Welcome back to NPTEL, the National Program on Technology Enhanced Learning. We are now at the end of our course entitled English Language and Literature and I hope it has been used our lectures have been useful to you and also at various levels whether you are a student in an engineering college who has opted for an elective or is in a core course in English language and literature or whether you are a student at a higher level for instance at a postgraduate level going back to the basics. So, I welcome you again this final time to this lecture, which is entitled Cognitive Approaches to Literature. As you know we are in module 4 which is or which has been dedicated to dedicated to literary criticism. We have seen or we have been through a number of lectures this module as in some of the other modules. Module is being shared by Professor Krishna Borva and me and we looked at several I must say schools of literary criticism. Starting with classical criticism then moving on to liberal humanism, Marxism, feminism, reader response, criticism, new historicism, ecocriticism, structuralism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism and finally today we are in a lecture entitled Cognitivism. So, this lecture is on cognitive approaches to literature. It is not that a cognitive approach was not there you know in the field of literary criticism, but when we say cognitive contemporary cognitive approaches to literature. We are referring to a kind of literary criticism that has emanated following you know what many call this sort of explosion of studies from the cognitive point of view more about this later. But again they said you know the 1990s were known as the decade of the brain and in a sort of systematic sort of way the study of mind, consciousness, attention, learning, memory, parts of cognition were not really carried out in literary criticism. For a long time perhaps many thought that you know talking about the psychological aspects of literary texts that we were it was enough for us to understand the literary texts from a Freudian point of view or more recently from a Lacanian point of view. But the cognitive approach to literary texts we agree is a new approach and we shall see how it moves away or it goes beyond the kind of psychoanalytical criticism of literary texts which we have understood till now and which was largely Freudian in its framework. So, we are really looking at a new way in many ways it is you know a lot of work has already been done though it may not be practiced very widely in many countries. So, I would like to first refer to a few titles here those of you who are interested by no means of course is this an exhaustive list, but some of the pioneering works in this field are definitely Mark Turner's the literary mind and we will talk about the literary mind just in a while. There are the books that are useful for us not simply from a literary point of view for instance Baudin's The Creative Mind, Myths and Mechanisms, Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live by Peter Stockwell's this is more of course to do with Poetics, Cognitive Poetics, Patrick Com Hogan's The Mind and Its Stories, Mary Crane's Shakespeare's Brain of these if you look at texts that are largely to do with literary studies is we may refer to Peter Stockwell and Mary Crane's books there as I said several works in fact you know there are works by Turner by Stockwell by George Lakoff among others that deal also with Poetic Metaphors for instance. So, this is just a sample I must admit of texts that you know we talk about when we talk about literary criticism from a cognitive point of view. Well, let me begin with a reference to Jonathan Gershaw's Literature, Science and a New Humanities. Well, the title of his book is important in the sense that it points to a new humanities which of course is based as the title suggests or a scientific and systematic way of looking at texts. So, let us read from this text where Gershaw has to say that the literary scholar's subject is ultimately the human mind, the mind that is the creator, subject and auditor of literary works. Now, many schools we have been through so many schools of literary criticism the approach, the onus, the focus and all these schools vary definitely Marxism as we know will look at the largely the socio-cultural, the economic and we look at the literary texts as a part of the superstructure. Feminism will point in many different ways to issues of gender, issues of sexuality for instance. Post-colonialism will look at the texts from the point of view of colonialism and anti-colonialism. In today's lecture I think it is good to begin with Jonathan Gershaw's reminder here that we look at the text, but do we look or how often have we looked at the mind that creates the text. So, again the literary scholar's subject is ultimately says the human mind, the mind that is the creator, subject and auditor of literary works and also there is the other very important aspect to cognitive literary studies is also the mind that cognizes the text, not simply the mind that creates the text, but the mind that cognizes or the mind, the readers mind of the reader which is also an important aspect of cognitive literary studies. So, you can I am sure you feel right away you understand that we are moving into a realm in which the text of course matters, but the creator of the text and the reader of the text are seminal in this case. It is not to say that the text per se is not important or that cognitive studies will not look at some formalist aspects of the text, but it is the mind that creates which is the central focus here. So, I hope you understood through you know Gershaw's words what exactly we are looking for in a cognitive or rather the central point of focus in a cognitive approach to literary text. Then again reading from Gershaw the primary, the primary sorry activity of literary critics of all theoretical and political slants has been to pry open the craniums of characters. Here of course, it means the minds or the brains or the minds of characters, authors and narrators climb inside their heads and spelunk through all the bewildering complexity to figure out what makes them tick. So, again as we said he says that well you may be from any school of literary criticism you may be a practitioner of any school of literary criticism or you may have several you know different political orientations, but as he says ultimately what are we looking at we are trying to understand the characters, we are trying to understand their minds, we are trying to understand authors and as readers others are also trying to understand how we as readers understand the text. Then there are these further questions that he asks for instance we know in Shakespeare's Hamlet that the Hamlet hesitates to take revenge. We know that he is you know he is impelled on the one hand to buy the ghost of his father to take revenge, but we know he hesitates. So, what is what goes on our curiosity definitely is what goes on in the mind of Hamlet as is evidenced by the text. That tells us why Hamlet hesitates to carry out this revenge act or for instance what is Malo telling us about the heart of darkness, what is what is the heart of darkness in his work by the same name and why of course, why do we respond to such to certain situations to certain characters for instance what how why do we respond in certain ways to Hamlet's predicament. To what extent as I think Kolarich put it if I am not mistaken that we all of us have a Hamlet in us or all of us are Hamlet to a certain extent. So, why do certain characters elicit certain responses from us, why do we identify with certain characters and some of their predicaments. All this has to do with mind with with memory with understanding with perception and hence we call it the cognitive approach to literary text. Therefore, why do we respond as we do in short the traditional job of literary scholars has been to explore why characters act and think as they do and to explain significances in the messages that takes that text convey to readers. In fact, the the critic here is saying that well, if you if you look carefully, if you consider carefully the job of reading or the or the function that we perform when we read a text, the procedures the processes you we should not be surprised to discover that all this while we have been actually trying to find out you know certain cognitive factors. For instance, he says even the traditional job of literary criticism has been to explore to understand our first curiosity is why does a character behave the way he or she does and what is the significance of you know the messages that the the text and the characters there in convey to our readers. In short, how do we cognize a literary text, cognize in all you know the aspects that we may think of memory, attention, perception etcetera right. So, well this is we have begun with his words you know with a particular critic who in fact says that throughout even without the cognitive revolution and the building up of a cognitive way of looking you know cognitive science, we are looking at text or approach to text all even traditional ways of looking at text are basically basically cognitive exercises. Now, the if you remember where we have referred to Crane's important book Shakespeare's brain and this title itself may be extremely you know simulating right. It is very exciting at least to me that is when we when we entitled when one entitles a book Shakespeare's brain then the first thing that comes to us is what kind of book is this is this a book which you know study is a neuroscientific study of Shakespeare's brain what are we to expect from such a book right. The the argument that Mary Crane gives is not an argument from neuroscience the appeal may be to certain findings in cognitive sciences about or about the brain, but of course it is a text from literary criticism. Let us read a very brief extract or a paragraph from her book and we shall find out what is going on in such a book. Crane says and I quote Shakespeare provides a particularly appropriate test case for a literary theory that purpose to offer a new way look at this. A new way of conceiving authorship especially one that challenges the Foucaultian deconstruction of the author in several ways. In our lecture on post structuralism right we saw very clearly the attack on the whole concept of you know of an author as so the creator of a text as the author as the you know the origin of a text right. We saw through Foucault through Derrida's you know through Rola Bad for instance when we came across the famous sort of dictum if you may use the word the death of the author right. So, Crane says that well this goes beyond and challenges such notions of the death of the author where language is supreme where the creator is language and not a flesh and blood person and she says that well Shakespeare is one of the best examples for us to understand or to raise new questions of authorship as she says here to offer a new way of conceiving authorship that is based on you know based on how the mind creates a text how you know or based on the mind of the author right. So, many to many critics this cognitive way of looking or cognitive approach to a literary text is the next big thing right after high theory as many put it after theories of deconstruction of post structuralism in general and post modernism may be to an extent in general and to really bring the text as it were back to the flesh and blood author. So, let us read this quickly again Shakespeare provides a particularly appropriate test for a little test case for a literary theory that purpose to offer a new way of conceiving authorship especially one that challenges the Foucaultian deconstruction of the author in several ways or focus she says next or focus on Shakespeare's brain allows us to attend to Shakespeare as an author right. A focus on Shakespeare's brain allows us to attend to Shakespeare as an author without losing the complexity authored by contemporary theory this is again very important this is not a going back is not a simple going back to older theories or you know or even to you know autobiographical literary criticism as we have understood it so far. She says that looking at Shakespeare's brain that is through the text of course looking at Shakespeare's brain looking at Shakespeare as the author of the works that he has created the works that are attributed to him not withstanding of course all the debate that goes on about whether Shakespeare really was the author or whether there were several authors or some other author not looking at those but you know the cognitive approach the beauty in the cognitive approach lies in this that it does not do away with you know the complexities and the problematical issues that have come up after you know the you know after the coming in of theory right of basically language based theory that you know both like structuralism and post structuralism that have for you know for for all time to come really changed what literary criticism is. So understanding Shakespeare as an author as a real author attributing the text back to him does not do away with the complexity offered by contemporary theory and this is really the beauty so that so much so that today you have post structuralist cognitive approaches to literature where Marxist cognitive approaches to literature we have feminist cognitive approaches to literature these which means that this approach is extremely varied I would say is extremely encompassing and accommodating and not losing out on what previous theories have if I may say worked hard to offer us about the text right. So using a cognitive literary and literary and cultural theory derived from the cognitive sciences she says attempts to reintroduce into serious critical discourse a consideration of Shakespeare's brain as one material side in this cognitive literary theories also this kind of talking about authorship is also known as a new materialism or a new embodied way of looking at the text as one material site for the production of dramatic works attributed to him. Now again let us read what she says in many ways Shakespeare's plays are much about the coming into being of cognitive subjects this is beautifully put we may look and reinterpret Shakespeare's plays as you know the coming into being of cognitive subjects the characters may be looked from the point of view of you know of many of the tools theories propositions and suggestions that are given have been given to us by cognitive theories following the record of the brain. So in many ways as she says the plays are as much about the coming into being of cognitive subjects in a variety of environments as they are about the construction of cultural subjects by a variety of discursive formations this is important. We saw you know in that literary theory and cultural studies at least cultural studies as we understand you know the domain as not as a study of culturally but as you know an analysis of culture as a text an analysis of that is based on you know on a structuralist and post structuralist orientation. So she says that of course the text may be read and are considered as you know as because how subjects how subjectivity or identity of characters for instance in a text are you know caused by a variety of discourses a variety of ways of talking about things a variety of discursive formations. But she says at the same time we may also look at once as Macbeth we can look at Hamlet for instance as the development of a cognitive subject as she says the coming into being of cognitive subjects which again let me remind you does not do away with all the complexities that have been brought to our notice complexities of texts of character of subjectivity that have been brought to importantly brought to our notice by cultural criticism you know and language based criticism. The then she says that the plays represent what it is like these words are extremely important please pay attention the plays represent what it is like to conceive of oneself as an embodied mind along with all the problems and dilemmas that condition entails and we should look at this later contemporary cognitive science some of you know some of the postulates are based on a very important departure from you know the old Decartian way of looking at the mind and body as two different entities from what we call Cartesian dualism to an understanding of the mind in the body to an understanding as the mind emanating from the body not at all you know different from the body. The question of embodiment is an important question and cognitive literary criticism has much to there is so much promise here really in you know when you try to when you realize that the whole you know the whole new approach grows when you look at the characters as embodied beings and you skim the text or you search the text for references to embodiment and you begin to understand the characters themselves as as Mary crane has put it as coming into being as cognitive subjects particularly from an embodied perspective. So this is again definitely a new way of looking at literary texts now ok now let us look at now we have of course talked about theoretical part of it now let us look at an instance that has given to us by the critic right. So we will look at an analysis of remember the one of our questions was why does Hamlet hesitate right why does Hamlet hesitate to kill Claudius his uncle who is married his mother after having killed you know Hamlet's father right and it is it should be really it should not be a very difficult task for Hamlet to take revenge or to avenge his father's death right but we know that Shakespeare gives us a character who who hesitates the delaying question in Hamlet is a central question of the text why does Hamlet delay the killing of Claudius ok now how is this to be answered from a cognitive point of view as given to us in books like Shakespeare's brain ok now let us look at this why does Hamlet not act now this again I have taken from the text in question the play on several levels makes us question the nature of action ok this of course so many critics have done those of you I have you know worked on or who have who are in say the graduate opposed graduate levels you are you under you you know that the you know act the fact that Hamlet does not act ok action and inaction are you know is a core binary in you know in Shakespeare's Hamlet right and so many critics have talked about the nature of action also from a philosophical perspective what is it to act right to be and not to be that is the question is also interpreted in so many ways and among them is to act or not to act right but how is this difference in different in this case let us look at this the play on several different levels this is how a cognitive is like Mary Crane would argue the play on several different levels makes us question the nature of action which I said many have already done but by using a different we may say approach or methodology if I may use the word by focusing on the processes behind it this is very important ok the nature of action which has the hitherto been dealt with from a philosophical point of view from other points of view from a psychoanalytical point of view is now understood or sought to be understood by looking at the very processes that lie behind it ok now let us read on further Hamlet centers around two insistent questions and this is the way the analysis is being done Hamlet centers around two insistent questions what do human subjects have within this is important ok what number one what two human subjects have within the only say the inner world of human subjectivity in general and how is that inner self the second question how is that inner self related to the external or related to external action in the world right so now you see moving on from a purely philosophical perspective what is being done here is we are talking about subjectivity from a cognitive perspective and importantly the processes that go on into the creation of subjectivity in a given point of time in time and space right what do human subjects have within and second how is that inner subject or inner subjectivity or inner self as she puts it how is it related to external action in the world I follow so you understand that it is the nature of the mind that is central here not the nature of action this is immensely important remember before this what critics were doing where we are looking at trying to understand action as said from several perspectives including the philosophical here what is happening is we are looking at as she puts it external action in the world by focusing on the inner world or the inner self right so Hamlet's hesitance Hamlet's delay in acting in the play is to be understood first from how Hamlet a cognizes right his inner self ok how he understands himself ok and we have to look at the solid ok is the dialogues you know different events and episodes in the text from the point of view of the cognitive processes that are going inside Hamlet's mind and of course it is a it is really a one of the best texts for us because you know if not for other reasons so many the so many soliloquies and you know the so many reflective sort of you know parts of the text that allow us to have a look at what is going on in Hamlet's mind do you follow ok. Then second Hamlet understanding ok Hamlet's understanding of action in the external world ok outside of himself outside of his subjectivity again in relation to his inner self now do you follow this is the change we get in focus when we look at Hamlet from a cognitive perspective. So, again Hamlet centers around says Mary Crane to insistent questions what do human subjects have within and how is that inner self related to external action in the world the play considers these issues not just directly in speeches and soliloquies as we said just a while ago ok speeches soliloquies even a size ok these are direct indicators of the state of mind of a character and what for those who can look carefully at it also at the processes that go on inside the characters mind right there are indicators they are clear direct indicators, but you know says the critic that the play Hamlet the Hamlet considers this or gives us this issues in obviously in speeches and in a size and in soliloquies but she says it is important for us to also see what is being you know told what is being indicated however indirectly through the structure of the text right she says here also structurally in the organization in the plot structure for instance of the of the play in its organization around poles of inside and outside in its delaying plot and in its representation of character do you follow so again structure plot organization of plot in relation to different set of binary opposites and this set is that of the inner world and the outer world as she says here of outside and inside and I said the indicators are also to be found in the outside not simply in the subjectivity of the character which is obviously you know very well evidence by soliloquies etcetera right, but structurally how the plot is organized around the binary the core binary of inside and outside gives us an understanding or an explanation so to speak or analysis of the delay in the text as far as action is concerned and in its representation of character why I brought this example you know this analysis is because I want you to understand that this whole business of doing a cognitive approach is not just is not a neuroscientific approach we are not looking as Shakespeare's brain really the physical brain of Shakespeare so simply because we do not have it with us, but it is a very rich and to me personally you know it is really one of the richest ways or that one can look at a text right and in this case in the case of Hamlet as we saw earlier approaches you know to action and inaction sociological psychoanalytical or philosophical is given another very important trust through the cognitive aspect of looking at for instance understanding the text through or by putting subjectivity and you know opposites like binary opposites like inside and outside at the center of the critical enterprise right. A cognitive then she says a cognitive Hamlet look at the so beautifully put a cognitive Hamlet or a cognizing Hamlet as a character a cognitive Hamlet who binds himself up in a tangle of imagined look at this imagined in a processes right is no less tragic than a politically or psychologically crippled prince all you know this while we have looked at Hamlet from a definitely from a political angle from a psychological angle and we have seen the what we call the predicament or the dilemma of this brooding prince ok. So, she says that a cognitive Hamlet is no less tragic than a political Hamlet or as she says here a psychological Hamlet right a cognitive Hamlet or understanding Hamlet's mind from a cognitive perspective elicits the same amount of you know same amount of tragedy of tragic circumstances of empathy in us right and in some cases of course of identification in us with Hamlet in as strong ways as a political interpretation of Hamlet would suggest fine. So, this is well in the beginning one example that we have seen of you know an enriched and enriching way of looking at a literary text. So, now we are going to go back to ask very fundamental questions for instance what is cognitive science we know this is the kind of literary criticism we are talking about emanates from a new way of looking at phenomena which is known as the cognitive science enterprise one of the most important paradigms in all branches of knowledge be it computation philosophy anthropology literary text etcetera. We understand cognitive science in very simple a very simple and elementary way as a study of mind and intelligence from and this is extremely important from an interdisciplinary perspective there is no a or one framework through which we understand mind and intelligence the very you know the very nature of cognitive science is that it is not simply cognitive psychology nor is it just simply the you know a theory of mind right it is an interdisciplinary and by its very nature that is why we call it an interesting complex enriched domain that has so many disciplines that come together to give it and a very important right interdisciplinary thrust. So, cognitive science is known as the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. We call this you know we call we call this a cognitive revolution really and as I referred to the 1990s as being known as the decade of the brain some of you know some of some of the very important research findings coming through neurosciences for instance or also looking not just neurosciences looking at the brain from several perspectives. So, the cognitive revolution in a sense is a revolution that has come about following the theories and models proposed on human information processing in to put it very simply really cognitive science would look at the mind as a set of information processing machines or modules right the information human information processing is the core lies at the core of the cognitive revolution whether you understand human information processing in terms of you know the brain as a web computer with inputs and outputs looking at the brain as the hardware the mind as the software etcetera and all the metaphors that come with it or you looking at human information processing from other you know other frameworks. The point important point is at the core of the cognitive science revolution at least as it began now let me qualify it by saying it is not that the mind as a human you know information processing machine it is not that it has not been contested or challenged, but it began if you may put it safely while looking at the mind as a web computer while looking at the mind as a set of information processing machines. The computer therefore, became a metaphor for the human brain following the beginning of this revolution and human memory was understood as a storage and retrieval system and one of the most important questions here was the mind brain relation and asking questions like what is the mind and as one of my students says in class can we even say or pose a question like what is the mind if the brain is everything and of course finally the growth of evolutionary psychology the coming in a very strong way and of course the establishing and the fact that it has it is here to stay the understanding of our present psychological propensities are present psychological endowments tendencies by looking at how the mind had developed in evolution. So, evolutionary psychology is almost like what we call reverse engineering looking at the present human mind trying to understand its design and structure also the design and structure of the mind that leads or that can create a literary text. So, these are some of the ways in which we may begin to define what cognitive means and at least what cognitive means as a framework of understanding and analysis. So, therefore, we have a new paradigm also in literary studies not just in literary studies of course everywhere where we call it a huge shift a paradigm shift as some scholars put it there is this appropriation of the findings of cognitive science by literary studies. It is wrong to assume it is wrong to assume that cognitive science has sort of subsumed or has appropriated literary studies it is quite the other way round findings from suggestions from cognitive science are being appropriated by literary studies of course by some critics in a bid to sort of redeem ourselves as many would put it from the impulse that has been created by deconstruction by post structuralism and to have a new material if not biological basis for the understanding of the creative mind the mind that creates the literary text and the mind that receives a response to the literary text the minds of the characters therein. So, therefore, we call it an appropriation of cognitive science findings at least by literary studies. So, we then call the imagination a biologic or a biological imagination the even imagination the obviously is something that emanates from the brain. So, human beings of course are organic beings they are complex organic beings and they are cognitive agents the imagination is embodied comes from the mind from the brain the body and this has quite you know successfully spells you could say the final doom if we may use the word the final doom of Cartesian dualism that Cartesian dualism René Descartes who suggested as known as the first modern philosopher you know the very famous statement that we have from him cogito ergo sum or I think therefore, I am the importance of reason the beginning of modern you know of modern philosophy. But here this sounds very the death knell of Cartesian dualism because it understands the mind as embodied the mind is coming from the brain and the body. So, just keep this slide Alan Richardson in philosophy and you know literature in 1999 this journal extremely important journal philosophy and literature and in an article in a you know way back in 1999 Alan Richardson talks about the future of literary studies in terms of cognitive science remember 1999 we are you know at the fragment of a decade that has been known that was known as a decade of the brain and Richardson suggests in philosophy and literature that the future of literary studies perhaps lies in cognitive approaches to the text and to the author and he says here that the rise of cognitive studies or cognitive approaches to literary text may have arisen with what he calls dissatisfaction with post structuralism this is the point we have referred to a while ago dissatisfaction with post structuralism and which aspects of post structuralism those aspects which deal with relativism particularly at its relativistic and anti humanist extremes. Let me quickly say what anti humanism is it does not mean anti humanitarian anti humanism here means when we do not consider the human as the center of reference is nothing to do you know nothing but it is not does not talk about it is not about humanitarian of being human you know being of being empathetic of being altruistic etcetera. Humanism is a school of thought or an ideology if you will wherein the human being is the center of reference right post structuralism as we have seen in our lecture on post structural or structuralist criticism is a school of thought which does which is surely anti humanist in the sense that the ego is understood the human ego is understood in terms of things outside of it be it social structures or be it you know be it an understanding of of things from a language perspective where we have seen statements like the death of the author. So, there was it seems a dissatisfaction and we also know that post structuralism deconstruction have also met with bad press in the sense that there are many scholars who downright even question the very validity of looking at literary texts from a post structuralist relativistic anti humanist perspective. So, there was a dissatisfaction in many quarters or with post structuralism and its relativistic aspects and Alan Richardson says that well this turn what we call the cognitive turn in literary studies may well have been kind of you know they may have been almost fortuitous in the sense that on the one hand we had the you know the findings about the brain the very material new materialism a new you know a biologist we may say that was coming in from the sciences and from other you know in a very interdisciplinary sort of way and the time seemed to be right when there was a dissatisfaction with post structuralism and the need you know so to speak to have a more tangible material based you know approach to the literary text which was not not the Marxist literary not only the Marxist literary text that or literary criticism that we had seen earlier. And also there he says to imagine a future after post modernism after the you know the huge attack on enlightenment thought right that came about with post modernism there was also you know people wanted different you know people wanted to find out ways in which there was an imagining of future discourses future frameworks without recourse you know to words terms like discourse and discursive formations for instance right. They wanted to be able to imagine it says imagine a future after now what next after post modernism right all this these theories talking about you know talking about collages recollages talking about I am talking about relative relativism talking about depthless culture right talking about floating signifiers after that what so they seem to have been by the end of you know if not earlier by the end of the 20th century a hankering for a new way of looking at things that sort of would at least give us a solid ground to stand on. So, then he says areas within literary studies that most closely border on the relevant disciplines within the cognitive neurosciences particularly what are the areas that are important here or which directly refer to the cognitive neurosciences reader response criticism. So, there is a reshaping a revamping if you will of the earlier theories that we had of reader response criticism of fish of easer for instance and reshaping them from the point of view from the point of view of the findings of the cognitive neurosciences. The metrics and of course, narratology from a cognitive point of view was immensely important was an immensely important revamp how the mind creates stories right. Of course, we had you know Russian critics like Vladimir Prok for instance who talked about you know the 33 or so main kind of elements in folktales for instance. They were these very important interventions made in as far as theories of narratology went, but there was definitely new ground now for studying narratology the mind that creates stories the kinds of stories that are created by the mind evolutionary speaking when did man begin to create stories and myths what was the need in that evolutionary phase to have a certain cognitive fluidity evolutionary speaking in the mind that gave rise to stories when the metaphor the metaphorical imperative begin to emerge. So, these are new ways of asking questions these are not old questions and answers that come these are new ways new because it comes from a new framework all together. Then he says old, but cry out for look at this look at this phrase here old, but cry out for rethinking in terms of recent work in cognitive psychology, psycho linguistics and artificial intelligence. In artificial intelligence many of you are aware that they have been they have been serious and sometimes successful attempts to create computer programs that write stories to have certain kind of you know you have inventories a certain algorithms that try to solve mimic. If I have time I shall show you some of these try you know this we call this automatic story generators to have computers you know bring about stories and or to produce stories that seem even novels that seem to have been written by human beings. This is in a bid to understand how the mind again creates stories or creates narrative to understand. So, as Richardson here says that of course, these new findings in cognitive neurosciences and in this interdisciplinary areas like you know or other disciplines that have come in like psycho linguistics, like artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology gave or created an environment or a discursive framework from which we could re you know as I said revamped some of the older ways of looking at an answering questions about literary creativity about reader response etcetera. Then remember I referred to Mark Turner and his very important book the literary mind where he when he talks about not the literary mind as a mind that is literary, but he talks about our minds being inherently literary our minds being inherently predisposed to creating stories. So, this is another aspect or another way of looking at the mind from a cognitive science perspective that is the mind is already literary and then he talks about what he calls the reframing of the study of English or study of English language or study of literature is what is mentia a reframing he says cognitive sciences has brought about a reframing of the study of English. So, that it seems to be seen as inseparable from the discovery of mind again remember the mind here is central the mind its processes and its products are you know is seen as central here and we look at we study the literary text understanding it and accepting the fact it is in that studying a literary text is inseparable from a study of the mind or the discovery of the mind as he puts it participating and even leading that way in that discovery. This is really not a tall claim if you consider the fact that he you know he describes defines the mind as a literary as being literary in the first place. So, it is not again that he is giving a different slant to what was said earlier by I think I think Alan Richardson when he is when it was suggested that literary studies appropriates the findings of cognitive studies what Richardson is saying here is only it can also be the other way around sometimes literary studies may also the reframing when it is reframed from a cognitive point of view may also lead you know it takes like handler for instance may contribute to cognitive studies it is not just that we use the schemas from cognitive sciences from neurosciences in a bit to understand Hamlet. What is suggested here is a text a complex text like Hamlet and what it talks about the indicators given by the plot and the character and situations the soliloquies as we saw earlier the ascites the speeches may also throw light on cognitive processing. So, it seems it is that critics I have pointed to both parts of the negotiation understanding a literary text from a cognitive perspective and understanding the mind from a literary perspective. So, as we come to the end of this lecture on cognitive sciences I know the feeling I get is we have barely begun to sort of you know scratch the surface of you know the interface between cognitive sciences and literary science the literary text the understanding of literary products the understanding of characters of authors from you know keeping mind and subjectivity for instance as the core reference points understanding from which from you know the centre from which may fan out different ways of looking at the text. So, I will quickly you know by way of recap of what we have done I will quickly you know pose questions and then try and give you an indication as to how to answer those questions. For instance let us go back to the beginning and let us try and understand how literary in a ask a question like this how for instance how is a text like Shakespeare's Hamlet understood or approached from a cognitive point of view. So, how would you answer this question we could answer this question by looking simply at you know an important aspect of the text that is action action and the lack of action or non-action and we may say that well we know that Hamlet's you know the delay in the text of action of taking revenge has been looked at from so many aspects from psychoanalytical aspects from philosophical aspects from political aspects. What is new here in this we are looking at the text is we place the mind first at the centre we do not deny that Hamlet is a political being of course, that the text is definitely a political one or a very strong you know a text that strongly lends itself to psychological or psychoanalytical criticism. But we say that the tragedy of Hamlet is not to be understood simply from a psychoanalytical perspective or from a political perspective we argue that understanding Hamlet through trying to understand the processes of his mind and remember there are two ways as Mary Crane suggests. One is the obvious way of trying to understand the cognitive processes of his mind or even trying to explain his delay by referring to the speeches the soliloquies as I said the asides for instance which are as I said direct indicators of Hamlet state of mind. But also as was suggested by the critic at another level even if it is an indirect one the structure of the play the organization of the plot also are if you look at them carefully indicators of the inner self of Hamlet. For instance the question important question how does the inner self what is the dialogue of the inner self what is the negotiation of the inner self with external action in a socio cultural setup that we understand Hamlet from that point of view. Now, let us look at another question simple question like what do we understand first of all what do we understand by cognitive we know that by cognitive we refer to terms like attention perception learning memory all these are part and parcel of the literary text and the reader of the literary text. So, much so that reader response criticism today is completely you know it is a there is a huge change in reader response criticism from the kind of reader response criticism that was taught to us or we understood I had understood from using theories of Eiser for instance, Wolfgang Eiser or Stanley Fish. We are now looking at the processes that go on inside the reader's mind at both an individual and at a collective level reader response criticism is hugely empirical today as we carry out a test on several subjects you know to understand different the varied ways in which a text may be responded to by the reader whether in you know in an individual way or in a community way they are cross cultural cognitive studies done on reader response. So, attention the importance of memory for instance we are reading a literary text you try and understand what role memory plays as you understand a literary situation also identification with the character for instance how we cognitively identify with Hamlet bringing back the old suggestion you know the suggestion given by if I am not mistaken with Scholaridge I think of saying that there is a Hamlet in all of us. So, this is the new angle that is being brought in and third question how is imagination looked at in cognitive science and what are its implications for literary studies then we need to say that with cognitive sciences there is a new materialism which is not the materialism of Marxism, but it is the materialism sorry a materialism that is a biologic materialism and in that sense it suggests the end of you know say the final length really of Cartesian dualism where the mind is here the mind is seen as emulating from the body the imagination is biologic is biological is material it comes from the firing of neurons it is the mind is not separate from the body and the literary critics and its creator have to be understood in such terms finally, the final question is what may we say cognitive approach to literary studies was a reaction to and it has been suggested by several critics really that post structuralism deconstruction which are anti humanist in their approach which are which try and understand you know literary creativity from the point of view of linguistic structures denying you know in a very fundamental way the authorship to a text saying you know for instance I remember a quotation for you know for instance Malami the French poet was asked once who is speaking and Malami answered language is speaking this is the kind of approach you find in post structuralism and deconstruction, but as perhaps a reaction to you know to such formulations as were given by deconstruction by post structuralism as a reaction to that as a reaction to the end of reason of enlightenment thinking as was suggested by post modernism perhaps as a reaction and many critics have felt as a reaction to that to such fluidity reaction to such you know unknowability perhaps this new materialism this biologic materialism was something that many critics really embrace many critics perhaps embrace for the sigh of relief that here now we have the tangible the material in place of the intangible and in the in place of an extreme relativity. So, there of course, so much else to talk about this is just to give you and to really end this course you know this course that we been with you know through 40 lectures and to you know show you that in what direction literary criticism is now moving with of course, the caveat that this is not a reductionist way of looking at the text you know we take recourse to cognitive neurosciences and its findings to cognitive psychology to artificial intelligence with the understanding the very important understanding that literary the literary text is not reducible to those domains the text the literary text and the literary author these are you know the author is reinstated so to speak and look at the text beautiful book like Shakespeare's brain by very crane for instance also through books like the literary mind the mind you know literary literariness is not a you know a unique or it is not something that nobody possesses a book like the literary mind would suggest that every mind is literary the mind is literary in design in the first place. So, these are new things that have come up and I would be very happy of some of you move your studies in that direction and really thank you so much even you know on behalf of my colleague professor Krishna Bharra we would like to you know thank you profusely for being with us and you know we really hope these lectures have been useful to you and as I as I said know even whether you are in the engineering you know domain sciences and technology or you are in the humanities domain let us not make clear cut divisions and this last topic which is the cognitive approach to literature is such a beautiful clear example of interdisciplinarity and in that spirit let me end this course goodbye.


again. Welcome folks. This is Tom O'Brien of TFNN. We go five days a week. We go seven hours a day. We go 24 hours a day on the Internet at TFNN.com. Always remember folks, whatever you think about, you bring about whatever you focus on grows. Hope everyone's having a great day, safe day. It's a TGIF and it's April 12th, folks. We have April 15th up there, but it's April 12th. Be impeccable with your word. Seek to know the truth. When you hear an opinion and believe it, you make an agreement and that becomes part of your belief system. The only thing that can change that agreement is to make a new one based on the truth. Only the truth has the power to set you free. Mock it wise. Let's take a look at it out here. We have the Dow Industries down 540. NASDAQ off 300. S&P's down 86. Gold. Gold contract down $18.20. Trade to $23.54. We have Silver down 16 cents. $28.09. Light sweet crude. Up 50 cents. $85.52 a barrel. Notes and bonds. Attending a note. Down 16 ticks. Trade to $108.20. The 30 year off 25. At $116.01. And King dollar. King dollar. Right now trading up 755 ticks. $106.038. Yen 153. British pound. $124.01. U.S. dollar. Our phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Give us a call, folks. I want to know what's going on in your world. And the world of the S&Ps, let's go there first. So bottom line, we get the spy going lower. We have 67 million shares, so it's big volume. And what's game here is this gap. The gap is 417. Yeah, 497, rather. So bottom line, we're at 509. You get, what, 13 points to look more? That's a couple of days like today. And we do have the arms going up finally. The bottom line is that we're at 193 earlier. Let's see what we're at. Yeah, we're at 199 right now. And yesterday was kind of weird because they, we had a closing gap of, I mean, arms of 123. Because when I was on the air, it was only at 0.76, which made no sense at all. But bottom line, this is catching up now. And if you do listen to Tim Wood myself, he's always talking about if you get a two days arms over three, we're going to get a bounce the next day. So we may be going to bounce the next day, but I would be really careful in the context that once this actually starts, I think the panic is going to get a little bit bigger because those gaps are so wide open. Oh, gold. We got to go to gold first. So look at this, man. This is gold. This is, this is what gold does, man. But I'll tell you, we got all the way up to 2448. And right now, you're at 2355. But look at that volume, 452,000 contracts. When you get higher volumes like this, the bottom line is that, yeah, you get a pullback, but you're going to be right back topside. So I expect that's exactly what we're going to see happen. We go to the GDX. We take a look at the GDX. The GDX went up to a price point of $35.74. And same thing, huge volume, took out the swings, took them out with volume, gave it up on price. And so when you see that, you go right back topside. Right now, the GDX is trying to take out the $36.28 area. We went to the note and bonds, and then, you know, we get 2.1 million contracts, but we're going to need at least that on Monday to get back in the range. The range that we're talking about here is still quite far away. We're at 108. 1016 gets you back in the range. So oil, CLA, we'll go to the oil market, take a look at oil. Oil's holding up. Oil went to 87.67, 340,000 contracts. That's good contract value. It wants to break this area, man. Oil wants to break this area. So the volatility's here in spades. What is going to get interesting is to see the aspect, you know, the whole news this morning was that Israel's bracing for an unprecedented direct attack from Iran. My take is that that's not going to happen, because someone already knows, because I think the gold market went up for that, and the gold market came down for that. So we'll see what happens over the weekend. But bottom line is that the commodities, in general, have been on an extraordinary run. I mean, extraordinary run. There's no doubt about it. Some of the higher vol... Oh, well, let's go to JP Morgan. This is a heavy deal. So JP Morgan came out with numbers this morning and gapped down 11 bucks, man. I mean, in a big way. So let's take a look at this. Let's see what we have on a weekly. Okay, so it's down on volume. This is serious business, man.  So that's kind of where we broke topside from. That's the last time we had any volume. So that's still, you know, what that's still another eight points down from where we are. Let's go take a look at a few of the others, because what I've watched is that a few of the other banks really haven't got hit. They're going to get hit, man. Bank of America is down 72 cents, you know. Let's see when they come out with their numbers. Okay, the 16th. Yeah, these banks are going to get hit. If JP Morgan get hit, trust me, everything's going to get hit, because that's the best run bank out there. So there's going to be problems here. That being said, though, I suspect what you have is that that gap is going to be really interesting, particularly because the arms are going up so dramatically right now. A couple more days of that, you can imagine those, that arms are going right through the roof. The fare will intensify, and that's where the buy comes in, folks. That's the bottom line. So we go over to the, let's go over to Exxon Mobile. That's been on a tear also because of the oil market. Yeah, so let's pull them back two bucks today. And yeah, some of these can pull back quite a bit. I mean, we're at 119, 113 is game for Exxon. Let's put a straight line move up, though. I mean, Exxon went straight from 100 to 123. That is pretty wild. 23%. And that was from February 15th, two months, 23%. Yeah, the commodity run is on, folks. And it's on in a big way. Our phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. We have the dial. Industrial is down 516. Aztec off 310. S&P's off 90. Come right back.


Basically human bit with different DNA is okay to take their rights away and turn them into burgers Why aren't you vegan because I enjoy me do you think um because we derive Century pleasure from an action it morally justifies the action if a product has been ethically farmed there is nothing wrong with eating that meat Okay, well, I guess that's where we We part ways if it was you right now about to get shredded by a lion. I wouldn't go lions though, bro Do you change your position now you're off the reductio safe Okay, so the science is why aren't you vegan I'm interested in debating the ethical Principles of veganism with you. Are you a vegan? No, and do you have an opposition to the ethical principles of veganism we can debate I'm curious to see what your the basis of your ethical principles are. Okay, my position is something like with a few caveats it's something like Human beings should live without violating the negative rights of sentient animals or sentient beings really because animal or not You know, I'm not necessarily concerned with animals if they're not sentient That is my metric for moral value We share that in common with animals and I believe because we share that property of sentience with animals We should respect them enough not to enslave them kill them interfere with them frustrate them, you know and use them for our own Benefit provided it violates the negative rights. Hey, so I'm what sort of animals do you think have sentience? What do you think I mean by sentience? self-aware No sentience is able to have a subjective experience. Okay Consciousness under the banner. I if I say conscious and sentient I'm sort of have these under the same banner So it can be able to feel or perceive things But you need to be a subject as well like a having a subjective experience in order to have your rights violated You need to be an individual subject of this experience as well. So you see you believe that cows for example can Understand what they perceive rather than just experience them or also have an interpretation of what their experiences are beyond just the sensation Is that what you'd say? Oh, well, I don't think they're just machines that don't react or not react because plants react but respond to external Pain fear suffering well-being of course cows can have all these experiences Emotional complexity and yeah, they definitely what happens to cows matters to the cows for sure. No, yeah, I think I'd agree So on that basis then you are vegan for we'll stick with the cows tonight. I think because that's quite a good basis Do you think that? cows shouldn't be kept in captivity on farms and then killed at the end of that Well when they're ready to be sorted then on the basis that they are sentience Yeah, that's an aspect of what I'm concerned with But I think animals can have their rights violated in other ways not just in farms and not necessarily in captivity like I don't support hunting animals and using animals in entertainment Like, you know, SeaWorld for example So yeah, so there are forms of animal exploitation I would be opposed to other than This but yeah, but basically the principle would be the same it would be they they have an inherent value based on their sentence We shouldn't violate their their rights. Okay, I see so When we or propose we get rid of farms because we are vegan What do you propose happens to the animals that once were farmed? I'm hearing a practical argument more of a pragmatic sort of Argument here. What would we do if animals had rights? Yes Is that a justification that for animals not to have rights? Is that I'm just trying to get I'm curious to see What would happen to the animals once they're not being farmed whether that would lead to an improvement in their quality of life? Of course, I want to talk about that. But first do we agree cows should have rights? Because I want to talk so the reason I'm saying is because I wanted to make the principle before we go off when is it Achievable and what would happen if they did have rights? Would there be some issue with it? You know what I mean? So if we if you otherwise we won't move off the principle point until We've come to a you're still opposed to her and then we can debate it And then we could talk about what would happen to all the animals fun because I do have a good answer for this and we can talk About that. Yeah, so yeah, so in principle should cows have these rights. I'm talking about I think they should have rights I don't think they should be the same as human rights because I think humans and animals are different. They're separated That's a good place for us to hit to so when I talk about rights, I'm talking about negative rights So the right not to be enslaved and treated as property and murder and not to have something done to them You know, so when I'm talking and when humans have like all these positive rights and like the right to vote and all these things But I'm talking about these rights not to be into. Yeah, you know, yeah Yeah, because I need just learn these concepts myself because I know what they mean. I just call them fundamental rights Yeah, so basically not to be interfered with and things like this So you're saying we don't think animals should have those because like cows We can stick with cows because that's simple because it's different kinds of sea sponges, of course, which answer to you So you don't think cows should have a right to be protected from being interfered with but humans should because we're different Yes, I think so. So what is the morally relevant difference that justifies? Robbing animals of their rights for a burger. So let's say like cows for their their their moral right to exist for a burger And what's the difference between humans and animals that justifies in that context and not in the human context? It's very interesting. I have to think about this one for a second. Yeah, which is the point of this debate. So Yeah Why is it okay for cows? Why shouldn't cows have rights, but humans should have these fundamental rights? Well, I think one thing that is different is the human like capability of cognition And being able to think and reason is something that separates us from animal. Okay, so we're just putting our cognition Which We'll call it cognition To a human degree an average human degree or something. So what about this cognition because obviously cows have cognition? Yes, but you believe that humans have called cognition matters far more complex than cows Yes, I do. Okay. And do you have any other traits that separate us? So because we can go through all that once you've got a list we can go through them. Okay, sure Well, I guess a difference between humans and animals is Formational society complex society. It's so complex society because you know animals can fit. Yes, they can so they can have small communities But I think the the structure and the different levels of a human society are far beyond what animals have Okay. Yeah. Yeah, of course we have built a very structured on different principles to animal It's all hierarchies able to construct Complex civilization and you said something like the structure of our civilization is different for example I'm no biologist, but I Humans can form society off the principle. So for example democracy is One system that humans have and that isn't necessarily based solely on the principle of what is best for survival of the human species Especially at the stage right now. So we're having this debate and We could elect a leader based on the principle of veganism where the animals should have the same rights as humans animals don't form their Hierarchies based off that same principle their soul concern is always survival We operate under to operate under democratic principles. I'd say so. It's an interesting one. So you've got Cognition high-level cognition you called it reason reason Able to construct complex civilization. Yes, and you've got operate under democratic principles. Yes, they're the differences that justify Killing cows for burgers and not human beings meaning humans can have these fundamental rights protecting them and animals should not or Don't don't don't deserve them kind of thing I don't think that if humans stopped eating animals that that would be that animals would stop getting killed for food That's a different question My question is principally should animals have rights and you said no, they should not not like humans not fundamental rights Yeah, I'm not only talking about not not the same rights. I'm talking about the same negative rights Okay, sure not to be interfered with and you said they shouldn't because there's something different about us And now we're at the differences. Okay, and then you just kind of went off track Well, I don't want to go off track too much But we can't because we can debate all those things. I'm not avoiding them. I'm just trying to keep it focused on the difference Okay, so the first one you said um High-cognition. Yes, okay So this one here is actually quite easy to debunk because there are human beings who have these human rights The rights I'd wish to extend to non-human animals that don't have a high degree of cognition Would you support taking their rights away? No, I wouldn't and you can think of the communities. I'm talking about yes human beings I'm talking about a baby even a baby even yeah, so until a baby reaches this high level of cognition I can just violate their rights. Yeah, however, this baby has the capability to reach that higher level of cognition Yeah, that animals don't have animals That no animals can debunk that because we just did prior to that because I said there are communities of people without don't They aren't able to they have a faculty Disability that they can't they might even have had an accident car accident and they're they lost some type of brain capacity I mean, they should still have human rights though. Hey, yeah, but they're part of they are humans and Okay, now we're getting a different trait here. You know, this is a different trait So they have heart of the human species. Yeah, they're part of a species who has this higher cognition That's this capability to reach a high level of cognition. Yeah, so even though they can't Like there are people who can never reach this Higher ability of cognition Because they're part of a species that that can yeah, they should have human rights the animal shouldn't Yes, okay, we're gonna have to tie all these you think so Okay, that's good you're good for so obviously these these human beings That there are human beings who can't reach this high level of cognition and they're unable to construct complex civilizations I mean, I'm not unable to come construct a complex civilization And there are human beings who can't operate under Democratic principles as well the people that can't vote or even can there are people that We still protect with human rights who can't do any of these things. Yes, because human rights are universal and based on inherent value Yeah, they're not based on any of these things Well, actually, well, they're not The declaration of universal human rights that was not based on any of this stuff. What was it based off of? I? I'm not actually sure was it inherent value inherent value Part of the human species is an interesting one because because you could just say I don't know You could just say well, it doesn't matter if they can't do any of these things They're part of the human species species who can yeah, yeah, let's just change their DNA little so Hypothetically we change this this person who's this human being who doesn't have a high level of cognition Who's unable to construct a complex civilization who doesn't have the capacity to operate under democratic principles? Yeah, yeah, and they're no longer part of the human species But you wouldn't be able to tell actually they just have a different DNA So they have an uncanny resemblance to human species then we found out they actually didn't have a human DNA But you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at them. Is it okay to take their rights away and turn them into burgers? I'm not sure actually That's an interesting one They're not humans so on principle then They should be able to be farmed. I suppose. Yeah, I Would have to take that position. So so let me just be clear on this You would you don't have to I mean if you want if you if you believe that's that's if that's your moral framework. So basically this this Humanoid You couldn't tell the difference. They basically look like a human being they just have about the cognition of a cow They aren't able to do these things that you've listed We can take them Then humanoid basically human bit with different DNA They're not human can you know by the scientific metric, but we can take them and we can do what we do to cows to them um, I Suppose so because in this instance they aren't a person under how I would view humans and a human a human Okay, it's a legal. Oh, I suppose. Oh, yeah a human. Okay Okay, well, I guess that's where we are We part ways that's a that's a reductio.   We kill trillions of fish Yeah, um, I suppose in this case. So basically you have no consistency with your application of These moral concepts. It's just because they're human though. Yeah, I would say sorry, but um With that, do you do you think that there are Universal moral principles Then as your basis for I mean, I think that we should extend these fundamental rights based on inherent value to those who share that Property sentence with us. Yes. Otherwise we create a massive contradict contradiction Saying we expect this but screw them or they can't They don't have a higher cognition able to construct complex civilizations operate under democratic democratic Principles and not part of our human species. So we should be able to do what we want to them I don't have that. I think we should extend these otherwise. I just think we're huge moral hypocrites Okay, sure. Um, okay, if I if I can see this then and can see that We should extend rights to sentient animals Um, okay, and so you change your position now. You're off the reductio I think I might change my position here. Um, because I'm curious safe. We won't edit that out I think so. Um with the uh So so we we've stopped farming sentient animals. They've got equal rights Um, or or they've got animal rights fundamental rights. Yeah um With the idea of veganism as a whole Would it be wrong to eat an egg that you find? Just an unfertilized egg because that not intrinsically no, no not intrinsically so that wouldn't so that's not why i'm against eating eggs By the way, why are you against eating eggs then? because the industry entails uh, rights violations and egregious cruelty as well a welfare issue as well But mainly because it's incredible rights violation the the animals are selectively bred in order to produce eggs there But essentially egg laying slaves machines Um causing enormous strain on their bodies.  No better the male chicks are Exterminated in gas chambers or um, uh, they're minced up alive in blenders Because they don't lay eggs actually and the industry will will gas all these birds are over 90% gas these birds and uh Turn them into pet food or processed meat for human beings so it's an egregious rights violation and a horrible welfare issue and also, uh, can uh Containing birds like this is bad for a bird flu and uh zoonotic diseases as well But um, yeah, but that's why i'm against eating eggs and also viewing eggs as food To begin with like what you're doing. What about eating an egg is where these factory farms began? Okay, so your principle for this aspect of veganism is not based on It is based in the current situation of how animals are farmed, but if For example gathering eggs from the wild So subsistence egg farming, I suppose Was how eggs were collected the the chickens weren't harmed in the process of you just going out Have their rights violated? I think what we we're going to get these wild so you're foraging for wild chicken eggs in nature Yeah, I suppose So in nature, I think chickens only lay about So about 10 to 15 eggs a year. Okay, you're talking about taking their egg Yes, it's not like in in in farming situation.  This is what happened Eggs became food. They selected liberate chickens. Now we have factory farms So if you really like the dog poo that you just picked up randomly and it becomes a product of resource and we're enslaving dogs And doing what we're doing now, then yeah, I'll have a pretty bit of an issue with just Viewing that product as food because it's mentality that led led us there But less of an issue than an actual rights violation. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I see I see you're going about this. Yeah Yeah, that's I think that's the rights violation primarily like yeah, so so the attitude of viewing animal products as food has led to This there we are today and then You say that there'd be a regression if we started to we're just basically going back to ground zero essentially Okay, but that is a secondary concern from the actual rights violation and animals having rights Yeah, I see I'll be less concerned with it. I'm not like a full-on dogmatist. Oh my god.  No, I see what you mean. Okay. Yeah, that's fine Do you have any uh, did you want to discuss because now you are pushed you off of the mass murder of these Poor humanoid people I'm glad they don't exist.  Yeah, what would happen? So so these issues right of justice and like applying rights to sentient beings They usually happen in stages and in different places around the world first. I don't it's not like just what ubiquitous boom Rights everywhere, you know, so it would happen in stages and also the boycotts of people like yourself who may think it's unjustified to Put into demand these products that violate animal rights and cause egregious suffering and killing that would happen gradually too So there would be a gradual slowdown between demand and supply So that would stop breeding animals because the animals are here because they yeah because they're in demand Yeah, and they bred they're bred they're artificially bred.  That's how they're breeding them. That's why they exist because of the demand So as demand goes down So the supplier and then when animals have rights by that time They're probably not many animals being bred into existence because they'll do something like a phase out Yeah I said you mean, yeah, they'll be a slowdown in the our government would go tomorrow Stop they'll have to say or there'll be like a 10-year phase out of this industry Yeah, yeah, of course wouldn't happen And then with the animals that are left would obviously have a bunch of people who believe in animal rights Then because we probably have something something like a different a cultural shift and we protect those animals. Okay Yeah, I see you can't really release into the wild because they're not wild animals We created them they'd get eaten up by predators, which I wouldn't be in favor of okay. Yeah, sure, but it okay, so then Those sentient animals that are wild that get eaten by other animals Do you think that's just the way of the world or do you think the rights of those animals getting Prayed upon should be protected as well. Yes. Yes as well. Okay. Think about the movie um alien Let's just say they're an obligate carnivore and in a survival situation.  I see. Yeah, that would shoot them dead. Wouldn't me. Is that not a violation of that creatures? No, there's competing rights here.  Put it in the human. Put it in the human context. We shouldn't allow uh vicious uh Monsters to come and eat us just because they are uh You know their predator natural predators and in a survival situation like so, let's just say I've got a sanctuary, right? And I've got we have animal rights. Okay, and I've got a sanctuary I'm protecting these the last of these sheep from the animal industry. Yeah. Yeah, and there's uh some wolves Okay, right and these wolves need to eat the starving hungry. Yeah now they come into Essentially they have rights now these my sheep your sheep. Yeah, but they're not my sheep. They are sheep I mean guardianship of sheep have rights. It's like children. They have their own rights But anyway, these I'm protecting and giving them guardianship wolves come they need to eat And they come in and try to shred my sheep alive The sheep in my caroline. Yeah, should I allow that to happen? If you think it's your if you think it's your duty to intervene then Yeah, you shouldn't allow that to happen. If they were children now, I would protect them. Yes I wouldn't say well, they're natural predators. What are you on about dude? Yeah, okay So I wouldn't have a double standard there like if it was humans if it was you right now I'm about to get shredded by a lion. I wouldn't go lions though, bro Natural circle alive, bro. Yeah, I suppose so. Yeah I'm asking for consistency. I know it sounds a bit crazy. Should we go out into the wild to protect Animals from predators? Well, I'm just like thinking about our contribution first Um, it's a practical issue practical issue Out there. It's crazy out there. You know, I don't think just because something's natural It means it's good. Do you think because something's natural it's ethical or good? Um No, I don't think nature can be a basis or what we see is a basis for what is right Then I don't know what necessarily whether there is a basis for right at all Which I suppose is a different argument altogether. But um, well, I think maybe I think I think it's it's a fair judgment to say that There are there are rights rather than there aren't because if there aren't rights and you're wrong If you say there aren't rights and you're wrong, then that's a lot worse than you say Oh that that people should or beings should have rights and then you're wrong because if you say I get that Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess you either say that you say I'm hearing on the side of cautions Yeah, so it's um Pascal's wager but with rights. I suppose you say some people say rights don't exist They're a subjective construct, you know, but I do think they they have great utility Yeah, and we should have them because I want human rights And I think human rights should be universal and I do think we should extend them to animals And I think we got you to that position. I think is there anything else you want to quickly discuss Do you have any other how do you feel about this discussion by the way? I think it's been very interesting. Yeah, I did very very violence productive as well. Have I shifted you off any positions? um I think you Definitely shaken my position. I think what I want to do now is probably go back to a little bit of research and see Open my eyes a bit more to why aren't you vegan? Why aren't I vegan? Um, because I enjoy meat, I suppose and I enjoy Tasty food and meat can be very tasty Do you think um because we derive sensory pleasure from an action that morally justifies the action? um, not necessarily I I like to Not necessarily I I like no, so no, I I think that sensory pressure isn't a simple justification for this I think well, I previously uh believed in ethical farming practices And I in my in my previous view. I I thought that if a product has been ethically farmed Then there is nothing wrong with eating that meat. But I think now I'm going to go and probably to a A lot more research into What basis I have for that opinion if that makes sense I get you I get you ethical farming is an interesting one Okay, we can we can debunk that in practice and in principle. So we've got practice Yeah, you know, it's ethical farming. What's that ethical slaughterhouses? What do you mean by that? But then in principle we already we discussed the principle discussed the principle of farming overarching. Yeah So that that's that's why previously. So yeah, it's probably more I think it is productive just to discuss the principle because then we get to the rest of it, which is like Yeah, so basically Do you think you have a moral justification not to be vegan right now? um Because you're putting to demand this this thing that yeah, yeah, um With I that's very interesting. I'm not entirely sure I think I've still got a few questions. So for example with your sheep that you're guarding We're in a vegan world now. We've got animal rights and I'm guarding these sheep So this is what's hinging on you not supporting the industry right now. I was just curious once that sheep dies You respect its body then Is that part of its negative rights to leave the body of the sheep to honestly don't think that's part of negative rights I think it's part of dignity and I and now that we we recognize as uh, then as having inherent value I think we should be treat their body with dignity and put them in burial because that would have a name And they would be they would have personhood they'd be respected because then eating the animals leads to Demand of animals and viewing them as products these we're back at ground zero In that case, there's probably not very much as far as I can see in this right now much justification for not being vegan I suppose Yeah, so I think you I think maybe It would be good thing to look up how to be vegan and making sure that you're uh, having a healthy whole foods plant-based diet And I think you should supplement with b12 of course because uh, it's a it's a nutrient of concern So, I mean there's plenty of resources online There is so many dude like and it's very easy and there's an there's an array of vegan options So but if it is a little inconvenient at first you have to weigh up that that small amount of inconvenience with decapitating animals for this For pleasure basically because you like the taste in the same way of inaction against egregious human rights violations. I wouldn't simply Slowly one more way down I'd I'd like to think I'd analogize it with human beings and it's easy to make these moral decisions And it's a very that's a cheap You'll know more than a lot of people who have been vegan for a long time if you apply that principle You'll actually be able to navigate these discussions a lot You'll be able to develop a lot of people if you just put humans in place of the animals But but what we did here is we try equalized human beings leveled them out Yeah, we leveled them out a little bit so that it made it, you know, because obviously There are certain things that if we're more sentient than a certain being then obviously we should have more Of a consideration if it's one or the other But not for taste pleasure and things like this, you know what I mean? So there are different ways to justify it, but I think like you have great principles To go off of now. Yeah. Yeah. No. Well, thank you very much. I think that was productive Enjoy, uh classics. Yes, I shall You should look up to Pythagoras. Pythagoras. Yes He was one of the first animal rights activists and he even inspired the guy that was afraid of beans I don't know if I remember I was afraid of beans Yeah, I think that's why he died because he didn't want to touch any beans and he was getting chased down But that might be someone else Yeah, he was getting chased down by some people trying to kill him and his his religious cult For whatever reason were very opposed to beans and he came up to bean fields human beans human beans. Maybe maybe sentient beans He thought that was sentient beans He thought they're out to get him. But um, yeah, no, but he inspired, uh, William Shakespeare actually to be, uh, against Killing of animals and William Shakespeare has a poem a poem about the dairy industry and why it's bad. Okay. Well, probably have a look at that Animal rights stems pretty far back into I can imagine actually. Yeah. I mean to be fair you look at um Da Vinci I don't know. Another animal rights activist. Oh, was he? Yeah, well, it's very interesting as well seeing because of the classics There's a very different attitude to um animals back then because you've got animal sacrifice And things like that. So it's interesting to see I suppose a development from Sort of almost gratuitous killing of animals. So now what some people view as Uh, killing of animals for utility to actually it's there's no utility in killing them at all I think it's gotten way worse for animals and it's gotten better I've been an activist for a long time. Actually, uh, way it's way worse It's way out of controls as a result of industrialization. There are more gas chambers now than they've ever been in history for pigs There are more there are more slaughter factories now than they've ever been in history. There are more torture facilities farms factories prisons Now than it's ever been in history. There are more Sea animals being tortured and murdered than it has ever been in history. We've we've regressed Right now is the dark ages for animals. Okay, and we and we're all Oblivious to it because it's happening right now behind our you know Behind marketing and labeling and all these things, you know, yeah But I don't want to put you in uh dystopia, but when she went you know, I understand. Yeah, especially with um, what we've discussed now. Yeah, I see Once you open up once you open up pandora's box. You want a moment about your position? Yeah, definitely. Well On you mate. Thank you very much. Take care. I hope you enjoyed that chat with hugo I was doing a live stream after I was driving back from Cambridge And hugo actually left a message saying Enjoyed our conversation earlier. I might just have to change my ways so there you go a bit of a bit of a happy ending with hugo there a very intellectually honest guy and he Bit the bullet and then changed his position when he realized that maybe he doesn't want to hold a moral frameworks That's so inconsistent. So I really do respect intellectual honesty and someone who's able to change their position after realizing that the position has Not so ethical conclusions. So Good talking to you hugo and I'll see you all in the next debate