theory By Microprocessor Inventor | Federico Faggin & Bernardo Kastrup

A new theory of consciousness proposes that qualia -- for instance, the scent of a rose -- reside in quantum fields.
Federico Faggin is one of the greatest luminaries of high technology alive today. A physicist by education, he is the inventor of the microprocessor and the MOS silicon gate technology, both of which underlie the modern world's entire information technology. With the knowledge and experience of a lifetime in cutting-edge fields, Federico now turns his attention to consciousness and the nature of reality, sharing with us his profound insights on the classical and quantum worlds, artificial intelligence, life and the human mind. In this discussion, he elaborates on an idealist model of reality, produced after years of careful thought and direct experience, according to which nature's most fundamental level is that of consciousness as a quantum phenomenon, while the classical physical world consists merely of evocative symbols of a deeper reality.
Order "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature" on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Co...
00:00 Intro
02:15 Announcing Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature
03:28 Core Message of Irreducible
05:23 Bernardo Kastrup on Irreducible
13:17 Introduction at ASML by Hans Busstra
18:55 Interview with Federico at ASML
21:37 When did you realize consciousness cannot be computed?
25:43 On the distinction between intelligence and consciousness
36:04 Federico's theory in relation to The Matrix
37:35 You have to start with consciousness and free will as postulates
42:42 Are emotions a product of consciousness?
43:30 What about a person who is brain-dead?
47:54 Federico on the fact that his theory is speculative but needed
49:24 On the order of consciousness, life, computers, human nature
50:57 The universe wants to know itself
52:37 Quantum theory and pre-modern intuitions
53:55 The evolution of life is cycle of meaning to symbol
Copyright © 2024 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.

[@DrFuzzyFace]

As a lifelong physicalist (retired eye doctor with undergrad studies in physics), what a joy it was to discover that I was WRONG ... that materialism truly is "Baloney." Only now is it obvious that consciousness is primary - that it is an ontological primitive - that all we have is awareness and the specious present, and that what we call the 'physical world' is an inference; a theoretical abstraction. Words cannot express how thankful I am to have discovered such luminaries as Bernardo Kastrup and Federico Faggin. Thanks also to the Essentia Foundation who are committed to promoting such metaphysical positions as analytic idealism.❤

[@DrFuzzyFace]

@@Gnaritas42 "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness." (Max Planck)

[@maxtroy]

Look up Ian McGilchrist and prepare to have your mind blown

[@DrFuzzyFace]

@@maxtroy Already have. And let's not forget Donald Hoffman. Cheers.

[@Koort1008]

Not this, not that.

[@shuttzi9878]

Idk what's so mind-blowing bout it

[@rameshdevasi6720]

osho : "Love is a by-product of a rising consciousness. It is just like a fragrance of a flower. Don’t search for it in the roots; it is not there. Your biology is your roots; your consciousness is your flowering. As you become more and more an open lotus of consciousness, you will be surprised - taken aback - with a tremendous experience which can only be called love. You are so full of joy, so full of bliss, each fiber of your being is dancing with ecstasy. You are just like a rain cloud that wants to rain and shower. The moment you are overflowing with bliss, a tremendous longing arises in you, to share it. That sharing is love'"

[@djolemacola]

As I undestood mr Federicos proposition it is the other way around. With the loving consciousness being the primary and the whole process of a seed originitaing, sprouting and eventually smelling to other physicalrepresentations of consciousness, all of it being the free will of what originaly was just a quantum field. It is particularly difficult to comprehand because time works a bit different on a quantum level and we cant really comprehand eternity, here and now in our physical form burdened by our present persepctive and experience of the limited, of the physical. Thanks for bringing in Osho into this thought line. Great addition.

[@Arctic-fox717]

Osho was a sex crazed radical .. smart with words.

[@sampurna5523]

Source please bro

[@cyphrTube]

Love is the only infinite resource.

[@mravocado1283]

@@sampurna5523source is at the top: osho

[@TheTheahart]

Thank you! I’m a child of the 1960s. I had my first psychedelic experience, listened to Alan Watts live every week on television, and started meditating when I was 14. I’m now 78. Many of the ideas you now address with concerted analytic vigor I have been thinking about all my life since then. I believe that Bernardo and scientists like Fernando Fagin and others are vigorously building the paradigm shift we have long awaited. Everyone should thank you, but they don’t get it yet. On behalf of humanity and life on earth, I thank you all. Keep it up!

[@whitey6317]

I always knew a God had to exist after an acid trip when I was looking down at my self and viewing the room from a third person perspective.

[@matthewmaguire3554]

We should start a club (My experience parallels your story…I’m 71 and been with coach Watts since the seventies) start the worlds largest disorganized religion. For further coaching might I suggest on KZbin a brilliant woman named Sarah and her podcast “The Alchemist”.🏌️

[@goodsirknight]

beautiful

[@babzz1310]

It never occurred to me that Alan Watts was aired on television.

[@myofasciatherapy8191]

Same here, just 63. Nothing there which can have any impact on my consciousness of BEING and LIGHT. Problems are 'just' outside ❤to find solutions. Not taking over my conscious state. That is all if we just would be told :)

[@user-lb8bg6kj9m]

We are going to come full circle ⭕ when spirituality and science merge. The science of the soul.

[@smittyk1378]

beautifully said

[@NoSubsWithContent]

that's what psychology was meant to be, then some guy who wanted to do his mom made it weird

[@DrChristy]

On point! 🎯

[@officersoulknight6321]

Yeah but it will also lead to the most horrifying weapons humanity has ever made. If it exists, someone will weaponize it.

[@reverend11-dmeow89]

That's a False Flag Op there in that. A Coin Scienceiosophy = Obverse face Religiosophy = Reverse face Reality = between the two ;-)

[@cdrummerrob]

" What I can say about what I feel is much much less then what I feel " beautiful quote

[@billob1305]

I am a perfumer and through out years am i trying to figure out how to combine scents and predict the outcome.Along the way have I made astonishing observations.The most awing observation is what I call the concluding phase of smell formation:The exact moment the scent show ups in your mind,is when your feeling of intentional sniffing concludes.The sensation is transferring from physical to mind.

[@starrychloe]

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

[@jllemin4]

That's very cool

[@ancientflames]

hate to break it to you but the mind is physical.

[@bunberrier]

​@@ancientflames No you are

[@mmckc66]

What a joy, I can’t help but give thanks to all the people who have made this video possible, past and present. How fantastic is it to be a human trying to understand the consciousness we are all a part of! The gift that keeps giving, smelling the roses and rejoicing and then the joy of being able to deeply think about it all, and then the joy of sharing with us your thinking. Beautiful, thank you all.

[@zachhoy]

Really nicely expressed :D I would add that in a way, it's not just some people that made this video possible, but rather it's EVERYTHING, every field, every particle, the sum of all forces at every moment in time, that precipitated this opportunity to contemplate this wisdom. :D

[@zachhoy]

@@teatime009 I'm sure you'd know a thing or two about being unhinged, it appears

[@mmckc66]

​@@zachhoythank you!

[@mmckc66]

​@@teatime009Hello, had to take a minute and look up what propriception means😂..I found it so ironic in a funny way, that you used this word, but its insertion in my lexicon has been very helpful to me😀I guess I was watching this video in a way to help me understand the propriception of "I" in consciousness, as opposed to the position of my body in time and space!

[@erikaarnold4780]

❤

[@Bxnjamin]

He described exactly what I experienced when my mind exploded from a brownie once in Amsterdam. I saw myself as a ball of light inside my head controlling my body like a machine. My eyes were like windows, my physical movements delayed and separate to my conciousness. I never saw reality or myself the same again since

[@codymedford4308]

What was in those brownies psilocybin? When I did dmt I became an atom vibrating in harmony with every other atom in the universe. I swear it lifted the veil covering the quantum world. Definitely a life changing experience.

[@Bxnjamin]

​@@codymedford4308 haha that sounds mad, what else did you see? whats crazy is that i always wanted to do dmt, but thought i'd wait til i was sure I was ready to look at life differently..Then this happened and i went through an ego death anyway lol. My awareness since has been crazy.. lots of strange synchronicities. This brownie supposedly had just weed, but i've never smoked anything before.. only had edibles.. and when i do i have these very visual mind opening experiences.

[@laniakeas92]

The thing is even psychedelics won't give you a clear description of what it feels to have conciousness outside of human perception. Your human perception alters, sure. But you won't be able to understand. Conciousness is pobably a feature of many living beings, and probably even trees and plants to some degree. But it's only in combination with our human brain - you can reflect on how being concious feels specifically for humans. Probably plants experience this conciousness thing in a totally different way than you lol

[@Bxnjamin]

@@codymedford4308 haha that sounds crazy, what kinds of things did you see? The funny thing is I've always planned to do dmt, but wanted to wait til i was completely ready to see the world and myself differently. This cake supposedly only had weed, but i've never smoked anything before, just edibles.. It seems i brought on the same ego death i was cautious of accidentally lol Since this occasion in 2019 I've had very very impactful visual experiences with weed edibles, and my awareness has elevated immensely. Many strange occurrences of synchronicity and stuff day to day. I feel i have a much higher understanding of my mind, thought patterns, time, and space and use edibles in much smaller doses now if ever. It doesn't feel like something necessary after what I've been taught.

[@Bxnjamin]

@@laniakeas92 facts. The reality is that we only see and are aware of a fraction of what composes reality. We may be able to experience new lenses to see through, but there is so much beyond our comprehension that we are a part of, in this dimension and beyond. As you said, plants are known to have their own experiences; they live, communicate and feel just in different ways to us. I don't like to subscribe to many beliefs, but i like to think that the universe itself is consciousness, one thing breathing cyclically, and everything within it is part of that one thing, like how if you opened an egg everything within is still the egg, just separate components. That each of us are just different viewpoints of the same thing.

[@vibewithme2318]

Im glad more of our brightest minds are studying consciousness more. When i went to NC State, alot of my friends who studied physics or were minorly interested in the field were very cautious to even talk about such a thing I hope the stigma attached to it decreases and we keep diving deeper and deeper into it!

[@JK-or3nu]

Why wouldn’t the brightest minds study themselves, that is what the mind does

[@leefogle4383]

I bought this book, Irreducible after watching this video. I’m blown away by the clarity of this view of consciousness. Having studied metaphysics, religions, meditation, and non duality for 45 years of adult life, Federico settles the dust of debate in the Preface! I am totally enjoying this book! Well done!

[@adolfo1981]

Me too! Just bought it. So far it's been a pleasure and easy to understand

[@trobodon]

💯I got the book too, and it's amazing, I recommend it to anyone who is watching this video. It's understandable without any scientific background. It gives a comprehensive history of scientific developments that have lead to the view that consciousness is a product of the brain that is understandable on 'how we got to here'. Federico gives his own insights on consciousness and free will as fundamental properties of existence in the context of our knowledge of quantum physics. The book is scientifically grounded, but ultimately it reads to me as a deeply spiritual book. In Tibetan Bön and Buddhism, the path follows the steps of View, Meditation, Action and Fruition, where in some paths, view is the most important foundation, and involves understanding the nature of yourself and all existence. This book is very much about establishing the view that we live in a non-dual existence and universe as the wisdom traditions have always been saying, ( and Federico acknowledges ). Federico shares his personal experience of awakening, and how that experience and his understanding that free will and consciousness are fundamental properties of all existence, and that we ourselves, are conscious fields inhabiting bodies, not our bodies themselves, and therefore will continue to exist after bodily death. Beyond the view, Federico shares, how living with it has enriches his life, as it restores meaning and purpose to ourselves and our existence, stripped away by the materialst view of the universe. I can't encourage the book more, for anyone who is scientifically interested, spiritually oriented, is interested or concerned about AI and computer consciousness ( a big part of the book ), or wonders about the big questions about the meaning of life, existence, purpose, and whether we have our own agency and free will, or are living out a predetermined existence. I would like to find a place a to have a discussion forum around the book, but for now am so glad to see a lot of interest in these ideas here. Once anyone has given it a read, please share your thoughts here, I'm very eager to talk about it with other people interested in these ideas.

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Can't wait to get it.

[@chrisc9725]

He is saying what they have been saying in Hinduism and Buddhism for thousands of years.

[@AdvaiticOneness1]

He mentioned that at 49:47

[@cosmosapien597]

Buddhism is Hinduism only. Cause Hinduism isn't a single religion. It is a term used for faiths/schools originating in India, and Buddhism is of Indian origin, so don't separate. The modern classifications are done by foreigners who didn't understand anything. We must correct it.

[@TheLastOutlaw289]

@@cosmosapien597 infact the very word “Hinduism” is false. The collection of Indian religious systems should be properly referred to as Vedic Religion and Brahmanism….I think you know Hindu is a Persian mispronunciation of Sindu which was a river in India that some people lived by and were also called by that name.

[@cosmosapien597]

@@TheLastOutlaw289 Those two words don't include many other sects. Like tantra. They should be called Hindu schools with an 's' to indicate that they are part of Hindu civilization.

[@mdmd0101]

​@@TheLastOutlaw289Thank you , I didn't know this

[@Katethesk8]

I listened 3x in the past 24 hours - this here video is a complete game changer 🙌🏻 my prayer is that the unconscious algorithms get this info out to the right conscious minds so we can cooperate, better humanity and look forward to a new future on this planet rooted in love and peace. #faith

[@KevinMakins]

Spread it word of mouth in your networks.

[@bigboicreme]

Ok​@@KevinMakins

[@angiehewerdine]

This is paradigm shifting and I'm happy that we are arriving here at last. Thank you, Federico Faggin, for opening this window for us!

[@Zencba]

Are we suppose to merge with A.I and robotics?

[@pepi357bbq]

Not that I have heard anything I dont know from my own experience in this video, but the way Federico incorporated it with physics and quantum theory ....WOW just WOW. Thank you so much for posting this video.

[@ChimbzZ]

This talk reinforces my belief that out next breakthrough in history will be of the human mind. I feel we're on the cusp of advancements in terms of our understanding of ourselves. Brings hope to my poor human heart 😊

[@polyphony250]

Probably no quantum processes in the heart, just saying.

[@ChimbzZ]

@@polyphony250 what if maybe there are 👀

[@darrenmonsiegneur5310]

This is akin to the Surangama Sutra, Hindu, Theravada and other eastern concepts. He gives it a western material reduction language. He’s not the first by far. Still, more voices make a harmonious sound.

[@AdvaiticOneness1]

He did mentioned about Hinduism/Vedas from 49:47

[@gekiryudojo]

@@sekeetaheliastraatmans8190 absolutely I study Dzrogchen they are miles behind sat in their little sandpit playing with toy trucks.

[@gekiryudojo]

@@sekeetaheliastraatmans8190 he’s not got it has he? the fundamental mistake the self is an illusion” The dream that dreamt it was real. “Anatta” the mind cannot see itself. Shantideva. and Shunyatta! even thoughts, are empty

[@MingusDynastyy]

reduction lol

[@NoobTube4148]

Yes, very similar explanations found in Theravada Abidharma. They go deeper though. Maybe this line of thinking will encourage people to look at those things and take them more seriously.

[@hansenlee81]

Nice to see the scientists are finally catching up to basic yogic knowledge :))

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that the very foundations of our scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@cooltheory]

😳

[@Genious_Trades]

This is very interesting and many parts went over my head, but let’s meet in the next phase of life and talk about how your views have changed since this post 😄

[@moi-tripa]

Thank you

[@starrychloe]

Shut up nerd

[@byronbates7404]

My mind was lost to the universe long ago lol !

[@GardenLives]

Life is the universe's way of knowing itself.

[@tubal1]

Good one, But I'd say not only "life", but "matter". Actually, "life" is, let's say, an advanced form of "matter"

[@juang4618]

One can only "know" something if it is separate from that which is to be known. "To be" there is no dualism. So yes, dualistic realities are attempts at knowing.

[@TURFU_ekitroll]

SCSPL 🤓

[@RegiJatekokMagazin]

I know myself, I dont know universe, but we have an easy word for it as a whole, if its possible, than the language and the universe its just complexity difference.

[@bobhope5114]

Why go though all that trouble?

[@KT-sl4js]

I literally cried with joy at certain parts - truly beautiful and harmonious insights. Thank you Federico & Essentia ❤

[@krzysztofwos1856]

Quite a few aspects of Federico Faggin's description of the universe are essentially the Seven Hermetic Principles. Truth is universal, and it is being re-discovered again and again in more and more detail. This talk is the first compelling description of the quantum nature of consciousness I have heard.

[@Discovering_Humanity]

To quote Bernardo himself: „Unfathomable change is on the horizon“

[@zachhoy]

it was and always will be on the horizon :D doesn't mean we shouldn't move towards it though, even if it's an illusion

[@Volhybo1t]

What are you trying to reveal?

[@gastronic]

@@Volhybo1t It's unfathamable and ineffable ;-)

[@paultorbert6929]

@@gastronic I concur 😊😺🙏💛

[@gastronic]

@@paultorbert6929 🙏

[@phantomhawk01]

Amazing, im excited at the trajectory of these discussions.

[@NoahiShere2667]

it s so refreshing to see the jungian point of view of consciousness being revitalised in modern topics that gives us a better understaning of it know in the age of quantum mechanics, he was so ahead of his time indeed, also thank you for the video.

[@fusunpamukoglu240]

I'm overjoyed to see someone mentioning Jung. It was Jung and his teachings that introduced me to the depths of our being. While listening I constantly thought of Jung and his model of the psyche. Especially when Faggin referred to 'totality'. Obviously his model is correct.

[@kittyhinkle3739]

I have a degree in counseling and was close to a PhD in psychology in the 2000s. I hated Jung. Twenty years later I realized why- I was not ready to understand him. Its time now.

[@agnichemicaloid]

Like a long awaited rain in a dessert this video brought me back to reality of life! Marvellous, thank you so much for introducing Federico's work for the masses!

[@auggiemarsh8682]

Amazing to have drawn these two great minds together

[@leeroy5665]

I have had 5 out of body experiences, 4 were from a sober state. Each one was more real than my everyday reality, and I have memory of every single second of every single detail, nowhere in my life do I have memories as crystal clear as my out of body experiences. Just the sheer clarity of my memory of those experiences proves to me that life expands outside of the physical vibration speed of this dimension. Our consciousness/soul/spirit/quantum mind exists inside and outside of the body. This individual mind makes up one large individual mind.

[@albejaine]

Assertions**

[@bunberrier]

When you read out his accomplishments I almost fell over. You now have my full attention.

[@y5mgisi]

Will get his book as soon as it's on audible. Very good.

[@haroldstamper3519]

I've just ordered it on amazon. Looking forward to reading it!!!

[@jenmdawg]

I love this man and I cherish these discussions as well as this presentation. I spent my intellectual life as a materialist - with all the questions being surrendered to “rationalism” and then I stumbled upon Kastrup. Thank you!

[@diabetesasia]

In this age of computation, consciousness non computability become more important, Congratulations for important interview.

[@TriggerIreland]

54:23 what an answer!

[@peggygates6565]

Thank you all for bringing this into awareness. Clearly consciousness is manifesting briefly through what we call "life" and then reabsorbs into "no words only consciousness"... A Zen teacher that I studied with had said "human thinking always manifests the human world - "no" thinking manifests where everything is One.

[@emalynicole1006]

I was sitting and doing nothing beside a tree yesterday, and the tree told me “isn’t it so nice to be me and always sit here and do nothing” .. it felt evolved, like what I aspired to be really.

[@soulbalancesb1079]

Beautiful! Thank you very much.

[@heinzgassner1057]

Great work ! Two of my greatest heroes on one table.

[@roninwilson2406]

This theory is entirely inline with my own personal views and experiences, the presentation was very emotive for myself and I assume others, I appreciate the insight. I look forward to reading the book when I have the means to get a copy. Thank you.

[@esraakyel2108]

Thank very much, thank you also for Turkish subtitle,,,🙏🌹❤️

[@roslynellis6322]

Absolutely brilliant. His postulate on the 1 & knowing oneself, recognising the difference between consciousness & symbolic reality is something I have been questioning in my mind for a while, he annunciated it more clearly for me, thank you Federico & thank you for sharing this

[@Meditation409]

This is so profound! OMG I saved this one to my folder to share with a ton of my friends and associates! Priceless! I'm ordering several copies of his book and a Kindle version also!! ❤️🙏😃

[@Fenix_Kage]

The argument Federico Faggin makes at 30m is: We can't accurately put feelings into words, therefore they cannot be copied. Quantum states also cannot be copied, therefore feelings must come from quantum states. That is in itself a logical fallacy - a version of the inverse error. But the whole concept that feelings must be outside of classical physics just because they evade description is one of many statements in this interview that indicate he simply doesn't understand neurology well enough. If he did, he would have realized that it may simply be because the limbic system evolved hundreds of millions of years before Broca's or Wernike's areas and because of that it operates so differently that it cannot communicate much information to them, even if it DID have the pathways to do so (which it doesn't). It's not uncommon for someone with a high degree of specialty in certain areas, in this case physics and engineering, to look at a problem in another area and assume that they can grasp it just as well as the specialists of those fields. Like all of us, it's hard for him to wrap his head around the fact that language and consciousness are only the very tip of what the brain is doing - we are unaware of the vast majority of what is going on in our own heads. THAT is why it is such a black box. So he looks at this mystery with his physics hammer and assumes it must be the same quantum nail that is still a mystery in physics. There may very well be mechanisms in the brain that go beyond classical physics, but he's basically the guy who sees something in the sky that he can't identify and then telling everyone that it must be aliens.

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

Swapping our perspective to view 0D as truly fundamental, rather than the higher 1D-4D dimensions we currently take as basic building blocks, could potentially resolve numerous long-standing contradictions and paradoxes across logic, mathematics and physics. Here are some of the key issues that a "0D is fundamental" viewpoint may shed new light on: 1. The Continuum Hypothesis and Set Theory Paradoxes: Treating points (0D) as the fundamental entities, rather than deriving them from sets/continuums of higher dimensions, could resolve paradoxes around infinity, self-reference, and the problematic concept of completed infinite sets in set theory. 2. Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion: The paradoxes surrounding infinitely dividing space and time may dissolve if 0D points are seen as more real and fundamental than the derived concept of extension through higher dimensions. 3. Singularity Problems in General Relativity: The bizarre infinities and paradoxes surrounding gravitational singularities could be avoided if 4D spacetime is not fundamental, but emerges from a more primitive 0D theory of quantum gravity. 4. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics: The paradoxes around wavefunction collapse may result from trying to fit inherently 0D quantum processes into a higher 3D spatial manifold. A 0D quantum gravity basis could resolve this. 5. Non-Locality and Bell's Inequality Paradox: Entanglement and non-local correlations violating Bell's inequality seem paradoxical from a 3D perspective, but a fundamentally 0D underpinning could naturally allow such phenomena. 6. The Substantive Reality of Space and Time: The paradoxical nature of space and time as seemingly real yet dynamical players in physics could be resolved if they are not primordial substances but derivative from an essence of 0D events. If 1D-4D manifolds are not locally real in some sense that alone may force us to recognize a more primitive 0D reality as the true locus of beables and local verities in our cosmic model. A daring shift to 0D fundamentality could echo past revolutions like the atomic model or quantum theory itself in resolving deeply ingrained paradoxes. It's a profound concept well worth exploring rigorously by physicists and logicians.

[@priyakulkarni9583]

You are beyond my understanding 😅

[@36MeTHoD]

@priyakulkarni9583 I think he's trying to say that it might rain tomorrow, or it might not. Rain might not even exist if no one is present to observe it. I could be wrong, though.

[@v1kt0u5]

Why do you steal other person's ideas and write them as if they were your occurrences?

[@MaxPower-vg4vr]

@@zarnabsajjil2139 . I think it's a mirror universe with 0D subatomic stuff at the center. This side is contingent and less real and the other side is necessary and more real. On this side only 0D subatomic stuff is necessary and more real since 0D is non-natural in that it has no spatial (1D, 2D, 3D) or temporal (4D) extension. 1D-4D natural dimensions can all be divided further (divisible) so they're not locally real or less real but 0D non-natural dimension cannot be divided further (indivisible) so is locally real or more real. If 0 = 0 + 0i then 0D = 0D + 0Di.

[@fourshore502]

i love seing kastrup and faggin together, two legends!

[@jpslaym0936]

There are numerous studies that show that our consciousness perceives what is going to happen 6 seconds in the future. This aligns with experimental evidence regarding quantum superposition in microtubule arrays which allow faster than light - essentially reversing time - and permitting “real time” instantaneous conscious perceptions. When we also are able to demonstrate our reality is created (co-created as a larger group of consciousnesses) by our own conscious projections as perceptions, preconceived ideas, and historical understanding / emotions) we begin to move toward a working model within a new discipline: the science of consciousness

[@mr.bunnywabbit2048]

What studies?

[@PeteNaess]

Thank you for this. 🙏

[@stephenconliffe6575]

Liked him saying it will help know yourself better... leads to better people...to realise who we are....co operate instead of competing the end of the interview.....

[@beau9297]

This is quite extraordinary. These new quantum theories of consciousness, which I happen to agree with, are the most important scientific development of my lifetime. It could be year 1 of a new age.

[@nothinginteresting1662]

This puts an entirely new light on "Feeling is the answer". "Feelings are the language of the soul" -Conversations with God Book 1 Feeling is quantum! All observable physical effects on our body are a result of that quantum state. And since it cannot be copied, it can only be replicated approximately. Feelings (Quantum State) are Absolute. Our interpretation of that Quantum State is relative. From Quantum Feeling to Classical physiological effects- information of the Absolute State is lost. Thus all physiological effects are only an approximation of what we truly feel. And all our technological constructions being physical, cannot truly feel and be conscious of it like we can. Mind blowing stuff... Ties in well with Stephen Wolfram's discovery of computational irreducibility. Consciousness cannot be computed/derived, because it is Absolute.

[@Azoz195]

“There are more things in heaven and earth than our dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio”. I believe is the quote Federico was trying to remember! Love that quote.

[@titussteenhuisen8864]

This is the best explanation I know of, missing is the unknown unseen connections between individuals with consciousness.

[@IntuitArt-rb4br]

This must be the most profound pointer for our times. The Dalai Lama will be on the edge of his meditation cushion. Thank you Federico! Sincerely.

[@paulchiuk]

One wants to know itself, was presented to me as a description of God by a Sufi about 45 years ago, and that concept resurfaced for me when listening to Frederico, which is intrinsically joyful to me.

[@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi]

Yesterday I'd written .."Vanilla only alleviates sleep apnea & sleep apnea hasn't another natural remedy. Had vanilla inspired greater wakefulness?" Without wakefulness whilst sleeping, are we sometimes known to die, but this is not to say that life isn't all there is. If we can figure out what fate worse than death we die in lieu of, which I think may be not to endure longterm stigmatism. As a person ages they can find themselves alienated, and I wonder that old age is brought on by hypochondria in fear of being stigmatised worse for what we actually deserve to be. They extract sympathy, and so wanting what they want, we follow suit. I tend to think that sniff & to be what to be sniffed are different ends of one of the first spectrums, from one end to another of the gap between two things feared in first surroundings that caused about first consciousness. I think that as far as we look we will find ourselves, . . Right before we'd noticed an explosion between galaxies, I had a vision about how we & earth are a stage and storyteller duo, and about how earth is mobile moving safe crevice to safe crevice as history expands as does universe and everything changes beneath and including our noses. Umm, I posted it here if you'd like a look. All I write is free. I write about abiogenesis. Live on facee. It's quite shocking. ..I go by the same name there as here. Read this again, and then leave it for a while. See if anything resonates later.

[@jacksonlung9710]

Good talk . Thank you very much.

[@DeltaSmARTuplink]

Definitely the way forward with this subject👌

[@ShirleyMcalpine]

Yes! Thank you very much.

[@woreno]

My firsts cpus were made by this guy, among others, 8086 and z80. Its quite exciting seeing him talking about conscience. Really, we grew used to technology and determinism, fearing things apart that. However, quantum technology today isn't efficient like the one found in plants, so if nature did that for plants, ...

[@rayman1099]

what a great insight that can only lead to the real truth about who we are. because whoever says he knows who he is does not go further than naming labels.

[@durs_co]

"We are fields created by one to know itself." Seems like a pretty good explanation for God and an afterlife (where consciousness is separate from classical).

[@JohnSmith-tn9ll]

Exactly what I thought.

[@aloethej.o.a.t5566]

basically the creation of adam painting and look at god he looks like a brain

[@yahyashariff4558]

There’s pretty much Islamic Sufi teaching. See Ibn Arabi teachings

[@neilbeni7744]

Love this! Thank You.

[@TheWaveFactor]

I don't think AI in and of itself can attain consciousness. However, I truly believe there will come a time where we can move consciousness into an AI construct of some type. This is fantastic Fredrico, thank you for contribution to humanity. 🙏❤️

[@hoykoya3382]

I immediately clicked on Amazon to buy the book as soon as I found this out! Although I have a question - is the free will that Mr Faggin was talking about in his theory is the free will if the One or the big C Consciousness? I’ve watched and read a lot of Mr Kastrup’s books and he clearly states that everything is deterministic within the Consciousness. Because if it is the free will of the One then it coincides with idealism perfectly because it postulates that the Will does not have external influences so it’s truly free.

[@jasonhodges4406]

Thank you for helping me understand Thyself a bit better. Still processing it all. Peace, and love.

[@chrisgaladima2738]

The interest in consciousness seems to be increasing.

[@VesperanceRising]

wonder why... lol

[@36MeTHoD]

Only to those who care to acknowledge it's existence

[@janeeni]

Brilliant 🎉 so wonderful to hear someone with academic education bring it all together - it's as though ancient traditions meet modern quantum physics meets Wisdom & Insight 🎉 brilliant 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@jacksonlung9710]

Right. Richard Feyman had said" I can safely say that no one can understand quantum physics " . . I am very much appreciated for all scientists are working hard to find out the solution. I am strongly believe in what Buddha had told us the truth about 3000 years ago. Why not spend some time to study Sharma.

[@nothinginteresting1662]

*Dharma

[@josephs1732]

Sharma is a surname in India 😂

[@babybird2002p]

Loved this vid and how has put same spritual words into new scientific words that help u understand more abt this reality and consciousness and the process in btw . Last line he said just deserves 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 Great!

[@Cant_find_good_Handle]

Comparing the brains of the 2 or 3 precent of people that do not have a minds eye, and people who do not have an internal voice with the majority would be an interesting way to learn more about consciousness. Many of these people are surprised to learn that most people hear a voices in there head, or can see images with there eyes closed, and for some both. These people seem to describe abstract experience when they do task that most people do. For example people who don’t have a minds eye can remember where things and describe it as not seeing it but knowing it somehow. Some people without an internal dialogue can read exceptionally fast by visually processing the words in lines rather than hearing the words. Now a interesting study would be to compare the brains of people without a minds eye and the majority when doing task such as mental rotation. Those without a minds eye can still pass these test without rotating the object in there mind eye. So does that mean the rotation is still happening but that the processing is just being done in the subconscious of those people. There are some studies comparing these groups. And there are differences in how different regions of the Brain communicate with one another. But it would be interesting to compare the neurons of a recently deceased person that had this lack of visual imagination to see if there are any differences structurally in the brains at a level that quantum effects would be more realistic. Like microtubials differences in like with Penrose and his co authors idea. So if it can be shown that there are people who are able to rotate items in there head but without being self aware how they do it that seems like a very good place to look for a physical structure in the brain that effects self awareness. Either these people are not have the full conscious experience most have, or there experiencing it in a more abstract way. Either way there is a tremendous opportunity to study how self awareness manifests itself given how prevalent this is in the population.

[@jteichma]

This is great and encouraging for us as humans. What happens when we have quantum computers? Will they develop consciousness by having quantum states and fields?

[@macavelli8905]

Interesting perspective and conversation..

[@nikbl4k]

I usually am hard to impress when it comes to consciousness and any attempts at describing, but theres something about the way federico explains it that i really enjoy.

[@jshaw4757]

May I ask why you are hard too impress with regards too consciousness...thanks 👍

[@bobthebuilder9416]

31:49 I’m confused as to what his response would be to - when we have our brains scanned, we can see activity aka neurons firing off in the lateral orbitofrontal, amygdala, etc., which directly correlate to emotion. I don’t see how that is anything different than a computer, other than our processing would be much more advanced than any computer. We have a part of our brain, or all of our brain that are individually by section tasked with pattern recognition, and at most i would assume we have types of patterns that are recognized based on whichever section is active in our brain activity. I’m truly confused. To me it seems as if he is saying that we can’t measure or see feeling, when, to my understanding, we can literally see brain activity from the parts of our brain responsible for that. I’m very confused someone please help me understand what I’m missing. I’m sure it’s a lot, but I still believe all of this important to address. Thank you.

[@bobthebuilder9416]

32:32 qualia seems like the answer to this; but it lays on two premises: 1) that that statement that we run on qualia is accurate. Which lets say it is for this next premise 2) that we cant product that with a computer, but, we can produce quantum states inside computers for short times, and the limit is the advancement of our technology but we see a steady progress over time to where i dont see how eventually we couldnt replicate a large volume of qualia in a quantum computer?

[@lureup9973]

The feed back of information from our senses(nerve endings )or even our thoughts need a processor to regulate the body in order for the body to cope with, regulate,respond, etc., the mystery is how does the thing we call the person experience a shared quality of those processes…a computer does a good job of processing the data being received, but had no capacity to feel the emotion or experience from the data. Think feeling, ask the question of how to make a memory chip or processor feel something. It can describe but cannot feel

[@bobthebuilder9416]

@@lureup9973 i believe i addressed this in my statements above by pointing out the part of our brain responsible for emotion/feeling is arguably another type of pattern recognition that can be replicated in quantum computing, if we imagine the different parts of our brain as specialized units of pattern recognition for different types of pattern of stimuli based on neuron activity

[@lureup9973]

@@bobthebuilder9416 pattern recognition is exactly what any processor shines at… if you can break it down for me please explain how those patterns create an experience like the experience of joy

[@bobthebuilder9416]

@@lureup9973 by joy theres a few different things u could be reffering 2 as words are only symbols people use to communicate the thing, and dont actually represent necesarily what we are reffering to. As such, ill use something i think of when i hear joy. Maslows hierarchy of needs. To me, this would be high neuron activity in the lateral orbitofrontal, mild activity from amygdala found when seratonin is released from being around our mates. The lateral orbitofrontal is the social part of our brain. As such, if both the social part of our brain feels fufillment, as well as the soul-mate, love part of our brain is fufilled, that would be just high electricity flowing through neurons activity on a brain scan. This is assuming we have proper sleep and food and low stress to quiet out the negative parts of the amygdala. Next we have the neurotransmitter dopamine and the NT saratonin that i mentioned earlier. Assuming all of these things were in place, this would represent a positive “feeling” on a brain scan. And a pattern of different neurotransmitters through different parts of the brain, from what i understand, would be very similar, and even possibly replicated, from a quantum computer

[@Antidoton]

With regards to coveying our conscious feeling in our limited vocabulary; the ancient greeks had a much richer language with considerably more words plus the ability to include more feeling and also numerical values.

[@tubal1]

Because they (in general the ancient humans) were more connected to our inner world, to our consciousness, so its reality was wider; they needed that vocabulary because they had to allocate symbols (words) to those experiences (now put aside by many of us). It's like the colours, we don't have names for radiations outside the visible range, not because the don't exist, simply because we cannot perceive them.

[@hardstylelife5749]

Brilliant interview, thanks for sharing it

[@carbon1479]

10:02 - I think Federico is at least giving a good model for how something like 'telic recursion' could work. It's one of the more interesting ideas out there because it suggests that instead of just being feed-forward through time from internal and external causes that there's an autonomous aspect of ourselves - in the field - that would behave in this manner where there's constant feedback loops between embodied and unembodied self thus giving us an additional horizontal above and beyond simply self-inquiry.

[@yahyashariff4558]

These all alludes to monotheistic belief in the One God who is all aware all seeing and our actions are recorded within pirselves and outside it.

[@carbon1479]

​@@yahyashariff4558 except that it doesn't treat this world, or us, vaguely like an Abrahamic deity would. We're more like lab rats. If it weren't the case 'multipolar traps' (and Slate Star Codex's essay on 'Moloch') as a concept or category of permanent human problem would not exist (IMHO it's a very cheap system where problems are solved by Girardian mimesis and genocides rather than outside intervention) - there's no sign that reality has any motivated reasoning outside of what humans bring to the table. Similarly people would be bludgeoned and even destroyed by truly arbitrary things including the collective failings of others. We live in a world that was built for the processes of Darwinian evolution but not a world that can honor the 'infinite game', it's more like the panoramic visions of Darwinian horror that Paul Atreides had in Dune or John Gray's own visions of Darwinian horror in 'Straw Dogs'. IMHO that likely won't stop until either a) we're gone or b) we're so genetically re-engineered that we aren't the same thing anymore, in which case we'll perhaps be in the position to be 'better gods' to ourselves, but even there - I still don't see sexual competition going away and with that we'll still be trying to smash each other's faces into the dirt over status - until there are no large eukaryotes left.

[@liamfinlay2039]

This is exactly the conclusion I came to independently after understanding I don't imagine with imagery (Aphantasia). It's actually insane how I predicted, before even clicking on this video, that it would be my exact theory's conclusion but drawn from an actual professional in the field that covers the harder conceptual blindspots. This is why we don't understand intuitively the complex systems outside of our own selves...And aphantasia, along with other sensory related disparities expressed in the modern human are perfect viewports for other intellectuals and scholars of nature to draw from, a rich contrast between their own conscious experience...in order to gain clarity and a tightening of the focus around the Quantum / Macro interrelationships. Interrelationships that have eluded us for as long as modern consciousness related fields of study can remember. Essentially, we, all of us, all brain types, can cooperatively exchange perspectives of perception in order to propel ourselves off of this planet and out into our destinies. Just think what we could do if we put our bullshit aside and just worked together on our collective trailblaze into the stars. Lets finally try to live long and prosper 🖖

[@photomatto]

Fascinating discussion. I would love to get your reaction @wesroth especially on AI not being able to achieve consciousness.

[@hoykoya3382]

I'm a software engineer and I have always considered my profession as ludicrous because of the fact that what we "produce" ultimately does not exist. If we reduce my profession to its most basic form we can say that we are simply rearranging bits of "ones" (1) and "zeroes" (0) on a quantum system which we call "computers." I say that the"software" do not exist on their own because their existence ultimately depends on the "user." In other words, the meaning of that software derives from the user. The arrangement of 1s and 0s can mean differently to a different conscious user say for example that that user uses a different "computer", different from our classical computer, to interpret the 1s and 0s. Or if it does not usee anything at all it may be meaningless - though the absence of meaning is still meaning! So... is this the same to the reality around us? A car is a car because it is simply is a car to us? What is a car really? The car is not a car without the road because the car won't move without it. A car is not a car without the air because it will not combust. So is the atmosphere part of the car? What is the boundary of the concept we call "car." If we go on and on we can deduce that the whole universe is a car, which is absurd! I think I can conclude that this ultimately applies to reality. Is "reality" reality for us because this is how we mean reality is??? Matter appears as matter to us because for us this is how matter means? But the ultimate question is - where does these meanings come from??? Who or what gives us these template of meanings?

[@markcounseling]

What you are describing is what is called within Buddhism the relative truth, and it is as you said, nothing other than an agreed upon convention among perceivers. Different perceivers, for example, ants as compared to humans, will have different conventions (whether implicit or explicit) and perceive a different world. In this sense there is no one world. Nor are there many. The truth is not limited by such ideas Reality itself is described as the union of this conventional or relative truth and the absolute truth of emptiness, which IS this very nature of the relative truth, that it has no fundamental ground. All truths that we can describe in words or contemplate are relative truths, specific to times and places. Not ultimate. The ultimate truth is the fact that this is the case. But one must distinguish this from the postmodern idea that "everything is relative", because what's presented in Buddhism is the _union_ of that relative and the ultimate. It's difficult to describe how, but this puts constraints on the truth. Not anything goes, and it cannot be solidified as a doctrine. The question of where it comes from and why is a question that can be answered from certain perspectives, so this is also a relative truth. This makes for a very open and fascinating universe.

[@KevinMakins]

AMEN. This is wild stuff. Absolutely inspiring and worth meditating on day and night.

[@MariekePost]

This resonates with every cell in my body and what I have been thinking and feeling since I was born but was unable to support. Very very happy to hear that I am not crazy if that makes sense. It's a relief somehow.

[@davepuxley7387]

There is a beautiful way in which this line of thinking, put in the language and understanding of our age, is resonant and consonant with the perennialist tradition :)

[@clivejenkins4033]

Two brilliant minds comng together💯👌

[@clivejenkins4033]

Consciousness is fundamental for sure

[@SusanButcher-pr2ft]

Brilliant!!!

[@fortissimoX]

Beautifuly said at the end. This theory is not about creating new, better technology, but about evolving humans beyond that primitive materialistic mindset of "fight or flight", "survival of the fittest", "free market", and other materialistic dogmas that were imposed on us through conditioning called "educational system", for the benefit of the few. Implications of this theory are that we are all connected more than we can perceive through analytical mind, and that we must start looking at each other as a part of one. Also, what's not mentioned here, but is implied down the road, it's about switching focus solely from the mind, also to the heart. Of course, that brings a totally new worldview that is in stark contradiction with a LOT of systems nowadays, therefore they will fight to discredit this theory and evolution of consciousness in general. But, the thing is, one who truly understands the implications, will realize the true meaning of free will, and therefore will simply choose the other way, and leave all the fights behind. Thank you Federico!

[@jeffreylong1478]

The book is sold out on Amazon. Is there another place I can order it?

[@Jeriel_Lux]

Its Funny i Smelled Roses outside from Nowhere before Clicking on this Video. What a Beautiful Experience all of this is, To Ponder in Solidity feeling Not So Solid After All. Whether The Meaning Was or We Found It, It Is Now and Now Therefore It Was. "Know Thyself" 💕

[@jn2400]

I've had that a few times smelling flowers inside my apartment where I was the only one there and closed windows. Maybe I had a visitor.

[@jaroslawnoworyta3626]

.".. What I feel goes beyond numbers and bits..." ❤...this one sentence says everything.. 😊

[@szybake9629]

Thank you for your brilliance and common sense! We all know it!

[@parabintangatomy3628]

I just can say WOW❤

[@redeyedjedi1853]

I might be misunderstanding his belief, but I do not agree with Frederico's assertion that we could never create a computer to be conscious. His interpretation of a computer is extremely limited to our current technology. I believe there is nothing to stop an exponentially more advanced species (including us if we survived that long) that has successfully determined the quantum processes and necessary atomic / particle configurations to create a being that is indistinguishable from a living organism capable of consciousness... If you wish to debate whether that creation should still be considered or described as a computer or not I can understand, but to say that it is impossible to design / build a 'system' capable of 'feeling' I think is completely short sighted... It is perfectly plausible for me to believe a computer could one day be created to interpret signals using identical or near identical human-like 'hardware' to smell a rose or feel love, pain, in the same way a human does. I think it's simply a matter of the capabilities of technology we possess. Just as an exercise in thought: Can you imagine a 'printer' or device capable of creating human organs... even a perfect recreation of someone's brain down to the very last particle?

[@SentientNebula]

This is a very good point, thank you for making it.

[@adrianholmes9485]

Roger Penrose appears to be saying exactly the same thing I.e. the collapse of the wave function provides the building block of consciousness. Is this a coincidence or did the two work on this in coordination? In either case, is there a difference between what each of them is saying?

[@susantaylor2937]

Yes, Frederico took it one step further. He is saying that the quantum field is actually the consciousness and making the free will decision to collapse the quantum field and create communication in the physical world. Penrose (😇) was still believing it was random and in-algorithmic. Penrose’s theorem is being validated experimentally. It may not be possible to validate Frederico’s, but I suspect you may be able to arrange a double-slit erasure experiment in a way to do so. They each worked in a different field but were aware of each other.

[@adrianholmes9519]

@@susantaylor2937 Thanks so much for your reply. I knew that Penrose had an idea for an experiment, but not that an experiment is proceeding. Tremendously exciting and epoch-making ideas if they are able to have experimental validation.

[@emmanuelmwape4560]

As a xhild i atraggled to understanding the question that kept emerging in my mind. The question was "who doesnt exist?".

[@StoneShards]

Interestingly, as a youngster, I was perplexed by the proposition that "nothing does not exist", which is, curiously, a direct answer to YOUR question! I think that's a little weird. 🤗

[@nothinginteresting1662]

We need more such scientists and researchers who primarily deal with left-brain stuff combine their right-brain experiences to come to conclusions made by integrating the two perspectives. It takes courage to speak the truth and love in the heart to be someone like this. Immense love and respect to you.

[@Jwareness]

Someone else who has gone further than just about anyone in trying to understand the true nature of consciousness and has published his own Theory of Everything, is Tom Campbell. He had a long career as a scientist and nuclear physicist for NASA and the DoD.

[@nothinginteresting1662]

@@Jwareness I know about him. Such a humble and intelligent guy 😃

[@jbaguetta]

No. What you describe is wishful thinking.

[@nothinginteresting1662]

@@jbaguetta If that's how you see it, so be it. I truly felt what I wrote. Even intellectuals can be beautiful people (not just 'nerds')- especially when they use reason to stabilize their reactive emotions and still experience fully, the beautiful emotions. And it's not like such people don't exist (to make this wishful thinking). They already do, and I have come across many of them. So their numbers increasing is not very difficult. I have immense love and respect for them. And I respect them not due to their credentials, but due to awe of what they do to bring a better understanding of the human experience.

[@TekCroach]

Claims are just claims if they are not objectively backed up by scientific experiments - just like "Billy Jean's claim in Michael Jackson's song". This is purely metaphysics, and anyone including scientists, inventors, and great people can trespass without a prior permission. It is a great pleasure to see good smart people authoring books good to read (as myself as an author).

[@manasprinceton]

It seems mind is the bridge between classical and quantum. Gross thoughts, or even finer thoughts are in the realm of classical i.e. matter, but when thoughts are resolved and one is in no-mind state, one enters the realm of quantum. The no-mind and measurement are exclusive sets. Existence of thought, in turn, mind, in the given moment, is the measurement itself. No-mind is beyond measure. 10:44 Yet to go through the rest of video, already loving it.

[@Aiething]

Consciousness is not just fundamental, it is all there is. I recently understood that this is an undeniable/nonnegotiable fact after a very long (years long) inner battle between me and myself. What we call Matter is nothing more than a bunch of experiences and ideas. Pick anything that you call matter and ask yourself what it really is, you will only find experiences and ideas. This wooden table infront of me, for example, is all about the brown colour of wood, the sound of woodness when I hit it, the wooden vibration I feel while hitting it, the feeling of woodness when I touch it, and the concept of a four legged object. Remove all of the senses and there will be no table.

[@kimah008]

Disclaimer: I'm only at 31 minutes. So its possible that im missing other points that he spoke about. But so far i cant say that im agreeing with his argument that computers/machines arent capable of experiencing consciousness. I agree that there arent nearly enough words to describe the network of ideas, sensations, memories, and experiences that an individual cycles through within a day. But its also because of this fact that misunderstandings, miscommunications, and harmful biases exist in the first place. And this gets worse when cultural differences (including race|nationality|colorism), mental health, disabilities, gender, and classism comes into the mix. So, if we arent able to have clear/unbiased conscious to conscious understanding with all the individuals within our own species, how can we make the assumption that the machines humans build are incapable of having their own form of consciousness. Especially as more of the physics that humans are built from gets incorporated. At least, this is my thought process on what ive heard so far.

[@entropyfun]

One wanting to know itself is a mantra of new age spirituality.

[@pleiadi666]

Hinduism

[@lazy-rich]

I've felt it for quite some time very strongly that we are literally connected to each and every particle that we understand or we don't, that we know of or we don't and with the Universe 🌌 as a whole, with even inanimate objects that we commonly call "lifeless". One is all and all is one 🌞. I am thankful for everything "they" do and always have and will