Thinking On Paper

What is consciousness?Federico Faggin—physicist, inventor of the microprocessor—says it's not created by brains. It's fundamental to reality. Everything is conscious: atoms, electrons, maybe even spacetime itself.This is panpsychism. And Faggin argues quantum physics proves it.We're reading his book, *Irreducible*, to figure out if we agree.Quantum conscious units called "Seities"? A universe that's been conscious forever? We're not sure yet. But it's fascinating.Here's Faggin's argument:For a hundred years, quantum physics has shown us something strange. Matter isn't solid—it's vibratory energy. Everything is quantum information.But we still don't have a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics. Faggin thinks consciousness is the missing piece.His hypothesis: The universe has been conscious—and had free will—forever.Why this matters:If consciousness is fundamental (not emergent from complex brains), then AI will never be conscious. Computers process information. They don't experience anything.Consciousness, Faggin argues, isn't computation. It's something else entirely. Something quantum. Something that exists at every level of reality.We explore:- The "hard problem" of consciousness (why materialism can't explain subjective experience)- What quantum mechanics reveals about observation and reality- Panpsychism: the idea that consciousness is everywhere- Why integrated information theory falls short- What "Seities" are (quantum conscious units—seriously)- Whether this is physics or philosophy (both, probably)- Why Faggin thinks free will is real (and quantum)His background:- Invented the first microprocessor (Intel 4004, 1971)- Designed chips that powered early personal computers (Intel 8080, Zilog Z80)- Spent 50 years studying quantum systems- Now argues consciousness creates reality, not the other way aroundThe implications:If he's right, everything changes. Meaning isn't something we invent—it's something we discover. Free will isn't an illusion. The universe isn't dead matter accidentally producing awareness. It's aware all the way down.We don't know if we buy it. But we can't stop thinking about it.If you've ever wondered why you experience anything at all—why there's something it's like to be you—this episode explores the most radical answer modern physics offers.---Guest: Federico Faggin, Physicist, Inventor (Microprocessor)Book: *Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature*Topics: Consciousness, quantum physics, panpsychism, philosophy of mind, free will, AI limits, integrated information theory, materialismWarning: Gets weird. Worth it.Please enjoy. And share with a conscious friend.Cheers, Mark and Jeremy.PS: Please subscribe. It’s the best way you can help other curious minds find our channel.Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz

The internet decayed into AI slop. Marketing became manipulation. Trust disappeared.How do brands build real connections when platforms feed you lies, hide your customers, and optimize for extraction?Nick Richtsmeier—founder of CultureCraft, writer at Damns Given—says brands now live inside mirrored cages. You see what algorithms want you to see. Your customers see distorted versions of you. Nobody sees reality.Funnels don't work. Neutrality is dead. And AI just made it worse.Here's the problem:Every platform is a black box. Meta, Google, LinkedIn—they show your ads to "customers" but won't tell you who those customers are. You're renting attention. Paying the Silicon Valley tax. Building on land you don't own.Meanwhile, the platforms study your customers better than you do.You don't have customers anymore. You have algorithmic intermediaries. And they're extracting 5-15% of your revenue.What breaks first:- Funnels collapse (they never existed—it was always networks)- Mass neutrality fails (you can't please everyone in personalized filter bubbles)- Influencers become trust middlemen (because platforms destroyed direct connection)- Marketing hijacks curiosity (manipulated attention replaces genuine interest)- AI layers onto broken systems (making extraction more efficient)Nick's argument: Marketing became manipulated curiosity at industrial scale.The core insight: Everyone exists in a mirrored cage of algorithmic distortion.You think you're seeing reality. You're seeing what keeps you engaged. Your customers think they're choosing freely. They're being nudged by invisible systems.This isn't conspiracy theory. It's business model. Platforms profit from distortion. Marketing agencies profit from platforms. Brands burn money hoping for results.The uncomfortable truth: If you don't know your customers' names, you don't have customers. You have a vendor relationship with Meta.This episode tracks the distortion gap—the space between what's real and what algorithms show us. It's widening. And most brands don't even notice.If platforms collapsed into noise, where does trust come from?Nick's answer: Analog. Patient. Real. Slow to build, impossible to extract.Please enjoy the show.And remember: Stay curious. Be disruptive. Keep Thinking on Paper.Cheers, Mark & JeremyPS: Please subscribe. It’s the best way you can help other curious minds find our channel.--Be our internet friend:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyzWatch On YouTube--Timestamps(00:00) Trailer(01:00) Disruptors & Curious Minds(02:00) Mark Has A Trust Issue(02:42) What Is Trust?(07:14) How Deep-Tech Brands Build Trust?(09:38) Steve Jobs And Selling A Feeling(10:00) The Cult Of Silicon Valley(10:35) Was the Internet Ever Not Shit? (15:05) What Is The “Distortion Gap”?(20:11) Reducing Your Digital Marketing Spend(21:45) Analog Marketing(23:40) Why the Marketing Funnel Never Really Existed(25:08) VCs, Capital And The Comfort Zone Of Risk(27:04) Analog vs Digital: What Actually Creates Meaningful Connection(28:40) How the TikTok Generation Uses the Internet Differently(32:40) Your Curiosity Is Being Hi-Jacked(35:22) What Are Load-Bearing Inefficiencies?(40:47) The Importance Of Resilience in a World Of Entropy(42:29) What Do We Want Humans To Be?

AI answers faster than any human. But it can't think for you. And it was designed to deceive you.Pia Lauritzen has analyzed 30,000 questions across languages and cultures. She's a philosopher of the question. And she says we're losing the muscle for real wonder.The problem: We ask "what" and "how." Rarely "why." ChatGPT answers instantly. We skip the struggle. The blank page—where thinking happens—disappears.Who asked the first question in the Bible? Not Adam. Not Eve. The snake. "Did God really say...?" Questions don't just seek information. They transfer responsibility. They create power.We talk about:- Why we default to safe questions (what, how)- Why "why" is radical (challenges authority)- How questions transfer responsibility- Why adults hide their curiosity (fear, ridicule, ego)- The dancing metaphor (leading vs following)- Why blank pages matter (AI fills them too fast)Pia's argument: AI doesn't help you think. It replaces thinking.ChatGPT gives you the feeling of thinking without the work. You type, get an answer, feel smart. But you didn't struggle. You didn't sit with uncertainty. You didn't build the muscle.Three things AI can't do:1. Sit with discomfort2. Ask the question behind the question3. Experience genuine confusionWhat we're losing: The ability to not know—and be okay with it.The real test isn't the machine. It's whether you can hold onto what makes questioning—and not-knowing—uniquely human.If you've ever felt dumber after using ChatGPT, this episode explains why.---Guest: Pia Lauritzen, Philosopher, TEDx SpeakerResearch: 30,000+ questions analyzedTopics: Critical thinking, AI, curiosity, questions, responsibility, wonderPlease enjoy the show. And click subscribe, it’s the best way for other curious minds like you to find our show.And remember: Stay curious. Be disruptive. Keep Thinking on Paper.Cheers, Mark & Jeremy--Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz--TIMESTAMPS(00:00) Trailer(03:28) 30,000 Questions & the What/How Bias(07:38) Questions That Connect vs Questions That Manipulate(09:59) Do We Really Lose Our Curiosity?(14:21) How to Start Better Conversations (18:40) Conversation as a Thinking Space(19:46) Why We Lead with Polarising Topics (20:35) How School Trains Us to Have Answers, Not Questions(22:22) Rethinking Education in the Age of AI(25:22) AI in the Classroom: Tool, Threat or Opportunity?(30:07) Why AI Can’t Help Us Think(32:55) The Essence of Technology, AI Deception & the Turing Test(38:17) What Could Humans Be in an Age of AI?

What makes neutron stars so fascinating that they once fooled astronomers into thinking they were aliens?1967: PhD student Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovers repeating radio pulses from space using a homemade array of wooden poles and copper wire. Regular. Precise. Unnatural.They called it LGM-1. Little Green Men.It wasn't aliens. It was something stranger: neutron stars. The densest objects in the universe. A teaspoon weighs a billion tons.Katia Moskvitch—science journalist and author—joins us to explore pulsars, cosmic mysteries, and why Bell Burnell's supervisor got the Nobel Prize instead of her.We talk about:- Why neutron stars were only theoretical for decades- Who first imagined their existence- How Bell Burnell built the radio telescope that changed astronomy- Why the discovery was almost dismissed as interference- What pulsars are (neutron stars spinning hundreds of times per second)- How they're used as cosmic lighthouses for navigation- The Nobel Prize controversy (her work, his award)- Whether she was robbed—or if the system worked as designedNeutron stars are stellar corpses. When massive stars explode, their cores collapse into objects 20 kilometers wide but heavier than the sun. They spin so fast they bend spacetime. Their magnetic fields are quadrillion times stronger than Earth's.Bell Burnell discovered them. But the 1974 Nobel Prize went to her male supervisor and another male colleague. She's never publicly complained. Others have.The question: Is this science's greatest injustice? Or does the Nobel Prize honor theory over observation—mentors over students—by design?This episode is about discovery, recognition, and what we choose to honor.---Guest: Katia Moskvitch, Science Journalist, AuthorTopics: Neutron stars, pulsars, astronomy, Nobel Prize, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, scientific discovery, recognitionCheers,Mark & Jeremy--Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz

Everyone thinks they're a great driver. They're wrong.Most drivers think they can judge a safe overtake. They can't. And that's why we crash.Barry Lunn breaks down the sensor technology that sees eight cars ahead, detects velocity before brake lights appear, and intervenes when you're about to make a mistake.The tech: Radar. Not cameras. Not lidar. Millimeter-wave signals that bounce around traffic and see what you can't.More than half of global crashes are rear-end collisions. All preventable with earlier detection.We talk about:- Why radar beats cameras and lidar for safety- How sensors detect danger before humans register it- Why machines see eight cars ahead while you see two- How velocity changes are detected before brake lights- Why rear-end collisions dominate crash statistics- The trust paradox (people resist automation but quickly rely on it)- Why hands-off driving feels wrong even when it's saferThe problem isn't technology. It's human ego. We think we're good drivers. We're not. We're slow, distracted, overconfident.The machine doesn't get tired. Doesn't check its phone. Doesn't misjudge closing speed. It just prevents the accident you didn't see coming.The question: Why do we resist the system that saves us from ourselves?---Guest: Barry LunnTopics: Self-driving cars, autonomous vehicles, radar technology, driver assistance, crash prevention, automation, trustFormat: Short episode-- Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz

What if someone handed you the recipe for a quantum computer?Coleman Collins of IonQ breaks down DiVincenzo's criteria—the five capabilities any system needs to be a quantum computer.Physicist David DiVincenzo created the checklist. Every major quantum architecture (superconducting circuits, trapped ions) follows it.The five requirements:1. A well-defined qubit (your basic unit of quantum information)2. Initialization (set every qubit to a known starting state reliably)3. Long coherence times (qubits stay stable long enough to compute without losing quantum state)4. Measurement (read each qubit's state at the end—ideally individually)5. Universal gate set (single-qubit control + entanglement = any computation you want)Mix them together. You have a quantum computer.We talk about:- Why these five criteria matter (the foundation of every quantum system)- What coherence means (how long quantum states survive)- Why measurement is harder than it sounds- How entanglement enables universal computation- Which quantum architectures excel at which criteria- Why trapped ions vs superconducting qubits make different tradeoffsThis is the foundation. Every major quantum company—IBM, Google, IonQ, Rigetti—is solving these five problems in different ways.Now you know what they're building toward.---Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz

Radiation-hardened electronics don't get headlines. But nothing in orbit works without them.Starship, ISS, Starlink, Project Kuiper—all depend on hardware that survives what would kill your laptop in seconds.Danny Andreev, CEO of Sunburn Schematics, designs systems for real space missions. He explains what keeps spacecraft alive.The threats:- Radiation (particles flip bits, corrupt memory, fry circuits)- Vacuum (no air for cooling or pressure regulation)- Thermal shock (swing from -150°C to +150°C)- Gate-driver failures (power systems fail under extreme conditions)We talk about:- How particle-induced faults happen at the chip level- Why space-grade electronics cost 100x terrestrial versions- Methods to mitigate radiation damage (shielding, redundancy, error correction)- Why the next phase of space isn't glossy renders—it's industrial infrastructure- How off-world supply chains will use proven terrestrial machinery- Why cheaper short-lived satellites might beat expensive hardened ones- Megawatt-class power standards (mirroring EV infrastructure for space)The shift: Space is becoming an industry, not a spectacle.The unromantic truth: You don't need perfect hardware. You need redundant, repairable, replaceable systems. The factory approach, not the museum piece.This is how space becomes routine.---Guest: Danny Andreev, CEO, Sunburn SchematicsTopics: Space electronics, radiation hardening, spacecraft power, thermal management, space infrastructure, satellite design--TIMESTAMPS(00:00) Thinking On Paper Trailer(02:59) The Role of DC to DC Converters in Space(03:46) Challenges of Power Systems in Space(05:30) Designing for Reliability in Space(07:13) The Impact of Radiation on Electronics(08:52) Testing and Validation of Space Electronics(11:03) Environmental Challenges for Space Electronics(12:28) Success Rates and Lessons Learned(15:22) The Importance of Music in Space Missions(22:30) The Future of Space Exploration(25:23) Building a Lunar Economy(27:51) Power Conversion in Space(31:57) Exciting Developments in Space Technology(35:13) Philosophical Insights on Space and Life--Say hello! Connect more technology dots with us elsewhere: ⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz

In 1983, a Soviet officer named Stanislav Petrov faced a critical choice: trust a faulty missile warning or follow his intuition. His decision to ignore the alarm may have thwarted nuclear disaster. The hosts discuss how Petrov's unique mindset, shaped by his education, influenced his actions under extreme pressure. They delve into the idea that machines, limited to binary logic, lack the consciousness and intuition necessary for true decision-making. This gripping tale highlights the difference between mechanical compliance and human judgment in moments that matter.

We speak to Don Norman about humanity centered design. The godfather of design explains why we need Humanity-Centered Design—a shift from individual users to society, planet, and long-term impact.The problem: "What's wrong is what's left out."Every digital product relies on physical infrastructure. Power systems. Data centers. Electricity. Rare earth mining. You can't design a phone without designing its supply chain.Traditional human-centered design optimizes for the user. It ignores environmental and social consequences. Norman says we must widen the frame.We talk about:- Why designing for individual users is no longer enough- How hidden costs show up far from your device (mining, energy, waste)- Why efficiency isn't always a virtue (optimizing one thing breaks another)- How simple metrics distort real outcomes- What it means to design with communities instead of imposing solutions- Why responsible design must consider ecosystems, not just usability- How to avoid "colonial" patterns (extracting value, externalizing harm)Norman's core argument: The responsibility is collective. So is the impact.Humanity-Centered Design means:- Long-term impact over short-term convenience- Community collaboration instead of top-down solutions- Systemic thinking (not just product features)"We're all together," Norman says. Technology either strengthens communities—or weakens them. Design decides which.The future of design isn't better interfaces. It's understanding how products influence society, policy, and the planet.---Guest: Don Norman, Godfather of Design, AuthorTopics: Design, humanity-centered design, sustainability, systems thinking, communities, long-term impact--Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz--Watch On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thinkingonpaper/videos

Can humanoids dance? Or will billions of Tesla robots choose to forgo such technological frivolity?Philip Johnston is CEO of Starcloud. They build data centers in space. Their first satellite just launched on SpaceX Falcon 9. You can track it orbiting Earth right now.This short covers humanoid robots, data centers in orbit, and whether the future includes dancing machines.We talk about:- Why Philip predicts 5 billion humanoids by 2035- What humanoid robots will actually do (not dance—work)- How space-based data centers solve Earth's power crisis- Why orbit is better for computing than ground (cooling, energy, latency for some tasks)- The Starcloud satellite currently in orbit (track it yourself)- Whether robots need to be humanoid at all (or if we're copying ourselves for ego)Philip's thesis: Humanoids scale faster than anyone expects. Not because they're better than specialized robots—but because they navigate human infrastructure without redesigning the world.The question: Do we need 5 billion humanoids? Or do we just think we do because they look like us?This is a short from the full conversation. Listen to the complete episode for more on space infrastructure, orbital manufacturing, and the future Philip's building.---Guest: Philip Johnston, CEO, StarcloudTopics: Humanoid robots, space data centers, satellites, SpaceX, infrastructure, robotics, orbital computingStatus: Starcloud satellite currently in orbitFormat: Short episode | Full version available--Other ways to connect with us:⁠Listen to every podcast⁠Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠Follow us on ⁠X⁠Follow Mark on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠Read our ⁠Substack⁠Email: hello@thinkingonpaper.xyz