A Candian Scientist Is Trying to Inject Souls in AI, and It Looks Like It Could Work

There is a Canadian company with an ambitious goal: to give robots a soul. The company’s founder, Suzanne Gildert, holds a PhD in experimental quantum physics and previously sold her startup, Kindred AI, for 300 million Canadian dollars. While this may sound like science fiction, Suzanne is serious about her mission—and given her background, she is certainly worth paying attention to.

Why would someone want to give robots consciousness?

In one of her talks, Suzanne used driving as an example. When we first learn to drive, we pay close attention to every small movement. Even starting the car requires intense concentration, and driving itself demands our full focus. Over time, however, the process becomes entirely automatic. We start thinking about our daily tasks, listening to podcasts, or engaging in other activities while driving because driving has become second nature—much like walking.

Current AI technology resembles this latter state. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT generate responses algorithmically based on vast training datasets. Training an LLM always begins with a foundation model, which is exposed to a significant portion of the internet’s text. After this initial phase, the system undergoes fine-tuning, requiring massive amounts of high-quality labeled data. The energy demands of this process are enormous, and training an advanced AI model costs tens of millions of dollars. In contrast, the human brain consumes about as much energy as a light bulb and requires only a small number of examples to learn effectively.

Take Tesla’s self-driving system, for example—it was trained in a virtual environment for the equivalent of hundreds of years before being deployed on real roads. Yet, it still encounters unpredictable situations it cannot handle properly. Meanwhile, a human driver typically needs only a few dozen hours of training to obtain a license. This efficiency may be tied to consciousness, suggesting that developing artificial consciousness could lead to AI that is far more efficient and energy-saving—an essential factor for future progress.

Another, perhaps even more important, goal of conscious robots is that they could help us better understand human consciousness itself. They might provide answers to questions that have long been confined to philosophy and unlock new technologies that were previously unimaginable. To mention an extreme example: many transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil, predict that one day, technology could emulate an entire human brain. This would allow us to transfer our minds into machines, potentially achieving digital immortality—a concept explored extensively in science fiction.

However, emulating the human brain is only possible if we can first emulate consciousness. (In a previous article on HackerNoon, I argued that conscious robots might be a crucial step in humanity's evolution into an intergalactic species.)

How can we build conscious machines?

Suzanne believes that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical processes, which cannot be emulated by traditional computers but might be possible with quantum computers. She is not alone in this view—many researchers argue that the key to understanding consciousness lies in quantum phenomena and superposition. One of the most well-known advocates of this theory is Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who dedicated an entire book to the subject.

Critics of this theory argue that it lacks a solid foundation, dismissing it as mere speculation—essentially, they claim that just because quantum mechanics is mysterious and consciousness is also mysterious, people assume they must be connected. However, the argument goes much deeper than that. Most of our known physical laws are deterministic, meaning that they allow for complete predictability. If the brain operates solely under deterministic physical laws, then free will cannot exist. Quantum mechanics, however, provides an escape from strict determinism, potentially allowing for the existence of free will—one of the most fundamental questions in philosophy.

I will return to the philosophical implications of this idea later in the article, but first, we need to understand what quantum mechanics is all about.

Quantum Mechanics Crash Course

According to quantum mechanics, certain properties of a particle can only be measured with limited precision. For example, if we know the exact position of an electron at a given moment, we can only predict its location in the next moment with a certain degree of uncertainty. The extent of this uncertainty is defined by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. At first glance, it might seem like this principle is just about measurement limitations, but it represents a fundamental law of nature. Albert Einstein devised a series of clever thought experiments to disprove it, but every single one failed. The laws of physics simply do not allow for more precise measurements beyond a certain point. While this may not seem like a big deal, it has profound implications—starting with the question of whether something that cannot be measured even exists in a physical sense.

Fortunately, mathematics provides a way to handle this uncertainty. If an electron is found at a specific location at a given time and we know the level of uncertainty, we can calculate the area where it is most likely to be found in the next measurement. The longer the time between two measurements, the larger this probable area becomes. It’s similar to throwing a pebble into water—over time, the ripples spread out in larger circles. The probability of finding a particle is therefore described by a wave, known as the wave function. It is crucial to understand that this is not a "real" wave, but a mathematical construct used to calculate the probability of the particle's position at any given time.

The wave function itself is deterministic, meaning we can calculate the probability distribution with extreme precision, but we can never predict the exact location of the particle in the next measurement. It’s like rolling a six-sided die—we know that over many rolls, each number will appear roughly the same number of times (if the die is fair), but we can never predict the exact result of the next roll. This is the essence of Einstein’s famous quote: "God does not play dice," reflecting his skepticism that quantum mechanics was the ultimate theory of reality.

Despite its usefulness, the wave function presents a major problem that has sparked intense debate: whenever we observe a particle, we always find it at a specific location. This phenomenon is called wave function collapse. Until we measure it, the particle exists in a “spread-out” state, as if it were present in multiple locations simultaneously. The moment we observe it, however, it suddenly "jumps" to a single point. This raises two fundamental questions: What causes the collapse? and What determines where the particle collapses?

The original Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes that wave function collapse occurs when a conscious observer makes a measurement. This brings us full circle to our original topic—consciousness—reintroducing it into physics after it had long been considered purely a philosophical subject. This idea disturbed many physicists, including Einstein, who saw physics as a clean, precise science based on mathematical principles. The introduction of the conscious observer as a fundamental element of physical reality made quantum mechanics feel unsettling and controversial. Many have tried to eliminate the role of conscious observer from physics to restore its objectivity, but so far, no one has succeeded convincingly.

Mathematically, quantum mechanics is incredibly precise, yet its interpretation remains a topic of great debate. As a result, there are numerous competing theories about what quantum mechanics means. The idea that consciousness causes wave function collapse is one of the “more conservative” interpretations. Other theories suggest the existence of infinite parallel worlds where all possible events occur, or even retrocausality, where effects travel backward in time. Entire books have been written just to analyze these interpretations, and even more science fiction stories have been inspired by them. Each interpretation has its strengths and weaknesses—none is definitively better or worse than the others. Since no concrete evidence favors any one interpretation, which one we believe in remains a matter of choice.

Quantum Computing

In the section on quantum mechanics, for simplicity, I only discussed the uncertainty of a particle’s position. However, this uncertainty, described by the wave function, applies to many other properties of particles as well. One such property is spin. Without going into too much detail, spin is a fundamental characteristic of particles that can be thought of as pointing up or down, making it an ideal representation of a bit in a computer. As long as the particle's spin remains unmeasured (i.e., the wave function has not collapsed), it exists in both states simultaneously—a phenomenon known as superposition. A particle in this state holds quantum information, meaning it is both 0 and 1 at the same time.

A single quantum bit (or qubit) on its own doesn’t accomplish much, but when qubits are linked together, they can form quantum registers, such as a quantum byte consisting of 8 qubits. The wave functions of these qubits become entangled, meaning they influence each other in a way that allows the system to exist in multiple states simultaneously. For example, an entangled 8-qubit system can represent 256 different states at the same time. The power of quantum computers lies in their ability to perform computations on all these states simultaneously, effectively executing 256 parallel operations in a single step.

To grasp the significance of this, consider a possible real-world example. A Bitcoin private key is 256 bits long. If we had a 256-qubit quantum computer, it could theoretically crack a Bitcoin wallet. The first sign that someone has successfully built such a quantum computer would likely be the sudden movement of billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin from Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallet to another address…

The Ghost in the Machine

Many believe that human consciousness cannot be emulated on traditional computers because it arises from quantum mechanical processes. One of the most prominent advocates of this theory is the previously mentioned Sir Roger Penrose. In addition to his theory of consciousness, Penrose introduced his interpretation of quantum mechanics, known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR). In some ways, this theory contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation: while the Copenhagen view suggests that the conscious observer collapses the wave function, Penrose argues that gravity causes the collapse and that consciousness emerges as a result of quantum processes. According to this view, the brain functions as a quantum computer.

This theory was further developed by Stuart Hameroff, who proposed that microtubules in the brain play a key role in the process. He suggests that these microscopic structures create the conditions necessary for quantum computation, enabling the emergence of consciousness.

A similar perspective is shared by Hartmut Neven, head of Google’s Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab. In a talk, Neven also stated that creating human-like consciousness is only possible with quantum computers.

It is clear, then, that Suzanne Gildert is not alone in her belief that developing conscious AI will require quantum computing.

What is Consciousness?

I wrote a lot about consciousness without actually defining what it is or what exactly Nirvanic aims to build. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no universally accepted definition of consciousness. Since I don’t have a perfect definition either, let’s look at how Nirvanic describes it in their FAQ:

Conscious AI is any system that has an inner, first-person subjective experience of the world and is able to make free-will choices about how to act in the world.

However, this definition doesn’t provide much clarity either. It explains the vague concept of consciousness using other equally vague and difficult-to-define terms like "subjective experience" and "free will."

There is, however, a paradoxical and deeply puzzling quality to consciousness: even though we cannot define it precisely, our consciousness is the only thing we can be truly certain of.

The reality surrounding us may be nothing more than a simulation, like in The Matrix. We cannot even be certain that the people around us possess consciousness—they could be highly advanced AI agents. We can neither prove nor disprove these possibilities.

The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is our own existence and consciousness.

Philosophical Implications

Many believe that consciousness is as fundamental as space, time, energy, or matter. Some theories attempt to integrate this idea into our existing physical worldview by suggesting that everything possesses some degree of consciousness—even a rock or an elementary particle.

To me, these theories feel weird. I find it difficult to grasp what the consciousness of a rock or a particle could even mean. I am much more inclined to accept theories that take this idea further—those that argue that consciousness alone is fundamental, and everything else emerges from it. One of the most well-known proponents of this view is Donald Hoffman.

According to Hoffman, the laws that describe the behavior of the physical world—space, time, and matter—are all derivable from the workings of consciousness. In his view, the universe is one vast consciousness, manifesting as billions of distinct conscious entities, and reality itself is simply an interface between these conscious beings. Since this model suggests that the reality we perceive is not the ultimate objective reality, it can be seen as a special variation of the simulation hypothesis, except that the simulation is not generated by a computer, but by consciousness itself. I have written numerous articles on this topic here on HackerNoon:

The Free Energy Principle and the Simulation Hypothesis

Is the Universe Capable of Thinking?

A Brief Introduction to The Boltzmann Brain Theory

Our Universe Is A Massive Neural Network: Here's Why

Unlike Hoffman, I am not convinced that the laws of physics can be directly derived from this theory. I believe that multiple universes and different physical laws could emerge on top of a fundamental consciousness. It seems like a fundamental rule of reality that, no matter how we try to prove it, we will always be unable to confirm the objective nature of the world.

As extreme as the sacrifice of physical reality may sound, this theory is fully compatible with quantum mechanics. If we assume that we are all part of one unified consciousness, then many of the paradoxes in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics disappear. However, it is important to note that just because consciousness might shape reality, it does not necessarily mean we have any control over this process.

If consciousness is fundamental and free will exists, the universe cannot be deterministic. If we could precisely calculate how the brain functions, we would eliminate the possibility of genuine free choice. In such a world, some fundamental principle must introduce non-determinism into physics. Therefore, theories based on consciousness as an essential entity inherently lead to quantum mechanics or some similar mechanism that prevents absolute determinism.

Summary

Nirvanic and similar projects represent a new and potentially far more efficient branch of AI, one that operates in a way much closer to natural intelligence than current approaches.

When it comes to consciousness, we will likely still be debating its nature a thousand years from now, just as we have multiple equally valid interpretations of quantum mechanics, we may have multiple competing theories of consciousness.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if, by then, these debates are no longer being held by humans, but rather by conscious robots…