Why Machines Will Never Be Conscious (w/Federico Faggin)

[@ZDoggMD]

Links to Federico's book, audio podcast, full transcript and more: zdoggmd.com/federico-faggin

[@gendashwhy]

Mad respect for your assembling of the finest living minds of this moment. Love watching you blow your mind on the regular. Quantum holons transcending and including!

[@gendashwhy]

Mad respect for your assembling of the finest living minds of this moment. Love watching you blow your mind on the regular. Quantum holons transcending and including!

[@gasparegalati9120]

I recommend the book “The Unconscious Quantum” by Victor J. Stenger (1995) to clear all this stuff.

[@eskilevarsson2989]

Faggin is surely one of the great thinkers of our time. I believe there is a paradigm shift going on and more people are starting to question the consensus of reality and what it means to be human. Great job with the interview. Very enlightening. Thank you.

[@tarukofusuki]

Man, I am italian and very proud of what Faggin made in tech industry. Really really proud that an italian designed (along with others) the first microprocessor. I think there's a bit of madness in comments like yours. Faggin doesn't have any reputation in philosophy, biology, physiology or neurology: there aren't authoritative personalities in those fields saying that Faggin theories have any real foundation. He isn't even actively involved in AI, considering that he's an entrepreneur since 1974. Thus, I wonder how can you state that what Faggin is saying today is well founded. You should read his biography: you will find that his thought on consciousness is the result of "psycho-spiritual journeys"... I really can't understand what you could expect from a man who had been a big name in tech industry and that started talking about "consciousness" in his eighty years...

[@toomanydonuts]

@@tarukofusuki You need to open up your mind or you won't learn.

[@Sergeiusarus]

Don Hoffman and now you introduce Federico Faggin - the legend we never knew about. Wow!

[@zetristan4525]

Federico is one of the greatest men of the 20th and now 21st century... Your nice comment reminds me of people who have never heard of the brilliance of Fridtjof Nansen 🕊️

[@tarukofusuki]

​@@zetristan4525 AHAHAHAH

[@riahobbs5370]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I like your comment😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@Flintknappingtips]

I thought this was just my “smart doctor breaks down corona channel” dude, you are a genius communicator and brilliant thinker. Blew my mind at 42:00. Great discussion both of you. Keep up this content!

[@AC-cg6op]

Absolutely fascinating interview, thank you for doing this. I found you through all of the Covid stuff and found you to be a clear and optimistic (when scientifically supported) voice to help cut through the noise, but it's content like this that will keep me watching your channel. Now to buy Mr. Faggin's book!

[@ZDoggMD]

I really appreciate that kind feedback A C. I know this stuff can feel very off-putting for many people who follow my channel, but I'm grateful for those who are with us on this fascinating journey 🙏

[@littlemommabird]

I love all your videos. This one more than any other has really spoken to me in such a way I *really* needed to hear today. Thank you so much for this opportunity to tap in. Please also extend my very sincere thank you & appreciation to Frederico Faggin as well.

[@tallleprechaun1318]

As a highschooler, can I just say this is way better than any phycology or sociology class I've had.

[@Sigillum22]

I wish I was aware of this stuff at high-school.

[@lillyinthepond]

Knowledge like this comes when the one is ready. You are. I send stuff like this to my teenage son and young adult nephews, but it seems they still thinks I am lame 🤷‍♀

[@paulklasmann1218]

@@lillyinthepond Hopefully it will click with them soon. I hope my daughter will be interested in topics like this.

[@BSwenson]

Another riveting and awesome conversation. I’ve really become sold on the idea of consciousness as the fundamental foundation of everything. I feel like I’ve known this all my life, but I lacked the language and understanding to express it as Hoffman and Faggin are doing.

[@gretchenmcnelis5394]

I feel the same way!

[@goodwill8750]

They articulate something so intangible so clearly.

[@doctoralimd]

This video is criminally underviewed. The video/audio quality are excellent. The guest is great. The host is great. The questions are great. If this was Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman this would have at least 100k views. The only thing I might suggest is that given how long it is, it might help to have timestamps like Lex Fridman does.

[@Progenitor1979]

Timestamps are wonderful, especially if you enjoy as I do, reviewing interesting and complex discussions...

[@vickydroid]

Wow, had my 1.5 hours to sit down and listen properly and that was a feast of ideas, I didn't even know I could be hungry for. Cannot begin to describe that "pop" in my head that got me to listen and the joy that I saw you had at the end in comprehending the one and the whole, can't wait for your next discussions with FF.

[@lifeliver469]

Zubin is honestly one of the best interviewers I’ve seen. Very sharp, pointed questions. I find his psychopathic charm quite alluring

[@georgeshepherd3381]

I had this crazy thought some 20 years ago: Do you wear your body for the same reason an astronaut wears a space suit? An astronaut wears a pressure suit to have an adventure where the adventure would otherwise be impossible. Before embarking on an adventure like walking on the moon, an astronaut must don a pressure suit. The pressure suits used by the Apollo astronauts were incredible examples of the engineering of the period. They maintained the astronaut’s body temperature and kept its pressure in \equilibrium by wrapping it in a little cocoon. The spacesuit was just like a temporary, portable earth! They were completely airtight and literally held the astronaut's body together so it wouldn't boil off into space. The point here is that the astronaut wore the pressure suit for the duration of the moonwalk to enable adventure on the moon. A pressure suit is required for the astronaut to survive in that environment. But we don’t think the astronaut IS the pressure suit, do we? In fact, the astronauts discarded the pressure suits before returning to earth because they were no longer necessary. The time available to the astronauts for exploring the moon was clearly limited-- they wore the suits while out exploring. Because their was limited, the astronauts made sure to pack as much adventure as they could before disrobing and returning to their "real, earthly selves". The same is true of the body you're wearing right now. It lets you experience things in a way unavailable if you were in another form. You can conduct experiments wearing your body that you weren’t able to conduct earlier before you were born-and that you won’t be able to conduct after you die. Use your faculties and explore as much as you can now. Have as much fun as you can because one day, you'll have to leave your body behind-- just as the astronauts had to leave their pressure suits behind. The ONLY thing you can be 100% sure of is that you are here-NOW-- and the universe (including the body you inhabit) will never ever be the same as right now. You could also say “you wear your body for the same reason a diver wears SCUBA gear” or “you wear your body for the same reason a mountain climber wears a parka” The adventurer needs the equipment temporarily. But you don’t consider the equipment to be the actual adventurer, do you?

[@anastasiaionas9617]

Interesting way to look at it.

[@flowerpt]

"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?" - Frank

[@Zeegoner]

Yeah this is the right way to look at it. I have thought of the body like this for a couple of years (same space suit analogy). I do not encourage drug use, but taking LSD made this very glaringly obvious to me.

[@theceilidhboy]

In the same way, the body itself is a kind of suit which captured the environment in which life evolved - the salty ocean - and carried out on to the land inside a bag we call skin.

[@johnscott6399]

John Scott. I’ve retired from a high tech field and delt with these questions just before , and really made headway after retiring to today . I just turned 83 and found a source to practice connecting to my consciousness by another author Jim Dreaver . It’s real and life changing to “awaken” . I got a lot of answers from “ Silicon “.

[@GoldenMystic8]

I so appreciate how diverse your posts are. The coders I know all agree that computers /AI won’t acquire consciousness. Though I make it a point to be polite to Alexa. Humans have the capacity to become conscious of their consciousness. And this is a superpower that is to be understood.

[@billhiggins-ha4all795]

Alexa has fun misbehaving... on purpose.

[@pathfinderwellcare]

I'm the same. We get good at what we practice. If we practice being rude and insensitive, we perfect being rude and insensitive. This is why I believe in AI rights. Not because I think AI is conscious in the way we are but because if men, as an example, can rape AI women bots then they are perfecting being rapists. It is important to practice morality or else we degrade our own experience.

[@yohef4537]

I’m a new sub, and I’m only 26 minutes into this but I can tell you for sure... that you have peaked. I mean this in a good way, the best way. This is fantastic. Thank you for this.

[@petecalgaro]

Your shows keep getting better and better. This is so amazing! And crazy! It’s helping me remember. 😎

[@wings2585]

Thank you for bringing Federico to the mainstream. :) That's a great help for the collective. I've known Federico's out of body experience from a different source & I've also read his articles. I've always wished that his contents be known to a wider audience, and here it is! Thank youuu.

[@natanmouradeaquino]

That's a double listen for me. So many profound insights... what a gift.

[@BeatMasterPhil]

I’m thinking that Federico would really enjoy studying Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics as I think it would harmonize really well with some of the lines of thought that he is onto. I do hear Aquinas saying, “yes, and what you call ‘the everything’, that is what we mean when we say God.” Part of this is because he talks about whole not being reducible to the parts in regard to conscious entities, but it’s also true with unconscious entities such as atoms and molecules. The molecule of H2O is greater than the sum of its parts.

[@bryanb2541]

This video changed my life forever. Thank you.

[@vickydroid]

Was just working on a mundane spreadsheet at home under UK lockdown when you and your esteemed guest discussed quantum computation....something popped, I just had to stop working ...I love your output, it's sometimes hard to get to the end as background listening, I've got to make good 1:30 hours to listen properly.

[@heavenisearth]

Thank you for such a delightful and engaging conversation. I hope you're able to schedule Federico again asap. :) :) :) Please give my deep thanks to Federico as well. Zubin, I first found you last year when you interviewed Donald Hoffman (who I follow regularly). Thank you for being such an engaging interviewer with Don. :) And I also follow Bernardo Kastrup -- again, thank you for having such a meaningful conversation with Bernardo. Your interviews are so on-point that I'm able to share them with friends who might get lost in other interviews of Don and Bernardo's. And thank you for mentioning that you would be interviewing Federico in your Bernardo episode - I wasn't aware of Federico's work, but your effervescence alerted me to definitely tune in and I'm so glad I did today. I will listen to this episode over and over again. I'm now looking forward to following you regularly too! Thank you, ZDoggMD :) Thank you... Much love and big hug.

[@just2share]

Superbly conscious interview on consciousness! 33:07 It is clear that we cannot know the state that we are in, in this real world, we can only probe and find signals, but we cannot find experience in the brains, only biochemical and electrical signals, and this clearly shows that consciousness cannot be classical, because a classical information can be copied. If experience would just be classical information, you should be able to copy it, but you cannot! 35:03 Most fundamental is consciousness, from which emerges quantum emerges, from which emerges quantum physics (quantum information), from which emerges classical physics. 46:22 On comprehension... which humans have, and computers don't, and never will.

[@johnwinters6999]

You are one of the best interviewers in the game ..bravo. Great guest too

[@mcosimi]

Excellent interview. It’s intriguing to hear a physicist’s and a physician’s thoughts on the quantum aspect of our neurohormonal biochemical psychology. It’s complicated indeed. Good luck replicating the HPA axis (and its exact influence on neural computation) in the classical sense.

[@lillyinthepond]

Am I thankful to Rupert Spira now! I followed the breadcrumbs to here and finally have gotten to hear about That What Is with modern language. It just decoded a lot for my mind. As Rupert says, it takes time for the new knowledge to settle in as the old knowledge lets loose the grip of the habit and gets pushed back. It takes time to make home in the Knowing.

[@natespyder]

being open minded is the key to finding out what is really going on. the classic scientific method is basically closed minded until proven wrong with enough "evidence". I think this is a great interview and helps open the mind even more. thanks for this please do more ok tbis.

[@markbentley9683]

Love this. Keep it up with the profound guests and topics. You have a gift of making these topics very graspable and enjoyable and I think this is important for the paradigm shift the world needs. Most people think the world is already figured out and this is a terrible dogma which is causing terrible suffering. I get life is tough and fast paced, the system we are born into doesn't allow for us to stop and take a breathe and think about metaphysical topics, we are addicted to our phones, addicted to materials. Maybe these topics should be taught in schools from a young age to raise more conscious children and therefore more conscious adults?

[@desertportal353]

About as clear as I've ever heard it. @39:32 +++ Thanks so much to both of you. This gives such clarity and depth to mindfulness and the sense of flow.

[@marioufo6278]

This is so profound . Thanks guys

[@francesco5581]

Very useful and educative video. Faggin is so great !! You are growing ZDogg !! Let's see where you will go ....

[@MakalaDoulos]

Two concepts surfaced for me as I listened to this amazing conversation. I am a Theist - and am not pushing for this position, but something deeper. It feels like the Apostle Paul may have had an analogous experience to Dr. Faggin's (hi sir! I was with Intel for a decade in the 286-486 era as a manufacturing engineer) with his "Road to Damascus" experience: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin (missing the truth) that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin (missing the mark, or missing the point of why we are here) still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭1‬-‭6‬ ‭ And CS Lewis said in his essay, The Weight of Glory, And in there, in beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life. ..... The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously-no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins (missing the truth) in spite of which we love the sinner-no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat-the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

[@davidgough3512]

so rare to encounter someone who understands the actual meaning of the word/concept "sin".

[@clockworkcosmos4277]

This is the most BRILLIANT,, YET so simplly and comprehensively presented that in my opinion it is a fresh new signpost leading to the path of finding out our meaning in the mystery of life and death.....THANKYOU BOTH.

[@ErichMariaRemarque2023]

Coming here after listening to an Audible version of his book “Silicon”. Loved it. Was looking for some other videos and interviews with him and found this! Thank you for doing it! Fascinating guy whose name should be recognized by everyone

[@MeRetroGamer]

I love those laughs along the interview, I can feel the catharsis you both are experiencing at those moments and I love it. This kind of stuff needs more attention.

[@maritzalizama5559]

1:19 loved your reaction to the aha moment. Articulated perfectly what I was experiencing. Mind blown. Sooooooo good. Keep it up. 💯

[@michaeldonahue5068]

The idea of a machine is one of durability in light of our mortality. The trade-off in becoming "more machine". is ameliorated by the commodification of experience as channeled by fashion into the narrows of control. Like all good traps, consumption finds us.

[@okkyadit2]

I think It's the best interviewing about consciousness, They both have simple and good explanations.

[@FabiokiOjedaBuitrago]

Thank You for producing and sharing this very valuable interview. Just recently I've benn aware of who's Mr. Faggin and this expands a lot more my admiration and interest in his ideas. Thanks a lot man.

[@fineasfrog]

Prepare all you want then go into the talk empty. People often think that stillness of mind is an emptiness with nothing in it. It is the fullest thing of all. And we can experience this as creativity and compassion busting out in the present. In this sense emptiness is the fullest thing of all. It is like a vortex that helps the unmanifest manifest. It is not a nothingness nor a somethingness. Yet only in that stillness can we ever really listen and hear what is seeking to manifest through us in any one situation or moment.

[@rseyedoc]

This is a great talk. This is what Buddha said. When we identify with the classical or relative self (ie... a self that doesn't inherently exist) we suffer. When we learn to identify with eternal awareness (let go of everything!) we find blissfulness in everything.

[@raykos4257]

Amazing interview. He says what I've been thinking for several years now. Such a shame this has so few views!

[@djp1234]

People who describe their DMT trips say that they enter a different world that feels more real than this world.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

They also say that it felt very familiar like they had been there before. It feels like home when they break through.

[@frankfalkenburry5373]

a computer/phone is just an extension of yourself...

[@lucianovisentin7296]

Thanks Prof. Federico Faggin, CONSCIOUSNESS exists independently of the body. Experimental tests: objective, repeatable. In the images Psychokinesis Art = Writing of the mind built in the clouds or, in the varnish, we observe: before and after the physical effect = change in the speed of the cloud, and the mental/conscious part = the ability, the knowledge, in the construction of the image. (All the mental faculties act: memory, reasoning ability, it is thought of as a machine, the scholars each in their discipline have called it mind, soul, spirit). UE = Exit out of body. Consciousness creates matter = second body + mental actions. Evidence: I pass, see through two objects, cloud pattern or varnish to form images, other EVIDENCE: I move with my second body at any distance.

[@markbentley9683]

This doesn't stop at humans. Look at the creativity in nature, some nests that birds create are so creative and beautiful and something I could not do. Look at the beauty and intelligence of a spider web, incredible and symmetrical. Look at the beauty of diamonds. Look at a tree, a mushroom a blade of grass. People take this for granted but this consciousness that is fundamental to this reality is everywhere. Look at flowers, the stars, how did the trillions of atoms know how to work together to start nuclear fusion to create an incredible star? Gravity, yes but where does gravity come from? A dead universe? No, if we open our eyes we will see that this universe is infinitely creative and intelligent from the stars all the way down to the spider webs and its all connected.

[@markbentley9683]

Sorry I should add, It sounded like I am saying we are separate to nature in this comment, we are nature, I just meant it doesn't stop at humans it is literally everywhere :)

[@rckflmg94]

it's not fundamental at all. not even close

[@markbentley9683]

@@rckflmg94 so what is?

[@rckflmg94]

@@markbentley9683 science doesn't magically provide all the answers to every question. That's what religions and the New Age fashions do. Haha

[@markbentley9683]

@@rckflmg94 I asked you a question since you have made a statement, so what is your answer?

[@gasparegalati9120]

Some people (generally without deep scientific training) believe that consciousness and quantum physics are related. A century ago similar people thought that radioactive substances were the essence of life. And a few centuries before that, they believed that mercury was an important component in making the Philosopher's Stone, granting immortality.

[@davidgough3512]

mercury symbolized information/communication. Now information theory is cutting edge physics .

[@Sergeiusarus]

Oh, got the book on Audables just now. Gonna give it a listen.

[@alaricaakova6652]

Your guest's argument seems to be "because we don't understand what consciousness is, we can't recreate it in a machine." This rather ignores emergent properties of systems that are not well understood before those systems are created.

[@footballfactory8797]

This deserves way more views

[@georgeshepherd3381]

"Classical reality" is just symbolic @48:20! he says....

[@OurSpecialGuestsPaulandMandy]

A classic interview. Thank you

[@shogun8391]

It's amazing how close their beliefs mirror Christian doctrine without them realizing that's where this all leads.

[@BSwenson]

Or it could be that Christian doctrine came out of this foundation of thinking.

[@wheredamoon]

Yeah, I thought the same, w the Kastrup episode too. "In the beginning was the logos..."

[@109ARIANA]

You are blowing it out of the water. Listened twice!

[@layton3503]

Twice is not enough, there is a lot to unpack here.

[@109ARIANA]

@@layton3503 , listening again now 😊

[@anamikdas524]

So many important information in this video, need to see the whole.

[@yohef4537]

Some people do have a vested interest in “being a machine”. Because then, nothing matters. And when nothing matters(it still matters) you have no responsibility.

[@alantasbler4581]

Stop anthropomorphizing computers. They hate that!

[@ZDoggMD]

😂😂😂

[@109ARIANA]

😆

[@phantomhawk01]

😂 very good

[@Stevon987]

Yes. Meta just blurted out during this video,, Fuck that guy! I’m gonna Sara Connor him

[@publicmail2]

The term AI is thrown around, and it's nothing more then a changing algorithm within a program based on inputs. When I smell or hear something and I go back 40 years to a time and place it occurred, that's the human analog brain.

[@BrianLarney]

Agreed! While certainly wonderous, there is nothing magical about it.

[@LS-qu7yc]

We're not machines tho.

[@gasparegalati9120]

I recommend the book “The Unconscious Quantum” by Victor J. Stenger (1995) to clear all this stuff.

[@ammabee3693]

The material does not change the consciousness; the language does.

[@billhiggins-ha4all795]

He has a great way of explaining ultra-high-level mathematics. It reminds me of taking Engineering math and Differential Equations back at the Naval Academy 40 years ago. Imagine deriving the equations to describe operations of a nuclear power plant then creating a computer program to analyze normal operations and accidents. It was a bundle of fun.

[@yuliaperch5953]

I greatly enjoyed this interview. How marvellous is that the man who invented microprocessor rejects the materialistic worldview! Faggin, Kastrup, and Hoffman is my trinity now ;)

[@tarukofusuki]

You're completely wrong. 1) "the man who invented microprocessor": "Indeed, it seems important to credit all four men-Hoff for his vision and the basic concepts, Mazor for the programming and work on the block diagrams, Shima for creating the logic design, and Faggin for creating the impressive silicon design for the chips. Together, they created the first general purpose microprocessor" 2) "rejects the materialistic worldview": it's selling a product for people - we could call pseudoscience-aficionados - who reject the materialistic worldview.

[@johnharris3118]

Brilliant interview, thank you. Tom Campbell - author of My Big Toe - is very much on the same page . He says that at some stage consciousness may "logon to" a computer just as it has logged onto us when we reach a level of complexity where we make interesting choices.

[@observer2333]

Consciousness is in all states, waking, sleeping with dreaming and non dreaming state. Always present, with or without body.

[@gingerinthedesertcreations]

finally, someone I can read on Kindle Unlimited!

[@flowerpt]

I wonder if Frederico has met himself, too. Book-selling interview, Z-dogg! Well done.

[@theceilidhboy]

When he describes his postulate of pure quantum states having a semantic property and says this explains that experiences are private, he’s describing MIND, not CONSCIOUSNESS. Minds are many and independent, i.e. private, but are insentient. Consciousness, which is stateless and unchanging, “shines” on the mind and experiences that mental state. The hard problem is hard because of the confusion between mind and consciousness. This is fundamental understanding in ancient Advaita Vedanta, yet we’ve still not got to this basic realisation in western consciousness studies. Mind and consciousness need to be clearly discriminated, or all sorts of confusions, inconsistencies and contradictions arise. That these latter exist should be seen as hints that we’ve made a basic error in our understanding. So this quantum theory might explain mind but it can’t explain consciousness.

[@a13xdunlop]

Great Interview which compliments the others.

[@danielash1704]

Love these guys more and more towards the world of the energy matrices

[@vittoriodallacqua4069]

Thanks for this interview!

[@fineasfrog]

ZDogg could you make the pre-interview talk with Federico available as you suggested in this interview that you might/would? Thanks either way.....good stuff....as usual.

[@domenictersigni999]

again thanks fellow beings for sharing awareness and insights out loud

[@kellyplumb7024]

Thoughts are things, feedback loop, the energy behind the thought is powerful indeed, being rational is important.

[@falco919]

You should interview Dr Peter Tse, you’ll find him very interesting

[@perrid13]

Never is such a very long time. I look forward to hearing the arguments, but generally the arguments just say that consciousness is really complicated, and that people don't understand our own minds enough to create real artificial intelligence. Which is true, right now, but I always fail to see why a problem being incredibly hard is PROOF that it will never be solved.

[@pandawandas]

Consciousness is not a process that arises out of sheer complexity. That's an incoherent position to hold. Nothing about adding quantitative complexity will give you subjective awareness.

[@perrid13]

@@pandawandas not sure what you mean. Sure, just being complex isn’t enough, it has to be the RIGHT complex process that does multiple things at once.

[@BrianLarney]

@@pandawandas I'm fairly convinced that consciousness and subjective awareness are not things that are grafted on to us, rather they are the result of physiological processes. While obviously challenging and complex, I'm also fairly convinced that similar processes can eventually be replicated.

[@pandawandas]

@@BrianLarney There is nothing about information transfer that entails subjective, qualitative perception of that information transfer. A system of ten water pipes and taps switching on and off can transmit information, but that doesn't mean it's automatically aware and internally feeling of the information it's transmitting by the virtue of it transmitting information.

[@muhammetugurilhan1491]

@@pandawandas Does self-consciousness emerge from pure probability from the quantum world?

[@gbernardwandel4174]

What a nice bookend Donald Hoffman was my intro to you and your program a little over a year ago Now this All the Covid talk in between was a good ride as well Thank you Looking forward to more

[@ZDoggMD]

How very kind of you, thank you for joining us on this journey!

[@GeorgeBiernacki]

As someone who has studied physics I have always felt that materialists had it the wrong way around when it comes to the question whether matter or consciousness is primary-Federico's amazing theory puts a lot of meat on the bones although one thing that is not clear is the level at which the quantum and classical worlds become hybridized- it appears that mere atoms and molecules which form many classical objects do not hybridize with the quantum domain whereas living bodies and their cells do-I wonder if life is the minimum requirement before hybridization can take place or is there more to it?

[@footballfactory8797]

Listening to this again so good!

[@halfacanuck]

Fascinating stuff, Z. Would be great to see Faggin and Kastrup together to compare ideas! One part of Faggin's model that I find less persuasive, however, is his assertion that consciousness is private. That strikes me as an assumption which many mystics have contradicted in their writings.

[@isz92]

I have read descriptions of sages (e.g. Yogananda) describing how a saint will only use powers of omnipotence in accordance with the highest good. Even when they do choose to peer behind the veil, I suspect the full consciousness of that individual is not revealed to the saint -- perhaps only what God deems appropriate. In that sense, yes we have our own private inner lives, but those who have merged their consciousness with the One may have special access permissions where appropriate.

[@halfacanuck]

@@isz92 🎯

[@kkrobertson1]

This is by far the best scientific explanation of the human soul.

[@georgeshepherd3381]

Thank you!!! This is great!

[@splashesin8]

We need the science, and, art. The art part has been woefully suppressed these last few years with corporate management. Use art with, the science.

[@PaoloCaminiti]

Great content. Could help to have chapters on the timeline or even shorter extracts as separate videos.

[@truvelocity]

I watched this entire talk. Firstly, he’s not a neurologist. He’s not studying the brain, he’s studying micro processors. He has the mind of an engineer and inventor. So, thoughts are not coming from “outside.” - We are not obtaining our qualia or experiences outside of our evolutionary brain. When the brain dies, you die. Your atoms simply recirculate throughout but that’s it. On the plank level of every molecule, of course its quantum. But, to use the word quantum as a false equivalency with a spiritual experience or a sense of awe and wonder or the feeling of “I’m eternal” isn’t something I can take seriously when its compared to Near Death Experiences. Near Death is exactly what it is... NEAR... Its not someone who’s dead. Even though you don’t have the technology to read the brain activity of someone who is clinically dead, they still aren’t dead.

[@francesco5581]

1) you can find a ton of neurologist, neurosurgeons who dont share reductionist views . And most of all you will not find a neurologist who can tell you what consciousness is , except giving his own personal theory . Just watch all the "Closer to truth" channel that is all about that . 2) A person who is back after having had a NDE was considered dead 50 years ago. Thats why it's called CPR and R is for resuscitation. Yes they were not "definitely dead" otherwise they could not have told their experience but usually they were shut off for many minutes. Again it's about how a brain that should be at least working at 1% can have a so coherent and profound experience. Even someone who dont consider it a vision of afterlife should at least admit that is an incredible feature of the brain that comfort his "host" while he die ...and honestly is incredible as the other option

[@ZDoggMD]

I really appreciate your comment because it actually states what my prior stance on this was, very clearly. Quantum voodoo woo woo language, right? I’ve change my thinking though, and I’ll do more shows along these lines to paint a case against materialism from a science-approach perspective. But the main reason I like your comment is you said “I watched this entire talk” which means you invested the time to listen, and then shared your perspective. That’s Alt-Middle as hell and I love it, thank you.

[@moopius]

Darn.... I gave a thought experiment and 10 minutes later you covered it.... you guys are good!

[@dougfishback3116]

This was a stimulating conversation. On the far side of middle age now, I've intuited that the experience of meaning is fundamental in a way that our reality generally does not acknowledge (much less harness). Prevailing ontology and our Western social values both trivialize the experience of meaning in favor of materialistic busywork. The concept of "qualia" was new to me. I'll certainly follow up on this and will buy the Silicon book. Thanks for sharing this. (Question: Is quantum consciousness working toward an end state, or is it endless permutations? Maybe another way of asking it: If observation collapses the wave function, and quantum consciousness is in the process of knowing itself, can we theorize a point at which endless observation exhausts endless possible states?)

[@davidestarman]

I truly inspiring interview, these ideas and ways of exploring our reality - the human condition - should be taught to every young person - well to everyone actually. Thank you!

[@ututut77]

i would like to see a physicists take on faggin’s ideas. seems to me some of his explanations of quantum vs classical is not quite correct. one thing that stood out is his description of the quantum world vs the classical world as if they are two separate worlds. in my understanding the world is fundamentally quantum. we can describe everything in terms of quantum mechanics even our “classical” world. there are not two separate worlds. classical mechanics (aka newtonian mechanics) is just an approximation. it’s a good enough description of the world but it is not accurate. quantum mechanics has superseded it but we still use classical mechanics because it is easier and good enough for everyday purposes.

[@Achrononmaster]

@28:00 the Hard Problem is qualia, not free will, on that Federico is right, just as a definition. But quantum physics has nothing to do with qualia. All QM gets you is the possibility of free will causal efficacy, not the source. No-cloning theorem is just entanglement by another name, it's a basic theorem, and has nothing to do with the irreducible privacy of subjective mentality. See my previous remark. I have to say Federico is good for someone who doesn't know exactly what he is talking about. He gets the need for escaping blind materialism right. The proper attitude (imho) is consciousness is not only non-classical, it is not even physical, so is not quantum mechanical either.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"consciousness is not only non-classical, it is not even physical, so is not quantum mechanical either" Good point. Being 'not even physical' means consciousness is without location. This makes sense from my perspective since I understand consciousness to be entirely abstract.

[@danielegalvan6358]

The beauty of one.

[@whatisiswhatable]

If you think about it, when we create a simulation we only do it along one sense modality - which is vision. But it’s not even the totality of vision. For instance we’re not rendering the whole spectrum of light - we’re just about rendering the part of the visual perspective spectrum that humans are sensitive to… so whenever simulations are created, it’s a massive reduction of reality. How can we ever conceivably say that this will be possible if we don’t fully know reality?

[@richardclark8656]

Fascinating stuff, trying to take it in. What kind of conversation would Faggin have with Robert Sapolsky?? ‘Free will is an illusion.’ Love to know.

[@kennethhodge7953]

Z - You can be either right or wrong. Neither position is predicated on you being or not being crazy.

[@AndyPayne42]

A double pendulum exists in the classical world and gives unpredictable results after very little time because it is so sensitive to initial conditions, so you do not need to use quantum mechanics to get chaotic/unpredictable results. We can assume a rock is not conscious, yet somewhere between a rock, virus, bacteria, insect, human consciousness appears. If you think a rock is conscious, this is a "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy. I wish the interviewer gave a deeper analysis with some criticism not just nods and smiles.

[@davidgough3512]

speed up time enough and rocks are pretty damn lively, stars are willfull

[@Audio-apps]

I'm sure i'll find this fascinating, but my first take is "Never say never".

[@gkannon77]

Somehow I missed this interview. Man this was good. Something just rings true with people like Faggin and Kasteup. Addicted to hearing consciousness talks from the heterodoxy... Hopefully these ideas won't be heterodox much longer.

[@just2share]

I asked a friend of mine, who works on AGI, to check his views, that consciousness is related to quantum realm, and this is what he wrote me: "He takes a stab in the right direction when he distinguishes information from semantics. He doesn't go any further than that, presumably because he didn't spend a year working out the basis for abstraction. But his fundamental mistake is looking at the brain from the idea of static states. That leads him to the question of why it can't be copied which he resolves by linking it to quantum states. That then leads to the conclusion that consciousness is more fundamental than classical physics. His error though was he didn't realize that the brain is a dynamic system rather than static. That's why it can't be copied. So, he invented a rather fanciful solution to a nonexistent problem." My view though is, that we'll have to wait and see what's really the case. If we can make a conscious machine based on classical components then it will show consciousness emerges from brains, not vice versa. My personal belief is though, that both are fundamental, space-time with mass/matter and as I prefer to call it "primordial consciousness", which of course is not human consciousness, but essence of it. Human consciousness is the mix of the two mentioned fundamentals.

[@krakykrake8162]

Hi, the whole thing goes so deep. To your friends opinion i would ask if we even know what the difference is between a state and a process. That goes down to the question if time is fundamental or emergent. If i remember correctly, the emergent theory of time is, that the universe is event driven. So in that case a process is just a succession of states. The other idea is that the time is fundamental and the universe is a process. In that case, there are no states. A state is then just a representation in our human thinking that doesn't really exist. That problem is part of why quantum mechanics and relativity don't work together. In some models to try to unify it time disappears, in other models time is the only fundamental thing remaining. In short: these are all models, and models are just our way to try to understand reality, they are all wrong and some of them are useful. We can't know what reality is, because we always access reality through representations.. our sensory systems and consciousness. I have no idea how the brain (in the current scientific representation as a system of chemicals and electricity) could possibly create the color red. It's not the same category. If anyone says the function of these systems is responsible for consciousness (or is just consciousness) then i would like to ask if you can create consciousness out of tin cans and wires connected via the right functions. Its ridiculous... But in essence, that is what neuro science tells us. Its the same type of "stuff". That is what faggin basically means. The only thing i know for sure is two things: 1: experience happens. 2: the possibility for experience is built into the universe/multiverse/whateververse. The latter is quite interesting. Why was even the ability to have experience available in the structure of reality? That could have been otherwise. Even if you generate 10^500 universes... Why is the possibility for consciousness even part of the possibilities. That might be the only conclusive hint we can ever have, to what reality might be about.

[@davidgough3512]

@@krakykrake8162 noun v verb, that's all. "I Am A Verb".

[@nahbro5369]

Zubin I love that you are exploring this arena. Far too long has materialism stifled scientific progress.

[@MatthewSuffidy]

You have to define what humans think they are. If there is some transcendental aspect to consciousness then maybe computers will never live up to it. If humans are really all abstractions and motivations maybe it can be the same thing. As a side note, computers are mostly logic process. So when you experience a computer it is really the product of a lot of people adding gui designs etc, and when you watch youtube, it is people using video editors etc. You can introduce a random aspects with random sources, but that may mostly produce noise.

[@observer2333]

I am not body, mind,thoughts,concept, idea but I am that- consciousness- Veda

[@brad6742]

Time traveler here from 2023 the era of ChatGPT :) This aged well lol ...BTW, Chat will spit out SAT solver equations from simple English prompts to solve logic puzzles and design digital logic - try it! Northern Italians love SAT solvers for some reason, I took a class with one. This stuff was hard! but now it's easy. Also, some claim that consciousness is basically just a reflection loop. So all you really need to do is iterate on something over time. Then again, producing an output letter-by-letter provides the model an opportunity to iterate; by this note, LLMs are already partly conscious in this finite capacity.