This discussion explores the intersection of consciousness, physics, and subjective experience, particularly through the lens of mystical and psychedelic experiences, questioning the limitations of current scientific paradigms and proposing new avenues for understanding reality.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
Oh my god, I've been wrong. I've been
wrong. It's all it's it's all mental.
It's all phenomenal.
>> Once neuroscientist Christoph Ko thought
of himself as a romantic reductionist.
But that was before he took psychedelics.
psychedelics.
>> Whatever remained of me experienced some
sort of universal consciousness that I
profoundly experienced as being
hyperreal, more real than than than
everyday [music] realities. I love this
topic because I have experienced this
hyper reality feeling as well. What I
made of it afterwards is this.
I may be hallucinating reality right now.
now.
In this video with Kristoff Ko and
Bernardo Castro, we discuss how to take
mystical experiences serious but with rigor.
rigor.
Isn't it strange that different people
including western educated people but
also people from let's say Brazil you
know indigenous people that have aoska
experiences there there are certain
universals there's always these views of
jungles there always tends to be these
contorted snake like architectures there
there is some form of consensus well
it's more limited but in psychedelic
experience as well they can have
geometry they can be very specific in
their qualities there is no evolutionary
reason for that for that stuff to
[music] be there. Could we build mind
technologies that help us break out of
spaceime? I mean, it sounds like science fiction.
fiction.
>> If you could build a quantum cubit
system that you could put into superp
position with your cubits, assuming you
have them in your brain, then you could
literally expand your consciousness
because now you got these extra
entangled cubits.
>> And if that's true, that would trigger a
mass revolution just among
experimentalists. Every university in
the world would establish a department
Warm welcome at the Asencia Foundation's
YouTube channel. I'm sitting down in
Angelber, Switzerland and at my table I
have Kristoff K and Bernardo Castro.
Warm welcome both both of you.
>> Thank you. And we had wonderful
discussions, one on you, one with you,
um, Kristoff, a year ago, and of course
Bernardo, we've spoken a lot about
consciousness and metaphysics. And my
opening question actually to both of
you, what what brings us together here?
Because we'll share content about the
event we are hosting here, but I'd like
to hear from both of you what what
brings us at this table.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um
um I think the original idea arose from
a recognition that um
consciousness is a little more
complicated than we thought especially
when we have firstperson experiences
that tend to contradict some of the
assumptions we've made before about
metaphysics the nature of the universe
and all that. Um another thing that
particularly interests me is that I've
noticed that um you know we have two
great unknowns in science today. you
know what is the nature of matter or
physical entities and what's the nature
of mind or consciousness in the
phenomenal sense and um the the best
theories um for both today one in
foundations of physics and the other one
in the neuroscience of consciousness
both leverage information theory
>> very heavily so you have that in
foundations of physics with the physics
of first person perspective and the
no-go theorems and all that and in the
areas of interpretation of
interpretations of quantum mechanics and
in neuroscience of course the leading
theory integrated information theory
makes heavy use of the information
theory um and to me that is interesting
that u both accounts we seem to be using
the same mathematical instrumentation
does it point to some commonality here
so I'm very interested in trying to
figure out whether the other workshop
participants can identify some some
bridge between the two domains right
because at the end of the day nature is
only one right we divide things in
different fields of study but nature is
only one thing physics neuroscience it's
all nature right um so I think these
commonalities can can suggest some
interesting avenues
>> very interesting yeah and so in whereas
in understanding mind and ma and matter
we used to think of an objective outside
world with with physicality that is
observer independent that doesn't really
work at least in quantum mechanics we
experimentally see that reality doesn't
it doesn't work like that and in
consciousness and neuroscience we also
have that hard problem right that we
cannot point to matter in brain giving
us mind so Kristoff um how do you
reflect on what Bernardo just said and
what to you is the importance of this
meeting bringing to together scientists
to sort of explore what Bernardo just
said there's a proximal and a distant
distal reason for this conference the
proximal one is that I had an
extraordinary experience two and a half
years ago. Um it's called a mystical or
non-dual experience that left me totally
discombobulated about the nature of
reality that prompted me to contact
reach out to Bernardo and then I spent
several days. He kindly invited me to
his town and to his home in fact and I
became acquainted with his writing on um
on idealism particular channeling Arto
Schopah who I grew up with as a as a as
a German because I've what I experienced
right I mean what I experienced was sort
of what he would say the will you know
you can think of it in different ways
cosmic consciousness uniform
some sort of universal whatever ever
remained of me experienced a some sort
of universal consciousness that I
profoundly experienced as being
hyperreal, more real than than than
everyday reality. So it really shifted
the tectonic plates of my ontology, my
metaphysics, which at age 67 when it
happened is not that common, right? By
the time you get my age, your belief in
what exists, what doesn't exist, you
know, is is quite firmly established.
But this this certainly I said, "Oh my
god, I've been wrong. [laughter] I've
been wrong." It's all it's it's all
mental. It's all phenomenal. And and
then of course, you know, this comes
together with with my particular
obsession which has always been
consciousness and the inability of of
physicalism to describe to properly fit
consciousness into the framework of
physicalism. As you said, how can a
piece of matter, love and hate or fear
or dream or desire? Um and then even
with a challenge within physics of
describing what is actually the
physical. It used to be very easy,
right? This is the physical. This has
position and and and I mean location and
momentum. But now with quantum
mechanics, you know, the relational
comes back, right? It's now also both
the relationship between things and
things don't even exist in isolation. So
the question is does this also does this
also apply for two consciousness? H what
interests me when we spoke last year
already could sense your onlogical shock
and I also then thought as a person
there probably is sort of a a a Kristoff
before that experience and a Kristoff
after right that's at least
>> most certainly
>> and yeah and I that was that was clear
at that moment is there also a before
and after as a scientist Kristoff
>> well I've become much more open so I I
used to write I used to deride for
instance the relevance of quantum
mechanics next to brain science. You
know, I always argued the brain the
brain is wet and warm. And if you look
at, for example, quantum computers, they
typically have to operate a tiny
fraction of a degree above zero,
absolute zero, 100 times colder than in
outer space. So, it's extremely unlikely
that anything in the in the brain could
could provide that environment. But a we
don't know. And anything that's not
ruled out by by and by physics, we
should test. That's the great thing
about science, right? That's what makes
it so powerful. If we ask the right, if
we ask nature the right question in the
right way, we can get an answer yes or
no. So for instance, it makes me much
more willing to engage to work with with
a whole bunch of collaborators exploring
the idea is do we need quantum mechanics
to understand something about the brain
or the is the brain an entirely
classical system?
>> So so you did change, you became more
open-minded, but you didn't become
flaky, right? Because there are people
there who have a mystical experience and
suddenly they think they have the
license to use concepts imprecisely and
talk in terms of metaphors alone and
everything's possible and that didn't
happen to you. Your values are are still
the same rigor clarity, conceptual
clarity and the power of evidence and
all that.
>> I mean that's why we we we're convening
this meeting, right? to see what's the
best science today
is there are there empirical accessible
ways to to get at these questions
because also I had this debate with so I
voice now these opinions more often and
then people say well there also these
people typically they they're in closed
wards that claim they've seen god or
they are god right there are lots of
people claim I'm Jesus you know how how
does this differ and it differs of
course in degrees but not in absolute
because you You know, you can have this
experience, but then there's this famous
book written by the American Buddhist
called after the ecstasy, the laundry.
So, you experienced everything. You talk
maybe to God, but the next day you still
have to take out the trash and pay taxes
and all of that, right? Or in my case,
I'm still a scientist, so I still want
to see, can I prove some of these things
that I experienced using scientific
method rather than just going around the
country and say, "I've seen the light.
Repent. Repent. [laughter] I've seen the light."
light."
>> Yeah. Because there are people like that
and and some philosopher yesterday she
she said in fact but but really
epistemic can you tell the difference
>> between you and those well the only way
you can tell operational do I go back to
my life or do I end up becoming a
preacher or a madman in fact
>> I I can see a very clear difference >> yes
>> yes
>> because I have had the experience with both
both
>> with mad man
>> with you and people who
>> lose their marbles
>> yeah and that's also Bernard why by
their models or their marbles. They're marbles.
marbles.
>> Well, they also lose their models
>> and that too. And their values they they
sort of depart from
>> the values that characterize good
science and analytic philosophy. And
that's also I guess why you are right so
cautious when it comes to uh
going into PI phenomena and and the more
the more woo fringe stuff where I mean
if you look at studies being done or
just the comp compatibility of it with
idealism it would be sort of it's very
interesting stuff but I always sense
with you a sort of cautiousness there
right for perhaps that reason that you
want to
>> yeah maybe maybe in some cases that's
unfair. Yeah.
>> Um but I think abandoning caution. Okay.
Then then you what are you doing then?
Right? Then then look
either everybody has to have a mystical
experience and then you can abandon
caution because everybody will know by
direct acquaintance. Right? But as for
as long as we are not there and we need
to use language to communicate then I
think we do have the moral scientific
philosophical responsibility to be
conceptually clear to be rigorous in
what you're saying to be precise in what
you're saying formulating our hypothesis
precisely not abandoning empirical
evidence as if it didn't count anymore
just because one part of empirical
evidence which is our experience says
something it doesn't mean that you
abandon all the rest so yes I do think
this is important for As long as not
everybody's enlightened and we still
need the language to
>> but isn't it true even let's say
everyone had mystical experience then we
still shouldn't throw
>> our values away
>> well for instance consider we still
>> we all dream
>> right and in dreams we all fly and walk
through walls and talk to long lost or
dead friends and relatives and pets
right but we we don't say oh of So it
means they it still exists in a real
physical sense and we can actually fly
and so let's do experiments on how can
we possibly fly right
>> I agree that's correct and so we still
have to do all the good science and the
reasoning to make sure that what what
sort of what is it we can learn from
these experiences right what knowledge
can we take from a mystical experience
besides yeah I had it and this is a
question that William James already
asked this is not a new question right
what sort of knowledge have we acquired
doing such an experiment and How can we
use it?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Because that interested me in in the
invitation text to the the workshop we
we will be hosting here. You mentioned
sort of as a third reason sort of the
first one was just the hard problem of
of consciousness in neuroscience. Second
one sort of the problem of physicality
being observer independent in quantum
mechanics. And then thirdly you said
people have these deep mystical type
experiences that you call sort of the
knowledge of acquaintance.
And I find that super interesting
because you are sort of saying there to
me that that as a as as scientists we
need to not only take this serious as an
object of study but see it as a perhaps
even a way of gaining information about
nature and >> reality.
>> reality.
>> Reality yeah but how then because that
and that to me is just an exciting
exciting question.
Well, so first uh for instance, one way
to study the phenomena itself, what is
it? So mystical experience is a very
broad term and some people use it in a
very different way than I would. There's
for example a questionnaire called the
MQ30. It's a questionnaire used in
psychology and particularly now in
psychedelic research. So most clinical
trials that use psychedelic like
psilocybin or DMT like in an aruascar
use this uh uh MEQ30 and they for
example ask questions on a scale of one
to five. Have you experienced oceanic
boundlessness? It's a question. Now what
exactly is that?
>> Most people have no idea but it sounds
sort of okay. I felt like an ocean. So
you know
>> the difference between the four and five
is not [laughter] funny like four. No
five. Well, and so and how does it
relate to other culture? We know that
mystical experience, you know, predates
the 20th century by thousands of years,
right? You can go back to Plato, there's
an instance of it. People have it in
different cultures. Buddhists have them
in a meditative context. They're
near-death experiences that are very
similar, not the same, of course, and
the induction is certainly very
different, but you can get to these
experiences through very different
routes. In fact, people have invented an
amazing variety of different techniques
like dark retreat. You go in a dark cave
for days. You get food once a day and
that's it. So, you're just by yourself
in a dark cave. There's no medium, no no
phones, no books, no nothing. People can
have profoundly transformative, that's
another name, mystical or transformative
experience can have profound
transformative experiences. Now how does
their phenomenology compare to the
psychedelic induced mystical experience
or to the religious the classical
mystical experience of course religious
in fact we all acquainted from in the
new testament Saul
>> the persecutor of Christians right on
his right ride to Damascus famously fell
off his donkey and had a vision and
turned him into St. Paul Christianity
greatest apostle right and and many
people have reported these scientists
have reported the aesthetic or mystical
experience so is there something common
what is it what is the the core nature
and then and then again what is it we
can we can learn from and from these
experiences there's a famous thought
experiment in in philosophy of mind by
what's his name Jackson
>> the the Australian philosopher Jackson
Mary the color scientist
>> the color line scientist yeah
>> so so this this thought experiment You
have Mary, a scientist of the 23rd 23rd
century. She knows everything there is
to know about color, how wavelengths
strike our cones, you know, the photo
receptor in the eye, how that
information passes up to the visual
cortex, how it's processed, and how, you
know, why we push this button or why we
say, you know, this is light orange and
and and this is sort of yellow. But
she's never seen color because her
parents are cruel and make her grow up
in a in a gray um environment. And now
for the first time she opens the door
and goes into the world and sees a blue
sky and a red rose. So the question is
has she learned something? And what is
the nature of what she's learned?
Because she knows all about the physics
of wavelength and the the neocience of
color. So she so in some sense you could
say well doesn't she know what blue is
except she's never seen blue.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> It's a little bit like knowing well
people have had mystical experience but
I personally have never had them. I just
know the description of him and I know
what the brain does on a mystical experience.
experience.
>> I would submit it makes all the
difference. Of course, >> yeah,
>> yeah,
>> but some philosophers argue no, there's
no difference or there's only procedural
knowledge that you learn.
>> I find that position amazing, almost
psychiatric, but okay, let me
>> but it's funny because I I think so many
people intuitively would say of course
you gain new knowledge like directly
intuitively say of course new knowledge.
The blue sky is not the description of
the blue sky. But somehow in philosophy
uh we and in analytic philosophy because
you also said Kristoff in the invitation
segment we are gaslighted. you use that
term which is like [laughter] it's like
okay like an analytic philosophy in the
20th century has gaslighted this us into
believing that sort of aralia aren't
real are just
>> some philosophers like Dan Dennett bless
his soul who passed away or like the
churchlands have effectively try to
cancel consciousness fact with a goal of
with the explicit goal Pat church has
written about it to eliminate
consciousness from the discussion of
educated people. She articulated this
belief. Well, in the 22nd century or
whenever when we truly know it, no one
will talk about conscience anymore. Just
like no one talks about Floiston
anymore, right? We know that that that
wasn't the case. And consciousness is
also going to be eliminated. In fact,
her position is called eliminatism.
Danet famously calls it illusionism,
right? It's all a big illusion, right?
So, yeah, they try to cancel
consciousness, trying to gaslight us
into believing my pain. It's just
behavioral disposition. It's just sort
of neurons firing and some hormones
being released in a blood streaming me
moaning. You know, if I have toothach
moaning and avoiding eating on that side
of the of my jaw, but there's nothing
like this bloody awful pounding tooth mer.
mer.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You know, analytic
philosophy was founded in the early 20th
century with the noble goal of ensure
ensuring that we think clearly and
correctly with conceptual clarity with
proper logical reasoning step by step.
That was the the the
delightful and and and worthwhile goal
of analytic philosophy. But it can also
be used as a tool to construct
incredibly acrobatic and contorted
conceptual models that give people
intellectual permission to believe
whatever position they prefer to believe.
believe. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Or to believe things don't exist.
>> Which is one of the most unlikely
>> Yeah. things. And Bernardo, getting back
to what you started with, like this this
this notion you have now that within
neuroscience and foundations of physics,
information is starting to play play a
key role. I think it's nice for people
to to hear from you and unpack what we
mean with information and and what I'm
hinting at is that we have a sort of a a
classical Shannon sense of information
when we think of computers and
processing and that we all have are
acquainted with. But in quantum
mechanics, information is something
different, right?
>> Yeah. Yes. Shannon information was
created to instrumentalize the theory of
communication. Actually, Shannon's
original 1948 paper had the word
communication in the title. Um, but of
course that was just the beginning of
information theory. Since then we've
learned a thing or two and we've managed
to increase the you know the the the
mathematical apparatus and the
conceptual dictionary involved in
information theory. Uh so when I
mentioned information theory as it
applies to IIT and foundations of
physics I meant more than just Shannon
information. But in all cases
>> what I'm about to say is not a universal opinion.
opinion.
>> There are people who think information
is a thing. Um I think it's abundantly
clear that information is a description.
Information is not a thing. Information
is a way to describe the number and type
of possible states a system can take on.
Right? Um in in in in classic in ancient
Greek there is this word usia which
refers to a thing which has independent
experience. It's not derived from other
things. It's not an abstraction from
other things. It's a thing that stands
alone has own existence. Um information
clearly clearly is not ana just as a
dance is not a noia. It's a behavior of
the dancer just like a ripple is not ana
it's a behavior of the lake.
>> I can can go on and on citing examples
of that behaviors and descriptions are
not us.
>> Yeah. Um there is out there u there are
out there people who think information
is a thing but that's not the sense in
which I'm using the information. What I
find curious is that um the reason we
seem to have gotten down to the level of
information theory both in the
neuroscience of consciousness and in
foundations of physics is that um we had
to abstract away from our metaphysical
baggage. You know all this stuff we
thought were things turn out not to be
things. You know matter is not really
concrete. You know at the end of the day
you reduce everything to fields. What
are fields? Well they are defined in
terms of their effects which is a very
nice way to make a mathematical
definition that doesn't define what the
thing is at all. Right? It's defined in
terms of its effects. Uh so we had to
abandon all of that metaphysical baggage
and go back to information theory which
abstracts all of that away but it's
still not ana
>> it's still not the numinal it's still
not the thing in itself and um the
question that I find so intriguing for
this workshop is could the usa that
information is referring to both in
foundations of physics and in IIT the
neuroscience of consciousness Could it
be the same thing? Are we talking about
the same fundamental states of nature
that underly both consciousness and the
physical world?
>> And because as Kristoff highlights, um
the boundaries of our epistemology, you
know, neuroscience here, physics there,
it's for our convenience because no
human being can know everything. So we
cut the field of our epistemology in
little chunks that we can absorb and
sort of digest, right? But out there
there's just the world. So it's entirely
plausible that neuroscience and
foundations of physics they are hinting
at the same numinal state.
>> But does this imply that the information
what's the relationship between well I
guess we're going to explore that right
the relationship between information as
used for example in IIT and in
information as used in foundational of
quantum mechanics particularly
relational quantum mechanics.
Do do we expect them to be the same?
>> No, not necessarily,
but they could be hinting at the same thing.
thing.
>> Oh, and yet a third thing, a thing, a
third description that may be better for
both that would unify them both.
>> Well, information is itself not a thing
in my in my view, right? So, could could
those descriptions be pointing at the
same numinal states?
Because the the other question that I'm
concerned about empirically does this
what does this imply about the
underlying the physics underlying the
brain? Can we you know can we just do we
have to of necessity assume that the
brain of course it's trivial subject to
the laws of quantum mechanics as is any
other piece of furniture of the
universe. But does it exploit the the
the the powerful aspects of quantum
mechanics like superposition and
entanglement? And if it doesn't, as most
people think, most people think the
brain is a perfectly classical object,
you know, describing classical physics.
If that's the case, would would this
interesting convergence between
information theory usage in IIT and in
quantum mechanics still be relevant?
>> I think it would still be. It's a matter of
of
>> what is the range of the effect, right?
Ultimately, everything is quantum.
Brains classical or not, everything is
quantum. The question is for how long
and how wide can a superposition state persist?
persist?
>> Yeah. And you can ask are they re so
consciousness seems to occur in us at
the time scale of 100 milliseconds let's
say and involves relatively large part
of the brain. I mean this is empirical
data. So that seems to suggest it must
operate you know across centimeters in a
in a in a in a mechanism that's at room temperature
temperature
o over hundreds of milliseconds. So the
question that there's this question is
quantum mechanics is entanglement and or
superposition relevant for that or does
it all average out all the quantum
effects? They all average out. It's a
level of fear. We know they are in
effect at the level of single photo
receptor detecting single photons that
involves quantum mechanics. But once you
get really inside the brain, are there
any quantum mechanical effects?
>> There is new evidence suggesting that it
that it has. But let's assume it doesn't.
doesn't.
>> Even if it doesn't, the brain is still a
quantum system. One that decoheres
quicker than the relevant time scale for
changes of conscious states, but it's
still a quantum system. Quantum system.
So I would say
>> as a but we don't need quantum mechanics
to describe the glass.
>> No, but it's still quantum mechanical.
You may abstract away the tortoise
details of quantum mechanics because you
get laws of large numbers that kick in.
So we can simplify things by using
classical [clears throat] descriptions.
But fundamentally that too is a quantum
system. You say Bernardo just for people
to to I love the two of you discussing
this but
>> like [snorts]
for all practical purposes right that
what what physicists say for all
practical purposes you can say like
quantum effects average away and then we
are classical and that's what I think
most of neuroscience doesn't need to go
quantum right there's so much we can
explain in our brains we don't need
quantum theory
>> but now I mean you've had a mystical
type experience um so Roger Penrose sees
certain mathematical ical uh problems
being solved by human brain that
computers cannot do and then they say oh
wait a minute this I cannot account for
classically now let's go quantum right
that's that's how it usually goes that
we make this step from from from the
classical explanation to the quantum uh
explanation is that sort of
>> look the point I'm trying to get across
is this even the answer is no it does
not matter the brain is a formal system
unlike what sir Roger maintains by the
way I think sir Roger is correct in this
specific case. But for to be
conservative, let's assume he's not.
Let's assume that there are no relevant
quantum effects in the brain that
persist to the level that is relevant to consciousness.
consciousness.
It's still a quantum system that you
can't describe it classically only
raises the next question which is by
what mechanisms does a system that is
inherently quantum appear and is
describable as classical. Now we can
talk about decoherence and but but
decoherence is not
>> a quantum theory in the sense that
>> operationally it only works if you start
from the assumption that the world
around your quantum system is classical
and then the coherence would say and
this is not a very accurate way of
describing it so give me some poetic
license here uh because I cannot write
down equations but the coherence is like
saying the information in the quantum superposition.
superposition.
If the quantum system is touched by a
classical system, that information is
sucked into the classical world and
becomes diluted. It didn't disappear.
But because the classical world is so
much more massive than the quantum
system, the information in the
superposition becomes non retrievable.
>> The degrees of freedom become
>> correct. But the whole thing rests on
the starting point. The world is already
classical. But how did the world become
classical to begin with? What decohered
the classical world
>> motion at 300° Kelvin?
>> You would in principle and that goes
back to Vanoyman interactions between
systems would only lead to larger
superpositions. So the coherence is is
an operationally very useful thing but
it doesn't give you answers that apply
at the cosmic scale that there are some
very good reasons to think that the
universe is a quantum system and that
entanglement applies at all scales. So
everything is entangled with everything
else. So it's an operational thing. It
doesn't give us ultimate answers.
>> Wait, but why is it then that so
unfortunately we have one person hm who
couldn't come. He's the head engineer.
He's a physicist and the chief engineer
of Google's quantum comput lab. And they
build quantum computers very
successfully. They now like the
equivalent of 100 logical cubits. And um
they keep them at 10 mill° Kelvin. Okay,
that's 100 times colder than outer
space. That's 10,000 colder 10,000 times
colder than the room temperature here.
And they do that because any tiny
molecular motion will break down will
cause their cubits to break down and
become entangled with their physical
surrounding. So
>> and therefore they decoher
>> therefore they decoeree. So how can you
say everything is in superposition?
>> No, I'm not saying everything is in a
superp position. That's the thing. The
classical world clearly is not in a
superp position. The question is why is
it not in a superp position? How did how
did it come not to be in a
superposition? The coherence doesn't
answer that. It assumes that. It
presupposes that.
>> Um so that's that's the point. Even the
classical world is still inherently
quantum unless we
>> define an arbitrary dualistic
>> boundary in nature. Everything is
quantum. So even if the brain is
quantum, it has become seemingly
classical by means of quantum presence.
>> Here's quantum and the other side of
boundary is a classical world.
>> You're saying this operation who imposes
this operation? [clears throat]
>> This is an operational
an operationally very useful idea that
presupposes that boundary but it doesn't
explain why the boundary exists in the
first place. This Bernardo isn't this
sort of for people to understand this is
at the heart of the measurement problem.
This is at the heart of Wignner's friend
scenario. These these paradoxes that we
or the Heisenberg cut where do I put the
cut of of the quantum classical you can
always draw a larger box that I'm
outside. So so basically you're saying
it's still from a larger perspective it
is still quantum and
>> yes but but look if you run an
interference experiments in experiment
in a classical system you will not see
the interference. So it is not in a
superposition. And yet everything is quantum.
quantum.
>> So how come it's not in a superposition?
So that it's not in a superposition is
obviously the outcome of some quantum
process because the world is quantum. So
even though the brain even if even under
the assumption that it's completely
classical in the way we can describe it
effectively, it still raises the
question of well why is it then
classical? Because fundamentally it is
quantum. M
>> everything is fundamentally quantum
right if somebody tells you that it's
not the case that the world is
fundamentally dualistic classical and quantum
quantum
>> then then that person would have then
the theurden
>> the burden of argument to make sense of that
that
>> yeah and isn't there a way out of this I
mean isn't the you've written a paper
with Hartwood Nathan right and you were
working with him on on sort of a quantum
theory of consciousness that relates to
integrated information theory, right?
Maybe nice for if you to unpack that a
bit, Kristoff, sort of your work on
quantum right now.
>> Yeah. So, this is um a hypothesis that
that it's it's primarily the work of
Hart Naven. um that the idea is that
there's something right about Penro's
original insight but it's not the
collapse of uh wave function that
creates what Penrose calls the moment of
now of consciousness but it's a
superposition and the reason for that
argument is that if you look in
multi-bit systems let's say three cubits
and they go into superposition and then
they collapse you could use that in that
collapse if you um if you have a
protocol established with another
observer to communicate faster than
light which would violate special
relativity to get around that you say no
it's not the superp position and and
it's not the collapse it's going into
superp position that gives rise to
consciousness and this is fully
compatible with the average multiorlds
interpretation because it says yes you
you know so the multiverse that any any
time that a system goes into superp
position. There are really multiple
worlds that split off. In one world, you
know, you you follow the cat is dead in
the shruding experiment. In the other
world, the cat's alive. There's nothing there.
there.
>> Nothing special here. You just you just
follow this world. It follows
shreddinger's equation. Well, you go
from a from a cat to dead cat because
you know there this little apparatus,
you know, the radioactive atom in the
little box that Shreing has thought
experiment involves um
decayed and that's all there is to it.
And so the idea would be if you have big
systems like us that presumably our
conscious is very complex that contains
many object you would need many many
bits to describe the richness of this
experience. This involves a system that
has I don't know let's say a thousand
cubits and then um so then in superp
position so in principle there are two
to the thousand different universes.
This is a little bit the problem I have.
It's it's incredible frequent in terms
of the entire multiverse is logically
consistent. So it turns out many
physicists really like the multi because
it's so consistent with physics. But it
says that at any moment things go into
superposition. There's this endless
amount of u of universes once they
collapse and you collapse into one or
the other the the other state.
>> But but it is logical consistent with
with our experience leaving aside the
fact that it creates this untold number
of universe that can never interact.
Right? They're not in spa. they don't
superimpose in space in this
highdimensional Hilbert space. Um and
now what we're trying to do there are
certain predictions like one prediction
is if you could build a quantum cubit
system that is in superposition that you
could put into superp position with your
cubits assuming you have them in your
brain then you could literally ex and
they're entangled you could literally
expand your consciousness because now
you got these extra entangled cubits.
Okay, that's not something we we're both
in a position right now to
experimentally do. So therefore, right
now what we're doing, we're doing this
interesting experiment just to test in a
totally empirical way to what extent um
quantum mechan to what extent nuclear
spin. So nuclear spins is a quantum
mechanical property of certain isotopes
like xenon. Xenon turns out it's a it's
a rare gas, right? And it's also an
anesthetic. It's a well-known anesthetic.
anesthetic.
It's stable because it had eight outer
electrons, which means it does it does
it's not bioreactive. It doesn't
interact with anything in your body,
which is good news for you. People don't
use it because it's expensive
except for certain circumstances. And
there are some claim that different
isotopes in particular isotope number
129, xenon 129 and 131 have lower
anesthetic potency in mice than xenon
128 and 130. Chemically all four are
exactly the same. So chemically you
can't understand isotope is the same molecule.
molecule.
>> It's the same molecule. The difference
is they have one or two or three or four
more neutrons inside the nucleus. But
from the outside, from a chemical point
of view, right? Because you know at
these temperatures we interact, you
know, the where what's relevant is
really the the the state of the outer
electrons um that the outer shell they
all have eight electrons. So chemically
you can't tell them apart. And if it's
true that biology in general or the
brain in particular can tell these
different isotopes apart, it is most
likely due because some have nuclear
spin which is tiny in terms of its
magnetic difference whe in terms of its
energy difference whether the spin is
pointing up or down. But empirically if
this is true that would be a real
headscratcher and if that's true that
would within a few years would trigger a
mass revolution just among
experimentalists every department every
university in the world would establish
a department of quantum biology and then
ultimately what do you think Bernardo
this is interesting right
>> it's a purely empirical thing
>> yeah but this is like a very neat way to
test uh quantum effects in our brain
it's a neat way right it's it's it's
experimentally very lean. You you just
because you
molecular just the molecular machinery
in our bodies. It's the same molecule
the different isotope. The only
difference is a quantum difference. And
if we then see a different effect, it
would strongly point to a quantum
>> a causal chain that picks up on particular.
particular.
>> Yeah. What do you think? Yeah,
>> I would be extremely surprised if this
turns out to be true because as as
Kristoff said, it's about the outer
orbitals. All chemical reactions are
about the outer orbitals. Are they
complete or not? So, carbon is the
molecule of life because it wants to
borrow four electrons from its
neighbors. That's why it forms coalent
connections and reacts to creates
molecules and on all the machinery of
life. uh but if you have all the outer
orbitals complete they don't want to
borrow or lend electrons then from the outside
outside
>> nothing should happen and the number of
neutrons in the nucleus should not make
the least difference neutrons are also
charged and neutral that's why they're
called neutrons so you don't even have
an electromagnetic field difference
>> popping to the outside
>> magnetic though it's different in a
magnetic field they would they would
behave differently and as I said what
you know Maybe this goes back to the
origin of life and you know if you're a
microbe a single cell and you could pick
up you were sensitive to to to this
quantum effect somehow that would give
you a little bit more efficiency you
know in the struggle for life then you
know it could be a basic property. There
are a few puzzling effects. There is
this the bird the mo the best known one
is probably the sense. So bird can
navigate you know when they migrate over
very large distances. This involves an
interaction between photons at night
when they navigate by starlight or
sometimes by moon and the magnetic
field. And there the most popular
hypothesis for that is a so-called
radical pair hypothesis that would
involve a pure quantum mechanical
effect. That's probably right now the
closest we have come. It's still not
100% nailed down. There isn't a Nobel
Prize yet yet. There might well be once
it's fully nailed down. So there are few
indications like that that quantum
mechanics might possibly relevant for at
room temperature. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So life would have evolved to tune into
this extremely faint quantum effect.
That would be the hypothesis.
>> That's correct. That are much that are
tiny. Yes. But you know any edge that
you can have look life's been around
since roughly 3 point the planet's what
4.35 billion years old it formed within
the first billion years. So 3.3 billion
years you had all the planet to do all
these parallel evolution. So we simply
don't know at this point what is possible.
possible.
>> We had sort of on our channel
>> and again the great thing is this might
be wrong but you can test it. Yeah, but
but even spin you know it is a quantum
effect in the sense that everything is a
quantum effect but it doesn't require
superposition. We are not talking about
superpositions or interference
experiments here. So in that sense
>> baby steps baby steps but it reinforces
what I was arguing earlier even a
completely classical brain is a quantum system.
system.
>> Yeah. No, you I
>> and yeah, just to say it's nice to refer
to a video we did with Anita Goel, who's
also a participant at this workshop
who's sort of working on establishing
quantum effects in the nanom machines
that reunite DNA. That all has to do
with the coherence of these these these
time scales. If if we see coherence
along time scales longer than sort of
the the the operating mechanisms of
these nanom machines, it's it's
plausible to assume that effects that
that there is this effect. But one step
back because you brought all of this up
in your hypothesis with Artmoot Naven um
namely that qualia and consciousness has
to do with the formation of a superp
position and not the collapse of it
which is the position of of Roger Penor.
Bernardo I'm curious how you reflect on
that sort of just turning flipping that around.
around.
>> Yeah. So um so the the what Kristoff
said could it be that instead of what um
Penrose suggests that consciousness has
to do with the collapse of a superp
position that it has that conscious has
to do with the formation of a superp
position the the
>> I think that is eminently plausible.
Yeah. Okay.
>> If we
>> if we I'm a committed empiricist but
also to subjective experience as part of
your empirical data. If you introspect
and look at the nature of conscious
state, let me give you an example.
Imagine you get a job offer and you love
Essential Foundation and you never want
to leave Essential Foundation because
it's the best place in the world. But
you get this super tempting job offer,
people dangling a lot of money in front
of you. And then for a couple of days,
you don't know what you're going to do,
whether you're going to leave or go. You
are Schrodener's cat dead and alive.
you're staying and you're going. So, um,
from that perspective, of course, this
is an extremely loose u comparison that
I'm making here, but that's all I have
to go on, right? I don't have anything
more precise to go on. So, on the basis
of this extremely loose comparison, my
sense of plausibility, I would rather
associate conscious states with
superpositions than with a collapse.
>> Yeah. And that of course is compatible
also with with Federrico Fine's ideas
that that the fields themselves are are
conscious quantum fields. But if that
leads as as you are suggesting with
Harmon if that leads to a more aaratian
interpretation of quantum mechanics so
the many worlds interpretation
then I'm I was a bit puzzled because I
found that sort of very uh elegant when
I read your paper. I said, "Oh, yeah, of
course." But then I thought, "Oh, wait a
minute. Isn't the many worlds sort of
suggesting that I'm sitting with you
like physically sitting with you in
another universe having a slightly
different conversation other universe?"
>> I just I cannot imagine that and just
seems so weird. And then I started
having this discussion with an LLM about
it. [laughter]
>> That's a nice
>> no all to say reason with me. I said,
"Rason with me. If I want to interpret
the Avaratian uh interpretation of
quantum mechanics from a more
perspective, how can we do that?" All to
realize that we still have a
metaphysical question. I can have a
multiverse in consciousness. So, I'm
curious how your thought what your
thoughts are here. I mean, do you
believe like in a physical aatian sort
of interpretation?
>> So, consciousness is definite, right?
So, any one conscious experience, I see
this, right? Yeah. I can see
superposition. So I can look for example
through these two glasses and see a
superposition but it is a particular
type of experience. So every experience
in fact one of the axioms of IT every
experience is definite. It is the way it
is. Even if it's vague I'm driving
around in a fog I can't see things. It
is what it is right
>> it's definite in its vagueness.
>> Yes. Yeah. So in that sense it has to be
definite. It cannot be I don't know what
it would mean to have two distinct
conscious experiences. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I agree. Yeah.
>> Right. And and so um yeah we we we
revolt intellectually and also I also to
a certain extent physically against the
idea that every time there's a superp
position there all these universes
branch off you know and there's this
infinite number but think about they
exist in these highdimensional Hbert
space. They don't physically right now
there isn't sort of a ghostly version of
me that has it that that went to bed
already or ghostly ghostly form of me
that on the way up here had an accident
and is sitting with crutches and all the
possible other variation you know it's
boras many the garden of many forking path
path
>> it's difficult but there's logically as
the physicists like to point out nothing
in fact hund way he would hear he would
say no in fact the fact that our
computers are so vastly f the quantum
computers can compute vastly faster you
know the for certain types of algorithm
than conventional machine is a living
proof because the way he thinks about it
essentially you have all these parallel
universes where you're doing where the
computers is doing its calculation and
then at the end you force it to collapse
in this one universe
>> I I understand that I understand that
particularly for people working on
quantum computing because you see
quantum computers are not applicable in
general. They are applicable to
particular classes of problem um namely
NPcomplete problems for which you cannot
derive a a solution through steps of
mathematical derivation or calculation
but you have to test all possible
solutions to see which one works
>> right. Um and in some cases the space of
all possible solutions is such that it
would take your computer the lifetime of
many universes uh to statistically have
a chance of finding the correct one. But
quantum computers find those solutions
relatively quickly like ours days. And
of course, the only conceptually clear
way we have to think about how that is
possible is to imagine that there are
countless parallel quantum computers in
countless parallel universes. Each one
of them testing one of the possible solutions
solutions
>> and then one of them will find it.
>> But you only need to power your one
machine, your one computer. Yeah. So,
>> and the rest you get for free. So look,
I understand the temptation
>> because it's it's it's the only handy
way to think about what a quantum
computer is doing. I I understand it.
>> But I am too committed to empiricism.
I'm too committed to the notion that
science is about modeling what is
empiric modeling and predicting what is
empirically available as opposed to
imagining what is fundamentally not
empirically available. Okay. Especially
when it's an it's extraordinarily hypothesis.
hypothesis.
>> But wait, but you do admit that those
quantum computers exist and do these
things at speed that no super
conventional supercomputer can match.
>> I admit that. I admit that thinking in
terms of parallel universes is
operationally useful. I admit even that
our primate brains currently do not have
another way uh to think about that. But
I do not think our epistemic limitations
as monkeys should translate into the
most inflationary ontological hypothesis
conceivable to the human. How do you
then [laughter] but of course how do you then
then
>> what would be a better story for quantum
computers to to just understand what
what they are doing. Then it is sort of
monkeys finding a technology to shoot
something on and machine they build and
they they get the answer back and then
we have this myth about what has
happened. But I mean
>> the the the better story the question
you're asking now is the same question
as what is the correct interpretation of
quantum mechanics.
>> So quantum computers are not creating a
new problem that sort of focuses the the
the space of the possible
interpretations. No, we are just seeing
a sort of practical reflection of
problems that were already there. We
don't know what
>> what happens
>> what it means to say that quantum
mechanics quantum mechanics has two
fundamentally distinct processes a
linear one the evolution of Schroinger's
equation and a completely nonlinear one
which is the collapse. The jury is still
out whether there is such a thing as
collapse at all. It may be just an
illusion. You know cubism for instance
would say there is no collapse.
>> Yeah. Um, so I'm I'm I'm not
surrendering to many worlds yet. I think
the concept could we we we briefly
discussed about this sort of but but do
you see a way to sort of have a sort of
idealist take on the Aaratian view? You
think it could it fit in in within an
idealist perspective if you would just
say those many worlds are are in
consciousness and of course it's all
consciousness branching off.
>> Of course. So I I don't have the opinion
I have because I am or I'm not an
idealist. It it's it's my commitment to
this to this idea that the job of
science is not to invent something that
is not empirically accessible but to
model and predict what is empirically
accessible. I I'm too committed to that
to because it's handy for us to think of
quantum computers as infinitely parallel
quantum computers. We I I acknowledge
this is very hand well in practice
uncountable. It's very handy. It's
extreme. It's a geometrical explosions
of quantum quantum computers. Yeah.
Theoretically it's finite but it's big.
>> It's it's it's just
>> beyond mindboggling. Yeah. >> Um,
>> Um,
the fact that it's handy for us to think
of a quantum computer in those terms,
I don't think it should translate into
breaking away from this commitment to
science as a way to model and predict
empirical observations as opposed to
inventing what it's not empirically accessible.
accessible.
>> In fact, the more popular quantum
computers become, the more the this
explosion, right? Because if there are a
million quantum the independent
generators infinity of universe
>> it's [laughter] it's it's an explosion
of empirically undetectable stuff
>> right our our empirical universe becomes
this in I mean tiny little thing so the
fraction of univer you know we only live
in one and the fraction the denominator
becomes exponentially larger every
single second there's some there's some superposition
superposition
here here's a
>> logically consistent.
>> Here's what I think is a healthier way
to go about it. The history of science
is the history of convenient fictions.
We imagine things and the universe
behaves as though those things were true
and therefore that allows us to make
predictions easily. Like Newton imagined
gravity as an invisible force that acted
instantaneously at a at a distance. We
put a man on the moon based on this
convenient fiction. But we can't pin
down the orbit of Mercury based on that
convenient fiction. So we invented
another convenient fiction which is
spacetime is a fabric that you can bend
and twist in the presence of mass.
>> The vast majority of scientists wouldn't
call it a fiction. Right? The vast
majority of scientists believe that
there is something known as a truth and
we our theories become better and better
at describing it.
>> The history of science contradicts this.
The history of science is the is the
history of replacing old convenient
fictions and adopting new ones. Of
course, every generation thinks that
their convenient fiction is actually true,
true,
>> right? But even even the fabric fabric
of spacetime, if you look at loop
quantum gravity, that's reformulated.
>> But we don't we don't know whether loop
quantum gravity is the right theory. But
I hear you.
>> So, but my point is to think of quantum
computers as parallel computers in
countless parallel universes is an
operationally handy, convenient fiction.
And as such we should embrace it. Yeah.
But we shouldn't mistake it for an ontology.
ontology.
>> Like like again for all practical
purposes it's it's it's good to think
>> quantum computers behave as though
countless copies of it existed in
parallel universes
>> and we can access them
>> and and we can operate on the basis of
this convenient fiction until >> slick
>> slick
>> until we find
Mercury and the orbit of Mercury for
which this convenient fiction doesn't
work and then we have to come up with a
better one. So I'm happy with that. But
I I I I can't make a ontological
commitment to ever Russian multiverses.
It it it goes to the core of my values. [laughter]
[laughter]
>> Ah yeah.
>> But of course if you've ever had um
certain types of experiences
where you in your mind you experience
bizarre things
it's easy to interpret that oh you're
now visiting these different universes.
Oh, I am not against the hypothesis of
parallel universes. I am against the motivation
motivation
for postulating parallel universes
because of the measurement problem in
quantum mechanics. So you could have
quantum univer parallel universes that
are there but have nothing to do with a
varian interpretation multiverse
multiverse. But you were you said
something important just a couple
sentences sentences ago that many Many scientists
scientists
believe they can hit on truth and
they're in search of truth and then they
of course they they they might forget
that there's something like metaphysics
and that you there's stuff there there's
a modeled and and your model of it,
right? And that you forget about all of
that and then then you think you found
truth and you say that's just your next
convenient fiction. Then comes another
one and then
>> oh you find another kind of truth. You
can correctly predict what the universe
will do. That's true.
>> Yeah. But the the the question I think
when you say when you say then Kristoff
you have these these these
moments when you think I now experience
it it directly I have a direct
experience what you call sort of a
direct acquaintance with it right so
these mystical type experiences
and I intuitively I I have had those
experiences myself it's very hard to
come back from them and not to think
that you had a direct acquaintance with
truth in a way you never had before And
then a couple of weeks later then you
tell Yeah.
>> No, it fades.
>> Years later,
>> years. Yeah.
>> Years later. I just this morning got an
email from an an old student of mine who
said, "Yeah, he had something similar
2007, you know, 18 years ago." He says
still is as vivid as the next day and he
thinks about it every day. No, these
experiences can stay. They don't have
to. But many people report they stay
with them for decades of until the end
of the life. Yes. And I am in that sense
a platonist. I do believe there's some
truth. The qu is an epistemic one. Can
we access this truth? Would we even know
the truth at an abstract level? I I can
see that I'm not sure we would know. You
know, if somebody wrote down the
complete theory of everything that
physicists look for, you know, would
people would the would referees let it
pass? Would they say, "Well, you know,
there's this issue and that issue and
your equations are too long. Anyhow,
they don't fit my you know, the journal
style. You have to shorten it." Um [laughter]
[laughter]
but but on and and I'm totally with you
when you have one of these experiences
there's no doubt in your in your from
your experience that this is the beat
that you are at the beating heart of the
universe there's something I call it
hyperrealization in contrast to there's
a psychiatric symptom it's called e well
there are two variants it's
depersonalization or derealization
derealization what I'm talking about
people come to the doctor and say I know
this is fake. I live in a I had a friend
a good friend who had this based uh he
got triggered by marijuana a strong
marijuana joint for the next two days he
ran around among others telling me why
he was living in a simulation because
the map he had there was some road
missing and he said this is where they
screwed up I know this is fake and and
he finally had to go we had to bring him
to the clinic they gave him antiscychotic
antiscychotic
um medication sometimes the only way you
can get out of this is by ECT this you
know, electro convulsive therapy.
>> There was a story two years ago of this
American Alaskan airline pilot who tried
to shut down the two um the two engines
of his of his plane because he thought
four days earlier he' taken
psychedelics. He had this episode of
derealization where he thought he was
living in a dream and he believed that
if he pulled the plug on the airplane
the airplane crashes then he'll wake up
and you know that's derealization. But
what's what's typical what can be very
typical of these um mystical experience
that you feel the opposite hyper
realization you feel this is it this is
the truth of the matter I've now
encountered ultimate reality and then
you spend your rest of your life trying
to make sense of this ultimate reality
>> yeah and
I love this topic because I have
experienced this hyper reality feeling
as well what I brought back what I made
of it afterwards is is
clearly I hallucinate things in a in a
psychedelic trip, right? I hallucinate
that my walls may my walls may be may be
melting but if I record my walls they
were not melting, right? Could I
hallucinate hyper reality? And then my
conclusion was yes, I could. But then look at the implication of this. I may
look at the implication of this. I may be hallucinating the reality of it right
be hallucinating the reality of it right now. If my mind is capable of doing that
now. If my mind is capable of doing that because there is something slightly
because there is something slightly different from serotonin cursing through
different from serotonin cursing through my brain, then why couldn't that happen
my brain, then why couldn't that happen with serotonin instead of psilocybin or
with serotonin instead of psilocybin or psilocine? Right?
psilocine? Right? >> The only counterargument I would have
>> The only counterargument I would have most of the time, what do you see here?
most of the time, what do you see here? >> A red glass.
>> A red glass. >> What do you see?
>> What do you see? >> A red glass.
>> A red glass. >> And I also see a red transparent class.
>> And I also see a red transparent class. So most of the time reality is like
So most of the time reality is like this, right? But then there of course
this, right? But then there of course limiting cases like do you know the
limiting cases like do you know the dress?
dress? >> Yeah, I know it.
>> Yeah, I know it. >> Okay. So do do you know what? The blue
>> Okay. So do do you know what? The blue the blue golden dress.
the blue golden dress. >> Blue golden dress. Yeah. We can put it
>> Blue golden dress. Yeah. We can put it on screen for people who don't know. It
on screen for people who don't know. It was like a viral. It went viral a couple
was like a viral. It went viral a couple of years ago.
of years ago. >> Yeah. 2015. So roughly I can't remember.
>> Yeah. 2015. So roughly I can't remember. Roughly half people see it white gold
Roughly half people see it white gold like me. Yeah.
like me. Yeah. >> And the other half of people are
>> And the other half of people are diluted. They see it blue and black.
diluted. They see it blue and black. Right. And it's just [laughter]
Right. And it's just [laughter] Bernardo, what color did you did you do
Bernardo, what color did you did you do you remember?
you remember? >> Blue and black. Unbelievable.
>> Blue and black. Unbelievable. My point. And and it's not it's not that
My point. And and it's not it's not that you have to think about it that you sort
you have to think about it that you sort of infer. It's an immediate sensory
of infer. It's an immediate sensory >> uh judgment. It's very immediate. And
>> uh judgment. It's very immediate. And it's unlike those you know the these
it's unlike those you know the these bastable illusion old woman young lady.
bastable illusion old woman young lady. >> It's it's different. Now
>> It's it's different. Now >> so it's not always the case that we have
>> so it's not always the case that we have consensual reality, right? Do you know
consensual reality, right? Do you know that
that >> or the colors of the the rectangles in a
>> or the colors of the the rectangles in a checkerboard with a shadow projected on
checkerboard with a shadow projected on that one also that's too even if you
that one also that's too even if you know it's an illusion you look at it and
know it's an illusion you look at it and >> yeah but that everyone yeah
>> yeah but that everyone yeah >> that one everyone has but everyone has
>> that one everyone has but everyone has okay you know I read recently read anil
okay you know I read recently read anil Seth's book and he explains it that was
Seth's book and he explains it that was like eye opening and it's funny even now
like eye opening and it's funny even now because I I think I can explain why both
because I I think I can explain why both of us see it blue and you saw it like
of us see it blue and you saw it like golden
golden >> because it has to do with the people uh
>> because it has to do with the people uh rise early in the morning. So it has to
rise early in the morning. So it has to do the assumption has to do with the
do the assumption has to do with the overall brightness that your brain
overall brightness that your brain assumes the overall brightness or being
assumes the overall brightness or being it's dark then you tend to see it I
it's dark then you tend to see it I think is black and blue and if the
think is black and blue and if the overall assumption implicit bias you
overall assumption implicit bias you know in terms of beige the the prior
know in terms of beige the the prior bias is it's bright then you see it
bias is it's bright then you see it white and
white and >> and you could say like outside person
>> and you could say like outside person and inside I I guess you're more like on
and inside I I guess you're more like on the outside and on the camera our
the outside and on the camera our camera's white balance
camera's white balance >> inside we go outside now with the with
>> inside we go outside now with the with the
the >> Oh, you can shift it.
>> Oh, you can shift it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> You you put your white balance on inside
>> You you put your white balance on inside lighting and then when we go with the
lighting and then when we go with the same camera outside, it looks blue
same camera outside, it looks blue because the white balance is set to
because the white balance is set to indoors and Bernard and I spend more
indoors and Bernard and I spend more times indoors. So, we're set to and then
times indoors. So, we're set to and then we saw the dress as blue. But that's
we saw the dress as blue. But that's just our mind predicting because we're
just our mind predicting because we're more accustomed to that sort of light
more accustomed to that sort of light setting. But it but it it all relates to
setting. But it but it it all relates to this consensus reality and aren't these
this consensus reality and aren't these >> there is some form of consensus. Well,
>> there is some form of consensus. Well, it's more limited, but in psychedelic
it's more limited, but in psychedelic experience as well, if you if you ask
experience as well, if you if you ask experienced psychonauts, do you know
experienced psychonauts, do you know what the dome is? Everybody knows what
what the dome is? Everybody knows what the dome is. Everybody has been to the
the dome is. Everybody has been to the dome. Everybody describes the dome in
dome. Everybody describes the dome in similar ways.
similar ways. >> I'm sorry. I don't think I've been to
>> I'm sorry. I don't think I've been to the dome. [laughter]
the dome. [laughter] >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. Do a few more.
Do a few more. >> The dome is something that if you
>> The dome is something that if you haven't been there, I cannot describe it
haven't been there, I cannot describe it to you. But if you have been there and I
to you. But if you have been there and I say the dome, I know what you mean. Even
say the dome, I know what you mean. Even though
though >> Okay. So, just approximate it. Now I'm
>> Okay. So, just approximate it. Now I'm curious. What is a dome?
curious. What is a dome? >> It it looks like a dome, but it's not at
>> It it looks like a dome, but it's not at all like a dome. But
all like a dome. But >> so it's a it's a type of visual
>> so it's a it's a type of visual phenomena.
phenomena. >> It's a perception of time. Uh sorry,
>> It's a perception of time. Uh sorry, it's a perception of space.
it's a perception of space. I would interpret it as a form of
I would interpret it as a form of non-ucleidian curved space
non-ucleidian curved space >> and it feels
>> and it feels >> like a dome
>> like a dome >> spacious but confined.
>> spacious but confined. >> Yes. So, so a lot of people describe
>> Yes. So, so a lot of people describe just ask around and people say, "Oh,
just ask around and people say, "Oh, have you have you been there?"
have you have you been there?" >> I've been to the dome three or four
>> I've been to the dome three or four times. Yeah. Or what a friend of mine
times. Yeah. Or what a friend of mine describes as a tophe machine during ego
describes as a tophe machine during ego dissolution. You know, when you make
dissolution. You know, when you make toffee, a machine that stretches and
toffee, a machine that stretches and rolls and stretches and definitely
rolls and stretches and definitely definitely or there are other states um
definitely or there are other states um have the same friend of mine describes
have the same friend of mine describes the the Borg cube and he said, "Have you
the the Borg cube and he said, "Have you been to the Borg cube?" And I'm like, I
been to the Borg cube?" And I'm like, I know exactly what you mean. Now, if you
know exactly what you mean. Now, if you ask me, is this really a bor cube? No,
ask me, is this really a bor cube? No, it's not at all like a bor cube. But if
it's not at all like a bor cube. But if I say bor cube to somebody who has been
I say bor cube to somebody who has been there, they go, I know what you mean.
there, they go, I know what you mean. You know,
You know, >> so there is some form of loose consensus
>> so there is some form of loose consensus there too.
there too. >> Yeah. Because we tend to people the
>> Yeah. Because we tend to people the variety is not infinite. The variety of
variety is not infinite. The variety of of type of experience you can have under
of type of experience you can have under these different
these different >> be I know this is sort of
>> be I know this is sort of >> some of them will reflect. So for
>> some of them will reflect. So for example, most everyone sees these
example, most everyone sees these hexagonal patterns, right?
hexagonal patterns, right? >> Yeah. Okay. That reflects the
>> Yeah. Okay. That reflects the architecture of your cognitive system.
architecture of your cognitive system. Yeah, I understand that. [clears throat]
Yeah, I understand that. [clears throat] >> This visual system. So the dome may also
>> This visual system. So the dome may also reflect something common to all of our
reflect something common to all of our brains or Yeah. And DMT isn't DMT space
brains or Yeah. And DMT isn't DMT space like map. There is now there is some
like map. There is now there is some sort of maps. Yeah.
sort of maps. Yeah. >> Yeah. But because you say it's this
>> Yeah. But because you say it's this loose consensus, could it be tightened
loose consensus, could it be tightened in a way if we just find a method? I
in a way if we just find a method? I mean you've you've written about this
mean you've you've written about this like in a fiction style like as a
like in a fiction style like as a modern-day myth in one of your books
modern-day myth in one of your books more than allegory. Bernardo has written
more than allegory. Bernardo has written about this sort of if we in a very
about this sort of if we in a very controlled way, you can explain it
controlled way, you can explain it better than I do, Bernardo, but in a
better than I do, Bernardo, but in a very controlled way do a trip maybe
very controlled way do a trip maybe combined with AI and the right exact
combined with AI and the right exact cocktail of substances, could we control
cocktail of substances, could we control it? And uh I I think there I mean
it? And uh I I think there I mean Larissa's work with transcranium
Larissa's work with transcranium magnetic stimulation on deep brain
magnetic stimulation on deep brain stimulation using this amplitude
stimulation using this amplitude modulation things and if you do that
modulation things and if you do that with a high degree of spatial resolution
with a high degree of spatial resolution and parallelism
and parallelism um could you precisely create a
um could you precisely create a psychedelic effect? Uh yeah perhaps. And
psychedelic effect? Uh yeah perhaps. And then we could create maps. Yeah. And
then we could create maps. Yeah. And then people would say, well, but you're
then people would say, well, but you're creating those maps just because you're
creating those maps just because you're manipulating your own mind. Yeah, but we
manipulating your own mind. Yeah, but we are manipulating our own minds right
are manipulating our own minds right now. The world is manipulating our
now. The world is manipulating our minds.
minds. >> Setting of course also important, right?
>> Setting of course also important, right? If you feel depressed that day or your
If you feel depressed that day or your girlfriend just left you
girlfriend just left you >> versus you just got a big prize,
>> versus you just got a big prize, obviously, you know, it's going to make
obviously, you know, it's going to make a big difference.
a big difference. >> Yeah. And it's due to these sort of
>> Yeah. And it's due to these sort of endless amount of variables we have that
endless amount of variables we have that it's so hard to get. I mean, who has
it's so hard to get. I mean, who has ever
ever >> if I go Well, I I never have the same
>> if I go Well, I I never have the same you'd never have the exact same trip to
you'd never have the exact same trip to a country in holiday. It's just
a country in holiday. It's just >> if I think about it right, you never
>> if I think about it right, you never have the same exact same psychedelic
have the same exact same psychedelic trip. But in reality, we also never have
trip. But in reality, we also never have the exact same but somehow it's still
the exact same but somehow it's still different.
different. >> There are things that are very specific
>> There are things that are very specific and I I understand visual patterns. I am
and I I understand visual patterns. I am with you. It's just the pattern of in
with you. It's just the pattern of in which you know things are simulated or
which you know things are simulated or shut shut down in our in our cognitive
shut shut down in our in our cognitive system but
system but I never planned to talk about this
I never planned to talk about this but but there are specific things like a
but but there are specific things like a lot of people will recognize if I say
lot of people will recognize if I say the gift when you get the gift and that
the gift when you get the gift and that the gift looks like a fabra egg but it's
the gift looks like a fabra egg but it's not a fabra egg at all. It's a mixture
not a fabra egg at all. It's a mixture of object and subject. Uh it's the union
of object and subject. Uh it's the union of opposites. It's the resolution of all
of opposites. It's the resolution of all contradictions. Uh, and it's all in that
contradictions. Uh, and it's all in that fabriier egg that's handed over to you
fabriier egg that's handed over to you by
by some agency.
some agency. This is a very specific experience that
This is a very specific experience that you would see a lot of people telling
you would see a lot of people telling you, I've been there or
you, I've been there or >> so you think there are universals?
>> so you think there are universals? >> I Well, I don't know whether they are
>> I Well, I don't know whether they are universals, but I think there are rooms
universals, but I think there are rooms in a palace of mind that different
in a palace of mind that different people can visit
people can visit >> universal that different. So there's
>> universal that different. So there's this um he passed away recently um
this um he passed away recently um Israeli psychologist at Hebrew
Israeli psychologist at Hebrew University Benny Shannon who's written
University Benny Shannon who's written this extraordinary book about several
this extraordinary book about several hundred IUs experience that he had it's
hundred IUs experience that he had it's Oxford University Press the antipoles of
Oxford University Press the antipoles of the mind and there he talks about this
the mind and there he talks about this universal that isn't it strange that
universal that isn't it strange that different people including western
different people including western educated people like him but also people
educated people like him but also people from let's say Brazil where he's been
from let's say Brazil where he's been many many times you know indigenous
many many times you know indigenous people that have our Yoska experiences
people that have our Yoska experiences there are some there there are certain
there are some there there are certain universals there's always these views of
universals there's always these views of jungles there always tends to be these
jungles there always tends to be these contorted snake like architectures there
contorted snake like architectures there these grandio palaces and then he
these grandio palaces and then he reflects what what makes these
reflects what what makes these experiences universal
experiences universal >> disagree is it possible it's all bias
>> disagree is it possible it's all bias you know we all have expectation we read
you know we all have expectation we read these and then of course we'll or is
these and then of course we'll or is that truly something is it like Jung
that truly something is it like Jung with archetypes is it truly something
with archetypes is it truly something universal reflecting of what of the
universal reflecting of what of the human condition.
human condition. >> Yeah. Now I understand what you mean by
>> Yeah. Now I understand what you mean by universal. So I'm a philosopher so I
universal. So I'm a philosopher so I thought you meant something else but yes
thought you meant something else but yes I think it empirically my commitment to
I think it empirically my commitment to empiricism would force me to say yes. Uh
empiricism would force me to say yes. Uh specific things like um
specific things like um the question behind the cosmic itch.
the question behind the cosmic itch. You know the question that you can't ask
You know the question that you can't ask and is because if you could ask you'
and is because if you could ask you' know the answer but you can't ask that
know the answer but you can't ask that question and the thing that wants to ask
question and the thing that wants to ask it's not you. It's what remains of you
it's not you. It's what remains of you when your ego is gone. These are so
when your ego is gone. These are so specific nuanced uh things. They're not
specific nuanced uh things. They're not generic. They're not vague. Uh and yet
generic. They're not vague. Uh and yet you know talk talk
you know talk talk to
to >> many people describe this in the
>> many people describe this in the psychedelic space. Yeah.
psychedelic space. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean I I haven't been in that
>> Yeah. I mean I I haven't been in that space for 10 years now and it was part
space for 10 years now and it was part of my own three-year long research
of my own three-year long research program. I done it now. Now I'm through.
program. I done it now. Now I'm through. I don't need to go back there. But yeah.
I don't need to go back there. But yeah. Yeah. I think there are such things as
Yeah. I think there are such things as this archetype of universals. And they
this archetype of universals. And they can they can have geometry. They can be
can they can have geometry. They can be very specific in their qualities.
very specific in their qualities. specific to the point that you can't say
specific to the point that you can't say it's just
it's just >> because we are all humans and we share
>> because we are all humans and we share an anatomy or share physiology. It's too
an anatomy or share physiology. It's too specific there. It's stuff that there is
specific there. It's stuff that there is no evolutionary reason for that for that
no evolutionary reason for that for that stuff to be there. Now there is this
stuff to be there. Now there is this neuroscientist public um published a
neuroscientist public um published a book recently I forgot his name
book recently I forgot his name >> DMT and the death by death by surprise
>> DMT and the death by death by surprise >> death by astonishment. by astonishment.
>> death by astonishment. by astonishment. >> Death by astonishment. Yeah. And and so
>> Death by astonishment. Yeah. And and so there is a whole discussion he he
there is a whole discussion he he engages in after 20 years and he says
engages in after 20 years and he says there is just no evolutionary reason for
there is just no evolutionary reason for a nervous system who evolved to model
a nervous system who evolved to model this world to come up with this bizarre
this world to come up with this bizarre consistent internally consistent
consistent internally consistent alternative world with those entities.
alternative world with those entities. And he comes and says therefore I am
And he comes and says therefore I am coming out and I am saying those
coming out and I am saying those entities are real. There is something it
entities are real. There is something it is like to be them. Now, I'm not sure I
is like to be them. Now, I'm not sure I go that far.
go that far. >> It's a bridge too far for me.
>> It's a bridge too far for me. >> Yeah, I'm not sure.
>> Yeah, I'm not sure. >> Elves, right? These elf creature
>> Elves, right? These elf creature machine elves from Terrace Mechan.
machine elves from Terrace Mechan. >> Yeah, I have never met the Alves, so I I
>> Yeah, I have never met the Alves, so I I can't resonate too much.
can't resonate too much. >> You haven't done DMT, right? That's
>> You haven't done DMT, right? That's >> No, I have not done DMT.
>> No, I have not done DMT. >> There you go. You haven't unlocked that
>> There you go. You haven't unlocked that particular door. [clears throat] That
particular door. [clears throat] That explains it.
explains it. >> The dome you can visit the machine else
>> The dome you can visit the machine else you
you >> interesting. the to me what's sort of
>> interesting. the to me what's sort of and again this is a bit sort of science
and again this is a bit sort of science fiction but it makes me think of what
fiction but it makes me think of what Donald Hoffman is always working on I've
Donald Hoffman is always working on I've interviewed him and he's he says things
interviewed him and he's he says things like breaking out of space time right
like breaking out of space time right like like we science is about sort of
like like we science is about sort of the the within the matrix just playing
the the within the matrix just playing the game very well and that's super nice
the game very well and that's super nice to build like a Lamborghini in in the
to build like a Lamborghini in in the matrix and even a quantum computer but
matrix and even a quantum computer but it would be nicer to just pick up the
it would be nicer to just pick up the phone and and sort of get out of the
phone and and sort of get out of the matrix like and and that's what he's
matrix like and and that's what he's sort of referring to could we build
sort of referring to could we build technology ies may it be mind
technology ies may it be mind technologies that help us break out of
technologies that help us break out of spaceime. I mean it sounds like science
spaceime. I mean it sounds like science fiction but it is something that really
fiction but it is something that really truly fascinates me. I mean especially
truly fascinates me. I mean especially when you say stuff like this that
when you say stuff like this that we have a hint that there are there's
we have a hint that there are there's stuff there that we need to explore
stuff there that we need to explore further. Could we bring it back and
further. Could we bring it back and build technologies? Of course it will be
build technologies? Of course it will be something completely different than the
something completely different than the technologies we know. But
technologies we know. But >> oh I don't think it needs to be
>> oh I don't think it needs to be completely different. M
completely different. M >> I think a high resolution transcranial
>> I think a high resolution transcranial magnetic stimulation that can do deep
magnetic stimulation that can do deep tissue stimulation if the resolution of
tissue stimulation if the resolution of that is brought to the level of single
that is brought to the level of single axons
axons >> I mean maybe it's not practical today uh
>> I mean maybe it's not practical today uh but now we're far away from that
but now we're far away from that >> but but you know if the frequency of the
>> but but you know if the frequency of the beans is high enough and you can create
beans is high enough and you can create just the correct amplitude modulation at
just the correct amplitude modulation at pre precisely the intersection and you
pre precisely the intersection and you can do that with thousands of beans in
can do that with thousands of beans in parallel you No, you may have that
parallel you No, you may have that technology to manipulate your mind
technology to manipulate your mind whatever way you want.
whatever way you want. >> So what I mean is it's not practical
>> So what I mean is it's not practical today but it doesn't require something
today but it doesn't require something unimaginable right now. It's it's
unimaginable right now. It's it's >> stretching invasive technology like some
>> stretching invasive technology like some sort of neurolink probes. Yeah.
sort of neurolink probes. Yeah. >> You know when you directly put wires
>> You know when you directly put wires some sort of nano wise or something
some sort of nano wise or something inside the brain. Yeah. We in our
inside the brain. Yeah. We in our lifetime we will not have this
lifetime we will not have this technology. Certainly not in my
technology. Certainly not in my lifetime. Do you have would you think it
lifetime. Do you have would you think it it is feasible and and sort of
it is feasible and and sort of >> I see no physical reasons why it should
>> I see no physical reasons why it should not be possible. There may be myriad
not be possible. There may be myriad [clears throat] of practical reasons.
[clears throat] of practical reasons. You can't map it. You can't do it in
You can't map it. You can't do it in humans.
humans. >> Yeah. But uh I see no physical reasons.
>> Yeah. But uh I see no physical reasons. >> And may I share with you sort of sort of
>> And may I share with you sort of sort of my thoughts entering this this workshop
my thoughts entering this this workshop and keen to hear your your thoughts on
and keen to hear your your thoughts on that. Uh I was thinking about sort of
that. Uh I was thinking about sort of our discussion earlier today. um on the
our discussion earlier today. um on the role of of of science and bringing this
role of of of science and bringing this direct knowledge this acquaintance of
direct knowledge this acquaintance of these weird states in it made me think
these weird states in it made me think of sort of how [snorts] how the journey
of sort of how [snorts] how the journey of science started with Galileo the
of science started with Galileo the telescope I I did a documentary on
telescope I I did a documentary on bacteria Antony Fo the lenses and it's
bacteria Antony Fo the lenses and it's all looking in the lens and then it's it
all looking in the lens and then it's it became sort of handy that Deart came up
became sort of handy that Deart came up with a philosophy that that that matched
with a philosophy that that that matched that hey that stuff there is just the
that hey that stuff there is just the rest extension you the the rest of coing
rest extension you the the rest of coing towns they're split and there's the
towns they're split and there's the lands and you can and then we have John
lands and you can and then we have John Wheeler has this beautiful quote where
Wheeler has this beautiful quote where he says sort of the the glass we have to
he says sort of the the glass we have to is broken we have to reach in and he
is broken we have to reach in and he meant sort of that the whole subject
meant sort of that the whole subject object dividing quantum mechanics is of
object dividing quantum mechanics is of course broken and that's the U of
course broken and that's the U of Wheeler and and it's sort of now about
Wheeler and and it's sort of now about observer participency and and I and to
observer participency and and I and to me that's where we are sort of like
me that's where we are sort of like physicalism has brought us here to that
physicalism has brought us here to that point and it's been a beautiful journey
point and it's been a beautiful journey I mean it hasn't those lenses and stuff
I mean it hasn't those lenses and stuff is it's all beautiful but but where we
is it's all beautiful but but where we are right now we have to the glass is
are right now we have to the glass is broken we have to reach in and and then
broken we have to reach in and and then we are now talking about these weird
we are now talking about these weird experiences in in altered states and
experiences in in altered states and stuff but that's sort of my my feeling
stuff but that's sort of my my feeling and makes me like I'm very excited to
and makes me like I'm very excited to hear everyone talk about this but this
hear everyone talk about this but this is my reflection
is my reflection >> we should have this debate a repeat of
>> we should have this debate a repeat of this in three days time
this in three days time >> because we have a lot of physicists here
>> because we have a lot of physicists here work in foundational physics
work in foundational physics >> we have people like Ali Pasha who work
>> we have people like Ali Pasha who work exactly
exactly um you know he comes from he was uh he
um you know he comes from he was uh he got his PhD with Zylinger and now he
got his PhD with Zylinger and now he does this amazing triple photon
does this amazing triple photon microscopy or entangled photon
microscopy or entangled photon microscopy. So we we'll we'll we'll sort
microscopy. So we we'll we'll we'll sort of find out more what what do some of
of find out more what what do some of these scientists now know and can tell
these scientists now know and can tell us about quantum mechanics and the
us about quantum mechanics and the current contemporary interpretation of
current contemporary interpretation of it and how it might apply to the brain.
it and how it might apply to the brain. So I'm very excited.
So I'm very excited. >> [clears throat]
>> [clears throat] [snorts]
[snorts] >> Bernardo, any final words? You uh what
>> Bernardo, any final words? You uh what are your
are your >> thoughts? I have one final thought. You
>> thoughts? I have one final thought. You know, you're talking about this other
know, you're talking about this other worlds that we can visit if we replace
worlds that we can visit if we replace serotonin with silicosine or
serotonin with silicosine or dimethylryptamine
dimethylryptamine >> and it my intuition is that it's not
>> and it my intuition is that it's not another world. My intuition is that we
another world. My intuition is that we our cognitive system evolved to pick out
our cognitive system evolved to pick out from the one world what has bearing on
from the one world what has bearing on our survival. M
our survival. M >> but it stands to reason that a great
>> but it stands to reason that a great many things would have no bearing to our
many things would have no bearing to our survival and therefore we don't pick
survival and therefore we don't pick them out but if you manipulate our
them out but if you manipulate our cognitive system disrupt it in certain
cognitive system disrupt it in certain ways that it opens up to stuff that is
ways that it opens up to stuff that is natural it's just out there all the time
natural it's just out there all the time it's just that we are shielded from it
it's just that we are shielded from it for very good evolutionary reasons to
for very good evolutionary reasons to prevent cognitive overloads to focus on
prevent cognitive overloads to focus on what matters
what matters >> well also so for example mystical
>> well also so for example mystical experience almost always goes hand in
experience almost always goes hand in hand with loss of self evolutionary this
hand with loss of self evolutionary this would not be a good think if I think
would not be a good think if I think about everyone but myself, if I'm truly
about everyone but myself, if I'm truly compassionate with everyone, well,
compassionate with everyone, well, that's great.
that's great. >> Yeah. You don't survive.
>> Yeah. You don't survive. >> But but then my genes aren't going to be
>> But but then my genes aren't going to be passed on, right? The fact that you have
passed on, right? The fact that you have a self is essential for evolutionary
a self is essential for evolutionary reason, right? You needed to do
reason, right? You needed to do long-term planning to make enough money
long-term planning to make enough money to be able to marry, to have kids, and
to be able to marry, to have kids, and that's what ultimately we had, you know,
that's what ultimately we had, you know, evolutionary we're carriers of our DNA.
evolutionary we're carriers of our DNA. That's really what matters from
That's really what matters from evolution point of view. So being
evolution point of view. So being selfless or being you know being in a
selfless or being you know being in a mystical state is not really useful for
mystical state is not really useful for for that point of view.
for that point of view. >> Yeah. On the contrary. Yeah. You need to
>> Yeah. On the contrary. Yeah. You need to know to which mouth to bring the fork.
know to which mouth to bring the fork. >> Yeah. But there is there is a there is a
>> Yeah. But there is there is a there is a counterargument to be made. I mean if
counterargument to be made. I mean if you look evolutionary what what would
you look evolutionary what what would explain sort of religion and
explain sort of religion and spirituality and its function in
spirituality and its function in societies? There was just a report two
societies? There was just a report two days ago in nature showing that there
days ago in nature showing that there the standard mushroom that produce magic
the standard mushroom that produce magic mushrooms psilocybenzis
mushrooms psilocybenzis generates um psilocybin using one
generates um psilocybin using one particular biochemical pathway. There's
particular biochemical pathway. There's another fungus called ino incibbe
another fungus called ino incibbe that generates psilocybin in a very
that generates psilocybin in a very different biochemical way. So here we
different biochemical way. So here we now in an interesting case that two
now in an interesting case that two fungi generate the same substance
fungi generate the same substance psilocybin or synthesize
psilocybin or synthesize the same substance using two very
the same substance using two very different pathways. So there has to be a
different pathways. So there has to be a strong evolutionary reason why plants
strong evolutionary reason why plants evolved it
evolved it >> and for you know the standard two
>> and for you know the standard two hypothesis they may both be right they
hypothesis they may both be right they may both be wrong. One is that's
may both be wrong. One is that's aversive that animals are less likely to
aversive that animals are less likely to eat it. the other one that they're more
eat it. the other one that they're more likely to eat it because they like these
likely to eat it because they like these like homo sapiens. They like these
like homo sapiens. They like these special states.
special states. >> Couldn't it be just like tryptophan?
>> Couldn't it be just like tryptophan? It's a precursor to just about anything.
It's a precursor to just about anything. So, it has to be there.
So, it has to be there. >> Psilocybin isn't, as far as I know, it's
>> Psilocybin isn't, as far as I know, it's not used for anything else. It's not a
not used for anything else. It's not a precursor for any other substance.
precursor for any other substance. >> Gentlemen, thank you for a very nice
>> Gentlemen, thank you for a very nice kickoff conversation to this workshop
kickoff conversation to this workshop and u thank you for watching. This has
and u thank you for watching. This has been a conversation on a workshop that
been a conversation on a workshop that yet has to take place in this very room
yet has to take place in this very room which will happen in the next two days.
which will happen in the next two days. We will film all of that and share
We will film all of that and share content of it with you. And um I hope
content of it with you. And um I hope you enjoy all of that and please leave
you enjoy all of that and please leave your questions and comments below. Thank
your questions and comments below. Thank you for watching.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
