BBCPERSIAN — broadcast
20260915 103000 UTC
469 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:41] Hello and good evening, welcome to this short news segment.
[00:00:45] Saudi Arabia has warned that it will respond
[00:00:48] decisively to yesterday's Houthi attacks in Yemen.
[00:00:52] The Houthis say that Saudi Arabia targeted about 50 locations
[00:00:55] in Yemeni territory with its airstrikes last night. Meanwhile,
[00:00:59] Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, is scheduled
[00:01:02] to meet with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the President of Egypt,
[00:01:06] in Cairo today. Saudi Arabia recently asked the US and Britain
[00:01:10] for more support in the fight against the Houthis.
[00:01:13] The Houthis' capture of a port and an island
[00:01:17] dominating Bab-el-Mandeb has created more
[00:01:20] problems for Saudi Arabia's oil exports.
[00:01:24] Global energy prices are rising due to
[00:01:27] the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb.
[00:01:31] For more analysis of these
[00:01:34] developments, my colleague Omid Parsanejad
[00:01:37] is with us here in the studio. Omid, the rising energy
[00:01:41] prices we are witnessing are something the Iranian side
[00:01:44] has been pursuing. One of the main pillars
[00:01:48] of today's strategy is exactly this. In fact, this
[00:01:51] confrontation between Iran and America has turned into a kind
[00:01:55] of endurance contest. Which of them can endure more?
[00:01:59] Will Iran, under the economic pressures resulting from sanctions
[00:02:02] and naval blockade, be ready sooner
[00:02:06] to surrender and make concessions, or will the Americans,
[00:02:09] under the pressure that this crisis
[00:02:13] in the energy market creates within
[00:02:16] American territory and the political cost
[00:02:19] it imposes on the government? As you said,
[00:02:23] Mr. Bin Salman is going to Egypt today
[00:02:27] and will probably ask the Egyptians to help them. They
[00:02:31] also recently signed a pact, the Mecca Pact between Iran, between
[00:02:34] Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, which was a joint
[00:02:38] defense pact. And the Pakistanis, if you remember,
[00:02:42] a few days ago warned the Houthis that if they continue
[00:02:46] these operations, that pact might be activated, and
[00:02:49] now it seems that Saudi Arabia is trying to
[00:02:53] convince Egypt to get involved in a conflict
[00:02:57] with the Houthis. They also asked Britain and reported.
[00:03:11] All countries in the world want this to turn into
[00:03:15] an international economic crisis. Now we know,
[00:03:18] apart from the rising oil prices and such,
[00:03:21] which have been going up,
[00:03:24] the shortage of, for example, liquefied natural gas is
[00:03:27] a serious issue now. India and China cannot buy the liquefied natural gas they need,
[00:03:31] it's not available in the market at all, prices are going up.
[00:03:34] And tomorrow, Mr. Araqchi,
[00:03:38] Iran's foreign minister, is scheduled to go to China and meet
[00:03:41] with his Chinese counterpart, and it is predicted that they will probably
[00:03:45] discuss this issue with him. The Chinese are probably not very happy with
[00:03:49] this situation that is happening in the energy crisis, in the energy market.
[00:03:52] Therefore, as you said, it is true that Iran
[00:03:56] wants the crisis in the energy market to escalate and
[00:04:00] remain, but it's also a double-edged sword, meaning
[00:04:04] it will probably hear criticisms from its own supporters
[00:04:07] in this regard. The US has imposed more sanctions, meaning
[00:04:11] it is increasing sanction pressure. The US is increasing sanction pressure.
[00:04:15] They sanctioned a Russian bank which they accuse of
[00:04:19] having an office in Iran and helping
[00:04:22] Iran to engage in international transactions.
[00:04:26] But well, the Russians
[00:04:31] themselves, Russia is under sanctions and many
[00:04:34] Russian entities are directly
[00:04:37] sanctioned. So they might not be very sensitive
[00:04:41] to these issues. But the Americans said that throughout this week,
[00:04:44] Treasury officials
[00:04:48] will be in contact with financial institutions
[00:04:51] and warn specific financial institutions about the
[00:04:55] actions they are taking. Some of these
[00:04:58] might be involved in a kind of transactions and exchanges
[00:05:02] that ultimately benefit Iran, but without knowing it. And now the Americans want to
[00:05:05] inform them and warn them. Omid, thank you very much, Omid Parsonjad,
[00:05:09] my colleague here in the studio. This news segment concludes.
[00:05:24] Does an impenetrable border separate intelligence
[00:05:27] from consciousness? What is consciousness, and can the most intelligent
[00:05:30] beings cross this border and gain
[00:05:34] consciousness? If artificial intelligence achieves consciousness,
[00:05:38] what will it mean for humans?
[00:05:41] Hello,
[00:06:05] if you have had a conversation with a chatbot,
[00:06:09] you must have seen that it was entirely focused
[00:06:12] on you, your questions, and your needs, and in other words, it was selfless.
[00:06:16] That is, you have not found anything called self
[00:06:19] in it. The paradox is that the feeling that this
[00:06:23] intelligent being on the other side is a self-controlled
[00:06:27] and respectable being cannot be
[00:06:29] dismissed. This paradox comes from the fact that we know
[00:06:33] artificial intelligence is intelligent, but not conscious.
[00:06:37] Conscious in the sense of having an inner
[00:06:41] world. But is that the definition of consciousness,
[00:06:44] and if so, will artificial intelligence not
[00:06:48] be able to step further and gain
[00:06:51] consciousness of itself and its environment?
[00:06:55] Is it not true that even now, when our questions to
[00:06:58] artificial intelligence become more precise, we feel
[00:07:02] that this interlocutor has taste and an active
[00:07:06] and interactive mind? Is there a long
[00:07:09] way from here to gaining consciousness?
[00:07:13] Vorya Amiri, a graduate
[00:07:17] of theoretical physics and philosophy, says: The philosophical
[00:07:20] view of physicalism, or
[00:07:23] in other words, a theory that denies the soul and the
[00:07:25] non-material world, considers the acquisition of consciousness
[00:07:29] by artificial intelligence possible. But
[00:07:32] Ashkan Farhadi, a researcher in the field of new
[00:07:35] technologies, with a background of education and work
[00:07:39] in the medical field in America, says:
[00:07:42] Consciousness is more than mere brain processes.
[00:07:45] Processes that artificial intelligence is trying to copy.
[00:07:49] Welcome. Perhaps
[00:07:52] it's better to start with you, Vorya, who believes
[00:07:56] that explaining materialistic physicalist
[00:08:00] processes regarding consciousness actually
[00:08:03] makes the idea of
[00:08:07] artificial intelligence becoming conscious
[00:08:10] easier or possible. Tell us why, perhaps with an explanation
[00:08:14] of consciousness. That's right, I
[00:08:17] think if we start with consciousness, it's a very good point.
[00:08:21] Look, before the issue of consciousness
[00:08:25] or awareness, perhaps the most important question, I think, in the history
[00:08:28] of philosophy was the issue of existence and the issue of God. I now think the issue of consciousness is even
[00:08:32] newer, because we look at the world or at ourselves
[00:08:36] from within consciousness, and these questions require that we
[00:08:40] first know what consciousness is, what consciousness is. Now,
[00:08:44] intelligence. Sometimes we use the word intelligence
[00:08:47] for processing information, for when you receive information
[00:08:51] from the environment, you adjust yourself in some way to this information,
[00:08:55] you draw conclusions, you form beliefs. This does not necessarily mean consciousness,
[00:08:59] at least I don't use it that way, and many others don't either. Or sometimes
[00:09:02] you are awake, meaning you are not asleep, you are not unconscious. Is this also
[00:09:06] a kind of consciousness, because it seems machines can do these things. But
[00:09:09] the point you mentioned, and I think it's correct, is experience. First-person
[00:09:17] experience, meaning experiencing the world in such a way that it seems
[00:09:20] we ourselves have this experience. The only problem is that we only have this experience from our own perspective.
[00:09:24] We imagine that others also have
[00:09:27] this experience. Why? Well, there are various reasons: because they are like us, they
[00:09:31] also have a nervous system, they also show with their language and behavior
[00:09:35] that they have our behaviors.
[00:09:38] As a result, everyone has a first-person experience
[00:09:42] and assumes that others do too. Exactly. And automatically, we
[00:09:45] create a theory of mind that others also have a mind. We believe
[00:09:49] this. We even think that animals also have a mind, while we don't
[00:09:52] have language with animals at all. We just look at their behavior. This is an important
[00:09:55] point. By looking at the behavior of a being, we automatically
[00:09:59] think that it probably also has an experience of existence. Now, the question is, regarding
[00:10:02] physicalism, let me say this: I define physicalism
[00:10:05] as meaning that to explain
[00:10:09] the mind and to explain phenomena in this world, including the mind,
[00:10:13] and including consciousness, we only need physical answers.
[00:10:16] We don't need to introduce anything other than physics, other than matter.
[00:10:20] The possibility of materialistic answers, materialistic answers in the sense of materialism,
[00:10:24] is also the same. Yes. Of course, physicalism has different types, various types.
[00:10:27] I refer to a type of monistic physicalism or a type
[00:10:31] of singular physicalism. What does this mean?
[00:10:34] It means that I say that everything,
[00:10:38] everything is made of one substance. That substance, I consider it a material substance.
[00:10:42] Dualists or pluralists say there are two. We can talk about it later.
[00:10:46] But with these explanations you gave,
[00:10:49] that consciousness, meaning this inner experience,
[00:10:52] first-person experience, and
[00:10:55] that is, an explanation of the world that considers material processes sufficient for explanation. With these premises, do you think artificial intelligence
[00:11:04] might achieve consciousness? I want to get to that right here.
[00:11:08] Look, if we take experience as real, to summarize,
[00:11:12] the rest can be explained later. If we take experience as a real thing, that we
[00:11:15] really experience blueness, experience pain,
[00:11:19] experience saltiness, it's real. Some might say it's not
[00:11:22] real, it's an illusion. I say it's real.
[00:11:28] If we take experience as real, if physicalism is true, then the reality of this experience has a connection to physics, a connection to matter.
[00:11:32] So I want to claim that it can be
[00:11:36] accepted that matter has the capacity to experience.
[00:11:39] Matter has this capacity, and artificial intelligence is also here. So if matter has the capacity
[00:11:43] for this experience, perhaps we don't currently have an accurate model
[00:11:46] to know how matter transforms into something complex
[00:11:50] like a brain that can experience. Completely open for artificial intelligence
[00:11:54] to also have this experience. Now, a
[00:11:57] philosopher comes and criticizes these very things you said.
[00:12:01] And this philosopher is John Searle, a name very
[00:12:04] familiar to those in philosophy. He says
[00:12:08] that artificial intelligence may have
[00:12:11] all the information about sugar,
[00:12:13] but
[00:12:16] tasting sugar is an inner experience that artificial
[00:12:19] intelligence cannot have, especially since tasting sugar
[00:12:23] can be a different sensation for each of us.
[00:12:26] This is an interesting point. John Searle uses this example,
[00:12:30] perhaps his example is interesting. He gives the example
[00:12:33] of the Chinese man in the room, where he says imagine a Chinese man in a room
[00:12:36] who doesn't understand your language at all. You just send him some
[00:12:40] codes under the door into this room. The codes are in Chinese, and each Chinese code
[00:12:43] has an equivalent, for example, in English. You send him a
[00:12:47] piece of paper in English under the door. He looks at it, matches the codes, and gives you
[00:12:51] a piece of paper back in English, and you think he understands
[00:12:54] English, while he doesn't know what you wrote. Artificial intelligence
[00:12:58] does something like this. Very good. This is a model, one
[00:13:01] perspective on artificial intelligence, that artificial intelligence actually receives information, processes
[00:13:05] it, simulates a response, your response. But the point
[00:13:09] is, if we believe that matter
[00:13:12] has the ability to experience, it's true that currently artificial intelligence
[00:13:16] is decoding this way, but when we give this ability to matter, then
[00:13:19] we can no longer limit matter to only nerve cells being able
[00:13:23] to do such a thing. Perhaps even in its silicon state, matter can reach a state
[00:13:27] where it has the ability to experience. Yes, because the ability to experience,
[00:13:31] I am claiming, is in matter. That's why I say when this
[00:13:34] ability exists, the door for artificial intelligence to experience
[00:13:37] is open. The only question is, finally, how do we know that when an
[00:13:41] artificial intelligence - this is a question that can be answered - when it says "I'm in pain" or
[00:13:44] "I'm happy" (which they say artificial intelligence now says these things),
[00:13:48] when a robot tells you "I'm happy" or "I don't want to die,"
[00:13:52] what reason would make us not believe it? Yes.
[00:13:55] Mr. Farhadi,
[00:13:58] why do you think the idea
[00:14:02] of artificial intelligence gaining
[00:14:05] consciousness is a very distant
[00:14:08] one, and physicalists like
[00:14:11] Mr. Amiri have oversimplified the matter? Your question is very interesting.
[00:14:15] Look, in my opinion, in all neuroscience
[00:14:18] and psychology
[00:14:20] and neuropsychology,
[00:14:23] consciousness and awareness are considered
[00:14:26] synonymous. But in my opinion, these are separate. Yes,
[00:14:30] as you mentioned, we have a big explanatory
[00:14:34] gap to reach consciousness, which is actually
[00:14:37] the third-person experience, which is the
[00:14:40] electrochemical changes that happen in the brain,
[00:14:43] synapses and neurons. Yes, how it transforms into first-person
[00:14:47] experience. We don't know the mechanism by which it transforms into
[00:14:51] consciousness, exactly how, and we actually
[00:14:54] don't know the nature of first-person experience.
[00:14:57] This is an explanatory gap, but in my opinion,
[00:15:01] this is just for consciousness. In my opinion, awareness is one
[00:15:04] step further. In my opinion, awareness not only
[00:15:07] requires consciousness, but also requires
[00:15:10] choice based on consciousness, which is free will, and
[00:15:14] a sense of agency or self. And you think artificial
[00:15:17] intelligence won't reach these, especially with the exercise he did?
[00:15:21] Physicalists, in my opinion, still cannot cross the first step until
[00:15:25] we break the hard problem of consciousness. Then we still have
[00:15:28] other problems: how to get from there to free
[00:15:31] will, how to get from there to agency. These are all
[00:15:35] gaps that we must cross in order
[00:15:38] to have conscious artificial
[00:15:42] intelligence. These are the stages that, in my opinion, must be overcome.
[00:15:45] Well, this difficult problem of philosophy
[00:15:49] and also cognitive sciences, of how consciousness
[00:15:52] emerges from synapses and neurons, or, as
[00:15:56] you say, how third-person experience - that is,
[00:15:59] observable experience - emerges into first-person inner experience,
[00:16:03] you believe this gap must first be explained.
[00:16:05] Exactly. If, as he says,
[00:16:09] we can understand from these materialistic
[00:16:12] explanations how inner experience
[00:16:16] results from brain processes,
[00:16:19] is this even conceivable to you?
[00:16:23] In the current world, I think we are far from
[00:16:27] this, very far. We still don't know
[00:16:30] the nature of consciousness. We don't know the nature
[00:16:33] of experience, nor do we know the mechanism that creates it. And
[00:16:37] as I told you, we have other gaps that we must also
[00:16:41] cross. That's why the probability is very remote
[00:16:44] in my mind that this could happen. But one point he
[00:16:48] made that was very interesting to me
[00:16:51] is that some machines
[00:16:54] can easily imitate
[00:16:57] consciousness, and truly, for us to understand whether
[00:17:01] they are imitating or it is reality,
[00:17:04] by speech, might not be an easy task. But this point, which is very interesting,
[00:17:08] and you mentioned it, is that I truly don't know
[00:17:12] if you are conscious or if you are conscious or not. And based on that
[00:17:16] theory of mind, I guess you are me and you are conscious. That is, each
[00:17:19] of us assumes the other has first-person experience,
[00:17:22] but regarding AI, we know for sure
[00:17:26] that it does not have consciousness. Why?
[00:17:29] Because we know its
[00:17:32] algorithmic path, what it is currently executing. Maybe I
[00:17:36] don't know if you are conscious or not, but regarding AI, I can
[00:17:40] say for sure it's not conscious. But its imitation
[00:17:43] can be very deceiving.
[00:17:46] Now, since you are a doctor, I'll mention one of the explanations
[00:17:50] that scientists, especially scientists in the field
[00:17:53] of technology, have given in this area.
[00:17:57] Let's see to what extent you think it's far-fetched. One of these
[00:18:00] explanations for the possibility of AI
[00:18:04] gaining consciousness is by taking
[00:18:08] brain stem cells and mounting
[00:18:11] them on chips, and
[00:18:13] رو)
[00:18:15] thus connecting the carriers
[00:18:18] of inner
[00:18:20] experience to chips. Do you think
[00:18:24] such tests, such actions that are seriously
[00:18:28] being pursued in some laboratories, cannot
[00:18:31] fill that gap you mentioned?
[00:18:34] The gap between third-person and first-person experience, or
[00:18:38] the gap between neurons and synapses
[00:18:41] and consciousness? No, unfortunately,
[00:18:45] in my opinion, until you know the mechanism, until you know
[00:18:48] what really happens, our assumption is that
[00:18:52] if we bring a bag and pour
[00:18:55] all the ingredients, for example,
[00:18:59] suppose you want to cook a meal, and you pour all its ingredients
[00:19:03] into this and stir it. It will turn into
[00:19:06] that meal. Until we follow
[00:19:10] that system step by step,
[00:19:14] and because we don't know the mechanism, we only know
[00:19:17] that a living being has a characteristic that a chip
[00:19:21] in that circuit doesn't have, and to put these two together
[00:19:25] and think it's simple is not true at all. Let me say something
[00:19:28] about this last point you made. This is happening to
[00:19:32] some extent now. Neurons are being rewritten. Yes, neurons are being
[00:19:35] rewritten. What they do is they actually insert
[00:19:39] a series of electrodes, map the neurons, and also stimulate
[00:19:42] them, both by and
[00:19:46] from them, they receive information. Now, this is in its
[00:19:50] early stages, but what's interesting is that we now know we might be able
[00:19:54] to replace a neuron with an artificial chip. This is doable.
[00:19:57] We are almost at the point where we can replace a neuron
[00:20:01] with an electrode or a chip that performs
[00:20:04] the function of that neuron. Has consciousness disappeared
[00:20:09] then? Probably not. This is a thought experiment. A thought experiment.
[00:20:13] Consciousness has not disappeared. What if we do this to two neurons? What if to 10? What if
[00:20:17] to 10% of the brain? What if to 20? What if you convert a person's entire brain
[00:20:20] into this, and along this path, the person still says "I experience green,"
[00:20:24] you now know that that person's brain has been replaced
[00:20:28] by computer chips or by a series of digital
[00:20:31] brains, and we still know
[00:20:34] that the digital brain works with zeros and ones, probably.
[00:20:37] That's right, but you, the answer should be that no, he
[00:20:41] has no experience, while at what point in this path, after
[00:20:44] one cell, does this person no longer have consciousness, or after 10 cells? You are saying
[00:20:48] that if we slowly replace brain
[00:20:52] stem cells with chips,
[00:20:56] so that the contents of those cells
[00:20:59] are loaded onto these chips, a cell has no content, a cell fires, a neuron
[00:21:03] fires, meaning it has some synapses or whatever that is the carrier, in fact,
[00:21:06] whatever it carries, if we put it there
[00:21:10] and the chips do this, it naturally becomes
[00:21:13] similar to the example he gave, and he says it's not doable. Look,
[00:21:16] for you to cook a meal, well,
[00:21:20] just throwing the elements in
[00:21:24] doesn't make it a meal, because a meal is backed by human
[00:21:27] civilization. That is, humans in a social
[00:21:31] environment have come to understand what
[00:21:34] food is and what
[00:21:37] taste is, and this is not something a chip can, for example,
[00:21:41] that. Look, let's start from here. If our answer is
[00:21:45] to say that for artificial intelligence to
[00:21:48] have an experience of consciousness, it must not be made of silicon
[00:21:52] and not made of chips. Yes, I understand, this is a claim. But if
[00:21:56] we say what consciousness is related to, it's related to
[00:21:59] the processing of information in such a way that it happens in our brain, there is still room
[00:22:03] for artificial intelligence to be conscious. You are saying that
[00:22:07] if artificial intelligence can perform the function of the brain,
[00:22:11] then achieving consciousness is also possible, if consciousness comes
[00:22:15] from information processing. Unless the claim is that consciousness only
[00:22:18] comes from the nervous system. It cannot be that in our world, anything
[00:22:22] other than a biological and organic system, which is the nervous system,
[00:22:25] that has evolved to have consciousness.
[00:22:29] This is a claim. Yes, Mr. Farhadi, as
[00:22:32] a doctor, what do you think, especially since I have
[00:22:35] seen many of your articles relate in some way
[00:22:39] to the function of the nervous system with the human body,
[00:22:43] is the idea that artificial intelligence can function
[00:22:46] like the human brain a very distant idea?
[00:22:51] Yes, let me say this in a discussion,
[00:22:54] that in my opinion, I completely agree with you
[00:22:58] that the brain is a place for information processing,
[00:23:01] and in my opinion, our brain processes
[00:23:04] input information in two ways. One
[00:23:08] method I call consciousness-centric, meaning
[00:23:12] what happens is that information from a sea of information,
[00:23:15] a specific piece of information
[00:23:18] is selected, and we become conscious of it.
[00:23:21] Based on this consciousness,
[00:23:24] we make choices, and in fact, that choice
[00:23:27] based on consciousness is a voluntary
[00:23:31] act. And what happens is that we can perform these
[00:23:34] voluntary actions. For example, to remember this,
[00:23:37] to do something, to compare this, we perform
[00:23:41] a voluntary action. Yes, we exercise control over our behavior or
[00:23:45] not. Most importantly, this returns in the feedback
[00:23:48] that makes voluntary attention, so that you
[00:23:52] can pay attention to what you want to pay attention to,
[00:23:56] and this in the cycle of back and forth of consciousness
[00:23:59] and will, the self comes into existence,
[00:24:03] and this is what makes an individual feel conscious.
[00:24:07] In fact, based on this, consciousness
[00:24:10] is not a characteristic of your brain,
[00:24:14] consciousness is not a characteristic of a being, consciousness
[00:24:16] is a characteristic of a process, and this is very important because a brain
[00:24:20] can simultaneously execute another
[00:24:23] process, which they call response-centric, and this process
[00:24:27] has no relation to consciousness and no relation to
[00:24:31] awareness. That is, our brain simultaneously
[00:24:34] executes the process of awareness and the process of responsiveness.
[00:24:38] The second, it seems, to you, is automatic, and
[00:24:42] a chatbot can execute the second one.
[00:24:45] Let me use a phrase, let me use a phrase in his words that is extremely
[00:24:48] ایشون فوق العاده م
[00:26:02] If you have a being that performs the same
[00:26:06] behaviors, that is, you have a kind of zombie that walks,
[00:26:10] talks, acts, but has no experience of seeing the color red,
[00:26:13] has no inner experience. This is indeed a zombie.
[00:26:17] It might behave in a way that you cannot distinguish from the outside, but it doesn't
[00:26:21] have that experience. In fact, Chalmers says, eventually, AI will turn
[00:26:25] into a philosophical zombie. Look, the issue is, I
[00:26:28] am saying that
[00:26:31] if we assume, if we assume and think
[00:26:34] this way, that what our mind does - which he correctly pointed out,
[00:26:38] that there is a kind of integration, a kind of causal totality in
[00:26:42] our brain. Our seeing, our hearing, our tasting, our thinking,
[00:26:45] our beliefs, our desires, all of these are
[00:26:49] somehow interconnected, they are not separate.
[00:26:52] They don't have separate causal relationships, they are interconnected. If I say that
[00:26:56] this is a function that my mind has that leads me to consciousness,
[00:27:00] why can't it be? Why is there any reason we cannot
[00:27:04] think that this ability can be given to an artificial intelligence?
[00:27:06] Look, here I am specifically not referring to how
[00:27:10] it works with zeros and ones, but I am referring to the function of information processing.
[00:27:14] There is a term in physicalism called
[00:27:17] functionalism or functionalism. Functionalists
[00:27:20] believe that when you want to talk about the mind,
[00:27:24] you should look at the function of that body. Just as when a
[00:27:27] heart's function is what? A heart means its function
[00:27:30] is to beat blood. Or a mother is
[00:27:34] a woman who takes care of a child. That's it.
[00:27:38] If you put a robot that takes care of a child, that becomes a mother. If
[00:27:42] you put an artificial heart that pumps blood, that becomes a heart. That is,
[00:27:46] look at the function. Now, if I look at the function, then
[00:27:49] these things you mentioned, like beliefs, desires, experiences,
[00:27:53] hopes, what happens to all these? It comes to the interface. What is the interface?
[00:27:56] It means that I am sitting in a spaceship, looking outside. I am receiving
[00:28:00] some data, some graphs. Some colors, green, for example,
[00:28:03] are giving me some numbers. I have an exact
[00:28:07] image of the outside, but I am dealing with an interface. That
[00:28:10] interface shows me what is happening outside. Now,
[00:28:14] hopes, desires, beliefs, all of these
[00:28:17] are an interface that my brain gives to me, excuse me,
[00:28:21] so that I can have an understanding of the world outside. If my brain becomes my consciousness,
[00:28:24] the interface. You are saying that what
[00:28:28] we call consciousness includes our feelings, our beliefs,
[00:29:23] making this processing system
[00:29:26] and making it responsive to the environment. This is a very
[00:29:29] interesting idea I read about these
[00:29:33] bots, or in fact, one might say, agents or carriers.
[00:29:36] The problem is that actually another name for artificial intelligence is
[00:29:40] that you might talk to it so much that somewhere
[00:29:43] you feel this means
[00:29:47] it has become frustrated, maybe because you don't communicate well with it.
[00:29:51] Your answers to its answers
[00:29:54] or your questions to it are full of ambiguity. If a
[00:29:57] chatbot can get frustrated, isn't this the first step
[00:30:01] to consciousness? Your point is very interesting. Look, the way
[00:30:05] I categorized this about consciousness-based processing
[00:30:08] and response-based processing. In my opinion,
[00:30:12] a computer has response-based processing, and
[00:30:15] a human has the ability to use both.
[00:30:18] When we go up the stairs, brush our teeth, or even
[00:30:22] drive, we perform response-based processing.
[00:30:25] It's automatic. It's automatic. And when we do something
[00:30:29] that is consciousness-based, it processes consciousness-based,
[00:30:33] which leads to awareness of that particular processing. And these
[00:30:37] two interact very easily. For example,
[00:30:40] when you play a piano note, after playing it two or three times,
[00:30:44] it easily goes into automatic processing. Yes,
[00:30:47] it's your finger that you can then sing or
[00:30:50] at the same time, when you're going up the stairs, if a step is higher,
[00:30:54] if something unexpected
[00:30:57] appears in front of you, you quickly switch back to consciousness-based processing.
[00:31:01] The point is that