Federico Faggin on consciousness and physics

I came across Federico's work via a mention of it on Bernardo Kastrup's forum.

Subsequently I investigated his thoughts on his foundation's web site where they are laid out in a series of 7 articles -- which I've collated in a word document attached below for the convenience of anyone wanting to read them without ploughing through separate web pages.
-- read the series from the page linked to above.

I'll also post one of his many Youtube videos for your perusal:



The reason I'm posting this is to get your thoughts and impressions. To me it's very interesting because Federico is a bona fide scientist, who designed the first commercial microprocessor, but also appears to have seriously taken on board the idea that consciousness is primal, and is looking for a way to develop new physics and mathematics to accommodate his ideas.

I came across Federico's work via a mention of it on Bernardo Kastrup's forum.

Subsequently I investigated his thoughts on his foundation's web site where they are laid out in a series of 7 articles -- which I've collated in a word document attached below for the convenience of anyone wanting to read them without ploughing through separate web pages.

I'll also post one of his many Youtube videos for your perusal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txh3qAcFM5s

The reason I'm posting this is to get your thoughts and impressions. To me it's very interesting because Federico is a bona fide scientist, who designed the first commercial microprocessor, but also appears to have seriously taken on board the idea that consciousness is primal, and is looking for a way to develop new physics and mathematics to accommodate his ideas.

Now HERE's a person who we need to interview.

Now HERE's a person who we need to interview.

He's got money too! 

Now HERE's a person who we need to interview.

Really think he nails it. 

I'm sure like all theories of reality, there are flaws and holes in his, but I think his is the best fit that I've heard.

Like him: I don't think materialist science is absolutely wrong per se, I just think science isn't acknowledging the thing that underlays what they are perceiving as matter. 

Yes, physics is as correct as we need it to be to predict large scale "physical" events, but it falls short when trying to probe the non-physical sub-nature of things. This is because the physical aspect of things is an illusional phenomenon based on and created by, consciousness. You will have a very hard time probing consciousness with something that is an approximation, or actually a flat out illusion.

I particularly like the fact that his model also defines a space (the "i space") that contains the objective stuff we all see as our universe. It is what I have been calling the "objective data set" that we use as the basis of creating our daily reality scene. And that is as opposed to the "subjective data-set", which is personal to us, and is what our dreams are comprised of.

Interesting that like Jaques Vallee, Faggin was a pioneer in early computer technology. Vallee mentions working with Faggin in the appendix of Vol. 3 of Forbidden Science.

This, on Spirituality vs Religion.

http://www.fagginfoundation.org/articles...tuality-2/

Religion, on the other hand, has neither a clear-cut methodology to collect evidence, nor a way to change the doctrine based on evidence, and these are the main reasons why the author believes that science and religion can never be unified. They represent two fundamentally irreconcilable world views.

With regard to spirituality, however, the situation is different because spirituality is based on experimental evidence, even if this is only the evidence of first-person experiences.

I'm sure that many here will share my frustration at the reactions when describing myself as spiritual but not religious. From both the religious and the atheists I am accused of a cop-out. Both seem to think I am pandering to the other view instead of committing to their uncompromising worldview. 

The media don't understand this either. Whenever I see debates on TV about, for example, the afterlife, I find myself watching a group of atheists confronting representatives from various religions. By including different religions, the TV producers seem to think they are covering all the bases.

This, on Spirituality vs Religion.

http://www.fagginfoundation.org/articles...tuality-2/


I'm sure that many here will share my frustration at the reactions when describing myself as spiritual but not religious. From both the religious and the atheists I am accused of a cop-out. Both seem to think I am pandering to the other view instead of committing to their uncompromising worldview. 

The media don't understand this either. Whenever I see debates on TV about, for example, the afterlife, I find myself watching a group of atheists confronting representatives from various religions. By including different religions, the TV producers seem to think they are covering all the bases.

Whenever I see debates on TV about, for example, the afterlife, I find myself watching a group of atheists confronting representatives from various religions.

It's a real shame. I think they do it on purpose for devilment just to wind us all up TBH.

TV has never been about anything other than ratings.  Battles of Titans are always good TV and the atheist vs Christian/Jew/Hindu/Islamist debate is a good draw.

The more thoughtful, less dogmatic "spiritualist" just doesn't seem acerbic enough.

This, on Spirituality vs Religion.

http://www.fagginfoundation.org/articles...tuality-2/


I'm sure that many here will share my frustration at the reactions when describing myself as spiritual but not religious. From both the religious and the atheists I am accused of a cop-out. Both seem to think I am pandering to the other view instead of committing to their uncompromising worldview. 

The media don't understand this either. Whenever I see debates on TV about, for example, the afterlife, I find myself watching a group of atheists confronting representatives from various religions. By including different religions, the TV producers seem to think they are covering all the bases.

I get you Kamarl- 

Take solace that there are lots of us, and in the fact that your world view is an indication of the fact that you actually have two open eyes and one open mind.

I watched the posted video and am now 1/3 through the documents combined by ML.

I think there is one deep flaw to his construct. 

He says:

Meaning is an inner property of consciousness, and meaning is meaningless for a system that has no interiority, like a computer. And sure enough, if we were robots our life would have no meaning. We would walk around like zombies and our life would have absolutely no relevance to us, or to the life of the cosmos. But there is meaning for living systems, as we can verify for ourselves! 

But he states quite clearly that consciousness is omnipresent and the other side of the coin from matter.

Therefore even "non-living" matter must be related in some way to consciousness.