0
SPEAKER_01
The following is a conversation with John Rovecki, a psychologist and cognitive scientist at University of Toronto.
0
SPEAKER_01
I highly recommend his lecture series called Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, which covers the history and future of humanity s search for meaning.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_01
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_01
We got Miz and a Mane for style, Insight Tracker for longevity, Eight Sleep for napping, Athletic Greens for performance, and Onnit for supplements.
0
SPEAKER_01
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_01
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_01
I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_01
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is brought to you by Mizzen and Maine, the maker of comfortable, stylish dress shirts and other menswear.
0
SPEAKER_01
I wear their black dress shirt.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have a bunch of them, and I love it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s comfortable, it fits great, it s light, but not too light, because it still holds the form.
0
SPEAKER_01
It has the flexibility of athletic wear, so I feel pretty comfortable.
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, I m pretty short on adjectives when I describe stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
Adjectives are tricky.
0
SPEAKER_01
In fact, I try to avoid adjectives.
0
SPEAKER_01
Because I think that s a slippery slope.
0
SPEAKER_01
That you just live in a land of adjectives.
0
SPEAKER_01
And you never actually make a point.
0
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, I guess they re supposed to use in audio form.
0
SPEAKER_01
words to describe the thing that you re describing so that you can understand.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have to convert the ideas in my brain into ideas in your brain, and hence the beauty of human-to-human communication.
0
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, I feel pretty good in the thing.
0
SPEAKER_01
I like the way it looks, like the way it feels.
0
SPEAKER_01
You should check it out, too.
0
SPEAKER_01
Right now you can get a special discount.
0
SPEAKER_01
Just go to mizinandmaine.com and use promo code LEX.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I use to track biological data.
0
SPEAKER_01
They have a bunch of plans, most include a blood test that use machine learning algorithms on that blood data, DNA data and fitness tracker data to give you suggestions on what you should do with your life.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s science-backed recommendations for positive diet and lifestyle changes.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s really exciting to me the kind of stuff you could do with machine learning algorithms on data that comes from the human body.
0
SPEAKER_01
But the first piece of that I think that s essential is to actually be collecting that data from you or give the algorithm enough data about you that it can make such predictions.
0
SPEAKER_01
And a lot of that has to be done in a way that s privacy-preserving and effective in terms of not just low number of samples, single instances of data collection, but across a lifespan, across many weeks, months, years, and so on.
0
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, InsideTracker is one of the companies doing a great job of pushing that kind of idea forward.
0
SPEAKER_01
You can get special savings for a limited time when you go to insidetracker.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_01
This episode is also brought to you by Eight Sleep and its new Pod 3 mattress.
0
SPEAKER_01
They recently launched the next generation.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s always nice when the number go up.
0
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, I love the originals.
0
SPEAKER_01
I love the new one even more.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a bunch of smart sensors that tell you stuff about your body in terms of your sleep, in terms of basic health stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
The reason I love it, to be honest, is that you can cool down the bed to as low as 55 degrees or as hot as 110 degrees on each side of the bed separately.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now, I ve never tried to heat it up.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that sounds like it would be a lot of fun.
0
SPEAKER_01
But my favorite thing to do is to cool it down with a warm blanket.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s just heaven.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s like a cold, hot sandwich.
0
SPEAKER_01
The hot coming from the blanket.
0
SPEAKER_01
And a power nap.
0
SPEAKER_01
So we re talking about 20 to 30 minutes.
0
SPEAKER_01
I might even drink a coffee beforehand.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I just crash.
0
SPEAKER_01
And there s nothing better than a power nap in one of these beds.
0
SPEAKER_01
So go to 8sleep.com slash Lex for special Labor Day savings through September 11th.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens, and it s AG1 Drink, which is an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
0
SPEAKER_01
I drink it twice a day now.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the first thing I drink to break a fast later on in the day.
0
SPEAKER_01
Oftentimes, I ll do a two-hour run, talking about 12, 13, 14 miles.
0
SPEAKER_01
Hot, hot, it s hot in Austin right now.
0
SPEAKER_01
Even though it s pushing towards the fall, it s still hot.
0
SPEAKER_01
And what I do is I get back, I make an athletic greens, I ll put it in the freezer, jump in the shower.
0
SPEAKER_01
By the time I come out, it s super cold, delicious, refreshing.
0
SPEAKER_01
It just makes me feel great about having accomplished something difficult, especially because I m doing a lot of deep thinking as I m running.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a kind of meditative process.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s something I look forward to is that cold, refreshing drink, making sure I get all my nutritional bases done.
0
SPEAKER_01
I feel amazing.
0
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, they ll give you a one month supply official when you sign up at athleticgreens.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_01
This episode is also brought to you by Onnit, a nutrition, supplement, and fitness company.
0
SPEAKER_01
They make AlphaBrain, a nootropic that helps support memory, mental speed, and focus.
0
SPEAKER_01
I honestly can t get enough of doing the AlphaBrain Reads because I m an old school Joe Rogan experience fan.
0
SPEAKER_01
And just to think, from Fleshlight sponsor all the way through Onnit, the journey that guy has taken
0
SPEAKER_01
given all the increase in wealth and fame, has become unchanged, has almost become a better human being, primarily because of family and all those kinds of things.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now I m just deeply honored and grateful that I can call him a friend.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so it just feels surreal that I could be doing this kind of ad read on a podcast that I host, that for some reason people are listening to.
0
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
0
SPEAKER_01
I m the luckiest guy in the world.
0
SPEAKER_01
I can t even,
0
SPEAKER_01
put correctly or properly into words how I feel.
0
SPEAKER_01
I m really grateful.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, you can get a special discount on AlphaBrain at lexfriedman.com slash on it.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_01
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, dear friends, here s John Verveche.
0
you
0
SPEAKER_01
You have an excellent 50-part lecture series online on the meaning crisis.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think you describe, in the modern times, an increase in depression, loneliness, cynicism, and, wait for it, bullshit.
0
SPEAKER_01
The term used technically by Harry Frankfurt and adopted by you.
0
SPEAKER_01
So let me ask, what is meaning?
0
SPEAKER_01
What are we looking for when we engage in the search for meaning?
0
SPEAKER_00
So when I m talking about meaning, I m talking about what s called meaning in life, not the meaning of life.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s some sort of metaphysical claim.
0
SPEAKER_00
Meaning in life are those factors that make people rate their lives as more meaningful, worth living, worth the suffering that they have to endure.
0
SPEAKER_00
And when you study that, what you see is it s a sense of connectedness.
0
SPEAKER_00
Connectedness to yourself, to other people, to the world, and a particular kind of connectedness.
0
SPEAKER_00
You wanna be connected to things that have a value and an existence independent of your egocentric sort of preferences and concerns.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is why, for example, having a child is considered very meaningful because you re connecting to something that s gonna have a life and a value independent of you.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now the question that comes up for me, well, there s two questions.
0
SPEAKER_00
One is, why is that at risk right now?
0
SPEAKER_00
And then secondly,
0
SPEAKER_00
I think you have to answer the second question first, which is, well, yeah, but why is meaning so important?
0
SPEAKER_00
Why is this sense of connectedness so important to human beings?
0
SPEAKER_00
Why, when it is lacking, do they typically fall into depression, potentially mental illness, addiction, self-destructive behavior?
0
SPEAKER_00
The first answer I give you is, well, it s that sense of connectedness.
0
SPEAKER_00
And people often express it metaphorically.
0
SPEAKER_00
They wanna be connected to something larger than themselves.
0
SPEAKER_00
They wanna matter.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t mean it literally.
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, if I chained you to a mountain, you wouldn t thereby say, oh, now my life is so fulfilling, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
So what they re trying to convey, they re using this metaphor to try and say, they wanna be connected.
0
SPEAKER_00
They wanna be connected to something real.
0
SPEAKER_00
They wanna make a difference and matter to it.
0
SPEAKER_00
And one way of asking them,
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, you know, what s meaningful is tell me what you would like to continue to exist even if you weren t around anymore.
0
SPEAKER_00
And how are you connected to it and how do you matter to it?
0
SPEAKER_01
That s one way of trying to get at what is the source of meaning for you is if you were no longer there, you would like it to continue existing.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s not the only part of the definition probably because there s probably many things that aren t.
0
SPEAKER_01
a source of meaning for me that maybe I find beautiful, that I would like to continue existing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yes, if it contributes to your life being meaningful, you re connected to it in some way, and it matters to you, and you matter to it in that you make some difference to it.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s when it goes from being just sort of true, good, and beautiful, to being a source of meaning for you in your life.
0
SPEAKER_01
Is the meaning crisis a new thing or has it always been with us?
0
SPEAKER_01
Is it part of the human condition in general?
0
SPEAKER_00
That s an excellent question.
0
SPEAKER_00
And part of the argument I made in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis is there s two aspects to it.
0
SPEAKER_00
One is that there are perennial problems, perennial threats to meaning.
0
SPEAKER_00
And in that sense, human beings are always vulnerable to despair.
0
SPEAKER_00
The book of Ecclesiastes is it s all vanity, it s all meaningless.
0
SPEAKER_00
But there s also historical forces that have made those perennial problems more pertinent, more pressing, more difficult for people to deal with.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so the meaning crisis is actually the intersection of perennial problems, finding existence absurd, experiencing existential anxiety, feeling alienated.
0
SPEAKER_00
and then pressing historical factors, which have to do with the loss of the resources that human beings have typically, cross-historically and cross-culturally made use of in order to address these perennial problems.
0
SPEAKER_01
Is there something potentially deeper than just a lack of meaning that speaks to the fact that we re vulnerable to despair?
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, Ernest Becker talked about, in his book Denial of Death, about the fear of death being an important motivator in our life.
0
SPEAKER_01
As William James said, death is the warm at the core of the human condition.
0
SPEAKER_01
Is it possible that this kind of search for meaning
0
SPEAKER_01
is coupled or can be seen from the perspective of trying to escape the reality, the thought of one s own mortality?
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, Becker and the terror management theory that have come out of it, there s been some good work around sort of providing empirical support for that claim.
0
SPEAKER_00
some of the work not so good, so.
0
SPEAKER_01
So which aspects do you find convincing?
0
SPEAKER_01
Can you steel man that case, and then can you argue against it?
0
SPEAKER_00
So what aspects I find convincing is that human finitude, being finite, being inherently limited, is very problematic for us.
0
SPEAKER_01
Given the extensive use of the word problematic, I like that you used that word.
0
SPEAKER_01
to describe one s own mortality as problematic.
0
SPEAKER_01
Because people sort of on Twitter use the word problematic when they disagree with somebody, but this to me seems to be the ultimate problematic aspect of the human condition is that we die, and it ends.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think, I m not disagreeing with you, but I m trying to get you to consider that your mortality is not an event in the future, it s a state you re in right now.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s what I m trying to shift.
0
SPEAKER_00
So your mortality is just a, we talk about something that causes mortality fatal.
0
SPEAKER_00
But what we actually mean is it s full of fate.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I don t mean in the sense of things are pre-written.
0
SPEAKER_00
What I mean is the sense of the universe doesn t care about your personal narrative.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can just have met.
0
SPEAKER_00
the person that is going to be the love of your life.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the culmination of your whole project for happiness and you step into the street and a truck hits you and you die.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s mortality.
0
SPEAKER_00
Mortality isn t just some far-flung event.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s that every moment we are subject to fate in that way.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you can think of lots of little deaths you experience whenever
0
SPEAKER_00
All the projects and the plans you make come up against the fact that the universe can just roll over them.
0
SPEAKER_01
So death is the indifference of nature, of the universe to your existence.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so in that sense it is always here with us.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but you re vulnerable in so many ways other than just the ending of your biological life.
0
SPEAKER_00
Because it s interesting, if you rate what people fear most, death is not number one.
0
SPEAKER_00
They often put public speaking as number one.
0
SPEAKER_00
Because the death of status or reputation can also be a profound loss for human beings.
0
SPEAKER_00
It can drive them into despair.
0
SPEAKER_01
So as the terror management folks would say, as Ernest Becker would say, that a self-report on a survey is not an accurate way to capture what is actually at the core of the motivation of a human being.
0
SPEAKER_01
That we could be terrified of death, and we ve, from childhood, since we realized the absurdity of the fact that the ride ends, we ve learned to really,
0
SPEAKER_01
try to forget about it, try to construct illusions that allow us to escape momentarily or for prolonged periods of time the realization that we die.
0
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so first I took it seriously, but now I wanna say why there s some empirical work that makes me wanna.
0
SPEAKER_00
Reconsider it.
0
SPEAKER_00
So terror management theory is you do things like you give people a list of words to read, and in those list are words associated with death, cough, and funeral.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then you see what happens to people, and generally they start to become more rigid in their thinking.
0
SPEAKER_00
They tend to identify with their worldview.
0
SPEAKER_00
They lose cognitive flexibility.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s if you present it to them in that third-person perspective.
0
SPEAKER_00
But if you get them to go in the first-person perspective and imagine that they re dying and that the people that they care about are there with them.
0
SPEAKER_00
They don t show those responses.
0
SPEAKER_00
In fact, they show us an increase in cognitive flexibility, an increase in openness.
0
SPEAKER_00
See, so I m trying to say, we might be putting the cart before the horse.
0
SPEAKER_00
It might not be death per se, but the kind of meaning that is present or absent in death, that is the crucial thing for us.
0
SPEAKER_01
By the way, to push back, I don t think you took it seriously.
0
SPEAKER_01
I don t think you truly steel-manned the case because you re saying that death is always present with us, yes, but isn t there a case to be made that it is one of the major motivators?
0
SPEAKER_01
Nietzsche, will to power, Freud wanting to have sex with your mother, all the different explanations of what is truly motivating us human beings.
0
SPEAKER_01
Isn t there a strong case to be made that this death thing,
0
SPEAKER_01
is a really damn good, if not anything, a tool to motivate the behavior of humans.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m not saying that the avoidance of death is not significant for human beings, but I m proposing to you that human beings have a capacity for considering certain deaths meaningful and certain deaths meaningless, and we have lots of evidence
1
SPEAKER_01
that people are willing to sacrifice their biological existence for a death they consider meaningful.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are you personally afraid of your death?
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about it?
1
SPEAKER_00
As somebody who produces a lot of ideas, records them, writes them down, is a deep thinker, admired thinker, and as the years go on, become more and more admired, does it scare you that the ride ends?
1
SPEAKER_01
No, I mean, you have to talk to me on all my levels.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m a biological organism, so if something s thrown at my head, I ll duck and things like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
But if you re asking me do I long to live forever, no.
1
SPEAKER_01
In the Buddhist tradition, there are practices that are designed to make you aware of simultaneously the horror of mortality and the horror of immortality.
1
SPEAKER_01
The thought of living forever is actually horrific to me.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are those the only two options?
1
SPEAKER_00
When you re sitting with a loved one or watching a movie you just really love or a book you really love, you don t want it to end, you don t necessarily always flip it to the other aspect, the complete opposite of the thought experiment.
1
SPEAKER_00
What happens if the book lasts forever?
1
SPEAKER_00
There s gotta be a middle ground, like the snooze button.
1
SPEAKER_00
Sure, you don t wanna sleep forever, but maybe press the snooze button and get an extra 15 minutes.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s surely some kind of balance.
1
SPEAKER_00
That fear seems to be a source of an intense appreciation of the moment, in part.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that s what the Stoics talked about, to meditate on one s mortality.
1
SPEAKER_00
It seems to be a nice wake-up call to,
1
SPEAKER_00
that life is full of moments that are beautiful and that you don t get an infinite number of them.
1
SPEAKER_01
Right, and the stoic response was not the project of trying to extend
1
SPEAKER_01
the duration of your life, but to deepen those moments so they become as satisfying as possible so that when death comes, it does not strike you as any kind of calamity.
1
SPEAKER_00
Does that project ring true for your own personal feelings?
1
SPEAKER_01
I think so.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about your mortality?
1
SPEAKER_01
I used to.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t so much anymore.
1
SPEAKER_01
Part of it, as I m older and your temporal horizon flips,
1
SPEAKER_01
somewhere in your 30s or 40s.
1
SPEAKER_01
You don t live from your birth, you live towards your death.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s such a beautiful phrase.
1
SPEAKER_00
The temporal horizon flips.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s so true.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s so true.
1
SPEAKER_00
At what point is that?
1
SPEAKER_00
The point before which the world of opportunity and possibility is infinite before you.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s like Peter Pan.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s all these golden possibilities and you fly around between them.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, very much.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then when it flips, you start to look for a different model.
1
SPEAKER_01
The Socratic, the Stoic model, Buddhism has also influenced me, which is more about, wait, when I look at my desires, I seem to have two meta-desires.
1
SPEAKER_01
In addition to satisfying a particular desire,
1
SPEAKER_01
I want whatever satisfies my desire to be real, and whatever is satisfying my desire to not cause internal conflict, but bring something like peace of mind.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so I m more and more moved towards how can I live such that those two meta-desires are a constant frame within which I m trying to satisfy my specific desires.
1
SPEAKER_01
What do you think happens after we die?
1
SPEAKER_01
I think mind and life go away completely when we die, and I think that s actually significantly important for the kind of beings that we are.
1
SPEAKER_01
We are the kinds of beings that can come to that awareness, and then we have a responsibility to decide how we re gonna comport ourselves towards it.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you linger on what that means, the mind goes away?
1
SPEAKER_01
Like when you re playing music and the last instrument is put down, the song is over.
1
SPEAKER_01
doesn t mean the song wasn t beautiful, doesn t mean the song wasn t complex, doesn t mean the song didn t add to the value of the universe and its existence, but it came to an end.
1
SPEAKER_00
Is there some aspect in which some part of mind was there before the human and remains after?
1
SPEAKER_00
Something like panpsychism, or is it too much for us limited cognitive beings to understand?
1
SPEAKER_01
something like panpsychism, I take it seriously.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t think it s a ridiculous proposal, but I think it has insoluble problems that make me doubt it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Any idea that the mind is some kind of ultimately immaterial substance also has, for me, just devastating problems.
1
SPEAKER_01
Those are the two kinds of framework that people usually propose.
1
SPEAKER_01
in order to support some kind of idea of immortality.
1
SPEAKER_01
I find both very problematic.
1
SPEAKER_01
The fact that we participate in distributed cognition, that most of our problem solving is not done as individuals, but in groups, this is something I work on.
1
SPEAKER_01
I ve published on that.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think that s important.
1
SPEAKER_01
But most of the people who do work on systems of distributed cognition think that while there s such a thing as collective intelligence,
1
SPEAKER_01
there s no good evidence that there s collective consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
In fact, it s often called zombie agency for that reason.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so while I think it s very clear that no one person runs an airline,
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s a collective intelligence that solves that problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
I do not think that collective intelligence supports any kind of consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so therefore, I don t think the fact that I participate, which I regularly and reliably do in distributed cognition, gives me any reason to believe that that participation grounds some kind of consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay, there s so many things to mention there.
1
SPEAKER_00
First of all, distributed cognition, maybe that s a synonym for collective intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that means a bunch of humans individually are able to think, have cognitive machines, and are somehow able to interact through the process of dialogue, as you talk about, to morph different ideas together, like this idea landscape together.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s so interesting to think about, okay, well, you do have these fascinating distributed cognition systems, but consciousness does not propagate in the same way as intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_00
But
1
SPEAKER_00
Isn t there a case, if we just look at intelligence, if we look at us humans as a collection of smaller organisms, which we are, and so there s like a hierarchy of organisms, tiny ones work together to form tiny villages that you can then start to see as individual organisms that are then also forming bigger villages and interacting different ways, and function becomes more and more complex, and eventually we get to us humans
1
SPEAKER_00
to where we start to think, well, we re an individual, but really we re not.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s billions of organisms inside us, both domestic and foreign.
1
SPEAKER_00
So isn t that building up consciousnesses like turtles all the way up to our consciousness?
1
SPEAKER_00
Why does it have to stop with us humans?
1
SPEAKER_00
Are we the only, like is this the phase transition when it becomes,
1
SPEAKER_00
a zombie-like, giant, hierarchical village that first, like, ah, there s like a singing angels and it s consciousness is born in just us humans.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do bacteria have consciousness?
1
SPEAKER_00
Not bacteria, but maybe you could say bacteria does, but like the interesting, complicated organisms that are within us have consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think it s proper to argue, and I have, that like a paramecium or bacteria has a kind of agency and even a kind of intelligence, kind of sense-making ability.
1
SPEAKER_01
But I do not think that we can attribute consciousness, at least what we mean by consciousness, this kind of self-awareness, this ability to introspect, et cetera, et cetera.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now the reason why distributed cognition doesn t have consciousness I think is a little bit more tricky.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I think there s no reason in principle why there couldn t be a consciousness for distributed cognition, collective intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_01
In fact, many philosophers would agree with me on that point.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think it s more an issue of certain empirical facts, bandwidth, density of connections, speed of information transfer, et cetera.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s conceivable that if we got some horrible Frankensteinian neural link and we linked our brains and we had the right density and dynamics and bandwidth and speed that a group consciousness could take shape.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t have any argument in principle against that.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m just saying those contingent facts do not yet exist and therefore it is implausible that consciousness exists at the level of collective intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you talk about consciousness quite a bit, so let s step back and try to sneak up to a definition.
1
SPEAKER_00
What is consciousness?
1
SPEAKER_01
For me, there are two aspects to answering that question.
1
SPEAKER_01
One is, what s the nature of consciousness?
1
SPEAKER_01
How does something like consciousness exist in an otherwise apparently non-conscious universe?
1
SPEAKER_01
And then there s a function question, which is equally important, which is, what does consciousness do?
1
SPEAKER_01
The first one is obviously problematic for most people, like, yeah, consciousness seems to be so different from the rest of the non-conscious universe.
1
SPEAKER_01
But I put it to you that the function question is also very hard, because you are clearly capable
1
SPEAKER_01
a very sophisticated, intelligent behavior without consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
You are turning the noises coming out of my face hole into ideas in your mind, and you have no conscious awareness of how that process is occurring.
1
SPEAKER_01
So why do we have consciousness at all?
1
SPEAKER_01
Now here s the thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s an extra question you need to ask.
1
SPEAKER_01
Should we attempt to answer those questions separately?
1
SPEAKER_01
or should we attempt to answer them in an integrated fashion?
1
SPEAKER_01
I make the case that you actually have to answer them in an integrated fashion, what consciousness does and what it is.
1
SPEAKER_01
We should be able to give a unified answer to both of those.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you try to elucidate the difference between what consciousness is and what it does, both of which are mysteries, as you say?
1
SPEAKER_00
State versus action.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you try to explain the difference that s interesting, that s useful, that s important to understand?
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s putting me in a bit of a difficult position because I actually argue that trying to answer them separately is ultimately incoherent.
1
SPEAKER_01
But what I can point to are many published articles in which only one of these problems is addressed and the other is left unaddressed.
1
SPEAKER_01
So people will try and explain what qualia are.
1
SPEAKER_01
how they potentially emerge without saying, what do they do?
1
SPEAKER_01
What problems do they help to solve?
1
SPEAKER_01
How do they make the organism more adaptive?
1
SPEAKER_01
And then you ll have other people who ll say, no, no, this is what the function of consciousness is, but I don t know, I can t tell you, I can t solve the hard problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know how qualia exist.
1
SPEAKER_01
So what I m saying is many people treat these problems separately, although I think that s ultimately an incoherent way to approach the problem.
1
SPEAKER_00
So the heart problem is focusing on what it is.
1
SPEAKER_00
So the qualia, it feels like something to experience a thing, that s what consciousness is.
1
SPEAKER_00
And does is more about the functional usefulness of the thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
To the whole beautiful mix of cognition and just function in everyday life.
1
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
1
SPEAKER_00
You ve also said that you can do very intelligent things
1
SPEAKER_00
without consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes, clearly.
1
SPEAKER_00
Is that obvious to you?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what I m doing to access my memory.
1
SPEAKER_01
It just comes up.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it comes up really intelligently.
1
SPEAKER_00
but the mechanisms that create consciousness could be deeply interlinked with whatever is doing the memory access, is doing the cognition.
1
SPEAKER_00
So I guess what I m trying to say in this, we ll probably sneak up to this question a few times, which is whether we can build machines that are conscious.
1
SPEAKER_00
or machines that are intelligent, human-level intelligent or beyond without building the consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, ultimately, that s one of the ways to understand what consciousness is, is to build the thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
We can either sort of from the Chomsky way try to construct models, like he thinks about language in this way, try to construct models and theories of how the thing works, or we can just build the damn thing.
1
SPEAKER_01
Exactly, and that s a methodological principle
1
SPEAKER_01
in cognitive science.
1
SPEAKER_01
In fact, one of the things that sort of distinguishes cognitive science from other disciplines dealing with the nature of cognition in the mind is that cognitive science takes the design stance.
1
SPEAKER_01
It asks, well, could we build a machine that would not only simulate it, but serve as a bona fide explanation of the phenomena?
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you find any efforts in cognitive science compelling in this direction, in terms of how far we are?
1
SPEAKER_00
There s, on the computational side of things, something called cognitive modeling.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s all these kinds of packages that you can construct simplified models of how the brain does things and see if complex behaviors emerge.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you find any efforts in cognitive, or what efforts in cognitive science do you find
1
SPEAKER_00
most inspiring and productive.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think the project of trying to create AGI, artificial general intelligence, is where I place my hope of artificial intelligence being of scientific significance.
1
SPEAKER_01
This is independent of technological socioeconomic significance, which is already well established.
1
SPEAKER_01
But
1
SPEAKER_01
Being able to say, because of the work in AI, we now have a good theory of cognition, intelligence, perhaps consciousness.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think that s where I place my bets, is in the current endeavors around artificial general intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so tackling that problem head on, which has now become central, at least to a group of cognitive scientists, is, I think, what needs to be done.
1
SPEAKER_00
And when you think about AGI, do you think about systems that have consciousness?
1
SPEAKER_01
Let s go back to what I think is at the core of your general intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_01
So right now, compared to even our best machines, you are a general problem solver.
1
SPEAKER_01
You can solve a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of domains.
1
SPEAKER_01
And some of our best machines have a little bit of transfer.
1
SPEAKER_01
They can learn this game and play a few other well-designed rule-bound games.
1
SPEAKER_01
but they couldn t learn how to swim, right, or et cetera, things like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so what s interesting is what seems to come up, and this is some of my published work, in all these different domains of cognition, across all these different problem types, is a central problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
And since we do have good sort of psychometric evidence that we do have some general ability that s a significant component of our intelligence, I made an argument as to what I think that general ability is.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so, it s happening right now.
1
SPEAKER_01
The amount of information in this room that you could actually pay attention to is combinatorially explosive.
1
SPEAKER_01
The amount of information you have in your memory, long-term memory, and all the ways you could combine it
2
SPEAKER_01
combinatorial explosive.
2
SPEAKER_01
The number of possibilities you can consider, also combinatorial explosive.
2
SPEAKER_01
The sequences of behavior you can generate, also combinatorial explosive.
2
SPEAKER_01
And yet somehow, you re zeroing in.
2
SPEAKER_01
The right memories are coming up, the right possibilities are opening up, the right sequences of behavior, you re paying attention to the right thing.
2
SPEAKER_01
Not infallibly so, but so much so that you reliably find obvious
2
SPEAKER_01
what you should interact with in order to solve the problem at hand.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s an ability that is still not well understood within AGI.
2
SPEAKER_00
So filtering out the gigantic waterfall of data.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s almost like a Zen koan.
2
SPEAKER_01
What makes you intelligent
2
SPEAKER_01
is your ability to ignore so much information and do it in such a way that is somewhere between arbitrary guessing and algorithmic search.
2
SPEAKER_00
And to a fault sometimes, of course, that you, based on the models you construct, you forget, you ignore things that you should probably not ignore.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that, hopefully we can circle back to it, Lex, is related to the meaning issue.
2
SPEAKER_01
because the very processes that make us adaptively intelligent make us perennially susceptible to self-deceptive, self-destructive behavior because of the way we mis-frame the environment in fundamental ways.
2
SPEAKER_00
So to you, meaning is also,
2
SPEAKER_00
connected to ideas of wisdom and truth and how we interpret and understand and interact intellectually with the environment.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what is wisdom?
2
SPEAKER_00
Why do we long for it?
2
SPEAKER_00
How do we and where do we find it?
2
SPEAKER_00
What is it?
2
SPEAKER_01
Intelligence is what you use to solve your problems, as I was just describing.
2
SPEAKER_01
Rationality is how you use your intelligence to overcome the problems
2
SPEAKER_01
of self-deception that emerge when you re trying to solve your problems, so it s that meta problem.
2
SPEAKER_01
And then the issue is, do you have just one kind of knowing?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think you have multiple ways of knowing, and therefore you have multiple rationalities.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so wisdom is to coordinate those rationalities so that they are optimally constraining and affording each other.
2
SPEAKER_01
So in that way, wisdom is rationally self-transcending rationality.
2
SPEAKER_00
Right, so life is a kind of process where you jump from rationality to rationality and pick up a village of rationalities along the way that then turns into wisdom.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, if properly coordinated.
2
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned framing.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
What is framing?
2
SPEAKER_00
Is it a set of assumptions you bring to the table in how you see the world, how you reason about the world, yeah, how you understand the world?
2
SPEAKER_01
So it depends what you mean by assumptions.
2
SPEAKER_01
If by assumption you mean a proposition, representational or rule, I think that s much more downstream from relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think relevance realization refers to, again, constraints on how you are paying attention.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so for me, talking about framing is talking about
2
SPEAKER_01
this process you re doing right now of salience landscaping, what s salient to you?
2
SPEAKER_01
And how is what s salient constantly shifting in a sort of a dynamic tapestry?
2
SPEAKER_01
And how are you shaping yourself
2
SPEAKER_01
to the way that salience landscaping is aspectualizing the world, shaping it into aspects for interaction.
2
SPEAKER_01
For me, that is a much more primordial process than any sort of beliefs we have.
2
SPEAKER_01
And here s why.
2
SPEAKER_01
If we mean by beliefs a representational proposition, then we re in this very problematic position.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because then we re trying to say that propositions are ultimately responsible for how we do relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s problematic because representations presuppose relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I represent this as a cup.
2
SPEAKER_01
The number of properties it actually has, and that I even have epistemic access to, is combinatorial explosive.
2
SPEAKER_01
I select from those a subset.
2
SPEAKER_01
and how they are relevant to each other insofar as they are relevant for me.
2
SPEAKER_01
This doesn t have to be a cup.
2
SPEAKER_01
I could be using it as a hat.
2
SPEAKER_01
I could use it to stand for the letter V, all kinds of different things.
2
SPEAKER_01
I could say this was the 10th billion object made in North America.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right?
2
SPEAKER_01
Representations presuppose relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_01
They are, right, they are therefore dependent on it, which means relevance realization isn t bound to our representational structures.
2
SPEAKER_01
It can be influenced by them, but they are ultimately dependent on relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_00
Let s define stuff.
2
SPEAKER_00
Relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
What are the inputs and the outputs of this thing?
2
SPEAKER_00
What is it?
2
SPEAKER_00
What are we talking about?
2
SPEAKER_01
What we re talking about is how you are doing something very analogous to evolution.
2
SPEAKER_01
So if you think about that adaptivity isn t in the organism or in the environment, but in a dynamical relation, and then what does evolution do?
2
SPEAKER_01
It creates variation, and then it puts selective pressure, and what that does is that changes the niche constructions that are available to a species.
2
SPEAKER_01
It changes the morphology.
2
SPEAKER_01
You also have a loop.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s your sensory motor loop.
2
SPEAKER_01
And what s constantly happening is there are processes within you that are opening up variation, and also processes that are putting selection on it, and you re constantly evolving that sensory motor loop.
2
SPEAKER_01
So you might call your cognitive fittedness, which is how you re framing the world, is constantly evolving and changing.
2
SPEAKER_01
I can give you two clear examples of that.
2
SPEAKER_01
One, right, your autonomic nervous system.
2
SPEAKER_01
Parasympathetic and sympathetic.
2
SPEAKER_01
The sympathetic system is biased to trying to interpret as much of reality as threat or opportunity.
2
SPEAKER_01
The parasympathetic is, right, is biased to trying to interpret as much of the environment as safe and relaxing.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they are constantly doing opponent processing.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s no little man in you
2
SPEAKER_01
calculating your level of arousal.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s this dynamic coupling, opponent processing between them that is constantly evolving your arousal.
2
SPEAKER_01
Similarly, your attention, you have the default mode network, task network.
2
SPEAKER_01
The default mode network is putting pressure on you right now to mind wander, to go off, to drift, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
And then the task-focused network is selecting out of those possibilities the ones that will survive and go into.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you re constantly evolving your attention.
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so there s a natural selection of ideas that a bunch of systems within you are generating, and then you use the natural selection.
2
SPEAKER_00
What is the selector, the object that you re interacting with, the glass?
2
SPEAKER_00
Relevance realization, once again, you just described how it happens.
2
SPEAKER_00
You didn t describe what the hell it is.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what s the goal, what are we talking about?
2
SPEAKER_00
So relevance realization is,
2
SPEAKER_00
how you interact with things in the world, to make sense of why they matter, what they mean to you, to your life.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and notice the language you just used.
2
SPEAKER_01
You re starting to use the meaning in life language.
2
SPEAKER_01
Good or bad?
2
SPEAKER_01
That s good, that s good.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, what does that evolution of your sensory motor loop do?
2
SPEAKER_01
It gives you,
2
SPEAKER_01
And here I ll use a term from Marlowe-Ponty, it gives you an optimal grip on the world.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, let s use your visual attention again.
2
SPEAKER_01
Okay, here s an object.
2
SPEAKER_01
How close should I be to it?
2
SPEAKER_01
Is there a right... That s what you want to do with it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Exactly, exactly.
2
SPEAKER_01
So you have to evolve your sensory motor loop in order to get the optimal grip that actually creates the affordance of you getting to a goal that you re trying to get to.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but you re describing physical goals of manipulating objects.
2
SPEAKER_00
So this applies, the task, the process of relevance realization is not just about getting a glass of water and taking a drink.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s about falling in love,
2
SPEAKER_01
Of course.
2
SPEAKER_00
What else is there?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, there s obvious.
2
SPEAKER_00
Between those two options.
2
SPEAKER_01
I can show you how you re optimally gripping in an abstract cognitive domain, okay?
2
SPEAKER_01
So a mammal goes by and most people will say there s a dog.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now why don t they say, they might, but typically, probabilistically, they ll say there s a dog.
2
SPEAKER_01
They could say there s a German shepherd, there s a mammal, there s a living organism, there s a police dog.
2
SPEAKER_01
Why there?
2
SPEAKER_01
Why do they stop, Eleanor Rush called these basic level?
2
SPEAKER_01
But what you find is that s an optimal grip because it s getting you the best overall balance between similarity within your category and difference between the other categories.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s allowing you to properly fit to that object insofar as you re setting yourself up to, well, I m getting as many of the similarities and differences I can on balance, because they re in a trade-off relationship, that I need in order to probably interact with this mammal.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s optimal grip, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s at the level of your categorization.
2
SPEAKER_00
You evolve these models of the world around you, and on top of them, you do stuff, like you build representations, like you said.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s the salience landscape?
2
SPEAKER_00
Salience meaning attention landscape.
2
SPEAKER_01
So salience is what grabs your attention or what results from you directing your attention.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I clap my hands, that s salient, it grabs your attention, your attention is drawn to it, that s bottom up.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I can also say you left big toe.
2
SPEAKER_01
and now it s salient to you because you directed your attention towards it, that s top down.
2
SPEAKER_01
And again, opponent processing going on there.
2
SPEAKER_01
So whatever stands out to you, what grabs your attention, what arouses you, what triggers at least momentarily some affect towards it, that s how things are salient.
2
SPEAKER_01
What salience I would argue is, is how a lot of unconscious relevance realization makes information relevant to working memory.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s when it now becomes online for direct sensory motor interaction with the world.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you think the salience landscape, the ocean of salience extends into the subconscious mind?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think relevance does, but I think when relevance is recursively processed, relevance realization, such that it passes through sort of this higher filter of working memory and has these properties of being globally accessible and globally broadcast, then it becomes the thing we call salience.
2
SPEAKER_01
Look, that s really good evidence.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s really good evidence from my colleague at U of T
2
SPEAKER_01
at the University of Toronto, Lynn Hasher, that that s what working memory is.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a higher order relevance filter.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s why things like chunking will get way more information through working memory, because it s basically making, it s basically monitoring how much relevance realization has gone into this information.
2
SPEAKER_01
Usually you have to do an additional kind of recursive processing.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that tells you, by the way, when do you need consciousness?
2
SPEAKER_01
When do you need?
2
SPEAKER_01
that working memory and that salience landscaping.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s when you re facing situations that are highly novel, highly complex, and very ill-defined that require you to engage working memory.
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, got it.
2
SPEAKER_00
So relevance realization is in part the thing that constructs that basic level thing of a dog.
2
SPEAKER_00
When you see a dog, you call it a dog, not a German shepherd, not a mammal, not a bird.
2
SPEAKER_00
biological meat bag, it s a dog.
2
SPEAKER_00
Wisdom.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
So what is wisdom?
2
SPEAKER_00
If we return, I think as part of that, we got to relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_00
And then wisdom is accumulation of rationalities.
2
SPEAKER_00
He described a rationality as a kind of starting from intelligence, much of puzzle solving, and then rationalities like the meta-problem of puzzle solving, and then what wisdom is the meta-meta-problem of puzzle solving.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, in the sense that the meta problem you have when you re solving your puzzles is that you can often fall into self-deception.
2
SPEAKER_01
You can misframe.
2
SPEAKER_00
Self-deception, right.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right.
2
SPEAKER_01
So whereas knowledge overcomes ignorance, wisdom is about overcoming foolishness.
2
SPEAKER_01
If what we mean by foolishness is self-deceptive, self-destructive behavior, which I think is a good definition of foolishness.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so,
2
SPEAKER_01
What you re doing is you re doing this recursive relevance realization.
2
SPEAKER_01
You re using your intelligence to improve the use of your intelligence, and then you re using your rationality to improve the use of your rationality.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s that recursive relevance realization I was talking about a few minutes ago.
2
SPEAKER_01
Think about a wise person.
2
SPEAKER_01
They come into highly,
2
SPEAKER_01
often messy, ill-defined, complex situations, usually where there s some significant novelty, and what can they do?
2
SPEAKER_01
They can zero in on what really matters, what s relevant, and then they can shape themselves, salience landscaping, to intervene
2
SPEAKER_01
most appropriately to that situation as they have framed it.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s what we mean by a wise person, and that s how it follows out of the model I ve been presenting to you.
2
SPEAKER_00
So when we say self-deception, I mean, part of that implies that it s intentional.
2
SPEAKER_00
Part of the mechanism of cognition
2
SPEAKER_00
you re modifying what you should know for some purpose.
2
SPEAKER_00
Is that how you see the word self-deception?
2
SPEAKER_01
No, because I belong to a group of people that think the model of self-deception as lying to oneself ultimately makes no sense.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because in order to lie to you, I have to know something you don t, and I have to depend on your commitment to the truth in order to modify your behavior.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t think that s what we do to ourselves.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think, and I m gonna use it in a technical term, and thank you for making space for that earlier on, I think we can bullshit ourselves, which is a very different thing than lying.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what is bullshit, and how do we bullshit ourselves, technically speaking?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, Frankfurt, and this is inspired by Frankfurt and other people s work based on Frankfurt s work.
2
SPEAKER_00
On bullshit.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, classic essay.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a pretty good title.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think it s one of the best things he wrote.
2
SPEAKER_01
He wrote a lot of good things.
2
SPEAKER_01
The title or the essay?
2
SPEAKER_01
The essay.
2
SPEAKER_01
The title s good too.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s always an icebreaker in certain academic settings.
2
SPEAKER_01
So let s contrast the bullshit artist from the liar.
2
SPEAKER_01
The liar depends on your commitment to the truth.
2
SPEAKER_01
The bullshit artist is actually trying to make you indifferent to the question of truth and modify your behavior by making things salient to you so that they are catchy to you.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, a prototypical example of bullshit is a commercial, a television commercial.
2
SPEAKER_01
You watch these people
2
SPEAKER_01
at a bar getting some particular kind of alcohol, and they re gorgeous, and they re laughing, and they re smiling, and they re clear-eyed.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know that s not true.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they know you know it s not true.
2
SPEAKER_01
But here s the point.
2
SPEAKER_01
You don t care.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because there s gorgeous people, smiling, and they re happy, and that s salient to you, and that catches your attention.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you know, go into a bar, you know that won t happen when you drink.
2
SPEAKER_01
this alcohol, you know it, but you buy the product because it was made salient to you.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now you can t lie to yourself, Lex.
2
SPEAKER_01
Salience can catch attention, but attention can drive salience.
2
SPEAKER_01
So this is what I can do.
2
SPEAKER_01
I can make something salient by paying attention to it, and then that way,
3
SPEAKER_00
that will tend to draw me back to it again, which, and you see what happens?
3
SPEAKER_00
Which means it tends to catch my attention more so that when I go into the store, that bottle of liquor catches my attention and I buy it.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s, why is that bullshit?
3
SPEAKER_00
Because what you re doing is being caught up
3
SPEAKER_00
in the salience of things independent from whether or not that salience is tracking reality.
3
SPEAKER_01
Is it independent or is it loosely connected?
3
SPEAKER_01
Because it s not so obvious to me when I see happy people at a bar that I don t in part believe that
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, my experience has been maybe different.
3
SPEAKER_01
Logically, I can understand, but maybe there is a bar out there where it s all happy people dancing.
3
SPEAKER_01
In fact, most of the bars I go to these days in Texas is pretty, lots of happy people.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think you can—I mean, there s probably variation, although I think it s very—the truth-seeking in there.
3
SPEAKER_00
Let s say the intent is at least to try and shut off your truth-seeking.
3
SPEAKER_00
It might not completely succeed, but that s the intent.
3
SPEAKER_00
At times it can completely succeed because I can give you pretty much gibberish
3
SPEAKER_00
and never let it motivate your behavior.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s an episode from the classic Simpsons, not the modern Simpsons, the classic Simpsons, where there s aliens and they re running for office in the United States.
3
SPEAKER_00
Now, I m a Canadian, so this doesn t quite work for me, but, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
And the speech goes like this.
3
SPEAKER_00
My fellow Americans, when I was young, I dreamt of being a baseball.
3
SPEAKER_00
But we must move forward, not backward.
3
SPEAKER_00
Upward, not forward.
3
SPEAKER_00
Twirling, twirling towards freedom.
3
SPEAKER_00
And people go, and there s a rush.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s nothing there.
3
SPEAKER_00
And yet, it s great satire because a lot of political speech is exactly like that.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s nothing there, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
I m not saying all political speech, I said a lot.
3
SPEAKER_01
No, but there s a fundamental difference between, and it s so hilarious, I remember that episode.
3
SPEAKER_01
There s a fundamental difference between that absurd sort of non-secular speech and political speech, because one of the things is political speech is grounded in some sense of truth.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so if that requires you talking about alternative facts, and,
3
SPEAKER_00
weird, self-destructive, oxymoronic phrases.
3
SPEAKER_00
Isn t that approaching pure bullshit?
3
SPEAKER_01
No, I think pure bullshit, like the vacuum, is very difficult to get to.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I get the point.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what exactly is truth?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is it possible to know?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think Spinoza s right about truth, that truth is only known by its own standard, which sounds circular.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a way in which he didn t mean that circularly, and I think this is also convergent with Plato.
3
SPEAKER_00
These are two huge influences on me.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think we only know the truth retrospectively when we go through some process of self-transcendence, when we move from a frame to a more encompassing frame so that we can see the limitations and the distortions of the earlier frame.
3
SPEAKER_00
You have this when you have a moment of insight.
3
SPEAKER_00
Insight is you doing, you are re-realizing what is relevant.
3
SPEAKER_00
You go, oh, oh, I thought she was aggressive.
3
SPEAKER_00
and angry, she s actually really afraid.
3
SPEAKER_00
I was mis-framing this.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you change what you find relevant, you have those aha moments.
3
SPEAKER_01
So do you think it s possible to get a sense of objective reality?
3
SPEAKER_01
So is it possible to have, to get to the ground level of what, something that you can call objective truth?
3
SPEAKER_01
Or is it, are we always on shaky ground?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think those moments of transcendence can never get us to an absolute view from nowhere.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so this is Drew Heinlein s notion of finite transcendence.
3
SPEAKER_00
We are capable of self-transcendence, and therefore we are creatures who can actually raise the question of truth, or goodness, or beauty, because I think they all share this feature.
3
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean we can transcend to a godhood, to some absolute view from nowhere that takes in all information and organizes it in a comprehensive whole.
3
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean that truth is thereby rendered valueless.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think a better term is real.
3
SPEAKER_00
And real and illusory are comparative terms.
3
SPEAKER_00
You only know that something s an illusion by taking something else to be real.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so we re always in a comparative task, but that doesn t mean that we can somehow jump outside of our framing in some final manner and say, this is how it is from a God s eye point of view.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what do you think, if I may ask, of somebody like Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism?
3
SPEAKER_01
So where the core principle is that reality exists independently of consciousness and that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception.
3
SPEAKER_01
So they have that, you do have that ability to know reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s two things.
3
SPEAKER_00
Knowing that there s an independent reality is not knowing that independent reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
Those are not the same thing.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but I think objectivism would probably say that our human reason is able to have contact with
3
SPEAKER_00
Then I would respond and say, you have to, I believe in fact ultimately in a conformity theory of knowing that the deepest kind of knowing is when there s a contact, a conformity between the mind, with the embodied mind and reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
But, and here s where I guess I d push back on Rand, I would say,
3
SPEAKER_00
you have to acknowledge parcel knowledge as real knowledge.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because if you don t, you re gonna fall prey to Mino s paradox.
3
SPEAKER_00
Mino s paradox is, you know, this is in Plato, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
To know P. Well, if I don t know P, I m gonna go looking for it.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if I don t know P, how could I possibly recognize it when I found it?
3
SPEAKER_00
I have no way of recognizing it.
3
SPEAKER_00
I have no way of knowing that I ve found it.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I must know P, but if I know P, then I don t need to learn about it, I don t need to go searching.
3
SPEAKER_00
So learning doesn t exist, knowledge is impossible.
3
SPEAKER_00
The way you break out of that paradox is saying, no, no, no, it is possible to partially know something.
3
SPEAKER_00
I can know it enough that it will guide me to recognizing it, but that s not the same as having a complete grasp of it, because I still have to search and find what I don t yet possess in my knowledge.
3
SPEAKER_00
If we, so partial knowledge has to be real knowledge.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right, partial knowledge is still knowledge.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about somebody like Donald Hoffman, who thinks the reality is an illusion?
3
SPEAKER_01
So complete illusion, that we re given this actually really nice definition or idea that you talked about, that there s a tension between the illusory and what is real.
3
SPEAKER_01
He says that basically we ve taken that
3
SPEAKER_01
And we ran with the real to the point where the real is not at all connected to some kind of physical reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
I hope to talk to him at some point.
3
SPEAKER_00
We were supposed to talk at one point, and so I have to talk in his absence.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that, first of all, I think saying that everything is illusion is like saying everything is tall.
3
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t make any sense.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a comparative term.
3
SPEAKER_00
You have to say against this standard of realness, this is an illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he uses arguments like from evolution, which are problematic to me because it s like, well,
3
SPEAKER_00
you seem to be saying that evolution is true, that it really exists.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then some of our cognition and our perception has access to reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
Math and presumably some science has access to reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then what he seems to be saying is, well,
3
SPEAKER_00
A lot of your everyday experience is illusory, but we do have some contact with reality whereby we can make the arguments as to why most of your experience, most of your everyday experience is an illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
But to me, that s not a novel thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s Descartes.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s the idea that most of our sense experience is untrustworthy, but the math is what connects us to reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s how he interpreted the Copernican Revolution.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oh, look, we re all seeing the sun rise and move over and set, and it s all an illusion, but the math
3
SPEAKER_00
The math gets us to the reality.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think he makes a deeper point that most of cognition is just evolved and operates in the illusory world.
3
SPEAKER_01
How does he know that things like cognition and evolution exist?
3
SPEAKER_01
I think there s an important distinction between evolution and cognition, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
No, no, I m just saying, that s not the point I m making.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m making a point that he s claiming that there are two things that really exist.
3
SPEAKER_00
Why are they privileged?
3
SPEAKER_01
He basically says that, look, the process of evolution makes sense, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
Like it makes sense that you get complex organisms from simple organisms through the natural selection process.
3
SPEAKER_01
Here s how you get to transfer information from generation to generation.
3
SPEAKER_01
It makes sense.
3
SPEAKER_01
And then he says that,
3
SPEAKER_01
There s no requirement for the cognition to evolve in a way that it would actually perceive and have direct contact with the physical reality.
3
SPEAKER_00
Except that cognition evolved in such a way that it could perceive the truth of evolution.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you can t treat evolution like an isolated thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
Evolution depends on Darwinian theory, genetics.
3
SPEAKER_00
It depends on understanding plate tectonics, the way the environment changes.
3
SPEAKER_00
It depends on
3
SPEAKER_00
how chromosomes are structured.
3
SPEAKER_01
Actually that s an interesting question to him, where I don t know if he actually would push back on this, is how do you know evolution is real?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think he would be open to the idea that it is part of the illusion that we constructed, that there s some, in some sense, it is connected to reality, but we don t have a clear picture of it.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s an intellectually honest statement then.
3
SPEAKER_01
If most of our cognition as thinking beings is operating
3
SPEAKER_01
at every level in an illusory world, then it makes sense that this, one of the main theories of science, that s evolution, is also a complete part of this illusory world.
3
SPEAKER_00
Right, but then what happens to the premise for his argument?
3
SPEAKER_01
leading to the conclusion that cognition is illusory.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think he makes a very specific argument about evolution as an explanation of why the world is, of our cognition operating in an illusory world.
3
SPEAKER_01
But that s just one of the explanations.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think the deeper question is,
3
SPEAKER_01
Why do we think we have contact with reality, with physical reality?
3
SPEAKER_01
We could be very well living in a virtual world constructed by our minds in a way that makes that world deeply interesting in some ways, whether it s somebody playing a video game or we re trying to, through the process of distributed cognition, construct more and more complex objects.
3
SPEAKER_01
Like, why do we have to,
3
SPEAKER_01
Why does it have to be connected to physics and planets and all that kind of stuff?
3
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so if we re gonna say, we re now considering it as a possibility rather than it s a conclusion based on arguments, because the arguments, again, will always rely on stipulating that there is something that is known
3
SPEAKER_00
These are the features of cognition.
3
SPEAKER_00
Cognition is capable of illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s a true statement.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re somehow in contact with the mind.
3
SPEAKER_00
Why does the mind have this privileged contact and other aspects like my body do not?
3
SPEAKER_00
But let s put that aside and now let s just consider it.
3
SPEAKER_00
Now, when we put it that way, it s not an epistemic question anymore, it s an existential question, and here s my reply to you.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s two possibilities.
3
SPEAKER_00
Either the illusion is one that I cannot discover, sort of, you know, the matrix on steroids or something.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s no way, no matter what I do, I can t find out that it s an illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
Or it s an illusion, but I can find out that it s an illusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
Those are the two possibilities.
3
SPEAKER_00
Nothing changes for me if those are the two possibilities, because if I could not possibly find out, it is irrational for me to pay any attention to that possibility.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I should keep doing the science as I m doing it.
3
SPEAKER_00
If there is a way of finding out,
3
SPEAKER_00
Science is my best bet, I believe, for finding out what s true and what s an illusion, so I keep doing what I m doing.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s an argument, if you move it to that, that makes no existential difference to me.
3
SPEAKER_01
Oh man, that is such a deeply philosophical argument.
3
SPEAKER_01
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
3
SPEAKER_01
Nobody s saying science doesn t work.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s an interesting question, just like before humans were able to fly, they would ask a question, can we build a machine that makes us fly?
3
SPEAKER_01
In that same way, we re asking a question to which we don t know an answer, but we may know in the future how much of this whole thing is an illusion.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think in the second category, the first category, I forgot which one, yes, science will be able to help us discover this.
3
SPEAKER_01
Otherwise, yes, for sure, it doesn t matter.
3
SPEAKER_01
If we re living in a simulation and we can t find out at all, then it doesn t matter.
3
SPEAKER_01
But yes, the whole point is, as we get deeper and deeper understanding of our mind, of cognition,
3
SPEAKER_01
we might be able to discover how much of this is a big charade constructed by our mind to keep us fed or something like that.
3
SPEAKER_01
Some weird, very simplistic explanation that will ultimately in its simplicity be beautiful.
3
SPEAKER_01
Or as we try to build robots and instill them, instill them with consciousness, with ability to feel,
3
SPEAKER_01
those kinds of things.
3
SPEAKER_01
We ll discover, well, let s just trick them into thinking they feel and have consciousness, and they ll believe it.
3
SPEAKER_01
And then they ll have a deeply fulfilling and meaningful lives.
3
SPEAKER_01
And on top of that, they will interact with us in a way that will make our lives more meaningful.
3
SPEAKER_01
And then all of a sudden, it s like at the end of Animal Farm, you look at pigs and humans, and you look at robots and humans, and you can t tell the difference between either.
3
SPEAKER_01
And we, in that way, start to understand that
3
SPEAKER_01
that much of this existence could be an illusion?
3
SPEAKER_00
Okay, well, I have two responses to that.
3
SPEAKER_00
First is the progress that s being made on AGI is about making whatever the system is that s going to be the source of intelligence more and more dynamically and recursively self-correcting.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s part of what s happening.
3
SPEAKER_00
Extrapolating from that, you get a system that gets better and better at self-correcting, but that s exactly what I was describing before as the transformative theory of truth.
3
SPEAKER_00
The other response to that is
3
SPEAKER_00
Science, like, people think of science just as, right, sort of end proposition.
3
SPEAKER_00
But let me just use the evolutionary example again, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
Like, I need, if I m gathering the evidence, I need to know a lot of geology, I need to know plate tectonics, I need to know about radioactive decay, I need to know about genetics.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then in order to measure all those things, I need to know how microscopes work.
3
SPEAKER_00
I need to know how pencils and paper work.
3
SPEAKER_00
I need to know how rulers work.
3
SPEAKER_00
I need to know how English...
4
SPEAKER_01
Like, you can t isolate knowledge that way.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if you say, well, most of that s an illusion, then you re in a weird position of saying somehow all of these illusions get to this truth claim.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think it goes in reverse.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you think this is the truth claim,
4
SPEAKER_01
right?
4
SPEAKER_01
The measuring and all the things that scientists would do to gather on all the ways the theories are converging together, that also has to be fundamentally right because it s not like Lego.
4
SPEAKER_01
It is an interwoven whole.
4
SPEAKER_00
It definitely is interwoven, but I love how I m playing the devil advocate for the illusion world.
4
SPEAKER_00
But there s an aspect to truth that has to be consistent, deeply consistent across an entire system.
4
SPEAKER_00
But inside a video game, that same kind of consistency evolves.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s rules about interactions.
4
SPEAKER_00
game theoretic patterns about what s good and bad and so on, you get, and there s sources of joy and fear and anger, and then understanding about a world, what happens in different dynamics of a video game, even simple video games.
4
SPEAKER_00
So there s no, you know, even inside an illusion,
4
SPEAKER_00
you can have consistency and develop truths inside that illusion and iteratively evolve your truth with the illusion.
4
SPEAKER_01
Okay, but that comes back.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is that process genuinely self-correcting or are you in the simulation in which there is no possible doorway out?
4
SPEAKER_01
because if, my argument is, if you find one or two doorways, that feeds back.
4
SPEAKER_01
In fact, you can t just say, this is the little tiny island where we have the truth.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s the point I m making.
4
SPEAKER_00
Right, but what if you find that, I think there is doorways, if that s the case, and what if you find a doorway and you step out,
4
SPEAKER_00
but you re yet in another simulation.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, that s the point.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s so self-correcting.
4
SPEAKER_00
When you fix the self-deception, you don t know if there s other bigger self-deceptions you re operating on.
4
SPEAKER_01
Of course, in one sense, that s right.
4
SPEAKER_01
But again, we re back to, when I step into the second simulation, is it, can I get the doorway out of that?
4
SPEAKER_01
Because if you just make the infinite regressive simulations, you ve basically said, I have a simulation that I can never get out of.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think there s always a bigger pile of bullshit is the claim I m trying to make here.
4
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
4
SPEAKER_00
Let me dance around meaning once more.
4
SPEAKER_00
I often ask people on this podcast or at a bar or to imaginary people I talk to in a room when I m all by myself, the question of the meaning of life.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you think this is a useful question?
4
SPEAKER_00
You drew a line between meaning in life and meaning of life.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you think this is a useful question?
4
SPEAKER_01
No, I think it s like the question, what s north of the North Pole?
4
SPEAKER_01
Or what time is it on the sun?
4
SPEAKER_01
It sounds like a question, but it s actually not really a question.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because it has a presupposition in it that I think is fundamentally flawed.
4
SPEAKER_01
if I understand what people mean by it.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it s actually often not that clear, but when they talk about the meaning of life, they are talking about there are some feature of the universe in and of itself that I have to discover and enter into a relationship with.
4
SPEAKER_01
And there s, in that sense, a plan for me or something.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that s a property of the universe.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s a very deep,
4
SPEAKER_01
serious, metaphysical, ontological claim.
4
SPEAKER_01
You re claiming to know something fundamental about the structure of reality.
4
SPEAKER_01
There were times when people thought they had a worldview that legitimated it, like God is running the universe and therefore, and God cares about you and there s a plan, et cetera.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I think a better way of understanding meaning is not, right,
4
SPEAKER_01
Meaning is like the graspability.
4
SPEAKER_01
Remember I talked about optimal grip?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s like the graspability of that cup.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is that in me?
4
SPEAKER_01
No.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is it in the cup?
4
SPEAKER_01
No, because the fly can t grasp it, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, graspability is in my hand.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, I can t grasp Africa.
4
SPEAKER_01
No, no, there is a real relation, fittedness, between me and this cup.
4
SPEAKER_01
Same thing with the adaptivity of an organism.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is the adaptivity of a great white shark in the great white shark?
4
SPEAKER_01
Drop it in the Sahara, does, okay?
4
SPEAKER_01
Meaning isn t in me—I think that s romantic bullshit—and it isn t in the universe.
4
SPEAKER_01
It is a proper relationship.
4
SPEAKER_01
I ve coined the phrase transjective.
4
SPEAKER_01
It is the binding relationship between the subjective and the objective.
4
SPEAKER_01
And therefore, when you re asking
4
SPEAKER_01
the question about the meaning of life, you are, I think, misrepresenting the nature of meaning.
4
SPEAKER_01
Just like when you ask what time is it on the sun, you re misrepresenting how we derive clock time.
4
SPEAKER_00
At the risk of disagreeing with a man who did 50 lectures on the meaning crisis, let me hard disagree, but I think we probably agree, but it s just like a dance, like any dialogue.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think meaning of life,
4
SPEAKER_00
gets at the same kind of relationship between you and the glass of water, between whatever the forces of the universe that created the planets, the proteins, the multi-cell organisms, the intelligent early humans, the beautiful human civilizations and the technologies that will overtake them.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s trying to understand the relevance realization of the Big Bang to the feeling of love you have for another human being.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s reaching for that even though it s hopeless to understand.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s the question, the asking of the question is the reaching.
4
SPEAKER_00
Now, it is, in fact, romantic bullshit, technically speaking.
4
SPEAKER_00
But it could be that romantic bullshit is actually the essence of life and the source of its deepest meaning.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, I hope not, but... Technically speaking, romantic bullshit, meaning romantic... In the philosophical sense, yes.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I...
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, what is poetry?
4
SPEAKER_00
What is music?
4
SPEAKER_00
What is the magic you feel when you hear a beautiful piece of music?
4
SPEAKER_01
What is that?
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh, but that s exactly to my point.
4
SPEAKER_01
Is music inside you or is it outside you?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s both and neither.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s precisely why you find it so meaningful.
4
SPEAKER_01
In fact, it can be so meaningful you can regard it as sacred.
4
SPEAKER_01
What you said, I don t think, and you prefaced that we might not be in disagreement, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
What you said is, no, no, no, there s a way in which reality is realizing itself, and I want my relevance realization to be in the past.
4
SPEAKER_01
best possible relationship that, the sort of meta-optimal grip to what is most real.
4
SPEAKER_01
I totally agree.
4
SPEAKER_01
I totally think that s one of the things, I said this earlier, one of our meta-desires is whatever is satisfying our desires is also real.
4
SPEAKER_01
I do this with my students, I ll say,
4
SPEAKER_01
You know, because romantic relationships sort of take the role of God and religion and history and culture for us right now.
4
SPEAKER_01
We put everything on them and that s why they break.
4
SPEAKER_01
But, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
Strong words, got it.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I ll say to them, okay, how many of you are in really satisfying romantic relationships?
4
SPEAKER_01
Put up your hands.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I ll say, okay, I m now only talking to these people.
4
SPEAKER_01
Of those people, how many of you would want to know your partner s cheating on you even if it means the destruction of the relationship?
4
SPEAKER_01
95% of them put up their hands.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I say, but why?
4
SPEAKER_01
And here s my students who are usually all sort of bitten with cynicism and postmodernism, and they ll just say spontaneously, well, because it s not real.
4
SPEAKER_01
Because it s not real.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, so I think what you re pointing to is actually, you re pointing not to,
4
SPEAKER_01
an objective or a subjective thing.
4
SPEAKER_01
Romanticism says it s subjective.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s some sort of, I guess, like positivism or Lockean empiricism says it s objective.
4
SPEAKER_01
But you re saying, no, no, no, there s reality realization and can I get relevance realization to be optimally gripping in the best right relationship with it?
4
SPEAKER_01
And there s good reason you can because think about it, your relevance realization isn t just representing properties of the world, it s instantiating it.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s something very similar to biological evolution, which is that the guts of life, if I m right, running your cognition.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not just that you have ideas, you actually instantiate—that s what I mean by conformity—the same principles.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re within and without.
4
SPEAKER_01
They don t belong to you subjectively.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re not just out there.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re both at the same time, and they help to explain how you are actually bound to the evolutionary world.
4
SPEAKER_00
So it comes from both inside and from the outside.
4
SPEAKER_00
But there s still the question of the meaning of life.
4
SPEAKER_00
First of all, the big benefit of that question is that it shakes you out of your hamster in a wheel that is daily life, the mundane process of daily life, where you have a schedule, you wake up, you have kids, you have to take them to school, then you go to work, and da-da-da-da-da, and repeats over and over and over and over, and then you get increased salary, and then you upgrade the home, and that whole process.
4
SPEAKER_00
meaning, asking about the meaning of life is so full of romantic bullshit that if you take it, if you just allow yourself to take it seriously for a second, it forces you to pause and think like, what?
4
SPEAKER_00
What s going on here?
4
SPEAKER_00
And then it ultimately, I think, does return to the question of meaning in those mundane things.
4
SPEAKER_00
What gives my life joy?
4
SPEAKER_00
What gives it lasting?
4
SPEAKER_00
Deliciousness, where do I notice the magic and how can I have that magic return again and again?
4
SPEAKER_00
Beauty, and that ultimately what it returns to, but it s the same thing you do when you look up to the sky.
4
SPEAKER_00
You spend most of your day hurrying around, looking at things on the surface, but when you look up to the sky and you see the stars,
4
SPEAKER_00
It fills you with a feeling of awe that forces you to pause and think in full context of like, what the hell is going on here?
4
SPEAKER_00
That, but also I think there is a, when you think too much about the meaning of a glass,
4
SPEAKER_00
and relevance realization of a glass, you don t necessarily get at the core of what makes music beautiful.
4
SPEAKER_00
So sometimes you have to start at the biggest picture first.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think meaning of life forces you to really go to the Big Bang and go to the universe and the whole thing, the origin of life.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I think sometimes you have to start there to discover the meaning in the day-to-day, I think.
4
SPEAKER_00
but perhaps you would disagree.
4
SPEAKER_01
Insofar as the question makes you ask about the whole of your life and how much meaning is in the whole of your life, and insofar as it asks how much that is connected to reality, it s a good question.
4
SPEAKER_01
But it s a bad question in that it also makes you look for the answers in the wrong way.
4
SPEAKER_01
Now you said, and I agree with what you said, how we really answer this question is we come back to the meaning in life and we see how much that meaning in life is connected to reality.
4
SPEAKER_01
We pursue wisdom.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so for me, I don t need that question in order to provoke me into that stance.
4
SPEAKER_00
So let s return to the meaning crisis.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_00
What is the nature of the meaning crisis in modern times?
4
SPEAKER_00
What s its origin?
4
SPEAKER_00
What s its explanation?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, remember what I said, what I argued, that the very processes that make us adaptively intelligent subject us to perennial problems of self-deception, self-destruction, creating bullshit for ourselves, for other people, all of that, and that can cause anxiety, existential anxiety, it can cause despair, it can cause a sense of absurdity.
4
SPEAKER_01
These are perennial problems.
4
SPEAKER_01
And across cultures and across historical periods, human beings have come up with ecologies of practices.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s no one practice, there s no panacea practice.
4
SPEAKER_01
They ve come up with ecologies of practices for ameliorating that self-deception and enhancing that fittedness, that connectedness that s at the core of meaning in life.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s prototypically what we call wisdom.
4
SPEAKER_01
And here s how I can show you one clear instance of the meaning crisis, is it s a wisdom famine.
4
SPEAKER_01
I do this regularly with my students.
4
SPEAKER_01
In the classroom, I ll say, where do you go for information?
4
SPEAKER_01
They hold up their phone.
4
SPEAKER_01
Where do you go for knowledge?
4
SPEAKER_01
They re a little bit slower, and probably because they re in my class, they ll say, well, science, the university.
4
SPEAKER_01
I ll say, where do you go for wisdom?
4
SPEAKER_01
There s a silence.
4
SPEAKER_01
Wisdom isn t optional.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s why it is perennial, cross-cultural, cross-historical, because of the perennial problems.
4
SPEAKER_01
But we do not have homes for ecologies of practices that fit into our scientific technological worldview so that they are considered legitimate.
4
SPEAKER_01
The fastest growing demographic group are the nuns, N-O-N-E-S s.
4
SPEAKER_01
They have no religious allegiance, but they are not primarily atheistic.
4
SPEAKER_01
they most frequently describe themselves with this very, this has become almost, everybody now describes, I m spiritual but not religious.
4
SPEAKER_01
Which means they are trying to find a way of reducing the bullshit and enhancing the connectedness, but they don t want to turn to any of the legacy established religions, by and large.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well isn t, both religion and the nuns,
4
SPEAKER_00
isn t wisdom a process, not a destination?
4
SPEAKER_00
So trying to find, if you re a deeply faithful religious person, you re also trying to find, right?
4
SPEAKER_00
So just because you have a place where you re looking, or a set of traditions around which you re constructing the search, it s nevertheless a search.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I guess,
4
SPEAKER_00
Is there a case to be made that this is just the usual human condition?
4
SPEAKER_00
How do you answer, if you ask five centuries ago, where do you look for wisdom?
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I suppose people would be more inclined to answer, well, the Bible or a religious text.
4
SPEAKER_01
Right, and they had a worldview that was considered not just religious, but also rational.
4
SPEAKER_01
So we now have these two things,
4
SPEAKER_01
orthogonal or often oppositional spirituality and rationality.
4
SPEAKER_01
But if you go before a particular historical period, you look back in the Neoplatonic tradition, like before the scientific revolution, those two are not in opposition.
4
SPEAKER_01
They are deeply interwoven so that you can have a sense of legitimacy and deeper realness and grounding in your practices.
4
SPEAKER_01
we don t have that anymore.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I m not advocating for religion, neither am I an enemy of religion.
4
SPEAKER_01
I ll strengthen your case, by the way.
4
SPEAKER_01
So one of my RAs did research, and you get people who have committed themselves to cultivating wisdom, and you can look at people within religious traditions and people who are doing it in a purely secular framework.
4
SPEAKER_01
By many of the measures we use to try to study wisdom scientifically, the people in the religious paths do better
4
SPEAKER_01
than the secular.
4
SPEAKER_01
But here s the important point.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s no significant difference between the religious paths.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s not like if you re, you know, following the path of Judaism, you re more likely to end up wiser than if you follow Buddhism.
4
SPEAKER_00
By the way, I don t know if that s my case.
4
SPEAKER_00
I was making the case that you don t need to have a religious affiliation to search for wisdom.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s that I thought along to the point you just made that it doesn t matter which
5
SPEAKER_01
religious affiliation or none.
5
SPEAKER_00
But that s what I m saying.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so this is the tricky thing we re in.
5
SPEAKER_00
It does matter if you re in one, but it doesn t matter sort of the propositional creeds of that.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s something else at work.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you ll allow me this, there s a functionality to religion that we lost when we rejected all the propositional dogma.
5
SPEAKER_00
But there s a functionality there that we don t know how to recreate.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you try to speak to that?
5
SPEAKER_01
What is that functionality?
5
SPEAKER_01
What is that?
5
SPEAKER_01
Why is that so useful?
5
SPEAKER_01
A bunch of stories, a bunch of myths, a bunch of narratives that are drenched in deep lessons about morality and all those kinds of things.
5
SPEAKER_01
What s the functional thing there that can t be replaced without a religious text by a non-religious text?
5
SPEAKER_00
This is, for me, the golden question, so thank you.
5
SPEAKER_00
Do you have an answer?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I have, I think I have a significant answer.
5
SPEAKER_00
I don t think it s complete, but I think it s important.
5
SPEAKER_00
And this is to step before the question.
5
SPEAKER_00
the Cartesian revolution, and think about many different kinds of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
And this is now something that is prominent within what s called 4E cognitive science, the kind of cognitive science I practice.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there s a lot of converging evidence for, okay, these different ways of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s propositional knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is what we are most familiar with.
5
SPEAKER_00
In fact, it almost has a tyrannical status.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right, so this is knowing that something is the case, like that cats are mammals and it s stored in semantic memory, and we have tests of coherence and correspondence and conviction, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
There s procedural knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is knowing how to do something.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is...
5
SPEAKER_00
Skills are not theories.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not beliefs.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re not true or false.
5
SPEAKER_00
They engage the world or they don t.
5
SPEAKER_00
And they are stored in a different kind of memory, procedural memory.
5
SPEAKER_00
Semantic memory can be damaged without any damage to procedural memory.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s why you have the prototypical story of somebody suffering Alzheimer s and they re losing all kinds of facts, but they can still sit down and play the piano flawlessly.
5
SPEAKER_00
Same kind of argument.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s perspectival knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is knowing what it s like to be you here now in this situation, in this state of mind, the whole field of your salience landscaping, what it s like to be you here now.
5
SPEAKER_00
And you have a specific kind of memory around that, episodic memory.
5
SPEAKER_00
And you have a different sense, you have a different criterion of realness.
5
SPEAKER_00
So you can get this by, well, my friend Dan Schiappe and I, we studied the scientists moving the rovers around, or you can take a look at people who are doing VR.
5
SPEAKER_00
People talk about they wanna really be in the game.
5
SPEAKER_00
That makes it real.
5
SPEAKER_00
They don t mean verisimilitude.
5
SPEAKER_00
You can get that sense of being in the game with something like Tetris, which isn t...
5
SPEAKER_00
Like, it doesn t look like the real world, and you can fail to have it in a video game that has a lot of verisimilitude.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s something else, it s about, again, this kind of connectedness that we re talking about.
5
SPEAKER_01
If I may interrupt, is that connected to the hard problem of consciousness, the subject, the qualia, or is that a different, that kind of knowing, is that different from the qualia of consciousness?
5
SPEAKER_00
I think it has to do with, well, I make a distinction between the adjectival and the adverbial qualia.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I think it has to do with the adverbial qualia much more than with the adjectival.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the adjectival qualia are like the greenness of green and the blueness of blue.
5
SPEAKER_00
The adverbial qualia are the here-ness, the now-ness, the together-ness.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think the perspectival knowing has a lot to do with the adverbial qualia.
5
SPEAKER_01
adjectival qualia and adverbial qualia.
5
SPEAKER_01
I m learning so many new things today.
5
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so that s another way of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right, the perspectival, and then there s a deeper one.
5
SPEAKER_00
And this is a philosophical point.
5
SPEAKER_00
We can go through the argument, but you don t have to know that you know in order to know, because if you start doing that, you get an infinite regress.
5
SPEAKER_00
There has to be kinds of knowing that doesn t mean you know that you know that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, of course.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay, great, okay, good.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, there was a lot of ink spilled over that, over a 40-year period, so.
5
SPEAKER_01
By philosophers, they spill, this is what they do, they spill ink.
5
SPEAKER_01
They get paid for ink spillage.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I wanna talk about,
5
SPEAKER_00
what I call participatory knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is the idea that you and the world are co-participating in things and such that real affordances exist between you.
5
SPEAKER_00
So both me and this environment are shaped by gravity, so the affordance of walking becomes available to me.
5
SPEAKER_00
Both me and a lot of this environment are shaped by my biology, and so affordances for that are here.
5
SPEAKER_00
Look at this cup.
5
SPEAKER_00
shared physics, shared sort of biological factors.
5
SPEAKER_00
Look at my hand, I m bipedal.
5
SPEAKER_00
Also culture is shaping me and shaping this.
5
SPEAKER_00
I had to learn how to use that and treat it as a cup.
5
SPEAKER_00
So this is an agent arena relationship, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
There s identities.
5
SPEAKER_00
being created in your agency, identities being created in the world as an arena, so you and the world fit together.
5
SPEAKER_00
You know when that s missing, when you re really lonely, or you re homesick, or you re suffering culture shock.
5
SPEAKER_00
So this is participatory knowing, and it comes with a sense of belonging.
5
SPEAKER_01
at every level.
5
SPEAKER_01
So the ability to walk is a kind of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yes, yes, yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
That there s a dance between the physics that enables this process and just participating in the process is the act of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there s a really weird form of memory you have for this kind of knowing.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s called yourself.
5
SPEAKER_01
What, can you elaborate?
5
SPEAKER_00
What do you mean?
5
SPEAKER_00
So we talked about how all the different other kinds of knowing had specific kinds of memory.
5
SPEAKER_00
Semantic memory for propositional, procedural, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
Episodic for perspectival.
5
SPEAKER_00
What s the kind of memory that is the coordinated storehouse of all of your agent arena relationships?
5
SPEAKER_00
All the roles you can take, all the identities you can assume, all the identities you can assign.
5
SPEAKER_00
What s the self?
5
SPEAKER_01
Do you mean like consciousness?
5
SPEAKER_00
No, I mean your sense of self.
5
SPEAKER_01
Sense of self in this world that s not consciousness, that s like an agency or something.
5
SPEAKER_00
Right, it s an agent arena relationship.
5
SPEAKER_01
And so in an agent arena relationship, it s the sense of the agent.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
5
SPEAKER_00
And that the agent belongs in that arena.
5
SPEAKER_01
Whatever the agent is, whatever the arena is, because it s probably a bunch of different framings of how you experience that.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and you do.
5
SPEAKER_00
Within your identity as a self, you have all kinds of roles that are somehow contributing to that identity, but are not equivalent to that identity.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I wonder if like my two hands have different, because there s a different experience to me picking up something with my right hand and then my left hand.
5
SPEAKER_01
So are those like?
5
SPEAKER_01
That s a really cool question, Lex.
5
SPEAKER_01
They certainly feel like their own things.
5
SPEAKER_01
But that could be just anthropomorphization based on cultural narratives and so on.
5
SPEAKER_00
It could, it could.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I think it s a legitimate empirical question, because it also could be sort of Ian McGilchrist stuff.
5
SPEAKER_00
It could be.
5
SPEAKER_00
you re using different hemispheres, and they sort of have different agent arena relationships to the environment.
5
SPEAKER_00
This is a really important question in the cognitive science of the self.
5
SPEAKER_00
Does that hemispheric difference mean you re multiple, or you actually have a singular self?
5
SPEAKER_01
Oh, so it s important to understand how many selves are there.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, I think so.
5
SPEAKER_01
But that s just like a quirk of evolutionism.
5
SPEAKER_01
Surely it can t be fundamental to cognition, having multiple selves or a singular self.
5
SPEAKER_00
Depends, again, because we re getting far from the answer to the question you originally asked me.
5
SPEAKER_00
Do you want me to go back to that first or answer this one?
5
SPEAKER_01
Which question?
5
SPEAKER_01
I already forgot everything.
5
SPEAKER_00
What s the functionality of religion?
5
SPEAKER_01
Yes, let us return.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay, and then we can return to the self.
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so you said you have all these propositions and et cetera, et cetera, and they differ from the religions and they re not, they don t seem to be considered legitimate by many people.
5
SPEAKER_00
But yet there s something functioning in the religions that is transforming people and making them wiser.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I put it to you that the transformations are largely occurring at those non-propositional levels.
5
SPEAKER_00
the procedural, the perspectival, and the participatory.
5
SPEAKER_00
And those are the ones, by the way, that are more fundamentally connected to meaning-making.
5
SPEAKER_00
Because remember, the propositions are representational, and they re dependent on the non-propositional, non-representational processes of connectedness and relevance realization.
5
SPEAKER_00
So religion goes down deep to the non-propositional and works there.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s the functionality we need to grasp.
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, you talk about tools, essentially, that humans are able to incorporate into their cognition.
5
SPEAKER_01
Psychotechnologies, like language is one, I suppose.
5
SPEAKER_01
Isn t religion then a psychotechnology?
5
SPEAKER_00
It would be a, yeah, an ecology of psychotechnologies, yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the question is that Nietzsche ruined everything by saying God is dead.
5
SPEAKER_01
Do we have to invent the new thing?
5
SPEAKER_01
Go from the old phone, create the iPhone.
5
SPEAKER_01
Invent the new psychotechnology that takes place of religion.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so when the madman in Nietzsche s text goes into the marketplace, who is he talking to?
5
SPEAKER_00
He s not talking to the believers.
5
SPEAKER_00
He s talking to the atheists.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he says, do you not realize what we have done?
5
SPEAKER_00
We have taken a sponge and
5
SPEAKER_00
wiped away the sky, we are now forever falling, we are unchained from the sun, we have to become worthy of this.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, well, Nietzsche is full of romantic bullshit as we know.
5
SPEAKER_00
No, no, no, no, but there s a point there.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_00
The point is, right, there s one thing to rejecting the proposition, there s another project of replacing the functionality that we lost when we reject the religion.
5
SPEAKER_01
So his worry that as nihilism takes hold, you don t ever replace the thing that religion, the role that religion played in our world.
5
SPEAKER_00
Maybe, it s hard to tell what he actually, because he s so multivocal.
5
SPEAKER_00
I ll speak for me, rather than for Nietzsche.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think it is possible to
5
SPEAKER_00
using the best cognitive science and respectfully exacting what we can from the best religion and philosophical traditions, because there s things like Stoicism that are in the gray line between philosophy and religion.
5
SPEAKER_00
Buddhism is the same.
5
SPEAKER_00
Doing that best cog sci, that best exactation, we can come up with that functionality.
5
SPEAKER_00
without having to buy into the particular propositional sets of the legacy religions.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s my proposal.
5
SPEAKER_00
I call that the religion that s not a religion.
5
SPEAKER_01
So things like stoicism or modern stoicism, those things, don t you think in some sense they naturally emerge?
5
SPEAKER_01
Don t you think there s a longing for meaning?
5
SPEAKER_00
So Stoicism arises during the Hellenistic period when there was a significant meaning crisis in the ancient world because of what had happened after the breakup of Alexander the Great s empire.
5
SPEAKER_00
So if you compare Aristotle to people who are living after
5
SPEAKER_00
Alexander.
5
SPEAKER_00
So Aristotle grows up in a place where everybody speaks the same language, has the same religion, his ancestors have been there for years, he knows everybody.
5
SPEAKER_00
After Alexander the Great s empire is broken up, people are now thousands of miles away from the government,
5
SPEAKER_00
They re surrounded by people because of the Diasporas.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re surrounded by people that don t speak their language, don t share their religion.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s why you get all these other religions emerging, universal mudra religions like ISIS, etc.
5
SPEAKER_00
So there is what s called domicile.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s the killing of home.
5
SPEAKER_00
There s a loss of a sense of home and belonging and fittedness during the Hellenistic period and Stoicism.
5
SPEAKER_00
arose specifically to address that.
5
SPEAKER_00
And because it was designed to address a meaning crisis, it is no coincidence that it is coming back into prominence right now.
5
SPEAKER_01
Well, there could be a lot of other variations.
5
SPEAKER_01
Oh, totally.
5
SPEAKER_01
It feels like, I think when you speak of the meaning crisis, you re in part describing, not prescribing.
5
SPEAKER_01
You re describing something that is happening, but I would venture to say that
5
SPEAKER_01
if we just leave things be, the meaning crisis dissipates because we long to create institutions, to create collective ideas, so this distributed cognition process that give us meaning.
5
SPEAKER_01
So if religion loses power, we ll find other institutions that are sources of meaning.
5
SPEAKER_01
Is that your intuition as well?
5
SPEAKER_00
I think we are already doing that.
5
SPEAKER_00
I am involved with and do participant observation of many of these emerging communities that are creating ecologies of practice that are specifically about trying to address the meeting crisis.
5
SPEAKER_00
I just, in late July, went to Washington State and did Rafe Kelly s Evolve, Move, Play, Return to the Source, and wow, one of the most challenging things I ve ever done.
5
SPEAKER_01
That guy is awesome, by the way.
5
SPEAKER_01
I got to interact with him a long, long time ago.
5
SPEAKER_00
He said to say hi to you, by the way.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s from another world.
5
SPEAKER_01
It feels like a different world because I interacted with him, not directly, but so this is somebody, maybe you can speak to what he works on, but he makes movement and play
5
SPEAKER_01
And he encourages people to make that a part of their life, like how you move about the world, whether that s as part of sort of athletic endeavors or actually just like walking around a city.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I think the reason I ran into him is because there was a lot of interest in that in the athletic world, in the grappling world, in the Brazilian jiu-jitsu world.
5
SPEAKER_01
people who study movement, who make movement part of their lives to see how can we integrate play and fun and just the basic humanness that s natural to our movement.
5
SPEAKER_01
How do we integrate that into our daily practice?
5
SPEAKER_00
So this is yet another way to find meaning.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think it s actually an exemplar of what I was talking about, because what s going on with Rafe s integration of parkour in nature and martial arts and mindfulness practices and dialogical practices is exactly, and explicitly so, by the way.
5
SPEAKER_00
He s
5
SPEAKER_00
He will tell you he s been very influenced by my work.
5
SPEAKER_00
He s trying to get at the non-propositional kinds of knowing that make meaning by evolving our sensory motor loop and enhancing our relevance realization because that gives people profound improved sense of connectedness to themselves, to each other, and the world.
5
SPEAKER_00
I ll tell you, Lex, I don t wanna say too specifically the final thing that people did because it s part of his secret sauce, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
Sure, sure, sure.
5
SPEAKER_00
But what I can say is when it was done, I said to them all, I said, as far as I can tell, none of you are religious, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
And they go, yeah, yeah.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I said, but what you just did was a religious act, wasn t it?
5
SPEAKER_00
And they all went, yeah, it was.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so that same magic was there.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
Bathroom break?
5
SPEAKER_01
What s your take on atheism in general?
5
SPEAKER_01
Is it closer to truth than a, maybe is an atheist closer to truth than a person who believes in God?
5
SPEAKER_00
So I m a non-theist, which means I think the shared set of presuppositions between the theist and the atheist are actually what needs to be rejected.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you explain that further?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, I can.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I wanna point out, by the way, that there are lots of non-theistic religious traditions.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I m not coming up with a sort of airy-fairy category.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and what s the difference between non-theism, agnosticism, and atheism?
5
SPEAKER_00
So non-theists think that the theist and the atheist share
6
SPEAKER_00
a bunch of presuppositions.
6
SPEAKER_00
For example, it s that sacredness is to be understood in terms of a personal being that is in some sense the supreme being, and that the right relationship to that being is to have a correct set of beliefs.
6
SPEAKER_00
I reject all of those claims.
6
SPEAKER_01
So both the theist and the atheist see God.
6
SPEAKER_00
In their modern version, yes, yes.
6
SPEAKER_01
In which, do you reject it in the sense that you don t know, or do you reject it in the sense that you believe that each one of those presuppositions is likely to be not true?
6
SPEAKER_00
the latter, both on reflection, argument, and personal experimentation and experience, I ve come to the conclusion that those shared propositions are probably not true.
6
SPEAKER_01
Which one is the most troublesome to you?
6
SPEAKER_01
The personal being, the kind of accumulation of everything into one being that ultimately created stuff?
6
SPEAKER_00
So for me, there s two and they re interlocked together.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m not trying to dodge your question.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s that the idea that the ground of being is some kind of being, I think is a fundamental mistake.
6
SPEAKER_00
It s void of being?
6
SPEAKER_00
No, no, no.
6
SPEAKER_00
The ground of being is some kind of being.
6
SPEAKER_00
So it s turtles all the way down.
6
SPEAKER_00
The ground of being is not itself any kind of being.
6
SPEAKER_00
Being is not a being.
6
SPEAKER_00
It is the ability for things to be, which is not the same thing as a being.
6
SPEAKER_00
Are humans beings?
6
SPEAKER_00
We are beings.
6
SPEAKER_00
This glass is a being.
6
SPEAKER_00
This table is a being.
6
SPEAKER_00
But when I ask you, how are they all in being, you don t say, by being a glass or by being a table.
6
SPEAKER_00
or by being a human.
6
SPEAKER_00
You wanna say, no, no, there s something, ah, underneath it all, and then you realize it can t be any thing.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is why many mystical traditions converge on the idea that the ground of being is no thingness, which is, you know, which is normally pronounced as nothingness.
6
SPEAKER_00
But if you put the hyphen back in, you get the original intent, no thingness.
6
SPEAKER_00
And
6
SPEAKER_00
that is bound up with, okay, what I need to do in order to be in relationship with, so it s a misconstruing of ultimate reality as a supreme being.
6
SPEAKER_00
which is a category mistake to my mind, and then that my relationship to it, that sacredness is a function of belief, and I have been presenting you an argument through most of our discussion that meaning is at a deeper level than beliefs and propositions.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so that is a misunderstanding of sacredness, because I take sacredness to be that which is most meaningful and connected to what is most real.
6
SPEAKER_01
and theists think of what, of sacredness as what?
6
SPEAKER_00
They think of sacredness as a property of a particular being, God, and that the way that
6
SPEAKER_00
is meaningful to them is by asserting a set of propositions or beliefs.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, I wanna point out that this is what I would now call modern or common theism.
6
SPEAKER_00
You go back into the classical periods of Christianity, you get a view that s really radically different from how most people understand theism today.
6
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so let me, this is an interesting question that I usually think about in the form of mathematics, but
6
SPEAKER_01
So in that case, if meaning is sacred in your non-theist view, is meaning created or is it discovered?
6
SPEAKER_00
There s a Latin word that doesn t separate them called inventio.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I would say that, and before you say, oh, well, give me a chance, because you participate in it.
6
SPEAKER_00
You ve experienced an insight, yes?
6
SPEAKER_00
Did you make it happen?
6
SPEAKER_00
the insight.
6
SPEAKER_00
Did you make it happen or did, did you do, like can you do that?
6
SPEAKER_00
I m gonna have, I needed insight.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is what I do to make an insight.
6
SPEAKER_01
Oh, I see.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, in some sense it came from elsewhere.
6
SPEAKER_00
Right, but you didn t just passively receive it either.
6
SPEAKER_00
You re engaged and involved in it.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s why you get, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So that s what I mean by you participate in it.
6
SPEAKER_00
You participate in meaning.
6
SPEAKER_01
So you do think that it s both.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
6
SPEAKER_01
You do think it s both.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, that s not a trivial thing to understand.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because a lot of time we think, when you think about a search for meaning, you think it s like you re going through a big house and you open each door and look if it s there and so on, as if there is going to be a glowing orb that you discover.
6
SPEAKER_01
But at the same time, I m somebody that
6
SPEAKER_01
based on the chemistry of my brain, have been extremely fortunate to be able to discover beauty in everything, in the most mundane and boring of things.
6
SPEAKER_01
I am, as David Foster Wallace said, unboreable.
6
SPEAKER_01
I could just sit in a room, just like playing with a tennis ball or something and be excited.
6
SPEAKER_01
Basically like a dog, I think, endlessly.
6
SPEAKER_01
So to me, meaning is,
6
SPEAKER_01
created, because I could create meaning out of everything.
6
SPEAKER_01
But of course, it doesn t require a partner.
6
SPEAKER_01
It does require dance partners, whatever, it does require the tennis ball.
6
SPEAKER_01
But honestly, that s what a lot of people that I don t necessarily, we ll talk about it, I don t practice meditation, but people who meditate very seriously, the entire days for months kind of thing, they talk about
6
SPEAKER_01
being able to discover meaning in just the wind or something.
6
SPEAKER_01
The breath and everything, just subtle sensory experiences give you deep fulfillment.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that s, again, it s interaction.
6
SPEAKER_01
Actually, I do wanna say, because the interesting difference that you ve drawn between non-theism, theism, and atheism,
6
SPEAKER_01
Where s the agreement or disagreement between you and Jordan Peterson on this?
6
SPEAKER_01
I just talked to Jordan about this.
6
SPEAKER_01
Because you re very clear.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s kind of beautiful in the clarity in which you lay this out.
6
SPEAKER_01
I wonder if Jordan has arrived at a similar kind of clarity.
6
SPEAKER_01
Have you been able to draw any kind of lines between the way the two of you see religion?
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so there was a video released I think like two or three weeks ago with Jordan and myself and Jonathan Pageau.
6
SPEAKER_00
Ooh, I haven t watched that one yet, yeah.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it s around this question, Lex.
6
SPEAKER_00
He s basically sort of making, he s putting together an argument for God.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I think that s a fair way, I don t think he would object to me saying that.
6
SPEAKER_00
And Jonathan Pageau is also a,
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, Jonathan is a Christian, it s unclear what Jordan is.
6
SPEAKER_01
And Jonathan s work is on symbolism and different mythologies and Christianity.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes, especially Neoplatonic Christianity, which is very important.
6
SPEAKER_00
I have a lot of respect, well, I have a lot of respect for both of them, but I have a lot of respect for Jonathan.
6
SPEAKER_00
But in my participation in that dialogue, you can see me
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, repeatedly, but I think everybody, including Jordan, thought constructively challenging sort of the attempt to build a theistic model, and I was challenging it from a non-theistic perspective.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I think we don t...
6
SPEAKER_00
agree on certain sets of propositions, but there was also a lot of acknowledgement, and I think genuine appreciation on his part, and Jonathan s part, of the arguments I was making.
6
SPEAKER_01
So they believe in maybe the presupposition of like a supreme being.
6
SPEAKER_01
Not believe, but,
6
SPEAKER_01
they see the power of that particular presupposition in being a source of meaning.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think that s relatively clear for me with Jordan.
6
SPEAKER_00
Jordan s a really complex guy, so it s very hard to just like pin.
6
SPEAKER_00
To my best sort of understanding, yes, I think that s clearly the case
6
SPEAKER_00
Jordan, it s not the case for Jonathan.
6
SPEAKER_00
Jonathan is—remember I said I was talking about modern atheism and theism?
6
SPEAKER_00
Jonathan is a guy who somehow went into icon carving and Maximus the Confessor and Eastern Orthodoxy and has come out of it, the other end, as a 5th century church father that is nevertheless being
6
SPEAKER_00
rightfully so, found to be increasingly relevant to many people.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think- So he s deeply old school.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think he has, he and I, especially, because Neoplatonism is a non-theistic philosophical spirituality, and it s a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy, he and I, I think, he would say things like, God doesn t exist.
6
SPEAKER_00
Watch, you re a Christian, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
And then he s being coy, but he ll say, well, God doesn t exist the way the cup exists or the table exists, the same kind of move I was making a few minutes ago.
6
SPEAKER_00
He ll say things like that.
6
SPEAKER_00
He will emphasize the no-thingness of ultimate reality, the no-thingness of God, because he s from that version of Christianity.
6
SPEAKER_00
what you might call classical theism.
6
SPEAKER_00
But classical theism looks a lot more like non-theism than it looks like modern theism.
6
SPEAKER_01
That s so interesting.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s really interesting.
6
SPEAKER_01
What about, is there a line to be drawn between myth and religion in terms of its usefulness in man s search for meaning?
6
SPEAKER_00
So here s where Jordan and I are in much more, actually all three of us are in significant agreement.
6
SPEAKER_00
I said this in my series, but I want to say it again here.
6
SPEAKER_00
Myths aren t stories about things that happened in the deep past that are largely irrelevant.
6
SPEAKER_00
Myths are stories about perennial or pertinent patterns that need to be brought into awareness, and they need to be brought into an awareness not just or primarily at the propositional level,
6
SPEAKER_00
but at those non-propositional levels.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I think that is what good mythos does.
6
SPEAKER_00
I prefer to use the Greek word because we ve now turned the English word into a synonym for a widely believed falsehood.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I don t think, again, if you go back even to the church fathers, I m not a Christian, I m not advocating for Christianity, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
But neither am I here to attack it, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
But when they talk about reading these stories,
6
SPEAKER_00
They think the literal interpretation is the weakest and the least important.
6
SPEAKER_00
You move to the allegorical or the symbolic, to the moral, to the spiritual, the mystical, and that s where, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
So they would say to you, oh, you know,
6
SPEAKER_00
But how is the story of Adam and Eve true for you now?
6
SPEAKER_00
And I don t mean true for you in that relativistic sense, I mean, how is it pointing to a pattern in your life right now?
6
SPEAKER_01
So there is some sense in which the telling of this mythos
6
SPEAKER_01
becomes real in connecting to the patterns that kind of captivate the public today.
6
SPEAKER_01
So you just keep telling the story.
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s something about some of these stories that are just really good at being sticky to the patterns of each generation.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they ll stick to different patterns throughout time.
6
SPEAKER_01
They re just sticky in powerful ways.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yes, and so we keep returning
6
SPEAKER_00
back to them again and again and again.
6
SPEAKER_00
And it s important to see that some of these stories
6
SPEAKER_00
are recursive.
6
SPEAKER_00
They re myths about one particular set of patterns.
6
SPEAKER_00
They re myths about, right, not just the important pattern.
6
SPEAKER_00
Like you get, you know, Jordan s stuff about there s heroes, and myths are trying to make us understand the need for being heroic in our own lives.
6
SPEAKER_00
One of the things I like to put in counterbalance to that is the Greek also have myths of hubris,
6
SPEAKER_00
right, that counterbalance the heroic, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
But then there are myths that are not about those deeply important patterns, but they re myths about religio itself, that the way we re, religio means to bind, to connect, the way relevance realization connects us.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so the point of the myth is not notice that pattern or notice that pattern and notice that pattern.
6
SPEAKER_00
Notice how all of these patterns are emerging and what does that say about us and reality.
6
SPEAKER_00
And those myths, those myths, I think, are genuinely profound.
6
SPEAKER_01
And how much of the myths, how much of,
6
SPEAKER_01
The power of those myth is about the dialogues.
6
SPEAKER_01
You talk about this quite a bit.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think in the first conversation with Jordan, you guys, I m not sure you ve gotten really into it.
6
SPEAKER_01
You scratched the surface a little bit.
6
SPEAKER_01
But the role of, as you say, dialogue in distributed cognition.
6
SPEAKER_01
What is that?
6
SPEAKER_01
The thing we re doing right now, talking with our mouth holes.
6
SPEAKER_01
What is that?
6
SPEAKER_01
And actually, can I ask you this question?
6
SPEAKER_01
If aliens came to Earth and were observing humans, would they notice our distributed cognition first or our individual cognition first?
6
SPEAKER_01
What is the most notable thing about us humans?
6
SPEAKER_01
Is it our ability to individually do well in IQ tests or whatever?
6
SPEAKER_01
Or puzzle solve?
6
SPEAKER_00
Or is it this thing we re doing together?
6
SPEAKER_00
I think most of our problem solving is done in distributed cognition.
6
SPEAKER_00
Like, look around.
6
SPEAKER_00
You didn t make this equipment, you didn t build this place, you didn t invent this language that we re both sharing, et cetera, et cetera.
6
SPEAKER_00
And now there s more specific and precise experimental evidence coming out.
6
SPEAKER_00
Let s take a standard task that people,
6
SPEAKER_00
a reasoning task, I won t get into the details, it s called the waste and selection task, and you give it to people, highly educated, psychology students, premier universities across the world, we ve been doing it since the 60s, it replicates and replicates, and only 10% of the people get it right.
6
SPEAKER_00
You put them in a group of four, and you allow them to talk to each other, the success rate goes to 80%.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s just one example of a phenomenon that s coming to the fore.
6
SPEAKER_01
By the way, do you know if a similar experiment has been done on a group of engineering students versus psychology students?
6
SPEAKER_01
Is there a major group difference in IQ between those two?
6
SPEAKER_01
Just kidding.
6
SPEAKER_01
Let s move on.
6
SPEAKER_01
All right, so there is a lot of evidence that there s power to this distributed cognition.
6
SPEAKER_01
Now what about this mechanism, this fascinating mechanism of the ants interacting with each other, the dialogue?
6
SPEAKER_00
I use the word discourse or dialogue for just people having a conversation, and this is deeply inspired by Socrates and Plato, especially the Platonic dialogues.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I m sure we ve all had this, and so give me a moment because I want to build onto something here.
6
SPEAKER_00
We ve participated in conversations that took on a life of their own and took us both in directions we did not anticipate.
6
SPEAKER_00
afforded us insights that we could not have had on our own.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we don t have to have come to an agreement, but we were both moved and we were both drawn into insight.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we feel like, wow, that was one of the best moments of my life because we feel how that introduced us to a capacity for tapping into a flow state within distributed cognition that puts us into a deeper relationship with ourselves,
6
SPEAKER_00
with another person and potentially with the world.
6
SPEAKER_00
That s what I mean by dialogos.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so for me, I think dialogos is more important.
6
SPEAKER_00
Huh, boy.
6
SPEAKER_00
I m sorry, I can hear Jordan and Jonathan in my head right now.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I think it s more.
6
SPEAKER_00
I hear them all the time.
6
SPEAKER_01
I just wish they would shut up in my head sometimes.
6
SPEAKER_01
So what are they saying to you?
7
SPEAKER_00
in your head.
7
SPEAKER_00
What they re saying, well, see, that s what the most recent conversation was about.
7
SPEAKER_00
I was trying to say that I don t think mythos is, I think mythos is really important.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think these kinds of narratives are really important.
7
SPEAKER_00
But I think this ability to connect together in distributed cognition, collective intelligence, and cultivate
7
SPEAKER_00
a shared flow state within that collective intelligence so it starts to ramp up, perhaps towards collective wisdom.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think that s more important because I think that s the basin within which the myths and the rituals are ultimately created and when they function.
7
SPEAKER_00
Like a myth is like a public dream.
7
SPEAKER_00
It depends on distributed cognition and it depends on people enacting it and getting into mutual flow states.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the highest form of dialogos of conversation is this flow state and that it forms the foundation for myth building.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think so, I think so.
7
SPEAKER_00
So that communitas, that s Victor Turner s phrase, and he specifically linked it to flow, and I study flow scientifically, that within distributed cognition, as the home, as the generator
7
SPEAKER_00
of mythos and ritual, and those are bound together as well, I think that s fundamentally correct.
7
SPEAKER_01
You know what s the cool thing here?
7
SPEAKER_01
Because I m a huge fan of podcasts and audio books, but a podcast in particular is relevant here, is there s a third person in this room listening now, and they re,
7
SPEAKER_01
also in the flow state.
7
SPEAKER_01
Like I m close friends with a lot of podcasters.
7
SPEAKER_01
They don t know I exist.
7
SPEAKER_01
I just listen to them, because I ve been in so many flow states with them.
7
SPEAKER_01
I was like, yes, yes, this is good.
7
SPEAKER_01
But they don t know I exist.
7
SPEAKER_01
But they are in conversation with me, ultimately.
7
SPEAKER_00
And think, Lex, of what that s doing.
7
SPEAKER_00
You ve got dialogues, and then you ve got this meta-dialogue, like you re describing.
7
SPEAKER_00
And think about how things like podcasts and YouTube
7
SPEAKER_00
They break down old boundaries between the private and the public, between writing and oral speech.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we have the dynamics of living oral speech, but it has the permanency of writing.
7
SPEAKER_00
Like we re in the midst of creating a vehicle, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
And a medium for distributed cognition that breaks down a lot of the categories by which we organized our cognition.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, because of the tools of YouTube and so on,
7
SPEAKER_01
the network, the graph of how quickly the distributive cognition can spread is really powerful.
7
SPEAKER_01
Just a huge amount of people have listened to your lectures.
7
SPEAKER_01
I ve listened to your lectures, but I ve experienced them, at least in your style, there s something about your style.
7
SPEAKER_01
It felt like a conversation.
7
SPEAKER_01
It felt like at any moment I could interrupt you and say something.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I was just listening.
7
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for saying that, because I aspire to being genuinely as Socratic as I can when I m doing this.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, there was that sense, actually, as I m saying it now.
7
SPEAKER_01
Why was that?
7
SPEAKER_01
It didn t feel like sometimes lectures are kind of
7
SPEAKER_01
you know, you come down with the commandments and you just have to listen.
7
SPEAKER_01
But there was a sense like, I mean, I think it was the excitement that you have, like you have to understand, and also the fact that you were kind of, I think, thinking off the top of your head sometimes.
7
SPEAKER_01
There was a,
7
SPEAKER_01
You were interrupting yourself with thoughts.
7
SPEAKER_00
You were playing with thoughts.
7
SPEAKER_01
You re reasoning through things often.
7
SPEAKER_01
You referenced a lot of books, so surely you were extremely well-prepared and you were referencing a lot of ideas, but then you were also struggling in the way to present those ideas.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and so the jazz.
7
SPEAKER_00
The jazz, yeah.
7
SPEAKER_00
The jazz and getting into the flow state and trying to,
7
SPEAKER_00
share in a participatory and perspectival fashion the learning with the people rather than just pronouncing at them.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
7
SPEAKER_00
What s mindfulness?
7
SPEAKER_00
So, published on that as well.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I practice, I ve been practicing many forms of mindfulness and ecology of practices since 1991.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I both have practitioner s knowledge and I also study it scientifically.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think, I m pretty sure, I was the first person to academically talk about mindfulness at the University of Toronto within a classroom setting, like lecturing on it.
7
SPEAKER_01
So this is a topic that a lot of people have recently become very interested in, think about.
7
SPEAKER_01
So from that, from the early days, how do you think about what it is?
7
SPEAKER_00
I ve critiqued the sort of standard definitions, being aware of the present moment without judgment, because I think they re flawed.
7
SPEAKER_00
And if you want to get into the detail of why, we can.
7
SPEAKER_00
But this is how I want to explain it to you.
7
SPEAKER_00
And it also points to the fact of why you need an ecology of mindfulness practices.
7
SPEAKER_00
You shouldn t equate mindfulness with meditation.
7
SPEAKER_00
I think that s a primary mistake.
7
SPEAKER_01
When you say ecology, what do you mean, by the way?
7
SPEAKER_01
Like, so lots of many different variants?
7
SPEAKER_00
No, so what I mean by an ecology is exactly what you have in an ecology.
7
SPEAKER_00
You have a dynamical system in which there are checks and balances on each other, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
And I ll get to that with this about mindfulness.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I ll make that connection if you allow me.
7
SPEAKER_00
So we re always framing.
7
SPEAKER_00
We ve been talking about that, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
for those of you who are not on YouTube, this podcast, I wear glasses and I m now sort of putting my fingers and thumb around the frames of my glasses.
7
SPEAKER_00
So this is my frame and my lenses, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
And that frame, the frame holds a lens and I m seeing through it in both senses, beyond and by means of it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So right now, my glasses are transparent to me.
7
SPEAKER_00
I want to use that as a strong analogy for my mental framing, okay?
7
SPEAKER_00
Now, this is what you do in meditation, I would argue.
7
SPEAKER_00
You step back from looking through your frame and you look at it.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m taking my glasses off right now and I m looking at them.
7
SPEAKER_00
Why might I do that?
7
SPEAKER_00
To see if there s something in the lenses that is distorting.
7
SPEAKER_00
causing me to, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
Now, if I just did that, that could be helpful, but how do I know if I ve actually corrected the change I made to my lenses?
7
SPEAKER_00
What do I need to do?
7
SPEAKER_00
I need to put my glasses on and see if I can now see more clearly and deeply than I could before.
7
SPEAKER_00
Meditation is this, stepping back and looking at.
7
SPEAKER_00
Contemplation is,
7
SPEAKER_00
that looking through, and there are different kinds of practices.
7
SPEAKER_00
The fact that we treat them as synonyms is a deep mistake.
7
SPEAKER_00
The word contemplation has temple in it, in Latin, contemplatio, means to look up to the sky.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s a translation of the Greek word theoria, which we get our word theory from.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s to look deeply into things.
7
SPEAKER_00
Meditation is more about having to do with reflecting upon, standing back and looking at.
7
SPEAKER_00
Mindfulness includes both.
7
SPEAKER_00
It includes your ability to break away from an inappropriate frame and the ability to make a new frame.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s what actually happens in insight.
7
SPEAKER_00
You have to both break an inappropriate frame and make, see, realize a new frame.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is why mindfulness enhances insight both ways, by the way.
7
SPEAKER_00
Meditative practices and also contemplative practices.
7
SPEAKER_00
So mindfulness is frame awareness that can be appropriated in order to improve your capacities for insight and self-regulation.
7
SPEAKER_01
Now, I am inexperienced with meditation, the rigorous practice and the science of meditation, but I ve talked to people who seriously, as a science study, psychedelics, and they often talk about the really important thing is the integration back, so the contemplation step.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it s not just the actual things you see on psychedelics or the actual journey of where your mind goes on psychedelics, it s also the integrating that into...
7
SPEAKER_01
the new perspective that you take on life, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
You really nicely described, so meditation is the, in that metaphor, is the psychedelic journey to a different mind state, and contemplation is the return back to reality, how you integrate that into a new world view, and mindfulness is the whole process.
7
SPEAKER_00
Right, so if you just did contemplation, you could suffer from inflation and projective fantasy.
7
SPEAKER_00
If you just do meditation, you can suffer from withdrawal, spiritual bypassing, avoiding reality.
7
SPEAKER_00
They act, they need each other.
7
SPEAKER_00
You have to cycle between them.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s like what I talked about earlier when I talked about the opponent processing within the autonomic nervous system or the opponent processing at work and attention.
7
SPEAKER_00
And that s what I mean by an ecology of practices.
7
SPEAKER_00
You need both.
7
SPEAKER_00
Neither one is a panacea.
7
SPEAKER_00
You need them in this opponent processing, acting as checks and balance on each other.
7
SPEAKER_01
Is there sort of practical advice you can give to people on how to meditate or how to be mindful in this full way?
7
SPEAKER_00
Yes, I would tell them to do at least three things.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I was, I lucked into this.
7
SPEAKER_00
When I started meditation, I went down the street and there was a place that taught Vipassana meditation, Metta contemplation, and Tai Chi Chuan for flow induction.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you should get, you should have a meditative practice
7
SPEAKER_00
You should find a contemplative practice, and you should find a moving mindfulness practice, especially one that is conducive to the flow state, and practice them in an integrated fashion.
7
SPEAKER_01
Can you elaborate what those practices might look like?
7
SPEAKER_01
So, generally speaking.
7
SPEAKER_00
meditative practice like Vipassana.
7
SPEAKER_00
So what s the primary thing I look through rather than look at?
7
SPEAKER_00
It s my sensations.
7
SPEAKER_00
So what I m gonna do is I m gonna focus on my sensations rather than focusing on the world through my sensations.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I m gonna follow, for example, the sensations in this area of my abdomen where my breathing is.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I can feel, as my abdomen is expanding, I can feel those sensations.
7
SPEAKER_00
and then I can feel the sensations as it s contracting.
7
SPEAKER_00
And what ll happen is my mind will leap back to try to look through and look at the world again, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
I ll start thinking about I need to do my laundry or what was that noise?
7
SPEAKER_00
And so what do I do?
7
SPEAKER_00
I don t get involved with the content.
7
SPEAKER_00
I step back and label the process with an I-N-G word, listening, imagining, planning, and then I return my attention to the breath.
7
SPEAKER_00
And I have to return my attention
7
SPEAKER_00
in the correct way, the part of your mind that jumps around, in the Buddhist tradition, this is called your monkey mind.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s like a monkey leaping from branches and chattering, right?
7
SPEAKER_00
If I was trying to train that monkey mind to stay, or as Jack Kornfield said, train a puppy dog,
7
SPEAKER_00
you know, stay puppy dog, and if it goes and I get really angry, and I bring it back and I m yelling at it, I m gonna train it to fight and fear me.
7
SPEAKER_00
But if I just indulge it, if I just feed its whims, oh, well look, the puppy dog went there, oh, now it s there.
7
SPEAKER_00
Puppy dog never learns to stay.
7
SPEAKER_00
What do I need to do?
7
SPEAKER_00
I have to neither fight it nor feed it.
7
SPEAKER_00
I have to have this centered attitude, I have to befriend it.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you step back and look at your sensations, you step back and look at your distracting processes, you return your attention to the breath, and you do it with the right attitude.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s the core of a good meditative practice.
7
SPEAKER_01
Okay, then what s a good contemplative practice?
7
SPEAKER_00
A good contemplative practice is to try and
7
SPEAKER_00
Meta, it s actually apropos, because we talked about that participatory knowing, the way you re situated in the world.
7
SPEAKER_00
So what, this is a long thing, because there s different interpretations of meta, and I go for what s called an existential interpretation over an emotional one.
7
SPEAKER_00
So what I m doing in meta, right, is I m trying to become, I m trying to awaken in two ways.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m trying to awaken to the fact that I am constantly assuming an identity and assigning an identity.
7
SPEAKER_00
So I m looking at that.
7
SPEAKER_00
I m trying to awaken to that.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then I m trying to awake from the modal confusion that I could get into around that.
7
SPEAKER_00
And so I m looking out onto the world and I m trying to see you in a fundamentally different way than I have before.
7
SPEAKER_01
You know, like you go to the gym and you do bicep curls.
7
SPEAKER_01
Is it possible to reduce it to those things?
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, you don t need to speak to the specifics, but is there actual practice you can do, or is it really personal?
7
SPEAKER_00
No, I teach people how to do the metapractice.
7
SPEAKER_00
I also teach them how to do a neoplatonic contemplative practice, how to do a stoic.
7
SPEAKER_00
Another one you can do is the view from above.
7
SPEAKER_00
This is classic stoicism.
7
SPEAKER_00
I get you to imagine that you re in this room and then imagine that you re floating above the room, then above Austin, then above Texas, then above the United States, then the earth.
7
SPEAKER_00
And you have to really imagine it.
7
SPEAKER_00
Don t just think it, but really imagine.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then what you notice is as you re pulling out to a wider and wider,
7
SPEAKER_00
like contemplation of reality, your sense of self and what you find relevant and important also changes.
7
SPEAKER_00
No, for all of these, there is a specific step-by-step methodology.
7
SPEAKER_01
Oh, so you can, so like in that one, you could just literally imagine yourself floating farther and farther out.
7
SPEAKER_00
But you have to go through the steps.
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_00
Because the stepping matters.
7
SPEAKER_00
Because if you just jump, it doesn t work.
7
SPEAKER_00
Do you have any of the stuff online, by the way?
7
SPEAKER_00
I do, because during COVID, I decided, at the advice of a good friend, to do a daily course.
7
SPEAKER_00
I taught meditating with John Vervaeke.
7
SPEAKER_00
I did all the way through meditation, contemplation, even some of the movement practices.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s all there, it s all available.
7
SPEAKER_00
That was largely inspired by Buddhism and Taoism.
7
SPEAKER_00
And then I went into the Western tradition and went through things like Stoicism and Neoplatonism, cultivating wisdom with John de Rege.
7
SPEAKER_00
That s all there.
7
SPEAKER_00
All free.
7
SPEAKER_01
On your website?
7
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, it s on my YouTube channel, yeah.
7
SPEAKER_01
On your YouTube channel, okay.
7
SPEAKER_01
That s exciting.
7
SPEAKER_01
I mean, your Meeting Crisis lectures is just incredible.
7
SPEAKER_01
Everything around it, including the notes and the notes that people took.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s just, there s a, it created this tree of conversations.
7
SPEAKER_01
It s really, really, really well done.
7
SPEAKER_01
What about flow induction?
7
SPEAKER_00
You wanna flow wisely.
7
SPEAKER_00
And first of all, you need to understand what flow is, and then you need to confront a particular issue, a practical problem around flow.
7
SPEAKER_01
Let s go there, because a lot of those words seem like synonyms to people sometimes.
7
SPEAKER_01
So the state of flow, what is it?
7
SPEAKER_00
All right, so, and he just died last year, Csikszentmihalyi.
7
SPEAKER_01
I admire him very much.
7
SPEAKER_01
We ve exchanged a bunch of messages over the past few years, and he wanted to do the podcast several times.
7
SPEAKER_00
Oh, that would ve been wonderful.
7
SPEAKER_01
But he said he struggled with his health, and I never knew in those situations.
7
SPEAKER_01
I deeply regret several cases like this that I ve had.
7
SPEAKER_01
that I had like with Conway, that I should have pushed him on it.
7
SPEAKER_01
Because yeah, as you get later in life, the simple things become more difficult, but a voice, especially one that hasn t been really heard, is important to hear.
7
SPEAKER_01
So anyway, I apologize, but yeah.
7
SPEAKER_00
No, no, I share that.
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I can tell you that within
7
SPEAKER_00
my area, he is important.
7
SPEAKER_00
And he s famous in an academics sense.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the flow state, two important sets of conditions.
7
SPEAKER_00
And very often people only talk about one and that s a little bit of a misrepresentation.
7
SPEAKER_00
So the flow state is in situations in which the demand of the situation is slightly beyond your skills.
7
SPEAKER_00
So you both have to apply all the skills you can with as much sort of attention and concentration
7
SPEAKER_00
as you possibly can, and you have to actually be stretching your skills.
7
SPEAKER_00
Now in this circumstance, people report optimal experience.
7
SPEAKER_00
Optimal in two ways.
7
SPEAKER_00
Optimal in that this is one of the best experiences I ve had in my life.
7
SPEAKER_00
It s distinct from pleasure, and yet it explains why people do very bizarre things like rock climbing, because it s a good flow induction.
7
SPEAKER_00
But they also mean optimal in a second sense, my best performance.
7
SPEAKER_00
So it s both the best experience and the best performance.
7
SPEAKER_00
So.
8
SPEAKER_01
Csikszentmihalyi also talked about the information flow conditions you need, right, in order for there to be this state of flow.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then I ll talk about what it s like to be in flow in a sec.
8
SPEAKER_01
What you need is three things.
8
SPEAKER_01
You need the information that you re getting to be clear.
8
SPEAKER_01
It can t be ambiguous or vague.
8
SPEAKER_01
Think about a rock climber.
8
SPEAKER_01
If it s ambiguous and vague, you re in trouble, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
There has to be tightly coupled feedback between what you do and how the environment responds.
8
SPEAKER_01
So when you act, there s an immediate response.
8
SPEAKER_01
There isn t a big time lag between your action and your ability to detect the response from the environment.
8
SPEAKER_01
Third, failure has to matter.
8
SPEAKER_01
Error really matters.
8
SPEAKER_00
So there should be some anxiety about failure.
8
SPEAKER_01
and failure matters, so that, yeah, because- Like to you, the person that participates.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yes, yes, yes.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now, when you re in the flow state, notice how this sits on the boundary between the secular and the sacred.
8
SPEAKER_01
When you re in the flow state, people report a tremendous sense of at-one-ment with the environment.
8
SPEAKER_01
They report a loss of a particular kind of self-consciousness, that narrative naturing nanny in your head that, how do I look?
8
SPEAKER_01
Do people like me?
8
SPEAKER_01
How do I look?
8
SPEAKER_01
How s my hair?
8
SPEAKER_01
Do people like me?
8
SPEAKER_01
Should I have said that?
8
SPEAKER_01
That all goes away.
8
SPEAKER_01
You re free from that.
8
SPEAKER_01
You re free from the most sadistic, superego self-critic you could possibly have, at least for a while.
8
SPEAKER_01
The world is vivid.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s super salient to you.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s an ongoing sense of discovery.
8
SPEAKER_01
Although often you know you re exerting a lot of metabolical effort, it feels effortless.
8
SPEAKER_01
So in the flow state when you re sparring, your hand just goes up for the block and your strike just goes through the empty space.
8
SPEAKER_01
Or if you re a goalie in hockey, I gotta mention hockey once, I m a Canadian, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
You put out your glove hand and the puck s there, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
So there s this tremendous sense of grace, at-one-ment, super salience, discovery, and realness.
8
SPEAKER_01
People don t, well, people don t, when they re in the flow state, they don t go, I bet this is an illusion.
8
SPEAKER_01
The interesting question for me and my co-authors in the book, in the article we published in the Oxford Handbook, A Spontaneous Thought with Arianne Hara-Bennett and Leo Ferraro, is that s a descriptive account of flow.
8
SPEAKER_01
We wanted an explanatory account.
8
SPEAKER_01
What are the causal mechanisms at work in flow?
8
SPEAKER_01
And so we actually proposed to interlocking cognitive processes.
8
SPEAKER_01
The first thing we said is, well, what s going on in flow?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, think about it.
8
SPEAKER_01
Think about the rock climber.
8
SPEAKER_01
The rock climber, and I talked about this earlier, they re constantly restructuring how they re seeing the rock face.
8
SPEAKER_01
They re constantly doing something like insight.
8
SPEAKER_01
And if they fail to do it, they impasse, and that starts to get dangerous.
8
SPEAKER_01
So they gotta do an insight that primes an insight that primes an insight.
8
SPEAKER_01
So imagine the aha experience, that flash and that moment, and imagine it cascading.
8
SPEAKER_01
So you re getting the extended aha.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s why things are super salient.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a sense of discovery.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a sense of at-one-ment, of deep participation, of grace.
8
SPEAKER_01
But there s something else going on too.
8
SPEAKER_01
So there s a phenomena called implicit learning.
8
SPEAKER_01
Also very well replicated.
8
SPEAKER_01
Starts way back in the 60s with Reber.
8
SPEAKER_01
You can give people complex patterns, like number and letter strings, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
And they can learn about those patterns.
8
SPEAKER_01
outside of deliberate focal awareness.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s what s called implicit learning.
8
SPEAKER_01
And what s interesting is if you try and change that task into...
8
SPEAKER_01
you know, tell me the pattern, but explicitly try to figure it out, their performance degrades.
8
SPEAKER_01
So here s the idea.
8
SPEAKER_01
You have this adaptive capacity for implicit learning, and what it does is it results in you being able to track complex variables in a way, but you don t know how you came up with that knowledge, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
So you get, and this is Hogarth s proposal in educating intuition.
8
SPEAKER_01
Intuition is actually the result of implicit learning.
8
SPEAKER_01
So an example I use is,
8
SPEAKER_01
How far do you stand away from somebody at a funeral?
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of complex variables.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s status, closeness to the person, your relationship to them, past history, all kinds of stuff.
8
SPEAKER_01
And yet you know how to do it.
8
SPEAKER_01
And you didn t have to go to funeral school.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m just using that as an example.
8
SPEAKER_01
So you have these powerful intuitions.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now here s Hogarth s great point.
8
SPEAKER_01
Implicit learning, remember I said before, the things that make it adaptive make us subject to self-deception?
8
SPEAKER_01
Here s another example.
8
SPEAKER_01
Implicit learning is powerful at picking up on complex patterns, but it doesn t care what kind of pattern it is.
8
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t distinguish causal patterns from merely correlational patterns.
8
SPEAKER_01
So implicit learning, when we like it, it s intuition.
8
SPEAKER_01
When it s picking up on stuff that s bogus, we call it prejudice or all kinds of other names for intuition that s going wrong.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now, he said, okay, what do we do?
8
SPEAKER_01
What do we do about this?
8
SPEAKER_01
And this, we ll get back to Flo.
8
SPEAKER_01
What do we do about this?
8
SPEAKER_01
Well, we can t try to replace implicit learning with explicit learning, because we ll lose all the adaptiveness to it.
8
SPEAKER_01
So what can we do explicitly?
8
SPEAKER_01
What we can do is take care of the environment in which we re doing the implicit learning.
8
SPEAKER_01
How do we do that?
8
SPEAKER_01
We try to make sure the environment has features that help us distinguish causation from correlation.
8
SPEAKER_01
What kind of environments have we created that are good at distinguishing causation from correlation?
8
SPEAKER_01
Experimental environments.
8
SPEAKER_01
What do you do in an experiment?
8
SPEAKER_01
You make sure that the variables are clear.
8
SPEAKER_01
No confound, no ambiguity, no vagueness.
8
SPEAKER_01
You make sure there s a tight coupling between the independent and the dependent variable, and your hypothesis can be falsified.
8
SPEAKER_01
Error matters.
8
SPEAKER_01
Now look at those three lex.
8
SPEAKER_01
Those are exactly the three conditions that you need for flow.
8
SPEAKER_01
Clear information, tightly coupled feedback, and error matters.
8
SPEAKER_01
So, flow is not only an insight cascade, improving your insight capacity, it s also a marker that you re cultivating the best kind of intuitions, the ones that fit you best to the causal patterns in your environment.
8
SPEAKER_00
But it s hard to achieve that kind of environment.
8
SPEAKER_00
where there s a clear distinction between causality and correlation, and it has the rigor of a scientific experiment.
8
SPEAKER_01
Fair enough, and I don t think Hogarth was saying it s gonna be epistemically as rigorous as a scientific experiment, but he s saying, right, if you structure that, it will tend to do what that scientific method does, which is find, think of the rock climber.
8
SPEAKER_01
All of those things are the case.
8
SPEAKER_01
They need clear information.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s tightly coupled and error matters.
8
SPEAKER_01
And they think what they re doing is very real because if they re not conforming to the real causal patterns of the rock face and the physiology of their body, they will fall.
8
SPEAKER_00
Is there something to be said about the power of discovering meaning and having this deep relationship with the moment?
8
SPEAKER_00
There s something about flow that really forgets the past and the future and is really focused on the moment.
8
SPEAKER_01
I think that s part of the phenomenology, but I think the functionality has to do with the fact that what s happening in flow is that dynamic, non-propositional connectedness that is so central to meaning
8
SPEAKER_01
is being optimized.
8
SPEAKER_01
This is why flow is a good predictor of how well you rate your life, how much well-being you think you have, which of course is itself also predictive and interrelated with how meaningful you find your life.
8
SPEAKER_01
One of the things that you can do, but there s an important caveat,
8
SPEAKER_01
to increase your sense of meaning in life is to get into the flow state more frequently.
8
SPEAKER_01
That s why I said you want a moving practice that s conducive to the flow state.
8
SPEAKER_01
But there s one important caveat, which is
8
SPEAKER_01
We of course have figured out, and I m playing with words here, how to game this and how to hijack it by creating things like video games.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m not saying this is the case for all video games or this is the case for all people, but the WHO now acknowledges this as a real thing, that you can get into the flow state within the video game world
8
SPEAKER_01
to the detriment of your ability to get into the flow state in the real world.
8
SPEAKER_01
What s the opposite of flow?
8
SPEAKER_01
Depression.
8
SPEAKER_01
In fact, depression has been called anti-flow.
8
SPEAKER_01
So you get these people that are flowing in this non-real world and it s
8
SPEAKER_01
they can t transfer it to the real world, and it s actually costing them flow in the real world, so they tend to suffer depression and all kinds of things.
8
SPEAKER_00
Your ability, your habit, and just skill at attaining flow in the video game world basically makes you less effective.
8
SPEAKER_00
or maybe shocks you at how difficult it is to achieve flow in the physical world.
8
SPEAKER_00
I don t wanna push back against the implied challenge of transferability, because I have a lot of friends that play video games, a very large percent of young folks play video games.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m hesitant to build up models of how that affects behavior.
8
SPEAKER_00
My intuition is weak there.
8
SPEAKER_00
Oftentimes, people that have PhDs are of a certain age that they came up when video games weren t a deep part of their life development.
8
SPEAKER_00
I would venture to say people who have developed their brain with video games being a large part of that world,
8
SPEAKER_00
are in some sense different humans.
8
SPEAKER_00
And it s possible that they can transfer more effectively some of the lessons, some of the ability to attain flow from the virtual world to the physical world.
8
SPEAKER_00
They re also more, I would venture to say, resilient to the negative effects of, for example, social media or video games they have.
8
SPEAKER_00
that, you know, maybe the objectification or like the over-sexualized or violent aspect of video games, they re able to turn that off when they go to the physical world and turn it back on when they re playing the video games probably more effectively than the old-timers.
8
SPEAKER_00
So I just want to say this sort of
8
SPEAKER_00
I m not sure, it s a really interesting question how transferable the flow state is.
8
SPEAKER_00
I don t know if you wanna comment on that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I do, I do.
8
SPEAKER_01
First of all, I did qualify and I m saying it s not the case for all video games or for all people.
8
SPEAKER_01
I m holding out the possibility and I know this possibility because I ve had students who actually suffer from this and have done work around it with me.
8
SPEAKER_00
The ability to achieve.
8
SPEAKER_01
They couldn t transfer, yeah.
8
SPEAKER_01
And then they were able to step back from that and then take up the cognitive science and write about it and work on it.
8
SPEAKER_01
Also, I m not so sure about the resiliency claim because there seems to be mounting evidence.
8
SPEAKER_01
It s not consensus.
8
SPEAKER_01
but it s certainly not regarded as fringe, that the increase in social media is pretty strongly correlated with increase in depression, self-destructive behavior, things like this.
8
SPEAKER_00
I would like to see that evidence.
8
SPEAKER_00
Sure, I can find it.
8
SPEAKER_00
No, no, no, no.
8
SPEAKER_00
Let me... I m always hesitant
8
SPEAKER_00
to too eagerly kind of agree with things that I want to agree with.
8
SPEAKER_00
There s a public perception, everyone seems to hate on social media.
8
SPEAKER_00
I wonder, as always with these things, does it reveal depression or does it create depression?
8
SPEAKER_00
This is always the question.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s like whenever you talk about any political or ideological movement, does it create hate?
8
SPEAKER_00
or does it reveal hate?
8
SPEAKER_01
And that s a good thing to ask, and you should always challenge the things that you intuitively want to believe.
8
SPEAKER_01
I agree with that.
8
SPEAKER_01
Like aliens.
8
SPEAKER_01
So one of the ways you address this, and it s not sufficient, and I did say the work is preliminary, but if I can give you a plausible mechanism that s new, and then that lends credence, and part of what happens, right, is illusory social comparison.
8
SPEAKER_01
Think of Instagram, people are posting things that are not accurate representation of their life or life events.
8
SPEAKER_01
In fact, they will stage things, but the people that are looking at these, they take it often as real, and so they get downward social comparison.
8
SPEAKER_01
And this is like, compared to how you and I probably live, where we may get one or two of those events a week,
8
SPEAKER_01
They re getting them moment by moment, and so it s a plausible mechanism that why it might be driving people into a more depressed state.
8
SPEAKER_00
So- Okay, the flip side of that is because there s a greater, greater gap going from real world to Instagram world, you start to be able to laugh at it and realize that it s artificial.
8
SPEAKER_00
So for example, even just artificial filters, people start to realize like,
8
SPEAKER_00
It s the same kind of gap as there is between the video game world and the real world.
8
SPEAKER_00
In the video game world, you can do all kinds of wild things.
8
SPEAKER_00
Grand Theft Auto, you can shoot people up, you can do whatever the heck you want.
8
SPEAKER_00
In the real world, you can t, and you start to develop
8
SPEAKER_00
an understanding of how to have fun in the virtual world and in the physical world.
8
SPEAKER_00
And I think, just as a pushback, I m not saying either is true, though.
8
SPEAKER_00
Those are very interesting claims.
8
SPEAKER_00
The more ridiculously out of touch Instagram becomes, the easier you can laugh it off, potentially, in terms of the effect it has on your psyche.
8
SPEAKER_01
So I ll respond to that, but at some point we should get back to Flo.
8
SPEAKER_00
As we engage in Flo.
8
SPEAKER_01
You laugh at the shampoo commercial and yet you buy the shampoo.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
8
SPEAKER_01
There s a capacity for tremendous bullshitting because of the way these machines are designed to trigger salience without triggering reflective truth-seeking.
8
SPEAKER_00
I m thinking of Connor examples because sometimes you re...
8
SPEAKER_00
can laugh all the way to the bank, so you can laugh and not buy the shampoo.
8
SPEAKER_00
There s many cases, so I think you have to laugh hard enough.
8
SPEAKER_01
You do have to laugh hard enough, but the advertisers get millions of dollars precisely because for many, many people, it does make you buy the shampoo, and that s the concern.
8
SPEAKER_00
And maybe the machine of social media is such that it optimizes the shampoo buying.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yes, the point I was trying to make is
8
SPEAKER_01
Whether or not that particular example is ultimately right, the possibility of transfer failure is a real thing.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I wanna contrast that to an experience I had when I was in grad school.
8
SPEAKER_01
I d been doing Tai Chi Chuan about three or four years, very religiously, in both senses of the word, like three or four hours a day, and reading all the literature.
8
SPEAKER_01
and I was having all the weird experiences, you know, cold as ice, hot as lava, all that stuff, and it s ooh, right?
8
SPEAKER_01
But my friends in grad school, they said to me, what s going on?
8
SPEAKER_01
You re different.
8
SPEAKER_01
And I said, what do you mean?
8
SPEAKER_01
And they said, well, you re a lot more balanced in your interactions, and you re a lot more flowing, and you re a lot more sort of flexible, and you adjust more, and I realized, oh,
8
SPEAKER_01
And this was the sort of Taoist claim around Tai Chi, Chuan, that it actually transfers in ways that you might not expect.
8
SPEAKER_01
You start to be able, and I ve now noticed that.
8
SPEAKER_01
I now notice how I m doing Tai Chi even in this interaction and how it can facilitate and afford.
8
SPEAKER_01
And so there s a powerful transfer.
8
SPEAKER_01
And that s what I meant by flow wisely.
9
SPEAKER_00
only flow in a way that s, right, making sure that you re distinguishing causation from correlation, which flow can do, but find how to situate it, home it, so that it will percolate through your psyche and permeate through many domains of your life.
9
SPEAKER_01
Is there something you could say similar to our discussion about mindfulness and meditation and contemplation about the world that psychedelics take our mind?
9
SPEAKER_01
Where does the mind go when it s on psychedelics?
9
SPEAKER_00
I want to remind you of something you said, which is a gem.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s not so much the experience, but the degree to which it can be integrated back.
9
SPEAKER_00
So here s a proposal, it comes from Woodward and others, a lot of convergence around this.
9
SPEAKER_00
Carhart-Harris is talking about it similarly in the entropic brain.
9
SPEAKER_00
But I m not going to talk first about psychedelics, I m going to talk about neural networks.
9
SPEAKER_00
And I m going to talk about a classic problem in neural networks.
9
SPEAKER_00
So neural networks, like us with intuition and implicit learning, are fantastic at picking up on complex patterns.
9
SPEAKER_01
Which neuron, though, sir, we re talking about?
9
SPEAKER_00
I m talking about a general, just general part.
9
SPEAKER_00
Both artificial and biological?
9
SPEAKER_00
Yes, yes, yes.
9
SPEAKER_00
I think at this point, there is no relevant difference.
9
SPEAKER_00
So one of the classic problems, because of their power, is they suffer from overfitting to the data.
9
SPEAKER_00
Or for those of you who are, you know, statistical orientation, they pick up patterns in the sample that aren t actually present in the population, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
And so what you do is there s various strategies.
9
SPEAKER_00
You can do dropout where you periodically turn off half of the nodes in a network.
9
SPEAKER_00
You can drop noise into the network.
9
SPEAKER_00
And what that does is it prevents overfitting to the data and allows the network to generalize more powerfully to the environment.
9
SPEAKER_00
I propose to you that that s basically what psychedelics do.
9
SPEAKER_00
they do that.
9
SPEAKER_00
They basically do significant constraint reduction.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so
9
SPEAKER_00
you get areas of the brain talking to each other that don t normally talk to each other, areas that do talk to each other not talking to each other, down regulation of areas that are very dominant, like the default mode network, et cetera.
9
SPEAKER_00
And what that does is exactly something strongly analogous, sorry, to what s happening in dropout or putting noise into the data, it opens up.
9
SPEAKER_00
By the way, if you give people, if you give human beings an insight problem that they re trying to solve, and you throw in some noise,
9
SPEAKER_00
like literally static on the screen, you can trigger an insight in them.
9
SPEAKER_01
So like literally very simplistic kind of noise to the perception system.
9
SPEAKER_00
Right, it can break it out of overfitting to the data and open you up.
9
SPEAKER_00
Now, that means though, that just doing that, right, in and of itself is not the answer.
9
SPEAKER_00
because you also have to make sure that the system can go back to exploring that new space properly.
9
SPEAKER_00
This isn t a problem with neural networks.
9
SPEAKER_00
You turn off dropout and they just go back to being powerful neural networks.
9
SPEAKER_00
And now they explore the state space that they couldn t explore before.
9
SPEAKER_00
Human beings are a little bit more messy around this.
9
SPEAKER_00
And this is where the analogy does get a little bit strained.
9
SPEAKER_00
So they need practices
9
SPEAKER_00
that help them integrate that opening up to the new state space so they can properly integrate it.
9
SPEAKER_00
So beyond Leary s state set and setting, I think you need another S. I think you need sacred.
9
SPEAKER_00
Psychedelics need to be practiced within a sapiential framework, a framework in which people are independently
9
SPEAKER_00
and beforehand, improving their abilities to deal with self-deception and afford insight and self-regulate.
9
SPEAKER_00
This is, of course, the overwhelming way in which psychedelics are used by indigenous cultures.
9
SPEAKER_00
And I think if we put them into that context, then they can help the project of people
9
SPEAKER_00
self-transcending, cultivating meaning and increasing wisdom.
9
SPEAKER_00
But if I think we remove them out of that context and put them in the context of commodities taken just to have certain phenomenological changes, we run certain important risks.
9
SPEAKER_01
So using the term of higher states of consciousness.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
9
SPEAKER_01
Is consciousness an important part of that word?
9
SPEAKER_01
Why higher?
9
SPEAKER_01
Is it a higher state, or is it a detour, a side road on the main road of consciousness?
9
SPEAKER_01
Where do we go here?
9
SPEAKER_00
I think the psychedelic state
9
SPEAKER_00
is on a continuum.
9
SPEAKER_00
There s insight, and then flow is an insight cascade.
9
SPEAKER_00
There s flow, and then you can have sort of psychedelic experiences, mind-revealing experiences.
9
SPEAKER_00
But they overlap with mystical experiences, and they aren t the same.
9
SPEAKER_00
So for example, in the Griffiths lab, they gave people psilocybin and they taught them ahead of time how, like, sort of the features of a mystical experience.
9
SPEAKER_00
And only a certain proportion of the people that took the psilocybin went from a psychedelic into a mystical experience.
9
SPEAKER_00
What was interesting is the people that had the mystical experience had measurable and longstanding change to one of the big five factors of personality.
9
SPEAKER_00
They had increased openness.
9
SPEAKER_00
Openness is supposed to actually go down over time.
9
SPEAKER_00
And these traits aren t supposed to be that malleable, and it was significantly altered, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
But imagine if you just created more openness in a person, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
And they re now open to a lot more, and they wanna explore a lot more, but you don t give them the tools of discernment.
9
SPEAKER_00
That could be problematic for them in important ways.
9
SPEAKER_00
That could be very problematic.
9
SPEAKER_01
Yes, I got it, but you know, so you have to land the plane in a productive way somehow, integrate it back into your life and how you see the world and how you frame your perception of that world.
9
SPEAKER_00
And when people do that, that s when I call it a transformative experience.
9
SPEAKER_00
Now, the higher states of consciousness are really interesting because they tend to move people from a mystical experience into a transformative experience.
9
SPEAKER_00
Because what happens in these experiences is something really, really interesting.
9
SPEAKER_00
They get to a state that s ineffable.
9
SPEAKER_00
They can t put it into words.
9
SPEAKER_00
They can t describe it.
9
SPEAKER_00
but they do this, they re in this state temporarily, and then they come back and they do this.
9
SPEAKER_00
They say, that was really real, and this in comparison is less real.
9
SPEAKER_00
So I remember that platonic metadesire.
9
SPEAKER_00
I wanna change my life myself so that I m more in conformity with that really real.
9
SPEAKER_00
And that is really odd, Lex, because normally when we go outside of our consensus intelligibility, like a dream state,
9
SPEAKER_00
When we come back from it, we say, that doesn t fit into everything, therefore it s unreal.
9
SPEAKER_00
They do the exact opposite.
9
SPEAKER_00
They come out of these states and they say, that doesn t fit into this, right, consensus, right, intelligibility, and that means this is less real.
9
SPEAKER_00
They do the exact opposite, and that fascinates me.
9
SPEAKER_00
Why do they, why do they flip?
9
SPEAKER_00
our normal procedure about evaluating alternative states.
9
SPEAKER_00
And the thing is, those higher states of consciousness, precisely because they have that ontonormativity, the realness that demands that you make a change in your life, they serve to bridge between mystical experiences and genuine transformative experiences.
9
SPEAKER_01
So you do think seeing those as more real is productive, because then you reach for them?
9
SPEAKER_00
So Yadin s done work on it.
9
SPEAKER_00
Again, all of this stuff isn t recent, so we have to take it with a grain of salt.
9
SPEAKER_00
But by a lot of objective measure, people who do this, who have these higher states of consciousness and undertake the transformative process, their lives get better, their relationships improve,
9
SPEAKER_00
Their sense of self improves, their anxieties go down, depression, like all of these other measures, the needles are moved on these measures by people undergoing this transformative experience.
9
SPEAKER_00
Their lives, by many of the criteria that we judge our lives to be good, get better.
9
SPEAKER_01
I have to ask you about this fascinating distributed cognition process that leads to mass formation of ideologies that have had an impact on our world.
9
SPEAKER_01
So you spoke about the clash of the two great pseudo-religious ideologies of Marxism and Nazism.
9
SPEAKER_01
Especially their clash on the Eastern Front.
9
SPEAKER_01
Can you explain the origin of each of these, Marxism and Nazism, in a kind of way that we have been talking about the formation of ideas?
9
SPEAKER_00
Hegel is to Protestantism what Thomas Aquinas is to Catholicism.
9
SPEAKER_00
He was like the philosopher who took German Protestantism and also Kant and Fichte and Schelling, and he built
9
SPEAKER_00
a philosophical system.
9
SPEAKER_00
He explicitly said this, by the way.
9
SPEAKER_00
He wanted to bridge between philosophy and religion.
9
SPEAKER_00
He explicitly said that.
9
SPEAKER_00
I m not foisting that on him.
9
SPEAKER_00
He said it repeatedly in many different places.
9
SPEAKER_00
So he was trying to create a philosophical system that gathered to it, I think, the core mythos
9
SPEAKER_00
of Christianity.
9
SPEAKER_00
The core mythos of Christianity is this idea of a narrative structure to reality in which progress is real, in which our actions now can change the future.
9
SPEAKER_00
We can co-participate with God in the creation of the future, and that future can be better.
9
SPEAKER_00
It can reach something like a utopia or the promised land or whatever.
9
SPEAKER_00
He created a philosophical system of brilliance, by the way.
9
SPEAKER_00
He s a genius.
9
SPEAKER_00
But basically what it did was it took that religious vision and gave it the air of philosophical intelligibility and respect.
9
SPEAKER_00
And then Marx takes that and says, you know that process by which the narrative is working itself out that Hegel called dialectic?
9
SPEAKER_00
I don t think it s primarily happening in ideas.
9
SPEAKER_00
I think it s happening primarily between classes within socioeconomic factors, but it s the same story.
9
SPEAKER_00
Here s this mechanism of history.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s teleological.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s gonna move this way.
9
SPEAKER_00
It can move towards a utopia.
9
SPEAKER_00
We can either participate in furthering it
9
SPEAKER_00
like participating in the work of God, or we can thwart it and be against it.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so you have a pseudo-religious vision.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s all-encompassing.
9
SPEAKER_00
Think about how Marxism is not just a philosophical position.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s not just an economic position.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s an entire worldview, an entire account of history and a
9
SPEAKER_00
a demanding account of what human excellence is.
9
SPEAKER_00
And it has all these things about participating, belonging, fitting to.
9
SPEAKER_01
But it s very, in Marx s case, it s very
9
SPEAKER_01
pragmatic or directly applicable to society to where it leads to, it more naturally leads to political ideologies.
9
SPEAKER_00
It does, but I think Marx to a very significant degree inherits one of Hegel s main flaws.
9
SPEAKER_00
Hegel is talking about all this and he s trying to fit it into
9
SPEAKER_00
right, post-Kantian philosophy.
9
SPEAKER_00
So for him, it s ultimately propositional, conceptual.
9
SPEAKER_00
He, like everybody after Descartes, is very focused on the propositional level, and he s not paying deep attention to the non-propositional.
9
SPEAKER_00
This is why the two great critics
9
SPEAKER_00
of Hegel.
9
SPEAKER_00
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they re trying to put their finger on the non-propositional, the non-conceptual, the will to power or faith in Kierkegaard, and they re trying to bring out all these other kinds of knowing as being inadequate.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s why Kierkegaard meant when he said Hegel made a system and then he sat down beside it.
9
SPEAKER_00
Right.
9
SPEAKER_00
And so Marxism is very much, it is activists, it s about reorganizing society, but the transformation in individuals is largely ideological, meaning it s largely about
9
SPEAKER_00
these significant propositional changes in adopting a set of beliefs.
9
SPEAKER_01
When it came in contact with the Soviet Union, or with what became the Soviet Union, why do you think it had such a powerful hold on such a large number of people?
9
SPEAKER_01
Not Marxism, but implementation of Marxism in the name of communism.
9
SPEAKER_00
Because it offered people, I mean,
9
SPEAKER_00
It offered people something that typically only religions had offered, and it offered people the hope of making a new man, a new kind of human being in a new world.
9
SPEAKER_00
And when you ve been living in Russia, in which things seem to be locked in a system that is crushing most people, getting the promise
9
SPEAKER_00
in the air of scientific legitimacy that we can make new human beings and a new world and in which happiness will ensue.
9
SPEAKER_00
That s an intoxicating proposal.
9
SPEAKER_00
You get sort of, like I said, you get all of the intoxication of a religious utopia, but you get all the seeming legitimacy of claiming that it s a scientific understanding of history and economics.
9
SPEAKER_01
It s very popular to criticize communism, Marxism these days.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I often put myself in the place before any of the implementations came to be.
9
SPEAKER_01
I tried to think if I would be able to predict
9
SPEAKER_01
what the implementations of Marxism and communism would result in in the 20th century.
9
SPEAKER_01
And I m not sure I m smart enough to make that prediction because at the core of the ideas are respecting, with Marx it s very economics type theory, so it s basically respecting the value of the worker.
9
SPEAKER_01
and the regular man in society for making a contribution to that society.
9
SPEAKER_01
And to me, that seems like a powerful idea, and it s not clear to me how it goes wrong.
9
SPEAKER_01
In fact, it s still not clear to me
9
SPEAKER_01
Why the hell did this, like, would Stalin happen?
9
SPEAKER_01
Or Mao happen?
9
SPEAKER_01
There s something very interesting and complex about human nature in hierarchies, about distributed cognition that results in that.
9
SPEAKER_01
And it s not trivial to understand.
9
SPEAKER_01
No, no.
9
SPEAKER_01
So I mean, I wonder if you could put a finger on it.
9
SPEAKER_01
Why did it go so wrong?
9
SPEAKER_00
So I think, you know, what Ohana talks about in the intellectual history of modernity,
9
SPEAKER_00
talks about the Promethean spirit, the idea, the really radical proposal, and think about how it s not so radical to us.
9
SPEAKER_00
In that sense, Marxism has succeeded.
9
SPEAKER_00
The radical proposal that you see even in the French Revolution, and don t forget the terror comes in the French Revolution too,
9
SPEAKER_00
that we can make ourselves into God-like beings.
9
SPEAKER_00
Think of the hubris in that, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
And think of the overconfidence to think that we so understand human nature and all of its complexities and human history, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
And how religion functioned and every, that we can just come in with a plan and make it run.
9
SPEAKER_00
It s, to my mind, that Promethean spirit
9
SPEAKER_00
It s part of why it s doomed to fail, and it s doomed to fail in a kind of terrorizing way, because the Promethean spirit really licenses you to do anything, because the ends justify the means.
9
SPEAKER_01
The ends justify the means really free you to do some of, basically,
9
SPEAKER_01
will commit atrocities at any scale.
9
SPEAKER_00
Ground zero with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, right?
9
SPEAKER_00
Exactly.
9
SPEAKER_00
And you only you can only believe in an ends that can justify any means if you believe in a
10
SPEAKER_00
and you can only believe in the utopia if you really buy into the Promethean spirit.
10
SPEAKER_00
So is that what explains Nazism?
10
SPEAKER_00
So Nazism is part of that too.
10
SPEAKER_00
The Promethean spirit that we can make ourselves into supermen, ubermensch, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
And Nazism is fueled very much by appropriating and twisting
10
SPEAKER_00
sort of Gnostic themes that are very prevalent.
10
SPEAKER_00
Gnosticism tends to come to the fore when people are experiencing, you know, increased meaning crisis.
10
SPEAKER_00
And don t forget, the Weimar Republic is like a, a meaning crisis gone crazy on all levels.
10
SPEAKER_00
Everybody s suffering domicile.
10
SPEAKER_00
Everybody s home and way of life and identity and culture and relationship to religion and science, all of that.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so Nazism comes along and offers a kind of Gnosticism, again, twisted, perverted.
10
SPEAKER_00
I m not saying that all Gnostics are Nazis, but there is this Gnostic mythology, mythos, and it comes to the fore.
10
SPEAKER_00
I remember, and this stuck with me in undergrad, I was taking political science.
10
SPEAKER_00
And the professor, extended lecture on this, and it still rings true for me, says, if you understand Nazism as just a political movement, you have misunderstood it.
10
SPEAKER_00
It is much more a religious phenomenon.
10
SPEAKER_00
in many ways.
10
SPEAKER_01
Is it religious in that the loss of religion, so is it a meaning crisis, or is it out of a meaning crisis every discovery of religion in a Promethean type of?
10
SPEAKER_00
I think it s the latter.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think there s this vacuum created
10
SPEAKER_01
in that context, is Hitler the central religious figure?
10
SPEAKER_01
And also, did Nazi Germany create Hitler or did Hitler create Nazi Germany?
10
SPEAKER_01
So in this distributed cognition where everyone s having a dialogue, what s the role of a charismatic leader?
10
SPEAKER_01
Is it an emergent phenomena or do you need one of those to kind of guide the populace?
10
SPEAKER_00
I hope it s not a necessary requirement.
10
SPEAKER_00
I hope that the next Buddha can be the Sangha rather than a specific individual.
10
SPEAKER_00
But I think in that situation, Hitler s charisma allowed him to take on a mythological, in the proper sense, archetypal
10
SPEAKER_00
became deeply symbolic, and he instituted all kinds of rituals—all kinds of rituals and all kinds of mythos.
10
SPEAKER_00
There s all this mythos about the master race, and there s all these rituals.
10
SPEAKER_00
The swastika is, of course, itself a religious symbol.
10
SPEAKER_00
There s all of this going on because he
10
SPEAKER_00
was tapping into the fact that when you put people into deeper and deeper meaning scarcity, they will fall back on more and more mythological ways of thinking in order to try and come up with a generative source to give them new meaning-making, I should say meaning-participating behavior.
10
SPEAKER_00
What is evil?
10
SPEAKER_00
Is this a word you avoid?
10
SPEAKER_00
No, I don t, because I think part of what we re wrestling with here is resisting the Enlightenment, I mean the historical period in Europe, the idea that evil and sin can just be reduced to immorality, individual human immorality.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think there s something deeper in the idea of sin than just immoral.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think sin is a much more comprehensive category.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think sin is a failure to love wisely so that you ultimately engage in a kind of idolatry.
10
SPEAKER_00
You take something as ultimate, which is not.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that can tend to constellate
10
SPEAKER_00
these collective agents, I call them hyper-agents, with indistributed cognition that have a capacity to wreak havoc on the world that is not just due to a sum total of immoral decisions.
10
SPEAKER_00
This goes to Hannah Arendt s thing, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
The banality of Eichmann.
10
SPEAKER_00
And she was really wrestling with it.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think she s close to something, but I think she s slightly off.
10
SPEAKER_00
Eichmann is just making a whole bunch of immoral decisions, but it doesn t seem to capture the gravity of what the Nazis did, the genocide and the warfare.
10
SPEAKER_00
And she s right, because you re not gonna get just the summation of a lot of individual, rather banal, immoral choices adding up to what was going on.
10
SPEAKER_00
You re getting a comprehensive
10
SPEAKER_00
parasitic process within massive distributed cognition that has the power to confront the world and confront aspects of the world that individuals can t.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think when we re talking about evil, that s what we re trying to point to.
10
SPEAKER_00
This is a point of convergence between me and Jonathan Pageot.
10
SPEAKER_00
We ve been talking about this.
10
SPEAKER_01
So the word sin is interesting.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
10
SPEAKER_01
Are you comfortable using the word sin?
10
SPEAKER_01
I m comfortable.
10
SPEAKER_01
Because it s so deeply rooted in religious texts.
10
SPEAKER_00
It is, it is, and in part, and I struggle around this, because I was brought up as a fundamentalist Christian, and so that is still there within me.
10
SPEAKER_00
There s trauma associated with that.
10
SPEAKER_01
Probably layers of self-deception mechanisms.
10
SPEAKER_01
No doubt, no doubt.
10
SPEAKER_01
That you re slowly escaping.
10
SPEAKER_00
Trying to, and trying to come into a proper, respectful relationship with Christianity via a detour through Buddhism, Daoism, and pagan Neoplatonism.
10
SPEAKER_01
Trying to find a way how to love wisely.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yes, exactly.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so I think the term sin is good because somebody may not be doing something that we would prototypically call immoral,
10
SPEAKER_00
But if they re failing to love wisely, they are disconnecting themselves in some important way from the structures of reality.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think it was Hume, I may be wrong, Hume says, you know, people don t do things because they think it s wrong.
10
SPEAKER_00
They do a lesser good in place of a greater good.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that s a different thing than being immoral.
10
SPEAKER_00
Immoral, we re saying, you re doing something that s wrong.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s like, well, no, no, you know, I m loving my wife.
10
SPEAKER_00
That s a great thing, isn t it?
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but if you love your wife at the expense of your kids.
10
SPEAKER_00
ah, maybe something s going awry here.
10
SPEAKER_00
Well, I love my country, great.
10
SPEAKER_00
But should you love your country at the expense of your commitment to the religion you belong to?
10
SPEAKER_00
People should wrestle with these questions.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think sin is a failure to wrestle with these questions properly.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, to be content with the choices you ve made without considering, is there a greater good that could be done?
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
10
SPEAKER_01
Your lecture series on the meaning crisis puts us in dialogue in the same way as with the podcast with a bunch of fascinating thinkers throughout history.
10
SPEAKER_01
Heidegger, Corbyn, the man Carl Jung, Tillich, Barfield.
10
SPEAKER_01
Can you describe, this might be challenging, but one powerful idea from each that jumps to mind?
10
SPEAKER_01
Maybe Heidegger?
10
SPEAKER_00
So for Heidegger,
10
SPEAKER_00
One real powerful idea that has had a huge influence on me, he s had a huge influence on me in many ways.
10
SPEAKER_00
He s a big influence on what s called 4E cognitive science.
10
SPEAKER_00
And this whole idea about the non-propositional, that was deeply afforded by Heidegger and Marlowe-Ponty.
10
SPEAKER_00
But I guess maybe the one idea, if I had to pick one, is his critique of ontotheology.
10
SPEAKER_00
his critique of the attempt to understand being in terms of a supreme being, something like that, and how that gets us fundamentally messed up, and we get disconnected from being because we are over-focused on particular beings.
10
SPEAKER_00
We re failing to love wisely.
10
SPEAKER_00
We re loving the individual things, and we re not loving the ground from which they spring.
10
SPEAKER_01
Can you explain that a little more?
10
SPEAKER_01
What s the difference between the being and the supreme being, and why that gets us into trouble?
10
SPEAKER_00
Okay, so like, well, we talked about this before, the supreme being is a particular being, whereas being is no thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s not any particular kind of thing.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so if you re thinking of being as a being, you re thinking of it in a thingy way about something that is fundamentally no thingness.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so then you re disconnecting yourself from presumably ultimate reality.
10
SPEAKER_00
This takes me to Tillich.
10
SPEAKER_00
Tillich s great idea is understanding faith as ultimate concern rather than a set of propositions that you re asserting, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
So what
10
SPEAKER_00
What are you ultimately concerned about?
10
SPEAKER_00
What do you want to have, what do you want to be in right relationship to?
10
SPEAKER_00
Ratio religio, what, and is that ultimate?
10
SPEAKER_00
Is that the ultimate reality that you conceive of?
10
SPEAKER_00
Are those two things in sync?
10
SPEAKER_00
This has had a profound influence on me, and I think it s a brilliant idea.
10
SPEAKER_01
So some of the others, how do they integrate?
10
SPEAKER_01
Maybe the psychoso, the Carl Jung.
10
SPEAKER_01
And Freud, which team are you on?
10
SPEAKER_00
I m on Jung.
10
SPEAKER_00
Freud is the better writer, but Jung has, I think, a model of the psyche that is closer to where cognitive science is heading.
10
SPEAKER_00
He s more prescient, so.
10
SPEAKER_00
Which aspect of his model of the psyche?
10
SPEAKER_00
Directly, so Freud has a hydraulic model, the psyche s like a steam engine, things are under pressure, and there s a fluid that s moving around, it s like, bzzzt, like this is, Ricoeur noted this.
10
SPEAKER_00
Jung has an organic model.
10
SPEAKER_00
The psyche is like a living being.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s doing all this opponent processing.
10
SPEAKER_00
It s doing all of this self-transcending and growing.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think that s a much better model of the psyche than the sort of steam engine model.
10
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about their view of the subconscious mind?
10
SPEAKER_01
What do you think their view and your own view of what s going on there in the shadow?
10
SPEAKER_01
All bad stuff, some good stuff?
10
SPEAKER_00
Any stuff at all?
10
SPEAKER_00
Well, I mean, both Freud and Jung are only talking about the psychodynamic unconscious, which is only a small part of the unconscious.
10
SPEAKER_01
Can you elaborate?
10
SPEAKER_00
They re talking about the aspects of the unconscious that have to do with your sort of ego development and how you are understanding and interpreting yourself.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, what else is there?
10
SPEAKER_00
There s the unconscious that allows you to turn the noise coming out of my face hole into ideas.
10
SPEAKER_01
There s the unconscious that says, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_00
All that stuff, which is huge and powerful.
10
SPEAKER_01
And they didn t think about that.
10
SPEAKER_01
They were focused on the big romantic stuff that you have to deal with through psychotherapy, that kind of stuff.
10
SPEAKER_00
which is relevant and important, I m not dismissing, I m not saying it doesn t exist, but it s certainly not all of the unconscious.
10
SPEAKER_00
A lot of work that s going on, my colleague and deep friend Anderson Todd, is about can we take the Jungian stuff and the cognitive science stuff and can we integrate it together, theoretically?
10
SPEAKER_00
And so he s working on that, exactly that project.
10
SPEAKER_00
but nevertheless, your sense is there is a subconscious.
10
SPEAKER_00
Or at least an unconscious.
10
SPEAKER_00
I like the term unconscious, and Jung continually reminded people that the unconscious is unconscious, that we re not conscious of it, and that s its fundamental property.
10
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and then isn t the task of therapy then to bring, to make the unconscious conscious?
10
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, to a degree, right?
10
SPEAKER_00
But also, I mean, yeah, to bring consciousness where there was unconscious is part of Jung s mythos, but it s also not the thought that that can be completed.
10
SPEAKER_00
Part of why you re extending the reach of the conscious mind is so it can enter into more proper dialogical relationship with the self-organizing system of the unconscious mind.
10
SPEAKER_01
What did they have to say about the motivations of humans?
10
SPEAKER_01
So for Freud, jokingly, I said, you know, sex, so much of our mind is developed in our young age, you know, sexual interactions with the world or whatever.
10
SPEAKER_01
Hence the thing about the edible complex and all, you know, I wanted to have sex with your mother.
10
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about their description about what motivates humans, and what do you think about the will to power from Nietzsche?
10
SPEAKER_01
Which camp are you in there?
10
SPEAKER_01
What motivates humans?
10
SPEAKER_01
sex or power?
10
SPEAKER_00
I think Plato is right, and I think there s a connection for me.
10
SPEAKER_00
Plato s my first philosopher, Jung s my first psychologist, and Jung is very much the Plato of the psyche.
10
SPEAKER_00
You never forget your first.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yep, you never do, you never do.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I think we have
10
SPEAKER_00
I reject the monological mind.
10
SPEAKER_00
I reject the monophasic mind model.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think we are multi-centered.
10
SPEAKER_00
I think we have different centers of motivation that operate according to different principles to satisfy different problems.
10
SPEAKER_00
And that part of the task of our humanity is to get those different centers into some
10
SPEAKER_00
internal culture by which they are optimally cooperating rather than in conflict with each other.
10
SPEAKER_01
What advice would you give to young people today?
10
SPEAKER_01
They re in high school trying to figure out what they re gonna do with their life, maybe they re in college.
10
SPEAKER_01
What advice would you give how to have a career they can be proud of or how to have a life they can be proud of?
10
SPEAKER_00
So the first thing is find an ecology of practices and a community that supports them without involving you in believing things that contravene our best understood science so that wisdom and virtue, especially how they show up in relationships, are primary to you.
10
SPEAKER_00
This will sound ridiculous, but if you take care of that,
10
SPEAKER_00
other things you want are more likely to occur.
10
SPEAKER_00
Because what you most want, what you want when you re approaching your death, is what were the relationships you cultivated to yourself, to other people, to the world, and what did you do to improve the chance of them being deep,
10
SPEAKER_00
and profound relationships.
10
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s an interesting, so ecology of practice, so like finding a place where a lot of people are doing different things that are interesting, interplay with each other, but at the same time is not a cult, like where ideas can flourish.
10
SPEAKER_01
Now, how the hell do you know
10
SPEAKER_01
because in a place where people are really excited about doing stuff, that s very ripe for cult formation.
10
SPEAKER_00
Especially if they re awash in a culture in which we have ever-expanding waves of bullshit, yes, precisely.
10
SPEAKER_00
So.
10
SPEAKER_01
Try to keep away from the bullshit is the advice.
10
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
10
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I take this very seriously, and I was with a bunch of people in Vermont at the Respawn Retreat, people, Rafe Kelly was there, bunch of people who have set up
10
SPEAKER_00
ecologies of practices and created communities.
10
SPEAKER_00
And I have good reason to find all of these people trustworthy.
10
SPEAKER_00
And so we gather together to try and generate real dialogos, flow in distributed cognition, exercise the collective intelligence, and try and address that problem, both in terms of
10
SPEAKER_00
you know, metacurriculum that we can offer emerging communities in terms of practices of vetting, how we will self-govern the federation we re forming so that we can resist gurufication.
10
SPEAKER_01
Gurufication of people or ideas, yeah.
10
SPEAKER_01
Both, both.
10
SPEAKER_01
Some of us just get unlucky.
10
SPEAKER_00
Some of us get unlucky and we all respond, we all had a traumatic experience.
11
SPEAKER_01
sense of urgency around this, but we were trying to balance it about not being premature, but there is going to, I mean, there s...
11
SPEAKER_01
We re gonna produce a meta-curriculum that s coming in months.
11
SPEAKER_01
There s gonna be a scientific paper about integrating the scientific work on wisdom with this practitioner-based ideas about the cultivation of wisdom.
11
SPEAKER_01
There s going to be projects about how we can create a self-correcting vetting system so we can say to people, we think this ecology is legit.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s in good fellowship with all these other legit
11
SPEAKER_01
Ecology is, we don t know about that one.
11
SPEAKER_01
We re hesitant about that one.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s not in good fellowship.
11
SPEAKER_01
We have concerns.
11
SPEAKER_01
Here s why we have our concerns, et cetera.
11
SPEAKER_01
And you may say, well, who are you to do that?
11
SPEAKER_01
It s like nobody, but somebody s gotta do it, right?
11
SPEAKER_01
And that s what it comes down to.
11
SPEAKER_01
And so we re gonna give it our best effort.
11
SPEAKER_00
It s worth a try.
11
SPEAKER_00
You talked about the meaning crisis in human civilization, but in your own personal life,
11
SPEAKER_00
what has been a dark place you ve ever gone in your mind?
11
SPEAKER_00
Has there been difficult times in your life where you really struggled?
11
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
11
SPEAKER_01
So when I left fundamentalist Christianity, and for a while I was just sort of a hard-bitten atheist, the problem with leaving the belief structure
11
SPEAKER_01
was that I didn t deal with all the non-propositional things that had gotten into me.
11
SPEAKER_01
All the procedures and habits and all the perspectives and all the identities and the trauma associated with that.
11
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, it required therapy, it required years of meditation and Tai Chi, and I m still wrestling with it.
11
SPEAKER_01
But for the first four or five years, I would
11
SPEAKER_01
I described it like this, I called it the black burning.
11
SPEAKER_01
I felt like there was a blackness that was on fire inside of me, precisely because the religion had left a taste for the transcendent in my mouth, but the food it had given me, food in square quotes, had soured in my stomach and made me nauseous.
11
SPEAKER_01
And the juxtaposition of those seemed like an irresolvable problem for me.
11
SPEAKER_01
That was a very, very dark time for me.
11
SPEAKER_01
Did it feel lonely?
11
SPEAKER_01
When it was very bad, it felt extremely lonely, and deeply alienating.
11
SPEAKER_01
The universe seemed absurd, and there was also existential anxiety.
11
SPEAKER_01
I talk about these things for a reason.
11
SPEAKER_01
I don t just talk about them as things I m pointing to.
11
SPEAKER_01
I m talking about them as seeing in myself and in people I care, having undergone them.
11
SPEAKER_01
and how they can bring you close to self-destructive.
11
SPEAKER_01
I started engaging in kinds of self-destructive behavior.
11
SPEAKER_00
So the meaning crisis to you is not just the thing you look outside and see many people struggling, you yourself are struggling.
11
SPEAKER_01
But that s in fact the narrative, is I struggled with it, thinking it was a purely personal, idiosyncratic thing.
11
SPEAKER_01
I started learning the Cog Psy, I started doing the Tai Chi and the meditation, I started doing all this, right, Socratic philosophy.
11
SPEAKER_01
And when I started to talk about these pieces, I saw my students  eyes light up, and I realized, oh wait,
11
SPEAKER_01
maybe this isn t just something I m going through. 
11
SPEAKER_01
And then talking to them and then doing the research and expanding it out, it s like, oh, many people in a shared fashion and also in an individual lonely fashion are going through meaning crisis.
11
SPEAKER_00
Well, we talked a lot about wisdom and meaning, and you said that the goal is to love wisely, so let me ask about love.
11
SPEAKER_00
What s the role of love in the human condition?
11
SPEAKER_01
It s central.
11
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s even central to reason and rationality.
11
SPEAKER_01
This is Plato, but Spinoza, the most logical of the rationalists.
11
SPEAKER_01
The ethics is written like Euclid s geometry, but he calls it the ethics for a reason.
11
SPEAKER_01
he wants to talk about the blessed life.
11
SPEAKER_01
And what does he say?
11
SPEAKER_01
He says that ultimately, reason needs love, because love is what brings reason out of being entrapped in the gravity well of egocentrism.
11
SPEAKER_01
And Murdoch, Iris Murdoch, said, I think really beautifully, love is when you painfully realize that something other than yourself is real.
11
SPEAKER_00
Escaping the gravity well of egocentrism.
11
SPEAKER_00
Beautifully put, a beautiful way to end it.
11
SPEAKER_00
John, you re a beautiful human being.
11
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for struggling in your own mind with the search for meaning and encouraging others to do the same and ultimately to learn how to love wisely.
11
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much for talking today.
11
SPEAKER_01
It s been a great pleasure, Lex.
11
SPEAKER_01
I really enjoyed it a lot.
11
SPEAKER_01
Thank you so much.
11
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with John Verbeke.
11
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
11
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Herman Hesse and Siddhartha.
11
SPEAKER_00
I ve always believed, and I still believe, that whatever good or bad fortune may come our way, we can always give it meaning and transform it into something of value.
11
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.