Alice in Futureland

About Alice in Futureland

Alice in Futureland is a podcast series that asks you to wander into possible, probable, plausible, provocative futures. You will discover extraordinary ideas: a cross-pollination of art, science, and culture. aliceinfutureland.substack.com (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

“Hello, I am Alice, and I am always in a state of wander.”

Category

science · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

14 Sept 2020

Latest episode

2 Jul 2026

Latest episodes

56 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   2 Jul 2026

   A More Human Human with Dr Federico Faggin, Episode 03: Qualia and the Quantum Sense of Knowing

   Welcome to Alice in Futureland Thoughtcast—insightful dispatches from that messy, marvelous border where art, science, tech and culture collide. Hosts and co-founders Janine Lopiano and Joanne De Luca have spent decades in conversation with the outliers who make us stop and ask: What does it mean to be human? ALICE coined them Electric Swans—figures whose work bends the present toward what’s coming. In this episode, we spoke with one such Swan, Dr. Federico Faggin, the physicist who gave us the microprocessor, touchscreens and touchpads, now turned seeker of consciousness. Faggin took us deeper into the ageless debate of consciousness and questions the physics of reality and free will. And in our discussions, we realized some interesting connections between Faggin’s insights and other Electric Swans from the ALICE Library, so we included a perspective on consciousness and the physics of information from Jacques Vallée, a physicist, information scientist, venture capitalist, architect of the Arpanet (pre-Internet) and friend of ALICE. We also suggest you take a sonic mushroom break with 2 minutes of “Qualia (https://open.substack.com/pub/aliceinfutureland/p/sonic-mushroom-qualia).” Enjoy! FEDERICO FAGGIN: Qualia is what something feels like, that feeling is what gives us the knowing of what we feel. Without consciousness we could not know anything. ALICE: That’s Dr. Federico Faggin—a physicist, engineer, serial entrepreneur and inventor of touchscreens and touchpads. In previous Alice in Futureland episodes, we spoke with Dr. Faggin about the reality of computers being conscious (spoiler alert: he argues they can’t be) We continue our discussion with Dr. Faggin on the science of embodied consciousness in the sense of qualia FAGGIN: Consciousness is the fact that we can understand, that we can comprehend, we can perceive through qualia. And the physical representation of qualia is a pure quantum state. A pure quantum state has all the characteristics of qualia, which we feel. If you think about it, that kind of knowing, we know for example the love that I feel has dimensions that I cannot fathom either. In other words, there are dimensions that I know that I could know but I don’t know yet. So, I know that I know, I know that I don’t know. It’s that kind of sense that I have that however is quite clear for what I can tell. I can tell that this is love and I can tell that is a lot of love and it has certain characteristics, but I cannot define the same way that you could define. If you think about it, just what we see is so unbelievably rich and incredible, and it’s only a tiny little thing because we see with our senses. You can imagine how many possible senses there could be. I mean, we only see an incredibly narrow window of all this information which is here. I mean, right now, here, where I look, I see only air. I actually don’t even see the air, but I know that there is air. There is, in this moment, a hundred thousand communications going on in the microwaves that if, instead of the eyes, I had cell phones, I could actually listen on each of them. You see what I mean? ALICE: When you think about it, the richness of what we experience—the colors, emotions, sensations—is only a sliver of what’s actually there. Our perception filters the infinite into something we can live inside. And that’s exactly where quantum physics comes in. Because while classical physics describes the world we see, quantum physics points to the deeper layer beneath it—the one that gives rise to reality itself. FAGGIN: Quantum physics is one out of which classical physics arises or derives, quantum physics is more fundamental, is the source of what we have called reality. And in fact, what we have called reality is closer to virtual reality. It’s not completely virtual reality because it’s still connected with the quantum reality because the particles are states or the fields. Everything is connected in this reality. But in fact everything is one. Everything is connected and what we call separate is really only in first approximation can be called separate, but in reality it’s not. So there is a way in which even things that appear on first approximation that should not affect each other, they do affect each other. Do they affect each other by these communications that occur at the deeper level that we have not so far recognized? ALICE: What we think of as nothing is actually a vast ocean of energy—a field of infinite potential, constantly fluctuating, birthing and dissolving particles every instant. Some call it the zero-point field. Others describe it as the fabric of reality itself. But what if that same field isn’t just physical… what if it’s the deeper level of being—the source from which consciousness, matter, and meaning all emerge? FAGGIN: There are many properties of quantum vacuum that supposed to be nothing, but there is not nothing, and besides there is space and time, and where does that come from? Anyway, so one is the totality of what potentially and actually exists, and it has three properties. One is dynamic, meaning is never the same, instant after instant. Two is holistic. It means is not made of separable parts. Everything is connected within one, so those two properties are already the properties of the universe described by quantum physics. There is nothing new here, okay? But the third property is the new property, and that is that one wants to know itself, so the purpose of one is to know itself, and how does it know itself? It takes lack of knowledge, which is in the potential, part of its potential self, and when it knows, it brings into existence that potential knowledge becomes actual knowledge. The actual knowledge is actually an entity, because when he knows itself, he has to know itself completely, because you cannot know a piece of itself, because is holistic. It’s not made of separable parts. Each new self-knowing of one create an entity that has the same property of one; therefore, it wants to know itself, and in fact, one knows itself through its emanations, its creations. I call them unit of consciousness, but you can call it whatever you want. I mean, what does it mean, right? What it means is that basically, when one knows itself, it brings an entity like itself, with all this potential, all these capacities, that can know itself, and through which he knows itself because it’s not separate from itself. And so you start that way, and then these entities can know each other, because they’re all parts all. So in order for me to know myself, I need to know also the other, because the other has a piece of me. We’re all connected. So then we create a hierarchy of entities, and we are saties, which exist in this vast reality. ALICE: If the universe is one vast field trying to know itself, then each of us is one of its ways of doing that—an expression of that self-awareness made local. Every act of perception, every moment of reflection, is the universe folding back on itself, saying: I see me. And that brings us to what it means to be here, in a body. Because if we are emanations of that greater field, then this physical life—the body, the senses, the world around us—isn’t who we are. It’s the interface. The way consciousness immerses itself in experience to better understand itself. FAGGIN: We are experiencing ourselves through a body, but we’re not the body. We control the body. We direct the body from this other. The body exists in our field, just like a living cell exists in the field of a living cell. The same, our body, in a way, is an emanation of ours, in order to have an experience in a reality that is perceived through the body. So this physical reality is perceived through the body. We have an experience. For what? To know ourselves. And so we are here to know ourselves in this method, which is close to what you would do in a metaverse or in a virtual reality, which is where basically you are immersive. That was the word I was looking for, so an immersive virtual reality where you actually feel that you are inside this reality and you are embodied, an avatar inside that reality, and you operate in that reality, to the point that you could believe for a short period of time that you are that body, that avatar in that reality. Because of this connection between our conscious being and our body so intimate, we actually, before we wake up and we understand that we are more than the body, we think that we are the body. As we are born here, thinking that we are, with this purpose of thinking that we are the body, so that we express in this reality what the body has been programmed to express, because the body is an unbelievably sophisticated computer, quantum and classical. It is something way beyond what we know how to do, but it is a machine, and so it can express in this reality what we are here to know about ourselves, but what we know about ourselves is not the body. It is through the experience of the body interacting with other bodies and with the physical world, we can experience a reality which allows us to know ourselves, and as we know ourselves, one, digital totality of what exists, knows itself, so that’s the idea. That is the perspective that most of us have now on earth. It’s a perspective that we are the body. Whether you believe religions or not, you’re not sure that you are going to wake up after you die even if you believe on a religious thing unless you had an experience that actually give you evidence, experiential evidence, not intellectual evidence, experiential evidence, because we know by experiences. We do not know by reading a book. We know by experiencing. That’s the core aspect of consciousness. There is a lot of gaming going on today based on this misunderstanding of who we are and what reality is. By starting with a position in which consciousness, which of course we all know that we have, so if there is a postulate, which is self-evident, is that we, our conscious, that we know because we have consciousness, so consciousness must be fundamental and cannot be explained with anything simpler than itself, because it is the source of our knowing. No matter how you turn it, you cannot know if you’re not conscious. The fact that you can know is because we are conscious, and so conscious must be fundamental. It cannot be a derivative of anything. ALICE: When you think about it, everything we experience—every thought, every sensation, every word—is the universe finding another way to know itself. And sometimes, that knowing can be as vast as the quantum field… or as simple as a single word that holds meaning for us. So we asked Dr. Faggin, what’s his favorite word? FAGGIN: Well, probably love, but love not in the way that it is generally understood. It’s the love that I felt in my awakening experience, so that love which is not a feeling. It’s also a force. It’s also a direction. It includes everything. It’s almost like the primary feeling, the primary sensation, feeling, but also the primary force out of which everything can be seen as facets of it. It’s that kind of reality that I see because love is what motivates. It’s a force. It’s not just a feeling. That energy that was coming out of me, which was like, “How can love come out of me?” it was impossible to imagine at that time. How can I be generating that, but also the mystery. I think mystery is also a good word because we live in the mystery. We want to understand. We want to know ourselves, but for every single thing that we know, there’s an infinity of things that we don’t know, so what we don’t know is all this vaster than what we know. This is true for one as well because any new knowing is finite in a sense, but what remains to know is infinite. I don’t think one will run out of knowing how to know itself, and so it will be a never-ending process of ever expansion, ever increase, but those are hypothesis, of course, anyway, but the mystery remains because, if everything is interconnected, it will be all these connections that you haven’t seen about things that you already see that they are connected, but you see that they are connecting many other ways that you didn’t see before, and that gives you a new perspective. In fact, the heart is the one that needs to be discovered, understood, and incorporated, because it’s the one that provides the wisdom, provides the ethics, provides the love, the joy, and the sense of belonging with the universe, that is needed to solve the problems that we have ahead of us. ALICE: So beautifully said. It’s humbling to realize that the mystery isn’t something out there—it’s what we are made of. And maybe that’s the real invitation: to keep discovering, not just with the mind, but with the heart. Thank you so much Dr. Faggin for sharing your insights with us—it’s been an honor to explore these depths with you. Check out Federico Faggin’s latest book, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. If you’re craving more, please visit us at Alice in Futureland on substack.com where we dive deeper into consciousness, emerging science and the interconnection of ideas shaping the future. Go down the rabbit hole with our free weekly newsletters, Alice books, more Thoughtcasts, Futurecasts and our sonic mushrooms, where you can listen to a musical audiodose of Free Will. That’s it for this mad tea party, thanks again for tuning in. We’re Alice, and we’re always in a state of wander. 🎧 ALICE Thoughtcast episodes with Dr. Federico FagginEpisode 01: Can Computers be Conscious (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com/p/can-computers-be-conscious-dr-federico)? Episode 02: Free Will and Cellular Consciousness (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com/p/a-more-human-human-with-dr-federico) ©2026 Alice in Futureland This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit aliceinfutureland.substack.com (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   19 Jun 2026

   A More Human Human with Dr Federico Faggin, Episode 02: Free Will and Cellular Consciousness.

   Welcome to Alice in Futureland Thoughtcast—insightful dispatches from that messy, marvelous border where art, science, tech and culture collide. Host Janine Lopiano along with Alice co-founder Joanne De Luca have spent decades in conversation with the outliers who make us stop and ask: What does it mean to be human? ALICE coined them Electric Swans—figures whose work bends the present toward what’s coming. In this episode, we spoke with one such Swan, Dr. Federico Faggin, the physicist who gave us the microprocessor, touchscreens and touchpads, now turned seeker of consciousness. Faggin took us deeper into the ageless debate of consciousness and questions the physics of reality and free will. And in our discussions, we realized some interesting connections between Faggin’s insights and other Electric Swans from the ALICE Library, so we included a perspective on consciousness and the physics of information from Jacques Vallée, a physicist, information scientist, venture capitalist, architect of the Arpanet (pre-Internet) and friend of ALICE. We also suggest you take a sonic mushroom break with 2 minutes of “Free Will (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com/p/sonic-mushroom-free-will).” Enjoy! FEDERICO FAGGIN: Consciousness cannot be a phenomenon of the brain. It has to be something more basic, something that exists in nature from the very beginning of the universe. So something completely universal and absolutely foundational together with free will. In other words, consciousness had to come with free will. In other words, that would make no sense to be conscious and not be able to decide how to know and what to know. ALICE: Hi, welcome to the Alice in Futureland THOUGHTCAST…insightful dispatches from that messy, marvelous border where art, science, tech and culture collide. We continue our conversation with the esteemed Dr. Federico Faggin—a physicist, engineer, serial entrepreneur and the creator of three pieces of critical tech that run our digital life—the Intel 4004 microprocessor, the touchpad and the touchscreen. But his latest quest is the pursuit of consciousness. In this episode, Faggin takes us through a deep reflection of reality—as he discusses the nature of free will—and the cellular connection of consciousness. FAGGIN: At that time, it was clear that a conscious has had to do with the ability to know and the desire to know and to know itself. And so, I’ve begun to have the first, the beginning of a sense that the purpose of the universe is to know itself, and we are aspects of the totality of reality that allow one, the totality of what exists to know itself. So that was the beginning of a sense that it was possible then to understand, possibly understand consciousness scientifically. And so, I decided to stop everything that I was doing. I started a foundation with my wife to be able to support research of other people that has similar ideas and wanted to research consciousness. And I got to a few years ago when finally, together with an Italian physicist with world authority in the field of quantum information, we finally arrive at the first true theory of consciousness and free will. ALICE: In a previous episode (https://open.substack.com/pub/aliceinfutureland/p/can-computers-be-conscious-dr-federico), Faggin explained an experience that opened him to what consciousness could truly be—and it was a whole body energetic burst of pure love—something that was far greater than him. That experience put Faggin on his path today to quantify what consciousness is. And here’s a fact: we still, today, do not have one unifying science-based definition of what consciousness is. Throughout history, culture has debated if there is consciousness—from the early philosophers of Medieval times to Pierre de Chardin, the Jesuit priest, scientist and visionary philosopher famously known for his theory of a planetary “hive mind”—which he called the “noosphere.” Back in the 1950s—before our modern internet—Chardin envisioned a global, interconnected layer of human consciousness and intellect enveloping the Earth. While Chardin had a spiritual perspective, he had a strong belief that still resonates today… JACQUES VALLÉE: Consciousness is not limited to particular entities but that there is consciousness in every atom. ALICE: That’s Jacques Vallée, an internet pioneer, computer scientist, venture capitalist, author, astronomer, one of the world’s leading ufologists—and a friend of ALICE. This excerpt is from our first conversation with Vallée in 2002… VALLÉE: So not only would there be consciousness on other planets but there would be consciousness in everything. And I tend to gravitate to that particular view: that consciousness is really a distributed quality. ALICE: Many experts agree with Vallée. But if consciousness is truly distributed—if it’s part of everything—then reality isn’t just a stage we stand on. It’s something that’s still coming into being. And that collides with the worldview that’s dominated science for centuries. Classical physics describes a universe that is fully determined—every event the inevitable result of what came before it. But quantum physics disrupts that model—it introduces a world of probabilities, where observation seems to play a role in what becomes real. So which universe do we actually live in? One that’s already decided… or one that requires consciousness to complete it? Faggin suggests the answer lives in the tension between these two models of reality. FAGGIN: As you know, there are two types of physics. One is quantum physics, and the other is classical physics. Now, classical physics is the physics that started with Newton and ended up with electromagnetism in the second part of the 19th century. But by 1900, most physicists believed that the world was classical, and classical physics is deterministic. In other words, the laws of classical physics describe nature, describe the ontology, describe objects in space and time, which are supposed to be the real thing. And quantum physics upset all the rules and all the sort of the understanding of classical physics, because it was a theory that was, first of all was indeterministic, as opposed to deterministic. In classical physics, you started with the smallest objects, which are elementary particles, classical elementary particles. But in quantum physics, the particles are not separate. They are state of the field. They cannot be separated from the field. But it was like, it is impossible, cannot be. So the dogma of life is classical has dominated our mindset up until recently and now that there is an opening and people are beginning to see that in fact life cannot be that way. I have coined a new type of information called live information because if you take an electron that works inside a cell, that electron being an elementary particle is three things at once, is information, energy and matter. So you cannot separate matter, energy and information like you separate the power supply, the hardware and the software of a computer. You see? The reductionism of classical physics lends itself to separation of functions, but it doesn’t work that way in living organism. VALLÉE: In physics, you learn that energy and information are two sides of the same coin. That information can be transformed into energy and visa-versa. If you observe a physical system, you are taking information out of the system by observing it but you cannot do that without taking energy out of the system. ALICE: As both a physicist and information scientist, Vallée has advocated for a new physics of information—that we need to go beyond the idea of information presented in dimensions or as aggregated data, and instead, we need to look at the idea of an information universe…which aligns with Faggin’s theory of “live information.” VALLÉE: You can think of the world as a world of energy, particles, atoms, molecules, fields and so on, which is the world that we learn about in school. But you could also think of the world as a universe of information with human consciousness becoming aware of the information from microsecond to microsecond. ALICE: As we dive deeper into the science of life itself, what’s fascinating is how much intelligence seems to exist at every scale. We’re learning that our cells aren’t just passive building blocks—they can sense light, respond to sound, even communicate chemically, almost as if they have their own form of awareness. This echoes Chardin’s original belief that consciousness is in every atom. So we asked Faggin: If cells can sense and respond this intelligently: could consciousness itself exist at the cellular level? FAGGIN: Absolutely. In my way of thinking, the cells have consciousness and free will. A cell is the smallest physical organization in space and time, that has self-consciousness and free will in our theory. Where particles are not conscious per se, they’re state of field, so are the fields that are conscious. And so while an electron exists, if he (the individual) is conscious, his consciousness, this is the consciousness of the field because it cannot be separated, Where in a cell there is an individual consciousness, which means that there has to be a field, the conscious field of which that cell is an emanation. So the cell is a consequence of a field as opposed to being itself conscious, meaning the conscious is not in the cell, it’s the cell which is in the conscious field. ALICE: In Vedic traditions, meditation acts as a vehicle to experience the “field of consciousness” behind the active mind. During deep meditation, the brain begins to register highly structured, coherent energy patterns—what neuroscience has measured as the brain’s rhythm of consciousness—what are known as 40 hertz oscillations. Faggin references energy patterns that can self-reflect as structure energy, of which we know that meditation is just one example of this. But Faggin pushes this further to the cellular level—and that we need to consider the cell as a quantum system itself. FAGGIN: It’s this energy that has all this unusual crazy properties that can self-reflect, can know itself by self-reflection, but it has to be structure energy. Energy that has special structures within itself that for the time for now, we don’t know. The minimum structure that it has to have, for example, is represented by a living cell. A living cell is unbelievably complex when you consider it as a quantum system, not as a classical system, but as a quantum system, it’s unbelievable. We don’t have a computer that could simulate a cell. There isn’t a computer in the world that could do it. It’s much, much more sophisticated than anybody has ever thought. ALICE: From “live information” to the idea of the cell as a quantum system, we’re no longer looking at a world of separate parts—but a field where energy, matter, and awareness are inseparable. A field where, as Faggin suggests, structure itself allows energy to reflect, to know, to become conscious—and where the living cell may be the smallest expression of that process. So maybe consciousness is both something we have—and something we’re part of. It lives within us, as structure and experience, while also connecting us to a larger field of knowing. And if that’s true, then the question isn’t just what consciousness is—but whether reality is, in part, waiting on us… to observe it, to decide it, and ultimately, to bring it into being. Join us as we continue our conversation on consciousness with Dr. Faggin as we discuss qualia and the quantum sense of knowing, and if computers can be conscious. Also, check out Federico Faggin’s latest book, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. If you’re craving more, please visit us at Alice in Futureland on substack.com where we dive deeper into consciousness, emerging science and the interconnection of ideas shaping the future. Go down the rabbit hole with our free weekly newsletters, Alice books, more Thoughtcasts, Futurecasts and our sonic mushrooms, where you can listen to a musical audiodose of Free Will. That’s it for this mad tea party, thanks again for tuning in. We’re Alice, and we’re always in a state of wander. ©2026 Alice in Futureland This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit aliceinfutureland.substack.com (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   2 Jun 2026

   Can Computers Be Conscious? Dr Federico Faggin, Episode 01

   Welcome to Alice in Futureland Thoughtcast—insightful dispatches from that messy, marvelous border where art, science, tech and culture collide. Host Janine Lopiano along with Alice co-founder Joanne De Luca have spent decades in conversation with the outliers who make us stop and ask: What does it mean to be human? Alice coined them Electric Swans—figures whose work bends the present toward what’s coming. In this episode: one such Swan, Dr. Federico Faggin, the physicist who helped give us the microprocessor, touchscreens and touchpads, now turned seeker of consciousness. What began as scientific rigor became something stranger: an embodied encounter that broke the frame and left him asking questions no machine could answer. FEDERICO FAGGIN: “When I was studying neuroscience, I realized that there was a problem with consciousness. At that time I was still a materialist, so I thought that consciousness was a phenomenon that happened entirely in the brain...if that is the case, I should be able to make a conscious computer. The more I thought about it, the more impossible the task occur.” ALICE: Hi, welcome to the Alice in Futureland thoughtcast…insightful dispatches from that messy, marvelous border where art, science, technology and culture collide. In this episode, we spoke with Dr. Federico Faggin in our quest to understand the experience of consciousness—and if computers can be conscious. There’s no short way to describe the incomparable Dr. Faggin, but here’s a quick snapshot: he’s a physicist, engineer, inventor, famous designer of the Intel 4004 microprocessor, and the first to invent touchpads and touchscreens. He’s a serial founder of companies working on human–machine interfaces, image sensors, and more. Lately, he’s turned his attention to the science of consciousness through the Faggin Foundation. He’s one of the greatest luminaries of technology today. But to Alice, he’s an “Electric Swan”—a rare mind whose work signals a new paradigm—and makes us question, “What does it mean to be human?” Faggin’s been chasing questions about consciousness for decades—first out of scientific curiosity, later after an unmistakable, embodied experience that shifted everything for him. FAGGIN: I intensely wanted to understand consciousness, and I received a gift in the form of an experience. It happened while I was vacationing at Lake Tahoe with my kids and my family, just skiing during the holidays. One night I woke up around midnight. I was thirsty, so I got up, got to the kitchen to get a glass of water, and then I went back to bed.And as I was just trying to fall back to sleep, thinking nothing, just trying to go back to sleep, at one point out of my chest came an energy, powerful energy, just like a gushing energy. But it felt physical. It was not a thought, it was physical energy coming out of my heart, and it felt like an unbelievable love. Something that I never even closely had an experience of… it was love mixed with peace and mixed with joy. At one point said ‘Oh wow,’ this is the energy of which everything is made. Everything that’s in the universe is made of this stuff, which feels love and peace and joy. And I recognized myself as a point of view of this totality of the universe looking at itself. So I was both the observer and the observed. Given that situation, what does it mean? Quantum information. And so the interesting thing is that we can now say that quantum information, a quantum state can represent an experience, an experience of a conscious entity, but that experience can only be known by the system that’s in the state. So in other words, quantum information has the same characteristics of a conscious experience. It’s private, can only be known by the system which is in the state from the inside. ALICE: If you think about it, Faggin suggests our inner experiences behave like quantum information: private, impossible to copy, and only describable in fragments.That makes me wonder—are we our own quantum system living in a world no one else can fully access? If consciousness runs on quantum information, it can’t be duplicated. Our inner life is, by nature, unrepeatable. Which flips the whole “mind upload” idea on its head: a machine might simulate your data, but it could never feel what it’s like to be you. FAGGIN: What you feel is much richer, but you cannot transfer what you feel to another person. You can only transfer a classical information, shareable information about what you feel. So here we have a clear match between conscious experience and its representation with quantum information. So quantum information would be a correct representation. It has all the characteristics of what it represents. If it represents inner experience, which is not the case for classical information, classical information can be copied. The program and the data with computer can be copied, you can make as many copies as you want. That’s shareable information. So a computer could not be conscious, because if it were conscious, it would violate the characteristic of our experience, which is the characteristic of quantum information because my state cannot be copied. So the people that say, oh, we copy the conscious in a computer and you can live forever in transhumanism, that’s crazy because it violates the characteristics of your experience, which is the privacy of your experience. You cannot copy. And so the only physical representation is with quantum information. And that representation, however, is not the experience. In other words, the representation of an experience is not the experience. The experience can only be known from the inside. You see? ALICE: Yes, thank you Federico, we see! That’s it for this mad tea party. Join us for more thoughtcasts of A More Human Human with Dr. Faggin as we explore the nature of free will, quantum consciousness and the sense of qualia. Check out Federico Faggin’s latest book, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. And please visit us at Alice in Futureland on substack.com, where we dive deeper into consciousness and the interconnection of ideas shaping the future in our free weekly newsletter, Alice books, sonic mushrooms and Thoughtcasts. Thanks again for tuning in. We’re Alice, and we’re always in a state of wander... This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit aliceinfutureland.substack.com (https://aliceinfutureland.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

8 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 34 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

42

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

68

Contact Alice in Futureland

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.