Suppositicii 2.0: Tenure, Gladiators & the Hunger Games of Academia

Suppositicii 2.0: Tenure, Gladiators & the Hunger Games of Academia Dear Magicians, I’m watching Gladiator 2 at cruising altitude, which feels like the perfect metaphor for modern academia – artificial combat in a pressurized environment. Russell Crowe and I have both expanded since the original film, though I suspect for different reasons. His involves method acting. Mine involves tenure. Consider this. The ancient Romans had a term: “Suppositicii” – disposable gladiators. Built-in obsolescence, but for humans. The kind of gladiators you’d find in the clearance section of the arena, if Roman amphitheaters had clearance sections. Which, in a way, they did. Today I’m flying to meet Neil deGrasse Tyson. On my first appearance on StarTalk Radio he told me that, to him, looking at stars feels like looking into the past. Perhaps looking at academia is too. The same hierarchies. The same brutal efficiency. The same disposability, just with better coffee and fewer lions. My university even made it to it a physical coliseum for an epic battle — that’s right, March Madness! It was UCSD’s first time at the Big Dance. They lost, but they lost with dignity. Unlike most academic careers, which just… fizzle out, fading without so much as an echo. Think about your average adjunct professor. They’re like a Suppositicii with a PhD. Fighting for survival in fluorescent-lit corridors instead of sun-baked sand (arena in Latin, get it?). Their weapons? PowerPoint and peer review. Their colosseum? The freshman weed-out course. Their reward? A parking spot, if they’re lucky. Usually with a meter. If not, summarily fired . Are you not entertained? Let me be specific. I’ve achieved “tenure” – academic immortality, or at least its closest approximation. I like to think I’ve earned it. I’ve graduated over 15 PhDs, all gainfully employed, obtained two US Patents, built a thriving education/public outreach channel and my h-index — analogous to being inscribed on a Roman libelli (honorific columns) is several ticks above my age. As Maximus (Crowe) would say “What we do on the tenure-track echoes in eternity!” Here’s the thing about disposability. It’s not just about people. It’s about ideas. Values. The notion that worth equals productivity. That humans are resources to be optimized, like buffer sizes in a computer program. Or gladiators in an arena. But wait. What if we’re asking the wrong questions? What if the real measure of a society isn’t how efficiently it produces papers, but how carefully it protects its Suppositicii? Its adjuncts? Its graduate students surviving on ramen and optimism? Consider the alternatives. We could build universities that value human flourishing over h-indices. Create departments where “publish or perish” becomes “publish and thrive.” Design systems where the only disposable things are our assumptions about what academia should be. The path forward isn’t perfect. But neither was the original Gladiator. And look what they did with the sequel. Think about it. Test it. And maybe pack a lunch for your local adjunct professor. They’re probably hungry. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, and let me know: Do you give this message a 👍 or 👎? Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/yLHRR42Q7i4?si=Z4Sf-G3lWeZFO66q In this episode of Know Time, I talk about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang, cosmic microwave background radiation, cosmic inflation, BICEP & POLARBEAR experiments, the Simons Array and the Nobel Prize! Genius My friend Philip Phillips (yes, that’s his real name 😀), wrote a wonderful essay called “Science, not Silence” and graciously allowed me to publish it here on LinkedIn. Image Only a couple days away from the equinox sunset at the southpole. Here is an amazing picture from SPT winterover Sim Bash, with the silhouette of the Dark Sector with the sun behind it! Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=ZYAQMdcrQpM In this episode, Bob Kirshner discusses the progress and potential of the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) projects, emphasizing their readiness for the final design phase. He explores the evolving field of astrophysics, touching on the significance of discoveries in dark energy and exoplanets, while also contemplating the future of long-lasting telescopes and the impact of dark matter research. The conversation also delves into the intriguing possibilities and controversies in the field, including dark energy evolution and the intricate relationship between different scientific disciplines. Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement By popular demand, and for my mental health 😳, I am starting a paid “Office Hours” where you all can connect with me for the low price of $19.99 per hour. I get a lot of requests for coffee, to meet with folks one on one, to read people’s Theories of Everything etc. Due to extreme work overload, I’m only able to engage directly with supporters who show an ongoing commitment to dialogue—which is why I host a monthly Zoom session exclusively for patrons in the $19.99/month tier. It’s also available for paid Members of my Youtube channel at the Cosmic Office Hours level (also $19.99/month). Join here and see you in my office hours! Upcoming Episode Thomas Hertog will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. He was Stephen Hawking’s final collaborator, co-authoring a radical theory about the origins of time and the multiverse that challenges the boundaries between physics and philosophy. What question should I ask him? 👉 Submit here

Why People Have Turned on Science

Why People Have Turned on Science Dear Magicians, Scientists are losing the public. This was inevitable. They owe their careers to taxpayers. Yet many act as if their work is too important to explain. As if brilliance alone entitles them to a lifetime of funding. Academia makes this worse. Scientists who engage with the public get mocked as “popularizers.” It’s a sneer, not a compliment. Look at Carl Sagan. He brought science to millions. And for that, the National Academy of Sciences shut him out. The message? Keep your head down. Stay obscure. Hoard knowledge or risk exile. This is a sickness. We need science more than ever—climate change, pandemics, AI. And yet, scientists are pulling away. Andrew Huberman notes that Oliver Sacks was “attacked, shunned, and only after becoming a bit of a celebrity, re-welcomed.” A familiar pattern. UC Davis Professor Inna Vishik is right: Not every scientist can be a great communicator, but every scientist can share their research. Dismissing the public is a choice. Richard Behiel sees where this is going. Scientists will wake up. They’ll realize that public trust is not an obstacle—it’s the foundation. Most will build a public presence, or be left behind. The public is smarter than academia assumes. The fix is clear. Change what we reward. Stop punishing engagement. Teach scientists to communicate. Build bridges, not walls. Most of all, we need a shift in mindset. Because science locked away is science wasted. Because a public that doesn’t understand science won’t trust it. And because the greatest discoveries mean nothing if no one hears them. For Scientists & Academics: 🔹 Share your work. Write, speak, blog, stream, go on podcsats — engage—your research belongs to the world. 🔹 Challenge the gatekeepers. Don’t let academia punish those who make science accessible. 🔹 Bridge the gap. Teach, podcast, write—make science impossible to ignore. For the Public: 🔹 Demand better. Your tax dollars fund science—expect clarity, not secrecy. 🔹 Engage. Follow scientists who explain, not just publish. Ask questions. Push for transparency. 🔹 Support communicators. The ones breaking barriers need your voice behind them. Administrators: Wok for Institutional Change: 🔹 Reward public engagement. Universities should value outreach like they do research. 🔹 Teach communication. Science students should learn how to explain, not just experiment. 🔹 Break the cycle. Stop treating public engagement as a career risk. Make it a career advantage. Science belongs to everyone. Let’s start acting like it. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/nl6aRmOLR_o&list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB I appear (briefly) in this new video I made about the quest to understand the size of the universe. A series of debates explained through the lens of telescopes and the people who use them. Let me know what you think about this new style of ‘explainer videos’ featuring my brand-new studio. Genius The geniuses at NASA made this cool tool showing what the Hubble Space Telescope Saw on your birthday 🎉 Here’s mine above: On September 9 in 2006, HST caught V838 Monocerotis Light Echo . This image shows a light echo from the star V838 Monocerotis. After the star brightened temporarily, light from that eruption began propagating outward through a dusty cloud around the star. The light reflects or “echoes” off the dust and then travels to Earth. Image Hubble Telescope’s Just Took a Jaw-Dropping New Photo Mosaic That Traces Andromeda Galaxy’s History! Conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=MAU8VEGJizw In this video, I sit down with Professor Konstantin Batygin, a leading astronomer at Caltech, to dive deep into his groundbreaking research on Planet Nine. We explore the intriguing—but still debated—evidence for this mysterious planet, its impact on the Kuiper Belt, and the challenges of observing it directly. Professor Batygin also reveals the science behind his work, including how N-body simulations are used to compare with actual data. We then take a journey through the formation of Jupiter, unpacking its unusual size and role in shaping the early solar system. Plus, we discuss the exciting future of planetary research, with the Vera Rubin Observatory poised to revolutionize our understanding. Don’t miss this fascinating conversation! Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to elevate your knowledge and decision-making with Consensus Premium. Consensus Premium harnesses cutting-edge AI to sift through thousands of research papers, delivering clear, evidence-backed answers to your toughest questions. Whether you’re a curious mind, a scientist, or a student of life, this is your chance to access the world’s best knowledge with zero strings attached. Upcoming Episode Dick Bond will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. A leading cosmologist from the University of Toronto, Bond has shaped our understanding of the cosmic microwave background, dark matter, and the large-scale structure of the universe. His work laid the foundation for modern precision cosmology, influencing missions like WMAP and Planck. What burning questions do you have for one of the great theoretical minds in astrophysics?

Are Scientists Just Welfare Queens in Lab Coats?

Are Scientists Just Welfare Queens in Lab Coats? https://youtu.be/33kAgHGN-ac&list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB Dear Magicians, Has progress in theoretical physics stalled? This question haunted my recent conversation with Eric Weinstein and Avi Loeb, our first recorded dialogue in over two years. The reunion felt like a reckoning. Eric argues physics has been “soft sunsetted” – not suppressed through inquisition-style persecution, but through something possibly more insidious: the bureaucratic asphyxiation of ideas threatening the status quo. Looking at the 20th century’s theoretical triumphs – general relativity, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model – against recent decades suggests a troubling deceleration. But why? Have we picked all low-hanging fruit? Reached the limits of human intellectual capacity? Or is there something more sociological at play? Eric reserves particular criticism for physics “gatekeepers” and prominent science communicators who, he believes, have shaped public perception while offering little substance and incentivizing risk aversion over revolution. During our conversation, Eric also challenged a troubling narrative gaining traction – the characterization of scientists as “welfare queens in white lab coats.” He finds this trope deeply misguided, yet simultaneously criticizes the scientific community for failing to effectively defend their value. Scientists produce public goods – knowledge, technology, and innovations that benefit society far beyond grant dollars spent – but have struggled to articulate this impact with the precision their craft demands. Eric suggests that while institutions may be flawed, demonizing the scientific enterprise misses the extraordinary returns on our investment. Avi Loeb takes a different approach. As one of few voices actively pursuing unconventional ideas – like investigating potential extraterrestrial technology – he represents a pragmatic path forward. Where Eric sees institutional rot as potentially fatal, Avi believes science remains capable of dramatic recovery with the right treatment. What struck me most was the question of credibility. Science once held unassailable authority as the domain of rigorous inquiry and falsifiability. Today, trust has eroded, not only from external political forces but from internal contradictions made explicit during the pandemic. Science became less a process and more a brand – an ideological cudgel wielded with absolute certainty even in the face of uncertainty. The emergence of voices like Eric, Sabine Hossenfelder, Garrett Lisi, and Stephen Wolfram – positioned as dissenters from orthodoxy – speaks to a tectonic shift in public perception of science. Is this schism repairable? Eric suggests institutions have become so self-referential and risk-averse that rebuilding might be necessary. Avi sees a path forward through data, public engagement, and curiosity-driven science that doesn’t begin with predetermined answers. Perhaps the true test isn’t whether we can produce another relativity-scale breakthrough, but whether we even have the will to try. I remain hopeful, but for the first time in a long while, deeply uncertain. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://youtu.be/3W2fzld9cUw What can Nobel Prize winners teach us about overcoming imposter syndrome? In video, we take a deep dive into the minds of the world’s top intellectuals with cosmologist and bestselling author Dr. Brian Keating. From grappling with self-doubt to embracing the unexpected role of luck, this conversation critically examines the journeys of Nobel laureates and the powerful lessons they share about navigating success and failure. Join us as Dr. Keating opens up about his transformative interviews with 21 Nobel Prize winners, revealing how even the most brilliant minds face limiting beliefs and imposter syndrome. Discover practical tools and mental models for overcoming self-doubt, building resilience, and creating your own luck-lessons that apply to scientists, entrepreneurs, and dream-chasers alike. With a unique perspective, we also explore how science, culture, and curiosity intersect to shape our shared future. Genius Life in Weeks Congratulations to my friend and colleague, and co-star in Losing the Nobel Prize, Professor Jamie Bock for the launch of the genius SphereX mission! Image Speaking of Losing the Nobel Prize, today March 17 marks the eleventh anniversary of the infamous BICEP2 press conference. Conversation This week’s episode features Brian Keating’s conversation with astrophysicist Shelley Wright (UC San Diego). Episode Highlights: Cosmic Exploration: Wright discusses her work developing new astronomical instruments. Extraterrestrial Life: She explores the possibility of alien civilizations and detection methods. Drake Equation: Wright provides insights into this formula for estimating alien civilizations. Optical SETI: Learn about her use of Fresnel lenses for nanosecond-speed sky imaging. UFOs/UAPs: She advocates for scientific data to address these phenomena. Wright’s work pushes astronomical boundaries. Listen to the full episode on your podcast platform. Stay curious, Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Pique is offering 20% off for life AND a free Starter Kit with your purchase—that’s a rechargeable frother and glass beaker to make the perfect cup every time. Use this link to get this incredible offer just for listeners of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast (limited time offer): http://piquelife.com/impossible Upcoming Episode Dick Bond will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. A leading cosmologist from the University of Toronto, Bond has shaped our understanding of the cosmic microwave background, dark matter, and the large-scale structure of the universe. His work laid the foundation for modern precision cosmology, influencing missions like WMAP and Planck. What burning questions do you have for one of the great theoretical minds in astrophysics?

Constellations Aren’t Real. So Why Do We See Them?

Constellations Aren’t Real. So Why Do We See Them? Dear Magicians, Sorry for the one day delay in the Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message… but I have an excuse — I just wanted to share a quick note from the recovery zone — I recently had meniscus surgery, and while I’m hobbling a bit slower through spacetime, your support truly means the Multiverse to me. Your backing helps me keep thinking, writing, and sharing—even when my knees protest like the Catholic Church once protested planetary motion. Thank you for being here. Seriously. More exclusive content coming soon (once the ice packs melt). Now on to the Musing… When we gaze upward at the night sky, we participate in one of humanity’s oldest traditions. For thousands of years, our ancestors looked to those same stars with wonder. Those pinpoints of light. They drew lines between them, creating constellations that told stories of heroes and gods, monsters and maidens. Orion. Ursa Major. Cassiopeia. Names that have echoed through generations. Is there something profound in this human tendency to find patterns among the stars? Perhaps what matters isn’t whether these constellations represent objective reality, but what they reveal about the human spirit. We are, by nature, meaning-makers. In a universe that can sometimes feel cold and indifferent, we search for connections. For stories. For purpose. Yes, from a strictly astronomical perspective, constellations are arbitrary. From another position in our galaxy, the stars would form entirely different patterns. What appears to us as Orion’s Belt might, from elsewhere, be unrecognizable. But this doesn’t diminish their value. Rather, it reminds us that meaning often comes not from what exists “out there,” but from what we bring to it—our perspective, our creativity, our yearning to understand. Our ancestors weren’t naive when they mapped the stars. They were expressing something fundamentally human: the desire to orient themselves in a vast cosmos, to create navigational tools both physical and spiritual. They were meaning makers… When we continue this tradition today, we connect with countless generations who stood where we now stand, looking up with the same questions in their hearts. Perhaps this is why constellations endure. They’re not just scientific boundaries, but bridges between past and present, between the measurable and the meaningful. So the next time you look up at the night sky, remember that you’re participating in an ancient conversation. You’re seeing not just with your eyes, but with your imagination. And there’s something both humbling and inspiring about that recognition. The universe may not have designed patterns for us to find. But in finding them anyway, we discover something equally important—the remarkable human capacity to create meaning, even in the most random of canvases. That, too, is a kind of magic. Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week, Brian Appearance https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJGKdZD30K__XkD2TDGq1pQo8Q__6vBhB&v=mtbeNknHYnM In this video, Robinson and I discuss the expansion and inflation of the universe, the relationship between theory and experiment in cosmology, gravitational waves, Brian’s brainchild the BICEP experiment, and a lot more. Brian’s most recent book is Into the Impossible (2021), which is a distillation of many of his conversations with Nobel Laureates and other brilliant thinkers. Genius Life in Weeks This free website app lets you visualize your entire lifespan. It’s simple to use—just create a free account. As I add major events, I feel both humbled and motivated to make the most of what’s ahead. Image Only a couple days away from the equinox sunset at the southpole. Here is an amazing picture from SPT winterover Sim Bash, with the silhouette of the Dark Sector with the sun behind it! Conversation Explore human consciousness versus AI with Christof Koch on INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE. Discover why AI lacks subjective experience, unlike humans. Koch examines consciousness as a fundamental, unexplained aspect of existence. He explores mystical experiences and AI’s limitations, highlighting our unique introspection. Delve into the future of consciousness studies, bridging science and philosophy. Tune in for insights into human advantage in an AI-driven world. Click Here to Watch! Get the transcript and AI interactive content from this episode here Subscribe to my podcast! More than 2M downloads! Advertisement Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to elevate your knowledge and decision-making with ​Consensus Premium​. Consensus Premium harnesses cutting-edge AI to sift through thousands of research papers, delivering clear, evidence-backed answers to your toughest questions. Whether you’re a curious mind, a scientist, or a student of life, this is your chance to access the world’s best knowledge with zero strings attached. Sign up for one year for free with code KEATING25 just for listeners of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast and get all of 2025 for free! Expires on June 30, 2025 Upcoming Episode Upcoming Episode Nathalie Cabrol will be on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast soon. She’s the astrobiologist who literally dives into high-altitude lakes on Earth to simulate alien worlds—while leading the SETI Institute’s search for life beyond our planet. What would you ask someone who lives on the edge of science and the frontier of space? ​Submit your question here​ 🚀

Neuroscientist: This Is How To Defeat Stress! Sam Harris

Neuroscientist: This is How to Defeat Stress!with Sam Harris Transcript Brian Keating:Hey, everybody. Welcome to a very special episode with Sam Harris. On the Into the impossible podcast, my longest episode ever. I’ve never done an episode this long. And this audio essay I’m about to give you is going to add to the length of it, but I wanted to express a little bit of my kind of inner workings and what goes through my mind when I’m doing a podcast with somebody, a big name podcaster like Sam Harris. And in that sense, it’s, incumbent upon me to try to do my best and make it so that people can really benefit from the wisdom of my guest. And and this time, I I kind of made a mistake as you’ll find out. I did not ask Sam, some tough questions, especially about Donald Trump. Brian Keating:And you’ll see almost every question he will reflect upon Donald Trump, even when we’re talking about, diverse topics as generative AI images and their wokeness. And, he’ll come back to Trump. He’ll talk about psychedelics, Trump. And we’ll talk about, we’ll talk about meditation, Trump. So the question is, how can we learn from such people that seem to be obsessed with people that, you know, many of my listeners and audience members support? So I don’t know. I don’t know the best way to, to attack that except that I feel I let down my audience. My my job in this podcast is to ask questions that you guys wanna ask, not to be a star, not to show off, not to do, kind of the, verbal gymnastics to ingratiate myself with my guests. If that’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen. Brian Keating:And it didn’t really work with a big name guest like Sam Harris because I lost many, many subscribers on the podcast. And, it’s unfortunate, at least on the video, they tell me they’re unsubscribing. And I see a lot of unsubscribes from people that watch the clips on Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube and the shorts that I put up there prior to this episode being aired, today. So I lost many, many subscribers, and the the point of doing that is not to say that sad or I miss them. Although, you know, it’s it’s it’s always better not to lose subscribers than to than to try to gain more subscribers, you know, keep it to have in the leaky boat from going under. But in this case, you know, it’s not really my concern. I’m not gonna just do things to pander to what the audience, wants. I mean, obviously, can you imagine me going off and accusing him of Trump derangement syndrome? And it it would be it would be, you know, kind of a very brief conversation and a pointless one at that. Brian Keating:And so I didn’t do that, but I did fail. Of course, you know, he views Trump and he does it. You hear him compare Trump unfavorably in some ways to Hitler. And I had to bite my tongue really hard during that, but let him talk. And for all the things that he said and and done online and elsewhere, he’s incredibly courageous, and he just doesn’t give a you know what. But, you know, during those comparisons, I did fail to really ask the question that I should have. And I mentioned this in my Monday Magic mailing list, which you should all subscribe to Briankeating.com/list. Brian Keating:I mean to communicate with you guys, tell you about cool things coming up, like my upcoming appearance at TEDx San Diego, April 10th. But the, the main question I really should have asked him, and I wanted to ask him, but I didn’t, is knowing his, Sam’s, opinions about free will that we don’t have free will, how is it appropriate in any way or logical any way to ascribe these evil, you know, just malevolent, malicious notions to Donald Trump if they’re not caused of his own volition. He doesn’t choose to be this way according to Sam. I don’t believe that. And you’ll hear me pushing back extraordinarily hard but respectfully on that notion from Sam about the nonexistence of free will and the non behaviorist activities. Nobody behaves as if they have no free will as I mentioned with Sapolsky. And Sapolsky admitted as he said, quote, to my everlasting shame. So Sam, you know, is in a unique category in that he believes nobody has free will, and yet he believes Donald Trump is to blame for much evil and much more evil if he is elected again as president in November. Brian Keating:So we didn’t talk only about politics. You’ll find that we also talked about religion. And as my wife told me, you know, maybe I should have ended the episode early. This is as you can tell from the podcast, indication, a linked timer. So that was, embarrassing foible. Chalk it up to, you know, trying to let the guest speak and not interrupt too many times with my own opinions because I know most of you wanna listen to Sam. Although, it’s very very, pleasing to me how many of you just reach out and always say things, to me that give me such love and support, including that they loved how I brought out stuff in him that no other podcast host has brought out ranging from interviews he’s done with, you know, Ben Shapiro or Chris Williamson or Stephen Bartlett, Diary of the CEO. I don’t think that people ask the kinds of questions that I do. Brian Keating:And certainly, I didn’t get into, I don’t wanna have any gotchas and get some clips and stuff of him just, you know, going off on Trump. So, it just it’s kinda counterproductive. The audience hates it because they’ll be turned off because they hate people that they perceive as

Why There’s No Such Thing as Free Will w/ Robert Sapolsky

Why There’s No Such Thing as Free Willwith Robert Sapolsky Transcript Robert Sapolsky:I admit it to my intellectual shame and ethical shame because I respond all the time as if there is free will. Brian Keating:Today, we’re featuring renowned neuroendocrinologist, best selling author, and Stanford University professor, Robert Sapolsky. He’s one of Stanford’s top rated professors, and you’ll see why in today’s episode. Robert’s journey has led him from studying stress and neuronal degradation in wild baboons in Kenya to exploring the relationship between schizophrenia disorders and the emergence of a shamanism in the major Western religions. Robert Sapolsky:The most relevant thing is how I came about wasting the first 20 years of my life studying baboons. Brian Keating:But more recently, Sapolsky has plunged into philosophical waters, studying free will, or rather what he claims is the illusion and lack thereof. Robert Sapolsky:I was 14 when I decided there’s no free will. Brian Keating:He’s come up with a new narrative to describe the science of life without free will. In his book Determined, he combines neuroscience, anthropology, quantum physics, chaos theory, and philosophy to tackle some of the most important questions of the human species. You’ll see I push back on him with my requisite love and respect, but no one gets a free pass on the Into the Impossible podcast. I wanna ask the questions I know you wish you could ask my guest and you will. Today, he’s here to present his case and you’ll be the judge. Who’s right? Is free will an illusion or do we have control and are we the determinants of our future? Let’s go. Brian Keating:Robert, as you know, I’m a physicist. I’ve had many physicists. I love talking to physicists, but I also love talking to biologists, neurobiologists, and all sorts of folks. I always have a problem with these people, when I talk to people like David Chalmers, bang that it seems hopeless. Cosmology seems hard, but consciousness seems impossible. And to me, how can we understand the notion of free will if we don’t have a notion of consciousness that everyone accepts? So is that am I making a, fallacious experiment? Or is it really the case that you could not understand free will until you understand how consciousness itself emerges? Robert Sapolsky:Nicely. I think, fortunately, one could ignore consciousness and I completely agree with you. Once once a decade, I force myself to read a review paper on sort of neurobiology of consciousness and see with great relief that, like, it still isn’t making any more sense to me. And I don’t think it’s making any more sense to the people working on it, because it’s such a damn intractable problem. But fortunately, in my view, the issue of consciousness is not terribly relevant to assessing free will. And that’s because I think the problem people get into when believing in free will and just having such a strong intuitive sense of it is they get caught up in the notion that if there is conscious intent and there is conscious awareness that you have alternative behaviors available to you, that’s it. Case closed. That’s the requirements for deciding that there’s free will. Robert Sapolsky:And in my view, whether or not that intent is conscious or otherwise, whether or not there’s alternatives, whether your brain decided milliseconds before you were consciously aware that you had intent to do something. All of that is kind of cool and fascinating and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s free will. Because in my view, focusing on that is like asking somebody to read the last theory pages of the book and assess what they think of a book. Because what you’re doing there is not asking the only question possible which is, okay, hooray, you have conscious intent to do that. And when you did that, you felt a sense of ownership over your intelligence. Where did that intent come from? How did you turn out to be the sort of person who would have that intent at that moment? And it’s in that realm that I think one can find that there’s not a shred of space for free will to operate in. And all we are the outcomes of all of those priors that made us the sort of person who would have that intent in that moment. And the trouble is in that moment, it’s so tangible bang we’re so conscious of having that intent that we have to have done that freely. Robert Sapolsky:And that doesn’t begin to address the issue. How do you become that sort of person? Brian Keating:You mentioned person. And throughout the book, I can’t help but wonder because I I have a lot of respect for my consciousness colleagues. It’s hard not to when you talk to people like David Chalmers or Philip Goff. But again, they some of them resort to the last refuge of the scoundrel, and they will come up with they will come up with panpsychism. Now I’m a physicist, so I understand the properties of particles extremely well. And I understand that electrons are fungible. You’ve seen 1. You’ve seen them all. Brian Keating:They basically have 3 properties, mass, charge, and spin. So at what level can you obliterate the notion that consciousness perhaps is panpsychic, that it exists in an electron? Or where do you come down on the panpsychism? Because again, you mentioned person. And I agree we could talk about free will. But it would seem that you might have to extend it to, you know, to the top quark, if they’re right. So where do you come down in panpsychism? And before we pivot to the notion of what I call scale dependent, free will. But please, what do you think about, panpsychism? Robert Sapolsky:Basically, the notion of the emergence of things like consciousness, and I’m basically winging it here, coming out of  Brian Keating:They are too, by

Daniel Dennett: Do We Have Free Will?

Daniel Dennett:Do We Have Free Will? Transcript Brian Keating:Everybody, just a little bit of a somber note as we start the podcast, something that’s never happened before. But I have to report on the passing of today’s guest, Daniel Dennett, who I spoke to just a few weeks ago. I think this was his final interview on a podcast. He passed away today, I’m informed. This is Friday, April 19, 2024. And as you hear, I had such a great conversation with him. I already recorded an intro, both the video and an audio intro. And, I was just so delighted and touched by him and had so much fun with him. Brian Keating:He influenced me greatly even though I really only got to delve into his work in the last few, months before leading up to the interview before, of course, I knew about him. He’s a world famous intellectual and contributor to many fields of philosophy and many other things and so it’s a great shock to me. Brian Keating:I wanted to release this, as a, you know, token of my gratitude to him for this wonderful interview. You’ll see he, you know, he just come back from a dentist experiment and, you know, we’re talking and, you know, part of me feels guilty to have spent, you know, an hour and a half, 2 hours, whatever it turned out to be with, you know, the final, you know, weeks of his life. But on the other hand, it’s a great gift. And hopefully, his family will see this and share in the, in the delightful conversation that we had together. I view it as a great honor and privilege to have hosted him and especially now made more experiment by his passing. It’s, truly affected me, and I hope the interview will be meaningful to you as much as it was to me as well. So with that, I’ll start with the intro that we had planned before theorists sad, announcement came a few days ago before the release of this episode. And, and, I hope that Bang is is happy and resting in peace wherever he is. Thanks, Dan. Brian Keating:Today, on Into the Impossible, we welcome a renowned philosopher of the human mind, a man who’s a legend, a cognitive scientist, professor. He’s also a vocal theorists, and yet he makes common cause with people like me who call themselves practicing agnostics. Daniel Dennett is a legend, and he’s known as one of the 4 horsemen of new atheism, not the apocalypse. Daniel Dennett:Free will isn’t a metaphysical condition that you’re blessed with or not. It’s an achievement. Brian Keating:He’s been at the forefront of discussions on consciousness, free will, and the impact of Darwinian evolution on religious belief. His incisive wit, good humor, and keen intellect made him a must get guest on the Into the Impossible podcast. He’s been a major figure for decades in debates, conversations, and writings about the existence of God and the nature of belief and free will. His works are tremendously influential and they include Brains the Spell, Consciousness Explained, and many more that have provoked admiration, controversy, and challenged readers to reconsider their most deeply held beliefs about the mind and its relationship to the physical world. Daniel Dennett:It’s a user illusion. It’s not a bad illusion. It’s a good illusion. We are not the victims. Theory the beneficiaries of this illusion. Brian Keating:Today, I have the opportunity to explore these topics along with your questions for this phenomenal renowned professor. So without further ado, let’s jump right in and discuss this magnificent new memoir from one of the heroes of the new atheist movement. How are you doing, Dan? Daniel Dennett:I’m doing just fine. How are you? Brian Keating:It’s a great pleasure to, connect to you. I listen to your latest book in audio format, and, it’s not your voice. And so it’s good to hear your actual voice. And as you know, Dan, we love to judge books by their covers because what else do you have to go on on a Bayesian reasoning sense? So I want you to take us through the book, and it is unique in terms of all the 2 or 300 books I’ve had the pleasure of authors appearing on theorists the Impossible podcast. This is the, probably, the first one that doesn’t have a subtitle. So tell me tell me the origin of the title, the cover illustration art, and the absence of the subtitle. Take it away, Dan. Daniel Dennett:Okay. Here’s the book. I take it everybody can see it. Yeah. I’ve been thinking. I didn’t want a subtitle because I thought that’s enough. I wanna talk about my thinking and how I got there, and it’s not about the nonacademic, non research parts of my life. I deliberately didn’t want to go on and on about adventures I’ve had outside of academia. Daniel Dennett:I thought this is a book to talk about what I think is how I think I think and why it’s a good way to think. So it’s all about the wonderful thinkers who’ve who’ve helped me. And the the first thing to say is, if you if you wanna do some good thinking, surround yourself with the smartest people you can find and talk to them. And that’s that’s the trick. Brian Keating:And I’ve had, the pleasure of having a lot of brilliant thinkers on the podcast, 9 18 Nobel Prize winners. And many of your colleagues and friends and people that appear in this book in one form or another, including, folks like David Chalmers. And when I had David Chalmers on, he’s, he’s from Australia. And I said to him, you know, David, I I if I had the rock band C, also from Australia, and I had them on and I did not ask them to play, you shook me all night long, I would be a derelict

Richard Dawkins On Genes, Memes, AI, Religion, and Life Beyond Earth

Richard Dawkins On Genes, Memes, AI, Religion,and Life Beyond Earth Transcript Richard Dawkins:40%, 45% of the american people believe literally in Adam and Eve. Believe literally that the world is only 6000 years old. I mean, that’s a shocking figure and you can’t duck out of it. Brian Keating:Imagine being able to decipher the history of every creature ever to have lived on earth based on its evolution. Why are men’s sect drives so powerful? Why does this peculiar desert lizard have such intricate patterns on its back? And what does it tell you about its long dead relatives? Today we have the extraordinary privilege of exploring these topics and more with one of our greatest living treasures, Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most influential and thought provoking scientists. Richard Dawkins:Genes are predicting the future because they will not survive unless they get the prediction right. Brian Keating:Richard is a renowned evolutionary biologist, zoologist and author. A prominent figure in the new atheism. Along the other so called horsemen of the apocalypse past guests Sam Harris and the late, great Daniel Dennett. He’s well known criticism of creationism and intelligent design. Richard Dawkins:You can’t opt out of science because it goes against a traditional faith. Brian Keating:In our widely ranging conversation, we explore the evolution of sex drive and the aesthetic appreciation of genetics as well as the way genetics intersect in theoretical and experimental science. We talk about the potential evolutionary outcomes of artificial intelligence as it augments humanity. We talk about what it’s like to be a scientist and a scholar with a career ranging over 50 years. And we encounter along our journey some of the greatest figures in all of science. I know you’re gonna love this episode. So let’s go. Richard, I’ve always wanted to ask you, why is the sex drive in men so strong? I mean, surely we could have gone through the replication of the species if it were 10% less powerful, maybe even 25% less powerful. I mean, what accounts for the behavior in men such that they will copulate with female angler fishes in ways that allow them to be digested or ingested into their female target? Or, say, a male human being who buys a social media app when he already has a quarter trillion dollars and eleven or twelve children. Brian Keating:What is make? What is the reason, the biological necessity that the male sex drive is as strong as it is? Richard Dawkins:I think perhaps you’re misled when you say something like replicate the species. It’s not about replicating the species. It’s about replicating genes. And genes that are in males have a different way of getting themselves into the next generation than genes that are in females. And because sperms are so numerous and eggs are rather few in number, eggs are economically valuable. Well, endowed with food, sperms are not, and therefore they can afford to be much more numerous. What this means is that in general, throughout the animal kingdom, males can pass on their genes by mating with lots of females, whereas with a female, mating with lots of males doesn’t benefit her, because once she’s in a mammal, pregnant, let’s say, talk about mammals, there’s no benefit in mating with another male, whereas in the male’s case, once he’s mated with a female, there is some benefit in mating with another one, because you’ve got lots of sperms to go round. And therefore the male sex drive is when there’s any difference between them. Richard Dawkins:The male sex drive does tend to be stronger, males tend to be more promiscuous, tend to be more open to mating with lots of different females. Males tend to be less fussy about who they mate with, etcetera. So that’s, I think, the answer. It’s about gene replication, not species replication. Brian Keating:And if it were diminished by a few percent, would that affect the relative fecundity of replication of genes? Or is that level that we have it at as males? Does that seem to be a necessity, or could it be diminished a bit? Richard Dawkins:It varies from species to species. I mean, not all species are promiscuous. In the males, there are many species in which the sexes contribute equally to reproducing and to nurturing the young. And that’s different. I mean, different species differ according to their ecological circumstances. So you’re talking about diminishing. Yes, it does happen. It happens. Richard Dawkins:In some species, monogamous species, it is diminished. Yes. Brian Keating:We in physics, and especially our friend Sir Roger, have looked at the possibility of the destruction of information, what’s called the information paradox of black holes, where there’s actually pretty vehement disagreements, agreement between scientists on whether or not information is truly conserved, or can it be destroyed? And hawking radiation plays a significant role in that? Can genetic information be destroyed? Richard, is there a sense in the same way that at some level, you cannot destroy genes any more than you can destroy information, even when you throw it into a black hole? Richard Dawkins:I think it’s less philosophically interesting than in the case of the physics you’re talking about. The information in DNA is preserved in living organisms over millions of years. But if you want to actually look at the DNA itself, ancient DNA people who, for example, dig up neanderthal people and look at their DNA that decays. So there’s almost certainly no hope of Jurassic park of actually getting dinosaur DNA. It decays. You’re talking about 10,000 years, maybe 100,000 years, but not millions of years. So, yes, it does decay. Brian Keating:Some have suggested that DNA is sort of the nucleator, the originator of life in some sense. And I do want to talk to you about that. I’m here at UC San Diego, wherever Jeffrey and Margaret Burbage, the late, great Burbage duo, used to work. And they would bring,

What Do Our Genes Reveal About Our Past? w/ Richard Dawkins

What Do Our Genes Reveal About Our Past?with Richard Dawkins Transcript Brian Keating:Why does this peculiar desert lizard have such intricate patterns on its bang? And what does it tell you about its long dead relatives? Today, we have the extraordinary privilege of exploring these topics and more with one of our greatest living treasures, Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most influential and thought provoking scientists. Richard Dawkins:Genes are predicting the future because they will not survive unless they get the prediction right. Brian Keating:Richard is a renowned evolutionary biologist, zoologist, and author, a prominent figure in the new atheism along the other so called horsemen of the apocalypse. Past guest Sam Harris and the late great Daniel Dennett. He’s well known criticism of creationism and intelligent design. Richard Dawkins:You can’t opt out of science be because it goes against a traditional faith. Brian Keating:In our wildly ranging conversation, we explored the evolution of sex drive and the aesthetic appreciation of genetics, as well as the way genetics intersect in theoretical and experimental science. We talk about the potential evolutionary outcomes of artificial intelligence as it augments humanity. We talk about what it’s like to be a scientist in a scholar with a career ranging over 50 years. Then we encounter along our journey some of the greatest figures in all of science. I know you’re gonna love this episode, so let’s go. Brian Keating:So would you do us a favor of doing what you’re never supposed to do, which is to judge the book by its covers? Tell us the name, choice, the subtitle, and cover of art. Richard Dawkins:Well, here can can you see the book there? Or Yeah. Is that visible? Yes. Okay. Yeah. It will be. So that’s the front cover, and that that’s the back cover. It’s called the genetic book of the dead. It’s a kind of play on the Egyptian books of the dead which were, books that were buried with important people in ancient Egypt and as a sort of guide book to guide them into the into the afterlife. Richard Dawkins:The connection is pretty tenuous, but I suppose you could say that the genes Clarke, guiding the animal into, how to propagate the genes into not exactly the afterlife, but into the next the next generation. The subtitle is a Darwinian reverie, and it means it’s a kind of meditation on evolution. It’s it’s not a particular one theme. It’s a it’s a meditation by the author of The Selfish Gene 40 or so years later. And not, climbing down from The Selfish Gene, but expanding in various directions. The the art on the back cover is, cobbled together from the art in the book which is, drawn by Jana Lentsover, in color, computer art in color. The theme of the book, insofar as there is a single theme, is this. The animal, any animal, and its genome can be regarded as a description of a written description, a book about the ancestral worlds in which the animal’s ancestors survived. Richard Dawkins:The animal is a product of Darwinian natural selection of its ancestor’s genes. Those genes that were successful in the past in getting themselves passed on are the ones that survive to the present, obviously. And therefore, they can be regarded as a kind of description of those selection pressures, those worlds in which the ancestors survived and reproduced, were successful in reproduction, successful in attracting mates, successful in rearing offspring. The book begins the the first illustration in the book is a is a picture of a Mojave Desert lizard which has its desert environment painted on its back, so to speak. It looks as though somebody’s come along and literally painted the desert stones and sand on the back of the lizard. And you can see the same kind of thing in any camouflage animal, camouflaged Arthur camouflage, snail a camouflaged frog, etcetera. Natural selection has favored those ancestral animals that resembled their background, and in some cases, the resemblance is uncannily exact. It’s really remarkable. Richard Dawkins:It really does look as though somebody’s come along and painted the background, painted the desert in this case on the animal’s back. The thesis of the book is that this painting is not limited to the superficial skin of the animal but goes right through the animal. Every single detail of the interior of the animal must be a description of desert in the same kind of way, but more indirectly as the picture on its skin. So the chemistry of the blood, for example, if you were sufficiently educated in biology, which we’re not at present, then theorists of the future can would be able to read the biochemistry of the blood as being having a desert written all over it. And same applies to any animal. Any animal will have its environment, the environment of its ancestors written into every detail of the interior as well as the exterior of the animal. Brian Keating:It’s quite a beautiful book. It’s beautifully written and, I assume it will be beautifully bound. It looks like it it is behind you. I I did some primary source research. So I I looked up the Egyptian book of the dead, and how it begins, began. And it seems to begin with an homage to, to Ra, Akhenaten Ra, the the art whose disc, thou great god, art in my boat. Thou hast risen on the horizon. Thou hast filled the lands with radiance. Brian Keating:Thou art beautiful. Thou art young. Thou art mighty. Thou art born forever and ever. Are genes sort of like this all animating force or do they do they only live? Do they die? Are Arthur they like this this all powerful disk that illuminated the worlds of the Egyptians? Richard Dawkins:Well, that’s very interesting. They sort of are. I mean, that going on forever and ever is exactly what they do in the form of copies.

Will We Ever Find a Theory of Everything? Brian Keating & Curt Jaimungal

Will We Ever Find a Theory of Everything?with Curt Jaimungal Transcript Brian Keating:Experimentalists are kinda like exterminators. Our job is to kill off the bugs, skin theories, and destroy theories that don’t comport with evidence. We’re not required to create new theory, and also look, what are the limitations of experiments? So most of our time is looking for ways to prove ourselves wrong, which is Feynman said is the job to not be, to not be fooled. Curt Jaimungal:First of all, let’s get get through the questions 1 by 1. What are your goals? Explain to the audience what you do with your channel, what your goals are as you as a professor for your life. Brian Keating:Yeah. So, my basic dictum in life is that it’s incredibly short, and you have to make the most of it, and you have to do everything you can until we invent time travel. We have to do everything we can in order to make each moment as meaningful as invested in with meaning as possible. And so I do that in in different ways, different habits, rituals, practices. But one thing I’ve always wanted to do is to write a book and leave a legacy as a as an author. And I’ve learned so much from other authors that I wanted to start something, especially during this time of COVID, to give back to people that have been my silent mentors or distant learning mentors, namely folks like, as you mentioned, Michael Shermer has been on my podcast. We’ve had people like, we we had David Kaiser, a very famous and and well known physicist, all the way down to people that have influenced my life personally that haven’t written books, such as Jim Simons who we had on the podcast for Father’s Day. And, again, following Carl Sagan’s dictum that books are magic, books are proof that human beings can work magic. Brian Keating:You have an author’s voice, possibly a long dead author from communicating from 100 or maybe 1000 of years ago in the case of you know, I read a lot of the bible and and things like that we can get into. And, how it influences me is, you get to create this sort of, artificial I call it artificial wisdom. We hear a lot. I’m sure you’ve had a lot of contact with people that study artificial intelligence. What I’m more interested in is artificial wisdom, namely, how can you accrue wisdom without going through all the experiences that other brilliant people have gone through. So I love to, read books. I love to write books. I’m thinking about my second book now as we speak and putting it together based on a lot of the interviews and, things that have emerged from the conversations with these luminaries that I’m really fortunate to talk to. Curt Jaimungal:How are you defining wisdom in artificial wisdom? Brian Keating:So artificial wisdom is just kind of a playoff on artificial intelligence, namely that, that you have bang awful lot of knowledge that’s available to humanity through theory, Wikipedia, the Internet, etcetera. But, and in fact, I remind people that the word science in Latin means knowledge. It doesn’t mean wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to synthesize fat pieces of knowledge in a way that we don’t know but may be uniquely human. And I think synthesizing it to avoid we we I’m also a private pilot. I fly tiny little planes. And one of the things we say is, you have to learn from the mistakes of others because you won’t live long enough to make them all yourself. So that’s sort of the, you know, kind of the 10,000 hour rule applied to pilots, which I think is one of Malcolm Gladwell’s examples of of, you know, truly outstanding pilots are those that have obtained 10000 hours. Brian Keating:And you can only get that far if you’ve done things and benefited from others’ wisdom. The situation that they’ve been in so that you don’t have to go through it. So it’s not just about knowledge. I mean, I think Derek Sievers once said, you know, if it was all about knowledge, we’d all be billionaires with 6 pack abs. There’s an abundance of knowledge. Wisdom is synthesizing it, distilling it, and catalyzing the many disparate pieces that you get into some coherent form of of of life message or with or vision, which is what I try to maintain. Curt Jaimungal:Have you heard of John Varecki? Brian Keating:No. I haven’t. Who’s that, Curt? Curt Jaimungal:Cognitive science from U of T. So plug plug there. Because I also interviewed there’s 2 interviews with him on my channel. Oh, cool. He extensively studies wisdom from a cognitive science perspective. I think he made Brian Keating:Yeah. I would definitely like to. Yeah. Okay. Maybe we’ll get in touch. You’ll help me get in touch with him. Curt Jaimungal:Them. Now you mentioned that the mind might not be the human mind might be uniquely predisposed or capable of wisdom that is the distilling of so much knowledge down to something that’s practical, which implies a goal, and then we can talk about what where do you get those goals from later when we get to the biblical section. Do you happen to do you think that the mind can be mechanized? That is what I mean is that a machine can simulate the mind. Brian Keating:Yeah. So I’ve had some conversations with people about this. And, actually, the most interesting people I’ve talked to are people, in the realm of music and the arts. I I interviewed a a controversial, but interesting very interesting person named Zubie. He’s a musician in the UK, that, he does a lot of, rap and improv based rap music. He’s also very knowledgeable about, jazz, etcetera. And I also interviewed a very my one of my best friends, Stefan Alexander, who’s a professional jazz musician, but