← New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
An Open-Ended Conversation with Federico Faggin
00:49:14
An Open-Ended Conversation with Federico Faggin Federico Faggin created the self-aligned MOS silicon-gate technology, which made possible memory chips, CCD image sensors, and the microprocessor. He designed the Intel 4004, 8008,
Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:00]
Jeffrey Mishlove
New Thinking Allowed is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit. The topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website at CIHS Thinking Allowed Conversations on the Leading Edge of Knowledge and Discovery with psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove. Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. Today we're going to have an open ended conversation with Federico Fagin. Now let me tell you right now, I regard Federico as potentially one of the most important significant guests ever on the New Thinking Allowed channel. Many of you know that I've interviewed Bernardo Kastrup over a dozen times and I regard Bernardo's work as very important because he comes from a science background as a computer scientist and he argues very, very cogently for the primacy of conscious. On one occasion I asked Bernardo who else did he know in the field of philosophy, people arguing for what is known as the idealist position in philosophy. Who would he recommend? Besides himself, of course, who would be the best? He told me, he said even better than himself, he said, is Federico Fagin. Federico received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation from President Obama in 2010. He is best known for designing the first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004. After that he led development of the Intel 8008 and 8080 microprocessors. Then he went on to found Zilog, the first company solely dedicated to microprocessors, and led to the development of the Zilog Z80 and Z8 microprocessors. And I'll mention parenthetically that in those years when I also lived in California in the 1980s and 90s, one of my best friends at the time, Dean Brown, who I've spoken about on this channel before, worked for Federico, designing the software for the Z80 microprocessor. Federico is author of from the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness. He's also a contributor to the anthology Artificial Intelligence versus Natural Intelligence, along with Nobel laureates such as Roger Penrose and others, and his most recent book called Irreducible Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. Oh wait, one more thing. Federico has been a guest previously on New Thinking Allowed, talking about his life history, his mystical experience, and his theory of consciousness. I think you'll get much more out of today's interview if you watch that one. First, I'm going to link to it in the upper right hand corner of Your screen have a computer capable of capturing that link. I recommend you watch that video first, if you haven't already. Federico is based in Northern California and now I'll switch over to the Internet video. Welcome, Federico. It is a pleasure to be with you once again.
- [04:17]
Federico Fagin
Yes, likewise. I'm looking forward to this.
- [04:21]
Jeffrey Mishlove
We had a long conversation, but it's been many months. I'm encouraging our viewers to view the previous video. You spent a lot of time going over your very extensive history building microprocessors. And then we talked as well about your personal mystical experience that came to you unexpected at a time in your life when you were pretty much a materialist, reductionist, engineer and scientist. Then you began, after a lengthy period of integrating that experience and coming to terms with it, you began developing your own theories about the nature of consciousness. I think your theories are very significant. I really want to delve into them. Your personal story is fascinating, but I'm even more fascinated personally by your theories. So let's start by talking about free will. I know that's very central to your work.
- [05:27]
Federico Fagin
Yeah, well, free will. Free will is the ability that we have to choose the path of our understanding and of our experiencing freely. Meaning not because the brain as a mechanism pushes us one way or another, but because we have, we are conscious. And, and so because everything is interconnected, no matter where I start, I have to go around the loop. Because. Because. Because otherwise we won't understand. So. So free will, for example, is essential in my theory to the existence of consciousness that has some causal power in our life and in the world. Because if there was no free will, then consciousness would be absolutely worth nothing. Because it would mean that the brain makes the decisions of what he wants as a machine and consciousness goes with the ride and it can do nothing about that, which is actually much of the scientism worldview that exists today. And I use the word scientism to distinguish from science with the capital S, which is what is the work of the best scientists in the world. But unfortunately, many people in science and technology are embracing a very dumbed down view of reality, which I call scientism, that believes in materialism and reductionism, which has been already discredited by quantum physics. Quantum physics is the theory that describes the deeper world, the deeper reality, out of which the reality in space and time, the objects that interacting space and time emerge. So free will, therefore, if we didn't have free will, our conscious, our consciousness would be useless. It would be ap phenomenal, which is exactly what most scientists scientism Minister of Scientism believe in. They believe that consciousness is really an epiphenomenon that has no causal power. So in my work on consciousness early on, it was clear to me that consciousness and free will had to be linked in an inextricable way. Because if we didn't have free will, consciousness wouldn't matter. Though consciousness could exist without free will. And in the theory that I have, consciousness can indeed exist without free will. And we'll talk about later. But free will without consciousness doesn't make any sense. And therefore it would appear on top of it. It would appear from an observer outside of the system. It would appear as randomness, which is exactly what quantum physics describes with the collapse of the wave function. So we'll revisit this. But one of the crucial, crucial conclusion of my theory is that the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics is actually not a random event that nobody can understand why happens. But it is actually a free will decision of the conscious field that is observed. Not, not an effect of the observer, but a decision of the conscious field that is observed. For example, if I observe an electron, is the field of electron that is conscious, and then makes the decision of what electron shows up in space and time when you make the measurement.
- [09:38]
Jeffrey Mishlove
So in other words, you're saying that if you observe an electron, it's the electron that's responsible for the observation, not yourself.
- [09:48]
Federico Fagin
Now it's the field of electrons. See, the consciousness is not in the electron. In physics, the electron is not an object. The electron is not a particle in the sense of something autonomous and separate from the rest. In quantum physics, the electron is the state of a field, the state of the field of electrons, just like a wave of the sea. The wave of the sea is a phenomenon of the sea inseparable from the sea. So we see a wave, but the properties of the wave are fundamentally the property of the sea that manifest in the wave. The same with the electrons. The electrons is the state of the field inseparable from the field of electrons. And its properties are the properties of the field. Which field in this new theory is conscious and has free will. So it is the field of electrons that decides then where the electron will appear when you do a measurement. Because you have set up an expert.
- [10:55]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Okay, let me make sure I understand exactly what you're saying. It sounds simple, but I have a feeling it's much more complex.
- [11:04]
Federico Fagin
Go for it. Go for it.
- [11:05]
Jeffrey Mishlove
I heard you say the field of electrons is conscious.
- [11:11]
Federico Fagin
Yes. In this theory, the field of electrons is conscious and I will explain later why I can say that for now let's leave it alone. But the important point is that if the field of electrons were not conscious, then I could not interpret the collapse of the wave function as a decision of free will of that field. Because it will be just like science is saying will be a random event. A random event, unexplainable, but random and non algorithmic, which is what science has found out. The collapse of the wave function is pure randomness. But what does it mean? Nobody knows. Now with this theory, I'm telling you, what it means is that that field has made a decision. From the outside. He looks like Randall, the outside observer, but for the field that has made the decision, that's exactly what he wants to do.
- [12:06]
Jeffrey Mishlove
You're suggesting that the field of electrons has wants, has desires, it's consciousness absolutely.
- [12:14]
Federico Fagin
Has consciousness and has free will, just like we do. In fact, I'm suggesting that we are fields ourselves, controlling the body, which is like a drone. In other words, the body is not the consciousness is not in the drone, but it therefore is not in the body, it is in the field. When you control a drone that you know is flying over, you know, I don't know, Afghanistan or whatever, right? So if you fly that drone, what you experience is what the drone sees, where it is at. Okay, but that experience is not in the drone, and it's not even in our brain. It is actually in the consciousness that controls our body.
- [13:01]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, it almost sounds very dualistic, what you're saying that there's a field that is controlling a machine. It's like Arthur Kessler's book, the Ghost in the Machine.
- [13:12]
Federico Fagin
Well, there is a field, but remember what I told you, electrons do not exist. They are states of the field. The field exists not the particles, not the atoms. The atoms are state of other fields you see, inseparable from the fields I'm talking about. That the material world is not disconnected with the deeper world where we have mind and spirit, and where spirit is the aspect of us that has to do with meaning, with the meaning of information. The meaning of information, which is not even talked about in science, because information in science is simply a probability, is the co logarithm of the probability that you might observe an event or a symbol. That's all there is in physics. There is no meaning for information. And if you take away the meaning, you take away our humanity with that. So these definitions are basically covering up the fact that we are humans, that we have meaning, that life is meaningful, that the universe is meaningful. Because you will start with something that hasn't have any meaning. Would information make any sense to you if all that it meant information was the recognition of a symbol? For example, I, if I were to speak in Italian, if you don't know Italian, you recognize my words as sounds, you know that those are symbols, but you don't understand the meaning. So would that be information for you? No, it would be simply be symbols without meaning. That's what science is saying. But if you speak, if I speak in English, you understand. So the meaning is much more than just the sound of the word.
- [15:01]
Jeffrey Mishlove
I've heard it said, incidentally, that you could say that there's only one electron in the entire universe and it's everywhere.
- [15:12]
Federico Fagin
When the electron appears, it appears with certain properties which are exactly the same. And from the point of view of physics, you cannot distinguish one electron from another. In fact, their statistics is governed by Fermi Dirac statistics, which is a completely different statistics than you know, than a statistic where, you know, that would be like Boltzmann statistics, where you can actually recognize the various objects that you are interacting. Statistics of electrons, for example, obeys exactly the rules of objects that are, that are all the same and indistinguishable one from the other. That's why, that's why someone says there is only one electron. Well, yeah, in conceptually there is only one electron, but they, they may appear in different places in time. So, you know, the fact that they are in a different place makes them a different electron in reality.
- [16:08]
Jeffrey Mishlove
How would I distinguish between the field that is me and the field that is electrons?
- [16:15]
Federico Fagin
Well, you distinguish because first of all, these fields don't need a human being to actually interact with each other. They can interact with their own. The particles which are the states of the electrons are actually like the words that I speak. Those are dynamic symbols that I use to communicate the meaning. So the fields, the quantum fields talk to each other. The fields talk, communicate with each other. What are they communicating? Their own meaning. Of course, we, you know, I can hardly know your meaning. You know, I know a little bit of my own meaning, but the meaning that I have my within myself is also a meaning which is not a number. The meaning has nothing to do with numbers. Just like qualia, which is the sensation and feelings that we have have nothing to do with numbers. They go beyond numbers. The numbers can only, can only measure. You know, there's something that exists in space and time in a classical, in the classical world, those are conducible to numbers. You can measure them you can, and they are real numbers. But the quantum states are, they are described with vectors whose components are, they are not real numbers. They are complex numbers. And those complex numbers are not real. They're not numbers really, because they, they are, they represent a wave. They don't represent, they don't represent a, a quantity that you can measure. No measurement will give you, no measurement in space time will give you a complex number. Because the complex number, you know, the imaginary part of a complex number which is square root of minus 1 cannot be obtained by any operation with numbers. It is something beyond. It behaves operationally like if it were a number, but it's not a number. Yeah, you see, that's why it's called imaginary. So in the vector that, the N dimensional vector that represent the quantum state of a field, in that vector, the components which are complex numbers represent probability amplitudes. They don't represent, they don't represent things. They represent what we can know about things. And what we can know about things are only probabilities. So just, just that alone, think about that. That means that the nature of that, of that state is like a thought, it's not like a real thing. It's a thought before the thought becomes a real thing. Okay? And that's what quantum physics describes. Quantum physics gives you the evolution of a quantum state of a field, for example. But then if you want to make a measurement of a quantum field of electrons, for example, you have to set up an experiment. And in the interaction between the quantum field of electrons and the measurement instrument, you will find an electron will appear. In the instrument that measures the electron. Well, what appears first of all is not the electron. What appears is after something. This interaction between the two fields have created something that gets amplified and eventually results in something in a classical symbol, something that you and I can see. Because quantum, quantum information cannot be seen, cannot be known. The no cloning theorem is saying that even a qubit that would be the equivalent of a bit of a computer, a bit on a computer is 0 or 1 and you can know exactly 0, 1. If I gave you a quantum bit and ask you to find out what the state of the quantum bit is, you will never, you will never know because no matter in which way you measure it, you will find always 1 or 0. But the actual qubit represents a direction in space, in three dimensional space. So it has an infinity of possible states. And when you measure it, you have to measure it in one direction and you disturb it so that you measure 1 or 0 in the direction that you impose on that qubit, you see how it works. So I mean, it's really mind boggling if you think about it. But it's actually saying that we, in our interaction, we are not spectators that look at the world. Like in classical physics, I don't look at a movie independent of my presence. We are participant, but it's more than that. We are actually observer. Observe an agent, all three rolled in one. And depending on how we interact, we can be at one moment, we can be observer, then can be observed and they can be actor or agent.
- [21:33]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, I think it's very interesting, Federico, that you came to this work as an entrepreneur, an engineer and a scientist all together. My experience is kind of funny in I have a degree in parapsychology and one of my professors at Berkeley was a business professor, C. West Churchman. And we had this conversation about free will and he said, yes, I know the physicists say there's no free will, but in management science there certainly is.
- [22:09]
Federico Fagin
We acknowledge free will even in the Justice Department. I mean, if we didn't have free will, why, why do we put a thief of a murderer in prison if, you know, it did what he had to do? Free will, lack of free will. The absence of free will means a deterministic universe which is already being disqualified by quantum physics. The indeterminism of quantum physics is absolute. There is no way around that. So, you know, it's crazy to say that there is no free will. It's basically, you know, basically we have called randomness what is actually free will. And of course in the classical reality there is indeed determinism, but that is valid only if you can maintain the classicality of that reality. And we can do that, for example, like a computer, for example, is a classical system deterministic, entirely deterministic. Unless you, the computer asks for information from outside itself and you give an information that comes from you, which are not deterministic. But as far as the computer works within itself, it is completely deterministic. So this computer, you know, behaves in that way as long as we can maintain the environmental conditions within certain limits which are quite restrictive. For example, temperature should not be below, say 50 degrees, minus 50 degrees centigrade or above 75 degrees centigrade, which is a pretty, you know, is a better range than we can live comfortably. But, but, but certainly is not, is not this stuff that exists in nature. In nature, temperatures. Look at, look at the temperature of the sun or whatever, right? So the point that I'm making is that as long as you keep the environment under those conditions. The distinction that we have made about what is zero and what is one, which we are the one to create, those distinctions are maintained and therefore the machine will operate deterministically without making any errors. But the moment that you get out of that range of operation, then the computer will most likely fail, and that's the end of that.
- [24:39]
Jeffrey Mishlove
When you talk about a hierarchy of monads, a hierarchy, you use the term saeti. I think the hierarchy is very interesting because at the top, hierarchy is what you call one. And it sounds very much like Plato's use of one. It's another way of talking, I think, about a universal consciousness.
- [25:06]
Federico Fagin
No, it's about talking about a universe which is holistic. One instead of two or three or four is because the universe of physics is both dynamic and holistic. Means is never the same instant after instant. And there are no separate parts. Everything is interconnected in the universe. And that is what quantum physics is saying. But quantum physics stops there. I say one thing more. We need to start with the universe that not only is dynamic and holistic, but also wants to know itself. Now, now I'm connecting physics with spirituality and also with the, with the deepest wisdom traditions that, that we have. Because, you know, if you look at that, and if we look at the idea that there is that reality is holographic, meaning that the part, the part sufficiently large part contains the whole, then we have the need therefore to recognize that we are parts, whole of one. And exactly. Just like every cells, every cell of our body is also holistic in the sense that it contains the genome of the egg that created the entire organism. So all the information of the organism, of the entire organism, is within each of its parts. Now think about that. Is the computer built the same way? No. Every part of the computer is a transistor. Transistor is a switch. On, off, on, off, on, off. What does the transistor know of the whole? Almost nothing. At best, it knows 0 or 1, its own state. That's it. A cell has the potential knowledge of the whole organism, which means that the cell, later on in its own life can express aspects of itself that were not present at its own birth. That's what's called epigenetics. Thirty years ago, if you were saying the word epigenetics, they would put you in a cross. Everybody knows that that's impossible. Those are the dogmas of scientism. And the dogmas are scientists. It's time to stop with this because they simply tell you what you cannot say. Or do when in fact you future is open and we, we are, you know, and we have the capacity to go beyond the limitations that are self imposed, Especially the limitations that we have to start with a reality in, in which there is no spiritual element in it. It's only material. How can you get something non material for a material universe? It's impossible. How can you get free will for something that is not, doesn't have it? Because it's supposed to follow laws. Even if the laws are, you know. Even if the laws are, are, are in, you know, indeterministic. They tell you that there's simply randomness. We don't understand why, but it's randomness. So shut up and calculate. So that's what. But that's what you're told, you know. Why is the quantum state of a field has two properties that nobody can understand why they should be there. Number one. The state of the field cannot be copied, cannot be reproduced. It's called the no cloning theorem. In quantum physics. The no cloning theorem says. That's it, you know, you cannot, you know. The state cannot be, cannot be copied. Look at that. My state, the state of my field, which I claim is a quantum field, also cannot be copied. I'm the only one that can know my own state and I cannot reproduce it. Even myself. I cannot reproduce it. The love that I feel for a son, I cannot reproduce it. Not even to him, you know, I cannot give to him what I feel. I can translate what I feel into symbols to convey some of the meaning. That love that I know within myself, I know. But that's all I can do. The second property of the state of the quantum field is that if you make a measurement, if you were to make a measurement of that state, the maximum information that you can get is one bit on classical bit per quantum bit. I already mentioned that the quantum bit is an infinity of possible states representable as a point on the surface of a sphere. A direction in space, any direction in space is one of the possible states of the qubit. And the qubits are entangled. So the entangle means that they have some, some states which are in common that we cannot know because we. It's impossible to know, to measure, unless we prepare them. But we can prepare them for a few qubits, but you cannot prepare them for the gazillions of qubits that any kind of system is. So basically the existence of entanglement is telling us that the universe, the universe is truly holistic. That's why I Said earlier, Quantum physics has told us there are no separable parts. Not even electrons are, you know, they have properties in common. If and if I measure one electron here instantaneously on the other side of the galaxy, that state that was in common will, will, will become active in that other. In that other particle, you know, instantaneously. So, wow, that violates the locality of the. Of physics. Which of course is one of the reasons why Einstein was very much against that. It took 80 years. But now everybody has to accept that entanglement exists. Not only that, but everything is entangled with everything else. But we don't know. We can never know because we cannot measure, measure unless we prepare something. So all this is saying that we, you know, we have adopted as a view of the world scientism that is based on classical physics, which is being completely thrashed by the principles of quantum physics. They are saying otherwise, but because nobody understands them. And very few physicists have had the courage to go deeper and deeper into what they mean, what they mean. You know, we simply are happy to apply the math and simply solve problems that are practical problems. But we are not solving our human problems because we have, we have basically shoved them under the rug by starting world in which there is no consciousness and no free will. So I'm saying we need to start with a universe with one that is conscious and has free will. And if we start with that, then we can actually show why quantum physics must have the properties that nobody understood before now. The property of, you know, of, of, of the state of a quantum field are exactly the property of conscious experience. My conscious experience is private, non reproducible, non clonable. And what you can know, what anybody can know, including, including myself, of my feeling, because. But I know in the sense that I can put into symbols is only 1 bit per functor bit. So if you accept that consciousness and free will must be taken as properties of the universe, they are our properties. And no one can explain how they may arise from matter and space and time, which don't have those properties. So where are they coming from? And the fact that we know that we are conscious and we know that we have a certain amount of free will, cannot do everything we want. In fact, very little we can do that with this free. But we can do some stuff that is free. We got free will. Then we can explain even to a child. While quantum physics must have this property. Because quantum physics must reflect the deeper properties of the fields, of the quantum fields among which we are there.
- [34:09]
Jeffrey Mishlove
You pointed out that entanglement is crucial. And I'd like to explore the ethical implications of entanglement with you because under the impression most people grow up in a world where everything is thought of in classical terms, which is pretty much dualistic. You've got good and evil. You've got. Got the inside and the outside, me and you. And the idea of separateness. The notion of entanglement suggests nothing is separate. So you can't like devote your whole life, for example, as many people do, to fighting what they believe is evil because we're connected to that. It would be like trying to cut off our own hand.
- [34:58]
Federico Fagin
Absolutely. Yeah. But from, from the point of view of science and, you know, entanglement is no property other than the fact that this, you know, states can be entangled, period. There is no moral. No, no, there is nothing. Have you ever read the word love in a. In a book of physics? The word love isn't used. Or courage, or ethics. No, it's all about things that interact with each other according to certain laws. That's the end of it. But that cannot be the entire world. But that's why scientism says that consciousness, free will doesn't exist. And consciousness is epiphenomenal. So everything that distinguishes us from the machines has been eliminated by fiat, by definition. Not because it is so, but because it has been defined so to please those that believe that the world is made this way. And of course, then the consequences of this is what you see now in the world. And it will get worse, of course, because now, now artificial intelligence is the ultimate, the ultimate riches or the ultimate damnation, if it is the ultimate riches if people use it ethically, or the ultimate damnation if it is used to simply manipulate us better. And I'm afraid that it is likely that the second hypothesis is closer to the truth than the first.
- [36:26]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, that gets us back to the topic of free will, doesn't it? That we are relatively easily manipulated because we don't have 100% free will. We're not totally in control. I think you describe the human organism as being a mixture of free will and determinism.
- [36:49]
Federico Fagin
Our body itself does not have free will. The free will is in the field that controls the body. Actually, it is a form of hypnotized by the body that we believe to be the body. Right. So every time I say we, you think the body. No, when I say we. With this new theory, we fields, they control the body. When the body dies, the field doesn't go anywhere. The field, it continues to exist. The field of electron has been here with us since the beginning of the, of the universe. It is all the electrons have never changed in 13.8 billion years. You see, so we have to change completely the way we understand what we are. But of course, at the first time you say something that goes a little bit askew of what scientism say. They, you know, they are castigated and nobody wants to listen to you because obviously you don't understand anything. But you know, but this is exactly what, you know, what causes the problems that we have. Because if we, if we eliminate the heart, meaning the ability to work together, the compassion, the, the empathy, the, the stuff that unites us is eliminated because all that exists is reductionism. So, and competition when instead should be cooperation. I mean, if the world, if the universe is holistic and everything is interconnected, the good that I do to, to the world will return to me. But so the bad that I do to the world will return to me. You see, only if you think that you are separate and you can get away by doing some bad things to others. You know, you, you think that you get away, but that's not the way the world works. Because, because if it doesn't come back to you in your life, it will come back to you in the next life because we do not die. You see, if you, if you think that when you're, when you're dead, everything is done and you don't have to worry about it. No, no, you should be worrying about. Because. But, but not in the sense of a punitive way. In a punitive way. Because the purpose, our purpose is to know ourselves exactly like the purpose of one. We are emissaries of one that through our knowing ourselves, one knows itself. Because if one is, is the totality of what exists and is all interconnected, even the negative things that occurs in our life are still part of one. They're still within one. So they are all properties of one. So they are, they are, you know, they may be misconceptions that needs to be clearer, but fundamentally, you know, they cannot get away from that. Is, it would be logical to say that we are the bad guys and one is the good guy. No, we are part, integral part of one. So the good and the bad that exist in the world is part of one.
- [39:50]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Which would suggest, if I understand you correctly, and frankly, this is my philosophy, so you can tell me if my philosophy is in accordance with your theory, which is that I think the appropriate stance to take is one of love and affection for everyone and everything. All the time.
- [40:14]
Federico Fagin
Yeah, that's true. That's true, though it's not easy. There are certain fundamental ideas here that are exactly the opposite of what scientists say. For example, if you want to find out things, the things that you need to find out, they are outside of you, okay? So everything is outside and you have no inside. If consciousness is epiphenomenal, forget it. You can throw it away, you know, is useless. So we might as well forget about the feelings and all that kind of stuff, because they don't mean anything, because only rationality is what matters. So little by little, we will disconnect ourselves with our interiority, where actually we have the solutions of our problems and we are moved outside of ourselves. And so we lose ourselves outside of us. And that's, of course, that's what happened to me when I was in my 50s, in my late 40s, found out that I was very unhappy, despite all reasons to have to be very happy. And I wasn't. So what's wrong with this picture, right? What was wrong with that picture is that I basically disconnected from myself, from my interiority, from my real source of love, source of joy, source of satisfaction, sorts of connectedness with others in the world. Because, you know, living in a competitive world, you had to beat, you know, the competition. And it's that this is what we are told to do since we are children. We are conditioned not to do exactly the opposite of what will give us peace and happiness and satisfaction, the joy to working together in collaboration, in cooperation, to build things together instead of destroying things. What is the primary use of technology, armaments? What is the primary use of, you know, of science? Power is much more power than knowledge because knowledge is the way to power. And instead of the way of knowing who we are, who are we? No, no, that doesn't matter. I mean, there's nothing there anyway. So let's find out, at least get some power while we are here to know that to solve the problems, we need to solve it first. We need to solve our own problems, our own misconception of who we are, our own misunderstanding, the traumas that we bring with us. That is the only way to be better, to move into more light, more joy, more love. You know, it can only happen if we work on ourselves from within ourselves, without taking responsibility for our unhappiness. That that must happen. Not with a pill. I mean, today the solution of all the problems is basically from the outside. You go to the doctor, gives you a medicine and. And all the. All the problems that come when you, when you use drugs instead of, you know, instead of using intelligence in your own capacity to cure yourself. Competition instead of cooperation. The world runs on competition. Everything is a comp, is a competition because it's enshrined in the principle of life. This, the survival of the fitness. You know, what does that mean, survival? I live and you die. I live because I am more fit than you. That's what happens. This is the mindset today. Instead of working together and creating something, taking care of our ecosystem. No, no, no, no, no more, you know, dominate. We dominate the system and we destroy the system in that dominance. So that's another bad one. Life, you know, life. We are machines. We are machines. That's the other big one. We are machines. So don't, don't fight AI because AI is better than you, right? You know, they, you ask chat GPT about something that you don't know, it gives you a decent answer. Wow. But then also the, the encyclopedia is better than you there. Okay? So because. Because something is written, is repeated by, by a machine, doesn't mean that, you know, that it is better than you. You see, we have lost the idea, we have lost the concept of interiority. There is nothing inside because we have been told that there is nothing there. And so the meaning of life doesn't exist. Scientists say the universe is pointless. There is nothing, that it's all random. It's all randomness. So don't worry about it. Just live your life and, you know, try to get this most out of this life because that's, that's all there is. That's it. And people live under this, you know, so no wonder that then people, you know, try to get the most out of these lives since we have been told that that's all we got.
- [45:22]
Jeffrey Mishlove
You were involved yourself for decades in this competitive world and in fact, if I understand correctly, you left intel to set up another company, Zilog, that became a competitor.
- [45:37]
Federico Fagin
Isn't that the American way? Come on.
- [45:39]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, if we are one with everything, we must also be one with this urge to dominate, this urge to control, this urge to be separate.
- [45:50]
Federico Fagin
Absolutely. Because there is a duality here which is foundational. Do you work for yourself or do you work for all, meaning the others as well as yourself? And if you be, if you, if you choose that there are, there is only that choice is a, is a true bifurcation there. If you go, if you work for yourself, you will simply become ever more unhappy because you will destroy everything that you have inside. Because everything. The only way to do what you're asking is to enrich yourself, you know, basically, you know, get more thing more stuff out there because at the, you know, because you go against what is in here. What is in here is a. Is about love, joy, compassion, empathy, the good of living together. If we don't go inside and find our own compass, certainly we don't find it outside. And it is there, and I can guarantee you that. But you got to do the work.
- [46:53]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, Federico, I can tell that you are speaking from experience. You've been there.
- [46:59]
Federico Fagin
Yeah, I've been there.
- [47:01]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Once again, it has been a real pleasure to be with you, to hear your ideas. Federico, I feel a deep connection to your work and I'm hopeful that we will have many more conversations in the future after your next book comes out.
- [47:17]
Federico Fagin
There are enough people now that really want to understand this and they want to really reflect and not just go with the crowd.
- [47:26]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Well, that's why I'm hopeful that we can have many more conversations because you're addressing deep, deep issues that you don't. I think most people will hear you and say, yes, of course, he's right. But that's not enough. You have to hear it many times to really digest what you're saying.
- [47:45]
Federico Fagin
Yes, absolutely, that's correct. Yep. Thank you, Jeffrey.
- [47:50]
Jeffrey Mishlove
Thank you, Federico. It's a joy to be with you.
- [47:54]
Federico Fagin
Thank you.
- [47:55]
Jeffrey Mishlove
For those of you watching or listening, thank you for being with us because you are the reason that we are here.
- [48:26]
Federico Fagin
Book three in the new thinking allowed dialogue series is UFOs and UAP. Are we really Alone? Now available on Amazon.
- [48:37]
Jeffrey Mishlove
You can now Download a free PDF copy of issue 8 of the New Thinking Allowed magazine or order a beautiful printed copy. Go to newthinkingallowed.org.
- [49:02]
Federico Fagin
Sa.