0:00

New Thinking Aloud is

0:02

presented by the California

0:04

Institute for Human Science,

0:06

a fully accredited university

0:08

offering distant learning graduate

0:10

degrees that focus on

0:12

mind, body, and spirit.

0:14

The topics that we

0:17

cover here, we are

0:19

particularly excited to announce

0:21

new degrees, emphasizing parasiteology

0:23

and the paranormal. Visit

0:25

their website at CIHS.

0:28

thinking aloud conversations

0:30

on the

0:32

leading edge of knowledge

0:35

and discovery

0:37

with psychologist

0:40

Jeffrey Mishlove

0:49

Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey

0:52

Mishlove. Today we're going to

0:54

have an open-ended conversation with

0:56

Federico Fajin. Now let me

0:59

tell you right now I

1:01

regard Federico as potentially one

1:03

of the most important significant

1:06

guests ever on the New

1:08

Thinking Aloud channel. Many of

1:10

you know that I've interviewed

1:13

Bernardo Castro over a dozen

1:15

times and I regard Bernardo's

1:17

work as very important because

1:20

he comes from a science

1:22

background as a computer scientist

1:24

and he argues very very

1:26

cogently for the primacy of

1:28

consciousness. On one occasion, I

1:30

asked Bernardo, who else did

1:32

he know in the field

1:34

of philosophy? People arguing for

1:37

what is known as the

1:39

idealist position in philosophy, who

1:41

would he recommend if besides

1:43

himself, of course, who would

1:45

be the best? And he

1:47

told me, he said, even

1:49

better than himself, he said,

1:51

is Federico Fajin. Federico

1:54

received the National Medal

1:56

of Technology and Innovation

1:58

from President in

2:01

2010. He is best

2:03

known for designing the

2:05

first commercial microprocessor, the

2:07

Intel 4004. After that

2:09

he led development of

2:11

the Intel 2008 and

2:13

8080 microprocessors. Then he

2:15

went to found on

2:17

to found Zilog the

2:19

first company solely dedicated

2:21

to micro processors and

2:23

led to the development

2:25

of the Zilog Z80

2:27

and Z8 micro processors

2:29

and I'll mention parenthetically

2:31

that in those years

2:33

When I also lived

2:35

in California in the

2:37

1980s and 90s, one

2:39

of my best friends

2:41

at the time, Dean

2:43

Brown, who I've spoken

2:45

about on this channel

2:47

before, worked for Federico

2:49

designing the software for

2:51

the Z80 microprocessor. Federico

2:53

is author of Silicon

2:55

from the invention of

2:58

the microprocessor to the

3:00

new science of consciousness.

3:02

He's also a contributor

3:04

to the anthology Artificial

3:06

Intelligence versus Natural Intelligence,

3:08

along with Nobel laureates

3:10

such as Roger Penrose

3:12

and others. And his

3:14

most recent book is

3:16

called Irreducible Consciousness, Life,

3:18

Computers, and Human Nature.

3:20

Oh wait, one more

3:22

thing. Federico has been,

3:24

I guess, previously on

3:26

new thinking aloud, talking

3:28

about his life history,

3:30

his mystical experience, and

3:32

his theory of consciousness.

3:34

I think you'll get

3:36

much more out of

3:38

today's interview if you

3:40

watch that one first,

3:42

and I'm going to

3:44

link to it in

3:46

the upper right-hand corner

3:48

of your screen. If

3:50

you have a computer

3:52

capable of capturing that

3:54

link, I recommend you

3:56

watch that. video first

3:58

if you haven't already.

4:00

Federico is based in

4:02

Northern California and now

4:04

I'll switch over to

4:07

the internet video. Welcome

4:09

Federico. It is a

4:11

pleasure to be with

4:13

you once again. Yes,

4:15

likewise. I'm looking forward

4:17

to this. We had

4:19

a long conversation, but

4:21

it's been many months.

4:23

I'm encouraging our viewers

4:25

to view the previous

4:27

video. You spend a

4:29

lot of time going

4:31

over your very extensive

4:33

history, building microprocessors, and

4:35

then we talked as

4:37

well about your... personal

4:39

mystical experience that came

4:41

to you unexpected at

4:43

a time in your

4:45

life when you were

4:47

pretty much a materialist,

4:49

reductionist, engineer, and scientist,

4:51

and then you began

4:53

after a lengthy period

4:55

of integrating that experience

4:57

and coming to terms

4:59

with it, you began

5:01

developing your own theories

5:03

about the nature of

5:05

consciousness. And I think

5:07

your theories are very

5:09

significant. I really want

5:11

to delve into them.

5:13

Your personal story is

5:16

fascinating, but I'm even

5:18

more fascinated personally by

5:20

your theories. So let's

5:22

start by talking about

5:24

free will. I know

5:26

that's very central to

5:28

your work. Yeah, well,

5:30

free will is the

5:32

ability that we have

5:34

to choose. the

5:36

path of our understanding

5:38

and of our experiencing

5:40

freely meaning not because

5:42

the brain as a

5:44

mechanism pushes us one

5:46

way or another but

5:48

because we have we

5:50

are conscious and and

5:52

so because everything is

5:54

interconnected no matter where

5:56

start I have to

5:58

go around the loop

6:00

because because because otherwise

6:02

we want to understand

6:04

so so free will

6:06

for example is essential

6:08

in my theory to

6:10

the existence of consciousness

6:12

that has some cause

6:14

of power in our

6:16

life and in the

6:18

world because if there

6:20

was no free will

6:22

then consciousness would be

6:24

absolutely worth nothing worth

6:26

nothing worth nothing worth

6:28

nothing worth nothing worth

6:30

nothing worth nothing worth

6:32

nothing It would mean

6:34

that the brain makes

6:36

the decisions of what

6:38

he wants as a

6:40

machine and consciousness goes

6:42

with the ride and

6:44

he can do nothing

6:46

about that, which is

6:48

actually much of the

6:50

scientism worldview that exists

6:52

today. And I used

6:54

the word scientism to

6:56

distinguish from science with

6:58

the capital S, which

7:00

is what is the...

7:02

work on the best

7:04

scientists in the world,

7:06

but unfortunately many people

7:08

in science and technology

7:10

are embracing a very

7:12

dumbed-down view of reality,

7:15

which are called scientists,

7:17

that believes in materialism

7:19

and reductionism, which has

7:21

been already discredited by

7:23

quantum physics. Quantum physics

7:25

is the theory of

7:27

really describes the deeper

7:29

world, the deeper reality,

7:31

reality in space and

7:33

time, the objects that

7:35

interacting space and time,

7:37

emerged. So, free will,

7:39

therefore, if we didn't

7:41

have free will, our

7:43

consciousness would be useless.

7:45

It would be ap

7:47

phenomenal, which is exactly

7:49

what most scientists, It's

7:51

really an epiphanomer, that

7:53

he has no cause

7:55

of power. So in

7:57

my work on consciousness

7:59

early on it was

8:01

clear to me that

8:03

consciousness and free will

8:05

had to be linked

8:07

in an inextricable way

8:09

because if we didn't

8:11

have free will, consciousness

8:13

could exist without free

8:15

will. And in the

8:17

theory that I have,

8:19

consciousness can indeed exist

8:21

without free will. And

8:23

in the theory that

8:25

I have, consciousness can

8:27

indeed exist without free

8:29

will. free will without

8:31

consciousness doesn't make any sense

8:34

and therefore it would appear

8:36

on top of it it

8:38

would appear from an observer

8:41

outside of the system it

8:43

would appear as randomness which

8:46

is exactly what quantum physics

8:48

describes with the collapse of

8:50

the way function. So we

8:53

will revisit this but one

8:55

of the crucial crucial conclusion

8:57

of my theory is that

9:01

The collapse of the way function

9:03

in quantum physics is actually not

9:06

a random event that nobody can

9:08

understand why it happens, but it

9:10

is actually a free-willed decision of

9:13

the conscious field that is observed.

9:15

Not an effect of the observer,

9:17

but a decision of the conscious

9:20

field that is observed. For example,

9:22

if I observe an electron, it's

9:24

the field of electron that is

9:27

conscious. and then makes the decision

9:29

of what electron shows up in

9:31

space and time when you make

9:34

the measurement. So in other words,

9:36

you're saying that if you observe

9:38

an electron, it's the electron that's

9:41

responsible for the observation, not yourself?

9:43

Now is the field of electron.

9:45

See, the consciousness is not in

9:48

the electron. In physics, the electron

9:50

is not an object. The electron

9:52

is not a particle in the

9:55

sense. of something autonomous and separate

9:57

from the rest. In quantum physics,

9:59

the electron is a state of

10:02

a field, a state of the

10:04

field of electrons, just like a

10:06

wave of the sea. The wave

10:09

of the sea is a phenomenon

10:11

of the sea, in this, you

10:14

know, inseparable from the sea. So

10:16

we see a wave, but the

10:18

properties of the wave are fundamentally

10:21

the property of the... of the,

10:23

who see, the manifest in the

10:25

way. The same with the electrons.

10:28

The electrons is a state of

10:30

the field, inseparable from the field

10:32

of electrons, and its properties are

10:35

the properties of the field. The

10:37

field in this new theory is

10:39

conscious and has free will. So

10:42

it is the field of electrons

10:44

that decides then where the electron

10:46

will appear when you do a

10:49

measurement because you have set up

10:51

an expert. Okay, let me make

10:53

sure I understand exactly what you're

10:56

saying. It sounds simple, but I

10:58

have a feeling it's much more

11:00

complex. Oh, operate, go for it.

11:03

I heard you say the field

11:05

of electrons is conscious. Yes. In

11:07

this theory, the field of electrons

11:10

is countries, and I will explain

11:12

later why you can say that.

11:14

for now let's leave it alone.

11:17

But the important point is that

11:19

if the field of electrons were

11:22

not conscious, then I could not

11:24

interpret the collapse of the wave

11:26

function as a decision of free

11:29

will of that field because it

11:31

would be just like science is

11:33

saying it would be a random

11:36

event. A random event, unexplainable by

11:38

random and non-agoric which is what

11:40

science has found out. The collapse

11:43

of the way function is pure

11:45

randomness. But what does it mean?

11:47

Nobody knows. What now, you know,

11:50

with this theory, I'm telling you,

11:52

what it means is that what

11:54

field has made a decision from

11:57

the outside, it looks like Randall,

11:59

but the... outside observer, but for

12:01

the field that has made the decision,

12:04

that's exactly what he wants

12:06

to do. You're suggesting that

12:09

the field of electrons has

12:11

wants, has desires. It's

12:13

consciousness, absolutely has consciousness,

12:16

and has free will, just like we

12:18

do. In fact, I'm suggesting that

12:20

we are fields, ourselves, controlling the

12:23

body, which is like a drone.

12:25

In other words, the body is

12:27

not, the consciousness is not

12:29

in the drone, but it

12:31

therefore is not in the body,

12:34

it is in the field. When

12:36

you control a drone that, you

12:38

know, is flying over, you know,

12:40

I don't know, Afghanistan or

12:43

whatever, right? If you fly

12:45

that drone, what you experience

12:47

is what the drone sees

12:50

where it is, okay? But

12:52

that experience is not in the

12:54

drone. and it's not even in

12:56

our brain. It is actually

12:58

in the consciousness that controls

13:01

our body. Well, it almost

13:03

sounds very dualistic what you're

13:05

saying, that there's a field

13:07

that is controlling a machine.

13:09

It's like Arthur Kessler's book,

13:11

The Ghost in the Machine. Well, there

13:13

is a field, but remember what

13:15

I told you, electrons do not

13:18

exist. They are states of

13:20

the field. The field exists,

13:22

the field exists, not the

13:24

particles. not the atoms, the

13:26

atoms, a state of other

13:28

fields. You see, inseparable from

13:30

the fields, I'm talking about that

13:32

the material world is not

13:35

disconnected with the deeper world,

13:37

where we have mind and

13:39

spirit, and where spirit is

13:42

the aspect of us that has

13:44

to do with meaning, with the

13:46

meaning of information, the

13:48

meaning of information, which

13:50

is not even talked about

13:52

in science because... Information in

13:55

science is simply a probability.

13:57

It is the core algorithm of the

13:59

probability. that you might observe

14:01

an event or a symbol.

14:03

That's all there is in

14:06

physics. There is no meaning

14:08

for information. And if you

14:10

take away the meaning, you

14:12

take away our humanity with

14:14

that. So these definitions are

14:16

basically covering the fact that

14:18

we are humans, that we

14:21

have meaning, that life is

14:23

meaningful, that universe is meaningful,

14:25

because you will start with

14:27

something that hasn't have any

14:29

meaning. Would information make any

14:31

sense to you if all

14:34

the remand information was the

14:36

recognition of a symbol? For

14:38

example, if I were to

14:40

speak in Italian, if you

14:42

don't know Italian, you recognize

14:44

my words as sounds, you

14:47

know that those are symbols,

14:49

but you don't understand the

14:51

meaning. So would that be

14:53

information for you? No, it

14:55

would be simply the symbols

14:57

without meaning. That's what science

14:59

is saying. But if I

15:02

speak in English, you understand.

15:04

So the meaning is much

15:06

more than just the sound

15:08

of the world. I've heard

15:10

it said incidentally that you

15:12

could say that there's only

15:15

one electron in the entire

15:17

universe and it's everywhere. When

15:19

the electron appears, it appears

15:21

with certain properties which are

15:23

exactly the same. And from

15:25

the point of view of

15:27

physics, you cannot distinguish one

15:30

electron from another. In fact,

15:32

there's statistics. is governed by

15:34

firmly direct statistics, which is

15:36

a completely different statistics, then

15:38

a statistic where, you know,

15:40

that would be like Boltzmann's

15:43

statistics, where you can actually

15:45

recognize the various objects that

15:47

you are interacting. Statistics of

15:49

electrons, for example, obeys exactly

15:51

the rules of objects that

15:53

are all the same and

15:55

indistinguishable, one from the other.

15:58

That's why... That's why someone

16:00

says there is only one

16:02

electron. Well yeah, in conceptually

16:04

there is only one electron.

16:06

they may appear in different

16:08

places and time. So, you

16:11

know, the fact that they

16:13

are in a different place

16:15

makes them a different in

16:17

reality. How would I distinguish

16:19

between the field that is

16:21

me and the field that

16:24

is electrons? Well, you distinguish

16:26

because first of all, these

16:28

fields don't need a human

16:30

being to actually interact with

16:32

each other. They can interact.

16:34

with their own, their own

16:36

party, the particles which are

16:39

the states of the electrons

16:41

are actually like the words

16:43

that I speak. Those are

16:45

dynamic symbols that are used

16:47

to communicate the meaning. So

16:49

the fields, the quantum fields,

16:52

talk to each other. The

16:54

fields talk, communicate with each

16:56

other. What are they communicating?

16:58

They are own meaning. Of

17:00

course we, yeah, I can

17:02

hardly know your meaning. You

17:04

know, I know a little

17:07

bit of my own meaning.

17:09

But the meaning that I

17:11

have within myself is also

17:13

a meaning which is not

17:15

a number. The meaning is

17:17

nothing to do with numbers.

17:20

Just like Wallia, which is

17:22

the sensation and feelings that

17:24

we have, have nothing to

17:26

do with numbers. They go

17:28

beyond numbers. The numbers can

17:30

only measure, you know, there's

17:33

something that exists in space

17:35

and time in the classical

17:37

world. Those are conducive to

17:39

numbers. You can measure them,

17:41

and they are real numbers.

17:43

but the quantum states, they

17:45

are described with vectors whose

17:48

components are, they are not

17:50

real numbers, they are complex

17:52

numbers, and those complex numbers

17:54

are not real numbers, they

17:56

are not numbers really, because

17:58

they represent a wave, they

18:01

don't represent, they don't represent

18:03

a quantity that you can

18:05

measure. No measurement will give

18:07

you, no measurement space time

18:09

will give you. a complex

18:11

number because the complex number

18:13

number, you know, the imaginary

18:16

part of a complex number,

18:18

which is square root of

18:20

minus one, cannot be obtained

18:22

by any operation with numbers.

18:24

It is something beyond. It

18:26

behaves operationally like if it

18:29

were a number, but it's

18:31

not a number. You see,

18:33

that's why it's called imaginary.

18:35

But so in the vector

18:37

that the n-dimensional vector that

18:39

representing... quantum state of a

18:42

field in that vector, the

18:44

components which are complex numbers

18:46

represent probability amplitudes. They don't

18:48

represent things. They represent what

18:50

we can know about things

18:52

are only probabilities. Just that

18:54

alone, think about that. That

18:57

means that the nature of

18:59

that state is like a

19:01

thought. It's not like a

19:03

real thing. It's a thought

19:05

before the thought becomes a

19:07

real thing. Okay? And that's

19:10

what quantum physics describes. Quantum

19:12

physics gives you the evolution

19:14

of a quantum state of

19:16

a field, for example. But

19:18

then if you want to

19:20

make a measurement of... a

19:22

quantum field of electrons, for

19:25

example, you had to set

19:27

up an experiment and in

19:29

the interaction between the quantum

19:31

field of electrons and the

19:33

measurement instrument, you know, you

19:35

will find an electron will

19:38

appear in the instrument that

19:40

measures the electron. Well, what

19:42

appears, first of all, is

19:44

not the electron. What appears

19:46

is after something, this interaction

19:48

between the two fields, I

19:51

created something that gets amplified

19:53

and eventually results in something

19:55

in a classical symbol, something

19:57

that you and I can

19:59

see because quantum information cannot

20:01

be seen, cannot be known.

20:03

The no cloning theorem is

20:06

saying that even a qubit,

20:08

there will be the equivalent

20:10

of a bit of a

20:12

computer. A bit of a

20:14

computer is zero or one

20:16

and you can know exactly

20:19

zero one. If I gave

20:21

you a quantum bit and

20:23

ask you to find out

20:25

what the state of the

20:27

quantum bit is, you will

20:29

never know. because no matter

20:31

in which way you measure

20:34

it you will find all

20:36

this one or zero but

20:38

the actual qubit represent a

20:40

direction in space in three-dimensional

20:42

space so it has an

20:44

infinity of possible states and

20:47

when you measure it you

20:49

got to measure it in

20:51

one direction and you disturb

20:53

it so that you measure

20:55

one or zero in the

20:57

direction that you impose on

20:59

that qubit. You see how

21:02

it works? So I mean

21:04

it's really mind-boggling if you

21:06

think about it. but it's

21:08

actually saying that we in

21:10

our interaction we are not

21:12

spectators that look at the

21:15

world like in classical physics

21:17

I don't look at a

21:19

movie independent of my presence

21:21

we are participants but is

21:23

more than that we are

21:25

actually observer observe an agent

21:28

all three rolled in one

21:30

and depending on how we

21:32

interact we can be at

21:34

one moment we can be

21:36

observer, then can be observed,

21:38

and they can react or

21:40

or aging. Well I think

21:43

it's very interesting, Federico, that

21:45

you came to this work

21:47

as an entrepreneur, an engineer,

21:49

and a scientist all all

21:51

together. My experience is kind

21:53

of funny in the, you

21:56

know, I have a degree

21:58

in parasycology, and one of

22:00

my professors at Berkeley was

22:02

a business professor. See West

22:04

churchmen and and we had

22:06

this conversation about free will.

22:08

And he said, yes, I

22:11

know the physicists say there's

22:13

no free will, but in

22:15

management science there certainly is.

22:17

We acknowledge free will. Even

22:19

in the Justice Department, you

22:21

know, I mean, if we

22:24

didn't have free will, why

22:26

do we put a sea

22:28

for a murderer in prison?

22:30

If you know, it did

22:32

what he had to do.

22:34

Free will, not lack of

22:37

free will, the absence of

22:39

free will means. a deterministic

22:41

universe which is already being

22:43

disqualified by quantum physics. The

22:45

indeterminism of quantum physics is

22:47

absolute. There is no way

22:49

around that. So, you know,

22:52

it's crazy to say that

22:54

there is no free will.

22:56

Basically, we have called randomness,

22:58

what is actually free will,

23:00

and of course in the

23:02

classical reality. There is indeed

23:05

determinism, but that is valid

23:07

only if you can maintain

23:09

the classicality of the reality.

23:11

And we can do that,

23:13

for example, like a computer,

23:15

for example, is a classical

23:17

system, deterministic, entirely deterministic, unless

23:20

you, the computer, asks for

23:22

information from outside itself, and

23:24

you give an information that

23:26

comes from you, which are

23:28

not deterministic. as far as

23:30

the computer works within itself,

23:33

it is completely deterministic. So

23:35

this computer behaves in that

23:37

way as long as we

23:39

can maintain the environmental conditions

23:41

within certain limits which are

23:43

quite restrictive. For example, temperature

23:46

should not be below say

23:48

50 degrees, minus 50 degrees

23:50

centigrade or above 75 degrees

23:52

centigrade, which is a pretty,

23:54

you know, is a better

23:56

range than we can live

23:58

comfortably. But but certainly is

24:01

not is not the stuff

24:03

that exists in nature, in

24:05

nature, temperatures, look at the

24:07

temperature of the sun or

24:09

whatever, right? So the point

24:11

that I'm making is that

24:14

as long as you keep

24:16

the environment under those conditions,

24:18

the distinction that we have

24:20

made about what is zero

24:22

and what is one, which

24:24

we are the one to

24:26

create those distinctions, are maintained

24:29

and therefore the machine will

24:31

operate deter realistically without making

24:33

errors. But the moment that

24:35

you get out of that.

24:37

range of, you know, operation,

24:39

then, you know, the computer

24:42

will most likely fail and

24:44

that's the end of that.

24:46

When you talk about a

24:48

hierarchy of modads, a hierarchy,

24:50

you use the term sayity,

24:52

I think the hierarchy is

24:55

very interesting because at the

24:57

top of the hierarchy is

24:59

what you call one. It

25:01

sounds very much like Plato's

25:03

use of one. It's another

25:05

way of talking, I think,

25:07

about a universal consciousness. Now

25:10

it's about talking about a

25:12

universe which is holistic. One

25:14

instead of two or three

25:16

or four is because the

25:18

universe of physics is both

25:20

dynamic and holistic. Means is

25:23

never the same instant after

25:25

instant after instant. There

25:27

are no separate parts.

25:29

Everything is interconnected in

25:32

the universe. And that

25:34

is what quantum physics

25:36

is saying. But quantum

25:38

physics stops there. I

25:40

say one thing more.

25:42

We need to start

25:45

with the universe that

25:47

not only is dynamic

25:49

and holistic, but also

25:51

wants to know itself.

25:53

Now I'm connecting physics

25:55

with spirituality. deepest wisdom

25:58

traditions that we have

26:00

because, you know, if you look

26:02

at that, and if we look

26:04

at the idea that that

26:06

is, that reality

26:08

is allographic, meaning

26:11

that the part, the

26:13

part, sufficiently large

26:15

part, contains the whole,

26:17

then we have the need,

26:20

therefore, to recognize

26:22

that we are parts all of

26:24

one. And exactly

26:26

just like every self.

26:29

Every cell of our body

26:31

is also holistic. In

26:33

the sense that it contains

26:35

the genome of the egg that

26:37

created the entire

26:39

organism. So all the

26:42

information of the organism,

26:44

of the entire organism,

26:46

is within each of

26:48

its parts. Now think about

26:51

that. Is the computer

26:53

built the same way? No. Every

26:55

part of the computer is

26:57

a transistor, transistor is a

27:00

switch on, off, on, on, off.

27:02

What does the transistor know

27:04

of the whole? Almost nothing.

27:06

At best he knows zero or

27:08

one. Its own state, that's it.

27:10

A cell has the potential knowledge

27:13

of the whole organism,

27:15

which means that the cell, later

27:17

on in its own life, can

27:20

express aspects of itself,

27:22

they were not present. at his

27:24

own birth. That's what's

27:26

called epigenetics. 30 years

27:29

ago if you were saying

27:31

the word epigenetics they would

27:33

put you in a cross.

27:36

Everybody knows that that's impossible.

27:38

Those are the dogmas of

27:40

scientists and the

27:42

dogmas of scientists is

27:44

time to stop with this because

27:47

because they simply tell you what

27:49

you cannot say or do when

27:51

in fact you future is

27:53

open and we are you know and

27:55

we have the capacity to

27:58

go beyond the limitation that

28:00

are self-imposed, especially the limitations,

28:02

that we have to start

28:04

with a reality in which

28:07

there is no spiritual element

28:09

in it, is only material.

28:11

How can you get something

28:13

known material for a material

28:16

universe? It's impossible. How can

28:18

you get free will for

28:20

something that is not, doesn't

28:22

have it? Because it's supposed

28:25

to follow laws. Even if

28:27

the laws are, you know,

28:29

even if the laws are,

28:31

are, you know, indeterministic, they

28:34

tell you that there's simply

28:36

randomness. We don't understand why,

28:38

but it's randomness. So, Sharab

28:40

and calculus. So that's what

28:43

you are told. You know,

28:45

why is the quantum state

28:47

of a field has two

28:49

properties that nobody can understand

28:51

why they should be there?

28:54

Number one? The state

28:56

of the field cannot be

28:58

copied, cannot be reproduced. It's

29:00

called the no cloning theorem

29:02

in quantum physics. The no

29:04

cloning theorem says, that's it.

29:06

You know, you cannot, you

29:08

know, the state cannot be,

29:10

cannot be copied. Look at

29:12

that. My state, the state

29:14

of my field, which our

29:16

claim is a quantum field,

29:18

also cannot be copied. I

29:21

am the only one that

29:23

can know my own state.

29:25

and I cannot reproduce it,

29:27

even myself I cannot reproduce

29:29

it. The love that I

29:31

feel for a son, I

29:33

cannot reproduce it, not even

29:35

to him. You know, I

29:37

cannot give it to him

29:39

what I feel. I can

29:41

translate what I feel into

29:43

symbols to convey some of

29:45

the meaning that love that

29:47

I know within myself, I

29:49

know. But that's all I

29:51

can do. The second property

29:53

of the state of the

29:55

quantum field is that... If

29:57

you make a measurement, if

29:59

you were to make a

30:01

measurement of a state, the

30:03

maximum information that you can...

30:06

get is one bit on

30:08

classical bit per quantum bit.

30:10

I already mentioned that the

30:12

quantum bit is an infinity

30:14

of possible states representable as

30:16

a point on the surface

30:18

of a sphere in direction

30:20

space. Any direction in space

30:22

is one of the possible

30:24

states of the cubic. And

30:26

the cubies are entangled. So

30:28

they entangled means that they

30:30

have some states which are

30:32

in common that we cannot

30:34

know because it's impossible to

30:36

know. to measure unless we

30:38

prepare them but we can

30:40

prepare them for a few

30:42

cubits where you can prepare

30:44

them for the gazillions of

30:46

cubits that you know any

30:48

kind of system is. So

30:50

basically the existence of entanglement

30:53

is telling us that the

30:55

universe the universe is truly

30:57

holistic. That's why I said

30:59

earlier quantum physics is told

31:01

us that there are no

31:03

separable parts not even electrons.

31:05

Not even electrons. you know

31:07

they have properties in common

31:09

and if I measure one

31:11

electron here instantaneously on the

31:13

other side of the galaxy

31:15

that state that was in

31:17

common will will become active

31:19

in that other in that

31:21

other particle but you know

31:23

instantaneously so wow that violates

31:25

the locality of the physics

31:27

which of course is one

31:29

of the reason why Einstein

31:31

was very much against that.

31:33

It took 80 years, but

31:35

now everybody has to accept

31:38

that entanglement exists. Not only

31:40

that, but everything is entangled

31:42

with everything else. But we

31:44

don't know. We can never

31:46

know, because we cannot measure

31:48

unless we prepare something. So,

31:50

all this is saying that

31:52

we, you know, we have

31:54

adopted as a view of

31:56

the world, scientists, that is

31:58

based on classical physics, which

32:00

has been completely, thrust. By

32:02

the principles of quantum physics,

32:04

they are saying otherwise. because

32:06

nobody understands them and very

32:08

few physicists have had the

32:10

courage to go deeper and

32:12

deeper into what they mean.

32:14

You know, we simply are

32:16

happy to apply the math

32:18

and simply solve problems. There

32:20

are practical problems. But we

32:22

are not solving our human

32:25

problems because we have basically

32:27

shoved them under the rug

32:29

by 40 world in which

32:31

there is no consciousness and

32:33

no free will. So, I'm

32:35

saying we need to start

32:37

with a universe with one

32:39

that is conscious and has

32:41

free will, and if we

32:43

start with that, then we

32:45

can actually show why quantum

32:47

physics must have the properties

32:49

that nobody understood before. Now,

32:51

the property of, you know,

32:53

of the state of a

32:55

quantum field are exactly the

32:57

property of conscious experience. My

32:59

conscious experience is private, non-reproducible,

33:01

non-clonable. And what you can

33:03

know, what anybody can know,

33:05

including myself, of my feeling,

33:07

because I know in the

33:10

sense that I can put

33:12

into symbols, it's only one

33:14

bit per fun to be.

33:16

So, if you accept the

33:18

consciousness and free will, must

33:20

be taken as properties of

33:22

the universe. They are our

33:24

properties and no one can

33:26

explain how they may arise

33:28

from matter and space and

33:30

time. We don't have those

33:32

properties. So where are they

33:34

coming from? And the fact

33:36

that we know that we

33:38

know that we are conscious

33:40

and we know that we

33:42

have a certain amount of

33:44

free will and not do

33:46

everything we want. In fact,

33:48

very little we can do

33:50

that with this free, but

33:52

we can do some stuff

33:55

that is free, but a

33:57

free will, then... We can

33:59

explain even to a child

34:01

while quantum physics must have

34:03

this problem. because quantum physics

34:05

must reflect the deeper properties

34:07

of the fields of the

34:09

quantum fields among which there

34:11

are. We are there. You

34:13

pointed out that entanglement is

34:15

crucial and I'd like to

34:17

explore the ethical implications of

34:19

entanglement with you because I

34:21

under the impression Most people

34:23

grow up in a world

34:25

where everything is thought of

34:27

in classical terms, and which

34:29

is pretty much dualistic. You've

34:31

got good and evil, you've

34:33

got right and wrong, we've

34:35

got the inside and the

34:37

outside, me and you, and

34:39

the idea of separateness. The

34:42

notion of entanglement suggests nothing

34:44

is separate. So you can't

34:46

like... devote your whole life

34:48

for example as many people

34:50

do to fighting what they

34:52

believe is evil because we're

34:54

we're connected to that it'd

34:56

be like trying to cut

34:58

off our own hand yeah

35:00

absolutely yeah but from from

35:02

the point of view of

35:04

science and you know entanglement

35:06

is no property other than

35:08

the fact that this you

35:10

know states can be entangled

35:12

period there is no moral

35:14

no there is nothing have

35:16

you ever read the world

35:18

love in a book of

35:20

physics. The word love isn't

35:22

used or courage or ethics.

35:24

No, it's all about things

35:27

that interact with each other

35:29

according to certain laws. That's

35:31

the end of it. But

35:33

that cannot be the entire

35:35

world. But that's why scientists

35:37

say that consciousness, free world

35:39

doesn't exist. And consciousness is

35:41

epiphanominal. Everything that distinguishes us

35:43

from the machines has been

35:45

eliminated by Fiat, by definition,

35:47

not because it is so,

35:49

but because it has been

35:51

defined so to please those

35:53

that believe that the world

35:55

is made this way. And

35:57

of course then, the consequences

35:59

of this is what you

36:01

see now in the world

36:03

and it will get worse.

36:05

Of course, because now artificial

36:07

intelligence is the ultimate riches

36:09

or the ultimate damnation. If

36:11

it is the ultimate riches,

36:14

if people use it ethically,

36:16

or the ultimate damnation, if

36:18

it is used to simply

36:20

manipulate us better. And I'm

36:22

afraid that it is likely

36:24

that the second hypothesis is

36:26

closer to the truth than

36:28

the first. Well, that gets

36:30

us back to the topic

36:32

of free will, doesn't it?

36:34

That we are relatively easily

36:36

manipulated because we don't have

36:38

100% free will. We're not

36:40

totally in control. I think

36:42

you described the human organism

36:44

as being a mixture of

36:46

free will and determinism. Our

36:48

body itself does not have

36:50

free will. The free will

36:52

is in the field. that

36:54

controls the body, actually is

36:56

a form of hypnotized by

36:59

the body, that we believe

37:01

to be the body, right?

37:03

So every time I say

37:05

we, you think anybody, no,

37:07

when I say we, with

37:09

this new theory, we feel

37:11

the control the body. When

37:13

the body dies, the field

37:15

doesn't go anywhere. The field,

37:17

it continues to exist. The

37:19

field of electron is being...

37:21

here with us since the

37:23

beginning of the universe. It

37:25

is all, the electrons had

37:27

never changed in 13.8 billion

37:29

years. You see, so we

37:31

had to change completely the

37:33

way we understand what we

37:35

are. But of course, at

37:37

the first time you say

37:39

something that goes a little

37:41

bit of skew about scientists

37:44

in saying, they are castigated

37:46

and nobody wants to listen

37:48

to you because obviously you

37:50

don't understand anything. you know

37:52

but this is exactly what

37:54

you know what causes the

37:56

problem is that we have

37:58

because if we if If

38:00

you eliminate the heart, meaning

38:02

the ability to work together,

38:04

the compassion, the empathy, the

38:07

stuff that unites us, is

38:09

eliminated because all that exists

38:11

is reductionism. So in competition,

38:14

when instead should be

38:16

cooperation, I mean, if the world,

38:19

if the universe is holistic

38:21

and everything is interconnected, the

38:23

good that I do to the world will

38:26

return to be. But so the bad

38:28

that I do to the world will

38:30

return to me. You see, only if you

38:32

think that you are separate and you

38:34

can get away by doing some bad

38:37

things to others, you know, you

38:39

think that you get away. But that's

38:41

not the way the world works. Because

38:43

if it doesn't come back to

38:45

you in your life, it will come back

38:47

to you in the next life. Because we

38:50

do not die, you see. If you think

38:52

that when you're dead, everything is done

38:54

and you don't have to worry about

38:56

it, no, no, you should be worried

38:59

about because, but not in the

39:01

sense of a punitive way, in

39:03

a punitive way, because our purpose

39:05

is to know ourselves exactly like

39:07

the purpose of one. We are

39:10

emissaries of one, the true are

39:12

knowing ourselves, one knows itself. Because

39:14

if one is the totality of

39:16

what exists and is all interconnected.

39:19

Even the negative things that occur

39:21

in our life are still part

39:23

of one. They're still within one.

39:25

So they are all properties of one. So

39:28

they are, you know, they may be misconceptions

39:31

that need to be clear.

39:33

But fundamentally, you know, they cannot

39:35

get away from that. It would be

39:37

logical to say that we are the

39:39

bad guys and one is the good

39:42

guy. No, we are part integral part

39:44

of one. So the good and the

39:46

bad that exist in the world.

39:48

is part of one. Which would

39:50

suggest if I understand you

39:52

correctly and frankly this is

39:54

my philosophy so you can

39:56

tell me if my philosophy

39:58

is in a accordance with

40:00

your theory, which is that

40:02

I think the appropriate stance to

40:05

take is one of love

40:07

and affection for everyone and everything

40:09

all the time. Yeah. That's

40:11

true. That's true. Though it's not

40:14

easy. There are certain fundamental ideas

40:16

here that are exactly the

40:18

opposite of what scientists say. For

40:20

example, if you want to

40:22

find out things, the things that

40:25

you need to find out

40:27

are outside of you. So everything

40:29

is outside and you have

40:31

no inside. If consciousness is

40:33

ap phenomenal, forget it, you can

40:36

throw it away, you know,

40:38

is useless, so I might as

40:40

well forget about the feelings

40:42

and all that kind of stuff

40:44

because they don't mean anything

40:46

because only rationality is what matters.

40:49

So little by little we

40:51

will disconnect ourselves with our interiority

40:53

where actually we have the solutions

40:56

of our problems and we

40:58

have moved outside of ourselves and

41:00

so we lose ourselves outside

41:02

of us and that's of course

41:04

that's what happened to me

41:06

when I was in my 50s

41:09

in my late 40s found out

41:11

that I was very unhappy

41:13

despite all reasons to have to

41:16

be very happy and I

41:18

wasn't. So what's wrong with this

41:20

picture right? What was wrong

41:22

with that picture is that I

41:25

basically disconnected from myself, from

41:27

my interiority, from my real source

41:29

of love, source of joy, source

41:31

of satisfaction, source of connectedness

41:33

with others in the world because,

41:36

you know, living in a

41:38

competitive world, you had to beat,

41:40

you know, the competition. And

41:42

this is what we are told

41:45

to do, since we are children.

41:47

We are conditioned. not to

41:49

do exactly the opposite of what

41:51

will give us peace and

41:53

happiness and the joy to working

41:56

together in collaboration, in cooperation,

41:58

to build things together instead of

42:00

destroying things. What is the

42:02

primary use of technology? Armaments. What

42:05

is the primary use of, you

42:07

know, of science, power? It's

42:09

much more power than knowledge, because

42:11

knowledge is the way to

42:13

power, and instead of the way

42:16

of knowing who we are.

42:18

Who are we? No, no, that

42:20

doesn't matter. I mean, there's nothing

42:23

there anyway, so let's find

42:25

out. At least get some power

42:27

while we are here. To

42:29

know that to solve the problems,

42:31

we need to solve it.

42:33

First, we need to solve our

42:36

own problems, our own misconception

42:38

of who we are, our own

42:40

misunderstanding, the traumas that we bring

42:43

with us. That is the

42:45

only way to be better. more

42:47

light, more joy, more love.

42:49

You know, it can only happen

42:52

if we work on ourselves,

42:54

from within ourselves, without taking responsibility

42:56

for our unhappiness. That must happen,

42:58

not with the pill. I

43:00

mean, today, the solution of all

43:03

the promises is basically from

43:05

the outside. You go to the

43:07

doctor, gives you a medicine,

43:09

and all the problems that come

43:12

when you use drugs instead

43:14

of, you know, instead of

43:16

using intelligence. and your own capacity

43:18

to cure yourself. Competition instead

43:20

of cooperation. The world runs on

43:22

competition. Everything is a competition

43:24

because it's enshrined in the principle

43:27

of life. The survival of

43:29

the fittest. What does that mean,

43:31

survival? I live when you

43:33

die. I live because I am

43:36

more fit than you. Boom. That's

43:38

what happens. This is the

43:40

mindset today. Instead of working together.

43:42

and creating something, taking care

43:44

of our ecosystem. No no no.

43:47

No, no, more, you know,

43:49

dominate. We dominate the system and

43:51

we destroy the system in that

43:54

dominance. So that's another bad

43:56

one. Life, you know, life, we

43:58

are machines. So that's the

44:00

other big one. We are machines.

44:03

So that's the other big

44:05

one. We are machines. So don't

44:07

fight AI because AI is

44:09

better than you, right? You know,

44:11

you asked Jack TPT about something

44:14

that you don't know. It

44:16

gives you, it gives you a

44:18

decent answer. Wow! But then

44:20

also the encyclopedia is better than

44:23

you there. Okay? So because

44:25

something is written is repeated by

44:27

a machine doesn't mean that it

44:29

is better than you. You

44:31

see, we have lost the idea,

44:34

we have lost the concept

44:36

of interiority. There is nothing inside

44:38

because we have been told

44:40

that there is nothing there. And

44:43

so the meaning of life

44:45

doesn't exist. Scientists say the... the

44:47

universe is pointless. There is nothing.

44:49

It's all random. It's all

44:51

randomness. So don't worry about it.

44:54

Just live with your life

44:56

and you know try to get

44:58

this most out of this

45:00

life because that's all there is.

45:03

That's it. And people live under

45:05

this you know. So no

45:07

wonder then people you know try

45:09

to get the most out

45:11

of this life since we have

45:14

been called it. That's all

45:16

we got. You were involved yourself

45:18

for decades in this competitive

45:20

world. In fact, if I

45:22

understand correctly, you left Intel to

45:25

set up another company's dialogue

45:27

that became a competitor to Intel.

45:29

Isn't that the American way?

45:31

Come on. Well, if we are

45:34

one with everything, we must

45:36

also be one with this urge

45:38

to dominate, this urge to

45:40

control, this urge to be separate.

45:42

Absolutely, because there is a duality

45:45

here which is foundational. You

45:47

know, do you work for yourself

45:49

or do you work for

45:51

all? Meaning. the others as well

45:54

as yourself. And if you

45:56

be, if you, if you choose

45:58

that, there is only that choice.

46:00

Is it true bifurcation there?

46:02

If you go, if you work

46:05

for yourself, you will simply

46:07

become ever more unhappy because you

46:09

will destroy everything that you

46:11

have inside because everything, the only

46:14

way to do what you're

46:16

asking is to enrich yourself in

46:18

a basic, you know, get more

46:20

thing, more stuff out there

46:22

because, you know, because you go

46:25

against what is seeing here.

46:27

What is in here is about

46:29

love, joy, compassion, empathy, the

46:31

good of living together. If we

46:34

don't go inside and find our

46:36

own compass, certainly we don't

46:38

find that outside and it is

46:41

there. And I can guarantee

46:43

you that, but you got to

46:45

do the work. Well Federico

46:47

I can tell that you are

46:49

speaking from experience you've been

46:51

there. Yeah I've been there. Once

46:54

again it has been a real

46:56

pleasure to be with you

46:58

to hear your ideas Federico I

47:01

feel a deep connection to

47:03

your work and I'm hopeful that

47:05

we will have many more

47:07

conversations in the future after your

47:09

next book comes out. There are

47:12

enough people now they really

47:14

want to understand this and they

47:16

want to really... reflect and

47:18

not just go with the crowd.

47:21

Well that's why I'm hopeful

47:23

that we can have many more

47:25

conversations because you're addressing deep

47:27

deep issues that you don't I

47:29

think most people will hear you

47:32

and say yes of course

47:34

he's right but that's not enough

47:36

you have to hear it

47:38

many times to really digest what

47:41

you're saying. Yes absolutely that's

47:43

correct. Yep. Thank you Jeffrey. Thank

47:45

you Federico. It's a Joy to

47:47

be with you. Thank you.

47:49

For those of you watching or

47:52

listening, thank you for being.

47:54

with us because

47:56

you are

47:58

the reason that

48:01

we are here.

48:04

because you are the

48:06

reason that we are

48:08

here. 3. In the

48:11

New Thinking Aloud Dialogue

48:13

Series is, UFOs and

48:15

UAP. Are we really

48:18

alone? Now available on

48:20

Amazon. You can

48:22

now download

48:24

a free

48:27

PDF copy

48:29

of number 8

48:31

of of

48:34

the New

48:36

Thinking Aloud

48:38

magazine, or

48:40

order a

48:43

beautiful printed

48:45

copy. Go

48:47

to copy. Go to

48:50

New .org. You

49:14

magazine,