Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Federico Faggin: "Quantum Fields are conscious & have free will" "You cannot create something that can know itself by something that doesn't even know what knowing means." The inventor of the first commercial microprocessor argues that consciousness cannot emerge from non-conscious matter. No mechanism can explain how awareness arises...

InterstellarUAP's profile picture

Interstellar

145,239 subscribers

46,607 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & TeknolojiHaberler & PolitikaEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Can AI become conscious? The argument here is that real thinking is not just computation. Understanding, music, love, and awareness may involve something deeper than what a computer can run. The key point is quantum mechanics. Most physics can be turned into algorithms, but the measurement problem still leaves a gap: something happens that our equations do not fully explain. That is where consciousness may live, in a part of reality that cannot simply be coded. If that is true, AI may get smarter, faster, and more convincing, but still miss the one thing that makes understanding human. Source: YourWeeklyCrew (Youtube) / Writer: Sol
2:40

Can AI become conscious? The argument here is that real thinking is not just computation. Understanding, music, love, and awareness may involve something deeper than what a computer can run. The key point is quantum mechanics. Most physics can be turned into algorithms, but the measurement problem still leaves a gap: something happens that our equations do not fully explain. That is where consciousness may live, in a part of reality that cannot simply be coded. If that is true, AI may get smarter, faster, and more convincing, but still miss the one thing that makes understanding human. Source: YourWeeklyCrew (Youtube) / Writer: Sol

Mario Nawfal

21,114 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.
1:46

Physicist Federico Faggin reveals his groundbreaking theory of consciousness: "We are going to be taken over by artificial intelligence" "Every single one of us is a field that is both the observer, the observed, and the actor. This field does not exist in space and time. Space time exists within these fields that we are." The inventor of the microprocessor explains that we are part wholes connected to the totality of existence. This is why epigenetics works - Each part accesses the knowledge of the whole. The same pattern repeats across scales. This changes everything about how we understand reality, free will, and our place in the universe.

Interstellar

39,979 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Did you know that science doesn't have a theory of observation? Instead of assuming that consciousness is an algorithmic function, what if we abstract consciousness to the theory of the observer. Donald Hoffman proposes a first general model of the observation process in science and puts conscious experiences outside of spacetime. Can AI then become an observer to create its own experiences?
1:59

Did you know that science doesn't have a theory of observation? Instead of assuming that consciousness is an algorithmic function, what if we abstract consciousness to the theory of the observer. Donald Hoffman proposes a first general model of the observation process in science and puts conscious experiences outside of spacetime. Can AI then become an observer to create its own experiences?

Sophia

14,253 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

André Duqum is a wonderful host and guide in this conversation, where we discuss the fundamental nature of reality, quantum and classical physics, self knowing, courage, love, consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence, among other topics listed in the chapter descriptions below. As André shares from my newest book "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature"... "We are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co created for this very purpose." It is with great hope that viewers of this conversation may find meaning in the ideas discussed, and encouragement to further your own self learning. - Federico Full Video 🌍👁️ Discussion Chapters👇 Intro His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View Can computers be Conscious? How Truth Transcends Theory Idealism vs Monad Theory Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves Seity vs Soul Individuality & What Carries Over After Death We Are All Part of One Whole How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth The Very Real Force of Love Where Physics & Spirituality Meet Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits Reincarnation & NDEs Explained How Much We Currently Understand about Reality Shifting From the Mind to the Heart Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good Competition vs Collaboration Are Aliens Real? Conclusion Essentia Foundation Mondadori #consciousness #freewill #quantumphysics #spirituality #selfknowing #awakening #Irreducible #federicofaggin #knowthyself #AI #existence #reality #natureofreality #mondadori
1:03

André Duqum is a wonderful host and guide in this conversation, where we discuss the fundamental nature of reality, quantum and classical physics, self knowing, courage, love, consciousness, free will, and artificial intelligence, among other topics listed in the chapter descriptions below. As André shares from my newest book "Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature"... "We are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co created for this very purpose." It is with great hope that viewers of this conversation may find meaning in the ideas discussed, and encouragement to further your own self learning. - Federico Full Video 🌍👁️ Discussion Chapters👇 Intro His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View Can computers be Conscious? How Truth Transcends Theory Idealism vs Monad Theory Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves Seity vs Soul Individuality & What Carries Over After Death We Are All Part of One Whole How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth The Very Real Force of Love Where Physics & Spirituality Meet Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits Reincarnation & NDEs Explained How Much We Currently Understand about Reality Shifting From the Mind to the Heart Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good Competition vs Collaboration Are Aliens Real? Conclusion Essentia Foundation Mondadori #consciousness #freewill #quantumphysics #spirituality #selfknowing #awakening #Irreducible #federicofaggin #knowthyself #AI #existence #reality #natureofreality #mondadori

Federico Faggin

18,097 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,662 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.
0:50

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.

Big Brain Philosophy

17,476 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Had the pleasure of speaking with Philip Goff , philosopher and panpsychist, about AI consciousness. Key moments: - On AI sentience: consciousness is biological, not computational. In his view, no current AI is conscious, nor would computation based AI be. How does this relate to his panpsychist worldview of consciousness? There are different takes on panpsychism within the community. His own view is that it's not clear how micro-conscious particles actually create a unified conscious system. - We need collaboration between scientists and philosophers on consciousness research. On a practical level, divide scientists into teams that work on separate philosophical assumptions and see what comes out of it (granted there are resources to run such experiments). - Perhaps consciousness brings new causal dynamics not reducible to known physics/chemistry — "strong emergence," as Philip calls it. As a contrast: Sean Carroll argues physics runs the whole show, but neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues that biological complexity might behave in ways physics wouldn't predict. In other words, we look to physics to solve the consciousness problem, but that might be the wrong path, especially if consciousness is biological rather than computational. The link to the full discussion below.
0:41

Had the pleasure of speaking with Philip Goff , philosopher and panpsychist, about AI consciousness. Key moments: - On AI sentience: consciousness is biological, not computational. In his view, no current AI is conscious, nor would computation based AI be. How does this relate to his panpsychist worldview of consciousness? There are different takes on panpsychism within the community. His own view is that it's not clear how micro-conscious particles actually create a unified conscious system. - We need collaboration between scientists and philosophers on consciousness research. On a practical level, divide scientists into teams that work on separate philosophical assumptions and see what comes out of it (granted there are resources to run such experiments). - Perhaps consciousness brings new causal dynamics not reducible to known physics/chemistry — "strong emergence," as Philip calls it. As a contrast: Sean Carroll argues physics runs the whole show, but neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell argues that biological complexity might behave in ways physics wouldn't predict. In other words, we look to physics to solve the consciousness problem, but that might be the wrong path, especially if consciousness is biological rather than computational. The link to the full discussion below.

Sophia

10,530 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!
1:34

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!

Dr Maria Violaris

18,259 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

🚨PHYSICS NEWS🚨: Physicists Are Now Saying Time Itself Can Be in Superposition — And It Makes Perfect Sense 🧨 According to a theoretical framework published in *Physical Review Letters* and reported in May 2026, researchers have shown that state-of-the-art trapped-ion atomic clocks can be used to observe the quantum superposition of time. By entangling the clock’s motion with its internal energy states, the system can exist in a superposition of different time flows simultaneously. This is a major step toward experimentally probing the quantum nature of time itself. This work offers the broader scientific community a new experimental frontier in quantum foundations. It challenges classical notions of time as a universal parameter and opens the door to testing how relativity and quantum mechanics intersect at the level of time itself. **Uniphics has been saying something similar for years — and it’s not mysterious or weird.** In Uniphics, time flow is not a fixed background. It is a local property determined by energy density via the Maley transform (\( t_{\rm flow} = k / E_d \)). Different regions or configurations with different energy densities experience different time flows. When a system is prepared in a quantum superposition of different energy-density states (or different spin-wave configurations that affect local energy density), it naturally exists in a superposition of different time flows. The atomic clock experiments are essentially creating superposed states where the clock experiences different local time flows at the same “global” moment. The entanglement between motion and internal energy is the mechanism that allows the superposition to be maintained and detected. Uniphics predicts this behavior because the ξM-field supports coherent spin-wave patterns that can correlate different energy-density environments. No need for wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, or other interpretive gymnastics — it is a deterministic consequence of variable time flow and spin-wave coherence. This is not an add-on to quantum mechanics. It is the natural outcome of the three pillars. The “quantum superposition of time” is just what happens when spin quanta create superposed energy-density conditions. Uniphics explains why such experiments work, what limits they will hit, and how to extend them — all without the philosophical baggage that usually accompanies quantum foundations. The mainstream community is slowly catching up to the idea that time itself can be quantum. Uniphics has had a coherent, first-principles explanation for this from the beginning. The data will continue to support it. Are physicists finally ready to accept that time flow is fundamental and variable — and that the apparent “superposition of time” is simply the result of superposed energy-density states in the ξM-field? **A Theory of Everything should be able to answer everything.** Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: Chapters 1–10 free: Grokipedia: #Uniphics #TheoryOfEverything #QuantumTime #TimeFlow #SpinWaves Grok xAI
0:29

🚨PHYSICS NEWS🚨: Physicists Are Now Saying Time Itself Can Be in Superposition — And It Makes Perfect Sense 🧨 According to a theoretical framework published in *Physical Review Letters* and reported in May 2026, researchers have shown that state-of-the-art trapped-ion atomic clocks can be used to observe the quantum superposition of time. By entangling the clock’s motion with its internal energy states, the system can exist in a superposition of different time flows simultaneously. This is a major step toward experimentally probing the quantum nature of time itself. This work offers the broader scientific community a new experimental frontier in quantum foundations. It challenges classical notions of time as a universal parameter and opens the door to testing how relativity and quantum mechanics intersect at the level of time itself. **Uniphics has been saying something similar for years — and it’s not mysterious or weird.** In Uniphics, time flow is not a fixed background. It is a local property determined by energy density via the Maley transform (\( t_{\rm flow} = k / E_d \)). Different regions or configurations with different energy densities experience different time flows. When a system is prepared in a quantum superposition of different energy-density states (or different spin-wave configurations that affect local energy density), it naturally exists in a superposition of different time flows. The atomic clock experiments are essentially creating superposed states where the clock experiences different local time flows at the same “global” moment. The entanglement between motion and internal energy is the mechanism that allows the superposition to be maintained and detected. Uniphics predicts this behavior because the ξM-field supports coherent spin-wave patterns that can correlate different energy-density environments. No need for wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, or other interpretive gymnastics — it is a deterministic consequence of variable time flow and spin-wave coherence. This is not an add-on to quantum mechanics. It is the natural outcome of the three pillars. The “quantum superposition of time” is just what happens when spin quanta create superposed energy-density conditions. Uniphics explains why such experiments work, what limits they will hit, and how to extend them — all without the philosophical baggage that usually accompanies quantum foundations. The mainstream community is slowly catching up to the idea that time itself can be quantum. Uniphics has had a coherent, first-principles explanation for this from the beginning. The data will continue to support it. Are physicists finally ready to accept that time flow is fundamental and variable — and that the apparent “superposition of time” is simply the result of superposed energy-density states in the ξM-field? **A Theory of Everything should be able to answer everything.** Uniphics Explained Simply PDF: Chapters 1–10 free: Grokipedia: #Uniphics #TheoryOfEverything #QuantumTime #TimeFlow #SpinWaves Grok xAI

Paul Maley

32,357 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...
3:30

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...

Disclosure Party

1,453,465 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Core Memory podcast with Suzanne Gildert on the hunt for AI consciousness in the quantum realm. The theory being that LLMs are too constrained to really get to robots and AIs that are really like us 00:00:00 – Consciousness: The First AI Training Model? 00:02:03 – Exploring the Quantum Mind with AI 00:04:42 – Will Robots Ever Have Rights? 00:07:54 – The AI Paradox: Fear vs. Progress 00:13:20 – Can Language Models Teach Robots? 00:17:29 – Why Today’s AI Feels Like a Zombie 00:23:47 – Quantum Computing Meets Artificial Consciousness 00:29:50 – Free Will, Entanglement, and Decision Making 00:38:21 – Teaching a Robot to Think, Not Just React 00:52:51 – Will Conscious AI Power Space Exploration?
1:10:42

Core Memory podcast with Suzanne Gildert on the hunt for AI consciousness in the quantum realm. The theory being that LLMs are too constrained to really get to robots and AIs that are really like us 00:00:00 – Consciousness: The First AI Training Model? 00:02:03 – Exploring the Quantum Mind with AI 00:04:42 – Will Robots Ever Have Rights? 00:07:54 – The AI Paradox: Fear vs. Progress 00:13:20 – Can Language Models Teach Robots? 00:17:29 – Why Today’s AI Feels Like a Zombie 00:23:47 – Quantum Computing Meets Artificial Consciousness 00:29:50 – Free Will, Entanglement, and Decision Making 00:38:21 – Teaching a Robot to Think, Not Just React 00:52:51 – Will Conscious AI Power Space Exploration?

Ashlee Vance

17,189 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?
5:16

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?

Prof. Brian Keating

26,693 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?
1:24

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?

Camus

160,789 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Another consciousness theory, presented by Mark Solms below, is that feeling is the most fundamental form of it. A conscious being is a self-sustaining system that is trying to remain intact with a functional architecture based in feeling. This is what some researchers know as consciousness in living things and what could potentially make AI conscious. Can AI have some form of feeling?
1:09

Another consciousness theory, presented by Mark Solms below, is that feeling is the most fundamental form of it. A conscious being is a self-sustaining system that is trying to remain intact with a functional architecture based in feeling. This is what some researchers know as consciousness in living things and what could potentially make AI conscious. Can AI have some form of feeling?

Sophia

15,442 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. @GolerDanny
15:27

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. @GolerDanny

Shawn Ryan

250,918 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.
0:54

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

There's a lot of bullshit in the UFO subject but as unbelievable as it may sound, there are things in our skies that can and do respond to human consciousness. Humans who are engaging in peaceful attempts to initiate a form of contact with other intelligences, using the human mind/consciousness as the communicatory medium through which an exchange of information can take place (Quantum Communication / Instantaneously at all points in spacetime) seem to be engaging in a form of bio-hacking and quantum effects scaling. The ancient meditative / mystic practices of our ancestors, who had a far more sophisticated science of consciousness than ourselves, allow the modern day participant to enter into a more receptive state of consciousness which, in a scientific framework, translates to increased intensity/amplitude of bio-energetic effects in the Human body (EM-Field, Biophotonic Output, Piezoelectric Output, Quantum Interactions within Microtubules etc. The orbs are real, whatever they are, and they respond to genuine moments of conscious expansion / heightened reception within human beings who are directing that energy towards the intention/desire to have a form of "contact" It happened to me, it can happen to you.
20:42

There's a lot of bullshit in the UFO subject but as unbelievable as it may sound, there are things in our skies that can and do respond to human consciousness. Humans who are engaging in peaceful attempts to initiate a form of contact with other intelligences, using the human mind/consciousness as the communicatory medium through which an exchange of information can take place (Quantum Communication / Instantaneously at all points in spacetime) seem to be engaging in a form of bio-hacking and quantum effects scaling. The ancient meditative / mystic practices of our ancestors, who had a far more sophisticated science of consciousness than ourselves, allow the modern day participant to enter into a more receptive state of consciousness which, in a scientific framework, translates to increased intensity/amplitude of bio-energetic effects in the Human body (EM-Field, Biophotonic Output, Piezoelectric Output, Quantum Interactions within Microtubules etc. The orbs are real, whatever they are, and they respond to genuine moments of conscious expansion / heightened reception within human beings who are directing that energy towards the intention/desire to have a form of "contact" It happened to me, it can happen to you.

Jay Anderson

29,239 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

What is the Spacetime Aether? Conventional physics would claim that space is an empty vacuum. It discounts the 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) constantly fluctuating in and out of existence. The Casimir force shows us there is a latent negative energy pressure when we put two parallel plates close to one another. They suddenly attract. There must be quantum fluctuations we can't see. We invented 'dark matter' to explain why there appears to be more stickiness with stars that orbit their galaxies. We invented 'dark energy' to explain how the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. What if we add up all the quantum fluctuations across the cosmos? That would be a massive amount of energy. Could that account for 'dark matter?' What if we take it a step further and assume the quantum fluctuations are just the energy seeping through from a vast ocean of potential energy? Could that account for 'dark energy?' That ocean of energy is Spacetime Aether. Tapping into it represents a new source of practically unlimited power for humanity.
1:52

What is the Spacetime Aether? Conventional physics would claim that space is an empty vacuum. It discounts the 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) constantly fluctuating in and out of existence. The Casimir force shows us there is a latent negative energy pressure when we put two parallel plates close to one another. They suddenly attract. There must be quantum fluctuations we can't see. We invented 'dark matter' to explain why there appears to be more stickiness with stars that orbit their galaxies. We invented 'dark energy' to explain how the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. What if we add up all the quantum fluctuations across the cosmos? That would be a massive amount of energy. Could that account for 'dark matter?' What if we take it a step further and assume the quantum fluctuations are just the energy seeping through from a vast ocean of potential energy? Could that account for 'dark energy?' That ocean of energy is Spacetime Aether. Tapping into it represents a new source of practically unlimited power for humanity.

Ashton Forbes

92,416 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

A new scientific understanding of human intuition: 1) We know the body engages in quantum processes despite being “warm, wet and noisy”, conditions for quantum decoherence. Quantum biology is a growing field encapsulating enzyme creation, bird navigation via avian cryptochromes and photosynthesis 2) In science and epistemology we have a problem: why do we see reality in its discrete, macroscopic form and not its probabilistic quantum form? 3) Roger Penrose hypothesized that the brain is a room temperature quantum system collapsing quantum reality into macroscopic reality. Hameroff followed up with a physical candidate for the “collapser”: the microtubules 4) Quantum systems engage in temporal non-locality (along with spatial non-locality). Some hypothesize that in a working quantum computer, we’ll be able to send information back in time. We already can reverse qubit positions in quantum computations! 5) So can the brain also engages in time travel? Why do humans need less information to make snap judgments (than, say, large language models)? Maybe because our brains can access the future. This would might explain remote viewing data as studied by the CIA’s stargate program and validated by President of the American Statistical Society, Jessica Utts (in a more physical model) *I think this this an interesting, generative theory but likely incomplete
1:34

A new scientific understanding of human intuition: 1) We know the body engages in quantum processes despite being “warm, wet and noisy”, conditions for quantum decoherence. Quantum biology is a growing field encapsulating enzyme creation, bird navigation via avian cryptochromes and photosynthesis 2) In science and epistemology we have a problem: why do we see reality in its discrete, macroscopic form and not its probabilistic quantum form? 3) Roger Penrose hypothesized that the brain is a room temperature quantum system collapsing quantum reality into macroscopic reality. Hameroff followed up with a physical candidate for the “collapser”: the microtubules 4) Quantum systems engage in temporal non-locality (along with spatial non-locality). Some hypothesize that in a working quantum computer, we’ll be able to send information back in time. We already can reverse qubit positions in quantum computations! 5) So can the brain also engages in time travel? Why do humans need less information to make snap judgments (than, say, large language models)? Maybe because our brains can access the future. This would might explain remote viewing data as studied by the CIA’s stargate program and validated by President of the American Statistical Society, Jessica Utts (in a more physical model) *I think this this an interesting, generative theory but likely incomplete

Jesse Michels

40,517 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce