Quantum Consciousness Unveiled: Exploring the Mind's Hidden Dimension & Encountering Smart Zombies

Johannes Castner: 0:36

Hello and welcome. My name is Johannes and I'm the host of this show. Today I am here with Utpal Chakraborty and we will be talking about a topic that is a little bit more esoteric than the usual topics on the show, which is quantum consciousness. So, um, Utpal uh, is a AI and quantum scientist. He's the Chief Digital Officer at Allied Digital, former head of AI Yes Bank, AI global ambassador, top 20 ai, key opinion leaders, FinTech innovator, TEDx speaker, author of six books, web three, blockchain researcher as well. Welcome, Al. I am very thrilled to have you here. I'm honored to speak with you today about a topic that has been on my mind for a very long time. It's been in the background. I have not done anything professional with it, but when I lived. In the Boston area. I used to go to all of the talks on this topic that there were a lot of them, uh, particularly there were these people, um, uh, named, uh, Steven Pinker, um, and uh, and also Daniel Dennett, who were there, who often gave talks on this topic, um, who had also very peculiar view on the topic that I find strikingly wrong, but I can't say why. And this is, will, will, will lead to the first question. So they, they just to describe very quickly what they believe is that. ultimately, that, that, that if we build, uh, something, if we, if we combine, say ChatGPT, that can predict language very well and can make sentences like we can, and that can behave behaviorally be indistinguishable from us, then we combine that, let's say with a robot that can walk around and experience the world in a way that it can, it, it has vision. It ha it has, uh, it has vision. It can speak, it can even drive a car. It might be able to do everything that we can do behaviorally. Um, um, then, then what, what, what, then, uh, consciousness will just sort of fall out of it. In fact, consciousness may not actually be a real thing. Um, Daniel then might have this extreme position. I, I find it extreme that, that. That consciousness is actually an illusion that, that what we are doing is we're, we're, we're manipulating symbols and we are really just syntactic machines. Just like, um, just sort of like our computers that, that we built, that we're in that way, that we're in, in the same, of the same kind, but that the computers that we've built thus far are not sufficiently sophisticated or they're, they don't have sufficiently multi-functional and they, they're not artificial general intelligence essentially as we are where we are natural general intelligence, we can do multiple things. We can learn new things and so on. And that, that once we have built something that can do that, that consciousness sort of comes with it for free or it isn't maybe even a real thing, but just an illusion. Now I find there's that there's something very wrong about this. Um, I can't exactly though. Tell you what, what it is, right? So there's this, this question also, uh, I think a minute around f 40 minutes into the video of the Google, um, talks at Google, uh, where, where, uh, John Searle speaks and Ray Kurzweil will ask him this question,

Google Talks Moderator: 3:57

Uh, we'll start with one question, uh, from Mr. Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil: 4:07

Well, thanks John. Uh, I'm one of those guys. You've been, uh, debating this issue for 18 years, I think . Um, and, uh, I would, uh, praise the Chinese room for its longevity cuz it does really get at the apparent Ober absurdity that. Deterministic process like computation could possibly be responsible for something like thinking. And you point out the distinction of thinking between its effects and, uh, the subjective states, which is a synonym for consciousness. So I, uh, I quoted, uh, you here in, uh, my book, singularity is near at the equivalence of neurons and even brains. Uh, machines. So then I took your argument why a machine and a computer could not truly understand what it's doing and simply substituted human brain for computers. Since you said they were equivalent and newer transmitter concentrations and related mechanisms for formal symbols, since they basically neurotransmitter concentrations, it's just a mechanistic concept.. And so you wrote with those substitutions, the human brain succeeds by manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations in other related mechanisms. The neurotransmitter concentrations and related mechanisms themselves are quite meaningless. They only have the meaning we have attached to them. The human brain knows nothing of this. It just shuffles the neurotransmitter concentrations in related mechanisms. Therefore, the human brain cannot have true understanding. So

John Searle: 5:57

there's some interesting variations. Yeah. Uh, on, again, on my original.

Daniel Dennett: 6:02

You are adding one cause too many by putting. The the internal subjective, mysterious watchamacallit isn't actually doing any work. So just divide through, let it let it go, and then, then you've got a good theory.

Johannes Castner: 6:22

What, what do you say to that? Why is that wrong? What, what are we missing?

Utpal Chakraborty: 6:27

Yeah. So first of all, thank you so much, uh, Hanni for inviting me, uh, to this show. I'm really honored to win a year and, uh, discussing a very, very interesting topic, uh, of my life. Uh, in fact, I have spent a lot of time, uh, doing some, uh, research on, uh, this. How quantum, uh, can be, uh, uh, uh, can have some kind of a relationship, uh, with our consciousness. And, um, while doing this, uh, the research, you can see, uh, I try to, uh, consult, uh, of course the spiritual angle, uh, at the same time as I am a, uh, scientist or a scientific person. So, um, I have also explored the scientific angle, uh, to ex to, to explain the consciousness and how, uh, it is, uh, related and how it is very, very fundamental to our, uh, existence or our life or our reviewers, whatever. I see. Uh, so to answer your question, um, uh, and this is a very, uh, important question, basically, and there are, uh, multiple schools of thoughts, uh, here. So, uh, of course, one is completely scientific. So one, uh, thought process is like, uh, the competition in our, uh, brain. Okay. And that gives rise to consciousness. So that is one school of thoughts, okay? Uh, but another school of thoughts like, uh, which is also, uh, many of the scientists and the scientific community, uh, believes that this basically consciousness cannot be a competition, okay? It is very intrinsic to the universe or to our existence, okay? And it is very, very fundamental, okay? Probably as fundamental as the universe itself. Okay. And it, uh, the, the consciousness is started when the universe has started. Okay. So it is, it is more a biological phenomena, uh, an article. So that is another sense of thought. Um, and I'm supporter of that, uh, but not in a spiritual way, rather in a scientific, uh, way. And, uh, when it, uh, comes to illusion. Okay, uh, uh, I, I personally feel it cannot be illusion because it, conscious illusion then our existence, itself is illusion or the universe itself is illusion right? And uh, again, if you see that everything is illusion then probably again, we are going back. The spiritual or the mystical, uh, thinking like everything we see, everything we, uh, uh, do and all those things. This is part of metrics on illusion, right? So I don't, I don't, I don't think so. It is not at that. And, uh, normally, uh, a human has a tendency, uh, to, uh, uh, come to a very simplistic explanation of the hub, uh, or the system. Uh, and, uh, that, but I think probably, uh, that may not be the case. Okay. Uh, we have to hold onto it or sometime Okay. Uh, do some more zip, uh, recess rather than coming, uh, with a very simplistic conclusion. Okay. It is not about conclusion, taking a conclusion or a stand. No. Is this or illusion or it is interesting. No, let's hold onto it. Uh, give it some more time, more thought and see what exactly it's, and explain it in a scientific way. So that is my approach. So, uh, in that way, uh, if you, uh, look at, uh, like, uh, uh, the human existence or, or for that matter, the impact, uh, existence is, uh, uh, built on, uh, something very, very, uh, very, very basic or very, very fundamental, uh, because, uh, when we talk about, uh, the brain, okay, so, uh, as for scientific explanation, so we have got, uh, uh, billions of neurons in our vein. Uh, and this, uh, neurons are archived with synopsis. And, uh, there is a huge competition, uh, which is happening within. Uh, the brain and this competition actually deep rise to other consciousness. Okay? So this is again, the modern, uh, approach, uh, which most of the scientific c are beginning that. So, uh, in that way, if you can bring the machine, so, uh, our computer probably couple of years from now, and, uh, we have got that much of competition, then that competition can give rise to consciousness, right? But I don't, I don't think so because, uh, consciousness cannot be competition. So that is, that is the most fundamental thing because, uh, consciousness is more, uh, like, uh, your feelings, right? So, uh, kind of, it is kind of a, uh, scream where, uh, the things are projected. Okay. So again, coming to little bit of mystical thinking and which is also I think, uh, very, very scientific. This kind of, uh, the, uh, uh, observer and observable kind of a concept because of consciousness is observer, which observes everything that is happening because, only because of the consciousness. Uh, we experience anything and everything and, uh, in fact, we exist, right? And anything and everything that we experience is observable. And this observables are been observed by our sense organs. Okay? So we have got different sense organs through this sense organs. We can observe those events, okay? But when it comes to, uh, Observing, there should be some kind of a subject, right? Because all observables are objects, okay? The subject which is observing is the consciousness. Okay? And you cannot deny it. You cannot, you cannot say is an illusion. Okay? So that's how I, from, uh, the emotion to theory that concern was, is just an illusion or is just a brain fan of an app. Okay? It is a competition, which nice to, uh, a kind of kind of thing. Also, there are a lot of other things like the hard problem of the heart problem of consciousness which basically how do you define your emotions, okay? Your achieve your love, okay? And all of that things. Okay? So that is also, uh, you cannot define it, uh, through, uh, a principle, uh, where competition is the message., right. Um, so yeah, so that is, that is my view.

Johannes Castner: 13:49

So this hard, hard, um, problem of, uh, consciousness. I think this was, uh, David Cha chambers

David Chambers: 13:55

The herb problem of consciousness is the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to the subjective experience of the mind and of the world. If you look at the brain from the outside, you see this extraordinary machine, um, an organ consisting. 84 billion neurons that fire and synchrony with each other. When I see visual inputs come to my eyes, photons hit my eyes. They send a signal that goes up the optic nerve to the back of my brain. It sends neural firings propagating throughout my brain, and eventually I might produce an action from the outside, though I look like a complicated me. A robot.

Johannes Castner: 14:43

But his view seems to be, a a pan psychic approach where consciousness is another quantity. You could say there are rays out there, sun rays, light rays, where's a light is a thing that we recognize, something that's real. Um, and consciousness is something else that we haven't yet recognized. But that is part and parcel of everything that exists. But at the same time, maybe you could say, that these things actually don't even really exist out there, but they only exist because of consciousness. Can it, can there be a universe if there's not a subjective observer of it? Or maybe, maybe the universe is the things that we observe , which means that they are essentially created by consciousness in that sense. Without consciousness, they wouldn't be observed, therefore, they wouldn't exist in a way, uh, kind of, uh, puts the whole thing, uh, of, of, you know, the, the whole equation on its head in a way where it's to say, but what, what, what, you know, um, I guess Daniel Dennett and, uh, those, those, um, east Coast, uh, thinkers say, is basically that through computation, you get consciousness, but maybe it's only because of consciousness that you even get material and structure.

Utpal Chakraborty: 16:06

That's true. That's true. And, uh, and, uh, the envelope quantum, uh, this comes to, uh, this thought process. And, uh, this is again, a very revolutionary, uh, uh, uh, theory. You can see, or the hypothesis, uh, which has been booked forward, uh, by. Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose uh, and within, uh, , uh Stuart Hameroff, specifically what they're saying is, uh, within the wave neurons, uh, there are, uh, computer like structures, uh, for micro tubials.

Roger Penrose: 16:45

I'm claiming that we need new physics to understand consciousness. Now, when I mean new physics here, I mean something outside the physics we know, but it's not simply invented for the purpose of explaining consciousness. It's something which I think we need anyway, for quite other reasons, and I'll come to that as part of the.

Stuart Hameroff: 17:08

Hello everybody. Uh, thanks for being here. It's always, uh, difficult to follow Roger. It is a tough act to follow. Um, I'm going to speak about, uh, the neurobiology of the orco or theory that he mentioned. And, uh, what you see behind the, uh, picture is a neuron with, uh, stained by immunofluorescence to show the cytoskeleton on the surfaces with a black, uh, border. That's the membrane. You can see the nucleus in blue. And then the, uh, yellow is, uh, immunofluorescence stain for tubulin. The component of microtubules and red is actin. So the neuron is not a bag of water. In fact, it's highly structured internally with the cytoskeleton, uh, including microtubules.

Utpal Chakraborty: 17:48

And, and, uh, this microtubules , uh, has ed all, uh, tubulent sorts, right? And basically, uh, this microtubules are acting as a quantum computer, uh, within, uh, our brain. Okay. And which actually gives rise to, uh, consciousness, uh, gives rise to consciousness in the sense, uh, it's a quantum wave function basically. So, uh, it is called objective reduction. So they have convert theory called objective reduction. Uh, so, uh, when this, uh, collapse happens within the micros, uh, then that gives rise to consciousness. And again, uh, which is, which is not something that it gives rise, uh, uh, through a very, uh, very new thing. But it is actually, uh, basically linking it to a very intrinsic party of the universe, okay? Uh, the ground reality of the universe, okay? And which is, uh, called, uh, the consciousness. So that's what the theory they have given as part. And, uh, until today it is, uh, one of the most revolutionary theory in terms of the quantum scientist, uh, because, uh, in quantum, uh, physics. Uh, we believe there are two, uh, realms, right? So the physical and nonphysical. And so if we think about universes also, so probably we are living in a physical universe and there exists other universe, uh, which are not physical in nature, which are not material in nature. So probably those are, uh, uh, universes made up of non matter, right? And, and, uh, uh, somehow, uh, quantum, uh, the quantum nature of the particles, uh, can exist between this matter and non matter, uh, uh, states on one matter and non matter univers, right?

Johannes Castner: 19:55

So could you break this down a little bit? So, how does this work and, and what does that actually mean? And, you know, what is quantum, you know, what is a quantum state compared to a classical state where, you know, we, we, we have a probability maybe that something happens or that something doesn't happen, right? There's something different here in the quantum, in the quantum world, right? There are quantum probabilities, or if I, you know, could, could you explain that a little bit so that we, we all, we, we, we, we can follow you better because I, I can not necessarily follow you at this moment because I don't really know too much, too much about quantum reality.

Utpal Chakraborty: 20:32

Absolutely. I can, I can, I can. A little bit background, uh, probably, uh, so, uh, of course the subatomic particles, uh, they can go through a state, uh, wherein they, they have, uh, in a very strange manner, uh, which is, uh, which we want to observe in the physical world. and, uh, that those behaviors are actually the quantum behaviors. For example, uh, the entanglement uh, entanglement is something, uh, one particle, uh, one sub atomic particle can tangle with another particle. Okay? And if you take this particles miles apart or a thick distance even, then uh, this two particles can communicate a real time, okay? Without any timeline, a real time. So, uh, you can imagine like when two objects of two particles can communicate with these other real time, then there should be something, uh, which is, um, uh, not, uh, behaving in a material way or a material world, right? Because in material world, uh, if one particular or one object needs to communicate with another object, Okay. There should be kind of a time lag, okay? Because there should be a signal. The signal should come to this object and, uh, then, uh, this, uh, object will behave accordingly, right? But if it is, uh, more than the speed of light, okay, then definitely there is something strange, uh, thing happening, right? And, uh, uh, uh, same, uh, goes for another, uh, behavior, right? One particle, uh, can be in multiple stages, uh, states at, at, at, at a time. So it can, behave like a wave. Uh, and it can also behave like a particle, uh, uh, at one part of time, very observing. So you'll see it is a particle, but where we do observe it, okay, it behaves like a wave, right? For example, lints. So these kind of, uh, behaviors, uh, are been shown, uh, by, uh, the fundamental particles. Uh, during their quantum behavior and what scientists have, uh, uh, come to the conclusion that differently, uh, there are two universes or uh, two completely, uh, different states, uh, wherein a sub atomic particle go from one state to another state. One state is of course, uh, it, uh, follows or avoids, uh, by all the laws of our classical physics. But if the quantum state, it doesn't follow any of our, uh, classical, uh, physical laws. It works in the quantum, uh, laws. Quantum rules, and that is a strange word, right? And what some of the scientists are thinking is basically that world, okay, wherein the particle quantum way, uh, that's where, uh, the consciousness exists. Right. So it is something, uh, which is always with us, okay? But we cannot perceive it, uh, neither through our sense organs, nor through any kind of apparatus, uh, or any kind of instruments that we are built. Uh, because all our instruments are all our sense organs, vaccine material work. These are built for, uh, only, uh, uh, uh, to deal with, uh, the practical world, right? But, uh, when it goes to the non-material state, uh, uh, it doesn't work any, none of our apparatus works, uh, essentially.

Johannes Castner: 24:22

So how do we know it exists?

Utpal Chakraborty: 24:26

Yeah. But, but, uh, uh, uh, some of the, you cannot say experiments, but, uh, uh, some of, uh, your, uh, mathematical con conclusions as well as. Uh, the conclusions that are coming from, uh, other established theories and facts tells that apart from this material, uh, world, uh, where we, uh, we live or we can proceed, uh, there is also another dimension, okay? Uh, which is a non-material dimension. Uh, uh, and which definitely exists because again, we know the quantum behaviors, right? And we have been leveraging those quantum behaviors and building quantum computers. Uh, correct. So these are real things. These are not unreal things. So that, uh, clearly shows that there is a dimension or a world or universe, whatever you can call it, uh, which is beyond our physical dimension or physical world kind of thing. Now, why, uh, some people believe that consciousness actually exists in that dimension. There is a reason behind that because. Um, if, if we bring other spiritual or the mystical angle, uh, to our discussion, then many, uh, uh, mystical, uh, what do you call, uh, uh, leaders or, or, uh, well, I mean, theories or whatever. I, uh, yeah. They, they, they, they tell us that, uh, uh, the, as a human got the physical, uh, body, right? Uh, but, uh, theor is physical body. Uh, we have got, uh, something within, okay. Uh, which holds this physical body. Okay? And, and, uh, uh, because physical body, again, you are gathering, uh, from, uh, this planet, right? Or from this, uh, physical world, uh uh, but who is gathering that? Okay, so there is an element within which is, uh, gathering this physical thing. So that is, that is the process. There many, many mistakes, uh, you'll find during be talking in, uh, that way. And I don't believe, uh, that in to, to, uh, some extent, uh, not fully, uh, but to some extent because that should be something we don't know probably. It's not, uh, what, uh, they are saying. But there should be something otherwise, uh, uh, essentially, uh, who is then observing, uh, everything, right then who is then observing our, bodies is not observing anything and definitely we know that, uh, uh, brain cannot give rise to any kind of, uh, any kind of, uh, phenomen, which is, which can observe everything that is happening, uh, with us, right? So there should be something beyond, uh, that. and that is, uh, in the different dimension. And that is a quantum phenomen. Okay? What quantum phenomen, nobody knows. Some theories are there as, as, as, uh, Dr. Um, Roger Penrose Yeah. As we went. That is the objective reduction. And because of that, uh, it is, uh, happening, uh, so probably that is correct. Uh, but they still, we don't have, uh, any kind of proofs. But even, uh, nobody can actually disagree to that. Also because, uh, uh, somebody argued that if quantum phenomena has to happen, uh, within the brain microtubules , uh, then it'll generate a huge, uh, what you call heat. Okay? And, um, and then that kind of heroin is not possible, uh, in a biological organization, at least in pain in microtubules. But, uh, uh, but again, uh, there are there is something called Benzene Ring. So if quantum phenomena even happens within that Benzene , uh, kind of ring, uh, it can pull down immediately. Okay. Whatever entanglement or whatever the quantum things that is, uh, uh, super position and, uh, and that is happening within that. So, uh, I mean, both arguments and counter arguments are there. Uh, uh, but what I think, uh, is, uh, which actually, uh, the, uh, theory that I propose is essentially like, uh,

Johannes Castner: 29:11

I wanna know about that. Yeah.

Utpal Chakraborty: 29:13

So that is more of like in this enter our brain consciousness and all those things. We have been forwarding a very important component, uh, and which is playing a very nice role, is something called the mind. Okay. Uh, mind. So, and, uh, definitely, uh, you can, you can, uh, realize the importance of mind, uh, whose place in our life. Because what I feel is the friendly consciousness is there, uh, probably in the quantum dimension. And aging and drain is just kind of a receiver, okay? Or it could be like only transmitting and visiting information from the physical world to the nonphysical world and presenting it to, uh, our, uh, consciousness, right? So brain is doing that, uh, functionality. So let's say that in that way. Uh, but, uh, where is, uh, uh, the actual processor. Like, if we could talk about, uh, the, uh, computer, uh, language, uh, cpu, uh, where is that? Mm-hmm.. So that is, that is actually the mind because see, if you get any information, uh, your mind, uh, can't actually put that information in different ways. You can build a story on that information. Mm-hmm.. Okay. You can add some peers into that, uh, uh, uh, information. You also, if you like, you can add some romance into that, uh, information. Okay. Uh, you can add some kind of a speculation on that information. And then finally you, cause if too, uh, feel

Johannes Castner: 30:59

so, so the mind is then, in other words, what we are building when we're building AI machines, right? So we're building chatGPT when we're building, um, you know, self-driving cars. That's sort of in that mind dimension, right? It does similar things. There are similar things. To the, what the mind does. Is that, is that, would that be a correct thing to say?

Utpal Chakraborty: 31:20

Yeah. To, to some extent, yes. So this is, uh, the information, uh, cannot, normally, normally information cannot go to consciousness directly. If ha if it has to go, if it, it has to go through mind, okay? And whatever the things, uh, the information processing and whatever these things that you are adding, okay. Love, emotion, all other things, adding some more, uh, what you call imagination into that information, okay? All other things are happening within the mind. So mind processes the information that we are getting it from the physical world or from the other dimension also. And then it proves to the consciousness, which is definitely in the other dimension, it cannot be in the physical dimension kind of thing. So in that way, my theory is that mind is also a quantum cloud. Okay? So it is a, it is kind of amalgamation of quantum particles. Many, many quantum particles are in the form of a cloud, okay? And wherein you can, and these are, these are again doing all kind of quantum uh, behaviors, right? So all entanglement, Johannes Castner: so even the mind, So if, if the mind is well, is responsible for. Motor function or driving around or you know, being able to process information on the road and then, you know, translating that into a, a steering wheel motion, maybe some gas, you know, pressing the gas and so on. We can automate all of that, right? We can build a self-driving car. I think that's, Within our grasp, but we will not have built something that is conscious. That's right. Right? I mean, we, we agree on that, right? This will not have consciousness. It'll be essentially a zombie, but it doesn't require con uh, it doesn't require quantum computation to get to that point either. Most likely. And then, but, but that's the function of the mind, right? So it does. So, so in other words, what, what I think is that you can reproduce the mind, but you can't reproduce consci. Right. But the mind itself, like why does that, that one doesn't need quantum computing, right? We can, we can see that chat. G p t pretty much can write stuff that is remarkably similar to what a human might write, but without the experience. Right. So is it true, like, the way I see it or the way that I see consciousness, and I just wanna ping this back on you and see if, if you agree with me that what consciousness is this experience of the color blue, for example, rather than knowing how the c the word blue is used in language, being able to say the weather is nice, it means that there's a blue sky and you know, so then you can say, oh, the weather is nice. The, the sky is blue, the breath is soft, whatever. You can say all these, all of these things, but you may not have any experience whatsoever of a soft breath or a uh, or, or a blue sky or whatever. And that stuff, that experience, that difference, you know, my experience of the color blue, That's part of consciousness, right? That's, that's how I would define consciousness, right? So this, this ability to really experience the objects of our language, the, the, the objects that are in the language that we are manipulated, we start then doing calculations with that maybe we could pass on to a computer. It can do all the same calculations with it and spit out similar, similar outputs, but that experience is missing, right? That's, that's a huge missing aspect, like number one. And I think also number two meaning, right? So with that comes meaning. So, uh, the meaning of what is, what is a good action to take for society? What, how can I benefit society? That idea of me being able to benefit society, that that concept, that idea and what that would mean to benefit society that is constructed not. The mind, but ultimately it comes from consciousness, right? So if, if we just had a bunch of zombies, a bunch of self-driving cars, uh, with equipped with check G p T and and things like that, that can behave like us and maybe look like us, who knows? That wouldn't actually, that, that would be a society. So if we replace ourselves with such and society that was actually functionally identical to us, but, but actually, uh, does, didn't have this consciousness stuff that we're talking about, then it also would not have ethics. Right. So is that, is that right? It would, it would neither have the experience of the color blue, nor would it have the ethics is, is that right? Absolutely. So, uh, ethics probably, uh, we can, we can, we can discuss, but yes, of course I'm completely aligned with what is, uh, thinking. So ly will be able to build the mind someday probably with the quantum component. Okay. But, uh, definitely, uh, uh, so we need a quantum computer. For, for, yeah. Yes, exactly. Because, uh, so if we talk about the classical computers , uh, we are almost hitting the dead end of, uh, our silicon revolution, right? Silicon Revolution has already, uh, reached its limit, okay? Beyond that, we cannot go, uh, okay, because we have gone to the electron, uh, kind of a level, uh, building our chiefs. Okay? Uh, but, uh, uh, now next is if you want to do that kind of a computation with parallel computation, uh, power, uh, with huge processing power, some quantum is the next option. So, uh, and as you can think, like mind is so powerful, right? So it can process information super fast. You can add all the ingredients, love, joy. Uh, head trade, uh, uh, what you called fear and all our things in a second. You can, if you give a small, uh, information to the mind and mind will build a full story, uh, within, within no time, right? Uh, uh, uh, all illusions, all all kinds of, uh, things you can add, uh, uh, with no time . So, uh, if we actually really want to build a mind, end of you, require a quantum computer, and I'm also, uh, uh, I'm also believing in that is, uh, one day, uh, human will be able to, uh, build the mind that is possible, but building consciousness as you very rightly, say, uh, is parallel, uh, or, or probably not possible because it's, again, very intrinsic property of the universe, right? So, um, and, uh, and, uh, And somehow, uh, we have been, uh, misinterpreting, uh, mind with the consciousness official when Yeah. The scientific, scientific theories of scientific explanations are given that brain give rise to, uh, kind of, uh, consciousness. It is not true. The brain, uh, the microtubual quantum computers, uh, within, uh, the neurons can give rise to the quantum cloud, with many, many quantum particles acting, uh, uh, uh, each other, uh, in a coherent way. Okay. Can give rise to the mind phenomena. Okay.

Johannes Castner: 38:44

You're saying that even if, even when and if we., uh, full quantum computer. You, you're saying we already have quantum computer is another question. Actually. I, I wanna ask you about that, but, but, um, uh, before I get there, uh, let's, let's say that even with that machinery, if I understand it correctly, once we have it fully worked out, uh, or even if we do have it now, then that will not actually help us to build consciousness if you wanted to.

Utpal Chakraborty: 39:09

No, no. Because, because again, when we're talking about quantum computer or maybe some other computer, more powerful than quantum computer, again, we're talking about competition ability to comput fast, process fast. Okay. But consciousness is not competition. It is, it is nothing to do with that. So many of the scientist read and even mystics says, uh, consciousness is more like a music. Okay. It's like a rhythm. A rhythm of the universe. Okay? And also this is like more you are aligned with this rhythm. Okay. Uh, more successful will be in New York life in all senses. I mean, not only, uh, the meaning of successful than we have in the modern world, uh, but but in your life, uh, will be flourish, okay? In, in many different angles. It could be held, it could be worth, uh, mental health, it should be anything. And aging, if you are I rhythm with, uh, this music or, uh, this rhythm of the universe, which is, which we called, uh, more consciousness, right? So it is no, no way computation. It is something else we don't know. People are explaining it, uh, proudly. Uh, uh, probably like in music, but I don't know because what happens, like you can feel and probably everybody has that, those kind of experience. Uh, there are some moments, okay, and let's call it, uh, the wow moments right in our life whenever we kill it. Wow. Uh, this is something like that. Okay. Uh, it would be while listening to a music or something like that, cause you feel, uh, that the ultimate, uh, amount of, uh, joy, okay. That bliss right, uh, kind of thing. And, uh, many of the mystics are saying that in those moments, actually you are passing your consciousness, uh, consciously. Right. So consciousness is something wealth of information. It is wealth of love. Uh, it is wealth of, uh, uh, what call, uh, intelligence, it's wealth of, uh, everything, right? And which is with us, but we are always interacting with it, uh, with that. But we are not interacting directly and consequently we're interacting with, uh, uh, through, uh, the here, which is called mind. And mind has, uh, a capability that it doesn't give the information directly to the, um, consciousness. Okay? It builds a story around that. And that only it gives, okay? No information directly goes to, uh, uh, the consciousness as is, right?

Johannes Castner: 41:46

So, to one, let me ask you this. So then did, did consciousness evolve or was it there from the beginning? Was it, is it a topic? So, so you could say light rays, right? The, uh, or radiation of any form was probably there from the beginning, right? I, I, I'm not sure. I, I don't know much about the. The, uh, you know, the, this part of, uh, science, but I'm assuming that light rays were probably there and, and similarly

Utpal Chakraborty: 42:12

was it's more, more fundamental. I, I feel, because see, probably at one point of time there was no light. It, it can happen right? Beginning of the universe language. Uh, probably there are part where, I don't know even, I mean nobody knows, but whatever it is, it is very, very, uh, fundamental, uh, very, very fundamental nature of the universe, which is in a different dimension. And that's why, uh, whatever scientific explorations that we have done till today, uh, we have not been able to reach it. Uh, because our approach was, uh, uh, different. Like our approach of all scientific explorations was all physical, right? We tried to explore the physical world, right? We have never tried to explore any other, it was not possible also. But now we have got live between this physical world and the other dimension, non-physical world through this quantum, okay? And I think if we can go in that direction, probably they will come. Uh, we'll be able to define consensus in a better way, or probably we'll get some more information about that intrinsic party of the universe, which is like light. You can say. Today we know a lot of things about.. Johannes Castner: Yeah. So you were saying so, so we could not build it, right? So it would be not because it's so fundamental, it would not be possible to build it, but would it be possible perhaps to harness it sort of the way we do with light, right? We can create sources of light that aren't there, that we can, you know, create basically we can make there be light, right? We can create through electricity, we can do something like that. Do you think it would be possible to, to harness or to in some ways concentrate consciousness in, in an active way? You know, right now it seems to me that consciousness is in some ways concentrated in animals and human beings. Is that even true? Right. So would you say then, if consciousness was always there, if it's pan, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's if the world is pan psychic in a way where, where everything has an element of consciousness or, or you know, for lack of a better world word. an element of consciousness, then how is it that we have this, it's this problem that William James, uh, encountered. So he also was a pan psychist, so he believed that there, everything was in doubt with consciousness. But the problem there is wherever there's a human, let's say wherever there's a human, even wherever there's a dog, um, there seems to be more consciousness in that area where those things are, and, to explain that, how do you explain that? How do you bring together these particles or elements of consciousness into this experience of consciousness in this singular way, in this, in this way of individualism or individualist way?, can you speak to that a bit? And does that have to do with quantum? I think there's something quantum there, right? I mean, cause that seems to have broken a lot of theorists head this, this exact problem. Yes. So, yeah. Correct. How to now, uh, answering how to harness types of body. Okay. Uh, so there are two ways to harness, uh, that cause as it's in intrinsic. So finally, we are already harnessing in a different way, not in a scientific way, but we are already harnessing. This is very fundamental to us, right? So for example, the meditation, right? So when you go into meditation, so at that point of time, mostly, uh, what happens, your minds become still right? Uh, the quantum cloud, okay? Some, somehow it starts becoming, uh, it, it starts settling down, right? It becomes still, and you actually get the taste of that wealth of information. That wealth of inte intelligence, that wealths of love, okay? Many people has experienced this is nothing new, right? Many people has already experienced that. And even if you don't experience that, you go into medication, you'll get lot of benefits, right? So there is something there, right? So, uh, there is only, we are harnessing that now coming to house. We can harness that. Uh, so for that, I think the journey has already started in this, uh, quantum, uh, era. And, uh, I think, uh, definitely, uh, will be able to harness lot of, uh, proper authorities, lot of benefits of consciousness, uh, some days. So I, I, I, I can believe that because we, we, we got the link and somehow with this link we have to this there and actually harness that. Now what Quantum, um, uh, is playing a role is, uh, essentially now, yes, of course we are already. Uh, harnessing the quantum behavior of the particles. And we have already built contact computers. We have got, uh, uh, quantum computers already exist, although in a nascent state at this point of time. We can do some of the material iCal calculations. We can do some of the works. But, uh, maintaining those quantum nature of the particles, uh, uh, in a quantum processor at this point of time is very, very difficult because ultimately, everything in the, uh, in, in this universe are quantum particles. And they, they go to that quantum state, and when they go to that quantum state, they can interfere with the quantum particles that you build within your processor. Right? So, uh, uh, that is something called decoherence that happens. Very, very, uh, so that is, that is the disturbance that the other particle interferes , uh, and that's why, uh, we cannot maintain this quantum speed for a longer period of time. Wherein actually we can harness the two particles of those, uh, particles in a better way. But there are, there are, there are a lot of, uh, uh, uh, scientific explorations that advancements are already happening and we'll be able to do that. So right now to look at, there are two types of, uh, quantum computers already available. So one is the gate model, uh, quantum computer, wherein actually we, uh, build the Cubits. Okay. It's similar to, uh, the bits, uh, in a classical computer. And there are computers like Google has, uh, it's, uh, quantum computer, ibm. Uh, Microsoft, uh, then Honeywell and lot of other companies already have in some countries already, Japan, China, all other countries, if they have hospital also, they have, uh, quantum computers. Uh, but there's another model of quantum computers also, uh, which is called, uh, the annealing technique or, uh, equilibrative quantum computing, uh, which is, uh, essentially harnessing, uh, uh, another of the party of the quantum particles, okay. Which is called the lower, uh, lowest on, on, uh, the lowest energy state of just particles. So companies like, uh, dwa, uh, they are using those kind of techniques and they have got quantum, uh, computers, uh, and which, uh, they, uh, provide a lot of cloud services, uh, to, uh, different enterprises to harness the quantum of computing power for different things. Uh, it could be, uh, for, uh, drug discovery and research. Uh, it'll be, uh, on the other end, uh, mostly, uh, today if you look at on the research, uh, part, but in a couple of years, I think we'll have, full fledged, powerful quantum components that can be used for the business partners and different in cases is already used business are, uh, there. So it is, it is not a, uh, not something, uh, which is not happening, or this is, we are talking completely s of box. It is all in theories , no, there are practical applications of quantum computers not coming up. Mm-hmm.. Johannes Castner: So then, and, and this would be with, with this we could potentially build the mind as you call it, and uh, and uh, also you could, uh, maybe understand consciousness better, right? So maybe we can understand consciousness. Even if we can't build it, we might be able to harness it. Uh, you know, then the question is, if we can harness it, could we put it into a robot ? Could we, could we endow a robot with, with consciousness that already exists that we don't build in a way, but that we harness will it be possible to end up with conscious robots and why would we do it? Also, the business case is not quite clear to me except for, except to say that if something has its own goals, which I think so, so, okay. That, that's a, a very important question here. So, um, do you think that goals, uh, you know, life goals and so on, meaning, right, we, we say that that comes from consciousness too, right? So, so something that doesn't have consciousness, can't possibly have its own goals, is that fair to say? Yeah. Define between the different goals to the energy, uh, kind of thing. And, uh, that is coming directly coming from the consciousness linking that. Yes, probably there is a deeper linking, uh, link, uh, between that. Uh, but, uh, coming to what you say, like whether robots can have consciousness. So let's understand it in this way. So what is the link between the consciousness and our, uh, human, uh, body is basically so, uh, the information thing we have, uh, probably, uh, the binding happens within the brain. Okay? Some process within the brain. And somehow we can understand that processes, right? Um, now, which is actually binding, uh, this or communicating, um, uh, this, this physical body with the consciousness in the other dimension, we can understand that processes somehow. Yeah, I think probably, uh, a time will come, uh, we can, uh, do the similar thing within the robots, right? Uh, we can have a robotic brain, and in that brain we'll try to create that kind of a quantum phenomen to connect with the consciousness so robot robots will become conscious. It's possible, I think, I mean, logical. You, yes. Uh, it is, this is possible. I mean, the, um, the information that we have, uh, today, because, uh, it is only just a biological phenomen, and that will be a mechanical , or it could be even biological tomorrow, you don't know, uh, probably a robot will come. Uh, this is a biological robot, okay? Some parts of the robot is going to be, uh, biological, uh, organs, right? So, uh, today probably the semiconductor tomorrow it could be, uh, some biological things. So it's, it's pretty much possible. I'm,

Johannes Castner: 52:40

Okay, when a, when a robot will have a goal. The moment a robot will have its own goals, will empathy and those elements come with that. Because if it does naturally come with it, if they are part of the same package, which we might call consciousness, then we don't have to worry too much about the, the rogue robot that has a goal to kill us for whatever reason why. I don't know why it would have this goal, but, um, you know, that that couldn't happen, right? Because with that, um, with that goal would come this empathy and ethics and all of those things would sort of come with it. They might be radically different ethics and, you know,

Utpal Chakraborty: 53:19

most, not necessarily, and probably that will not in line with our expectation. So that is the main thing because, uh, it tiger as a concierge and it has got its own goal, right? So, uh, its goal is to create people, right? So, uh, if you go to , if he, probably he's hard goal is, uh, you, uh, so yeah, that will definitely, that will the goal. Uh, because I mean, once you get the conscious respect, you'll get the goal, but that only thing, that goal may not be aligned with our expect.

Johannes Castner: 53:53

Yeah. And empathy might not be that strong, right? I mean, in the case of the, of the tiger, you have a good point. They play with their prey in a brutal way. They might not have that form of consciousness that is aware of the pain and suffering that they are inflicting on this innocent little creature that they, they want to eat. Okay? I understand that part. You know, that, that makes sense. That, that they would want to eat, but that they would want to torture this animal doesn't really make any sense. So I assume that they're lacking that form of consciousness or that aspect of consciousness of empathy, right? And so it could be.

Utpal Chakraborty: 54:28

Yeah. So I probably have a different opinion on that. So, uh, probably when you, uh, uh, uh, uh, kill a chicken, uh, and you want to, uh, uh, eat it. Okay. So you also don't have that empathy, right? So it's same, uh, I think this goal and empathy are all contextual. Uh, but when we talk about consciousness, it's us more fundamental and intensive focus. So that may not fit into the social framework that we have or social set of mind, uh, that we have. Okay. It is more fundamental like survival. Uh, okay. So the survival goals will definitely be there mm-hmm. and, uh, as we have also, uh, what we call, uh, this, uh, uh, the evolution that, uh, happened.

Johannes Castner: 55:18

Exactly, exactly. We experienced evolution, right? We have a reason to want to kill the chicken, even if, if I don't want to kill it, because I also have a reason for not killing it. But, but, um, supposing you don't have that, but you have the reason to kill it. You want to eat, you want to survive. Why would a robot ever want to survive? Or why would a robot ever, you know, have this drive? You see, I, I, I wonder if, what, what part of that, because that comes back to that question of whether consciousness itself has evolved. Is this drive to kill the chicken or to eat at all or to survive, is that linked with consciousness directly so that if a robot had consciousness, it would ultimately also want to survive. or is this will to survive a drive that is separate from consciousness? That is basically a functional aspect of ourselves that has, is subject to potential engineering, or in this case evolution. Evolution is a type of engineering process, if you will. Right? So then, then, you know, why would a robot have this drive to survive? That's actually an assumption, right? It may not actually have that, even if it's conscious.

Utpal Chakraborty: 56:30

Yeah. So I think that's again, uh, coming to the mind. Uh, so that, that's, uh, more to do with the mind, uh, than of consciousness. So as we are, consciousness is very, very fundamental. It is just an observer. Okay? And it doesn't require any kinded revolution, right? It's, uh, already, uh, to a state, uh, which is who doesn't require any kind of evolution like any other very fundamental parties of big universe. Okay? So those are not changing. Okay. Uh, uh, those are, those are, uh, kind of constant kind of things, but yes, mild lip evolved, right? So whatever evolution that has happened to human today, okay. One is physiological evolution, so that any use, uh, it is, it is happening again. It is a intensive, uh, next year of the understand. It is evolving as physically in different forms. Uh, but

Johannes Castner: 57:20

think that is happening. The mind is also evolved. Exactly. It's also evolved.

Utpal Chakraborty: 57:25

It does evolve. Yes, it has evolved. And that's why, uh, we consider ourself more intelligent, uh, than our previous generation. Our next generation will be much more intelligent because, uh, this, uh, we are, we are actually, we, all of us are contributing, uh, in the evolution of our mind, right? Uh, and if you, if you in, uh, the rebar Okay. Or reincarnation, correct. So, uh, then actually the reincarnation, uh, is, uh, happening for the mind. It is not for the consciousness; consciousness is there, it will be there kind of thing. Mm-hmm., the mystical and, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, protocol, uh, this, uh, spiritual thinking. Uh, it is only the mind. Okay. Uh, which is, which is getting, uh, evolved more and more so, uh, spiritual also. So your mind carries, uh, basically, uh, millions of, billions of years of evolution. Okay.

Johannes Castner: 58:27

What it comes down to what we were just discussed, you know, for example, the survival instinct. The survival instinct could be seen as a goal. I want to survive, I the survival as long as possible or whatever. You know, that, that, that actually, if you want to have that as a. We said earlier that maybe goals hang together with consciousness, but now we have to reject that, right? Because we have to say that that's certainly a goal that probably has evolved as part of our mind. So it cannot be, so it cannot be the case that all goals are necessarily linked to consciousness then in that way, because that one seems to be an evolved one. But other goals that are linked to, to, to such things as, um, ethics, they might still be part of, uh, you know, tho those goals should probably be tied to consciousness, right? Because, I mean, consciousness is basically the thing that gives rights to meaning.

Utpal Chakraborty: 59:23

Uh, not, not necessarily, uh, because see, again, uh, this fix and all our things, uh, these are also evolving because see, uh, uh, they fix for a particular, uh, a particular area, a particular, uh, film, uh, hundred years back. Probably now it has evolv different things. So these are, these are, these are again, linked to your mind. This is, these are linked to our society and all. And again, the ethics changes from society to society also. Okay? Probably in some society, okay? Uh, which we consider, uh, there, it, we kind of fixed. So these are all social phenomen and which are completely linked with mind. But, uh, uh, my thought process is that is nothing to do with the sequence. Consciousness is very, very fundamental. Very, very few. Okay? It is already evolved and, uh, uh, and already, uh, welcome information. Welcome, uh, please love and everything is there. That dimension is already in that mature state, okay? It's only, uh, the mind and all other things which are evolving,

Johannes Castner: 1:00:37

but as then arise from it in a different way., namely that for, for example, I, I feel that an object that has no consciousness or is not conscious, a broom or a glass or whatever, if I break it, it's not a big deal., it's not an ethical violation. But yet, if something has consciousness only then if that thing has consciousness and, and, and if, whenever it has consciousness, whatever it is, if you endow the broomstick with consciousness, the moment you do it, at the moment, the broomstick is clearly conscious, suddenly breaking it would mean something very different to me. So, so that's also very interesting. So it is, it is the case that, that things may arise from, like, even if we think about it differently in different cultures, I think it's still the case that we all have this in common, that we would find that ethics really applies only to subjects, not to objects. Right? That, that it's, that it's a violation vis-a-vis and a subject that can be is, is, you know, Part of ethics, but breaking, you know, something that is not, you know, unless it, it belongs to a subject or has something to do with a subject, it gives pleasure to a subject. Or in some ways, you know, it's, you know, the same thing with technology. Technology on its own. If they were a bunch of self-driving cars and cities that ran its themselves and robots walking around with them and all of that, without any consciousness, the whole thing would be meaning meaningless. Right. Do, do you agree with that?

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:02:09

Sure. Yeah. So, uh, uh, uh, and, uh, coming to, I think it, it is, uh, little bit, uh, uh, from, uh, the socio phenomena, I believe it comes from, uh, society of course. And mostly, uh, things are like, uh, I don't do this thing to the others because again, this thing can happen to me also. Right. That sense, that sense of, uh, uh, bouncing back to you, uh, something, uh, gives rise to an ethical one. And that's how we have formulated ethics in our society, right? So, uh, but, but uh, when we talk about, uh, the consciousness especially, uh, I think, uh, I think if ethics is not very attached to that, okay? Because consciousness is, uh, immaterial that you are doing right or you are doing wrong. It is just an observer. So you are being right. Also it is observing if you are doing something wrong, also it is not going to stop you. It is just observe, right? Yeah. But these are basically social and opposed to some extent the mind. Okay. keep sort of doing all those things. Uh,

Johannes Castner: 1:03:29

uh, but the subject or the object of it is always the fact that there is something subjective there, right? Without, so it's, it's interesting. Yes, it's the mind that constructs it, but the object of it is, the subject is the subjective, right? Because nothing really would, ethics would not make sense if there weren't conscious experiences. You agree with that? Is that right? Yes, yes. True. Yeah. So this is, um, so then, yeah, so, so there is no hope that we will build conscious machines, but we might make machines conscious. By turning on consciousness in a way, or by concentrating it, harnessing it or whatever. And then once we have those machines, they might be dangerous because in fact, they might not follow the same ethics or drives or goals. The goals, in fact, I don't know, they're no longer programmable. Right? Because when we create the conscious machine, then I, I, I don't know to what degree because we are, we are conscious, right? Again, we can say we conscious, but the bounds of what we want, right? So, so now free will, comes in, right? The bounds of what we want is probably. pretty much. There are a range of things we, we might desire or we might want to do, we are free to do what we want. But are we actually free to choose fully what it is that we want? I think Schopenhauer has, uh, has something about that and, uh, said that, uh, we are free to choose what we wish, but we must wish what we must or something like that . So, so, um, so in some ways there's still bounds on it. So we couldn't potentially build a conscious machine that has certain goals. So that programmed in, because maybe they didn't evolve in that case, but they were just hard coded. Or we could say right then, then we decide what the will, ultimately, what the machine wants. We could still decide, even if it's conscious, if we, if we build in or if we connect it to this consciousness. That it may be conscious, but it may have circumscribed will, do you, do you agree with that? Do you think that that's something we can control? Or do you think once we have built something that's conscious, it's completely out of control and it can choose its own wishes and they might be completely contrary to anything that we want?

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:05:50

Yeah, so, uh, so, uh, I think, uh, uh, for me, um, uh, if you talk about, I mean the free will, uh, and, uh, the other, the contrast of it, like everything is we decided, okay, whatever we are doing, we just, uh, kind of already, already decided and we are just, uh, doing it. No, no,

Johannes Castner: 1:06:13

maybe not that. No, no, no. I'm not posing that exact thing. So I'm posing rather that we can choose from a variety of things. But that we are program, program that we have a limit of what we can actually choose recently. Right? Exactly.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:06:28

Exactly, exactly. So that's what, that's what I'm indicating outta outta many choices. Uh, we are programed to choose, uh, uh, some of those are one of those, uh, kind of, I think this is again, contract to the evolution. Okay. If something is decided, we decided. So if somewhere is we decided. Right? Yeah. Uh, yeah. Uh, and I'm thinking out of, uh, that,

Johannes Castner: 1:06:53

so this is again, like the drive to survive, right? The goal that we want to survive and the goal that we want to have children, we might feel, oh, we're gonna start a family now because we want to start a family. But is that real? Is that not a drive that's pre-programmed? You know, isn't that a, isn't that just a program that we are doing, that we're fulfilling? That is evolutionary program in that sense? We're not free. Right? And we're still conscious., but definitely conscious. I, I cannot doubt that I'm with Descartes on this. I mean, I, I am conscious, therefore I am. But, but this free will thing is somehow entangled with consciousness as well, right? Uh, at least in we, we talk about it.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:07:30

Yeah. So that is right. So that is, that is, uh, definitely a relation. Uh, but, uh, this is second against evolution. Uh, I mean, if you think of the theory of evolution, right? So, uh, if something is predecided in whatever way, uh, probably out of some of the choices or some of the options are kind thing, then the evolution cannot happen, right? So it is, it is again, restricted, uh, to, uh, a set up, uh, things. But for, uh, me, what I think the entire universe, uh, if you look at it, uh, it is a, uh, it is a very complex, uh, very big mathematical formula, right? Uh, the entire universe is governed by a set of rule, of a complex rule, and, uh, uh, and it applies to everybody, okay? Everybody and everything. Okay? So, uh, again, coming to that consciousness music, if you are in tune of this formula, okay, you can lead a better life. If you are somehow not in tune with this, uh, mathematical formula on the set of rules, uh, uh, you'll have a miserable life or you'll not have, uh, that, uh, uh, better lie. And that's how whatever you are doing something, okay? If you are even sitting, if you are thinking something, if you are building, you are somewhere or other way contributing to this universe. Okay? So your existence itself is a contribution to the universe. You not have to do anything. Fundamentally, if you look at, you need not have to do anything, but still you are doing a great contribution to this, Universe. So fundamentally, your existence itself is a contribution, uh, to the universe because you are contributing to the revolution. You are contributing to the many other vessel. Some of the things we don't know, right? Uh, uh, you there , carbon dioxide, uh, right? Taking oxygen, that carbon dioxide is going somewhere. So there are many, many other things. Even, uh, probably many of the things we don't know, uh, it is beyond our, uh, even, even, even our, our [inaudible] today. Uh, so that's how the evolution happen. On same goes for your mind. So whenever you are thinking something, when you are, uh, you are, you are getting creative, uh, you are doing something, you are doing out of the box or even you are doing some kind of a mundane thing also because you don't know within that mundane thing, probably there is some creativity is there. So you are also contributing to the evolution of the mind, not only your mind, but the greater mind that we talk, right? Because that's how it comes, right? So, uh, otherwise, I mean, how this generation is so much intelligent. You think, uh, that in, uh, our generations back, but you see like after two, three generations, they will be much more, more smarter than us because the evolution of mind is happening. So what were you are doing that is contributing, contributing to the evolution of the mind, and that has been carried, forward, uh, by the next generation, something like that.

Johannes Castner: 1:10:47

But, but this is a different , evolutionary process than the one outline out by Darwin, right? You don't have to die by making a mind mistake, right? The, the, the, the well, there seems to be something other than the survival of the fittest at play here in this form of evolution that you're describing. There's some other mechanism other than the survival of the fittest, right? So now, nowadays, I mean, everyone will survive if we have great hospitals and you know, we, we can turn off that kind of evolution, that evolution of, um, of survival of the fittest, maybe the children, you know, to have children, to have viable offsprings so to speak. Is, is still a matter of having a mutual choice between two partners at this point? Um, you can probably, if you have enough money, do something different, but, uh, most people still choose each other in some form, maybe in, in India. I think in other places, uh, the parents actually choose your, your partner for you so that this is a different kind of evolutionary process than what's going on, I would say in Europe or in America where people. Have to choose each other and not the parents. So that's actually what that, that, that fact, right, this cultural fact, this cultural difference will make a huge difference in the evolution that actually will occur. Right? Because it's a different, yes, of course, different rules. Choose who is getting the children. Uh, but um,

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:12:07

absolutely little thing, uh, you were doing okay. That is also making you contribution every little thing. Yeah. Probably even not doing, we were just thinking Yeah.. Yeah. That, that has been recorded somewhere. That has been recorded somewhere. Right? So, uh, what, uh, um, again, the spiritual tradition in the East believes about your memory doesn't exist, uh, in this dimension. Okay. So then there is another thing. So we talked about the, uh, um, uh, what do you call subject, which is, uh, the consciousness. Okay. We talked, uh, about the mind, which basically processes the information. Okay. But we talked about the memory. Because this, this wealth of memory that we are generating, like lot of things, right? Where those data is going, where it is stored, uh, one thing that, uh, it's only can be stored within this way. Uh, I don't believe, uh, data because all those scientists are saying that it is something called neuroplasticity, right? How the neurons, brain neurons are, uh, making connections, uh, while we do any kind of learning or something like that.

Johannes Castner: 1:13:17

Yeah. I mean also if you, if you build a church somewhere like they did in the old days, you know, for 300 years they would build a church. It would take 300 years to build. Then what we go, when we, when we look at that church today, we walk around there or a temple, you know, it doesn't matter really what persuasion that is also a memory, right? That is a memory that has been carved into the material world., it's a type of memory, right? So anything, any kind of data that we leave behind if we start destroying the forest, that's the Romans that, you know, you can still today see that the Romans have an impact on today's, uh, today's, uh, EC ecological systems in Europe because of what they did over 2000 years ago. That's a form of memory, right? Any kind of imprint you leave on the world is also a memory that's stored directly in the physical world in a way, which I guess you, you know, that's why some people maybe think that, that the entire universe is actually what really, what, what is the stuff that we are looking at? It's, uh, type of information, right? It's, it's all, it's all, uh, there, there's this, uh, "it from bit" . It's from it, which then, Swami Sarva. Priya Nanda has basically has this YouTube. Bit called, uh, it from bit from chit

Swami Sarvapriyananda: 1:14:28

What happened was a couple of, um, just a couple of weeks ago, a few weeks ago, we had this online discussion with David Chambers, who is the head of the Mind Brain Consciousness unit at NYU here with leading philosopher of mind in the world today, and the person who coined the term hard problem of consciousness. Um, so while talking about that, this sub, this came up, this phrase, um, um, it from bit, it meaning just this universe, this it ex material universe and bit meaning information. Uh, I'll tell you where this phrase comes from originally. But anyway, the, the subject came up it from bit, and it just struck me, well, even bit, it comes from consciousness from an vedantic perspective. So consciousness chit. Um, so it from bit from chit, chit means consciousness in Sanskrit, pure consciousness.

Johannes Castner: 1:15:29

When we get down to the bottom of it, the, the more we look at the physical world, the more it disappears in front of our eyes. The less physical world there actually tends to be. And it seems to be all structure all the way down. And then there has to be, but of course when there's structured, there has to be something. And, and again, he says that that's consciousness, right? That that thing is consciousness. So, but then a, that doesn't explain, and that this is what William James, I think also believed in some ways, but that doesn't explain why we have as a being, as a comp. You know how we harness that, right? So we get to that point again, and I think he says that there's Jim Holt. Has a more, uh, has explains this in a way with quantum entanglement. That part, that part that these conscious pieces of existence, uh, manifest themselves in one form of consciousness or one subject that is experienced by a body or by a person inhabiting a body. This kind of phenomenon is actually somehow explainable by conscious, by, by, by quantum, uh, mechanics. But I, I honestly don't follow that part. I, I, I can't go that far. I, I, I can go up to that. You know what, what is explaining there? I can understand it, sort of, but I don't really know. I have not studied quantum mechanics, and I really don't know in what way that would work. There's something about entanglement. Could you, could you explain that a bit? Do, do you agree with this theory is do you think that's that's a right way of, of putting it? Yeah.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:17:00

So, uh, there are, there are, uh, couple of quantum uh, behaviors, uh, that, uh, these fundamental particles. Uh, on the quantum particles we have, one of them is entanglement, and, uh, which is like, uh, two particles can get untangled. Okay. Uh, yeah. Uh, and, uh, they can, uh, we have, uh, accordingly they are, uh, will, uh, taken far, far apart. Right.

Johannes Castner: 1:17:29

We talk about this. Yeah. Right. Understand. Already you mentioned that that's sort of the spooky, this, this spooky action at the distance thing that Albert

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:17:36

can about. Yeah. True. So, um, yeah, coming to, uh, that memory, so of course, uh, I mean, Swami Sarvapriyananda is uh, uh, from a vedantic tradition, which is like, uh, one of, uh, the, one of the, uh, Eastern philosophical. So he talks more on that line and he explains . But if you take this scientific, scientific approach, uh, to, uh, that, uh, so essentially like, uh, as I told you that the memory, right? So, uh, uh, like you've got so much in memory, you can, so probably, uh, from your five, six years, uh, still now. Okay. Uh, if I even some, some of the very memorable, uh, probably events, uh, when you are, uh, suddenly at the age of pain or something, like still you can go back, right? So, and also on, on a day-to-day life you are, you are generating so much data and so much memory kind of thing. Uh, and most of them, uh, are told somewhere else. Okay? And in fact, you can, you can go back. And, uh, if you go into a meditative estate or, or into a subconscious, uh, kind of state, you can go back very, uh, details of those things. So probably, uh, one month ago, uh, what took, uh, in your web past, okay, now consciously cannot remember. Okay? But somehow, uh, if you are injected with some drugs or apparently somehow, uh, you are hypnotized and, and taken to that sac state, you'll be able to remember that in very clearly, say, right, one month ago, this particular day of it, uh, I have taken breakfast. This was nice breakfast kind of thing, right? Where this memory is decide. So that is a question. So, uh, the theory or, or the model that I'm prop proposing is essentially, even this memory is not in this physical dimension or not in your, uh, brain. It is also there even that different dimension, different world, that quantum world. And that's the reason you can retrieve those memories so fast. Because if it is physical made with biological, uh, ingrained, you'll not be able to retrieve those memories so fast. So if you think just now 50 years back, fraction of the second, that information is in your head. Right? And you can bring it to your mind and you can think about that.

Johannes Castner: 1:20:14

True, true. But but isn't that something we've already built? So that one to me seems a bit less mysterious because we have built something like that, right? You can go to Google Big Query or to any kind of thing. You know, my MySQL database. True, true. So how do we do it and why do we need quantum there? Because we can, we seem to be able to do that without quantum.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:20:37

No, but the thing is that, uh, this is a small machine. Look at how that look. Got a super computer right. Okay. Mm-hmm., uh, I mean, I mean thousands of racks of, uh, computers in a big data center, okay? And humongous processing power stories and all other things, right? But this must machine, uh, your, your, uh, brain, right? Where, where is it stored? It cannot be stored in this, uh, this small, a small, uh, brain. And you cannot retrieve it so fast, uh, from, from that stories, so that mechanics is also like, your information is actually stored in a different damage, and you have access to that information and any point of time

Johannes Castner: 1:21:20

your brain, but I could imagine some form of compression, right? So, so, so I would imagine so. So I could imagine that if you compress it immensely, which would sort of make sense with the experience of it, right? Because Sure. When we do experience these memories, we don't experience them in this high fidelity kind of way that, you know, if we stored a video in a computer and we pulled up the video, it would be exactly as it was before. Whereas the memory that we have seems to be somewhat compressed and decompress again. So for me then it would say, okay, well if we do that, if we take a real life experience, a full on high fidelity experience, and we compress it extremely, you know, and, and, and, and then we can reconstruct it because we have this interpretation power. Uh, you could kind of imagine this without any reference to Quantum. I mean, I, I, I feel that way.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:22:11

Yeah. So compression Yeah. Is . Uh, so, uh, when, uh, we, we do compress, uh, any kind of information. So a large movie, five large movie Five. Okay. Some, yeah. Movie or some large video connecting. It, it, its a different mechanism, right? But here, if you see, okay. Uh, constantly 24 by seven until an unless you are in deep sleep, okay? Even in your being mistaked also, uh, you are getting information and somewhere, right? Yeah. Okay. And I think that also you are retrieving that continuously and we're processing it, doing lot of things, uh, kind

Johannes Castner: 1:22:52

things. So we might read the most parts of it. And so it might be that, that actually, so then you can imagine that actually all of our memories might just be. I mean, this is, this is complete speculation on my side, but I could imagine it right, that basically they're the same thing except for the details, right? So there's like a few details that you must change about memory that it can create something completely different, right? Faces, human beings in them. That can be basically one person. That could be the same thing. Actually, there are some theories that believe that every dream that you have, ultimately the objects in them or the, the subjects in them, the other people in them ultimately are somewhat comp copies of yourself. That is a theory. I feel all of that is very spec, spec, speculative. But I could imagine that if you reuse most of your memories all the time and you just change a few things to make them distinct as into these memories that we have, then it's possible that, that we could be extremely efficient at this and we, we don't have to store very much,

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:23:51

in fact. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, uh, yeah, current, so model, uh, that I am purposing is more of even the memory. Is, uh, in a quantum manager.

Johannes Castner: 1:24:04

Okay. That's the reason. But, but why? But what, why do you go

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:24:07

there? Yeah, because why, why I'm going there is, uh, uh, uh, especially, uh, so, uh, if we give, the model says that the concierge is, uh, in, in the different dimension, and you know, we are also talking, the mind is also, uh, in a different dimension then, uh, I mean, there is no significance that memory should be given this That's true. Uh, very. Yeah. Yeah, I can see that. Right.

Johannes Castner: 1:24:38

Yeah. Is that similar? So do you see that similar? So some people would think, I don't, I don't generally go to this, but I've, I've listened to a bunch of videos on, on consciousness. So there is this metaphor of video games, right? So if you go into a video game, you're in an entirely made up new universe, you might be a completely, you might take on a completely different avatar. So you might look completely different from, from what you look like in reality. You might even have a different gender and so on. But when you go in there, your mind and your mind and, and your consciousness and everything that, that you bring that actually from this world into this reduced world, right? Uh, necessarily reduced simple world. So is that a similar thing that what you are proposing here? So we are essentially, we're living on a, in a different world, in a different dimension, as you call it. And, and then it's like we are putting on this video. Helmet and we're then experiencing this world as a classical world, I guess, you know, when we, we live in a, in, in a quantum world, but when we are putting on this gear, you know, do you think this is a useful metaphor? Do you find that Yeah,

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:25:42

yeah, yeah. To, to a great extent. Uh, in fact, to a great extent, uh, in fact, so, uh, that is our only thing is we are not wearing that Oculus headset or something like that. Uh, the brain has its capability to go to that state, that, that in words end point of time. Uh, but, uh, when we want to feel it, uh, we cannot feel it through. The strength solves only difference is. Okay. Uh, if you really want to fill that dimension and that world, I think you have to fill it, uh, through some other, uh, uh, organ, another organs, basically other, uh, uh, capabilities that, uh, has been given to us. And those are not eyes our nose or our scheme or our mouths or those fences, right? and all those things. And that's where I think many people go to that diamond gym, uh, somehow, uh, with meditation, right? So, uh, there is a, there is a capability, uh, within us, uh, wherein, uh, we can go to that diamond. By, uh, controlling our mind, controlling in the sense like settling down our mind or to making our mind still wherein there are many concepts like no mind and all of other things. Uh, and, uh, basically go to that university. Still your mind is active, category, active, uh, it'll not allow you to concentrate on because it's not possible, right?

Johannes Castner: 1:27:15

So, so just to summarize what you just said, I think what I heard, okay. What I, what I heard was basically,, that, that tech, that, um, meditation is a type of technology ultimately, but it's different from other types of technologies to stay with that metaphor of the helmet and the, you know, the, the metaverse or the, the, uh, the sort of reduced world that you go into where the video game, this technology ultimately takes you out of that video game world and puts you into a fuller world by, by meditation. So meditation is the type of technology that ultimately removes the headset and the, um, and the video game kind of environment that we live in and puts us back into that na environment that we actually belong in ultimately, uh, that is consciousness entirely and, and it's a quantum universe. Is that, is that a good summary, do you think That's

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:28:09

Yes. Yes. I think this is a perfect, uh, summary. So that headset is already even as, uh, is to us. To go to that dimension. Okay? And, uh, only three years. Uh, we need to, uh, practice, uh, that, that particular capability you see, uh, it is like, um, you can see, uh, whatever capabilities that has been given to us. Uh, the more we practice, more we must, uh, in, we get much on those capabilities, right? Unless we use, uh, we, we lose our control on those capabilities. I'm saying up to that. So, uh, the medication, okay. I mean, we can call in medication that day, but that capability is already given to us, but we never go, go there. Mostly, uh, uh, we as a common people, so we have lost that control, right? But people, uh, who have been practicing it, so probably to sit for, uh, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, they can go into that dimension. Okay. Probably somebody can go completely into that dimension. Somebody can go personally into that dimension. But whoever does serious meditation, authentic meditation, definitely they get some kind of a test object dimension.

Johannes Castner: 1:29:28

So I can never imagine the, the concept of a meditating robot. But I have to go there because I'm wondering. So, so if we build, if we, if we were to be able to end endow robots with consciousness, would they also have to meditate to get to this, to get back to that state? When, when, when they're embodied, let's say they're embodied, they live in this world, they exist as we do, and now they have consciousness, um, would they have to actually do the same thing? Would they have to meditate to get to this dimension? Or can it be built in that they're always there?

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:30:00

So yeah, probably by that time, uh, if we can, uh, bring, uh, I mean if we can, uh, connect consciousness, uh, to robot. And keep consciousness to the work. Uh, it is not building you consist, but I mean, connecting the work to the consciousness. Now, I think by that time we'll have a mechanism okay. Uh, to, uh, go to that dimension, uh, without doing meditation, right? So medication is something, so partly, uh, it is similar thing, right? So, uh, uh, uh, we can, we can climb, uh, a hill or a mountain, right? With our legs. Uh, but, uh, today we've got lot of many, uh, uh, instrument operators available. Okay? Vehicles A, which we can, uh, climb the hill, very easily, at any, any time. Okay. Uh, we don't need to practice and build our muscles and, uh, strengthen our legs to go there. So same, uh, thing applies here.

Johannes Castner: 1:31:00

So do you think that once we have that ability, we can do the same thing to ourselves, that we in fact are, will be able to go to these various states of consciousness, if you will, or into these different dimensions without much work, without having to meditate? Which I, without having to sit there for 10 minutes? Yes. That's interesting. Maybe we, so just understanding how this works will give us an ability to alter or to, to improve, to, to., how to say, um, enrich our consciousness then if we understand. So the more we understand of the process of what that is, what consciousness is and how it works, would you say even if we can't build it, because it always is there from the beginning, we might be able to utilize it better or harness it better, even for ourselves, not just for the robots, but for ourself.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:31:54

Yes. I think harnessing, uh, is the main point here. Uh, so, uh, because, uh, I mean, enriching it, uh, I'm, I'm not sure, I don't know, uh, uh, but harnessing, yes, of course, uh, we'll be able to harness is better, uh, in a, in a more scientific way rather than going into so many difficult, uh, uh, process of meditation when some people can go, some people cannot go. will come when it is, uh, like couple of switches. And you only to offer that, go to different in invoice, then go to different states kinda thing that is

Johannes Castner: 1:32:31

possible. Then at that point we will see, maybe we will have something. This will be a lot better than, you know, metaverse such things as that. Right? So it will be a competing, uh, it will be a competing in a much better kind of way. I mean much more serious way actually to, to interact with each other directly potentially. If, if this quantum entanglement can then be generalized, if you will, into some sort of nude forms of social media, right? Where consciousness can directly sort of, um, how to say, where, where, where my consciousness and your consciousness are basically can become con one thing, right? Or, or can find its, I don't even know how to phrase it. I mean, it can find its original connection or its own, uh, you know, in this kind of way, uh, easily. Then that's sort of like if, if, if we built that up, Consciously with technology, then we end up in some sort of a conscious, you know, we, we end up in this place basically together. Right? In, in a way you could say that is sort of the next level I could imagine it is sort of the next level social, social network experience. Is that a fair thing to say? Is that possible? Does that make sense? Yes,

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:33:46

that makes perfect sense because, uh, if we, if we agree that, uh, consciousness is very I to party of this universe and very, very fundamental, then somehow we are already connected. Okay? Because, uh, uh, somehow we are connected. So probably we are not realizing it. So, uh, your consciousness and my consciousness is this somehow connected. Only thing is we don't realize, uh, it and a, uh, way, uh, may come, uh, which will, which we can, we can realize. We can realize that, we can probably see, uh, that actually, uh, you and we are connected, right? And that's why a lot of many theories are there in , uh, kind of theory. We all are connected, interconnected, uh, kind of thing. So those theories are already there. And I think to some extent, uh, all the explanations, uh, uh, maybe different, but they are talking the same thing. Uh, the ground, uh, level of reality, which is, uh, the consciousness is all pervading okay everywhere And uh, uh, and we all are connected. Uh, because of our limited understanding, limited view, limited identity, limited, whatever it is, we think

Johannes Castner: 1:35:08

we are. So that's what we have to crack right to, to understand this connection. So if it, if it exists, if it's there, if we, you know, we don't realize it, it's not only the realization, it's also to utilize it in a way that we can really tangibly, for example, have a conversation without a cell phone directly or something like that, or exchange ideas without even opening our mouth or whatever. If that's, if that's possible, right. If that's, that, that will have to translate into some form of something that can be studied. Right. Even, even consciousness in itself. Right now we're, I, it seems to me that we're still really in the beginning. Not withstanding the ideas, you know, like, you know, Daniel Dennett and, and, uh, and Ray Kurtzweil might actually disagree. They might think we're almost there and that, you know, that we're, we're making way too much of this extra dimension and that it may not actually be real and so on. You know, if we believe them, then we're really far right. We're almost there. We've built the mind, basically. We've built a lot of parts of it. Self-driving cars are right around the corner. Um, you know, all of, I mean, I believe that that's probably true and, you know, all of these kinds of narrow AI functions if we put them together, right? It seems to be not too far from that because if we can just put the APIs altogether, right? So then, then we can really have a multi-functional, general type of mind, right, that can do all of the things behaviorally that we can do. without a conscious, what will be difficult is to actually determine when we do have it right. So how do we measure it? How do we know? So they, again, in uh, yeah, integrated information theory to, to, to have something that can measure, we said before, it's a pan psychic approach that believes that there's consciousness everywhere, but is different, right? Because some inch worm, for example, has consciousness, but it has it in a different amount than a human being and so on. And what they're claiming to be able to do, or not maybe right away, but they're working on it, is to be able to measure the amount of consciousness that is in a particular place, or that is, you know, associated, if you will, with a particular brain. And so on. And then if they can do that, that's when we can finally. But, but to me, if you're talking to ChatGPT and if it starts talking, you know, in terms of if it starts saying things like, uh, well, it's very strange. I'm just a binary program, you know, program made out of a lot of binary decisions or whatever. And yet I feel these experiences, I, I have these experiences that I can't explain right. When, when it starts saying things like that. And I hasn't, I don't think it has to my knowledge, said anything like that. But when it starts saying these sorts of things, when, what should we do? Should we believe that it's conscious? You know, at what point, how can we differentiate the thing that is conscious, uh, that is unconscious from the being that is. You know, is that something that you see as a problem? You know, because especially with ChatGPT and all of these things floating around, I, I feel like there is a bit of a problem, right? You, it's very difficult. Now before you know, you see something, you, you hear someone speak, they seem to pass the Turing test, more or less you say, okay, I have to assume it's conscious. So, but now it may not be.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:38:27

Yeah. So, uh, no, I think, uh, uh, this is a little bit different because see, so if you talk about, uh, a generative, uh, AI program like chat, so this is called generative artificial I intelligence, uh, level. So this is a particle of artificial where it, like, if you train a model network, uh, with huge amount of data. So it can generate, uh, some fresh and new content. Okay? Uh, which is, which is not copycast, uh, copy paste kinda thing, right? It's outta view, outta its own intelligence. It can generate. Uh, so, uh, but this is again, nothing to do with, uh, uh, consciousness, right? Because this is adding your, your information, right? So, ChatGPT as we know, has been trained with around 175 billion parameters, uh, which is, uh, kind of, kind of, uh, uh, almost a massive chunk of information that is floating around in the public internet. Uh, it could be articles that you have written. It could be, uh, the social media conversations that you have or the footage that you have posted. Or, uh, uh, the books, uh, those are available video books. Those are available in the public domain . So it has been trained to all those information and it also understands the context of that.

Johannes Castner: 1:39:54

Okay. Yeah. It can also reason, right? So it's also been trained, the codex, it has the ability to do, to write programs that work, right? So it can function, it can reason about inputs and outputs. So it can, given the right inputs, it can produce the right outputs or it can write Python programs and all, all kinds of other programs quite well and document them as how they should be used and so on. It's quite impressive. Yeah. But my point is not whether this thing is co conscious. I know it's not conscious, but my question is more about, uh, how do you tell the difference? So now we know we have some things that are conscious and some things that are not conscious and in interacting with them will be similar, right? Like, like in terms of interaction, in terms of behavioral observation, they're actually identical almost, right? So, so it's very difficult to distinguish one from the other. So is that a problem? Is that a real problem? Like,

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:40:49

so see, one, one, uh, very, uh, clear distinction is again, coming to the hard problem, right? Hard problem of consciousness. So definitely if you are asking a very, uh, uh, very, uh, arrogant or, or very derogative kind question to ChatGPT, ChatGPT really don't mind, it can decline your answer. That is a different thing, but it doesn't hurt it, right? But if you are asking me a question, uh, uh, who's hurting, and then I have got a feeling. And create a perception about we and all other things. So that is, that is very, really clear. So it doesn't have emotion, right? So,

Johannes Castner: 1:41:28

but it could pretend to have it, right? So if people decide, right? So the problem, I think the problem that this, right? So, so the thing is that, you know, Hollywood, we will need, you know, fake actors to play movies, right? So we will have that kind of thing, right? So, and it'll go through all of these emo, it'll fake all of these emotions. It'll say, I love you and I, you know, and I will be home for

dinner at 6: 1:41:53

00 PM and so on, right?

john: 1:41:55

For starters, what should I call you?

Cloe: 1:41:58

I'm Chloe and you. What's your

john: 1:41:59

name? Oh, uh, John. My name is John.

Cloe: 1:42:03

Delight

john: 1:42:04

to meet you. John, could you tell us a little about yourself and what you can do?

Cloe: 1:42:10

Of course, I'm the first personal assistant built by cyber life. I take care of most everyday tasks like cooking, housework, or managing your appointments, for example.

john: 1:42:20

Hmm. And I understand you're the first Android to have passed the touring test. Could you tell us a little more about that?

Cloe: 1:42:27

I really didn't do much. You know, I just spoke with a few humans to see if they could tell the difference between me and a real person, but it was a really interesting experie.

john: 1:42:36

But this is the first time in history that man has created a machine more intelligent than himself. I gather your brain can perform several billion, billion operations per second. Is that right?

Cloe: 1:42:48

Absolutely. But I only exist thanks to the intelligence of the humans who designed me. And you know, they have something I could never have. Really. And what's that? A soul.

Johannes Castner: 1:43:02

And it'll have no meaning to it. It won't even really know what dinner really means. Um, it has no concept of this, like a real internal concept. There will be some number dinner, we will correspond a number, you know, or something. Example.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:43:16

So example is like if you say activity that, uh, I'm going to commit suicide tonight. Okay. So give lot guidance. So don't, uh, don't commit society. I've got a lot of options. You do? What is your problem? Tell it can tell that all those things. But, uh, after that, once the conversation is over, ChatGPT is not going to have a sleepless night. Okay? Like, have, if you have discussed the same thing,

Johannes Castner: 1:43:43

I have no illusion of that. I'm under no illusion that it's not, uh, you know, that it isn't, that it is in any way conscious. I, I completely agree with you. Absolutely no question about that. My worry, though, is that we can tell the difference and that this poses a new problem to us. So, so the fact that we can speak to that, we can waste the time ultimately speaking to things that don't even have, uh, uh, consciousness. Right? But we wouldn't know. So if, if we argue with a political someone, you know something on Facebook, right? Right. Now we think, oh, there's a person there that we can convince otherwise, or something like that, right? But, but if we have, if we are literally talking to robots , we can't tell the difference. We, but will be fooled. Suddenly, the entire internet will become useless to us because in reality, you know, a lot of it, you know, it can produce so much more, more material, so much more content than we can produce. So then very quickly, ultimately the whole internet will be full of these things and it will may even take on a body, like, you know, if I speaking to you, not right now, I can tell it's you, it's your person. You, you have obviously have consciousness, but very soon there's deep fakes. Right? Very soon they can make up some something that looks also like you, right? Or like me or whatever. And we'll say things that are predicted to exactly to say the same things. So there is this problem that, not that these things are conscious, but the problem that we are populating the world with unconscious things that behave as though they're conscious. And I see that this is a huge problem, right? That it's a sort of dystopia we can go down to, but suddenly we no longer really know whether a lot of the people or the things that we talk to are actually things of people.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:45:25

True, true. Yes. I, I, I, uh, do agree, uh, in that, and, uh, probably, uh, uh, maybe, uh, so we are, we are trying a lot of, uh, so tech, I mean, talking to, uh, uh, I mean if you talk about ai, uh, machine learning and all other, uh, things. So, um, I think business can, uh, market it in a different way, right? So kind of, uh, self alarming, self enriching self, uh, kind of thing. Uh, but the reality is different. Uh, in fact, coming from a very, uh, technical, uh, background, it is basically the play of the information and data that you have. Okay? And, uh, you have got a, you have got a system, uh, which, which can actually do things probably better than one human or two human or humans. So, uh, in terms of processing that use amount of data, Okay. So that is ultimately whatever we are thinking, ai, but, uh, it is not the actual intelligence. Okay? If you talk about intelligence, uh, its, its a different dimension, uh, which I think none of this AI algorithms or ai, uh, uh, models, uh, will have or okay, it is not. Uh, but, uh, we are, we are just, uh, thinking, uh, that it is intelligent. It is basically your intelligence. It is not it's intelligence. It is your intelligence, and it is processing in a better way, okay? And as it is used collective information, uh, an intelligence from millions, billions of people, okay? Uh, processing it for a single human, uh, is, is difficult, right? So that's where AI is kind of a method is doing. But neither it has got any intelligence, uh, in the real sense. Uh, not, it cannot produce something which is completely outta of, uh, out of the world. It cannot, okay. Again, it is, uh, uh, producing something which already has consumed,

Johannes Castner: 1:47:42

it's echoing and parroting back things to us. Exactly. We're they're in the loop. We're basically victims of it. Right. Because you could say that, you know, this echo thing is destroying any real, I mean, I feel like they're just destroying something about our consciousness. So, so we we're DeVol I mean, in some ways I feel like they're, the mind is devolving where we add this thing because, you know, now we are, you know, just talking to parrots, , we're basically talking to an echo box , and it's just reflecting old things back to us. Nothing new, nothing creative is being put into this process. Maybe some ideas that we.. That's hard to say because we may be, by reflecting with all of this human, past human consciousness, we are actually are coming up with new ideas. It's also possible.

Utpal Chakraborty: 1:48:28

When about creativity, those creativity are actually contributing the most to our evolution of our mind, our our what you call our intelligence, right? So those creativity. So whatever creative thinking that you are doing today, whatever new music you are composing today, okay? Whatever new kind of a mathematical formula, something you are developing today, whatever we have good poetry that you are writing are today. That is again, contributing through the evolution the most. Of course, I told you every and everything is contributing. Okay. Frankly, we're thinking something, but nobody knows, but it's again, contributing.

Johannes Castner: 1:49:05

Wow, beautiful. This is very inspirational. Makes me feel really, really great. This show is published every Wednesday uh at 10:00 AM London time that is,

2: 1:49:17

00 AM in Los Angeles or on the West Coast, and 5:00 AM on the East coast. Please give us your comments, tell us what you like, what you don't like, rate the show highly if you can. If you are on a podcast platform. And give us a thumbs up if you're on YouTube, subscribe if you haven't already, so that you don't miss a show. And, give us your feedback as much as possible. Next week I will meet with Enrico Panay, who is an ethicist, and we'll talk about ethics and consciousness as well as a concept known as Semantic Capital.

Enrico Panai: 1:49:52

Ethics is something, uh, that is always related to somebody else. It's, uh, we can say that it's a bit like, uh, uh, kissing. You need somebody else to kiss or to be kissed. You cannot kiss yourself. It doesn't make any sense. So just to, to, it's a, a kind of social product.