Susan Blackmore is a writer, lecturer, broadcaster, and Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth, UK. She has a degree in psychology and physiology from Oxford University (1973) an MSc and a PhD in parapsychology from the University of Surrey (1980). Her research interests include memes, evolutionary theory, consciousness, and meditation. She is author of about 15 books, 60 academic articles, 80 book contributions and many book reviews. The Meme Machine (1999) has been translated into nearly twenty other languages. She is a TED lecturer and often appears on radio, television and podcasts. TIMESTAMPS:(0:00) - Introduction (0:30) - Sue's Consciousness "Revelation" (Models All The Way Down)(4:30) - Michael Graziano (Attention Schema Theory)(7:40) - How is Sue's "Model" Different?(11:00) - Is This View Panpsychist?(14:47) - From Illusionism to Panpsychism(22:15) - Daniel Dennett (Free Will)(32:55) - Keith Frankish(38:14) - Views on Consciousness after Altered States of Consciousness(48:59) - Stuart Hameroff (Quantum Theories & TCC)(57:19) - Sue's Upcoming Work (e.g. Meme Machine 2.0)(1:00:21) - ConclusionEPISODE LINKS:- Sue's Round 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1VlYfgCHTA- Sue's Website: https://www.susanblackmore.uk/- Sue's Books: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Susan-Blackmore/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ASusan+Blackmore- Sue's Publications: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=MdxHaLwAAAAJ&hl=en- Sue's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_BlackmoreCONNECT:- Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Podcast: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/mindbodysolution- YouTube: https://youtube.com/mindbodysolution- Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu- Facebook: https://facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Instagram: https://instagram.com/drtevinnaidu- LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu=============================Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
All those priors, all those assumptions that we've made that
go into our experience, that is,I'm a model, I'm in here, I'm
looking out. And that's what we think of as
that's consciousness. All this other stuff going on in
the brain is not conscious. Well, I'm disputing that
completely, saying there's something it's like to be all of
(00:20):
these, but we're deluded because.
Oh, how's things going, Sue? How are you?
I'm fine. I mentioned in in the e-mail
that I, I'm, I'm down in my Hut.I have this writing Hut down in
(00:42):
Salcombe, which is a little townby the sea.
I, I can look out there and lookat the water and the howling
Gale and the wind and the rain at the moment again.
And I've just done a 10 day online retreat here, which
finished on Sunday night. So I'm still a bit sort of be
mindful, but to. All of those who who are
(01:04):
watching this are listening. The last time we spoke, you also
just finished a retreat, which is pretty cool.
That's weird. At the right time.
Yeah. Good.
I I normally only do 1A year occasionally, but that is a
slightly odd coincidence, yes. Anyway, how are you?
I'm good, I'm great. A lot has changed since we last
spoke. You sent me an e-mail a few
weeks ago saying we've got it all wrong about consciousness
(01:27):
and it's a new revelation. I would say you you've
experienced some sort of a new thought within the consciousness
community. So I'm super eager to discuss
and I say that. Well, it's not that super
brilliant at all. It's actually only a part of
what we talked about last time, but I thought, well, is it
(01:49):
different? And it's very hard for me to
remember exact. Do you find this?
I remember you last time tellingme you know about your
progression of your thoughts. And do you find it hard to
remember what you thought two years ago or four years ago?
It is, it's, it's every time I read it back, I, I feel like
another person, you know, continuously evolving and it,
(02:12):
it's, I think the more people you're exposed to and the
different theories, especially with this channel, because it's
all I explore all the time. It's it's becoming a blur.
Yeah, Yeah. Well, let me try and answer the
question that you asked. Given that I can't remember what
I said last time or even what I thought a few years ago.
If I said something that soundeda bit dramatic, it was only
(02:33):
this, the fun, the most fundamental.
Look, going back a bit, you know, we talked about
illusionism and well, and my delusionism that we're just
deluded from the very beginning in the way we think about our
own minds. And I, when I thought about it,
I thought the most fundamental assumption that people make and
it underlies the neural correlates of consciousness and
(02:55):
all sorts of other problems, is that it is the physical object
that is the subject of consciousness.
So is it, what is it like to be a bat?
Well, the assumption is that it's the bat, this physical
object called a bat that has this thing called consciousness.
So already by asking the question that way, you are
(03:19):
putting yourself into on the verges of dualism and you must.
It's inevitable that you're going to have the heart problem.
It's not sort of an accidental thing you may or may not have.
It's intrinsic in that question.Now we're talking about, you
know, what we used to think. I'd never really queried that.
(03:39):
It was a good question. What is it like to be about?
I thought there were problems with it and difficulties, but
fundamentally that's what we're asking is what is it like?
So I've changed from thinking that the right question is what
is it like to be a bat to what is it like to be the bats model
(04:03):
of a bat. It's the models, the mental
models that we build that are the subjects of consciousness
now. It's not an earth shattering
thing, but in a way it's shattering to me in a way
because, because it changes whatwe're asking and it and it
brings up all these questions which you've gone on and on in
(04:26):
your own mind about the nature of the so-called physical world.
Yes, it's very similar to Michael Graziano's approach if
you think about it, because that's exactly what he talks
about is, is that instead of asking what is consciousness,
ask what is the model that is making us ask what is
consciousness? And try and figure out the
(04:46):
answer to that question. Is that approximately where
you're headed with this? No, but I you're, you're
absolutely right to ask that because I really like Graziano's
attention schema theory. I, when I came across it, I
thought, of course, yeah, we have a body schema.
(05:08):
Now you, you know, all my work on out of body experiences, the
solution, the solution. But the, the, the kind of piece
that fell into, into, into placein 2001 with, with Blanke's
experiment study was, was realising that it's a disruption
of the body schema in the right temporal parietal junction that
(05:29):
causes the, my body schema's outthere now, you know, it causes
the, the possibility of an out of body experience.
So I'm very familiar with that idea.
And then realising, of course, we'd not only have to model our
body and what our body is doing all the time, but we have to
model our attentional processes.So we're not only paying
(05:51):
attention to this, that and the other, but we're having an
overall high level model of our attentional processes.
Well, now I think I'm going to some attention is just pulled
automatically. Some is now I'm going to pay
attention to this. I want to be more mindful of
this, pay more attention to this.
And all this is modelling. So I was very excited to when he
(06:14):
first published that and thinking this is great.
And then I got thinking, as I often do, about Dennett, my dear
beloved no longer with us, Dennett.
And indeed Keith Bankish, who I was talking to yesterday.
Hang on a minute. Why is there something it's like
(06:38):
to be the attention schemer? And he doesn't say.
He doesn't even ask as well. Maybe I need to read read his
his work more closely, but I don't think he even asks that
question. He slithers from this brilliant
idea that somehow the attention schema is important for
consciousness Two. Well, that's the theory of
(07:01):
consciousness. Well, it's not.
It doesn't answer the question now.
Well, what do you think? That's a tough one.
I think the last time I spoke toMike, he I I sort of get where
you're saying where you're saying that this merely saying
that there is a model that's discussing consciousness, always
(07:21):
asking the question of what is it like to have consciousness
still doesn't explain the hard problem of consciousness.
It's almost like it's, there's still this gap that we need to
solve. So I sort of get where you're
what you're, you're talking about it, it, it's not like he's
bridging the explanatory gap by saying that.
But how would you say your version of this model is
(07:41):
different from that? OK, Yes, I agree with you.
And we don't need to solve the hard problem.
We need to change it. I mean, so many people have said
the hard problem, which is why I'm saying if you think there's
something it's like to be a bat or a robot or anything, you know
you, you've inevitably got it. So how do I, I would like to say
(08:04):
I avoid it or get around it or no.
Well, anyway, whatever. I don't solve it because I don't
think it's a soluble problem. But here is the suggestion,
right, that all active mental models, there's something it's
like to be them, all of them. What is it like to be any active
(08:28):
mental model? It's like whatever the model
says it's like, because that's what a model is.
So in this brain here, this massive hierarchical predictive
processing kind of brain, there are models at every level in a
huge hierarchy and some of them are incredibly simple.
(08:52):
So in visual cortex, you know, there will be models that are
basically saying yes or no, it is always not a line.
And then there'll be slightly more complicated ones saying
this is a square and then slightly more complicated ones.
And then what then going on if the, the temporal lobe, you'll
have models of, you know, it's ahouse, it's firing in the house
area and that's changing it from, you know, all the other
(09:14):
things that it could be making the comparison all the way up
and you've got higher up. I'm not saying there's a top
that probably isn't, it's probably more of a tangled
hierarchy. But I mean, this is something
that's an empirical question really is a is a model of self
is a model I'm in here, I'm looking out.
(09:35):
And that's what we think of as that's consciousness.
All this other stuff going on inthe brain is not conscious.
Well, I'm disputing that completely, saying there's
something it's like to be all ofthese, but we're deluded because
the only ones that we have, because we are a model as well,
(09:55):
the only ones that we're conscious of is the ones that
are in part of this model. So philosophically this changes,
this almost changes of you because does does this lead?
I was speaking to Peter Trusted Hughes.
Am I pronouncing that correctly and he?
Trusted Hughes, Yes. He doesn't live too far away
from you, so he was telling. Yeah, Yeah, yeah.
He lives in Exeter. Yeah.
Yeah. He says, by the way, he says
(10:16):
he's meaning to come and visit soon.
So just a message. I keep asking him.
We live in a fantastic barn, converted barn by a Little River
with our own bridge over the river.
And it's been a fantastic place for the last 16 years.
And I keep inviting him to come because we're moving house soon
and we have to leave this wonderful place.
I think, Peter, come on. I you said you'd come and we'll,
we'll sit and hang out and talk about consciousness and we could
(10:39):
even swim in the freezing cold river.
And, you know, I'm not sure he'dwant to do that.
But yeah, if you talk to him again, tell him, tell him to do
it. Yeah, he said the same thing.
He said you're moving soon and he actually is meant to come and
see you and I think that's part of his plan.
So hope it happens soon. Maybe he'll watch this.
I'll tell him to watch it, but he needs to visit soon.
But let's he was I told him thatit might be transitioning into a
(11:01):
panpsychism. Your view.
So so let's discuss that. What are the philosophical
implications of your new, let's say, revelation?
I was wondering whether we were transiting to the Bible or
whether you're thinking that I've had a great revelation in
the middle of the night and it'sall come clear.
Words. Word choice there.
(11:21):
My bad your your recent change of view.
You know, I think it's great to call it a revelation because I
suppose it's as close to a revelation as I'm likely to
have, right? What is its connection with
panpsychism you were mentioning in particular?
Well, it is a kind of panpsychism, but it's a very
(11:42):
weird, like, there may be philosophers out there who've
done this before and it's all old hat.
I don't know, but I've certainlynot come across it.
What by saying that every activemental model in a predictive
processing system, there's something it's like to be that
is a panpsychism of models. I wish there was a better name
(12:05):
than model because because models sound so kind of passive.
That's why I say active. And I mean while it's happening,
the, the, the brain processes are, are making a guess about
what's out there in the world. And that guess is, well, at the
moment my visual system is guessing.
If I look at that fence, it's going to carry on around the
corner and that sort of thing. That is what I mean by these
(12:28):
models. But I'd like to have a better
word for it. Construction idea.
No word fits perfectly, but whatever it is a panpsychism of
models. Yes, that's that's in that
sense, it's panpsychism. It's nothing like the
panpsychism of what's sometimes called bottom up panpsychism
(12:49):
that, you know, not only are this you me bats, that chocolate
biscuit that I haven't eaten yetand the cup of tea and the
table, you know, but the atoms and molecules and right down to
the lowest level of what there might muons and whatever there's
something it's like to be them. This is nothing like that.
And I assume it also doesn't go all the way up into cosmosychism
(13:12):
as well. No, no, it doesn't unless I mean
it could in perhaps not the way you mean.
But let's suppose that the the AI gets keeps going in the way
that it looks as if it's going in the way that I've talked
(13:32):
about as as Treams, as as a third replicator, where
machinery that we produced, we thought for our own benefit is
actually now doing the copying variant and selecting on its
own. And all this stuff is happening.
And maybe it would connect up with other planets if, you know,
you've got it kills all us off, but somehow it doesn't kill us
off before it's managed to get its own system together to dig
(13:55):
up the oil and keep going and can survive the terrible climate
that that we're leaving for it. And sorry, great doomsday
scenario. There is a revelation.
Yeah, yeah, this is this is goodfor the end of the, you know,
the the the new Bible. Sorry, I'm a stop laughing.
So you could imagine that kind of thing, multiplanet, if you
(14:17):
like, with non biological machinery.
But but if it worked in a in a kind of predictive processing
way, modelling the world around it, modelling the cosmos,
whatever that really means, and connected up in a huge way, that
would be a sort of Cosmo panpsychism.
This idea doesn't rule out the possibility of of the same thing
(14:41):
occurring in artificial systems or in an enormously huge
interconnected systems. Yes, I must say it's not.
It's not that uncommon for for illusionist thinkers to slowly
tread along a panpsychist view. Eventually it seems to be
something that I find that I found quite, quite common and
it's, it's not that much of A leap, although it sounds like it
(15:04):
is, to go from nothing is conscious to everything is
conscious. It's, it's a very, there's a
very fine line where that tilt occurs and it's happened to many
people, I think. That's very interesting because
I think there are other contextsin which if you get to one end
to nothing, actually it you kindof flip back to the other end of
everything. But but tell me more what you
(15:24):
think Some examples of this where where this has happened
because I'm, I'm very interestedin my as it were, slide into a
version of panczygism. How did this happen?
I. Think one example would be when
I spoke to Carl Preston about this, and I and I mentioned if
you think of active inference, if you talk about the brains
prior information, posterior conclusions, the free energy
principle, is it not possible tothen conclude that there is no
(15:48):
consciousness and, and and go down the philosophical route of
illusionism with your theory? And he agreed.
He said, yes, it's very easy to take that route.
But on the on the flip side, it's also very easy to use that
same very neuroscientific physicalist theory and head down
a pan psychist route. And then that's why his work
with Mike Levin occurs and all the other work that's being done
(16:09):
in this field occurs with this diverse intelligence mindset.
So it doesn't seem to be too difficult.
And I see whereabout it kind of happens with some thinkers.
And, and then I also think aboutwhen Philip Goff used to say he
thinks pancykism is the number one theory and he thinks that if
he had to choose on a second theory, it would be illusionism.
And then that also sort of makessense.
And because it's it's not that difficult.
(16:30):
It's still very much physicalist.
It still has a lot of the same elements.
It's it's not like a big leap we, although it seems like it
is. I think what's going on there?
I that's, that's great that you've, you've described that
and, and noted that that Philip and others have have gone that
(16:50):
way. To me, the problem with where
that's gone is you are still saying that the subject of the
experience is of what we call a physical object.
And I'm jettisoning that becausethat's the only way I can make
this work. So why does the world seem to
have physical objects in it? So if you if you take the leap
(17:14):
I've taken from a panpsychism ofmodels, I'm still saying there's
modelling machinery that is doing the modelling.
That is saying that's a fence out there and that's a tree.
And that goes, you know, whatever it is, and this is a
problem. What is the status of the actual
world, if there is such a thing?What on earth is it?
Now, if you went to Bernardo Castrop, his analytic idealism,
(17:41):
or Deepak Chopra, with whom I'vehad such interesting disputes,
his, his form of, of Advaita Vedanta and that form of
idealism, then you do away with any external world.
But then I just don't get, and I've, you know, argued this
with, with, with both of them. Why does science work?
(18:02):
You know, why should the world turn out to have things that
appear to be like brains that wecan do the maths and we can do
the, the the experiments? You know, why is that the case?
You've got to have an explanation of that which
materialism kind of gives you reasons what what things happen
and you can make sensible theories.
So what do you do with a pure idealism?
I I think you've still got a problem.
(18:24):
So I am really struggling and wondering about theories or sort
of proto theories, ideas that people are having physicists
mostly about some underlying nature of something that gives
rise to the appearance of this particular kind of physical
world in which brains, I mean, we model brains, we get do
(18:49):
experiments. And you know, when I think about
my brain in here, I've never seen it.
And even if I did see it, it's still a model of a brain.
But but the theory works on how how the brain's doing it.
So this is this is the way it itgoes.
And there are physicists saying because of the, you know, the
fundamental problems that quantum mechanics is
(19:11):
incompatible with with space-time.
And you know what does kinds of things?
There's wonderful struggles going on, but there are
physicists who say that space and time are not fundamental.
Now we're getting back to retreats here because it's not
that unusual in deep meditation to have the revelation.
(19:31):
Didn't you like that word? It's kind of realisation in
certain states that, oh, time isjust a construct.
It, it literally feels seems to have disappeared.
There is change, there's something happening as it were,
but not in time. Space as well kind of dissolves
and yet there's still something.So that side of my life
(19:56):
encourages me to try and think this way.
So is there some like Don Hoffman for example, talks about
some underlying mathematical structure.
In no way can I understand the maths obviously, but I I am.
Fascinated by the idea that underlying this all there is
some kind of mathematical structure which gives rise to
the sort of structures that we have.
(20:20):
Unlike the idealism, which seemsto me, you know, Bernardo just
says, Oh well, it's like rippleson the on the water and it's a
dissociative something or other that doesn't seem to help.
Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't, but that's kind of the
way I'm going. So that then ultimately could
explain how we come to be able to explain the way that brains
(20:44):
can build models live. We live these models, which are
descriptions of what appears to be an external world that we
live in. At at what point evolutionary do
you think these modelling processes within the span
psychist view? First of all, I think it's where
I think I should mention I neverthought I would.
I would reach a point in my lifewhere I would see Susan
(21:06):
Blackmore telling me she's a pants like stuff with.
Yeah, yeah. Well, if I live long enough, I
expect there'll be some more surprises.
You were probably one of those people who kept thinking I was a
materialist, however much I toldpeople I wasn't.
Because you know, and you can see why, because I'm saying, oh,
this is the way to understand out of body experiences.
(21:28):
We've got to understand what's going on in the brain.
And look, it's not, it's not a spirit leaving the body.
It's actually a disruption of the body schema and people.
There you are. You see, you're just dismissing
them and you're a materialist and you're a reductionist and
you say it's not true. I'm going, of course it's true.
You have the experiences, but they're not like that.
But they still think I'm a materialist so good.
Well, I'm glad you've you've seen me change a bit.
(21:48):
It's. It's I think it's.
A good no, because I've stayed the same in that respect.
But I mean you, you followed along with this.
Thank you. No, it's, it's been a
fascinating journey. I'm I'm waiting for the day you
you write a book about God and and its existence and that that
day is probably not going to come to.
No, I think I'm not going to write about God and its
existence. No, probably not.
(22:09):
I, I, I can tell that's never going to happen.
But anyway, I think so there's afew things you touched on.
You mentioned one thing that I think we should really touch on
is since we last spoke, we lost one of the greatest pioneers in
philosophy and, and that is Daniel Dennett is a hero to me,
is a hero to you. What are your thoughts on the
impact he's left on this field and in society in general?
(22:31):
Very, very difficult. I'll just add that for me it was
particularly poignant the day hedied. 19th of April was Charles
Darwin's day that he died. And it was also much more
trivial the day that Emily and my book, the 4th edition of
(22:54):
Consciousness and Introduction was launched.
And we were on our way to Tucsonto, to, to the Tucson conference
last year in April. And we were, you know, got the
first copies of the book. And we were driving in a hire
car from LA airport to, to Tucson.
(23:15):
And we got the news from a friend on our phones that he
died that day. And so, but more serious, well,
more importantly to to think about your question, I have very
complicated and mixed feelings about it.
He was a great friend, a huge supporter in many ways.
(23:38):
He really helped me with in the beginning with the me machine.
I never would have written the me machine if he hadn't
encouraged me right from the start, which was great.
I don't think he, he liked my thoughts on consciousness too
much. But but never mind.
I think the greatest gift that he gave to the field and most
(24:00):
people were not listening and they couldn't understand it was
to point out all the pitfalls, to point out again and again and
again where we go wrong. I mean, I, I have not reread
Consciousness Explained in a long time, but I remember I read
it first. Absolutely when it first came
out. I went to a lecture of his and
(24:20):
that inspired me to do the firstever experiment on change
blindness because I was so amazed in this lecture and and
in the book, I reread it on a holiday some years later.
We went on a nice sunny holiday in Greece with a pool and I did
nothing on that holiday apart from meals and walks and things,
but read that book and it took me the entire week's holiday to
(24:43):
reread that book. And again I was stunned by it
because the things that I had forgotten and things that I
hadn't properly understood. I'm saying this because I
understand why people don't didn't understand.
Now that was his greatest gift, multiple draft theory.
(25:04):
It's really hard to get and I have mixed feelings about that,
which is very interesting. What I think I mean, there's no
question that he he made a massive contribution to the
field of consciousness. He was part of the process of
launching the fact that there isa field of consciousness studies
at all that. And then three years after that,
(25:25):
Chalmers comes along and finds the term the hard problem.
And you know, it was really all starting there.
And he went on, Dan went on all the time pushing this, doubt
this, doubt this, what about this, think this through all the
time. But the disservice I think he
did was to the discussions aboutfree will because he would not
(25:48):
say that free will is an illusion.
And the reasons why he wouldn't say it, I've never really
understood. I've argued with him so much
about that. And one of the things I really
regret from a purely selfish point of view is why couldn't I
have done a podcast discussion with Dan ever before he died?
Because these kind of things were only just beginning to
(26:09):
happen and and I didn't. There are a couple of things
online of me talking with him, but but not much.
But in various places he says, well, first of all, there's no
audience in the car. In the car, he's in theatre.
And it's that audience that would have free will, isn't it?
I mean, you know, and if there isn't anyone there, and if
(26:33):
that's an illusion, if that's a benign user illusion, I don't
think it's benign. But anyway, if it's a benign
user illusion and it thinks it'sgot free will, then free will is
part of the benign user illusion, isn't it, Dan?
And he actually says in various places that free will is just
not what you think it is. But what's the definition of, I
(26:53):
see I'm getting crossed now. Like, Dan, what is the official
dictionary definition of an illusion is something that it's
not what it seems to be. So if he's actually saying that
free will is not what it seems to be, Dan, it's an illusion.
So that I think was a disservicebecause his whole thrust of his
(27:17):
philosophical life on consciousness was to show people
where they're going wrong, wherethe natural, biologically based,
natural ideas we have, which areduellist and, you know,
self-centered and so on are wrong, getting people out of
that. And then he allows them to go on
believing that there's, there's this magical process.
(27:38):
And he even says, oh, it's not magic, but he kind of encourages
them to go on thinking that it's, you know, to being
compatible. It's that it's compatible with,
well, with science basically, And it isn't, in my opinion.
It isn't in my opinion, he was wrong.
So that leaves me sad about Dan.He told me in as many words, I
(28:03):
hope before I die I will persuade you that you're wrong
about free will. And I hoped that before, I mean,
I knew I wouldn't, but I kind ofhad the reciprocal hope that I
could possibly persuade him to start saying it's an illusion.
But we both failed, and then he died.
No, I, I completely agree. When you mentioned you wish you
had a podcast with him, there was also, he was one of those
(28:25):
people I had on the like the topof the list.
Um, when I read, when I started this podcast, yeah, I really
wanted to chat to him and we sent a couple of emails back and
forth and he said one day it will happen.
And then we obviously never got that chance.
So it also really disappoints methat I never got to pick his
brain and discuss it. And I mentioned, I mean, in my
dissertation, you guys, both of you and Keith and a lot of
people were quoted many times. I think Dan was one of the most
(28:46):
quoted at the time when I was writing that.
I really wish I got a chance to speak to him.
But I agree. I think that when when he spoke
about free will, it fought more of a social theory for him.
It felt more close, too close toheart.
Where it was difficult for him to become the philosopher he
really is with that topic for some reason.
Is that what you felt? Do you feel like he held it to a
(29:07):
social subject rather than a philosophical conversation?
Yes, you put that really well. I think that's right.
Why the Why? Did he find that?
I've, I've always thought that when I read it, I felt like it's
very strange that he's not applying his intuition pumps to
this concept because that was because that was what he was
known for. But yeah, he's a true hero.
(29:29):
This reminds me of because I told you, I've just been on this
retreat. It was a, it was a 10 day Jana's
retreat. That's a training in getting
into these different altered states of consciousness that you
can get into through concentration.
It's very, very interesting. There were there were lots of
discussions in the discussion time about the Buddha very
(29:49):
clearly says in many ways in different places in the suitors,
the early suitors that there is no reincarnation, There isn't
anybody to be reincarnated. There isn't any life after
death. All the stuff about, you know,
will you be born in a reborn in a better life and so on is
clearly not true in, in very clearly stated in many of the
(30:12):
things that he says. And there's a lot of evidence
that not only do people like to believe that, obviously, but the
cultures into which Buddhism went very often had these
beliefs in, in reincarnation andso on.
So it's not surprising that it all get mixed up and lots of
people think that Buddhists haveto believe in reincarnation,
which they don't have to. Well, at least I know some who
(30:35):
aren't. I'm not a Buddhist myself.
Them I certainly don't. But but there are also actual
Buddhists who, who, who, who don't.
And in this, in discussions in the retreat, I asked and
somebody else was asking the sort of question, Well, why is
it that in some of the tutors and, and some of the latest
sutras, he is, is talking to a whole mass of people and people
(30:59):
ask him, well, is this person going to be in their next life
in a better, you know, better reincarnation?
And he answered those questions.Well, why did he answer those
questions if he clearly doesn't believe it's true?
And then the answers or possibleanswers that were discussed
were, well, he was just using skilful means because those
(31:22):
people he was talking to was so deeply embedded in that culture.
If he just said, oh, that's rubbish, you know, he'd they'd
have wandered off and wouldn't have stayed there.
Whereas in more sophisticated when he's talking 1 to one or
small groups of his followers and who who could accept it?
He was, he was actually saying the truth as he saw it, that
(31:43):
there's just this and there isn't a continuation of somebody
who's experiencing this. So I don't know if that's a very
good analogy, but from what you've described of what you
think about Dan, it's kind of the same thing more than 2000
years later. So perhaps we ought to be more
forgiving. I ought to be more forgiving of
Dan. Look, I think it's, I think a
(32:03):
lot of people find we'll have some sort of a situation where
this occurs. It's almost like a politician
trying to discuss certain top conversations with with masses
and then going back to their cabinet and discussing the same
topic. It's kind of like you put on a
certain show with certain peopleand then you go back to your
actual views when you when you discuss it with colleagues or
friends. Maybe, but but I think it's a
it's yours is a better analogy to that.
(32:25):
But anyway, let's go back to Keith that.
Raises the whole question of truth and what is truth And, you
know, probably a lot of us thinkI always want to tell the truth
and all I want is to find the truth and then you sort of start
finding out you're not entirely sure what you mean by the truth
and. Yeah, and most people, most
people don't even realise how much they lie to themselves.
So that's the that's that's the first thing they need to 1st
figure out is am I telling myself the truth?
(32:47):
Yes. And when you spoke?
About entire life doing that. When you exactly when you spoke
to Keith yesterday, what's his thoughts on these views on this
change of? Your Oh, well, I don't yet know.
He wrote me the most wonderful e-mail.
We arranged to to do a podcast discussion and he wrote me a
(33:09):
most wonderful e-mail. He actually has has read or
reread almost all of my books inpreparation for this.
And I'm like, you know, how can somebody, you know, that was
just sort of amazing. And, and, and he was saying, you
know, how excited he got about some of my ideas about the
(33:32):
prescience, as he sees it, of the me machine, which is now 25
years old. That encourages me to do a
second edition or do something because well, anyway, never
mind. And, and other things that he
was commenting on. And he laid out sort of three
sections of what we'd like to talk about.
One was out of body experiences and all that stuff.
(33:53):
Another one was memes and another one was consciousness.
Well, we did more than an hour and you know, I get very tired
and an hour is as much and him as well.
He, he has a problem with fatigue as well.
So after an hour and a quarter, we stopped and we'd only done
the first section. So I have not discussed and
we've agreed we're going to do 2more and, and, and do the
(34:14):
others. Meanwhile, I sent him my I've
written sort of 3/4 of a paper that I want to submit for
publication about these ideas, which is the first thing that
I've written down about them. I've talked in a couple of
context, small context to audiences, but and to Peter
Shosted Hughes and his little group in Exeter.
(34:34):
They were really helpful, you know, with criticisms, but they
seem to kind of take it worth thinking about anyway.
So I began writing this paper and then and it wasn't finished
when I was going on the retreat,but he wanted to read it so I
sent it to him. And when I got back and I
haven't been able to look at hiscomments.
He's written comments all, I mean, you look the side box, you
(34:57):
know, within word. And it's like, but he said he's
really excited by the ideas. And so I can't answer.
Knowing Keith a bit, I think he'll have some very useful
criticisms and clearly he's not,he's not dismissing.
That's the nice thing to me. He's not dismissing it and
saying this is rubbish. He is interested enough, thinks
thinks it's worth having a go at, but I can't answer yet.
(35:20):
But I will be able to answer when we get around to this
conversation. I agree with you Keith.
Keith is so wonderful that when I, this was about 20/20/21 when
I had emailed him, I think maybe2019, I can't remember, but when
I was doing my dissertation, I'dsent him an e-mail saying, Hey,
would you mind having a look at this and just letting me know
what you think. And exactly the same thing
(35:41):
happened. He replied a few a week or so
later with, with a whole bunch of comments along the side.
And I, and at the end I actuallywrote with special thanks to to
Nicholas Humphrey, Keith Frankish, Michael Graziano,
because these people actually assisted me to write this at the
time. And it was really, really
thoughtful because he gave me the probably the most notes and,
and you just, you were talking about stamina and just staying
(36:02):
for a long podcast. The last time when you and I
spoke afterwards, Keith and I had a, a Sunday discussion and
we had a podcast day and he had spoken about escaping Descartes
prison. And we, we had a whole 3 hour
podcast. And thereafter Keith and I
decided, let's have another lecture where because he's now
growing and he's reactivity schema theory.
(36:23):
I'm not sure. Have you guys discussed that
yet? No, OK, no, I'd love to.
I'll let you guys chat about that.
But then we had another three hour lecture series.
So we spent an entire Sunday, literally almost around six to
seven hours just on a full podcast mode.
It was exhausting, but one of the best Sundays you can have.
Actually, even though he says that he finds it exhausting, he
does he. Does he pushed through it was
(36:44):
amazing. So the lectures I mean I've got
it both online. I'll send you links.
It's really interesting the way he sort of fine tuning the
illusionist argument with a reactivity schema theory, so
maybe ask him about that when you chat to him.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I will. But that says something about
your thesis that those people, Imean, I would guess they're all
(37:05):
the same as me, some younger. I mean, Michael's much younger
and probably has a lot more energy there for but, you know,
get sent so many things like this.
And if you think for God's sake,you person I've never heard of
have written a thesis. Are you really expecting they?
Don't you understand how much I've got to do that sort of, you
(37:25):
know, very natural reaction. But then I will think it's part
of your job, you know, not a job, but you know, the life is
at least have a look. And so often you can look and
there's an abstract and it's absolutely clear that either
it's beyond my I don't have a, you know, I'm not competent, or
it's complete garbage. And few I can just write back
and say, well, good luck with your thesis.
(37:46):
But I'm sorry, you know, and there will be a rare one where
actually it's tempting enough tothink, yeah, I can learn
something from this and I can help this person and and so on.
So that's brilliant that they were able to help you.
But Keith is exceptional in how much effort he.
No, I agree. He's he's wonderful.
So you mentioned that you, you won this retreat exploring
(38:08):
altered states of consciousness because Peter and I just spoke
the other day and and that's when he said he's actually going
to call you to come visit. But we were discussing how he's
from his data, it says that mostpeople who have altered states
of consciousness, maybe if they go on DMT, whether it's
psilocybin doesn't matter. They seem to go into a more pan
psychist view. But I said, and I would think
(38:30):
that people more would go more into an idealist framework, but
it seems that the data heads towards a pan psychist view.
Do you think exploring altered states of consciousness over
time? I mean, I've had altered states
of consciousness just to make itclear that it's, I'm not judging
it in any way. But do you think exploring
altered states of consciousness would open someone's mind to a
(38:50):
more pan psychist view? I wish that were true.
As far as I know from the evidence from psychedelics,
people become more dualist afterclassical psychedelics like LSD
and psilocybin. And I was really rather
(39:10):
depressed to read that this was some evidence that came out, I
don't know, four or five years ago.
And I was quite depressed by that because I know people and I
know myself being more likely tobecome modest rather than
duelist. And so Pancycho.
I mean, it's a kind of monism inin a way.
And, and so I can see that. And that's much more hopeful to
(39:30):
me that people would come that way.
I think it's actually, I think the philosophical lines that we
draw may not be the appropriate ones for talking about this.
After all, the philosophical concepts that we have have come
from 2000 or more years, and they may not be the best way of
dividing up how the mind works. So although I think it's really
(39:53):
useful and I'm really thrilled that this work on psychedelics
is actually happening now. God, how awful that the war on
drugs prevented it for so long. But anyway, at least it's
happening now that we need otherways of thinking about this.
I mean so many people with LSD for example.
(40:13):
Will become animists, which is sort of heading kind of
panpsychism, I suppose, because you have this feeling when you
look out. I mean, I'm looking at a sort
of, it's kind of a palm tree. This is a little bit of the edge
of southwest England where palm trees can survive.
And I'm looking at this waving and this stormy wind we've got.
(40:35):
Now, if I were on acid tripping,I'm pretty sure I would feel the
life force within that thing. I'm looking at, you know, it's
alive and you know, and I would feel there is something it's
like to be it. And I would feel that I'm part
of it. And we're all 1.
And that's very common. And I'm used to that.
I know what that feels like. Now, how does that fit within
(40:58):
philosophy? I don't think it's, it's
terribly helpful to well, maybe it is, but I don't think it
neatly fits into one philosophical view rather than
another. I think we've got a lot of
exploring to do. Yeah, I think there's also
certain linguistic limitations that we might have, and it
becomes very difficult to explain these ineffable
experiences. Well, that's, that's a, that's
(41:21):
a, an aspect of what I'm saying really, that we use words.
If we're being philosophers, we're using philosophical words.
But if we're not philosophers, then we're still using words in
our, in our language that makes sense to us.
And they've evolved over time, alot of them not in the context
of thinking about older states, but Peter and I have talked
(41:42):
about these kinds of things a lot.
But the older states I was talking about in this retreat
last week are not like, and there's something in common, but
they're not like psychedelic states.
They're much more concentrated, much less.
You know, I wouldn't be looking at that palm tree and feeling in
(42:05):
that way. In fact, I'd have my eyes shut
and be deep, deep, deep in concentration and kind of going
down and down into a kind of depths of simplifying the mind.
I've, I've, I've never been to aretreat.
What, what did those experiencesdo for you in terms of your own
clarity of thought, generating new ideas, and just experiencing
and being being in general? Depends on the type of retreat.
(42:32):
Most. I mean, the first retreat I ever
went on was in 1981. That was called a Western Zen
retreat led by John Crook, who was my he's he was he's dead
now. A Zen master also trained in
other traditions than as actually Chan, the Chinese pre
predecessor to Zen and their those retreats and I went on
(42:58):
many, many others in that same tradition are based on open,
open awareness meditation. It's all about training
attention. In the end.
All of this is training attention in different ways.
So Zen Zazen just sitting secondTaza.
It's all applying equal attention to everything without
(43:22):
judgement. It's one way of putting it may
not be ideal, but anyway, so really training attention to do
that is a lifetime's work. It's hard, but you know, you get
better at it. Now how does that answer your
question? That kind of meditation, it
changes your relationship to theworld and in odd ways that must
(43:45):
be explicable, I suppose. But it, it encourages compassion
and openness and facing up to your fears.
I mean, actually, I suppose it'svery simple one, here's a very
simple aspect. If you have to sit there hour
after hour after hour gazing at you, don't you have your eyes
open for that kind of meditation?
(44:05):
And you're looking typically at a white wall, but even the, the
smoothest white wall will have you know, but often you're
looking at a carpet or some piece of wood on the floor, you
know, and it, and it's, and thenit's all the worries that you've
got and all the miseries and allthe anger.
And for me, it's anger is is it is usually the problem that it
can be regret. And you know, you have to face
(44:25):
yourself and doing that leads toto big changes.
Philosophically, it's much harder to say.
And you know, if you're a Buddhist, you're going to get
tied up in, in Buddhist philosophy and all sorts of
stuff. But I'm not.
And I didn't now changing over to the kind of retreat that I'm
(44:46):
talking about now. I mean, I still do send retreats
or charm retreats. I'm going to be doing one in
June, which is using a Co on is weird kind of questions that you
struggle with. So it's not just who am I
staring at this wall, but some other thing you've got to do.
But these Jana's ones are very different.
So in the early suitors, the Buddha says practice vaginas and
(45:11):
they are a series of eight increasingly deep states
achieved through through concentration.
So open awareness is not really concentration, it's open
attention. You know, but this is like
narrow the attention down and you get into these different
states. So what they tell us, I think is
(45:32):
very different. You could.
I don't know how much you want to know about this and I've
forgotten what your question wasand I've just started rambling
so I'll shut up and see what youwant to know.
So now I was just, I was just curious to know if it, if it
does actually impact your philosophical framework in any
way. Post yes.
Experience yes. Absolutely it does.
(45:55):
OK, so cutting all the complications of, you know, so
I, I can't do all of these at all.
I think I can do some but but the last task that we were given
on the last day was to go out for a walk.
And this, this comes from a particular story of what
happened to one of somebody thatBuddha met and so on, who had a
(46:16):
wrong view of some kind. And the Buddha said to this guy,
so this man was asking in his tradition had been seeking the,
the, The Who is it who sees and who is it who hears and all of
this. And the Buddha says to him in
(46:37):
seeing there is only seeing, in hearing, there is only hearing,
in touching is only touch, and it's on.
And these stories always ramble on incredibly repetitively and
tediously. But anyway, so we were sent out
and by this time, after this is the 10th day of meditating many,
many hours a day, we're sent outto go for a walk.
(47:01):
And one suggestion is, is walking out of time.
So that's another thing that we discussed that's slightly
different part of it, but let itbe seeing is, is just seeing and
hearing is just hearing. Now it happened to be a really
stormy day. There were the trees thrashing
(47:21):
around and the not a building going on all these plastic
things. And that plastic was kind of
crashing. And the sound was, and then as I
got down towards the beach, these big crashing waves and the
sights of all this and practising this.
And what of course it's getting at is there isn't anybody
(47:42):
seeing. There's just seeing.
And in this way, you look at this and then this and they're
not tied together as an order intime, the seeing and the
hearing. And there's this.
And so it's demolishing. It's yet another way of
demolishing the false view that I'm in here looking out through
(48:04):
my eyes and seeing an external world.
So that, yes, that and, and I would say I'm glad you asked
because that's a good example ofwhy I keep going, why I keep,
because it's bloody hard work. I mean, a lot of that retreat, I
was like, oh God, why did I eversign up to this?
And you know, oh, I've got to doanother hour and I can't bear
(48:24):
it, you know, but in the end, it's amazing.
It's amazing to actually experience that.
And that fits with with philosophical changes in in in
your life. Yeah, that's I agree.
I think that it is it is strangethat the research says people
become more dualistic because the the association is often non
(48:47):
duality with these types of experience.
So yeah, fascinating. I wonder what I'm gonna look
into that research to make sure.But before, so before we go back
into that, you, you mentioned that when you had dinner, when
dinner had passed away, you weredriving on your way to Tucson.
And I, I spoke to Stuart Amarov about two weeks ago, maybe
three. This year's one is in Barcelona.
(49:07):
And this time he's focusing the conference solely solely on the
quantum and classical reality and meeting in between.
And this theme for this year seems to be directly linked to
this view of consciousness, which seems to link more with
idealist views. But he's also got a lot of
neuroscientific theorists comingthrough.
What are your thoughts on this this approach for the conference
this year? Total crap.
(49:32):
I was expecting that. I, I looked at the programme for
Barcelona and I thought, and there's a, there's a very,
there's a few really good peoplegoing, but oh, what are they
doing? You know, Stuart and I have had
troubles together and you know, I know Stuart pretty well and
(49:57):
there's online, there's the timewhen I was supposed to be having
a conversation on stage with Deepak Chopra and Stuart
actually interrupted while we were given a few minutes
introduction to do and he, he was in the, he was the
chairperson, right. And he interrupted my little
introduction because I mentionedthat, you know, I've been
(50:17):
inspired to do that by having this out of body experience to
investigate. And I said it's wonderful in my
life that we now can understand,you know, how they happen.
Come on then, give some proof. Then he said he's the chairman,
you know. So then, then Deepak gets at me
and the whole thing just descended.
It's all online, descended into ridiculousness.
And then his wife, his fifth wife, I think he's now on the
(50:40):
6th. But anyway, his fifth wife, I
didn't realize who it was at thetime, but the, the crowd was
sort of shouting, let her speak and stuff.
After half an hour of this goingon and she, somebody came up,
but I was told later that that was his wife and said that
Stuart let her speak, you know. So subsequently he apologised
(51:00):
and I accept his apology and that's fine.
Deepak and I, I, I just decided I'm, I'm not having any more of
this crap with Deepak. I'm going to, I'm going to let's
because every time I've, I've had dinner with Deepak on on, on
my own the night before that andwe get on so well and we talk
about, you know, all sorts of interesting stuff.
And I thought we need to do thatonline.
(51:21):
And I asked him if we could. And to his credit, he did.
He agreed. And we then did a good podcast
and he wants to do another one. I was going to say later this
month, but I anyway, very soon he wants to do another one.
And we have proved now that we can have those nice
conversations. So sorry.
Going back, going back to Stuart, Stuart is very forceful.
(51:44):
He is utterly, utterly convincedby his own quantum theory, which
is different from the original one that he started out with.
He will get Roger Penrose onlineevery possible opportunity.
He started out with Penrose with, with, with one version of
(52:05):
his quantum theory that the collapse of the wave function in
in the microtubules and has goneon to a different version.
It still depends on microtubules.
But he keeps thinking, saying there's kind of evidence that
puts supports his theory, which is bits of evidence to do with
the possibility of quantum computing or some kind of
quantum effects relevant to cognition in the brain.
(52:28):
And, you know, he's absolutely sure he's right, which is not a
good stand for a scientist. You know, you need this balance.
You need to be really, I think I'm right and oh, isn't this
exciting if I am right? And how am I going to prove
myself wrong in case I am wrong?And you know, what would happen
if I'm, you know, and, and is, is just absolutely convinced
he's right? Now, here's the point.
(52:51):
Let us suppose that there were quantum computing in
microtubules. It's possible.
It seems unlikely to me. And there's all the problem with
the temperature. And, you know, let's suppose
there were or let's suppose thatin some other way the brain is a
quantum computer. How does that help solve the
problem? Doesn't solve the hard problem.
I mean, why should consciousnesssuddenly arise from quantum
(53:15):
computing in a way that we thinkbut haven't discovered that it
arises from ordinary computing? There's no, there's nothing in
his theory that addresses the problem of consciousness at all,
as far as I'm concerned. That's why I feel it's
legitimate, as I wouldn't very often to just say a rude word.
I mean, it's sad to me that it'sso popular because it sounds
(53:39):
great, doesn't it, quantum stuff.
And it must be very clever if you, of course, I can't
understand quantum mechanics. I don't have the maths.
And, you know, people are thinking, wow, you know, it must
be very clever. And I don't think Stuart
understands quantum mechanics either.
He's not a mathematician, he's not a physicist.
And yet it's hugely popular. And now the whole of the
(54:02):
conference in Barcelona is goingto be devoted to that.
Well, I hope they have a lovely time Despite that, but I don't
think it's going to go anywhere helpful for us in understanding
the nature of mind. Yeah, I think The funny thing is
that the ACC, what is the other conference called the AS?
ASSC, The association for the scientific study of
(54:22):
consciousness. That's on the same week.
So he was really pissed about that.
He was really serious, Yes, Yeah.
So that's increased. That's it.
That's in Crete, Yeah. In Greece, yeah.
So that's where Keith is actually.
It would be a good opportunity to visit Keith as well.
But the The funny thing was today I was on Twitter and I
don't think you have Twitter right, Sue?
No, luckily, because if you see the wars that go down with with
(54:46):
Stuart, I think it was a Neil and a Neil set and Stuart having
a back and forth this morning and and it was pretty crazy.
Yeah, it's it's not the most polite conversation to tell.
Me about it because I, I mean, I'm not even going to see it
probably so. Let me see if I can.
Give me the gist. Yeah, I.
Do let's, I'll find it right nowbecause Stuart's quite active on
Twitter and I even told him it'slike watching a show.
(55:09):
But I so, Oh yes, one thing as Ifind this one thing Stuart did
say, which to his credit is thatChalmers said that if Stuart
perhaps is not around anymore and then the theory comes out to
be true, then people might be OKwith it because Stuart said that
Chalmers said they just don't like the idea of letting you
have the have the fun of it being correct.
(55:29):
So he did admit to that and he does, he does know he did.
He comes across this way. So in his defence, so I think
here it is so, so it says wait one second almost.
There we go. Anil Seth, David Chalmers and
Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the same ignorant mistake arguing
(55:51):
for conscious AI, saying silicone is no different than
carbon. Even if that were true life
consciousness and are based on organic carbon in aromatic ring
structures within intrinsic quantum optical properties.
These guys are experts. Question mark, question mark,
exclamation mark, exclamation mark.
And he tags them. So that's The funny thing.
He tags all three of them into this, and then they start having
(56:13):
a conversation that Neil's like Stewart, you're entitled to your
own opinions, but not to consistently misrepresent mine.
I make it really that I'm sceptical of silicon based
conscious AI, making the case different from your case that
consciousness is a biological property.
And then it just keeps going back and forth, back and forth.
But yeah, these are the conversations you're missing out
(56:33):
on. I wonder whether Anil thinks
that it's a good use of his timeto do this.
I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, I've, I've just resisted
getting involved with, with, with X and all that.
But I think I'm, I think I'm tooold.
I'm not going to. But it's very interesting to
hear a snippet of, of what's going on there and all.
(56:55):
It's great. I mean, I really like his work.
I really loved his book. Obviously we disagree a lot,
quite a lot. And he doesn't he don't think
much of my of my new ideas that we were talking about, but we
also have a lot in common. And I think he's his book has
really been a good contribution to people understanding
predictive processing. Yeah.
(57:18):
And Sue, do you have any upcoming in terms of books,
papers, any work that you're working on that you'd like to
share with the audience? So we seem to have gone off on a
tangent. We have and also.
It's been an hour and we need tostop, don't we?
We can always have another go, which will be fun because it's
always fun talking to you. No, not really.
(57:39):
I mean, I was so utterly exhausted by the book.
You know, my daughter Emily and I did the 4th edition of the
Consciousness Textbook and it was an exhausting job.
Not because of the, the, the work of actually doing the
writing and the updating. That was worthwhile and fun and
interesting. The bloody publishers made it.
(57:59):
They, the copy editors were so bad.
They actually changed things we'd written, added references
in the wrong place. Where they why?
I mean, they just, you know, really messed things up.
And guess it's putting that all right because we're meticulous
people who want everything right.
And oh, it was a nightmare. And honestly, I was like
drained. But I have, I've got lots of
(58:23):
ideas for, for, for books and then I don't actually decide
what to start on. So my job now is to write this
article about the ideas that we were talking about earlier,
about the, about the models and why they're the subject of
consciousness, not objects. And we'll see where that takes
me. I mean, I keep fantasising out a
(58:45):
book about that, but I, I, you know, I haven't actually started
that. And then I'm thinking about a
second edition of the Me Machinebecause people keep
interestingly now this is weird.So Keith Frankish was saying how
much he enjoyed rereading the Meme Machine because he'd read
it a long time ago. And that he said how prescient
it was in terms of, of what's happening with with AI and LLMS
(59:06):
and all the other things going on there.
And that made me think, I talkedto OUP about who published it,
about doing a second edition. And then they never got on to
actually submitting a proposal. But then on this retreat, the
guy, Lee Bracington leading the retreat, the Jana's expert, he
(59:29):
said somebody asked in in the chat thing, you know, oh, can
you give a list of your books? You know, that we'd like to read
them. And I and I put that, put that
and and he said, where's the main machine?
Where's the main machine? Because to him, but the end of
the meme machine where I talk about how the self is
constructed, false self, the illusion of self is constructed
(59:49):
by them for the memes benefit. It's not for us, which is why I
say it's not a benign user illusion.
It's actually a malign user illusion because it's actually
in the service of the memes. It's making the brain work very
hard to take in certain memes that are all to do with me and
selfishly and so on and so on. And I guess that kind of.
With the sort of Buddhist idea so that, you know, like coming
(01:00:11):
up at least that makes me think I really ought to get on with
them with, with doing the secondedition.
And I'm sure that's a better useof my time than going on
Twitter. I completely agree.
And look, I've read that book twice and it's been a while
since I've read it. Yeah, so and I actually look
forward now that Keith has has given it such high praise, I
think it's time to give it a go again.
(01:00:32):
So thank you so much, Sue. It's always a pleasure chatting
to you. And I'm, I'm looking forward to
reading this this your new papers about this.
It sounds really fascinating. OK, well I will send it to you
if I actually manage when I managed to do it.
Well, great, it's been lovely again talking to you.
Thanks Suz, have a great one. And till next time, good luck
(01:00:52):
with Deepak. Thank you very much.
Bye.
All those priors, all those assumptions that we've made that
go into our experience, that is,I'm a model, I'm in here, I'm
looking out. And that's what we think of as
that's consciousness. All this other stuff going on in
the brain is not conscious. Well, I'm disputing that
completely, saying there's something it's like to be all of
(00:20):
these, but we're deluded because.
Oh, how's things going, Sue? How are you?
I'm fine. I mentioned in in the e-mail
that I, I'm, I'm down in my Hut.I have this writing Hut down in
(00:42):
Salcombe, which is a little townby the sea.
I, I can look out there and lookat the water and the howling
Gale and the wind and the rain at the moment again.
And I've just done a 10 day online retreat here, which
finished on Sunday night. So I'm still a bit sort of be
mindful, but to. All of those who who are
(01:04):
watching this are listening. The last time we spoke, you also
just finished a retreat, which is pretty cool.
That's weird. At the right time.
Yeah. Good.
I I normally only do 1A year occasionally, but that is a
slightly odd coincidence, yes. Anyway, how are you?
I'm good, I'm great. A lot has changed since we last
spoke. You sent me an e-mail a few
weeks ago saying we've got it all wrong about consciousness
(01:27):
and it's a new revelation. I would say you you've
experienced some sort of a new thought within the consciousness
community. So I'm super eager to discuss
and I say that. Well, it's not that super
brilliant at all. It's actually only a part of
what we talked about last time, but I thought, well, is it
(01:49):
different? And it's very hard for me to
remember exact. Do you find this?
I remember you last time tellingme you know about your
progression of your thoughts. And do you find it hard to
remember what you thought two years ago or four years ago?
It is, it's, it's every time I read it back, I, I feel like
another person, you know, continuously evolving and it,
(02:12):
it's, I think the more people you're exposed to and the
different theories, especially with this channel, because it's
all I explore all the time. It's it's becoming a blur.
Yeah, Yeah. Well, let me try and answer the
question that you asked. Given that I can't remember what
I said last time or even what I thought a few years ago.
If I said something that soundeda bit dramatic, it was only
(02:33):
this, the fun, the most fundamental.
Look, going back a bit, you know, we talked about
illusionism and well, and my delusionism that we're just
deluded from the very beginning in the way we think about our
own minds. And I, when I thought about it,
I thought the most fundamental assumption that people make and
it underlies the neural correlates of consciousness and
(02:55):
all sorts of other problems, is that it is the physical object
that is the subject of consciousness.
So is it, what is it like to be a bat?
Well, the assumption is that it's the bat, this physical
object called a bat that has this thing called consciousness.
So already by asking the question that way, you are
(03:19):
putting yourself into on the verges of dualism and you must.
It's inevitable that you're going to have the heart problem.
It's not sort of an accidental thing you may or may not have.
It's intrinsic in that question.Now we're talking about, you
know, what we used to think. I'd never really queried that.
(03:39):
It was a good question. What is it like to be about?
I thought there were problems with it and difficulties, but
fundamentally that's what we're asking is what is it like?
So I've changed from thinking that the right question is what
is it like to be a bat to what is it like to be the bats model
(04:03):
of a bat. It's the models, the mental
models that we build that are the subjects of consciousness
now. It's not an earth shattering
thing, but in a way it's shattering to me in a way
because, because it changes whatwe're asking and it and it
brings up all these questions which you've gone on and on in
(04:26):
your own mind about the nature of the so-called physical world.
Yes, it's very similar to Michael Graziano's approach if
you think about it, because that's exactly what he talks
about is, is that instead of asking what is consciousness,
ask what is the model that is making us ask what is
consciousness? And try and figure out the
(04:46):
answer to that question. Is that approximately where
you're headed with this? No, but I you're, you're
absolutely right to ask that because I really like Graziano's
attention schema theory. I, when I came across it, I
thought, of course, yeah, we have a body schema.
(05:08):
Now you, you know, all my work on out of body experiences, the
solution, the solution. But the, the, the kind of piece
that fell into, into, into placein 2001 with, with Blanke's
experiment study was, was realising that it's a disruption
of the body schema in the right temporal parietal junction that
(05:29):
causes the, my body schema's outthere now, you know, it causes
the, the possibility of an out of body experience.
So I'm very familiar with that idea.
And then realising, of course, we'd not only have to model our
body and what our body is doing all the time, but we have to
model our attentional processes.So we're not only paying
(05:51):
attention to this, that and the other, but we're having an
overall high level model of our attentional processes.
Well, now I think I'm going to some attention is just pulled
automatically. Some is now I'm going to pay
attention to this. I want to be more mindful of
this, pay more attention to this.
And all this is modelling. So I was very excited to when he
(06:14):
first published that and thinking this is great.
And then I got thinking, as I often do, about Dennett, my dear
beloved no longer with us, Dennett.
And indeed Keith Bankish, who I was talking to yesterday.
Hang on a minute. Why is there something it's like
(06:38):
to be the attention schemer? And he doesn't say.
He doesn't even ask as well. Maybe I need to read read his
his work more closely, but I don't think he even asks that
question. He slithers from this brilliant
idea that somehow the attention schema is important for
consciousness Two. Well, that's the theory of
(07:01):
consciousness. Well, it's not.
It doesn't answer the question now.
Well, what do you think? That's a tough one.
I think the last time I spoke toMike, he I I sort of get where
you're saying where you're saying that this merely saying
that there is a model that's discussing consciousness, always
(07:21):
asking the question of what is it like to have consciousness
still doesn't explain the hard problem of consciousness.
It's almost like it's, there's still this gap that we need to
solve. So I sort of get where you're
what you're, you're talking about it, it, it's not like he's
bridging the explanatory gap by saying that.
But how would you say your version of this model is
(07:41):
different from that? OK, Yes, I agree with you.
And we don't need to solve the hard problem.
We need to change it. I mean, so many people have said
the hard problem, which is why I'm saying if you think there's
something it's like to be a bat or a robot or anything, you know
you, you've inevitably got it. So how do I, I would like to say
(08:04):
I avoid it or get around it or no.
Well, anyway, whatever. I don't solve it because I don't
think it's a soluble problem. But here is the suggestion,
right, that all active mental models, there's something it's
like to be them, all of them. What is it like to be any active
(08:28):
mental model? It's like whatever the model
says it's like, because that's what a model is.
So in this brain here, this massive hierarchical predictive
processing kind of brain, there are models at every level in a
huge hierarchy and some of them are incredibly simple.
(08:52):
So in visual cortex, you know, there will be models that are
basically saying yes or no, it is always not a line.
And then there'll be slightly more complicated ones saying
this is a square and then slightly more complicated ones.
And then what then going on if the, the temporal lobe, you'll
have models of, you know, it's ahouse, it's firing in the house
area and that's changing it from, you know, all the other
(09:14):
things that it could be making the comparison all the way up
and you've got higher up. I'm not saying there's a top
that probably isn't, it's probably more of a tangled
hierarchy. But I mean, this is something
that's an empirical question really is a is a model of self
is a model I'm in here, I'm looking out.
(09:35):
And that's what we think of as that's consciousness.
All this other stuff going on inthe brain is not conscious.
Well, I'm disputing that completely, saying there's
something it's like to be all ofthese, but we're deluded because
the only ones that we have, because we are a model as well,
(09:55):
the only ones that we're conscious of is the ones that
are in part of this model. So philosophically this changes,
this almost changes of you because does does this lead?
I was speaking to Peter Trusted Hughes.
Am I pronouncing that correctly and he?
Trusted Hughes, Yes. He doesn't live too far away
from you, so he was telling. Yeah, Yeah, yeah.
He lives in Exeter. Yeah.
Yeah. He says, by the way, he says
(10:16):
he's meaning to come and visit soon.
So just a message. I keep asking him.
We live in a fantastic barn, converted barn by a Little River
with our own bridge over the river.
And it's been a fantastic place for the last 16 years.
And I keep inviting him to come because we're moving house soon
and we have to leave this wonderful place.
I think, Peter, come on. I you said you'd come and we'll,
we'll sit and hang out and talk about consciousness and we could
(10:39):
even swim in the freezing cold river.
And, you know, I'm not sure he'dwant to do that.
But yeah, if you talk to him again, tell him, tell him to do
it. Yeah, he said the same thing.
He said you're moving soon and he actually is meant to come and
see you and I think that's part of his plan.
So hope it happens soon. Maybe he'll watch this.
I'll tell him to watch it, but he needs to visit soon.
But let's he was I told him thatit might be transitioning into a
(11:01):
panpsychism. Your view.
So so let's discuss that. What are the philosophical
implications of your new, let's say, revelation?
I was wondering whether we were transiting to the Bible or
whether you're thinking that I've had a great revelation in
the middle of the night and it'sall come clear.
Words. Word choice there.
(11:21):
My bad your your recent change of view.
You know, I think it's great to call it a revelation because I
suppose it's as close to a revelation as I'm likely to
have, right? What is its connection with
panpsychism you were mentioning in particular?
Well, it is a kind of panpsychism, but it's a very
(11:42):
weird, like, there may be philosophers out there who've
done this before and it's all old hat.
I don't know, but I've certainlynot come across it.
What by saying that every activemental model in a predictive
processing system, there's something it's like to be that
is a panpsychism of models. I wish there was a better name
(12:05):
than model because because models sound so kind of passive.
That's why I say active. And I mean while it's happening,
the, the, the brain processes are, are making a guess about
what's out there in the world. And that guess is, well, at the
moment my visual system is guessing.
If I look at that fence, it's going to carry on around the
corner and that sort of thing. That is what I mean by these
(12:28):
models. But I'd like to have a better
word for it. Construction idea.
No word fits perfectly, but whatever it is a panpsychism of
models. Yes, that's that's in that
sense, it's panpsychism. It's nothing like the
panpsychism of what's sometimes called bottom up panpsychism
(12:49):
that, you know, not only are this you me bats, that chocolate
biscuit that I haven't eaten yetand the cup of tea and the
table, you know, but the atoms and molecules and right down to
the lowest level of what there might muons and whatever there's
something it's like to be them. This is nothing like that.
And I assume it also doesn't go all the way up into cosmosychism
(13:12):
as well. No, no, it doesn't unless I mean
it could in perhaps not the way you mean.
But let's suppose that the the AI gets keeps going in the way
that it looks as if it's going in the way that I've talked
(13:32):
about as as Treams, as as a third replicator, where
machinery that we produced, we thought for our own benefit is
actually now doing the copying variant and selecting on its
own. And all this stuff is happening.
And maybe it would connect up with other planets if, you know,
you've got it kills all us off, but somehow it doesn't kill us
off before it's managed to get its own system together to dig
(13:55):
up the oil and keep going and can survive the terrible climate
that that we're leaving for it. And sorry, great doomsday
scenario. There is a revelation.
Yeah, yeah, this is this is goodfor the end of the, you know,
the the the new Bible. Sorry, I'm a stop laughing.
So you could imagine that kind of thing, multiplanet, if you
(14:17):
like, with non biological machinery.
But but if it worked in a in a kind of predictive processing
way, modelling the world around it, modelling the cosmos,
whatever that really means, and connected up in a huge way, that
would be a sort of Cosmo panpsychism.
This idea doesn't rule out the possibility of of the same thing
(14:41):
occurring in artificial systems or in an enormously huge
interconnected systems. Yes, I must say it's not.
It's not that uncommon for for illusionist thinkers to slowly
tread along a panpsychist view. Eventually it seems to be
something that I find that I found quite, quite common and
it's, it's not that much of A leap, although it sounds like it
(15:04):
is, to go from nothing is conscious to everything is
conscious. It's, it's a very, there's a
very fine line where that tilt occurs and it's happened to many
people, I think. That's very interesting because
I think there are other contextsin which if you get to one end
to nothing, actually it you kindof flip back to the other end of
everything. But but tell me more what you
(15:24):
think Some examples of this where where this has happened
because I'm, I'm very interestedin my as it were, slide into a
version of panczygism. How did this happen?
I. Think one example would be when
I spoke to Carl Preston about this, and I and I mentioned if
you think of active inference, if you talk about the brains
prior information, posterior conclusions, the free energy
principle, is it not possible tothen conclude that there is no
(15:48):
consciousness and, and and go down the philosophical route of
illusionism with your theory? And he agreed.
He said, yes, it's very easy to take that route.
But on the on the flip side, it's also very easy to use that
same very neuroscientific physicalist theory and head down
a pan psychist route. And then that's why his work
with Mike Levin occurs and all the other work that's being done
(16:09):
in this field occurs with this diverse intelligence mindset.
So it doesn't seem to be too difficult.
And I see whereabout it kind of happens with some thinkers.
And, and then I also think aboutwhen Philip Goff used to say he
thinks pancykism is the number one theory and he thinks that if
he had to choose on a second theory, it would be illusionism.
And then that also sort of makessense.
And because it's it's not that difficult.
(16:30):
It's still very much physicalist.
It still has a lot of the same elements.
It's it's not like a big leap we, although it seems like it
is. I think what's going on there?
I that's, that's great that you've, you've described that
and, and noted that that Philip and others have have gone that
(16:50):
way. To me, the problem with where
that's gone is you are still saying that the subject of the
experience is of what we call a physical object.
And I'm jettisoning that becausethat's the only way I can make
this work. So why does the world seem to
have physical objects in it? So if you if you take the leap
(17:14):
I've taken from a panpsychism ofmodels, I'm still saying there's
modelling machinery that is doing the modelling.
That is saying that's a fence out there and that's a tree.
And that goes, you know, whatever it is, and this is a
problem. What is the status of the actual
world, if there is such a thing?What on earth is it?
Now, if you went to Bernardo Castrop, his analytic idealism,
(17:41):
or Deepak Chopra, with whom I'vehad such interesting disputes,
his, his form of, of Advaita Vedanta and that form of
idealism, then you do away with any external world.
But then I just don't get, and I've, you know, argued this
with, with, with both of them. Why does science work?
(18:02):
You know, why should the world turn out to have things that
appear to be like brains that wecan do the maths and we can do
the, the the experiments? You know, why is that the case?
You've got to have an explanation of that which
materialism kind of gives you reasons what what things happen
and you can make sensible theories.
So what do you do with a pure idealism?
I I think you've still got a problem.
(18:24):
So I am really struggling and wondering about theories or sort
of proto theories, ideas that people are having physicists
mostly about some underlying nature of something that gives
rise to the appearance of this particular kind of physical
world in which brains, I mean, we model brains, we get do
(18:49):
experiments. And you know, when I think about
my brain in here, I've never seen it.
And even if I did see it, it's still a model of a brain.
But but the theory works on how how the brain's doing it.
So this is this is the way it itgoes.
And there are physicists saying because of the, you know, the
fundamental problems that quantum mechanics is
(19:11):
incompatible with with space-time.
And you know what does kinds of things?
There's wonderful struggles going on, but there are
physicists who say that space and time are not fundamental.
Now we're getting back to retreats here because it's not
that unusual in deep meditation to have the revelation.
(19:31):
Didn't you like that word? It's kind of realisation in
certain states that, oh, time isjust a construct.
It, it literally feels seems to have disappeared.
There is change, there's something happening as it were,
but not in time. Space as well kind of dissolves
and yet there's still something.So that side of my life
(19:56):
encourages me to try and think this way.
So is there some like Don Hoffman for example, talks about
some underlying mathematical structure.
In no way can I understand the maths obviously, but I I am.
Fascinated by the idea that underlying this all there is
some kind of mathematical structure which gives rise to
the sort of structures that we have.
(20:20):
Unlike the idealism, which seemsto me, you know, Bernardo just
says, Oh well, it's like rippleson the on the water and it's a
dissociative something or other that doesn't seem to help.
Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't, but that's kind of the
way I'm going. So that then ultimately could
explain how we come to be able to explain the way that brains
(20:44):
can build models live. We live these models, which are
descriptions of what appears to be an external world that we
live in. At at what point evolutionary do
you think these modelling processes within the span
psychist view? First of all, I think it's where
I think I should mention I neverthought I would.
I would reach a point in my lifewhere I would see Susan
(21:06):
Blackmore telling me she's a pants like stuff with.
Yeah, yeah. Well, if I live long enough, I
expect there'll be some more surprises.
You were probably one of those people who kept thinking I was a
materialist, however much I toldpeople I wasn't.
Because you know, and you can see why, because I'm saying, oh,
this is the way to understand out of body experiences.
(21:28):
We've got to understand what's going on in the brain.
And look, it's not, it's not a spirit leaving the body.
It's actually a disruption of the body schema and people.
There you are. You see, you're just dismissing
them and you're a materialist and you're a reductionist and
you say it's not true. I'm going, of course it's true.
You have the experiences, but they're not like that.
But they still think I'm a materialist so good.
Well, I'm glad you've you've seen me change a bit.
(21:48):
It's. It's I think it's.
A good no, because I've stayed the same in that respect.
But I mean you, you followed along with this.
Thank you. No, it's, it's been a
fascinating journey. I'm I'm waiting for the day you
you write a book about God and and its existence and that that
day is probably not going to come to.
No, I think I'm not going to write about God and its
existence. No, probably not.
(22:09):
I, I, I can tell that's never going to happen.
But anyway, I think so there's afew things you touched on.
You mentioned one thing that I think we should really touch on
is since we last spoke, we lost one of the greatest pioneers in
philosophy and, and that is Daniel Dennett is a hero to me,
is a hero to you. What are your thoughts on the
impact he's left on this field and in society in general?
(22:31):
Very, very difficult. I'll just add that for me it was
particularly poignant the day hedied. 19th of April was Charles
Darwin's day that he died. And it was also much more
trivial the day that Emily and my book, the 4th edition of
(22:54):
Consciousness and Introduction was launched.
And we were on our way to Tucsonto, to, to the Tucson conference
last year in April. And we were, you know, got the
first copies of the book. And we were driving in a hire
car from LA airport to, to Tucson.
(23:15):
And we got the news from a friend on our phones that he
died that day. And so, but more serious, well,
more importantly to to think about your question, I have very
complicated and mixed feelings about it.
He was a great friend, a huge supporter in many ways.
(23:38):
He really helped me with in the beginning with the me machine.
I never would have written the me machine if he hadn't
encouraged me right from the start, which was great.
I don't think he, he liked my thoughts on consciousness too
much. But but never mind.
I think the greatest gift that he gave to the field and most
(24:00):
people were not listening and they couldn't understand it was
to point out all the pitfalls, to point out again and again and
again where we go wrong. I mean, I, I have not reread
Consciousness Explained in a long time, but I remember I read
it first. Absolutely when it first came
out. I went to a lecture of his and
(24:20):
that inspired me to do the firstever experiment on change
blindness because I was so amazed in this lecture and and
in the book, I reread it on a holiday some years later.
We went on a nice sunny holiday in Greece with a pool and I did
nothing on that holiday apart from meals and walks and things,
but read that book and it took me the entire week's holiday to
(24:43):
reread that book. And again I was stunned by it
because the things that I had forgotten and things that I
hadn't properly understood. I'm saying this because I
understand why people don't didn't understand.
Now that was his greatest gift, multiple draft theory.
(25:04):
It's really hard to get and I have mixed feelings about that,
which is very interesting. What I think I mean, there's no
question that he he made a massive contribution to the
field of consciousness. He was part of the process of
launching the fact that there isa field of consciousness studies
at all that. And then three years after that,
(25:25):
Chalmers comes along and finds the term the hard problem.
And you know, it was really all starting there.
And he went on, Dan went on all the time pushing this, doubt
this, doubt this, what about this, think this through all the
time. But the disservice I think he
did was to the discussions aboutfree will because he would not
(25:48):
say that free will is an illusion.
And the reasons why he wouldn't say it, I've never really
understood. I've argued with him so much
about that. And one of the things I really
regret from a purely selfish point of view is why couldn't I
have done a podcast discussion with Dan ever before he died?
Because these kind of things were only just beginning to
(26:09):
happen and and I didn't. There are a couple of things
online of me talking with him, but but not much.
But in various places he says, well, first of all, there's no
audience in the car. In the car, he's in theatre.
And it's that audience that would have free will, isn't it?
I mean, you know, and if there isn't anyone there, and if
(26:33):
that's an illusion, if that's a benign user illusion, I don't
think it's benign. But anyway, if it's a benign
user illusion and it thinks it'sgot free will, then free will is
part of the benign user illusion, isn't it, Dan?
And he actually says in various places that free will is just
not what you think it is. But what's the definition of, I
(26:53):
see I'm getting crossed now. Like, Dan, what is the official
dictionary definition of an illusion is something that it's
not what it seems to be. So if he's actually saying that
free will is not what it seems to be, Dan, it's an illusion.
So that I think was a disservicebecause his whole thrust of his
(27:17):
philosophical life on consciousness was to show people
where they're going wrong, wherethe natural, biologically based,
natural ideas we have, which areduellist and, you know,
self-centered and so on are wrong, getting people out of
that. And then he allows them to go on
believing that there's, there's this magical process.
(27:38):
And he even says, oh, it's not magic, but he kind of encourages
them to go on thinking that it's, you know, to being
compatible. It's that it's compatible with,
well, with science basically, And it isn't, in my opinion.
It isn't in my opinion, he was wrong.
So that leaves me sad about Dan.He told me in as many words, I
(28:03):
hope before I die I will persuade you that you're wrong
about free will. And I hoped that before, I mean,
I knew I wouldn't, but I kind ofhad the reciprocal hope that I
could possibly persuade him to start saying it's an illusion.
But we both failed, and then he died.
No, I, I completely agree. When you mentioned you wish you
had a podcast with him, there was also, he was one of those
(28:25):
people I had on the like the topof the list.
Um, when I read, when I started this podcast, yeah, I really
wanted to chat to him and we sent a couple of emails back and
forth and he said one day it will happen.
And then we obviously never got that chance.
So it also really disappoints methat I never got to pick his
brain and discuss it. And I mentioned, I mean, in my
dissertation, you guys, both of you and Keith and a lot of
people were quoted many times. I think Dan was one of the most
(28:46):
quoted at the time when I was writing that.
I really wish I got a chance to speak to him.
But I agree. I think that when when he spoke
about free will, it fought more of a social theory for him.
It felt more close, too close toheart.
Where it was difficult for him to become the philosopher he
really is with that topic for some reason.
Is that what you felt? Do you feel like he held it to a
(29:07):
social subject rather than a philosophical conversation?
Yes, you put that really well. I think that's right.
Why the Why? Did he find that?
I've, I've always thought that when I read it, I felt like it's
very strange that he's not applying his intuition pumps to
this concept because that was because that was what he was
known for. But yeah, he's a true hero.
(29:29):
This reminds me of because I told you, I've just been on this
retreat. It was a, it was a 10 day Jana's
retreat. That's a training in getting
into these different altered states of consciousness that you
can get into through concentration.
It's very, very interesting. There were there were lots of
discussions in the discussion time about the Buddha very
(29:49):
clearly says in many ways in different places in the suitors,
the early suitors that there is no reincarnation, There isn't
anybody to be reincarnated. There isn't any life after
death. All the stuff about, you know,
will you be born in a reborn in a better life and so on is
clearly not true in, in very clearly stated in many of the
(30:12):
things that he says. And there's a lot of evidence
that not only do people like to believe that, obviously, but the
cultures into which Buddhism went very often had these
beliefs in, in reincarnation andso on.
So it's not surprising that it all get mixed up and lots of
people think that Buddhists haveto believe in reincarnation,
which they don't have to. Well, at least I know some who
(30:35):
aren't. I'm not a Buddhist myself.
Them I certainly don't. But but there are also actual
Buddhists who, who, who, who don't.
And in this, in discussions in the retreat, I asked and
somebody else was asking the sort of question, Well, why is
it that in some of the tutors and, and some of the latest
sutras, he is, is talking to a whole mass of people and people
(30:59):
ask him, well, is this person going to be in their next life
in a better, you know, better reincarnation?
And he answered those questions.Well, why did he answer those
questions if he clearly doesn't believe it's true?
And then the answers or possibleanswers that were discussed
were, well, he was just using skilful means because those
(31:22):
people he was talking to was so deeply embedded in that culture.
If he just said, oh, that's rubbish, you know, he'd they'd
have wandered off and wouldn't have stayed there.
Whereas in more sophisticated when he's talking 1 to one or
small groups of his followers and who who could accept it?
He was, he was actually saying the truth as he saw it, that
(31:43):
there's just this and there isn't a continuation of somebody
who's experiencing this. So I don't know if that's a very
good analogy, but from what you've described of what you
think about Dan, it's kind of the same thing more than 2000
years later. So perhaps we ought to be more
forgiving. I ought to be more forgiving of
Dan. Look, I think it's, I think a
(32:03):
lot of people find we'll have some sort of a situation where
this occurs. It's almost like a politician
trying to discuss certain top conversations with with masses
and then going back to their cabinet and discussing the same
topic. It's kind of like you put on a
certain show with certain peopleand then you go back to your
actual views when you when you discuss it with colleagues or
friends. Maybe, but but I think it's a
it's yours is a better analogy to that.
(32:25):
But anyway, let's go back to Keith that.
Raises the whole question of truth and what is truth And, you
know, probably a lot of us thinkI always want to tell the truth
and all I want is to find the truth and then you sort of start
finding out you're not entirely sure what you mean by the truth
and. Yeah, and most people, most
people don't even realise how much they lie to themselves.
So that's the that's that's the first thing they need to 1st
figure out is am I telling myself the truth?
(32:47):
Yes. And when you spoke?
About entire life doing that. When you exactly when you spoke
to Keith yesterday, what's his thoughts on these views on this
change of? Your Oh, well, I don't yet know.
He wrote me the most wonderful e-mail.
We arranged to to do a podcast discussion and he wrote me a
(33:09):
most wonderful e-mail. He actually has has read or
reread almost all of my books inpreparation for this.
And I'm like, you know, how can somebody, you know, that was
just sort of amazing. And, and, and he was saying, you
know, how excited he got about some of my ideas about the
(33:32):
prescience, as he sees it, of the me machine, which is now 25
years old. That encourages me to do a
second edition or do something because well, anyway, never
mind. And, and other things that he
was commenting on. And he laid out sort of three
sections of what we'd like to talk about.
One was out of body experiences and all that stuff.
(33:53):
Another one was memes and another one was consciousness.
Well, we did more than an hour and you know, I get very tired
and an hour is as much and him as well.
He, he has a problem with fatigue as well.
So after an hour and a quarter, we stopped and we'd only done
the first section. So I have not discussed and
we've agreed we're going to do 2more and, and, and do the
(34:14):
others. Meanwhile, I sent him my I've
written sort of 3/4 of a paper that I want to submit for
publication about these ideas, which is the first thing that
I've written down about them. I've talked in a couple of
context, small context to audiences, but and to Peter
Shosted Hughes and his little group in Exeter.
(34:34):
They were really helpful, you know, with criticisms, but they
seem to kind of take it worth thinking about anyway.
So I began writing this paper and then and it wasn't finished
when I was going on the retreat,but he wanted to read it so I
sent it to him. And when I got back and I
haven't been able to look at hiscomments.
He's written comments all, I mean, you look the side box, you
(34:57):
know, within word. And it's like, but he said he's
really excited by the ideas. And so I can't answer.
Knowing Keith a bit, I think he'll have some very useful
criticisms and clearly he's not,he's not dismissing.
That's the nice thing to me. He's not dismissing it and
saying this is rubbish. He is interested enough, thinks
thinks it's worth having a go at, but I can't answer yet.
(35:20):
But I will be able to answer when we get around to this
conversation. I agree with you Keith.
Keith is so wonderful that when I, this was about 20/20/21 when
I had emailed him, I think maybe2019, I can't remember, but when
I was doing my dissertation, I'dsent him an e-mail saying, Hey,
would you mind having a look at this and just letting me know
what you think. And exactly the same thing
(35:41):
happened. He replied a few a week or so
later with, with a whole bunch of comments along the side.
And I, and at the end I actuallywrote with special thanks to to
Nicholas Humphrey, Keith Frankish, Michael Graziano,
because these people actually assisted me to write this at the
time. And it was really, really
thoughtful because he gave me the probably the most notes and,
and you just, you were talking about stamina and just staying
(36:02):
for a long podcast. The last time when you and I
spoke afterwards, Keith and I had a, a Sunday discussion and
we had a podcast day and he had spoken about escaping Descartes
prison. And we, we had a whole 3 hour
podcast. And thereafter Keith and I
decided, let's have another lecture where because he's now
growing and he's reactivity schema theory.
(36:23):
I'm not sure. Have you guys discussed that
yet? No, OK, no, I'd love to.
I'll let you guys chat about that.
But then we had another three hour lecture series.
So we spent an entire Sunday, literally almost around six to
seven hours just on a full podcast mode.
It was exhausting, but one of the best Sundays you can have.
Actually, even though he says that he finds it exhausting, he
does he. Does he pushed through it was
(36:44):
amazing. So the lectures I mean I've got
it both online. I'll send you links.
It's really interesting the way he sort of fine tuning the
illusionist argument with a reactivity schema theory, so
maybe ask him about that when you chat to him.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I will. But that says something about
your thesis that those people, Imean, I would guess they're all
(37:05):
the same as me, some younger. I mean, Michael's much younger
and probably has a lot more energy there for but, you know,
get sent so many things like this.
And if you think for God's sake,you person I've never heard of
have written a thesis. Are you really expecting they?
Don't you understand how much I've got to do that sort of, you
(37:25):
know, very natural reaction. But then I will think it's part
of your job, you know, not a job, but you know, the life is
at least have a look. And so often you can look and
there's an abstract and it's absolutely clear that either
it's beyond my I don't have a, you know, I'm not competent, or
it's complete garbage. And few I can just write back
and say, well, good luck with your thesis.
(37:46):
But I'm sorry, you know, and there will be a rare one where
actually it's tempting enough tothink, yeah, I can learn
something from this and I can help this person and and so on.
So that's brilliant that they were able to help you.
But Keith is exceptional in how much effort he.
No, I agree. He's he's wonderful.
So you mentioned that you, you won this retreat exploring
(38:08):
altered states of consciousness because Peter and I just spoke
the other day and and that's when he said he's actually going
to call you to come visit. But we were discussing how he's
from his data, it says that mostpeople who have altered states
of consciousness, maybe if they go on DMT, whether it's
psilocybin doesn't matter. They seem to go into a more pan
psychist view. But I said, and I would think
(38:30):
that people more would go more into an idealist framework, but
it seems that the data heads towards a pan psychist view.
Do you think exploring altered states of consciousness over
time? I mean, I've had altered states
of consciousness just to make itclear that it's, I'm not judging
it in any way. But do you think exploring
altered states of consciousness would open someone's mind to a
(38:50):
more pan psychist view? I wish that were true.
As far as I know from the evidence from psychedelics,
people become more dualist afterclassical psychedelics like LSD
and psilocybin. And I was really rather
(39:10):
depressed to read that this was some evidence that came out, I
don't know, four or five years ago.
And I was quite depressed by that because I know people and I
know myself being more likely tobecome modest rather than
duelist. And so Pancycho.
I mean, it's a kind of monism inin a way.
And, and so I can see that. And that's much more hopeful to
(39:30):
me that people would come that way.
I think it's actually, I think the philosophical lines that we
draw may not be the appropriate ones for talking about this.
After all, the philosophical concepts that we have have come
from 2000 or more years, and they may not be the best way of
dividing up how the mind works. So although I think it's really
(39:53):
useful and I'm really thrilled that this work on psychedelics
is actually happening now. God, how awful that the war on
drugs prevented it for so long. But anyway, at least it's
happening now that we need otherways of thinking about this.
I mean so many people with LSD for example.
(40:13):
Will become animists, which is sort of heading kind of
panpsychism, I suppose, because you have this feeling when you
look out. I mean, I'm looking at a sort
of, it's kind of a palm tree. This is a little bit of the edge
of southwest England where palm trees can survive.
And I'm looking at this waving and this stormy wind we've got.
(40:35):
Now, if I were on acid tripping,I'm pretty sure I would feel the
life force within that thing. I'm looking at, you know, it's
alive and you know, and I would feel there is something it's
like to be it. And I would feel that I'm part
of it. And we're all 1.
And that's very common. And I'm used to that.
I know what that feels like. Now, how does that fit within
(40:58):
philosophy? I don't think it's, it's
terribly helpful to well, maybe it is, but I don't think it
neatly fits into one philosophical view rather than
another. I think we've got a lot of
exploring to do. Yeah, I think there's also
certain linguistic limitations that we might have, and it
becomes very difficult to explain these ineffable
experiences. Well, that's, that's a, that's
(41:21):
a, an aspect of what I'm saying really, that we use words.
If we're being philosophers, we're using philosophical words.
But if we're not philosophers, then we're still using words in
our, in our language that makes sense to us.
And they've evolved over time, alot of them not in the context
of thinking about older states, but Peter and I have talked
(41:42):
about these kinds of things a lot.
But the older states I was talking about in this retreat
last week are not like, and there's something in common, but
they're not like psychedelic states.
They're much more concentrated, much less.
You know, I wouldn't be looking at that palm tree and feeling in
(42:05):
that way. In fact, I'd have my eyes shut
and be deep, deep, deep in concentration and kind of going
down and down into a kind of depths of simplifying the mind.
I've, I've, I've never been to aretreat.
What, what did those experiencesdo for you in terms of your own
clarity of thought, generating new ideas, and just experiencing
and being being in general? Depends on the type of retreat.
(42:32):
Most. I mean, the first retreat I ever
went on was in 1981. That was called a Western Zen
retreat led by John Crook, who was my he's he was he's dead
now. A Zen master also trained in
other traditions than as actually Chan, the Chinese pre
predecessor to Zen and their those retreats and I went on
(42:58):
many, many others in that same tradition are based on open,
open awareness meditation. It's all about training
attention. In the end.
All of this is training attention in different ways.
So Zen Zazen just sitting secondTaza.
It's all applying equal attention to everything without
(43:22):
judgement. It's one way of putting it may
not be ideal, but anyway, so really training attention to do
that is a lifetime's work. It's hard, but you know, you get
better at it. Now how does that answer your
question? That kind of meditation, it
changes your relationship to theworld and in odd ways that must
(43:45):
be explicable, I suppose. But it, it encourages compassion
and openness and facing up to your fears.
I mean, actually, I suppose it'svery simple one, here's a very
simple aspect. If you have to sit there hour
after hour after hour gazing at you, don't you have your eyes
open for that kind of meditation?
(44:05):
And you're looking typically at a white wall, but even the, the
smoothest white wall will have you know, but often you're
looking at a carpet or some piece of wood on the floor, you
know, and it, and it's, and thenit's all the worries that you've
got and all the miseries and allthe anger.
And for me, it's anger is is it is usually the problem that it
can be regret. And you know, you have to face
(44:25):
yourself and doing that leads toto big changes.
Philosophically, it's much harder to say.
And you know, if you're a Buddhist, you're going to get
tied up in, in Buddhist philosophy and all sorts of
stuff. But I'm not.
And I didn't now changing over to the kind of retreat that I'm
(44:46):
talking about now. I mean, I still do send retreats
or charm retreats. I'm going to be doing one in
June, which is using a Co on is weird kind of questions that you
struggle with. So it's not just who am I
staring at this wall, but some other thing you've got to do.
But these Jana's ones are very different.
So in the early suitors, the Buddha says practice vaginas and
(45:11):
they are a series of eight increasingly deep states
achieved through through concentration.
So open awareness is not really concentration, it's open
attention. You know, but this is like
narrow the attention down and you get into these different
states. So what they tell us, I think is
(45:32):
very different. You could.
I don't know how much you want to know about this and I've
forgotten what your question wasand I've just started rambling
so I'll shut up and see what youwant to know.
So now I was just, I was just curious to know if it, if it
does actually impact your philosophical framework in any
way. Post yes.
Experience yes. Absolutely it does.
(45:55):
OK, so cutting all the complications of, you know, so
I, I can't do all of these at all.
I think I can do some but but the last task that we were given
on the last day was to go out for a walk.
And this, this comes from a particular story of what
happened to one of somebody thatBuddha met and so on, who had a
(46:16):
wrong view of some kind. And the Buddha said to this guy,
so this man was asking in his tradition had been seeking the,
the, The Who is it who sees and who is it who hears and all of
this. And the Buddha says to him in
(46:37):
seeing there is only seeing, in hearing, there is only hearing,
in touching is only touch, and it's on.
And these stories always ramble on incredibly repetitively and
tediously. But anyway, so we were sent out
and by this time, after this is the 10th day of meditating many,
many hours a day, we're sent outto go for a walk.
(47:01):
And one suggestion is, is walking out of time.
So that's another thing that we discussed that's slightly
different part of it, but let itbe seeing is, is just seeing and
hearing is just hearing. Now it happened to be a really
stormy day. There were the trees thrashing
(47:21):
around and the not a building going on all these plastic
things. And that plastic was kind of
crashing. And the sound was, and then as I
got down towards the beach, these big crashing waves and the
sights of all this and practising this.
And what of course it's getting at is there isn't anybody
(47:42):
seeing. There's just seeing.
And in this way, you look at this and then this and they're
not tied together as an order intime, the seeing and the
hearing. And there's this.
And so it's demolishing. It's yet another way of
demolishing the false view that I'm in here looking out through
(48:04):
my eyes and seeing an external world.
So that, yes, that and, and I would say I'm glad you asked
because that's a good example ofwhy I keep going, why I keep,
because it's bloody hard work. I mean, a lot of that retreat, I
was like, oh God, why did I eversign up to this?
And you know, oh, I've got to doanother hour and I can't bear
(48:24):
it, you know, but in the end, it's amazing.
It's amazing to actually experience that.
And that fits with with philosophical changes in in in
your life. Yeah, that's I agree.
I think that it is it is strangethat the research says people
become more dualistic because the the association is often non
(48:47):
duality with these types of experience.
So yeah, fascinating. I wonder what I'm gonna look
into that research to make sure.But before, so before we go back
into that, you, you mentioned that when you had dinner, when
dinner had passed away, you weredriving on your way to Tucson.
And I, I spoke to Stuart Amarov about two weeks ago, maybe
three. This year's one is in Barcelona.
(49:07):
And this time he's focusing the conference solely solely on the
quantum and classical reality and meeting in between.
And this theme for this year seems to be directly linked to
this view of consciousness, which seems to link more with
idealist views. But he's also got a lot of
neuroscientific theorists comingthrough.
What are your thoughts on this this approach for the conference
this year? Total crap.
(49:32):
I was expecting that. I, I looked at the programme for
Barcelona and I thought, and there's a, there's a very,
there's a few really good peoplegoing, but oh, what are they
doing? You know, Stuart and I have had
troubles together and you know, I know Stuart pretty well and
(49:57):
there's online, there's the timewhen I was supposed to be having
a conversation on stage with Deepak Chopra and Stuart
actually interrupted while we were given a few minutes
introduction to do and he, he was in the, he was the
chairperson, right. And he interrupted my little
introduction because I mentionedthat, you know, I've been
(50:17):
inspired to do that by having this out of body experience to
investigate. And I said it's wonderful in my
life that we now can understand,you know, how they happen.
Come on then, give some proof. Then he said he's the chairman,
you know. So then, then Deepak gets at me
and the whole thing just descended.
It's all online, descended into ridiculousness.
And then his wife, his fifth wife, I think he's now on the
(50:40):
6th. But anyway, his fifth wife, I
didn't realize who it was at thetime, but the, the crowd was
sort of shouting, let her speak and stuff.
After half an hour of this goingon and she, somebody came up,
but I was told later that that was his wife and said that
Stuart let her speak, you know. So subsequently he apologised
(51:00):
and I accept his apology and that's fine.
Deepak and I, I, I just decided I'm, I'm not having any more of
this crap with Deepak. I'm going to, I'm going to let's
because every time I've, I've had dinner with Deepak on on, on
my own the night before that andwe get on so well and we talk
about, you know, all sorts of interesting stuff.
And I thought we need to do thatonline.
(51:21):
And I asked him if we could. And to his credit, he did.
He agreed. And we then did a good podcast
and he wants to do another one. I was going to say later this
month, but I anyway, very soon he wants to do another one.
And we have proved now that we can have those nice
conversations. So sorry.
Going back, going back to Stuart, Stuart is very forceful.
(51:44):
He is utterly, utterly convincedby his own quantum theory, which
is different from the original one that he started out with.
He will get Roger Penrose onlineevery possible opportunity.
He started out with Penrose with, with, with one version of
(52:05):
his quantum theory that the collapse of the wave function in
in the microtubules and has goneon to a different version.
It still depends on microtubules.
But he keeps thinking, saying there's kind of evidence that
puts supports his theory, which is bits of evidence to do with
the possibility of quantum computing or some kind of
quantum effects relevant to cognition in the brain.
(52:28):
And, you know, he's absolutely sure he's right, which is not a
good stand for a scientist. You know, you need this balance.
You need to be really, I think I'm right and oh, isn't this
exciting if I am right? And how am I going to prove
myself wrong in case I am wrong?And you know, what would happen
if I'm, you know, and, and is, is just absolutely convinced
he's right? Now, here's the point.
(52:51):
Let us suppose that there were quantum computing in
microtubules. It's possible.
It seems unlikely to me. And there's all the problem with
the temperature. And, you know, let's suppose
there were or let's suppose thatin some other way the brain is a
quantum computer. How does that help solve the
problem? Doesn't solve the hard problem.
I mean, why should consciousnesssuddenly arise from quantum
(53:15):
computing in a way that we thinkbut haven't discovered that it
arises from ordinary computing? There's no, there's nothing in
his theory that addresses the problem of consciousness at all,
as far as I'm concerned. That's why I feel it's
legitimate, as I wouldn't very often to just say a rude word.
I mean, it's sad to me that it'sso popular because it sounds
(53:39):
great, doesn't it, quantum stuff.
And it must be very clever if you, of course, I can't
understand quantum mechanics. I don't have the maths.
And, you know, people are thinking, wow, you know, it must
be very clever. And I don't think Stuart
understands quantum mechanics either.
He's not a mathematician, he's not a physicist.
And yet it's hugely popular. And now the whole of the
(54:02):
conference in Barcelona is goingto be devoted to that.
Well, I hope they have a lovely time Despite that, but I don't
think it's going to go anywhere helpful for us in understanding
the nature of mind. Yeah, I think The funny thing is
that the ACC, what is the other conference called the AS?
ASSC, The association for the scientific study of
(54:22):
consciousness. That's on the same week.
So he was really pissed about that.
He was really serious, Yes, Yeah.
So that's increased. That's it.
That's in Crete, Yeah. In Greece, yeah.
So that's where Keith is actually.
It would be a good opportunity to visit Keith as well.
But the The funny thing was today I was on Twitter and I
don't think you have Twitter right, Sue?
No, luckily, because if you see the wars that go down with with
(54:46):
Stuart, I think it was a Neil and a Neil set and Stuart having
a back and forth this morning and and it was pretty crazy.
Yeah, it's it's not the most polite conversation to tell.
Me about it because I, I mean, I'm not even going to see it
probably so. Let me see if I can.
Give me the gist. Yeah, I.
Do let's, I'll find it right nowbecause Stuart's quite active on
Twitter and I even told him it'slike watching a show.
(55:09):
But I so, Oh yes, one thing as Ifind this one thing Stuart did
say, which to his credit is thatChalmers said that if Stuart
perhaps is not around anymore and then the theory comes out to
be true, then people might be OKwith it because Stuart said that
Chalmers said they just don't like the idea of letting you
have the have the fun of it being correct.
(55:29):
So he did admit to that and he does, he does know he did.
He comes across this way. So in his defence, so I think
here it is so, so it says wait one second almost.
There we go. Anil Seth, David Chalmers and
Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the same ignorant mistake arguing
(55:51):
for conscious AI, saying silicone is no different than
carbon. Even if that were true life
consciousness and are based on organic carbon in aromatic ring
structures within intrinsic quantum optical properties.
These guys are experts. Question mark, question mark,
exclamation mark, exclamation mark.
And he tags them. So that's The funny thing.
He tags all three of them into this, and then they start having
(56:13):
a conversation that Neil's like Stewart, you're entitled to your
own opinions, but not to consistently misrepresent mine.
I make it really that I'm sceptical of silicon based
conscious AI, making the case different from your case that
consciousness is a biological property.
And then it just keeps going back and forth, back and forth.
But yeah, these are the conversations you're missing out
(56:33):
on. I wonder whether Anil thinks
that it's a good use of his timeto do this.
I mean, I'm just wondering, you know, I've, I've just resisted
getting involved with, with, with X and all that.
But I think I'm, I think I'm tooold.
I'm not going to. But it's very interesting to
hear a snippet of, of what's going on there and all.
(56:55):
It's great. I mean, I really like his work.
I really loved his book. Obviously we disagree a lot,
quite a lot. And he doesn't he don't think
much of my of my new ideas that we were talking about, but we
also have a lot in common. And I think he's his book has
really been a good contribution to people understanding
predictive processing. Yeah.
(57:18):
And Sue, do you have any upcoming in terms of books,
papers, any work that you're working on that you'd like to
share with the audience? So we seem to have gone off on a
tangent. We have and also.
It's been an hour and we need tostop, don't we?
We can always have another go, which will be fun because it's
always fun talking to you. No, not really.
(57:39):
I mean, I was so utterly exhausted by the book.
You know, my daughter Emily and I did the 4th edition of the
Consciousness Textbook and it was an exhausting job.
Not because of the, the, the work of actually doing the
writing and the updating. That was worthwhile and fun and
interesting. The bloody publishers made it.
(57:59):
They, the copy editors were so bad.
They actually changed things we'd written, added references
in the wrong place. Where they why?
I mean, they just, you know, really messed things up.
And guess it's putting that all right because we're meticulous
people who want everything right.
And oh, it was a nightmare. And honestly, I was like
drained. But I have, I've got lots of
(58:23):
ideas for, for, for books and then I don't actually decide
what to start on. So my job now is to write this
article about the ideas that we were talking about earlier,
about the, about the models and why they're the subject of
consciousness, not objects. And we'll see where that takes
me. I mean, I keep fantasising out a
(58:45):
book about that, but I, I, you know, I haven't actually started
that. And then I'm thinking about a
second edition of the Me Machinebecause people keep
interestingly now this is weird.So Keith Frankish was saying how
much he enjoyed rereading the Meme Machine because he'd read
it a long time ago. And that he said how prescient
it was in terms of, of what's happening with with AI and LLMS
(59:06):
and all the other things going on there.
And that made me think, I talkedto OUP about who published it,
about doing a second edition. And then they never got on to
actually submitting a proposal. But then on this retreat, the
guy, Lee Bracington leading the retreat, the Jana's expert, he
(59:29):
said somebody asked in in the chat thing, you know, oh, can
you give a list of your books? You know, that we'd like to read
them. And I and I put that, put that
and and he said, where's the main machine?
Where's the main machine? Because to him, but the end of
the meme machine where I talk about how the self is
constructed, false self, the illusion of self is constructed
(59:49):
by them for the memes benefit. It's not for us, which is why I
say it's not a benign user illusion.
It's actually a malign user illusion because it's actually
in the service of the memes. It's making the brain work very
hard to take in certain memes that are all to do with me and
selfishly and so on and so on. And I guess that kind of.
With the sort of Buddhist idea so that, you know, like coming
(01:00:11):
up at least that makes me think I really ought to get on with
them with, with doing the secondedition.
And I'm sure that's a better useof my time than going on
Twitter. I completely agree.
And look, I've read that book twice and it's been a while
since I've read it. Yeah, so and I actually look
forward now that Keith has has given it such high praise, I
think it's time to give it a go again.
(01:00:32):
So thank you so much, Sue. It's always a pleasure chatting
to you. And I'm, I'm looking forward to
reading this this your new papers about this.
It sounds really fascinating. OK, well I will send it to you
if I actually manage when I managed to do it.
Well, great, it's been lovely again talking to you.
Thanks Suz, have a great one. And till next time, good luck
(01:00:52):
with Deepak. Thank you very much.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage
Rewarded for bravery that goes above and beyond the call of duty, the Medal of Honor is the United States’ top military decoration. The stories we tell are about the heroes who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and courage that have saved lives. From Judith Resnik, the second woman in space, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice, these are stories about those who have done the improbable and unexpected, who have sacrificed something in the name of something much bigger than themselves. Every Wednesday on Medal of Honor, uncover what their experiences tell us about the nature of sacrifice, why people put their lives in danger for others, and what happens after you’ve become a hero. Special thanks to series creator Dan McGinn, to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and Adam Plumpton. Medal of Honor begins on May 28. Subscribe to Pushkin+ to hear ad-free episodes one week early. Find Pushkin+ on the Medal of Honor show page in Apple or at Pushkin.fm. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plus
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com