Huberman Lab - Dr. Sam Harris: Using Meditation to Focus, View Consciousness & Expand Your Mind

Episode Date: January 2, 2023

My guest is Sam Harris, Ph.D. Sam earned his bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Stanford University and his doctorate (Ph.D.) in neuroscience from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He is the author of multiple best-selling books and is a world-renowned public-facing intellectual on meditation, consciousness, free will, psychedelics and neuroscience. He is also the creator of Waking Up and the host of the Making Sense podcast. In this episode, we discuss meditation as a route to understanding “the self” and experiencing consciousness, not just changing one’s conscious state. Sam describes several meditation techniques and their benefits, including how meditation fundamentally changes our worldview and how it can be merged seamlessly into daily life. It can help us overcome universal challenges such as distractibility and persistent, internal dialogue (“chatter”) to allow for deep contentment and pervasive shifts in our awareness, all while acknowledging the more immediate stress-lowering and memory-improving effects of meditation. We also discuss the therapeutic use of psychedelics and the mechanistic similarities between the benefits of a psychedelic journey and long-term meditation practices. And we discuss the rationale behind Sam’s recent decision to close his social media (Twitter) account. This episode should interest anyone wanting to learn more about the higher order functions of the brain, the brain-body connection, consciousness and, of course, meditation and why and how to meditate for maximum benefit. For the full show notes, visit hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://athleticgreens.com/huberman LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman Supplements from Momentous https://www.livemomentous.com/huberman Huberman Lab Premium https://hubermanlab.com/premium Timestamps (00:00:00) Dr. Sam Harris  (00:04:54) Sponsor: LMNT (00:08:54) Sense of Self & Meditation, Dualism of Self (00:18:07) Sense of Self in Brain & Body  (00:25:28) Consciousness vs. Contents, Meditation (00:28:25) Interrupting Sense of Self & Attentional Focus, Visual Saccade  (00:33:30) Observer & Actor, Default Mode Network & Meditation, Blind Spot (00:36:52) Sponsor: AG1 (00:41:57) Mediation & Paths to Understanding Consciousness, Non-Dualistic Experience (00:57:32) Sense of Self throughout Evolution  (01:07:40) Sense of Self from Human Development, Language (01:19:46) Internal Dialogue, Distractibility & Mindfulness  (01:26:27) Time Perception & Mindfulness, Vipassana Meditation, Resistance & Pain (01:37:13) Consciousness & Sense of Control, Free Will (01:43:14) Authoring Thoughts: Storytelling & Ideas, Free Will (01:52:11) Meditation & the Paradoxical Search for Self (02:06:44) Meditation & Concentration Practice  (02:11:58) Mindfulness, “Skylike Mind” & Thoughts (02:15:11) States of Self & Context, Dualistic Experiences (02:32:39) Distraction & Identification of Thoughts, Meditation & “Flow” States (02:42:58) Eyes-Open Meditations, Sense of Self, Visual Cues & Social Interactions (02:54:59) Paths to Meditation, Mindfulness Meditation Step-Functions (03:05:58) Psychedelics, MDMA & Experiences in Consciousness, Religion (03:21:11) Meditation, Psychedelic Journeys & Inner Truths (03:29:48) Psilocybin, Ego-Dissolution & Thought Expansion (03:40:09) Process vs. Achievement of Goals, Fulfillment in Present (03:54:29) Leaving Twitter; Conflict, Life Interruption & Politics  (04:06:14) Social Media, Attentional Disruption & Deep Work (04:15:39) Meditation & Sense of Self (04:19:02) Sam Harris & Waking Up App, Zero-Cost Support, YouTube Feedback, Spotify & Apple Reviews, Sponsors, Momentous, Social Media, Neural Network Newsletter Disclaimer Title Card Photo Credit: Mike Blabac

Welcome to the Uberman Lab podcast where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life. I'm Andrew Uberman and I'm a professor of neurobiology and Ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine. Today my guest is Dr. Sam Harris. Dr. Sam Harris did his undergraduate training in philosophy at Stanford University and then went on to do his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of California at Los Angeles. He is well known as an author who has written about everything from meditation to consciousness, free will,

and he holds many strong political views that he's voiced on social media and in the content of various books as they relate to philosophy and neuroscience. During today's episode, I mainly talk to Dr. Harris about his views and practices related to meditation, consciousness, and free will. In fact, he made several important points about what a proper meditation practice can accomplish.

Prior to this episode, I thought that meditation was about deliberately changing one's conscious experience in order to achieve things such as deeper relaxation, a heightened sense of focus, or ability to focus generally, elevated memory, and so on. What Sam taught me and what you'll soon learn as well is that while meditation does indeed hold all of those valuable benefits, the main value of a meditation practice, or perhaps the greater value of a meditation practice, is that it doesn't just allow one to change

their conscious experience, but it actually can allow a human being to view consciousness itself. That is to understand what the process of consciousness is. And in doing so, to profoundly shift the way that one engages with the world and with oneself in all practices, all environments, and at all times, both in sleep and in waking states. And in that way, making meditation perhaps the most potent and important portal by which one can access novel ways of thinking and being and viewing one's life experience.

We also discussed the so-called mind body problem and issues of duality and free will. Concepts from philosophy and neuroscience that fortunately thanks to valuable experiments and deep thinking on the part of people like Dr. Sam Harris and others is now leading people to understand really what free will is and isn't, where the locus of free will likely sits in the brain if it indeed resides in the brain at all. And what it means to be a conscious being and how we can modify our conscious states in ways that allow us to be more functional. We also discuss perception, both visual perception, auditory perception, and especially interesting to me and I think as well, hopefully to you, time perception, which we know is very

elastic in the brain. The literal frame rate by which we process our conscious experience can expand and contract dramatically depending on our state of mind and how conscious we are about our state of mind. So we went deep into that topic as well. Today's discussion was indeed an intellectual deep dive into all the topics that I mentioned a few moments ago, but it also included many practical tools. In fact, I pushed Sam to share with us what his specific practices are and how we can all arrive at a clear and better understanding of a meditation practice that we can each

and all apply so that we can derive these incredible benefits, not just the ones related to stress and focus and enhanced memory, but the ones that relate to our consciousness, that is to our deeper sense of self and to others. Several times during today's episode, I mentioned the waking up app. The waking up app was developed by Sam Harris, but I want to emphasize that my mention of the app is in no way a paid promotional. Rather, the waking up app is one that I've used for some period of time now and find very, very useful. I have family members that also use it. Other staff members here, the Huberman Lab podcast use one that I've used for some period of time now and find very, very useful. I have family members that also use it.

Other staff members here, the Huberman Lab Podcast use it because we find it to be such a powerful tool. Sam has generously offered Huberman Lab Podcast listeners a 30-day, completely free trial of the Huberman Lab Podcast. If any of you want to try it, you can simply go to wakingup.com slash Huberman to get that 30-day free trial. During today's discussion, we didn't just talk about meditation, consciousness, and free will. We also talked about psychedelics, both their therapeutic applications for the treatment of things like depression and PTSD,

but also the use of psychedelics. And we discussed Sam's experiences with psychedelics as they relate to expanding one's consciousness. I also asked Sam about his views and practices related to social media, prompted in no small part by his recent voluntary decision to close down his Twitter account. So we talked about his rationale for doing that, how he feels about doing that, and I think you'll find that to be very interesting as well. Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford. It is, however, part of my desire and effort to bring

zero cost to consumer information about science and science-related tools to the general public. In keeping with that theme, I'd like to thank the sponsors of today's podcast. Our first sponsor is Element. Element is an electrolyte drink with everything you need and nothing you don't. That means plenty of salt, magnesium, and potassium, the so-called electrolytes, and no sugar. Salt, magnesium, and potassium are critical to the function of all the cells in your body,

in particular to the function of your nerve cells, also called neurons. In fact, in order for your neurons to function properly, all three electrolytes need to be present in the proper ratios. We now know that even slight reductions in electrolyte concentrations or dehydration of the body can lead to deficits in cognitive and physical performance. Element contains a science-backed electrolyte ratio of 1000 milligrams, that's 1 gram of sodium, 200 milligrams of potassium, and 60 milligrams of magnesium. I typically drink element first thing in the morning when I wake up in order to hydrate

my body and make sure I have enough electrolytes. And while I do any kind of physical training and after physical training as well, especially if I've been sweating a lot, if you'd like to try element, you can go to drink element that's LMNT.com slash Huberman to claim a free element sample pack with your purchase. Again, that's drink element LMNT.com slash Huberman. And now for my discussion with Dr. Sam Harris, Dr. Sam Harris. We're just talking about this. You are indeed a doctor. Yes, I cannot save your life, but I might save your non-existent soul if we talk long enough.

Well, neither of us are clinicians, but we are both brain explorers from the different perspectives, some overlapping. And I'm really excited to have this conversation. I've been listening to your voice for many years, learning from you for many years. And I'd be remiss if I didn't say that my father, who's also a scientist, is an enormous fan of your waking up app and has spent a lot of time over the last few years. He's in his late 70s. He's in almost 80. So theoretical physicist walking to the park near his apartment and spending time meditating with the app or sometimes separate from the app but using the same sorts of meditations in his head. Yeah. So he kind of toggles

back and forth. And even I shouldn shouldn't say even, but yes, even in his late 70s has reported that it has significantly shifted his awareness of self and his conscious experience of things happening in and around him. And he was somebody who I think already saw him self as a pretty aware person thinking about, you know, quantum mechanics and the rest. So, thank you from him indirectly. I thank you from me now directly. And I really want to use that as a way to frame up what I think is one of the more interesting questions and not just science and philosophy and psychology, but all of life, which is, what is this thing that we call a self? You know, as far as I know, we have not localized

the region in the brain that can entirely account for our perception of self. There are areas, of course, that regulate proprioception, you know, our awareness of where our limbs are in space, maybe even our awareness of where we are in physical space. There are such circuits as we both know. But when we talk about sense of self, I have to remember this kind of neuroscience 101 thing that we always say, you know, when you teach memory, you say, you wake up every

morning and you remember who you are, you know who you are. Most people do. Even if they lack memory systems in the brain for whatever reason, pretty much everyone seems to know who they are. What are your thoughts on what that whole thing is about? Do we come into the world feeling that way? I would appreciate answers from the perspective of any field. Yeah. To the neuroscience, of course. Yeah, well, big question. I mean, the problem is we use the term self in so many different ways, right?

And there's there's one sense of that term, which is the target of meditation and it's the target of deconstruction by the practice and by just any surrounding philosophy. So you'll hear and you'll hear it from me that this self is an illusion, right? And that there's a psychological freedom that can be experienced on the other side of discovering it to be an illusion. And some people don't like that framing. Some people would insist that it's not so much an illusion, but it's a construct and it's not what it seems, right? But it's not that every use of the term self is illegitimate.

And there are certain types of selves that are not illusory. I mean, I'm not saying that people are illusions. I'm not saying that you can't talk about yourself as distinct, as a whole person and, you know, as psychological continuity with your past experience as being distinct from the person and psychological continuity of some other person, right? And obviously we have to be able to conserve those data. It's not fundamentally mysterious that you're going to wake up tomorrow morning, still

being psychologically continuous with your past and not my past, right? And you know, if we swapped lives, you know, that would, you know, demand some explanation. So the illusoryness of the self doesn't cut against any of those obvious facts. So the sense of self that is illusory, and again, we might wanna talk about self in other modes because there's just a lot of interest there

psychologically and ultimately, scientifically, the thing that doesn't exist, certainly doesn't exist as it seems, and I would want to argue that it actually is just a proper illusion, is the sense that there is a subject interior to experience, in addition to experience. So most people feel like they're having an experience of the world, and they're having an experience of their bodies in the world. And in addition to that, they feel that they are a subject internal to the body, very likely in the head.

Most people feel like they're behind their face as a kind of locust of awareness and thought and intention and and and that it's almost like they're a passenger inside your body. You know most people don't feel identical to their bodies and they can imagine and this this is sort of the origin, the psychological origin and you know the the folk psychological origin of a sense of that there might be a soul that could survive the death of the body. I mean, most people are what my friend Paul Bloom calls common sense dualists, right? You used to the default expectation seems to be that whatever the relationship between the mind and the body, there's this, there's some promise of separability there, right? And whenever you

really push hard on the science side and say, well, no, the mind is really just what the brain is doing, that begins to feel more and more counterintuitive to people. And there still seems some, some residual mystery that, you know, at death, maybe something is going to lift off the brain and go elsewhere, right? So there's a sense of dualism that many people have and obviously that's supported by many religious beliefs. But this feeling, it's a very peculiar starting point. The people feel that, you know, they don't feel identical to their experience. As a matter of experience, they feel like they're on the edge of experience, somehow

appropriating it from the side, you're kind of on the edge of the world, and the world is out there. Your body is in some sense an object in the world, which you, you know, it's different from the world. You know, the boundary of your skin is still meaningful. You can sort of loosely control your body. I mean, you know, it's different from the world. You know, the boundary of your skin is still meaningful. You can sort of loosely control your body. I mean, you can't control, you can control your gross, you know, and subtle, you know, voluntary motor movements, but you can't, you're not controlling everything your body is doing.

You're not controlling your heartbeat and your, you know, your hormonal secretions and all of that. And so there's a lot that's going on that is in the dark for you. And then you give someone an instruction to meditate, and you say, okay, well, let's examine all of this from the first person side. Let's look for this thing, you're calling I.

And again, I is not identical to the body. People feel like their hands are out there and they're going to meditate. They're going to close their eyes very likely. And now they're going to pay attention to something. They're going to pay attention to the breath or to sounds. And it's from the point of view of being a locus of attention that is now aiming attention strategically

at an object like the breath, that there's this dualism that is set up. And ultimately, the ultimate promise of meditation, object, like the breath, that there's this dualism that is set up. And ultimately, the ultimate promise of meditation, I mean, there are really two levels at which you could be interested in meditation. One is, you know, very straightforward and remedial and non-paradoxical and very well-subscribed. And it's the usual set of claims about all the benefits you're going to get for meditation. So you're going to lower your stress and you're going to increase your focus and you're going to, you know, stave off cortical thinning and all kinds of good

things that science is saying meditation will give you. And none of that entails really drilling down on this paradoxical claim that the self is an illusion or anything else of that sort. But from my point of view, the real purpose of meditation and its real promise is not in this long list of benefits and I'm not discounting any of those, though the science for many of them is quite provisional. It's in this deeper claim that if you look for this thing you're calling I, if you look for the sense that there's a thinker in addition to the the the mirror rising of the next thought, say, you won't find that thing. And and you can what's more, you cannot find it in a way that's conclusive. And that matters, right? And it has a host of benefits that follow from that discovery, which are quite a bit deeper

and more interesting than engaging meditation on the side of its benefits, you know, de-stressing, increasing focus and all the rest. I have a number of questions related to what you just said. And first of all, I agree that the evidence that meditation can improve focus, reduce stress, etc. It's there. It's not an enormous pile of evidence, but it's growing. I think that, especially for some of the shorter meditations, which these days view more

as perceptual exercises. Talked about this on the podcast before, but for those haven't heard of before about, you know, perception, you can have extra reception, extending things beyond the confines of your skin, interoception, which is, I think also includes the surfaces of the skin, but everything inward. And meditation through eyes closed typically, involving some sort of attentional spotlighting, something we'll get into to more interoceptive versus extraoceptive events, et cetera, including thoughts. And so I think of at a basic level meditation

as somewhat of a perceptual exercise, you can tell me where you disagree there, and I would expect and hope that you would. But I would like to just touch on this idea that you brought up, because it's such an interesting one of this idea that our bodies are containers and that we are somehow view ourselves as passengers within those containers. That's certainly been my experience. And the image that I have is of, as you say that, is of myself or of people out there, that's a few centimeters below the surface

or that sit entirely in their head. And of course, the brain and body are connected through the nervous system. I think sometimes a brain is used to replace a nervous system and that can get us into trouble in terms of coming up with real directions and definitions. But the point is that there is something special

about the real estate in the head. I think as much as my laboratory and many other scientists are really interested in brain body connections through the nervous system, another organ systems that the nervous system binds that if you cut off all my limbs, I'm going to be different, but I'm fundamentally still Andrew, whereas if we were to lesion a, you know, a couple of square millimeters out of my parrattle cortex, it's an open question as to whether or not I would still seem as much like Andrew to other people into myself, even. And so there is something fundamentally different about the real estate in the cranial vault, right? You can even remove

both of my eyes. I'd still be Andrew. And those are two pieces of my central nervous system that are fundamental to my daily life eyes. I'd still be Andrew. And those are two pieces of my central nervous system that are fundamental to my daily life. But I'd still be me. Whereas, and this doesn't, I think, just apply to memory systems. I mean, I think there are reasons of the frontal cortex that when destroyed, have been shown to modify personality

and self-perception in dramatic ways. So it's sort of an obvious point once it's made, but I do think it's worth highlighting because there does seem to be something special about being in the ways. So it's sort of obvious point once it's made, but I do think it's worth highlighting, because there does seem to be something special about being in the head. The other thing is that sitting a few centimeters below the surface or riding in this container makes sense to me, except I wonder if you've ever experienced

a shift as I have when something very extreme happens, let's use the negative example of, you know, all of a sudden you're in a fear state. All of a sudden, it feels as if your entire body is you or is me. And now I need to get this thing, the whole container and me to some place of safety in whatever form. This is also true, I think, in ecstatic states. You can feel really, when people say embodied, I wonder whether or not we normally oscillate below the surface of our body.

When I say oscillate, I mean, in neural terms, I mean, maybe our sensory experience is not truly at the bodily surface, but sits below the bodily surface more at the level of organ systems in within our head. And then certain things that jolt us are autonomic nervous system into heightened states, bring us into states of, you know,

bring us closer to the surface and therefore include all of us. Again, I don't wanna take us down a mechanistic description of something that doesn't exist, but does any of that resonate in terms of how you are thinking about or describing the self? Yeah, yeah, there's a lot there.

First on the point of the brain being, you know, the locus of what we are as minds. Yeah, I mean, there are people who will insist that sort of the whole nervous system has to be thought of as they will be able to talk about our emotional life and you know, the insular's connection to the gut and just the sense of self extends

beyond the brain, but I totally take your point that a brain transplant is a coherent idea and you would expect to go with the brain rather than with the viscera. And so in that sense, we really are the old philosophical thought experiment of being a brain in a vat. I mean, we essentially are already, the vat is our skull and we're virtually in that situation.

The horrible movie, I'm sorry, I can't help but interrupt. When I was a teenager, my sister and I used to go to the movies every once in a while. We trade off who could pick the movie. And she took me to see once the movie Boxing Helena, the David Lynch film, where he amputates the limbs of a woman who he's obsessed by and keeps her. It's a really horrible film. And about 20 minutes into it, my sister just turned to me and said, I'm so sorry. And the question there and was whether or not too sibling should actually persist

in a movie like that. We decided to persist in the movies so that we could laugh about it later But it was rather disturbing. I don't recommend the movie nor do I recommend seeing it with a sibling But in that movie that the woman he takes her as a container and restricts her movement right quite sadistic and horrible thing really David Lynch Interesting mind perhaps but but the idea was that was to question how much of the person persists in the absence of their ability to move, et cetera. Could there be love? Could there be these other affections? Anyway, a rather extreme example, but one

that I that still haunts me in my sp'm thinking about still. Well, so just to follow that point, there's a lot about us that we don't have access to, unless we enact it physically. Like, if I ask you, do you still know how to ride a bike? There's no place in your memory where you can inspect, but you just sit in your chair that you've retained the knowledge of how to ride a bike, right?

Like, as a procedural memory is different from semantic or episodic memory. If I asked you, do you know your address? Yes, you can recall your address just sitting there. But if you had had a micro stroke that neatly dissected out your ability to ride a bike and left everything else intact, you might think you could ride a bike and left everything else intact. You might think you could ride a bike, but suddenly you stand up next to one and you have no idea what to do with it. And that would be a discovery that would only happen if you were motorically engaged

with that object. And I'm sure we could probably come up with a hundred things about us that really seem core to us and we, and, and, and, and not separable for our, you know, from our, you know, personhood, which seemed to only, cut, you know, only get invoked when we're, you know, out there moving in the world and, you know, we have limbs, et cetera. And, but yeah, no, it's the, the seat of seat of consciousness, I mean, the right framework to talk about all of this, from my point of view, is consciousness and its contents, right? So we have consciousness, the fact that there's something that is like to be us, right? The fact that the world and our internal experience is illuminated, that it has a qualitative

character. And then there's the question of what is that qualitative character? What is, you know, what kinds of information do we have access to? What does it feel like to be us? How do, how do different states of arousal change that? So you talked about fear. Yeah, I mean fear can change a lot of things, but, and you know, various neurological deficits, neurological deficits, or you can add drugs to the

mix. You add psychedelics that radically transform the contents of consciousness. From my point of view, consciousness itself is simply the cognizance, the awareness that is the flood lights by which any of that stuff appears. So consciousness doesn't change, but its contents change. And to come back to meditation for a second, many people think meditation is about changing the contents of consciousness. There's some contents you want to get rid of, like anxiety, other contents you want to encourage, like calm and, you know, unconditional love or you know, some other contents you want to encourage like calm and unconditional love

or some other classically pleasant pro-social emotion. That's all fine, that's all possible. The real wisdom of the 2000 year old wisdom of meditation that really is the chewy center of the tootsie pop is a recognition of what consciousness itself is always already like regardless of the contents and the changes in contents. And this is why, I mean, we might talk about this, but this is why they're mutually compatible psychedelics and meditation from here somewhat orthogonal, because psychedelics is all about making wholesale changes to the contents of consciousness. And there's some wonderful consequences of doing that. There can be some heroin and terrifying consequences of doing that. But generally speaking, I think you used wisely, they can be incredibly valuable.

And the therapeutic potential, there is enormous. But the crucial disjunction here is that there really is something to recognize about ordinary waking consciousness, that the consciousness that's compatible with my driving a car to get here on time, right? You don't have to have the pyro-technics of being on LSD to see the, the, the, the, the, the, the, to transcend the central illusion that I'm, I'm saying is, is the thing to be transcendent, which is the sense that there is a duality between subject and object in every moment of experience. Um, and to take it back to, to something you said about just all of our different modes

in ordinary life, the interesting thing is I think people are constantly losing their sense of self and they're not aware of it. And there's probably an analogy to the visual system here which is to visual saccades which perhaps you've spoken about at some point on your podcast. Not enough, so please. Yeah. So what happens with our, every time we move our eyes, this is called a saccade

and we do that about, you know, three times a second or so, just normally, there is a, you know, the region of motor cortex that affects that movement sends what's called an efferent copy of that motor movement, which is used as information that propagates back to visual cortex that suppresses the data of vision while the eyes are moving. Otherwise, if you weren't doing that, every time you moved your eyes, it would seem like the visual scene itself was lurching around. People can experience this for themselves. If they just touch one of their eyeballs on the side,

not all that hard and kind of jiggle it. You can roll it around, you can jiggle it from side to side. You can see that a movement of the eyeball that's not governed by your ocular motor system delivers a jiggling of the world because it's not your brain is not anticipating it in the same way. And it's not producing that is not anticipating it in the same way and it's not you're not producing that same, you know, predictive copy of the movement. It's a little bit like, you know, some action sports filmers on our staff here that the gimbal, you know, that holds an iPhone, like you see the kids with surfboards or skateboards or something, they're going to hold a phone while moving around or the people who are the vloggers, they won't even still use that for hands-blowing.

Yeah, I know. Moving around into its image stabilization, essentially, that keeps the camera steady, and these are more than cameras, of course, for those listening to my eyes, but they do far more than just what a camera would do. But yeah, this internal system of image stabilization, yeah, I can see

perhaps where you're going with this, that it allows us to remain in a self-referencing scheme as opposed to sort of paying attention to just how confusing it is to track the visual world at some level. Well, actually where I'm going is it. People are having this suppression of vision three times a second on average and they're not experiencing it. Right. So like you're like, you're literally like you're you're you're effectively going blind and you're not noticing it. And this is very fast. Yes, it's very fast. Now there's an analogous suppression, I would say, of the sense of self that occurs

every time attention gets absorbed significantly in its object. So, like, we even have this concept of losing yourself in your work or losing your classic flow experiences, have this quality, and this tends to be why they're so rewarding, whether it's just, if you're in some athletic activity or an aesthetic one, or you could be having sex, or whatever it is, some peak experience, it's peakedness usually entails there being some brief period where there was no distance between you and the experience.

For that moment, you were no longer looking over your own shoulder or anticipating the next moment or trying to get somewhere where you weren't or micrmanaging errors, or like this, you know, there's not. There's just the flow of unity with whatever the, you know, whatever the experience is, you know, a surfer on the wave, right? And we love those experiences. And then we are continually abstracted away from them by our thinking about them. Well, we're thinking, oh my god, that was so good. How do I get back to that?

Or you're looking at a sunset. It's the most beautiful sunset you've ever seen. And then you're continually interrupting the experience of merely seeing it with a commentary about how amazing this is. And I wonder, what are real estate prices are here? I mean, because it's a possible actually we could move here and like your mind is just continually narrating a conversation you're having with yourself, however paradoxically, I mean, you're telling yourself things that you already know as though there were two of you rather often, right? Like, you know, you're

just, you know, I'm looking for, you know, which is the water. And I say, oh, there it is, right? But like, I'm the one seeing it. Who am I saying, oh, there it is, too. So there's someone else who needs to be informed about the thing I already saw, right? So it's, it's, there's something about our internal dialogue that is paradoxical. Is there any neurologic condition, um us electomy or anything like that, where somehow people feel more unified with the cell phone and a continual basis, the observer and the actor within, whether it stayed more as a complete sentence, is there any known neurological

syndrome, makes it sound like a bad thing, but it could be a good thing, is there any known neurological syndrome? Makes it sound like a bad thing, but it could be a good thing whereby people feel that the actor and the observer within them are unified continually. There's not a pathological one. Some of them, the work on the default mode networks suggests that that's at least part of the story, right? So the default mode network, which has been talked about a lot of late because it has come up both in the meditation, literature, and in the psychedelic literature.

But its original discovery was that, you know, and the reason why it was called the default mode was that in virtually every neuroimaging experiment ever run, they found that between tasks, when the brain was just in its default state, these midline structures would increase their activity, and then they would reliably diminish whenever the person in the scanner was on task. And usually that meant some kind of outward looking, you know, visual discrimination task. I mean, but it could be, you know, it could be visual. It could be semantic. It could be, but there tends to be their eyes are open and their paying attention to something that's being broadcast to them through, you know, monitor goggles.

Or, you know, they're looking at a mirror that's showing them a computer monitor. But the, so the general insight was, there are these midline structures in the brain that seem to be increasing their activity when the brain is just kind of idling between tasks, waiting for something to happen. And then further experiments found tasks that actually upregulated activity there beyond baseline. And those tasks seem to be self-referential so that when you ask people, you give them a list of words and you say, would do any of these apply to you. And so people, or you ask people to think about, actually, one experiment I did when you

are challenging people's beliefs, when you're challenging beliefs that have more of a personal significance, like political or religious beliefs, you get an up-regulation in these regions as opposed to just generic beliefs about, you're in Los Angeles, this is a table, there's something to which people are not holding fast as a matter of identity. you know, holding fast as a matter of identity. So anyway, both meditation and psychedelics seem to suppress activity in these in these regions, which we know are associated with both self-talk, mind-wondering, and explicit acts of self-representation. Right? So could we say that they are somewhat autobiographical because they access memory systems

and the way you're describing them and in the way that a colleague of mine who's been a guest on this podcast, I don't know if he'd been interact with him before, but I think you'd very much enjoy whatever interaction you would have his David Spiegel, he's our associate chair of psychiatry. He and his father actually,

his father then he founded hypnosis as a valid clinical practice in psychiatry. And hypnosis, which is obviously a heightened sense of attention with deep relaxation, is known to dramatically suppress the default mode network. He talks about this a lot. And I always wonder as we take down activity within the default mode network, take down activity within the default mode network, what surfaces it in its place, and is what surfaces in its place, does that somehow reflect that the two are normally in a push pull?

Because that's not necessarily the case. When I fall asleep, I can hallucinate, but that doesn't mean that during the day, my, the fact that I'm looking at objects is what's preventing me from hallucinating. If I close my eyes, I can get imagery. But there's this kind of a different illusion, the illusion of antagonistic circuitry sometimes. I don't want to take us off course, but the default mode network seems to want to be there.

It seems to be fighting for our attention unless we give ourselves a visual target at an auditory target or some salient experience of some kind, it sounds like. And then if I'm surprised to hear that meditation reduces activity in the default mode network at some level because meditation to me often times involves paying attention to some sort of perceptual target. Maybe you could eventually explain as to how it might do perceptual target. Yeah. Maybe you could eventually explain as to how it might do that or why it might.

Yeah. And I don't think it's the whole story because obviously, outward going attention is not, even if you're having the kind of egoic saccade that I'm talking about where you're like, you're actually not clearly aware of yourself. You're not clearly defining yourself as separate from experience

for the moment of paying attention. So you are sort of losing yourself in your work. That's not the same thing as having the clear meditative insight of selflessness that I'm claiming is the goal of meditation. But there is a, to wind back to the original point I was making and the reason why I drew the analogy to Visual Secods, I do think there's a continuous interruption in our sense of self that goes unrecognized.

And but the conscious acquisition of the understanding that the self is an illusion is a different experience. And it's because you're then focusing on this absence. Actually, there's another analogy to the visual system that applies here, which is to the optic blind spot. I mean, it's like, so, which is a good analogy for me because it cuts through a bunch of false assumption as to where you would look for this or how this relates to ordinary experience. So, as many people know that we have, you know, in both eyes, we have what's

called the blind spot, which is a consequence of the optic nerve transiting through the retina. I mean, unlike cephalopods, I think, I think cephalopods have their optic nerve, you know, as, you know, an omniscient being would have engineered it, connecting the retina from the back, and therefore there is no blinds, the area of blindness associated with its transit back through the retina, but our focus. Our first receptors on the outside.

Exactly. Humans, whatever reason, put photos, well, I always say I wasn't consoled the design phase. Something put a photo receptors combination of things, put photo receptors in the back. And so you actually have to send the high wave information through the pixel center of the eye. Yeah, cephalopods and Drasophila, basically invertebrates.

Right. The design is more at its face logical, mammals, very illogical design, at least as far as our judgments can. But it gives me good analogy, so I'll take it. I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Athletic Greens. Athletic Greens, now called AG1, is a vitamin mineral probiotic drink that covers all of your foundational nutritional needs.

I've been taking Athletic Greens since 2012, so I'm delighted that they're sponsoring the podcast. The reason I started taking Athletic Greens and the reason I still take Athletic Greens, once or usually twice a day, is that it gets to be the probiotics that I need for gut health. Our gut is very important.

It's populated by gut microbiota that communicate with the brain, the immune system, and basically all the biological systems of our body to strongly impact our immediate and long-term health. And those probiotics and athletic greens are optimal and vital for microbiotic health. In addition, athletic greens contains a number of adaptogens, vitamins and minerals that make sure that all of my foundational nutritional needs are met. And it tastes great. If you'd like to try athletic greens, you can go to atlettegreens.com slash Huberman. And they'll give you five free travel packs that make it really easy to mix up athletic

greens while you're on the road and the car on the plane, et cetera. And they'll give you a year supply of vitamin D3 K2. Again, that's at lettagreens.com slash human to get the five free travel packs and the year supply of vitamin D3 K2. So in any case, we have this blind spot, which you can, I think most people learn this in school, although my daughters had not been taught this in school. I just showed them this for the first time like a month ago, which, and they were briefly fascinated,

and then they want to return to their screen time. But anyway, you can take a piece of paper and you make two marks on it, and then you cover one eye and you fixate on one mark. I mean, you can look this up online if you need details about how to do this. And while staring at one fixation point, you move the paper back and forth and you can get it to a place where the other mark disappears and that, and you can run this experiment

long enough to satisfy yourself that there is in fact a blind spot in your visual field which with one eye closed, you don't normally notice. The reason why you have to cover one eye is because each eye compensates for the blind spot of the other. But what you should say is that if you close one eye and survey the visual scene, something really is missing, whatever you're looking at. If you're looking at a crowd of people, somebody is missing ahead and you're not noticing it. And it's not easy to notice because, the brain doesn't tend to vividly represent the absence of information. I mean, it's just like,

this is part of the game that's not being rendered. It's not showing up as a break in the visual field. It's just not there. And you're, I mean, the people have argued that there's a kind of filling in phenomenon that happens, but I think that can be misunderstood or exaggerated. But the eye movements themselves that you described before, I guess I should say that the saccade analogy of about transiently and repetitively erasing the self works perfectly here,

because indeed Microsocods, the smaller sacades occur all the time also prevent our eyes from fixating at one location It's long enough to observe our blind spot even if one eye is closed Right, so if we the experiments done with paralytics to essentially lock eyes at one location basically things just start disappearing Yeah, it just basically started boosting would actually we start going blind. And those experiments have been done. On humans, I hear they're quite terrifying. Yeah. Yeah. Batman, you can do that for yourself, too.

It just, it begins to just all fall off the way and a warm glow. No psychedelics required. But the interesting point there is that when you ask yourself, okay, so this, because of as a consequence of the eyes anatomy, there's this thing you can see that is absent from your experience. But the question is, where is that in relationship to the rest of you, to your mind, or is that deep within, or is that in some sense right on the surface of experience. And there's this expectation that people have, again, I think conflating meditation with a search

for changes in the contents of consciousness, they're looking for, you know, much more subtle things to notice about the mind, or much, you know, vaster things to notice. Psychedelics sets up this expectation that, you know, you do, you know, a massive dose of mushrooms or LSD and everything changes. I mean, you just get this full, you know, beatific vision and, you know, you get, you know, not only visual changes, but, you know, emotional changes and you get synesthesia where you're just, you have much more mind in so many ways. So they begin having these experiences or reading the mystical literature,

you begin to think, okay, well then freedom is really elsewhere or it's really, it's deep within. It's like it's not coincident with the ordinary awareness that can see this coffee cup clearly and that can just transition attention to you know reading an email with the full sobriety of just you know ordinary waking consciousness. But the truth is this insight into selflessness, this insight into the non-duality of subject and object is as close to ordinary consciousness as this insight into the optic blind spot. Like, where do you have to go to have this insight into the blind spot? No,

you just have to go anywhere. You just have to set up the experiment correctly such that If you're going anywhere, you just have to set up the experiment correctly such that you can see the data, but the data is right on the surface. It's almost too close to you to notice. If it's at all hard to notice, it's because it's so close rather than it's deep within or far away. There are other analogies like, I don't remember those minds, I, pieces of artwork that were the random dot stereo grounds where you have an image that pops out. I always find it very difficult to see those because I have a very dominant eye.

But some people can't see those. These are these images that used to be at the kind of like touristy shops of a book. People say, oh, there it is, the whale. I was thinking, I don't see it. Kids that swim a lot when they're younger, and they tend to breathe just to one side. I don't know if this was you.

This is definitely me. They tend to, um, we'll keep one eye closed. You set up a pretty strong, ocular dominance. By seeing your vision to one or the other eye early in life, whether you're learning how to be a bow hunter or you're learning how to throw darts or shoot billiards, or anything involves selectively viewing the world through one eye for even a couple of hours can set up a permanent asymmetry in the weighting of visual flow, flow of visual information

from the eye to the brain. It's reversible, but only through the reverse gymnastics of covering up the other eye intentionally. So I had to be reverse patched for a while because I was seeing double because I lost binocular vision. I don't stand a chance in hell of seeing an image pop out of a random car stereo. Yeah.

Which is kind of ironic, because I did my PhD on binocular circuitry. But nonetheless, if people can see these, or if they can't, I think they provide a really terrific example of what you're talking about as a larger theme, which is that perceptually you see a bunch of dots, and then all of a sudden, what you thought wasn't there, suddenly there, but can just disappear again,

or there are certain visual illusions, if we were to include others, that once you see them, you cannot unsee them. Right. So there's the faces, vases, you know, figure ground type stuff. Yeah, it's a bit bicepable perception. Yeah, bicepable perception. And then there's sort of ocular competition.

You show two different images to the eyes, each of the two eyes. Right. It is near impossible for people to perceive them both simultaneously. Yeah. So it's a little bit of what you're describing. I mean, these seem to be fundamental features about the way the neural circuits are organized, that they don't want to stably,

they don't want to stay fixated on any one thing for very long to do so either takes training, intense interest, intense fear, intense excitement. And I say intense, I guess I come back to this idea that the autonomic nervous system is somehow governing our ability to spotlight at any one location for very long. Does that a useful framework or is that going to take us down a different path? Well, it's sort of a different path for this. I mean, for the only point I was making is that the seemingly paradoxical claim that something can be right on the surface

and yet hard to see, right? So things that are, and again, this seems to justify the expectation held by, I would think, the vast majority of people who get interested in these spiritual things for lack of a better word, that the truth must somehow be deep within, right? Like there's really like, there's some distance between where you're, between the one who is looking and the thing that has to be found, right? And you have to go through this long evolution of changes.

I mean, the many metaphors that set this up is like you're at the base of a mountain and you have to climb to the top. And so you have to find the path, however secure it is to get you there. But there really is a distance between where you're between your starting point and the goal.

And what I'm arguing, and this is a kind of a non-dual to use a term of jargon, is a non-dual approach to meditation, as opposed to a dualistic one, that there really is a, the path and the goal are coincident, right? That there's a, that you have to unravel the logic by which you would seek something that's outside of, you know, the present moment's experience, you know, IE not available, really not available to you now, because so many things worth having, so many skills worth acquiring,

really are not available to you now. It's like, if you wanna be a pianist, or if you wanna speak Chinese, or if you wanna like, there's something you don't know, and then you wanna learn that thing, and there's a whole process. And you might not be capable of doing it.

And real mastery is far away. If you've never hit a golf ball, and you want to hit a golf ball, 300 yards straight, I can pretty much guarantee you're not going to do that initially, and you're not going to do it on day two, and you're not going to do it reliably for the longest time, and there's real training in front of you to be able to do that reliably. And insight into, and really the core insight, I mean, the insight that is the core of,

the Buddha's teaching to take one historical example of this, really is available now, and it is not, I mean, granted, it can be very hard one for people. I mean, I had probably spent a year on silent retreat in one week to three month increments before I sort of got the point I'm making now, right? So like I, you know, it's quite, I mean, literally, and these are, you know, is a retreats where he's been, you know, 12 to 18 hours a day, just meditating, trying to, you know, unpack the kinds of claims

I'm, you know, making now. So it's possible to rigorously overlook this. It's possible to stand in front of the mind's eye image and stare in a way that is guaranteed not to give you pop out, right, and to be adept at staring in that way. So it's possible to be misled. And so what I'm trying to argue here is that there's a fair amount of leverage you can get with better information, which can kind of cut the time course of your searching for this

thing and kind of cancel your false expectations about just where this is in relation to your ordinary waking consciousness. And it's possible to get bad information and to have a bunch of experiences, you go and do an ayahuasca trip and you have, it's incredibly valuable and it's valuable for all the ways in which it change the contents of your consciousness in startling ways. And you had insights into your past and into your relationships and into why you're not as loving as you might be and there's lots to think about.

And you're like, okay, that's all great. That's all something that we can talk about. But it truly is orthogonal. I mean, if it makes a point of contact to what I'm talking about, it's really just at one point, you know, and it's at the point where this sense of subject object division in consciousness is illusory and vulnerable to investigation.

And if you investigate it, that's sort of the right plane of focus, you pick the analogy you want from whether it's setting up the optic blind spot experiment in just the right way so that you can see that it's actually not, the data is not there. Or, I mean, the by-stable percept is great because when you see one of these

images, like the vase-face diagram or, you know, the Dalmatian, you know, that it looks like it's just a mess of dots and then you see the image of a Dalmatian dog pop out. Once you see it, you really can't unsee it. I mean, once you have the requisite conceptual anchor to it, then every time you look, you're going to find it again and eventually becomes effortless. That's what ultimately meditation is. This kind of meditation, you ultimately learn to recognize that there's no separation from you between you and your experience.

There's not the experience on the one hand and the self on the other. There's just experience. There's just seen hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, feeling, proprioception, ad whatever channels of information you want to that. But there's just the totality of the energy of consciousness and its contents. And there's no, it's not that you're on the riverbank, and this is how it can seem in the beginning, even when you're practicing meditation fairly diligently. It can seem like you're on the riverbank watching the contents of consciousness flow by.

And meditation is the act of doing that more and more dispassionately. So you're no longer grabbing at the pleasant or pushing the unpleasant way, you're just kind of relaxing and in the most non-judgmental frame of mind, just witnessing the flow. But if you're doing that dualistically, you feel like the meditator, you feel like the subject, aiming attention. And so now you're on that dualistically, you feel like the meditator, you feel like the subject, aiming attention. And so now you're on the river bank watching everything go go pass. But the truth is, you are the river, right? Experience itself is the, there is just experience itself. You're not, you're not on the edge of experience. And everything you can notice is part of the flow, right?

And there's no point from which to abstract yourself away from the flow, to stand outside it and to say, okay, this is my life, this is my experience, this is my body. Yes, you can do that. I mean, those are all just thoughts, but that's more of the flow, right? And so there is a process by which you would eventually

recognize that there's no distance between you and your experience. And again, you can wait for those moments in life where experience gets so good or so terrifying, you know, it's just so salient, right? You're a meagdala is driving so hard. I mean, so you're in a war and you can't think about anything because the enemy is shooting at you, and this is the most thrilling video game you've ever played in your life, and your life is on the line, or you're at the peak of some athletic event where there's just how you're doing the things you're doing, but it's all happening automatically, right? But, you know, those are, those are, you know, one-one-hundredth

of one percent of one's life, you know, and, you know, what I'm calling meditation is a way of simply understanding the mechanics of attention whereby you are denying yourself that unity of experience so much at the time and recognizing that that's, you know, it's based on a misperception of the way consciousness always already is. Well, if there wasn't an incentive to learn how to meditate properly, that was one. And I've been meditating for a fair amount since I was in my teens, but more along the lines of just paying attention to breath and recognize thoughts sort of observer, open observer type meditation or focused attention,

I would suppose more of the focused attention type. We'll get into these a little bit later, but I have a number of questions related to what you just said. Sure. I love the idea that this thing that we would all do well to understand, to observe consciousness itself as opposed to trying to alter the contents of consciousness, may sit much closer to us than one might think that it. And that, because it sits so close to us that that might be one of the reasons why we miss it.

I go right to a visual system example. I mean, if you're wearing corrective lenses and there's a spec on your lens, you know, typically you're looking out through the lens and so you wouldn't observe that spec. Any number of different analogies could work here. The fact that there are states, however few, the fact that there are states, however, few positive and negative, extreme, extreme, extreme fear being the two, I think, the most obvious ones that seems like we agree on that allows to capture the sense of completeness of self or the unity of the observer and the actor. The fact that those are seldom for the non-trained, for the non-meditator suggests to me two things. I think one perhaps worth exploring more than the other, but one is that

what's really being revealed in the states where we can feel the unity of the observer and the actor is understanding something fundamental about the algorithm, not the online algorithm, but the algorithm that is our nervous system. Just as you mentioned, cephalopods, I mean, mantis shrimp sea, an enormous array of color hues that we don't, right? Their maps and representations of the world are fundamentally different, pitvipers sea and the infrared. We restricted to some of a limited range within the color spectrum, but still more

vast than that of dogs or cats. Okay. So understanding that for seeing what a pit viper can see for moments would be informative, perhaps sensing heat emissions as a human might be invasive. Maybe that's why we don't do it. So the question is, so just make it straightforward is, why would the system be designed this way? Again, neither of us were consulted the design phase, but that brings me to perhaps the more tractable question was which is about development.

I mean, I'm a great believer that the neural circuits that encouraged healthy parent-child relations or unhealthy parent-child relations as the case may be. In childhood, stem from the initial demands of internal versus external states, which is exactly what we're talking about, which is that a young child feels anxious because it needs to diaper change. This doesn't really know it needs its diaper change or it's cold, where it's uncomfortable or it's hungry, or it's overly full.

And so it vocalizes and then some external source comes to us and relieves that, hopefully. Right. And so the fundamental rule that we first learn is not that we have a cell for that things fall down, not up, but is that when uncomfortable, externalize that discomfort and it will be relieved by an outside player. And then, of course, there's a repurposing of that circuitry for adult romantic attachments. I don't think anyone doubts that and that can explain a lot indeed about attachment and so forth.

So something about our developmental wiring and the algorithms that these neural circuits run tend to buy us most people, the non-practice meditators, to live a somewhat functional life at least without this awareness of actor and observer. And so what you're really talking about is a delivered intervention to understand and resolve that gap in the algorithm. Is that, do I have that right? I'm more or less restating what you said in a way that I'm hoping we'll serve as a jumping off point

as to why questions are always very dangerous in biology or any, you know. And, and relationship. What's that? Or in relationship. Or in relationship, right? Exactly. Although I think it all does really harking back to this early developmental wiring, which of course is modifiable. That's the

beauty of the nervous system, is it's the one organ that seems to be able to change itself, at least to some degree. So what are your thoughts about the organization of the circuitry to essentially under normal conditions to not reveal what seems to be one of its more important and profound and for, you know, dare I say enlightening features, right? It's almost as if we are potentially like mantish shrimp. We can see so many more colors than we actually see and yet we don't.

We sort of, most people opt not to and I would argue that One of the great strengths of the waking up app for instance that it essentially walks you through the process of being able to arrive at the These things without having to go to one year or three year Long silent meditation retreats. Yeah, so if you just elaborate from home before we move on about you know What are your thoughts about how the circuitry is arranged by default versus and what that means for there to be an intervention that we have to intervene in the self in order to reveal the self? Well, so the two big questions there, one about evolution, one about development. So with respect to evolution, it's important to recognize

that evolution doesn't see our deepest concerns about human flourishing and human well-being. It's all about the off-screen. It's just, you know, we are set up to spawn and to survive long enough to help our progeny spawn if we can do that. And that's it, right? And so anything that was good for that, including tribalism and xenophobia and all kinds of hardware and software flaws that are reveal themselves to be flaws in the present time when we're trying to build a viable global civilization. But, you know, they, they, they redounded to the advantage of our ancestors somehow.

Or they just, there's, there's things about as that we're simply not selected for. They just kind of came along for the right, you know, the, you know, what Stephen J. Kuld called a spandrel. You know, so, we are not set up by evolution to be as happy as we possibly can be, and to do almost anything that interests us well. I mean, we're not set up by evolution to be mathematicians or musicians or to create democracies that are healthy. I mean, evolution can see none of this. And we're doing these things based on cognitive

and emotional hardware that we are leveraging in new directions, right? I mean, we have, we are primates, and we are, you know, we're communicating with, you know, small mouth noises, I mean, we're language using primates, and all of that is clearly evolved. And we're doing with small mouth noises, I mean, we're language using primates, and all of that is clearly evolved. And we're doing these amazing things, including science,

however improbably, we're actually able to, almost entirely with language, understand reality at a scale that exceeds us in both directions. I mean, the very vast and the very small and also temporally, the very old. We have visions of the far future. We can figure out where an asteroid is going to cross Earth's orbit a thousand years from now if we just do the math. And it's amazing that we can do all of those things, but evolution

is blind to all of that, right? And so we have, in terms of what we care about, and certainly in terms of what we, what's gonna ensure our survival as a species, we have flown the perch that was created for us by evolution. I mean, we're just not, it's not just the primate things. And so so it is with learning how to regulate our emotions and, you know, punch through to a self-concept or beyond a self-concept that is more normative psychologically that allows us to not be terrorized

by our apish genes as fully as we seem to be, even in the presence of more and more destructive technology. we seem to be even in the presence of more and more destructive technology that, I mean, like, you know, we're still practically chimpanzees armed with nuclear weapons, right? I mean, that is, you know, increasingly dysfunctional. And very soon, we're going to be in the presence of minds or apparent minds that we have built, you know, that are as intelligent as we are, and very quickly, you know, probably 15 minutes after that, far more intelligent as we are, and very quickly, you know, probably 15 minutes after that, far more intelligent than we are. And so what we do with all of that is again, something that we have to figure out based

on the minds we have, the minds we can build, the minds we can change, you know, we can metal with our own genomes now, and that will produce its own consequences. In ourselves and in future generations, if we've met all with the germ line, and again, all of that is just evolution is just sort of the womb we came out of, but it's not, it didn't anticipate any of that. Mother Nature has simply not had our best interests at heart, right? And we might die off, and from the point of view of mother nature, that's fine because 99% of every species dies off, you know. So there's that.

But when you're talking about the individual developmentally, So we all come into this world again as a fairly hairless primate that needs a tremendous amount of care by others. And the logic of that is that, you know, the reason why we're not a gazelle that can run 45 minutes later and then basically do all the gazelle things perfectly soon thereafter. The reason why we have, you know,

we have this time of immaturity and that becomes, has become functional for us, is that it's just, we're far more flexible and we can learn based on the needs of an environment to do so much more than a gazelle can and language is a part of that. And in the last 10,000 years or so, culture increasingly has been more and more a part of that. And there's probably a layer at which we can plausibly talk about cultural evolution, you know, and cultural evolution interacting

with biological evolution to change us. But when you're talking about the development of an individual, each of us comes into this world, I think, not recognizing ourselves in any sense that it would make sense to reify. I mean, it's not that there's nothing there. I mean, there could be some kind of proto-self differentiation, but I think it's, it takes a long while, and there is very likely a coincidence between really recognizing others, we recognize others first, and we're in certainly in relationship immediately, and we orient

to human faces, and we even detect other humans as good and bad moral actors very early. And certainly long before we recognize ourselves in a mirror, the experiments run. Again, this is Paul Bloom and colleagues experiments run on the moral hardware and software of developing toddlers. But I think at this point, they push it down all the way to like six months of age where you'll get these infants staring at kind of a puppet show. a greater interest in classically good actors versus bad actors, cooperators versus defectors in various puppet show games. So it's not that we have no mind and no proto awareness of others and of self,

but what eventually happens, certainly as we become at all facile with languages, is that we become aware that not only are we in relationship to others, but we are an object in the world for them. So we have enough people pointing at us in our cribs, and impinging upon our experience. right? You know, you're being physically moved and prodded and touched and consoled or not consoled. And just imagine what all of these,

you're on the receiving end of 10,000 interventions, right? And you're completely helpless for the longest time. And all of that attention, you have all of these people coming up to the crib and making faces at you. Cheering. Yeah, and it's all pointed at you, right? So there's a classic magical narcissism that gets constructed there. If you take the psychological literature,

or at least a certain strand of it, seriously. And I think it's largely apt to think of take the psychological literature, at least a certain strand of it, seriously. And I think it's largely apt to think of a child at that age as a kind of, there's a kind of narcissistic structure there where it's all kind of going inward. And at a certain point, you realize, okay, I'm the center of all of this, right? Like it's not just a movie that you're completely absorbed in

and you've lost your sense of self. I mean, this is to talk to you, yet another example of what it's like as a grown-up to lose our sense of self. And one of the things I think we find so fascinating about television and film is that when we get totally absorbed in it, we're in this very unusual circumstance where where our brain is basically reading it as we're in the classic social circumstance, we're presented with the facial displays of other people.

In fact, you know, we can get, some of that sometimes these people are 10 feet tall, right? Or their faces are 10 feet tall, you really, they've closed up in a movie theater. So it's like the super stimulus in terms of evolution. And they could make it, they could be making direct eye contact with a camera, right? So you have this gigantic face staring at you, and yet you're totally unimplicated socially.

You can't be seen. And you, and something about that, you know you can't be seen. And so you're completely, you completely lose self-consciousness. And yet you're, you're able to examine with completely free attention, again, because you're totally unimplicated.

The, the, the facialiae and the mimetic facial play of people from at a very close range. I mean, you're seeing people close, I mean, you have to be physically just about to kiss your spouse. Like that's what a closeup is in a film, right? Like that, you never get that close to people, right? And yet, hear you're in a situation where you? Like, you never get that close to people, right? And yet,

here you're in a situation where you're unobserved and you know that. And so, I mean, this is a bit of a tangent, but the other side of what's happening developmentally for a kid, when you're in a movie theater watching a movie, you are truly invisible, and yet you're right there seeing, you know, however harrowing the human drama is, you're seeing a play out and you're seeing it up close. And it is an, it is an principally social encounter that your genes are ready for, but they're not ready for you to be invisible, right? And so that's what's so magical about it.

But what happens developmentally for a kid is that you're not invisible. You are an object that is constantly being overrun, the boundaries of your, you know, your sensory engagement with the world are constantly being impinged upon by others. And at a certain point, you recognize, okay, I'm at the center of this. And the way this gets enshrined as a self, I think it's probably coincident with our learning the language game. We learn to play with others. We're talking to others, people are talking to us. And at a certain point, we're talking to ourselves even when the other people leave the room. Right. And you can hear it. If you ever have been with a toddler when they're, when they're externalizing their self-talk, you know, you hear them talking to themselves,

they're playing, and they're, they're having a conversation, they were talking to you, the parent, but then you left the room and they're still talking. You come back in, and then they're still, they're still talking, right? And what happens to us, strangely, and this comes back to the logic of evolution,

we never stop because evolution never thought to build us an off switch for this, right? I mean, the language is so useful and it gets tuned up so strongly for us. And there was never a reason to shut it off, right? There's never reason to give you this ability to say, I wouldn't be nice to have four hours of quiet now like no self-talk. And so for most of us, I mean, I think there are people who for whatever neurological reason or, you know, it is aocratic reason. Undoubtedly there'd be a neurological reason for it. Don't have any self-talk. But for most of us, we are covertly talking basically all the time. And there's an imagistic component of this for many people.

You're visualizing things as well. But there's just a lot of ton of white noise in the mind that feels a certain way. And what you discover in meditation ultimately is that the self is what it feels like to be thinking without knowing that you're thinking. A thought arises, uninspected, and seems to just become you. You and I are talking now, and you said, people are listening to us. They're struggling to follow the train of this conversation right? So like you and I are talking now and you know, people are listening to us.

They're struggling to follow the train of this conversation because it is competing with the conversation that's happening in their heads, right? So I'll be saying something and a person listening will say, well, what does that mean? Or like, oh boy, he just contradicted himself. Or like, there's a voice in your head that is also vying for your attention much of the time. And so it's, you know, the first discovery people make in meditation is that it's just so hard to pay attention to anything, the breath or mantra or the sound, whatever it is, because you're thinking every, you're thinking about the thing you need to do in an hour

and oh, it's so good that I downloaded this app. I'm just like, this is really good. This is gonna be good for me. You're thinking every, you're thinking about the thing you need to do in an hour and oh, it's so good that I downloaded this app. I'm like, this is really good. This is going to be good for me. But that chatter isn't showing up. You're not far back enough in the, in the kind of the theater of consciousness. So as to see it emerge, it is just sneaking up behind you and it feels like me again. It feels like when someone is thinking the thought, what the hell does that mean? They're not seeing it as an emerging

object in consciousness. It just feels like me. It just feels that that's, it is the, you know, subjectively, it's like the mind contracts around this appearance in consciousness. And it really is just, it is just a, you know, it's just a sound with the voice of the mind. If you actually can inspect it, it is, it is deeply inscrutable that we ever feel identified with our thoughts. I mean, how is it that we could be a thought? These thoughts, a thought just arises and passes away. And when you inspect, when you go to inspect it, it's, you know, it unravels. It's just, it's, it's, it's the least substantial possible thing. And it could, but yet it could be a thought of self-hatred, you know, it could be a thought that, that unrecognized totally defines your mood.

It's like, I mean, just, again, this all can seem kind of abstract, but. Well, no, but I think it's extremely concrete from the perspective of the neural circuits that we'll return to in maybe a few minutes. If you could elaborate a bit on this notion of internal chatter and external stimuli and the bridge between them, because that's, I think that for some people that might be intuitive,

I think for others, it's not so obvious that language is ongoing in the backdrop. Yeah. Because sometimes I think some people are more tuned into that language for some people. It's louder volume. For some people, it's more structured. I have a colleague at Stanford who's been on this podcast called Diceroth. He's like one of the premiums, like Bioengineers. He's also psychiatrist and he doesn't call it a meditative practice.

He has a practice where each evening after his five kids are put down asleep, you know, they're older now. But and in the quiet of the, the late hours of the night, early morning, he sits and forces himself to think in complete sentences with punctuation for an hour. This is the way that he has taught himself to structure his thinking. Right. Because of the very fact that you're describing, which is that ordinarily there is an underlying structure to what's internal, but it's disrupted by external events, and these are, typically it's

not coherent enough to really make meaning from. So it's almost like somebody sitting down to write in complete sentences, but for some self to do it in his head. But for many people, including myself, that's a foreign experience. And we only experience structure through our interactions with the world and other people. That if I were, I've taken the time to try

and explore ideas with eyes closed, and I've been able to do that. There are certain pharmacologic states that we could talk about that facilitate that. And no, those are not amphetamines, those do exactly the opposite by the way. But I think people exist in varying degrees of structured and unstructured internal dialogue and in varying depths of recognition of that internal dialogue. And so the question I suppose is, is just the recognition that there's a dialogue ongoing

internally, is that itself valuable? Yeah, and that also can take some time. So, here's a claim I would make that some people might find surprising, but I think this is an objectively true claim about the subjectivity of most people, which is that unless you have a fair amount of training, let's see, it just happened to be some kind of savant in this area, which most people by definition aren't, or you have a remarkable amount of training

in what's called concentration practice in meditation. I believe this is a true claim that that if we just put a stopwatch on this table and people could just watch it, 30 seconds elapsed. I said all of our listeners or your viewers the task. For the next 30 seconds, just pay attention to anything, your breath, you know, or the side of your hand or the side of the clock, or any object without getting lost in thought, without getting momentarily distracted by this conversation you're having with yourself. This couple of things would happen. One is, no one would be able to do it, right? And not just, this is not just a superficial inability.

I mean, if your life's dependent on it, you wouldn't be able to do it. I mean, if the fate of civilization depended on it, none of our listeners would be able to do this. And yet some percentage of them are so distracted by a thought that they will actually try this experiment and think they succeeded, right? And for these people, what happens is you put them on a meditation retreat and you have them spend 12 hours a day in silence doing nothing but this, right?

So the practice is just pay attention to the breath when they're sitting and then eventually you incorporate everything, sounds and other sensations. And then you interleave that with walking meditation with our paying attention just to the sensations of lifting and moving and placing their feet. And then once the practice is going, you incorporate sounds and sights and everything.

So you can pay attention to everything, but the goal is for every moment, you are going to cultivate this faculty of mind, which increasingly is known as mindfulness. And mindfulness is nothing other than this very careful attention to the contents of consciousness. But the crucial piece is, it is not a moment of being lost in thought. Right? You're not blocking thoughts. Thoughts themselves can arise.

But in those moments of being truly mindful, you're noticing thoughts as thoughts, whether it's language in the mind or images, you're noticing those two as spontaneous appearances and consciousness. So most people, you know, certainly anyone who thinks they can pay attention to, you know, they can do the experiment successfully that I just suggested pay attention to something for 30 seconds without being lost and thought, you put those people on a meditation retreat, what they're going to experience is, you know, on the first day, they're going to feel like, oh, yeah, I was, you know, I was with the breath or I was walking, you know,

I was with the sensations of walking. And I'd be there for like five minutes, you know, solid, and then I would get lost in thought, then I'd come back, you know, five more minutes of your loss in thought, and I think it'd be, but as the days progressed, you know, even, you know, 10 days in to a silent meditation treat, they're going to experience more and more distraction. They're going to, it's going to seem like, okay, wait a minute. Now I can't pay attention to anything for more than five

seconds, right? That is progress, right? Because what they're discovering is just how distractable they are, right? And, you know, so some, for some people, that will be immediately obvious, for some people, it'll actually take a lot of practice to realize just how distracted they are. What you just said, which was that at some point, we couldn't start noticing our thoughts. I can notice my thoughts, but what you're talking about is as a goal state is not being distracted

by thoughts, but actually seeing the relationship between thoughts itself and other types of perceptions. And here, I think recognizing and seeing thoughts is a form of perception. It's just an internally directed perception. This raises a topic that I'm also obsessed by, which I think neuroscience can somewhat explain, but still incomplete, incompletely, that the circuits and mechanics, etc., are not yet known, which is about time perception. And, you know, a simple analogy would be that there are a lot of small objects flying around in the

space that we happen to be having this discussion, but they're moving so fast that I can't perceive them. Or they're entirely stationary, so I can't perceive them because of the reasons we talked about before in the visual system. My eyes are moving in perfect concert with these small object movements, and therefore they are blind to them. Right. A slight shift in time perception. Think of this, perhaps as a change in the frame rate. Like camera frame rates, faster frame rate, you can capture slow motion, slower frame rate.

You're going to get more of a strobe type effect if the frame rate is low enough. Right. Right. of a strobe type effect if the frame rate is low enough. Right. Right. Could it be that our time perception is not one thing, but we have one rate of perceiving time for external objects at a given distance, which we know is true. Another frame rate for objects that are up close, we know this to be true, even if those

objects are moving at the exact same speed, right? I mean, this would be the sitting on a train, the rungs on the fence, seem to be going by very, very fast, but the ones in the distance seem to be moving slowly. This is the way the visual system and time perception interconnect at some level. You're up on a skyscraper, the little ants of cars and people down below.

You know they're moving much faster than you perceive them to move, but it's a distance effect. You see a plane, it's going 300 miles an hour. Exactly. And it's not because of the lack of resolution. The lack of resolution is incidental. We know this because in animals, such as hawks that have

twice the degree of acuity, as far as we know, they have the same distance associated shifts in time perception. So could it be that we are running multiple streams of time perception, multiple cones of attention that include cones of attention to our thoughts, and that somehow through meditation we start to align the frame rate for these different streams of attention so that they all fall into the same movie, if you will, although it's not just a movie with visual content. What I'm doing here is clearly I'm becoming a lumper rather than a splitter.

I'm sure this violates certain rules of time perception and neural circuitry, but I'm not sure that it's entirely untrue either. And does it survive at all as a possible model for what you're describing? And if the answer is no, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Well, it's dependent on what you mean by meditation. This is where you sort of, the particularities of what one is doing with one's attention under the frame of meditation really matter,

because there are ways to practice where it's practice mindfulness in particular where the frame rate really does seem to practice where, practice mindfulness in particular, where the frame rate really does seem to go way, way up, right? And there's actually been some research done on this where you take people before and after a three month silent meditation retreat and you give them some kind of visual discrimination task where they have to detect, I think they use it to to to to to kiss the scope. Is that the tool for there's some some some they presents. You know, like very quick pulses of light. In any case you can you can discriminate.

Just in any in any sensory channel I would imagine you can make finer grain discriminations if you're practicing mindfulness in a very specific way, which is to be making these fine grain discriminations more and more and do nothing else for three months, which is a way of practicing. So the classic mindfulness practice in what's called the Vipastana meditation is to pay scrupulous attention to seeing hearing, smelling, tasting, touching in a way that breaks everything down into this kind of

microscopic sensory moments. So you're rather than feel your hands pressing together, what you're trying to feel with your attention and you're feeling more and more is all of the micro sensations of pressure and temperature and movement such that the feeling of hands completely disappears. You realize that a hand is a concept

and all you have is this cloud of punk tape and very brief sensations. And so anything you think you have as a data of experience, as you bore into it with your attention, it resolves into a, this kind of di-us-cloud of changing sensation. And that can be even something as captivating as like a serious pain in your body. You could have injured your neck, and you have some excruciating pain in your neck. If you just are willing to pay attention to it

and just pay 100% attention to it, your couple of things happen. One is your resistance to feeling it goes away by definition because now your goal is just to just pay attention to it. And you recognize that so much of the suffering associated with the pain was born of the resistance to feeling it. You're kind of you're bracing against it and all of you're thinking about it. You're thinking like, well, you know, why did I do this to myself or when should I see

a North of Peter's or how long is it going to last? And maybe I herniated a disc, like all of that self talk is producing an anxiety. And I'm not saying there's never anything to think about it there, but either you can do something about it in the moment or you can't. And so much of our suffering in the presence of pain is the result of resisting it, worrying about it. I think it's just all of the, everything we're doing with our minds, but just, just feeling it, right?

So when you just feel it, again, it breaks apart into this, this ever shifting collection of different sensations. And it's not one thing and it never stays the same. And it's, and so there's two things happen there. One is there can be a tremendous amount of relief that happens there where you can achieve a level of equanimity even in the presence of really unpleasant, you know, physical sensation.

And this is true of mental sensation as well, it's true of emotions, you know, the classically negative emotions like anger, depression, or fear. The moment you become willing to just feel them in all of their, you know, punctate and changeable qualities, they cease to be what they wore a moment ago.

They're just, and they, when you're talking about emotional states, they cease to map back on to you and your self-concept as meaningful in the same way. So that suddenly, the anxiety you feel, let's say before going out on stage to give a talk, a moment ago, it had psychological meaning. It felt like, I'm anxious, how do I get rid of this? Why am I this sort of person?

Should I have taken a beta blocker? This is the conversation you're having with yourself. The moment you just become willing to feel it as the pure energy of the physiology of cortisol release, it ceases to have any meaning. It just, it ceases to be a problem in that moment because it's no more, it no more maps onto the kind of person you are than a feeling of indigestion or a pain in your, in your knee maps onto the kind of person you are. It's just, it's just sensation. Anyway, but back to the main point here, which is that if you train your attention in this way to notice the particularities of sensory experience and emotional experience,

like you're looking for the atoms of experience, you know, you get better and better at that and certain things happen. But one thing that I really do think happens is there's a kind of frame rate change in the data stream where you really are just noticing much, much more. All of that is a very interesting way of training. It's not what I tend to recommend now. It's a great preliminary practice for what I do recommend because it gives you, it really teaches you the difference between being lost and thought and not. It really teaches you what mindfulness is, but it tends to be done by 99.9% of people

in a dualistic way, which again, you're set up to think, okay, I'm over here as the locus of attention, and I'm continually getting distracted by thought, and the project is to not do that anymore, and actually pay attention to the breath and sounds and sensations, and every time I get lost in thought, I'm gonna go back here, but this whole dance of lost in've lost in thought, now I'm strategically directing my attention again, all of this seems to ramify this sense of self, the sense of, there's

one to be doing this. There's somebody holding the spotlight of attention and getting better at coming back to the object of meditation. Again, it's inevitable that 99.9% of people are going to start there and stay there for some considerable period of time. But the thing I like to do when I talk about all of this is undercut the false assumptions that are anchoring all of that as early as possible. Because where I think you want to be is recognizing that there is no place from which to aim attention. This whole dualistic setup of subject and object is the thing that is already not there. It's not that it's there and you meditate it out of existence successfully.

It's really not there. If you learn how to look for it, you can see that it's not there and feel that it's not there. And it no longer seems to be there, right? It's like it's not, and it becomes like, again, like a by-stable percept where you looked at it long enough and you thought, okay, now I see the vase and the vase. And I can't unsee it. And every time I look, it's there again, right?

And so yeah, I mean, so to come back to the example you gave with your colleague at Stanford, whose book I know I have, I haven't read it. He wrote a book, Projections, right? Deseroth, yeah. So it's on my stack to read. But it's the opposite, what I'm recommending, essentially the opposite end of the continuum of the sort of internal exercise he was doing. So rather than, so he's doing something very deliberate

and controlled, and he is deliberately thinking in complete sentences and kind of common daring the machinery of thought and attention in a way that I would imagine, I mean, to be interested to talk to him about it, but I would imagine he really feels like he's doing that, right? And there's a problem. He's an engineer. It's a, you know, as you describe it in this way, it reminds me, he's he's a physician, but he's also an engineer. It's, you know, as you describe it in this way, it reminds me, he's a physician, but he's

also an engineer. So it's really about taking the raw materials of thought and engineering something structured from it. Right. I haven't been in Carl's mind. Yeah, but if we got him talking on that, I'm sure we would get a set of what it is. We'll do that conversation at some point. But it's the exact opposite of what you're describing.

The exact opposite would be to recognize that the sense of control is a total illusion, right? It could be because you don't know what you're going to think next, right? And even he, in the most laborious way, I mean, he could just get as muscular as he wants with it. He still doesn't know what he's going to think next, right? Thoughts simply arise, right?

Like, you know, you can run this experiment for yourself and this connects up to the topic of free will, which we might want to touch. But I mean, just think of any category of thing. You know, if I asked you to think of, you think of the names of cities or of friends you have or of famous people, you can remember exist or think of nouns or anything. And just watch what comes percolating into consciousness, right? Now, there are things you can't think of, right? There are things you don't know the name of, you know, there are languages you don't speak,

there's, there are famous people you've never seen or never heard of, right? So like, so you have no control over that part, like those, those names and, and faces are not going to suddenly come streaming into consciousness. But of the, of the totality of facts and figures and faces and names that you do know, right, only some will come vying for inclusion, right? And there's a sort of, you know, we could make guess that we know something about the neurology of this, but we, you know, depending on what channel your waiting for thoughts in, I mean, it's going to be different if it's visual or semantic or episodic memory.

I mean, all of these things are different. But wherever you kind of point your inner gaze of attention and wait for the next face or name, certain things are going to come and certain things aren't going to come. And how you land on one, right, there'll be this process, if you're paying attention, you might think, we'll say we go with names of cities, right? You just, you'll think of Paris, you'll think of London, you'll think of Rome, you'll think of Sedona, you'll think like, so these names will come. And if I ask you to just say one, right? So just many apples is what came to mind.

For me, it was very straightforward. It was many apples. The famous person was Joe Strummer. And they just, like, I can give you reasons why I think those came to mind, recent conversations. Okay, so whatever, so we know, we know a fair bit about much of this. So one, we know that your reasons, you know, fair bit about much of this. So one, we know that your reasons,

you know, obviously could be right or wrong. They're very likely to be wrong because we have this sort of confabulatory storytelling mechanism even in an intact brain where we just, you know, we all seem to never lack for the reasons why something came to mind. And we know, we can know, we can manipulate people in ways that prove that people are just reliably wrong and confident, you know, confidently so about the reasons why they thought of things

or did things. But leaving that aside, even if you're completely accurate, right, there are people's names who you know and city's names that you know that inexplicably just didn't come to mind. And if we ran this experiment again and again and again, they wouldn't come to mind if your brain was in precisely the state it was in a moment ago. If we could return your brain to the state it was in a moment ago, correcting for all the deterministic changes and all the random changes that would have to be corrected for it, just get all the synapses and the synaptic weights

and everything in the state it was in to produce Joe Strummer and the state it was in to produce Joe Strummer and Minneapolis. You're going to, if we rewind that movie, that part of the movie of your life, you're going to say Joe Strummer and Minneapolis a trillion times in a row. This is why, in my view, the notion of free will makes absolutely no sense. You can add as much randomness to that process as you want. It still doesn't get you the freedom people think they have.

There's another conversation to have about, you know, why none of that matters and why things only get better once you admit to yourself that free will is an illusion. And yes, you can get in shape and you can diet and you can do all the things you want to do and you don't have to think about free will. But from a contemplative, meditative point of view,

the thing to notice is that everything is just springing But from a contemplative, meditative point of view, the thing to notice is that everything is just springing into view. There's no place from which you are authoring your next thought because you would have to think it before you think it, right? There is just this fundamental mystery at our backs that is discouraging everything that we experience. What if I'm speaking? So if I'm talking about something and I have some command of that

information, I can often sense what I'm going to say next and then find myself saying it. Hopefully that's what I'm saying, not something else. I certainly said things I didn't intend to say or never thought I would say in life, but when engaged in speech or action, it at least gives us the illusion, I think, that we somehow have more command over our thoughts. Yeah, well, you have a script. I mean, there are things you know a lot about and you've talked about them a lot.

And you know you have the things you want to say about those things and the things you don't want to say or you wouldn't want to say. And you know you can, you know, it still is a bit of a high wire act because you can miss speak or you can fail to get to the end of a sentence in a grammatically correct way. And again, all of this, subjectively, this whole process is mysterious to you, right? Like you don't know how you follow the rules of English grammar, right? Like the, like, you're just, your tongue is doing it somehow and, you know, and when it fails, it fails and you're just as surprised as the next guy that it failed.

And, you know, you mispronounce a word and, okay, I don't know what happened there, but it's, if it keeps happening, I'm going to worry I had a stroke and you know, if it stops, I'm, I'm going to, you know, I'm not going to worry about it. So it's still mysterious, even when you're doing it in a very, wrote, deliberative and repetitive way. But when you're talking about something, you've talked about a lot and and you know, you sort of know where you're gonna go, right? And this is, you know, we have many conversations like this. It is somewhat analogous to like a golf swing, where it's like, you know how you wanna do it.

There's gonna be all kinds of errors that are gonna creep into your execution of it in real time. But there's like, you basically have a pattern. And so you have certain linguistic patterns, which you're following. Again, none of this is a proof of free will, but I will grant you that phenomenologically, it feels different than just waiting for the next thought to come. But my point is that even if you're, I mean, you can trim it down to the simplest possible thing. I'm like, you take two things you like to drink, right?

You like coffee and you like tea, and you're deciding which to have, right? Both are on offer. You've got two cups in front of you, and the question is, you know, which, you know, or here, I've got water and I've got coffee, which am I gonna drink next? It's incredibly, it's the simplest possible decision.

And no matter how long I make this decision process, I could literally sit for an hour, trying to figure out which to reach for next. And I could have my reasons why and I could have all myself talk. There's going to be a final change in me that's going to be the proximate cause of me deciding one over the other. And that no matter how laborious I can make it seem in terms of my reasoning about it.

It is going to be fundamentally mysterious as to why I went with one rather than the other. Whatever story I have, because it's like, it's still going to be as mysterious as you thinking of Joe Strummer when you absolutely, like, you know of the existence of Marilyn Monroe just as much, and yet she simply didn't occur to you. It's fundamentally mysterious. There are people who are even more famous than Joe Strummer to you. I'm sure you, maybe somebody who you have thought a lot about, but there are people who, if we could just inventory your conscious life going back the last 10 years, They're people who you've thought about more than Joe Strummer yet. They didn't appear, right? So and that's that is mysterious, right? And they could have but they didn't and so

and What what I'm saying is that this mystery never gets banished in our experience whatever stories we have to tell about it Like because if the story is, oh, well, I went for the water because I, you know, I think I've been drinking too much coffee. You know, I listened to Andrew Huberman's podcast and he was talking about caffeine and I think I probably... It's good for us, but you don't want to over.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, so let's say that is actually the causal chain. Like, I listened to your podcast. You said something about caffeine. Now I'm, now I'm self-conscious about my coffee intake. But that's just adding a couple of links to the chain. There's still this fundamental mystery of, well, why did I find that persuasive? And why did I find it persuasive now and not five minutes ago when I was drinking the coffee? Why did I just remember it now? Or why was it effective?

And like, what, like, you only have your experience in every moment is precisely what it is and not one bit more. Like, and this subsumes even moments of real resolve and effort and, you know, picking yourself up by your bootstraps and changing everything. It's like you're on a diet and you're tempted to eat chocolate and you think you're about to reach and you say, no, I'm not breaking this diet.

This diet is actually going to stick, right? Why did that arise in that moment and not at this analogous moment on your last diet, right? And why did it arise now to precisely the degree that it did? Why will it be as effective as it will be and have the half-life that it will have and not 10% more or less? Like all of those are always mysterious to you. Well, could we give a, as we did before, an evolutionary and a developmental explanation, an evolutionary explanation might be that directed attention and action is metabolically demanding.

It would be inefficient or impossible for us to be in constant, you know, deliberate action and with access to all the relevant information as to why we would do anything. So our idea ideas literally spring to the surface at the last possible moment in order to offset the metabolic, the great metabolic requirements of having ideas that are related to goal-directed action or that goal-directed action is expensive. That's one idea. The other idea would be, and we know this as a fact, which is that initially the brain is fairly crudely wired. That's not true within the neural circuits, the control breathing, heart rate, etc., but within the neural circuits of sensory perception, thought, etc., they're

fairly crudely wired. And then across development, there's a progressive pruning back, and also in parallel to that, a strengthening of the connections that underlie directed action and thought. And here I don't mean directed as in free will. I mean, just that I can decide to imagine an apple and imagine that apple, for instance. Right. Well, your decision. There seems to be some maintenance of the random, fine random wiring in systems. I mean, we've seen this even in worms, in flies,

in, you know, in a so-called lower invertebrates, and lower invertebrates, and we see this in humans, and it seems to be that there's a lot of background spontaneous activity. I mean, now some electrodes into the brains of humans and macaques, carnivores and mice. And in every case, most of what you hear is called hash, and it has nothing to do with hashish,

is just a modium on it, which is, hey, picking up what you hear is called hash. And it has nothing to do with hash issues, it's just a audio monitor, which is picking up a bunch of action potentials. You're listening to a chorus of action potentials, but it's rare to find a neuron that faithfully gah, fires to represent some sensory stimulus in the world. And you can arrange that marriage experimentally so that you can arrive at those strong signal to noise events.

But I was always struck by how much noise there is in the system all around all the time. And people argue is the noise really noise, et cetera, and there's still a lot to debate about that. But I can imagine that some of the spontaneous nature of thoughts just relates to the fact that there's a lot of background spontaneous activity in the brain. Now why that is is a whole other discussion, but if I were to sort of set up two constraints, that there's a lot of spontaneous activity,

it's gonna generate random thoughts, thankfully not much random action, although there's a little bit of random action in our daily lives. And then against that, say, well, any deliberate thought or motion is going to be expensive, it's a metabolically expensive organ to begin with. And so you just have to, evolution has arrived at a place where

spontaneous geysering up of things, upon which like deliberate thoughts and action are superimposed, is the best arrangement overall for this very metabolically demanding organ. Is that, is that, I mean, what I basically gave was just kind of a biological description of one, just one narrow aspect of it. But can we get comfortable with that? And the reason I say get comfortable is that, you know, I'm here,

I'm, admittedly, I'm forcing a little bit of a strip tease towards what I think I and everyone else wants to know, which is how to meditate and why in particular meditation convinces us that something doesn't necessarily have to be eliminated, but that was actually never there. I feel like we're now set up of a sort of almost like a, you're not contradicting yourself by any means, but in my mind, there's a contradiction, and here's the contradiction. I love this statement that meditation over time or done properly reveals to us that we're actually not trying to make The gap between actor and observer go away. It was actually never there To me, that's one of the more important statements that I've perhaps have ever heard and it inspires me to go further down this path of meditation because I've never experienced that

Not deliberately and certainly not through meditation If I ever experienced it, it was transient enough that I, you know, I'm intrigued to experience it more. So on the one hand, you're telling me something was never there and there's a profound experience to be had by anyone that's willing to do the work to arrive at that experience of the loss of that illusion. On the other hand, I'm hearing that there's a profound gap that really does

exist, which is that we believe that our thoughts are somehow from us and indeed they're from in the cranial vault someplace, maybe in the body a bit as well, but that we over attribute the degree to which we are that and that is us in a way that's volitional, that we control. And so once I'm hearing that there's something, there's an illusion that we can eliminate. And on the other hand, I'm hearing that there's an illusion that we can't eliminate. And maybe these are unrelated and unbridging them in an unimportant way that seems only important to me. But somehow I can't resolve these two. And maybe the thing to do then is,

is can we separate them in terms of a practice to witness them? That would allow us to resolve them separately. Right, so I think I'm hearing the problem. There's this, well, let me kind of brag Right, so I think I'm hearing the problem. There's this, well, let me kind of brag at the whole free will discussion, because it really is the flip side of this coin that the obverse of which is the illusion of the self.

So, like, so at least, I, so I might be on the right track. They are the opposite sides of a coin. Yeah, because to me, they seem very different in essence. No, because what I'm calling the sense of self, and what people, what I think most people feel as their core sense of self, is the feeling of, I mean, it's the feeling of being the locus of attention, but it's also the feeling of being the locus of agency.

Like, I can do the next thing. I, like who's doing this? Who's reaching for the cup? I am, right? I intended this and now I'm doing the thing. And my conscious intention is the proximate cause of my reaching, right? So I'm the author of my thoughts and actions essentially. And my specific uses of attention, right?

So I can pay attention to the breath. I get lost in thought. I come back to the breath, but You know the law that the ins on some level the thoughts themselves are more of my doing something With almost you know Authorial intent right like I'm think like what the hell is this guy talking about? I know I'm thinking, you know, I know who's thinking these thoughts I am, right? Like that's, the person who really doesn't get what I'm saying is thinking something like that, right?

It's like, what the fuck is this guy talking about? Like I know I'm here, I'm a self, I'm a body, I'm a mind, I can reach for things that these intentional actions are different from things that happen to me, right? A voluntary action is different from an involuntary one. Having a tremor is different from consciously deciding to pick up a glass, right? So obviously, everything I'm saying about meditation and the self and free will, in order to be a sane picture of a human mind and of reality, has to conserve the data of experience such that, yes, I can acknowledge the difference between a tremor and a deliberative, you know, voluntary motor

action. And, you know, and the things you do volitionally are different, not just psychologically and behaviorally, but they just have different implications for like a different, in a court of law, you know, you accidentally hit someone with your car or you did it on purpose. That's still a distinction that matters, right? It's, you know, importantly, it tells us a lot about the global properties of your mind such that, you know, we have a sense of what you're likely to do in the future. If you're someone who likes running over people with your car. You know you're a psychopath who we need to worry about you're someone who did it by accident well then you know you may be.

Copable for the level of negligence that allow that to happen but yours you're a very different person and we treat you differently and we were wise to. So anyway we can those let's bracket all of that. I mean, there's some fundamental, there's some false assumptions about the underlying logic of this process, which I think it's worth addressing. And it was actually, there was a kind of found object in the news that I talk about

at one point, I forget where it is in the waking up app, but there's a story that I stumbled on on the internet. I think it's about 12 or 13 years old of a tourist bus in, I think, it was in Norway, it was somewhere in northern Europe. And it had about 30 people on it. And one person was described as an Asian woman. And they went to a rest stop and everyone got off the bus. And they, you know, shopped and had lunch. And this Asian woman changed her clothing for whatever reason. And they all got back on the bus. I think the relevance of it being an Asian woman

is that there were language barriers that explained what later happened. So everyone gets back on the bus, the Asian woman has changed her clothing. And the bus is about to leave, but then someone notices, hey, there was an Asian woman who got off the bus who hasn't come back yet,

and they tell the driver this, and this poses a problem. So now everyone's waiting for this person to return. But in fact, everyone was on the bus that this woman had just changed her clothing and was not recognized by her fellow travelers. So everyone gets concerned as this this tourist doesn't, you know, show up and they start looking for her, right? And they can't find her. And so a search party is formed. And the Asian woman, because of whatever language barrier, her that there was a missing tourist,

so she joins the search party, which in fact is looking for her, right? And this goes on into the night, and they're readying helicopters for a dawn patrol to find the missing tourist. Now, at some point along the way, I think it was at like three in the morning, this tourist realizes that she is the object of this search, right? And obviously the whole thing unravels. She confesses that she changed her clothes and the problem is solved, but the problem

is not solved by the logic that the seeker is expected. So it's not true to say that the missing tourist was found in the way that was expected, right? Because the missing tourist was never lost. The missing tourist was part of the search party, right? And so when you think about it from her point of view, like what happened, she's part of the search party, she's looking for the missing tourist, not knowing that she in fact is the missing

tourist. So what happens at the moment she realizes that everyone's looking for her, right? Like what is the the search isn't consummated in the way that is implied by the logic of everyone's use of attention. And yet the problem evaporates and there's something deeply analogous about the structure of that and the the meditative journey. We in precisely in again, not talking about all the changes and the possible changes in the contents of consciousness that could be good, which again, they come along for the ride anyway when you do the thing I'm talking about. It's on this point of looking for the self and not finding it. There is this sense that, okay, the self is here and it's a problem. It is the

The string upon which all of my conscious states mostly unhappy ones are strong, right? It's the thing that is at the center of my anxiety. It's the it's the it's the it's the thing that I don't feel good about It's the thing that when criticized I sort of let implode It's the center of my problem and now I'm trying to feel better and meditation has been handed to me as a possible remedy for my situation. And it's built as a remedy. In fact, it's I'm hearing from this guy that this is the thing that is going to cause me to realize that myself isn't where, you know, or as I thought it was. So now I'm going to look, right? And so, again, your, your, the sense is I start out far away from the goal here. I start out with a problem.

I'm now meditating on the evidence of my unenlightenment, right? I can feel my problem. I feel that I'm distracted and distractable and I feel as this sort of cramp at the center of my life that it's me, and I'm not as happy as I want to be. I'm not as confident as I want to be. I'm more distractable than I want to be. And now I'm paying attention to the breath, right? This is what the search party feels like. This is what the confused tourist feels like

in her own search party. And she's looking for the missing person. And so the angle of the inclination of all of this is, and the logic of it, is all wrong, you know, understandably so, given how we all get into this situation, but it's useful to continually try to undercut it and recognize that the thing that's being looked for is actually right on the surface, which is that there is no one looking. There is no place from which you are paying attention to the breath or to sounds, or noticing the next thought arise. This sense that you are over here doing that thing

is actually what it's like to be thinking and not knowing that you're thinking. There's a thought, there's an undercurrent of thought that's going uninspected in that moment. And so there is just a, there's a continually looking for the mind, a looking for the center of experience, a looking for the one who is looking, which, again, which is the kind of the, the, the orienting practice here. And there's a lot more I say about this, obviously, over waking up. But it's, it's the experiment you have to perform in order to get ready to recognize that this whole, the search party was formed in error, essentially. And the problem that you're trying

to solve with this practice does evaporate in a similar way, which is like, you don't actually get there in the way that you're hoping for, right? It's like, you drop out the bottom of this thing in an unexpected way. It's not, there's actually another kind of a similar parable or anecdote that I don't remember if it's Zen or Sufi or I'm sure it's been reappropriated in many different ways, but by many different traditions. But there's this, you know, the case of somebody who's lost in a town and they're asking for directions, you know, you could put this in Manhattan.

You can, let's say you're wandering Manhattan and you're a tourist, you don't know where anything is and he's stopping us and one, you know, where is Central Park and the person thinks for a second and they says, oh, yeah, unfortunately, you can't where is Central Park? And the person thinks for a second, they says, oh yeah, unfortunately, you can't get to Central Park from here, right? Now that is a very strange, I mean, you think about that for a second, you realize, okay, that's an absurd claim. There is no place that you can't get to

from the place you're starting, you know, on Earth, right? That's the failure to describe the physical relationships between anything in the world. Yeah, that's just not the world we live earth, right? That's the failure to describe the physical relationships between anything in the world. Yeah, that's just not the world we live in, right? So, but it's a funny thing, but on some level, that is true of meditation. It's like you can't get there from here. Like the sense of you, the sense of you as subject,

isn't brought along to this thing you're looking for. Like you're like, you're, you know, it's almost like, it's almost like you're making a fist and you're trying to get to an open hand, the fist doesn't get to take that journey as a fist. Like the fist doesn't go along for the ride. The fist comes apart, right? And on some level, our subjectivity is a kind of an attentional fist. You know, it is a contraction of energy. Again, it's so much bound up in thought for most of us, most of the time. And when properly inspected, there's just this evap most of the time, that is, and when properly inspected, there's just this evaporation

of the starting point, but there's not this fulfillment of, I'm gonna get this fist, it's gonna just gonna, if life gets good enough, if I get concentrated enough, focused enough, if I austere enough, if I renounce enough, if I desire less, if I austere enough, if I renounce enough, if I desire less, if I, you know, enough good intentions, this fist is going to move into some sort of sublime condition, right? That's not the logic of the process.

I really appreciate these models and analogies for conscious experience, both as most people experience them and harbor them and it's as a way to frame what's possible through a proper meditation practice. I do wanna talk about what a proper meditation practice looks like a bit. But at some point, I do want to raise a model of maybe even just perceptual awareness to see if it survives the filters that you've provided.

But first, just even if briefly and then we can return to it, what does this meditation practice or set of practices look like? Obviously, the app is a wonderful tool. I've started using it as I mentioned at the beginning of my father's been using it for a while and many people have drive great benefit from it. But if we were to break it down meditation into some basic component parts,

as we have broken down normal perceptual experience in some of its component parts, yeah, I can just throw out some things that I associate with meditation on normal perceptual experience and some of its component parts. Yeah. I can just throw out some things that I associate with meditation and maybe you can elaborate on how these may or may not be applied. For instance, there is almost always a ceasing of robust motor movement. I know they're walking meditations and so forth,

but it seems like sitting or lying down and perhaps not always but often limiting our visual perception, closing the eyes. Directing a mind's eye someplace Is there a dedicated effort toward generating imagery? What are the component parts and where I'm really going with this is why would those component parts eventually allow for this dissolution of the fist or the realization that there is no distinction between actor and observer and so on. is not a practice that you're adding to your life. It's not doing more of anything. It's actually ceasing to do something. It's ultimately non-destraction.

I mean, ultimately you're recognizing what consciousness is like when you're no longer distracted by the automatic arising of thought. It's not the thoughts don't arise. It's not that you can't use them. It's not that you become irrational or unintelligent. All of that, you still have all of your tools, but everything is in plain view. There's an analogy in Tibetan Buddhism, which I love, which is you know, kind of in the final stage of meditation, thoughts are like thieves entering an empty house.

You know, there's nothing for them to steal, right? So in the usual case, thoughts are, there really is something in jeopardy. Every time a thought comes, I'm not meditating anymore. And not only that, I feel terrible because of what I'm thinking about most of the time, right? And so it's totally understandable that thoughts seem like a problem in the beginning, and for certain types of meditation, they are explicitly thought of as a problem because you're trying

to focus on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, including thought. And that is what I called concentration practice earlier. And that is a, you know, that's a training that can be good to do. It becomes a tool that you can use for other kinds of insight, but it's a very specific and brittle skill in the end. It's a skill. I'm going to pay attention to one thing, and I'm going to do that so well that everything else is going to fade out.

It's somewhat analogous to what you described in the visual system. If you have a laser focus to one fixation point, everything else in your visual field begins to fade out. But meditatively, if you have a laser focus on any one thing, whether it's the breath or a candle flame, whatever it is, not only does, let's use the breath for a second, because your eyes can be closed. I mean, you can lose all sense of everything. I mean, you can lose all sense of hearing

and your physical body can disappear. I mean, it literally can become incredibly subtle and vast and drug-like. it like literally can become incredibly subtle and vast and drug-like. And many people approach meditation thinking, kind of climbing the ladder of those changes into subtlety and vastness, that's the whole, that's the whole game, right? And it can be a deeply rewarding game to play. And it also does come with all kinds of ancillary benefits. I mean, all the focus and the calm and the

kind of smoothness of emotional states. I mean all that comes with greater concentration and it can be quite wonderful. But again, at best that's a tool to aim in the direction that I'm talking about now with respect to meditation, which relates to more what I would call, you know, mindfulness generically and ultimately kind of non-dual mindfulness. So mindfulness generically, and for most people, certainly in the beginning, dualistically is just the practice of paying careful attention to whatever is arising on a zone. Right? Now, in the beginning, it's natural to take a single object like the breath as a starting point. It's kind of an anchor, but very, very quickly, over the course of even your first week of

doing this, people, teachers, various sources of information will recommend that, you know, once you get some facility, once you know the difference between being lost and thought and actually paying attention to the breath, well, then you can open it up to everything. You can open it up to sounds and other sensations in the body and moods and emotions, and even ultimately thoughts themselves.

And so very quickly, you can recognize that thoughts are not intrinsically the enemy to this practice. They are also just spontaneous appearances in consciousness that can be observed. But for some considerable period of time, people will feel that there is a place from which that observation is happening, right? There's just, you know, I'm now the one who's being mindful. And however, a tenuated that sense of self can be. I mean, again, it can get very expansive. I mean, you can, you know, you can lose, you know, as you get anything, just a monochrome

of concentration, you know, it becomes very drug-like, and you get, the boundaries of your body dissolve, and your feeling of having a body can disappear, and if your eyes are closed, your visual field, most people, when they close their eyes initially, they just forget about their visual field. But if you close your eyes right now,

you notice your visual field is fully present. And, you know, we call it dark, but it's not quite dark. There is this sort of scintillating some field of color and shadow that's there in the darkness of your closed eyes. And that can become a sky-like domain of kind of vast, you know, visual expression that opens up as you get more concentrated with your eyes closed, right? So you can very much be aware of seeing

with your eyes closed in a meditative practice. But from the point of view of mindfulness, the logic is not to care about any of the interesting changes and experience that come as a result of practicing in this way, because what you're, the underlying goal is to be more and more Aquanimous with changes. So it's not to grasp at what's pleasant or interesting and not to push what's unpleasant or, you know, boring or, you know, or otherwise not engaging away. What you want is just a kind of a sky-like mind that just allows everything to appear and you're not clinging to anything or reacting to anything.

Could I ask you what your thoughts are about the differences between nouns, adjectives, and verbs in the context of what we're talking about and you're describing. And the reason to bring this up is that, as you know, and I know everything in biology is a process. We would never never ever say, oh, you know, the perception of that red line on a painting is a noun, right?

I mean, it's an event in the visual system. You're abstracting some understanding about that thing in the outside world. And I think it's very useful in thinking about the brain. And people will notice, I notice, I excuse me actively avoid the use of the word mind, because I figure, especially with you sitting across from me, that I'll step in it if I do.

But the brain generates a series of perceptions or what have you by through processes, not nouns. And so when thinking about biology, I think of development as an arc of processes, aging as an arc of perception as an arc of process. They just exist on different timescales. And so a little bit of what I am hearing is that inside of an effective meditation practice, there's a little bit of a certainly non-judgment, but discarding of the noun and the adjective modes of language. Red, apple, okay, it's a red apple, but then you sort of need to eliminate some other adjectives about it. It's a rotten apple. It's a ripe apple. And instead, view the appearance and

disappearance of that apple as just a thing, a process, as opposed to an event. And now events could, we could really get into the language aspect of the, that just reveals how diminished language is to describe the workings of the brain at some level. I don't know if any of this resonates, but it, but it seems to me the goal or one of the goals is to start to understand the algorithm that is the fleeting nature of perception, but to not focus on any one single perception, and then to not even focus on one single algorithm,

but to at some level, there's a, what is revealed to the meditator over time, is some sort of macroscopic principle about the way perceptions work at a deeper level, right? That there's sort of a deeper principle there that sits below our, certainly our normal everyday awareness, but that in paying attention to the mechanics of all this stuff and not judging those mechanics,

not naming those mechanics, or just naming them and let them pass by, that there's some action function, some verb is revealed. And that maybe that verb, maybe the word to describe that verb is mindfulness. Maybe mindfulness is really just a verb to describe that. I don't know. But is there anything here, am I creating, am I,

I don't know if I'm creating just like useless straw, or if there's actually a seed here of something real. But to me, anytime I want to understand something in biology, or psychology, I train broad in the time domain and think in terms of verbs, not nouns or adjectives. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, that's very useful. And that's somewhat adjacent to this distinction I'm making between dualistic and non-dualistic ways of experiencing the world. So even dualistically, everything is still a process, right? And we're misled by the reification that noun talk gives us. And this applies not just to something like mindfulness, but even to something like the self, right? So the sense of self is also a process.

I mean, it's a verb. It's a work we're selfing more than we are selves, right? And, and they're, you know, even, even appropriate uses of the term self that don't go away even when you recognize that the core subject self is an illusion, there are states of self, right? Where you, you can recognize in your life that you inhabit very different modes of being depending on the context. So like there are moments where you just by walking

into a certain building, you suddenly transition into a different state of self. Like suddenly you pass through a door and now you're a customer in a store, right? So we know what that customer feeling is. Like you're now the person who's getting the attention, it's a very kind of formalized type of attention from the person who's running the store

and you know, or a restaurant, you're a customer and a restaurant, right? That's a, I just remember something that's kind of funny, that was born of a mismatch of this. I'll come back to that in a second. But so we go through, you can be a student in the presence of a teacher. You can be a parent in the presence of a son or a daughter.

You can be a spouse in presence of your spouse. And all of those shatings of the change in context really does usher in some fundamental psychological changes in just the states of consciousness that are available to you. And some of this is really, I'm sure we can understand And some of this is really, I'm sure we could understand a lot about this personally and generically, but it is pretty mysterious. I mean, there are people who I know, who I'm with them in a certain way, and based on something I'm getting off of them, I can't be that, I'm effortlessly one way with them. And there's no way I could be that way with somebody else.

It's just, I don't know if it's pheromones or they're facial, it's just the way they are, they're facial expression. But I mean, there are people with whom I'm really, kind of effortlessly funny, and there are people with whom, I couldn't even, it would never occur to me to be funny no matter what happened, you know, it's like, and, and I have, like, long standing relationships with, with these people, you know, so like, it's just very,

you know, all of that's very mysterious, but anyway, the, the difference there is, is not in this core sense of subject in relationship to all the objects. It's in kind of the states of self. And all of that is just very verbi, right? Like all of this is a pattern of changes. It's a pattern of what's available and what's not available, the capacities that are, you know, that are they come online or not in those various contexts. But no, the memory I just had, which I hadn't had in a long time,

but it was one of these moments where I realized the power of these shifts in context for states of self. So I once, I was a young man, I think I was probably 22 or so, and single and just like trying to figure out how how do you how do you meet women and like how does how does one get confident to do this well and I um I walked into a restaurant and a um kind of a woman was walking toward me at you know toward the front door the restaurant but she was walking toward me in a way where I just,

by default, assumed she was the hostess in the restaurant. But she wasn't the hostess. She was just a, someone who was just eating there, I guess. So I walked through and she comes out, and so there's a fundamental misunderstanding in me that's set up by literally just this change in architecture. And so I just said hide her in a way that I would, I presumably I would say hi to any hostess who was coming up to ask me whether I wanted to sit.

But what had actually happened is I had said hi to a total stranger in a way that I tended at that point never to say hi to total strangers because I was shy. But apparently I gave her like a 10,000 what, you know, high of like all of the confidence you would have if you if you were that sort of person. And it just ushered in a complete like, you know, this is so I went to my table and this woman I came back into the restaurant, like gave me her phone number, right, which was something that was just completely foreign experience to me, you know, and it was based completely on my misunderstanding of the situation I wasn't.

And so, anyway, that among the misunderstanding, among the misunderstandings that one can have and then action and gauge in life, that was a somewhat adaptive one. But then you realize that, okay, but then there are certain people who recognize this machinery to whatever degree or have natural aptitudes for bringing certain things online or not, such that, okay, they can consciously make these states of self, this level of gregariousness, say, available to them in the circumstances where it's actually useful to them. So if you're single and you want to meet people, well, it's actually very helpful to feel confident enough to just say hi to strangers and ask them how they're doing and to be, to be

online in that way, where at that point in my life, in that circumstance, by default, I was going to ignore this stranger who I was passing by in the doorway of a restaurant, but thinking she was the hostess, I was engaging her fully. So anyway, you can consciously, again, this does not invoke free will at all, but yes, you can consciously decide to play

with these mechanisms such that you can decide what states of self would be more normative to have, given what you want in life. And you can become increasingly attentive to the ways in which you get played by the world. You're a kind of instrument. Your mind is a kind of instrument. Your brain is a kind of instrument that is continually getting played by the situations you're in and you can

become more of an intelligent curator of your conscious states and your conscious capacities just by noticing the changes in you. Like, in graduate school, some of the talk about, I think at some point in waking up, this became very stark for me because I had, you know, I was an old graduate student. I had taken 11 years off at Stanford, between my sophomore and junior year, right? So I like, when I went back to school, I was like, I'm going to leave a vassal. Yeah, I know, I was, yeah. But I mean, so Stanford had this, you might know this, they have the stopout policy where

you never really drop out, you just stop out. So you're like, you can always go back, You don't have to write letters saying that you still exist every two years as you do in other schools. So anyway, I showed up after 11 years. And but I was really on a deadline. I felt late for everything. So I'm finishing my degree as quickly as I can as an undergraduate. And then I jump into graduate school and an old graduate student.

And there's a real sense of urgency. I should have done this earlier. as an undergraduate and then I jump into graduate school and I'm an old graduate student and I'm you know There's a real sense of kind of urgency like I'm late. I should have done this earlier. I want to get the stuff done but then 9-11 happened and I as just as I had finished my coursework, you know getting my PhD I was just getting into my research but 9-11 Intersected with my life in such a way that I just had to drop everything and write my first book, and I did that, and then I just had to drop everything and write my second book because of the response to the first book.

And so essentially, I had like four years where I was AWOL doing my PhD, but I still had a toe in the lab, and I was still showing up occasionally, but I was becoming this kind of cautionary tale from the point of view of grad school, but I was also becoming kind of a famous, you know, or semi-famous writer because my first book had been a New York Times bestseller and I just, I was, you know, so I was getting some notoriety as a writer and so I was doing things like, you know, I was giving a TED talk, but I still hadn't finished graduate school, right? So like, it was just, it was some, I think that time is right. Maybe I had just finished graduate school when I gave the TED talk, but anyway, so I was in, rowing in two boats, and one boat was sinking, or, you know, showing every

sign of being damaged. And I was literally like, you know, getting letters from the head of the department saying, you know, I work in turn to bat you. But on the other hand, I was like becoming a, you know, a quasi celebrity in that world too, you know, with at least in a world that was overlapping. So I was having the experience of like going in, I mean, the moment where this crystallized would form me in a, you know, fairly peculiar way was I had a meeting at like three o'clock with my advisor who was just this guy Mark Cohen and the Brain Mapping Center and UCLA was a fantastic guy. Great advisor. I did not extract as much wisdom from him as I should have. Brilliant scientist and you know he's for him I'm late right at least in my head like he is not that he was riding me so hard,

but in my head, I'm very self-conscious about how I'm not living up to his expectations at this point. So I have a meeting with him at like three o'clock, and I'm just kind of wilting, under my, you know, his gaze and my own imagined, you know, inner gaze of his, you know, intergaze of his, you know, but that two hours later, I have a meeting with his boss, you know, a dinner meeting with his boss who wants to meet with me to get advice on launching his book. We have the same publisher, but I'm like the much bigger author at, you know, at Norton, you know, and he's coming to me for advice. I'm ricochained between two diametrically opposite self-states that are, again, this comes down to architecture.

It's literally like the state I was in walking into one building and then leaving and walking into another building on the same campus. They were completely opposite self-concepts. Like in one context, I am a fuck up. In another context, I am a celebrity who's- And you have mastery and virtuosity. Yeah, and we're developing it very quickly. Yeah, and so, again, this is kind of a stark version of that,

but everyone has some version of this, just in balancing between talking to their mom and then talking to their best friend and then talking to a stranger and then talking to someone who's who's very successful, talking to someone who's not very successful. Like, you notice your vulnerability to all of this stuff. And ultimately, what you want is a level of psychological integrity that is truly divorceable from that. Now, I'm not saying you're ever going to get it perfect.

There's always going to be some, I mean, I can't talk about the ultimate fulfillment of this process. I'm not a Buddha. I'm not saying I've finished the project, but I think there's more and more you, you know, as you become sensitive to these changes and you become sensitive to what it's like to actually not be psychologically reactive

and not be definable by your own self-concept, your own idea, you're not identifying with anything. You're not hanging your hat on anything. You're not thinking about yourself in terms, in the kind of terms that you would export to others and then care about what they think about you, right? There's a kind of invulnerability that arises that's not born of being well defended. It's born of being evaporated. It's like you're no longer keeping score in those ways. Once again, I really appreciate that description

because these days I'm really intrigued by something we've known for a long time that I'm certainly familiar with is the prefrontal cortex's ability to establish context dependent rule sets. A strup task will be a basic example of reading numbers or letters on on cards and then switching to having to report the colors that the letters and numbers are written in. It's a basic task, but prefrontfunded cortex, obviously, important for setting context dependent thought and behavior and directed action.

But within the context of all these different variations of the self, depending on graduate school or relationship or sitting alone in one's room, they're different rules sets arise. And somehow, we are able to have a coherent sense of self that encompasses all of those. Functional people can toggle between them as needed and not overlap them inappropriately. At least not to the extent that it's career failing or life failing.

Although there are sad examples of that, many of which exist in the Twitter space. I know several colleagues, not directly of mine, but people who through mistakes made with their thumbs, where they forgot context, or forgot to realize that the context on social media is near infinite, but the context that had existed in their head might not be clear in the way that they communicated something

and they lost their jobs, by saying what were perceived as insensitive things in some cases were in fact offensive and insensitive things in some cases is debatable. In any case, I think that the image that now comes to mind relates to something you said several times that it's not about eliminating something. It's about revealing that something was never actually there. And then in terms of sensor experience and these different aspects of the self, I have this image in my mind of not an experienced scuba diver, but I've done enough of it, you know,

born a wetsuit. You wear a complete wetsuit with the hood. And this idea, you know, if you were born into that wetsuit, you might think that, yeah, you that you nudge up or lean up against a wall and you experience it one way, right? And but were you to shed that wetsuit? You go, wow, there's this incredible landscape of some kind of sensory experience that I had no idea. It goes way beyond levels of sensitivity, right? Now you're trying to find two-point discrimination and light strokes and this could be positive

or negative pain in other ways too. But what you're describing is essentially that the wetsuit was never really there. It but was created through a series of action steps. And what I think what we're migrating towards here is a set of for most non-intuitive or non-reflexive action steps that reveal to us that in fact, we're not wearing this wetsuit.

Now, you raised one topic, which I think is analogous to this wetsuit, which is this notion of distraction. The normally distraction is masking what would otherwise be a better experience of life. I can think of distraction as falling into two different bins. One would be the kind of distraction that is internally generated, like the fact that thoughts arise and pull me down different alleyways and avenues of my, of my brain and my thoughts and my experience.

And then the other would be, um, and that, that would compete with my ability to really focus on something. And then another form of distraction, which captures my ability to focus intensely, but has me focusing on the wrong things. And here, I think the judgment of wrong is reasonable to include, if, for instance, I'm being impulsively yanked to something on social media. I'm being impulsively yanked to someone else's pain and experience and somehow confusing that with my own experience. This is an empathy, but just yanked around my attention

as a spotlight is kind of like over here, over there. I'm not feeling as if I'm the one standing behind that spotlight controlling it or I'm not the spotlight just to keep with what we've been building up here. So could you tell us a little bit about distraction and tell me whether or not these two forms are in any way accurate or inaccurate,

I'd be happy for them to be inaccurate. And whether or not there are other forms of distraction that we need to be on the lookout for. And again, I think what most people are seeking is what is the way to not just enhance our ability to focus, but to shed this wetsuit like cloak that limits our experience that I'm calling and that you've called distraction.

Yeah, I get what this, my distraction is one component of it. The other aspect of it is identification with thought. Identification, the feeling of self is bound up in the sense that I'm the thinker, I'm the one attending, I'm the one vulnerable, I'm the inner kind of the inner homunculus that's vulnerable to experience. And I think it can be gratified by it or not. And it's constantly trying to improve it and mitigate negative aspects of it, it's the sense that there's kind of a rider on the horse of consciousness as opposed to just consciousness and its contents. So again, it rides the top of this illusion of

control, et cetera. So to go all the way back to the question you asked about, just what I recommend as a starting point for meditation, some of your assumptions are in fact true. Yes, I often recommend to beginning people close their eyes and you do a sitting practice, and that's different from a walking practice. I mean, you can do both, but people tend to start sitting with their eyes closed. But again, ultimately where this is going is,

it's not an art of meditation properly recognized is not an artifice that you're adding to your life. It's not even a practice. It is less rather than more, you know. And therefore, it is also coincident with potentially every waking moment. There's nothing that you can do with your attention once you know how to meditate that in principle excludes meditation. Because meditation is just a recognition of an intrinsic character of consciousness in each moment. And all you have in each moment is consciousness and its contents, whatever you're doing. So, in the beginning, you'll be very

deliberate and precious about deciding to practice meditation and you'll set aside 10 minutes in the morning and you'll do that. And then, and it'll seem very different from the next 10 minutes when you're and then, and it'll seem very different from the next 10 minutes when you're, you know, spilling out onto your to-to-do list and you're trying to figure out, you know, what the day looks like. Right. But ultimately, you want to erase this boundary between formal practice and the rest of life, such that there's-it's just not remotely findable. And-and, and that's-that's achievable. And I think even from the very beginning, you can relax this conceptual distinction between meditation and its antithesis.

Because it's not at the level of anything you're doing. It's the level of what's happening in your relationship to thought. What can you notice? When you know, it's the transition from, you know, the buy stable percept, you know, you're looking at the image and you see nothing. Let's say that's the, you know, the Dalmatian, you know, it's just the spots on the paper and you just, you don't see anything and then all of a sudden the Dalmatian or the face of Jesus or whatever the images pops out,

and then you see it, it's the transition from nothing to something, right? That the practice becomes the transition from being lost in thought and then waking up and breaking, you know, very much like breaking the spell of thought, identification with thought, is very much like waking up from a dream and having, it's like that transition, the whole, like you're having a dream and there's a couple of things are true there. I mean, it really is a kind of, it's a psychosis that is just not, we don't problematize because you're safely in bed and you're not moving or anything unless you've got some kind of sleep disorder, you're not walking around

harming yourself or anybody else. But to be in bed and to not know it and to think you're running along a beach or you're getting tried for murder in a court of law or whatever the thing is that you're completely delusional about. That is psychosis, right? And so you're fundamentally unaware of your circumstance. And then there are two things gonna happen there. You can either become lucid within the dream,

which is interesting, and that's a whole phenomenology of that, which can be practiced. But more commonly, you can just wake up from the dream, and all of a sudden the problem you thought you had is no longer there and and you have a completely different context for your conscious life. Like now you know you're in bed, you're safely in bed all all the while. There really is something analogous when you break this identification with thought, right? You're just you're having a thought that seems to be some kind of, you know, moral or psychological emergency and yet you can, you can,

the moment you see daylight around it, the moment you see that the mind is larger than this mere appearance, right? Then you have, suddenly you have a degree of freedom that a moment ago was just unthinkable, right? And you're also, you recognize, you sort of come to in a way, you recognize your circumstance in a way that you weren't a moment ago when you were just talking to yourself, when you were just identical to that conversation. So there's all to say that ultimately meditation, I mean, so again, there's another apparent paradox here. Many people don't know much about meditation. We'll say things like, you know, well, you know, for me running is my meditation or skiing or rock climbing

or playing the guitar or something they like to do that gives them an experience of flow That's what that's what they go to to feel better and that's that's the opposite of all the in the chaos of their lives or the That's you know their time on Twitter or whatever it is And virtually every case. It's it's not true to say that that is effectively meditation You're not gonna by learning to play the guitar, you're not going to learn what I'm calling meditation. And you're not going to learn it by cycling or getting, no matter how good you get at any of those things, you're not going to learn it by doing those things.

But paradoxically, not really, but it can seem like a paradox. Once you know how to meditate, then you can meditate doing all of those things. Meditation is totally compatible with playing the guitar, or skiing, or doing any ordinary thing you like to do. Once you know how to meditate, and again, it's totally natural in the beginning to formalize it and to set aside time each day to do it because it is a training. It is something that in the beginning you have to get used to. But once you have, once you're getting used to it, then there is no good reason not to

be experiencing this thing I'm calling meditation, this insight into the centrallessness of consciousness, the non-selfhood of consciousness, you should experience it when you're playing your favorite sport or when you're having a conversation with somebody. And then to come back to your initial assumption about eyes closed, a lot of practice, even formal practice, can be done eyes open, and it's important to do it eyes open because so much of our anchoring of our sense of self is based on visual cues. I mean, we just, we know that you can, if you give people the right visual cues,

you can translocate their sense of self. You can give them an out of body experience with a video display where you can literally make them feel like there's a body swapping illusion. You can make them feel that they're in another person's body looking back at their body. If you, if you run the cameras the right way. I've done this in VR, seeing an image of, of, you, they create an avatar for you and then

your bodily movements generate the movements of the avatar and you start gaining presence as they call it in the VR lingo very quickly and then pretty soon you lose sense of your own bodily representation and it's a little eerie. What's eerie is to me is I'm going back into, of course, never left, but back into your actual body when the VR goggles pop off. The world seems almost overwhelming the number of sensory stimuli that are in a laboratory room, which is actually quite sparse. So exactly what you described, this translocation of notions of self through visual experience. But conversely, when you lose the sense of self, I'm talking about it can be especially vivid and salient with eyes open because so many

of your reference points to selfhood are delivered visually, right? Especially in a social situation, it's like, you know, I'm talking to you, you're looking back at me, right? So, the implication of your gaze is that I'm over here behind my face, implicated by your gaze. So, the sense that you're looking at something is the sense of self in that social context, right? And so, and if you're, if your facial expression changes,

like, so I'm saying something, and if you kind of throw your brow, like, well, what the hell's here, and I can read into that facial change, some interstate of yours that is, you know, sailing into me, all of a sudden, we've got this sort of dance of, like, I'm noticing you reacting to me,

and that's changing the way I'm feeling about what I'm... That's the, you know, the purview of, you know, every neurosis everyone didn't want, right? And every relationship, I had a girlfriend when I was a postdoc who was a, who was very, very, she was brilliant, really, still is. And she always said that every relationship, they're four arrows.

She used to say, she's a neuroscientist, still is. And said, you know, there's the arrow of, you know, she was talking to me, so she said, you know, me to you and kind of what you perceive coming from me. And then there's you to me. And then there's an arrow from the middle going right back at each one of us, which is our own perception of what the other person is thinking about us and it's feeding back

on the other arrow and she came to this very clear but model of basically relationships. The relationship failed but it was good while it lasted, I should say. That's right. And but the four arrow model of relationships actually shows up in every type of one-on-one relationship. And it's probably an under-description of the total number of arrows.

But I think it's exactly what you're describing. Is that perception of self through the eyes of other, whether or not we're empathic or not, strongly shapes the way that we access different context dependent rule sets about what we're going to say and not going to say. It's very dynamic, right? Yeah. So, but the freedom that I think we want and people can sometimes experience this just haphazardly, but the thing that the center of the bullseye from the meditative point of view

is to get off that ride entirely and to so the losing the sense of self in this context of a social encounter is to give up your face, essentially. Like, so what that entails is, or what that gives you, is the free attention to actually just pay attention to the other person. And the other person is now no longer quite an object in the world for you. There's really just a kind of a totality

of which that person is a part. And actually, Martin Boober, the kind of mystical Jewish philosopher, talked about the kind of the I-Thow relationship. And this, I think, has been long times when I've read Boober, but I don't know if he goes far enough to be truly non-dualistic. But this distinction between I and now,

because the vow part of it is, I think potentially this, or again, it's been several decades since I read him. But there's a way of beholding another person where you have the free attention to simply behold them. You're no longer care what they think about you. You don't feel neuronically implicated by their gaze.

You don't feel you're simply the space in which they're appearing. And so you're simply the space in which they're appearing. And so you're free. There's no, and people can feel, and so by definition, you're no longer self-conscious. And this phrase, self-consciousness really does get at what I'm calling the self, the illusory self as a kind of contraction. And you can notice this for yourself, just imagine what it's like to go from not being self-conscious

to suddenly being self-conscious. And the proximate cause of this, almost invariably is suddenly recognizing that somebody's looking at you. It's like you're in a Starbucks and you're alone and you're reading the newspaper, whatever it is, and this now sounds highly inaccurate. It's been three years since I've held a physical newspaper

in a Starbucks. But you're just mind your own business and you look up and you're seeing a room full of strangers, but then you notice that someone is just looking at you. And so that moment of eye contact, right? Suddenly that throws you back on yourself as a kind of suddenly you're the object in the world for that other person.

That recognition is the tightening there, the kind of contraction there is a, is a, a further ramification of this, this feeling most of us have most of the time of being the center of experience. Like the, the place you feel like, it's, it's like, you know, we're all walking around with a fist and in moments of self-consciousness, the fist gets really tight, you know, we're all walking around with a fist, and in moments of self-consciousness, the fist gets really tight, you know. And that's something that gets fully relaxed when you discover this, this, what I'm, you know, at various points called the nature of mind, or the non-dual nature of consciousness,

is just that there is no center to this experience. And when you recognize no center, then even when your gaze is aimed at another person's gaze, there is no implication going back to the center because there is no center, right? And rather than that being an experience of weird detachment or confusion or it's actually an experience of greater relationship

because you're no longer defended. You're not defending anything over here. Like you're not braced against anything. You're just the space in which that person is showing up. And so it's an experience of being much more comfortable in the presence of another person, well, whatever your relationship, because you're not contracting, right?

And then when you do, when you have that, again, and this is meditation, right, this is meditation that is totally compatible with having a conversation with somebody. And then when you notice yourself contracting, like when you notice you're not meditating anymore, you're just, you're actually reacting, like they just said something or looked a certain way, and now you're cast back upon yourself

in relationship to them. That becomes a kind of mindfulness alarm, right? Then you know that it becomes like the unsatisfactoriness of that psychologically becomes more and more salient, right? And it's some, because that's not, one, that's not the way you want to be. And that's like it's the antithesis of being as comfortable as you were a moment ago. But two, it's something you're doing unnecessarily,

like it's like you're, you're like, again, you're making a fist when you don't have to make a fist, right? And it's, again, you can leave aside all those circumstances where it's appropriate to react to someone. And, you know, I'm into martial arts and self-defense. And yes, you're not supposed to be just this puddle of goo out in the world who can be just mistreated by people

and never put up resistance. But it's psychologically, even if a state like anger or contraction is sometimes normative and appropriate, the question is, how long is it normative and appropriate for? How long do you want to stay angry for? In my experience, these kind of classically negative emotions like anger and fear are appropriate as salience cues. They orient you to an emergency or a potential emergency, but then in dealing with the emergency,

they're almost never the state you want to be in. It's better to actually become in an emergency. Absolutely. I think that, and again, the language is insufficient to describe what you're telling us, but I think what comes to mind for me is this distinction between situational awareness and self-awareness. We need both but under conditions of emergency true emergency or motivated desire we need to dial down the amount of self-awareness in order to be more effective within the situational awareness. But you said something very important in my lab I've been working on fear-like states for a long time.

So I'm going to confess I'm going to rob this from you, but I'll credit you every time I describe it. Is that the fear of the threat detection state or set of events acts as a flag, but is not meant to persist in the way that the flag went up. Right. If one is to be in their most adaptive state, actually, Jocco Willink and I were talking about this.

He has talked a lot about detachment and open gaze things that my lab is interested in visual system and autonomic interaction. So why broadening the gaze, literally broadens the time domain of thinking. You've come up with new solutions to complex problems in real time, and so on. And you're describing every day set of interactions where that could be very useful. And yet, there seems to be something about the way you describe meditation and what you've managed to arrive at and what practitioners of meditation can arrive at, which is something

more than that. It's not just about being effective or optimizing all the language we see thrown around a lot in the space that I live in these days, but something fundamentally more important about how to experience life and the self. This realization that what you thought was there was never really there,

but that there are constraints that limit that. And so to try and fracture those just constraints one by one, would you say that meditation as a practice done for a few minutes each day or with the app that it's a kind of a step function is a very non-linear in terms of people's progress? You know, I'm certainly going to go start doing more meditation based on this discussion truly, because anytime someone describes that there's kind of a myth that we've been living in, I become obsessed with the idea of dissolving that myth. That's a very seductive phrase, so thank you for using that one.

There is no better marketing tool, which is I realize what you're not trying to do here, but that's for me to capture my efforts. You tell me that there's a myth that I'm living in and that it can be dissolved and that opens up a better landscape. What is the process like? Do some people make progress very quickly? Do some people experience kind of step functions towards progress. What does the meditation practice look like over time? Do you still meditate or do you have

you just threaded it through your jiu-jitsu, your writing, your daily life, your coffee, your time with your wife, etc.? Yeah, also just to come back to talk about the myth for a second. So they're really what you just enunciated was a kind of a second doorway into this whole project. So the usual door is through the door of suffering for lack of a better word. People feel unhappy in a variety of ways and they get more sensitized to the mechanics of their own unhappiness. And meditation is one of the things on the menu that is explicitly built as a remedy

for unhappiness and it is. And that's, I think that's probably the most common path to this, but another path is just intellectual interest. I mean, just wanting to know what's real about the mind subjectively in a first person way. And there's no contradiction between those two things. I'm motivated by both of them, but it's a totally valid doorway into this.

There are definitely step functions. I mean, I would say they're at least two. I mean, they really are articulated along the lines of the framework I've been describing of dualistic and non-dualistic mindfulness. So in the beginning, you're going to start out, 99.9% of people will start out dualistically paying attention and noticing the difference between being distracted by thought and then being on the object of attention, whether it's the breath or sounds or whatever.

And eventually that opens up to all possible objects of attention, including thoughts, and there's still this fluctuation between being distracted and then being mindful of whatever. And the fact that it's opened all possible objects differentiates this type of practice from anything that is narrowly focused on one object like a mantra or a visualization or a site. You know, those are other paths of practice that are more concentration-based and interesting. But the benefit of mindfulness is that very quickly you realize this by definition

compatible with all possible experience because you're not artificially contracting your attention down to something, you're just being aware of the next thing, a site, a sound, a taste, a thought. So the first step function is to very clearly experience the difference between being lost and thought and being clearly aware of any part of experience, including thought. And to notice the freedom that compared to psychological freedom that gives you, right? So you can like, you're, something's made you angry, and now you're thinking about all the reasons why you should be angry and have every right to be angry, and what you're gonna tell that person when you see them.

And then you notice your thinking, right? And you notice the connection between the thought and the anger, right? You're like, like the minute spent lost in thought about what's making you angry is the thing that dragged through the physiology of anger, right? And the moment you notice that once you're mindful, once you can be mindful, you can notice thought as thought and how quickly that dissipates, that's just the language and the imagery, you couldn't hold on to it if you wanted to. And then you notice the physiology of the anger is just this, you kind of meaningless, you know, kind

of inner incandescence that has its own half life and degrades very, very quickly when you're no longer thinking about the reasons why you should be angry, you can't hold on to the anger. The anger itself dissipates, right? And from the point of view of the one who's being mindful, this is tremendous relief. I mean, and at minimum, it's a degree of freedom.

You can, at that point decide, well, how long do I want to be angry for? Is it useful to stay angry? Do I want to be angry for one minute, two minutes, five minutes, ten minutes? Or, and before you have that capacity to be mindful, you're going to helplessly be as angry as you're going to be for as long as you're going to be that way,

just based on the time course if you're thinking about it, brooding about it, telling your wife about it, you know, like, it's just gonna be this conversation-based misadventure in, you know, negative states of mind. And you are going to be the hostage of that for as long as you'll be the hostage of that. You have nothing you can do

apart from just deciding to, you know, check out and watch Game of Thrones again for the third time, right? Like, it's just nothing you can do apart from just deciding to, you know, check out and watch Game of Thrones again for the third time, right? Like, it's just, you can divert your attention to something else, which is, you know, sometimes a good thing to do. But mindfulness, even dualistic mindfulness gives you this capacity to just observe the mechanics of this and then get off the ride whenever you want. So that really is a step function. Like first there was a time when there's a time before you could do that and then there's a time after which you can do that.

The other step function is noticing that there is no one who is doing that. I mean, this is the non-duality, the selflessness, the centrallessness of awareness, right? The fact that there's no place from which the mindfulness is being aimed, but the fact that there's just this open condition in which everything is appearing, you know, thoughts included, to have you, as at that point, your mindfulness no longer becomes,

it's no longer this dualistic effort to strategically pay attention to anything as opposed to being lost in thought. It's just what's left when thoughts, when the present recognized thought unravels, even before it unravels, what's recognized is you are simply identical to the condition in which everything is appearing. Again, this is not a, I'm not making a, a, a depock trope, chokbra-like metaphysical claim about the mind, you know, this is not, I'm not saying the mind isn't what the brain is doing, I'm not saying that you're recognizing the consciousness that gave birth to the universe.

And I'm not making any broad claims about metaphysics. I'm just talking about as a matter of experience, there is just this condition in which everything is appearing. And what you're calling your body, again, as a matter of experience, I'm not saying that we can't have third person conversations about physical bodies in a physical world. But as a matter of experience, the only body you're ever going to directly encounter as your own is an appearance in consciousness. So consciousness is not in your body. What you're calling your body is in consciousness.

Visually, appropriately, it's like everything is just appearing in this condition. And again, you're not aiming, this is not a spotlight that you're aiming at the body, or there's just this condition in which everything, including anything you could call yourself, is appearing. And so, yeah, so the second step function is to recognize that this is already true. Consciousness is already without this thing you've been calling your ego, hoping to unravel it through meditation. Consciousness is not going to get any more selfless, any more centralist, any freer than it always already is recognized

as such. That's the step function at that point is your mindfulness at that point, the thing you come back to when you're no longer distracted is that recognition again and again. Then it becomes compatible with anything you would do. And so to answer your question, yes, I still practice formally, sometimes frequently, but not, I definitely miss days, and I don't do it for, I mean, I don't rule out the possibility

that I will go back on retreat at various times, just to check in with that and see if that makes a difference. But I tend to sit for, I mean, I've designed my life so that I can spend a lot of time meditating without having to be formally meditating. So, you know, I'll go for a hike for two hours. And what I'm doing when I'm hiking is identical to what I'm doing when I'm quote, meditating, sitting in a chair, doing nothing but meditate.

So it's, yeah, I mean, I just, again, I'm very interested in erasing the boundary between what people are calling meditation and the rest of life. And so in teaching these things, I tend to emphasize that from the beginning, because I think it's very easy to set up, to get gold by a bunch of assumptions

that cause you to be very split in your sense of what your life is about. And I'm sort of banking my meditation over here because I'm meditating two hours a day diligently and this is going to be really good for me. And then over here is the rest of my life, which is not nearly as wise or as useful or as this is the stuff that is still the area

of my problems. And I think it's useful to recognize you've got one life, you know, and you've got this single condition of consciousness and its contents in every mode of life. And there's something to recognize about it and you're always free to recognize that. And you know, you truly even in your dreams, right? I mean, it's just not, it never stops. So that's what I tend to emphasize. So earlier you told us that meditation is not about changing the content of conscious experience.

And in a different podcast that you were on, heard you say something to the effect of, that normally we are in our daily experience, and unless we are trained in meditation, unless we've dissolved this illusion of the gap between actor and self and observer, that we require certain sensory events to create collisions within us and with the natural world that sort of, you know, blast us into a different mode of being. I want to use that as a way to frame up this idea that some things, such as psychedelics, but also a very long hike,

a very long fast, you know, who knows a banquet, you know, different types of life experiences do exactly the opposite of what you're describing meditation does, which is that they actively change the content of our conscious experience so much so that we often remember those for the rest of our lives. Could you tell us why psychedelics can be useful and here I'll give the caveats that maybe you'll feel obligated to give as well, but we're talking about you safely and responsibly age appropriate, context appropriate, ideally with some clinical or other type of guidance, the gallery issues, obeyed, et cetera. All that stated, it was psychedelics to me

are an experience of altered perception, internal and external perception, altered space-time relationship, somewhat dreamlike. I think it was Alan Hobson at Harvard for a long time talked about the relationship between psychedelic-like states and dream-like states. Because of this distortion of space-time dimensionality.

dates because of this distortion of space time dimensionality. And I haven't experimented with them much. I've been part of a clinical trial, three doses of MDMA, which certainly altered the quality of my conscious experience in ways that led to a lot of lasting, and at least for me, valuable learning. Yeah.

So what are your thoughts about psychedelics in terms of how they intersect with the discussion that we've been having? And what utility do they play in recognition of the self or in other sorts of brain changes? Well, so yeah, let's just price in all those caveats that people can anticipate. These drugs are not without their risks.

And it's one problem is that we have this single term drugs or psychedelics, which names many different types of substances and they're not all the same. And so like MDMA is not even technically a psychedelic. I think it has immense therapeutic value. And it actually was my gateway drug to this whole area of concern.

Inphetamine pathogen, right? It's a sort of an infetamine and a pathogen. Yeah, I mean, it's often called in-pathogen. Yeah, in-pathogen. Yeah, not pathogen. Yeah, no. Pathogen. In-pathogen or in-tactogen, it's been called,

but it doesn't tend to change perception in the way that classic psychedelics do. And it's also serotonergic, but it's not, it has to be in some part differently so, then me even LSD and psilocybin, which are much more similar in classic psychedelics, both are also serotonergic, but they're not merely so, and they're also different.

And the higher dose you take of these drugs, the more you, at lower doses, everything can kind of seem the same at higher doses. They begin to diverge. And we can talk about the pharmacology if you wanted to, but I would just say that for many of us, and certainly for me, psychedelics were indispensable in the beginning in proving to me that this was, that the first person interrogation of the mind was worth doing, you know, because I was somebody who, you know,

age 17 or 18 before I had any real experience with MDMA or LSD or psilocybin. If you had taught me how to meditate at that point, I think I would have just bounced off the whole project. I think my mind was, I was so cerebral in my engagement with anything. I was so skeptical of any of the religious and spiritual traditions that have given us most of our meditation talk. You know, that I think I just would have, and I know many of these people, like, I have tried to teach Richard Dawkins to meditate, and Daniel Dennett to meditate.

I've ambushed them with meditation, and both in a group setting and one-on-one, not Dan, but Richard, I am pushed on my own podcast with a guided meditation. And he just, you know, from his, you know, he closes his eyes, he looks inside, and there's nothing of interest to see, right? Like it's just, it's like this, not, he doesn't have the conceptual interest in him that would cause him to persist long enough to find out that there's a there-there, right?

Now this is not a problem with LSD or psilocybin or MDMA. I know that if I gave him 100 micrograms of LSD or 5 grams of mushrooms or 25 milligrams of psilocybin, that's probably not the analogous dosage to the 5 grams of mushrooms, or 25 milligrams of psilocybin. That's probably not the analogous dosage to the five grams of mushrooms. Five grams of mushrooms would be more than that. I forget what it is of MDMA, maybe 120 milligrams. I think the map's dos is,

which is the one that's under clinical trials, is 125 milligrams with an option of a 75 milligram booster. Right, right, right. Funny I remember. Yes, it was strange. The facts that come to hand. But there's just no possibility that nothing's going to happen.

Right now, something with a psychedelic, with MDMA, most people tend to have certainly under any kind of guidance, tend to have a very positive, you know, pro-social experience. But, you know, with a psychedelic, you might have a somewhat, you know, terrifying experience if you have, quote, a bad trip, you know, and I've certainly had those experiences on LSD and to some of the other cells I've been. But the prospect that nothing is going to happen with the requisite dose of one of these drugs. And if that thing that happens is psychologically at all normative and pleasant and interesting and valuable, which it is so much of the time, and certainly under the appropriate set and setting and guidance, it can be a lot of the time

for virtually everybody. Again, there are caveats. If you're prone, if you think you have a proclivity for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, this is almost certainly not for you. Anyone doing the studies at Johns Hopkins for therapeutic effects of any of these drugs, they're ruling out people with first degree relatives with any of these clinical conditions.

But so for somebody like me at 18, who didn't know that this was an area of not only interest, but would it be that, you know, the center of gravity for the rest of his life, if only he could pay attention clearly enough to see that it could be, right? I was someone who very likely, again, I don't know, I don't have the counterfactual in hand, I don't know what would have happened if someone had forced me to meditate for an hour at that point. But I know I wasn't interested in it until I took MDMA.

I know I wasn't having these kinds of experiences spontaneously that showed me that there was an inner landscape that was worth exploring. I was a very hard-headed skeptic who was very interested in lots of things, but there was no alternative to me just thinking more about those things. I mean, the idea that there's some other way of grasping cognitively at the interesting parts of the world beyond thinking about the world. That just wouldn't have computed for me at all. And if you had, so I literally had no one ever gave me a book to read or I never had. I don't know.

The noun meditation very likely meant absolutely nothing to me before I took my first dose of, in this case it was MDMA. So what the drug experience did for me is it just proved, I mean, so one of the limitations of a drug is that, you know, obviously no matter how good the experience, the drug wears off and then you're back to more or less your usual form, and now you have a memory of the experience.

And it can be a fairly dim memory. I mean, some of these experiences are so discontinuous with normal waking consciousness that it can be like trying to remember a dream that just dissipates, it degrades, you know, of the course of seconds. And then it could have been the most intense dream you've ever had. And for whatever reason, you can barely get a purchase on what it was about.

And, you know, there's some psychedelic experiences that are analogous to that. But for most people, most of the time, there's a residue of this experience. And with something like MDMA, they can be quite vivid. Where you recognize, okay, there was a way of being that is quite different than what I'm tendin' to access by default, and it is different in ways that are just,

obviously better and psychologically more healthy. I mean, it's possible to be healthy psychologically in a way that I never imagined, right? And then when you link it up to the traditional literature around any of this stuff, again, so much of it is shot through with superstition and other worldliness of religion. And as you know, and I think you're listening,

listeners probably know I've spent a lot of time criticizing all that, but there is a baby in the bathwater to all of that, right? So it's not that somebody like Jesus or the Buddha or any of the matriarchs and patriarchs of the world's religions, it's not that they were all conscious frauds or, you know, temporal lobe epileptics or like there's a pathological lens that you can put on top of all that, but once you have one of these experiences on psychedelics or on a drug like MDMA, you know that there's a there there. You know that unconditional love is a possibility, right?

You know that feeling truly one with nature, right? I mean, just so one with nature that you could spend 10 hours in front of a tree and find that to be the most rewarding experience of your life, right? That's a possible state of consciousness. Now, it may not be the state of consciousness you want all the time. You know, you don't want to be the crazy guy by the tree, you know, who can't have a conversation about anything else. But once you have one of these experiences, you recognize, okay, there's some reason why I'm not having the beatific vision right now.

And I can't even figure out how to aim my attention so as to have anything like it. And that's a problem, right? Because it's available, right? And it's the best, you know, it is among the best things that has ever happened to me, right? And now I can just only dimly remember what that was like. So how do I get back there on some level?

And that's so that invites, again, a logic of changes, a logic of seeking changes in the contents of consciousness, which sets someone up for this, this, protracted or seemingly protracted and fairly frustrating search to game their nervous system so as to have those kinds of experiences more and more. And again, it's not that that's impreasible fruitless, but it is from the point of view of the core insight, the core wisdom of what I would take from a tradition like Buddhism, which is not the only tradition that has given

voice to this, but I would argue it's given voice to it the most articulate way. Again leaving aside any of the superstition and other worldliness and miracles that you know we don't have to talk about at the moment and you certainly don't need to endorse in order to be interested in this stuff. And so that's the bifurcation between all of the utility of psychedelics and what I'm talking about of psychedelics and what I'm talking about under the rubric of meditation is at this point of, okay, once you realize there's a there discussion of what that path of changes can look like and that can come in a religious context, it can come in just a purely psychedelic context or some combination of the two, I think you can be misled to, you can just be misled to just seek lots of peak experiences.

You're just trying to string together a lot of peak experiences, hoping they're going to change you. Every one of which, by definition, is going to be impermanent. Right? I mean, it's first it wasn't there, then it's there, and then it's no longer there. And then you've got a memory of it. Right? What I think it's, what everyone really wants, whether they know it or not, and they're right to want, is a type of freedom that is compatible with even ordinary states of consciousness,

which can ride along with them into extraordinary states of consciousness. I mean, so what I hadn't done psychedelics for 25 years, because again, they were super useful for me in the beginning, then I discovered meditation on the basis of those experiences, got really into meditation and realized, okay, this is a much more, this really is,

the conceptually, this makes much more sense to me, this is delivering the goods in terms of my experience. There's no need to keep having these, seeking these peak experiences with drugs. But it had been 25 years since I had done that, and there was this resurgence in research on psychedelics. I was being asked about psychedelics, and I was talking about their utility for me,

but again, these were distant memories. And so, and there was also one type of psychedelic experience. I was aware that I had never had. I had never done a high dose of mushrooms blindfolded. You know, every mushroom trip I'd ever had, I'd been out in nature and interacting with, you know, you know, it's just been a very transformed sensory experience of the world and of other people.

But I'd never done it alone, blindfolded, just purely inwardly directed and at a high dosage. I'd done high doses of LSD, but not mushrooms. So I did that, and it was very useful. And I spoke about it on my podcast. And there's actually, I think if you search Sam Harris mushroom trip on YouTube, you get the 19-minute version of that, my describing that trip.

It was incredibly useful, but what was doubly useful was, my mindfulness training in the context of that explosion of the synesthesia. I mean, it was such an overwhelmingly strong experience. And there were so many moments where it could have gone one way or the other based on my sense of just, okay, I'm gonna try to resist this. It was like, it was, it was, it was, it was in truth irresistible because it was just so much. But there were moments where I was aware of, okay, this is like letting go of self, you know, in this context is, is the thing that is going to, you know,

to make the difference between heaven and hell here. And because there are experiences that are so extreme, that you can't even tell if it's agony or ecstasy. It's just everything has turned up to 11, right? And the difference between the two is like the tipping point, it's just, really, it's kind of a high-wire act in some sense. You could just fall to one side or the other.

And yeah, so what I think people want is they certainly want to be able to extract from the psychedelic experience wisdom that is applicable to ordinary states of consciousness. It's like, what is the thing you can realize in a moment of having a conversation with your child that isn't distracting you from that relationship? It's not a memory of when the world dissolved or when you were indistinguishable from the sky, but it's just a way of having free attention

and unconditional love in this totally ordinary and potentially chaotic human experience, which can be psychologically fraught, and you can meet iterations of yourself that you don't like that are not equipping you to be the best possible person in that relationship. And what we want to do is cut through all of that and actually be in love with our lives and with the people in our lives more and more of the time. And that's, I'm not saying that repeated psychedelic journeys can't be integral to that project, but you know that the project can't be being high all the time. So whatever is extractable from the occasional psychedelic trip has got to be mapable into ordinary waking consciousness.

And the real point of contact does run through this, what I've been calling the point of contact, the real point of contact, does kind of run through this, you know, what I've been calling the illusion of the self. And again, it is that part is discoverable without any changes in contents, right? So you don't have to suddenly feel the energy of your body, be rush out and be continuous with the, you know, the ocean of energy that is not your body. That's an experience that's there to be had.

There's no doubt. The truth is, just looking at this cup is just as formless and as mysterious as that, when it's seen in the right way. And that's what meditation encourages to want to recognize. Why? Share the experience that MDMA significantly altered my perception of what's possible in terms of an emotional stance

towards self and others, including animals, right? Something that runs very deep for me and that I had been kind of actively suppressing in anticipation of having to put my dog down. But also, I'm not, I don't know how to frame it except to say, you know, my lab did animal research for years and I was always very conflicted about it. Yeah.

Because I love animals and yet I wanted to understand the brain and we need to work on animal brains. And we rodents or what? Yeah, I'll be very direct about this. My lab work, I've worked on many species. I've worked on mice and rats. I've worked on, admittedly, I've worked on, I've done some cat experiments.

I've worked on large nonhuman primates, including the cacks. I no longer work on any of those species. I've worked on cuddlefish, cephalopods, including the cacks. I no longer work on any of those species. I've worked on cuddlefish, saffelpods, a discussion for another time, brilliant little creatures, maybe as smart as us or who knows, maybe smarter. And now I work on humans because I couldn't reconcile

the challenge inside me, which was my love of animals and working on them. I just couldn't do the challenge inside me, which was my love of animals and working on them. I just couldn't do it any longer. Yeah, I'm sure. And MDMA didn't set that transition. That transition actually had been set a lot earlier. It was something I really grappled with. It didn't keep me up at night,

but it was always in the back of my mind. In any event, I hope what we discovered was worthwhile, but that's a bigger debate. And I have strong feelings about this, and maybe it's a topic for another podcast. But I'm very happy that now I work on humans, and they can tell me if they wanna be part of the experiment or not, and I trust them,

and I trust their answers. I think that MDMA in its role as an empathogen, I think really did set an understanding of what's real and true. So I think truths like that become, I felt that they didn't hit me square in the face. I just could, the feeling behind the conflict made itself evident and what to do about it made itself evident. So I suppose MDMA did assist the transition to purely human research as opposed to animal research.

The other thing that I noticed it did is it made it not scary to confront things that were scary to confront in my conscious life. And I could think about things in my conscious life, but it brought them close in a way that I could get closer and closer to the flame and then gain some understanding. I've still amazed at how answers arrive both during the session and then the weeks and months that follow. If one puts the attention to it, I think that's why it's important to have a guide of some sort or to have some pseudo structure because otherwise one can get attached to the sounds in the room and there's probably meaning there

But I wanted to do some deeper work. I have not had experience with psilocybin at least not since my youth and I don't recommend young people Do it I regret doing LSD and psilocybin as a young person. I don't say that for politically correct reasons or liability reasons I just think my mind was not developed and But I'm intrigued by something. So here's the question How is it that psilocybin in particular, and hydro psilocybin, and the ego dissolution that people talk about on psilocybin? How do you think that lines up with some of the experiences that you've been describing for a adequate meditation practice?

Because that's something that I did not experience on MDMA. In fact, if anything, I experienced for the first time what really feeling like a isolated container was and the difference in how empathy and being bounded, having in other words, good boundaries and empathy, could be symbiotic. I experienced that for the first time there. And I do think that there is learning inside of these states that translates into everyday life when one is not on these states. And the last thing I'll say is, no, I don't feel the impulse to go and do 20 more MDMA sessions. I think that the three as part of this study were very effective for me. And, you know, as they say, if you hear the calling again, you might do it.

But I'm very curious about psilocybin in particular. And this notion of ego dissolution because we've been talking about the self. Well, so there are different ways in which the sense of self can be eroded or expanded or there's lots of experiences that can still have a kind of center to them, but be very novel and transformational. And one can reify those as a kind of goal state, right? And it's sort of the, there's a concept in Buddhism that I think is useful. It doesn't translate well to English or it can set up kind of false associations in English that are unfortunate, but there's a concept of emptiness

in Buddhism, which sounds again kind of gray and disparaging in English, but it's, what it's, it's a cognate terms are things like unconditioned, unconstrained, open, centralists. So there's a... And that is... So when I'm talking about non-duality, when I'm talking about the loss of a sense of subject, and then what's left in Buddhism, they would often describe what's left as emptiness. But emptiness is not a something. It's not a, it's, and it's, and it's, and importantly,

it's not the same thing as unity, right? So it's not, it's not a one, this, right? Because it's, it's, what's, what's, what's let, when the center drops out of experience, it's not like you are suddenly merged with the cup, right? It's, but now granted, you know, this is where psilocybin and other psychedelics can give a false impression of, I think, what the goal is, you can have kind, seeming merging experience. You can have unity experiences on psychedelics, which can be quite powerful, especially with nature, with other people and with nature, where you can just feel like, you know, the energy of your body becomes incredibly vivid and powerful. It's just like, like,

you're just, everything is just buzzing with life energy. And then when you touch another person's hand or you touch a tree, there can be this continuity of energy, which can be this overwhelming experience. And again, this is a just a 20 megaton change in the contents of consciousness. This is not an ordinary state of consciousness, but like, this is a, give some indication of what, of how this happens. When I, back in the day, when I was in my 20s and I was experimenting with, with, this was LSD,

but some friends and I decided we had this brilliant idea, we would, we would camp above mere woods and then take some LSD at dawn and then walk down, you know, like a mile, I think, from the campsite into the actual proper grove of trees and commune with the giant red woods, the tallest trees on earth. And so we dropped the acid at dawn and we start walking,

but the acid came on, you know, almost immediately. And we didn't get, I mean, we got nowhere near the woods and we got stopped by a tree that was just like an ordinary 20-foot oak tree, like the most boring tree in the world. And that tree absorbed like the next six hours of our conscious attention, because it was just, you know, it was the tree of life. I mean, it was just like, could it be no better tree?

So we're talking about non-ordinary states of consciousness wherein a merging with life and with the world is possible. And that is a, so I'm not saying that kind of experience isn't possible, but there's a sort of expanded self-reification. It is a kind of ego dissolution, but there's a sort of expanded self-reification. It is a kind of ego-disolution, but there's a kind of egoity that sort of goes along for the ride as well, or can go along for the ride. And the real insight in emptiness, the real sort of centerless center of the bullseye,

is a recognition that in some ways equalizes all experiences. Again, it's just as available now in this ordinary podcasting experience as it is when you're merging hands on with an oak tree and on 400 micrograms of acid, and this is the whole universe. And so it's the equality of those two experiences that this concept of emptiness captures, which a concept of oneness doesn't quite capture, because oneness is really this peak experience of being dragged out of your, you know,

your somethingness into a much bigger somethingness, right? Emptiness is just no center, right? And then everything is in its own place, right? There's still sights and sounds and sensations and thoughts and feelings, but there's just, there's no center and there's no clinging to anything. There's no clinging to identity. There's no clinging to anything. There's no clinging to identity.

There's no clinging to the good stuff. There's no resistance to the bad stuff. There's no pleasant and unpleasant get sort of strangely equalized. And it's very expansive. And most importantly, it doesn't block anything. So yeah, for whatever reason, if your nervous system is set up to have the, oh my God, I'm now merging with the tree experience, that's possible from the state of no center, right?

And on my, you know, my reason, I mean, now not so reason three years ago, it's right before COVID, but my last, you know last big psychedelic experience, I was very much experiencing that, whereas at the peak, there was no need to remember any of this stuff, but in so far as I could experiment with, is this really different from anything else? There is a kind of equalizing to the emptiness recognition even in the presence of a completely transformed neurophysiology.

And so that's, again, there's a point of contact. The real point of contact between psychedelics and meditation for me is, but for my experiences on psychedelics, I think there's just no way I would have had the free attention to be interested in the project at all. And there are other aspects of the project. It's not just having this insight into selflessness. It's all of the ethical ramifications of that. It's just like, what kind of person do you want to be? What are your values? What's?

What what is a good life altogether when you are talking about relationships and you know political engagement and the changes you can make in the world or not make or it's just you know, what kind of person do you want to be? There's there's there's a much larger consideration and I mean as you discovered, an experience on MDMA can really both expand your model of what is possible and what is desirable, what is normative. I mean, just what kind of self do you want to be in the world? And it can also help you cut through things that are inhibiting your actualizing any of those possibilities in ordinary, waking consciousness.

I've certainly found that to be the case. I mean, you raise a really important point, which is that once these learnings take place, these understanding take place inside of psychedelic journeys, and I do believe they translate to neuroplasticity. I do want to highlight the point for people oftentimes people say, you know, this mushroom or this psychedelic. It opens plasticity, but of course plasticity has to be directed. Some place plasticity is just a process like walking or anything else underlying neural process. And I think it's impossible for me to understand what compartments of my life have been impacted by these three MDMA sessions. But in some ways, I wonder whether or not

just the transition away from animal research but also a deeper realization of the love for learning and sharing information. I won't go so far as to say this podcast is happening because of that particular session, but these things, they play out into multiple domains of the self. And I do think that the key features that feel most important to me to mention are that it really identified true loves, things that I truly love and made me less cautious about feeling how intense those loves really are and then also lower the inhibition point of exploring like, well, what would that

mean? Right. You know, and one of the reasons I bring this up and why I think it's so important that you mentioned, you know, some issues around politics and ethics and many things have displayed out from your exploration of psychedelic meditation, neuroscience, philosophy, you know, all the things that are you and of course that's only a subset,

is that so much of what I hear and see, so much of what I hear and see in the kind of self-help space. Contradicts itself and leads back to the origin without a lot of progress. And for instance, we hear absence makes the heart grow fonder, but then out of sight out of mind. You hear about radical acceptance, but then what if it's radical acceptance of non-acceptance? Right? I mean, there are some experiences and people for which I radically accept the fact that I want nothing to do with them.

And am I supposed to transcend that? So these are the questions I think that keep a lot of people from exploring things like meditation. Because they feel like, well, is the idea to just be okay with everything? Is radical acceptance just like, well, just bull idea to just be okay with everything? Is radical acceptance just like, well, just bulldoze me with things even if they're, my goal is to somehow surpass the idea that they're harmful. And I don't think that's actually the way any of this stuff is supposed to work,

although I don't claim to be the authority on it either. I think notions of radical acceptance and radical honesty and any number of different sayings that one can find out there are really the most salient beacons and guides that most people have in order to try and navigate tough areas in their life, including the relationship to self

but others and political orientations. And so I feel like almost all those things can be used to anchor down in a stance that may or may not be informed or to open up to ideas. And so I think the none of this can really be solved in a single practice. It sounds like but it does seem to me the based on what you've told us today is that only through a a deep understanding of the self as it really is as

opposed to the solution that you framed up, could we actually arrive at some answers about what's actually right for each and every one of us? Yeah, I mean, there's one generic answer that I think can be extracted both from psychedelics and from meditation and just from just thinking more clearly about the nature of our lives and it's to become more process oriented and to be more and more sensitive to the the mirage like character of achieving our goals. Right now I'm, I'm not against achieving goals.

I have a lot of goals. I'm very busy. There are lots of things I want to get done. And I'm a satisfied as anyone to finish a project. And but if you look at the time course of all of that fulfillment and there are a few lessons everyone I think has to draw. One is most of your life is spent in the process.

Like the moment at which the goal is fully conquered, that is just, I mean, that has a tiny duration and has a very short half life. And the moment you arrive at it, it begins to recede because in the meantime you have all these other goals that have appeared on the horizon. You've got people asking what you're going to do next. And in some sense, if you're focused on goals, you can never arrive. You really can never arrive, right? And I think what we're looking, we're all looking for in life, you know, whether we're ever thinking about taking psychedelics or practicing something like meditation, we're looking for good enough reasons to let our attention fully rest in the present.

Right? Now, like, so, I mean, that is the logic of success. Like, the sense, like, I've got all these things I want to do, if I could just get rich enough or fit enough or, you know, dial in my sleep well enough or, you know, improve my life in all these ways, get the right relationship, wouldn't it be great to be married? You know, I want to start a family.

I want all of these things. Why do I want these things? I want these things because I'm telling myself, it's not that all of those things are wonderful. I'm not discounting those relative forms of happiness or sources of happiness, because it's all completely valid to it. It's completely valid to want those things.

But one thing is absolutely clear. completely valid to it. It's completely valid to want those things. But in the press, one thing is absolutely clear. It's possible to be miserable in the presence of all those things, right? And you can add, you can add great wealth and fame and everything on top of that. It's possible. It's possible to be absolutely miserable having everything anyone could seemingly want, right? And you just have to open a newspaper to see people living out that predicament, right? Spectaculately wealthy, famous, healthy, successful people who could do anything they want in life, apparently, and yet they're doing this thing

that is completely dysfunctional and making them needlessly miserable. I won't name names. But there's enough of them out there. So some people come to mind at the moment. So there is a clear dissociation between having everything and happiness that's possible. And it's also possible to have very little, you know, and almost nothing, and to be quite happy.

I mean, you might not have met these people, but, you know, I have met people who have spent, you know, 10 years alone in a cave. And they come out of that cave not floorly neurotic or psychotic. They come out of that cave beaming with compassion and joy. And I mean, they've been taking MDMA for 10 years, essentially, and they come out of the cave, and now they're going to talk about it. And I'm not necessarily recommending that project anyone, but I'm just saying that is, that is a psychological possibility.

So you have a double dissociation here, whether you can have everything and be miserable, you can have nothing and be beaming with happiness. So what is it that we actually want in all of our seeking to arrange the props in our lives and our, and the story to have a convincing enough story to tell about ourselves that we're doing the right thing. What is all of that effort predicated on? It's predicated on this desire and this expectation that if we could get all of this stuff in the right place and not have anything terrifying

to worry about, right? Everyone we love is healthy for the moment, right? And we're healthy. And we've got something to look forward to on the weekend. And there's not a plumbing leak in the house that we have to immediately respond to. And we like our house. And our career is going fine. And there's something good to watch on Netflix.

And we have all of it, right? Now can we just actually give up the war? Can we fully locate our sense of well-being in the present moment? Is it can we relax the impulse to brood about the past or think anxiously about the future for long enough to discover that all of this here is enough? to brood about the past or think anxiously about the future for long enough to discover that all of this here is enough.

Because our life is, we have this finite resource of, I mean, we absolutely have the finite resource of time, but within this, the finite resource, the continuum of time, we have the even more precious resource of free attention that is that that can find our fulfillment in the present right and because even if we're even if we're guarding our time to do the things that are most important to us, we can spend all of that time regretting the past or anxiously expecting the future and just balancing between past and future in our thinking about ourselves and our lives and basically just dancing over

the present and never making contact with it, right? So what we I think what we want is a Circumstance where attention can be located in the present in a way that's truly fulfilling and Unless you have had some kind of radical insight that allows you to do that on demand you are in some sense hostage To the circumstances of your life to do that for you. You're constantly trying to engineer a state of the world that will propagate back on a state of self that will make the present moment good enough. And what meditation does, and psychedelics to some degree does this, but meditation very directly does this,

it reverses the causality and lets you actually change state such that you can be fulfilled before anything happens. Nothing, your happiness is no longer predicated on the next good thing happening. You can be in the presence of the next good or bad thing already being fulfilled and already being at peace. There's a, I think they're misleading nouns. We can throw at what is left there, but it is tranquility, peace, freedom, lack of contraction, lack of conflict. All of that can be more and more of a default.

And all of that is also compatible with deciding, you know, yeah, why not get in shape, why not engage this project, why not change your career. I mean, it's not that you need to be somebody who accept, to your point, you can notice all of these non-optimal things, because no matter how much you meditate, you're very likely going to spend a lot of your time still lost in thought, still identified with it, and still wanting, still caring about the difference between dysfunction and normativity in your life.

And the question is, what can you locate when, it's really, it's like how much can you puncture that seeking happiness project with the recognition that you're already free? That is what meditation makes possible. You can keep just a thousand times a day, letting some daylight into this search space. But it is still compatible. You can, I mean, working out is a great frame

in which to look at this. Because, I mean, in working out when you really work out, I'm thinking mostly, I mean, it's really anything, but it's a resistance training or cardio or something like your gits who, you're intentionally putting yourself in classically unpleasant circumstances physiologically. I mean, so if you were, imagine what it's like to do anything to failure, right? Well, if you just check in on what that is like at the level of sensation, I mean, that is,

it's basically a medical, it feels like a medical emergency, right? I mean, like if you were having that experience for some other reason, like if you woke up in the middle of the night and felt what it feels like to be deadlifting, on your 10th rep on a set where you would fail at 11. Right?

Like that is just, you know, that's an emergency. But because you understand what you're doing in the gym and you've sorted out, and like it's actually something you like doing, right? And you can get a real dopamine hit from doing it. That what you're doing when you're doing that is you're owning a kind of a, like you're actually transforming

a classically negative experience into something that's almost intrinsically positive, right? Certainly, the net on it is positive. You can do that, and being able to do that is more and more the experience of being actually at peace, even while exerting a really intense effort in one direction. So you can be straining and I'm sure physiologically showing a lot of stress. I mean, I'm sure the cortisol is up and blood pressure is up, heart rate is certainly up. So as far as the body is concerned, stress as far as the eye can see, but you really can be deeply equanimous and at peace,

because, again, because of the frame around it, because of the concepts attached to it, because you know what you're doing, you know why it's happening and you want it. So that's an attitude you can bring into other stressful things that take effort to accomplish. And so it's not that you just need to be a pushover when you learn how to meditate or when you take MDMA

or you do any work on yourself in any of these ways. But what I think you want to find is you want to find your point of rest in the midst of any struggle. Yeah, I would say that the certainly MDMAMA, but, and again, I have less experience with meditation, but they really, I think, put us ultimately in positions of what can only refer to as real strength. These can make what, before seemed like impossible decisions or even concepts or emotional

states to even think about for any period of time without deliberately distracting or avoiding in some other way and be able to lean into those with open eyes. And I think that's, to me, that's my definition of strength. I don't know what other people consider, but there's definitely something real there in each case. This may seem like a divergence, but I and many other people are very curious about a recent decision that you made, which was to close your account on Twitter. You still have an Instagram account, I noticed. But I've never, I mean, my team manages that. I've never, I've loved friendly

row of it. I've been there a lot longer. I've never even seen it team manages that I've never I love friendly role Or it is I've been there a lot of you and see it see it so it's pretty good actually Can say imagine what would happen if you did a deep a day. They're doing a good job with it But your decision to close your account on Twitter I think grabbed a lot of eyes and ears and there's a lot of questions about why it was a very large account You know It correlated with a number of things that for the outsider, people might be wondering about new leadership, new people who had been booted off, brought back on or at least invited back on.

And so on. You are certainly not obligated to explain your behavior to me or anybody else for that matter. But I'm curious if you might share with us what the motivation was for taking the account down and how you feel in the absence of, I mean, your thumbs presumably are freed up to do other things. Yeah, I was getting like an arthritic right thumb, I think. And I think it's. If you don't mind sharing, I think there's a lot of curiosity

about you and your routines. You've been very generous in sharing that, your knowledge. And but also kind of like what makes you tick, what motivates pretty big decisions like that. It wasn't a major platform for you. Right. So it was the only social media platform I've ever engaged. Like you said, I have an Instagram, I have a Facebook account, but I never used those as platforms.

Never on them. I never followed people. I've never, and all the posting has just come from, it's just marketing from my team. But Twitter was me, I mean, you know, for better or worse. And I began to feel more and more for worse. And it was, it was interesting because it was very, you know, I've, you know, I've talked about it a lot on my podcast about just my love, hate relationship with Twitter over the years. Many good things came to me from Twitter.

And I was following a lot of smart people and it had become my newsfeed and my first point of contact with information each day. And I was really attached to it just for that reason, just as a consumer of content. And then it was also a place where I genuinely wanted to communicate with people and react to things. And I would see some article that I thought was great and I would signal boost it to my, the people following me on Twitter. And that was rewarding.

And I was, I literally helped people on Twitter. Like, I mean, there were people who I've raised lots of money for on Twitter, just by signal boosting their GoFundMe's. And so I was engaged in a way that seemed productive. But I was always worried that it was producing needless conflict for me and was giving me a signal in my life that I was being lured into respond into and taken seriously that was out of proportion to its representation of any opinion or set of opinions that I should be taken seriously.

So I was noticing that, again, this evolved over years, I mean, this long-before, long predated recent changes to Twitter. But I was noticing that many of the worst things that had happened for me professionally were first born on Twitter. I mean, just like some conflict I got into with somebody or something that I felt like I needed to podcast about in response to on Twitter.

It's just so much of it. It's either it's Genesis was Twitter or it's the further spin of it that became truly unpleasant and dysfunctional happened on Twitter. It was just Twitter was part of the story when it was got really bad. And I've had, you know, vacations that have gone sideways just because I got on Twitter

and said something, and then I had to produce a controversy that I had to respond to, and then I had to do a podcast about that and just, and it was just, okay, this is a mess, right? And so at that point, you know, I have friends who, you know, also had big Twitter platforms who would say, you know, why are you who would say, why are you responding to anything on Twitter? Just tweet and ghost, just due to having, and Joe Rogan sat me down and tried to get me a talk into as to Bill Moore. And both of them engaged Twitter in that way.

I mean, I think they basically never look at their ad mentions. They never see what's coming back at them. They just, you know, they use it effectively the way I use or don't even use Instagram or Facebook. I don't even see what's going out there in my name. And so I could essentially do that for myself on Twitter, presumably. And I did that for some periods of time, but then I would continually decide, okay, now it's all balanced again, maybe I can just communicate here,

because it was very tempting for me to communicate with people, because I would see somebody clearly misunderstanding something I had said on my podcast, and I think, why not clarify this misunderstanding, right? And my efforts to do that almost invariably produced a, I mean, sometimes it was a kind of meandering process of discovery, but often it was just kind of a stark confrontation with what appeared to me to be just

lunacy and malevolence on a scale that I never encounter elsewhere in my life. Like, I never meet these people in life, right? And yet, I was meeting these people by the tens of thousands on Twitter. And so, the thing that began to worry me about it, and again, I understand that people have the opposite experience on Twitter. Depending on, depending on what you're putting out and what you're, you know, the kinds of topics you're touching, you could have just nothing but love coming back at you on Twitter, right? But because I'm very, essentially in the center politically, and because I'm, you know, on this is now on my podcast, this is not in the waking up app,

I'm often criticizing the far left and criticizing the far right. I'm basically pissing off everyone some of the time, right? And it's very different. If you're only criticizing the left, you hate, no doubt you get hate from the left, but you have all the people on the right who just reflexively and tribally are expressing their solidarity for you. And who are dunking on your enemies for you when your enemies come out of the woodwork. And if you're only criticizing the right, you get a lot of pain from the right, but you've got the people on the left who are tribally identified with the left who are just going to reflexively defend you.

If you're in the center, criticizing the left has hard as anyone on the right ever criticize the left. And you're also criticizing the right as hard as anyone on the left criticizes the right. You're getting hate from both sides all the time and no one is reflexively and triply defending you because you pissed them off last time. You might be getting hate from the left now and the

people on the right agree with you, but they can't forget the thing you said about Trump on that podcast, you know, two podcasts ago. So they're not going to defend you. And so what I basically created hell for myself on Twitter because it was, I just, you know because it was just a theater of, it was just pure cacophony most of the time. And what I was seeing was, I mean, there's no way there's this many psychopaths in the world, but I was seeing psychopaths everywhere.

I was seeing the most malicious dishonesty and just goalposts moving and hypocrisy and, and I mean, it was just, I mean, some of it's trolling and some of it's real confusion and some of it is psychopathy, but it's like, it was so dark that, I worried that it was actually giving me

a very negative and sticky view of humanity that was, I mean, one, I think it isn't an inaccurate, but two, it was something I was returning to so much because again, I was checking Twitter, at least a dozen times a day, and I'm sure there were some days where I checked least a dozen times a day. And I'm sure there were some days where I checked it a hundred times a day. I mean, it was, again, it was my main source of information as constantly reading articles and then putting my own stuff out, that it became this kind of fun-house mirror in which I was looking at the most grotesque side of humanity and feeling, you know, implicated in ways that were important, because it was just, it was reputatioly important or seemed to be important.

I know a lot of these people, it's not, these weren't just faceless trolls, these are, these are people with whom I have had relationships, and in some cases friendships, who because of what largely Trump and COVID did to our political landscape in the last half a dozen years, we're beginning to act in ways that seemed starkly dishonest and crazy-making to me. So, I was just noticing that I was forming a view of people who I actually have had dinner with that was way more negative based on their Twitter behavior than I think would ever be justified by any way they would behave in life with me. I was never going to have a face-to-face encounter with any of these people that was this malicious and dishonest and gaslighting and weird, right?

As what was happening hourly on Twitter, right? And so I just began to become more sensitive to what this was, you know, just the residue of all of this in my life. And just how often the worst thing about me in my relationship with the people in my life, they're just talking to my wife or my kids, was just the fact that I had been on Twitter at some point in the previously, in the previous hour. And there was some residue of that in my interaction with them.

It's like, what do you stress out about? What what do you annoyed about what do you pissed off about you know? What can't you get out of your head? What is the thing that you now feel like you need to spend the next week of your life focused on because it went so sideways for you all of that was Twitter You know a little I mean literally a hundred percent of that was Twitter and and so I just at one point, it was actually on Thanksgiving day, I just looked at this and I just, I mean, there was very little thought went into it. I mean, literally, I mean, there was more thought involved in you, you know, whether I wanted coffee, when you asked me, when I showed up here, I was just like a certain point, I just saw it and and I just I just ripped the bandaid off. And yeah, so um, and to answer your other question, it's been almost wholly positive as you might

expect given the litany of pain and discomfort I just ran through. But um, I mean, it's also it's surprising to recognize how much of a presence it was in my life given the sense of what is now missing. I mean, it's like there's no question there's an addictive component to it. And when you see, when I look at what Elon's doing on Twitter, forget about his ownership of it. I've got a lot to say about the choices he's making for the platform, but just his personal use of it is just so obviously an expression of, I don't know if addiction is the clinically appropriate term, but his dysfunctional attachment to tweet to using the platform. Forget it again, forget it, forget it about changing it and owning it.

But just the degree to which it is pointlessly disrupting the life of one of the most productive people in any generation. That was also instructive to me because I know Elon and I just, you know, he's from, you know, kind of a friend's eye view of the situation. It's so obviously not good for him that he's spending this much time on Twitter, that I just brought that back to me.

It's like, well, this is not, this is what it's doing to Elon, and he's got all these other things he could be doing with his attention. How much of my use of Twitter is actually, you know, a good idea and, you know, optimized to my well-being and the well-being of the people around me. So anyway, it was, there was an addictive component to it, I think. And so when that got stripped off, I, you know, I do notice that there's some time to pick up my phone, and I realize this is like the old me picking up my phone for a reason that no longer exists. Because it's not that much. I have a Slack channel with my team, and I've got email, obviously, but it's like that is

not much of what I was doing with my phone really in the end. And so, like, it's just my phone is much less of a presence in my life. And so it's almost wholly good. But yeah, I think there is some danger in, or some possible danger in losing touch with certain aspects of culture, which again, I'm not even sure, I mean, there's this question of, you know, how much is Twitter real life and how much is it just a mass delusion? I don't know, but in so far as it actually matters what happens on Twitter, or in so far as

I was actually getting a news diet, which I'm not going to be able to recapitulate for myself, or I'm just not, in fact, wanting to recapitulate for myself even if I could. If any of that matters, I haven't discovered that yet, but it's, yeah, I mean, it was taking up an immense amount of bandwidth and it's impressive. I mean, I think I said, I, you know, it's like I amputated a phantom limb, right? It was not a real limb, but it was a continuous presence

in my life that, but it was a continuous presence in my life. It's weird. It actually relates to the concept of self in surprising ways because I felt there was a part of myself that existed on Twitter. I just performed a suicide of that self. I was like, this is ending right now. And there's no residue. There's nothing to go back and check. It's gone.

And I didn't go back and look at my, what's interesting to consider is that, I've been on Twitter for 12 years. I don't keep a journal. I mean, Twitter, my timeline would have been a kind of journal. I could have gone back to a specific hour and a specific day and looked at what I was paying attention to.

I mean, that could have been an interesting record of just who I've been for a decade. And I'm probably a pretty humbling record of who I've been for a decade, in terms of the kinds of things that captivated my attention. But I didn't even, you know, it didn't even think to go in a, you know, nostalgicly just look at any of that

or see if any of it was worth saving or archiving or think it, I just in the state, you know, nostalgicly just look at any of that, or see if any of it was worth saving or archiving, or think it, I just, just delete, you know, and it was some, and so my actual sense of who I am and my engagement with, with my audience, my, you know, the world of people who could potentially know me, like, what does it mean to be, to have a platform, you know, the world of people who could potentially know me, like, what does it mean to be,

to have a platform, you know, where do I exist digitally? My sense of, up all of that got truncated in a way that is much less noisy. I mean, it's amazing how much can't get fucked up now in my life. It's like with Twitter, almost anything could happen, right? The next tweet was always an opportunity to massively complicate my life. There is no analogous space for me now. And what I'm going to say on your podcast, what I'm going to say on my own podcast, what I'm going to write next, that's much more, you know, so what I'm going to say on your podcast, what I'm going to say on my own podcast, what I'm going to write next, that's much more, you know, deliberative and the opportunities

to take my foot out of my mouth or to reconsider all, you know, whether any of this is worth it, is it worth, is this the hill I really want to die on now? It's much more, can be much more considered. And I think all of that's to the good. But even more important than that is there's not, I'm not getting this continuous signal that is always inviting a response, whether on Twitter or on my own podcast or anywhere else.

And it's just much less noisy. I mean, life is much less noisy and cluttered. And that's, you know, that is, it definitely feels better. It's just, it's 100% better. I'm happy to hear that. I know a number of people miss you there, but you sound happy. I sense the genuine happiness in it. Several things come to mind.

First of all, thank you for sharing your rationale there and how it went. I think for a lot of people, I think, oh, you must have walked around in circles for hours, talking about everything that was deleted. As many good decisions are executed, right? Yeah. I'm a big fan of Cal Newport's work, Deep Work.

In many ways, Cal's, I've never met him, but we know each other through the internet space. He really had of his time with this notion of deep work and limiting distractions. I think he's even got a book about a world without email or something. Really extreme. So he had, I mean, he deserved some credit because he had been somewhat approximate cost of this. He had been on my podcast and he had encouraged me to Twitter because I had been sort of in reaching some kind of

you know crisis point with it prior to that podcast and so we've talked about it and I had recorded that podcast but hadn't released. I actually recorded the podcast the day before I wound up deleting Twitter, but hadn't yet released it. So my podcast with him, in the intro to it, I then give a postmortem on my deleting it. But he was one of the last people who was in my head around these issues. And I actually, that was not by accident, I had invited him on the podcast because I increasingly wanted to think about, whether this was totally dysfunctional. Well, I'm a big fan of Cal Newport,

and I am on social media, I'm on Twitter. I had some high friction interactions there, and I have a process for dealing with those. I tend to avoid high friction confrontations online, but Instagram is a much friendlier place. By the way, if you wanted to come over to where like the nice kids, like the cool kids actually hang out,

strangely, I'm not looking for a substitute. Okay, well, I didn't, I don't let me entice you over there, you do. But I think that this notion of really being able to access what CalCalls deep work, what Rick Rubin talks about, you know, being able to touch the source of creativity and focus on a regular basis does require that one have certain types of, and in some cases, zero interaction with certain platforms that merely

being on a platform and blocking people that would just won't provide. I think a lot of energy opens up, and I'm fascinated by this concept of energy. I mean, we only have so much energy, neural energy to devote. And in many ways, what you describe, there's really, I think, striking parallels to what I've been talking about all along these last hours, which is that sometimes

the thing that feels so powerful that has such a gravitational pull and that we think this is experience, this is life, this is just the way it is, actually is an illusion and when you step away from it, you realize that there's this whole other dimension of interactions that was available all along, but that we, for whatever reason, we're intervening in by way of our reflexive distracted behavior. So I think there's a there's a there's a poetry there. I was a hard case, but

Yeah, I got religion on this point. It's a good change We'll say I want to say a couple of things first of all Every time you talk I learn so much and that's you know in the of neuroscience, even hardcore neural circuitry type stuff, which I'm sort of my home. When you talk about philosophy or meditation or psychedelics and even politics, some topic that I'm woefully undereducated in, but topic that I'm, you know, woefully undereducated in. But you have this amazing ability to blend and synergize across things. And I think today what occurs to me is that not only is that

no accident because of your training and the rigor and the depth that which you've explored these different topics, but also your openness to it. But I think at least for me above all, is because I think you are able to encapsulate this idea of the self and the different ways in which we each and all can potentially interact with the environment and our inner landscape. Your description of meditation I have to say is now has forever changed the way I think about meditation. I would no longer just think of it as a perceptual exercise. On the podcast I've been meditation. I would no longer just think of it as a perceptual exercise I on the podcast I've been talking about is something to do for these various benefits the benefit set of more focus

It stress, etc. Of which certainly exists, but what you described today has a as such in a lure in a Hold such a promise that as I mentioned I'm certainly going to change my behavior and I know I'm speaking on behalf of many many people and a hold such a promise that, as I mentioned, I'm certainly going to change my behavior. And I know I'm speaking on behalf of many, many people, I just wanna extend my thanks for your coming here today to teach us even more, because of course,

you have your podcast and the app and the waking up app. And the fact that regardless of the political landscapes, regardless of what neuroscience feels about psychedelics or where things are at any point in time, you strike me as somebody who is very committed to sharing knowledge and thoughtful, deep discourse so that people can benefit. And there are very few people like you. In fact, there's probably only just one. And so I feel very grateful to be sitting across the table

from them for these last hours. Nice, nice. Well, I really enjoyed this. And I want to congratulate you on what you built here, because your podcast is everywhere. And I just can't, you know, I'm a fan. And even more than that, I'm continually seeing the evidence of you reaching people and benefiting people.

And it's just really, I mean, like this is the one of the best examples of new media just carving out of space that people didn't really know existed. Yeah, you know, it's like this is not television, it's not radio, it's not, and all of a sudden people have time to hear a conversation of great length that goes into, you know, nitty-gritty scientific detail on, you know, hormones. I mean, like, who would have thought that was

even possible? And so, yeah, I just, congratulations, it's fantastic to see, and I'm just very happy for the opportunity to talk to you and your people. Well, thank you. It's very gratifying to hear and I feel very blessed in no small part because of our conversation today. Nice going to be continued. We'll do it again. And again and again. Thank you for joining me today for my discussion with Dr. Sam Harris. I hope you found it to be as enlightening as I did. And be sure to check out the waking up app that Dr. Sam Harris has made free to any Huberman Lab listeners for 30 days by going to wakingup.com slash Huberman. Please also check out his incredible podcast, the Making Sense podcast. And you can find any number of Sam Harris's different books on meditation, consciousness,

philosophy, neuroscience, politics, and more, you can find links to those books by going to samherris.org. If you're learning from Endor and enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's the best zero cost way to support us. In addition, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and Apple. And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five star review. If you have questions for us or comments or topics that you'd like me to cover or

guess you'd like me to invite onto the Huberman Lab podcast, please put those in the comment section on YouTube. I do read all the comments. Please also check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode. That's the best way to support this podcast. Not so much during today's episode, but on many episodes of the Huberman lab podcast, we discuss supplements. While supplements aren't necessary for everybody, many people derive tremendous benefit from them for things like enhancing the depth and quality of sleep, for enhancing focus, and for hormone support, and many other aspects of mental health, physical health, and performance. The Huberman lab podcast is proud to announce that we are now partnered with

momentous supplements, because momentous supplements are of the very highest quality. They ship internationally and they have single ingredient formulations, which turns out to be important if you're going to develop the most cost effective and biologically effective supplementation regimen. If you'd like to access the supplements discussed on the Huberman Lab podcast, you can go to LiveMomentus spelled O-U-S, so livemomentus.com slash Huberman. If you're not already following us on social media, we are Huberman Lab on Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn,

and Facebook, and all of those places I talk about science and science-related tools, some of which overlap with the content of the Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from the content of the Huberman Lab podcast. Again, it's Huberman Lab on all social media handles, all platforms, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. If you haven't already subscribed to our neural network newsletter, that's a monthly newsletter.

It's completely zero cost and it includes summaries of podcast episodes as well as toolkits for things like enhancing your sleep, enhancing your focus and ability to learn, hormone support, fitness, and on and on. You simply go to HubermanLab.com, go to the menu, click on the menu, and scroll down to newsletter, provide your email, and you can start receiving our monthly neural network newsletter. Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Sam Harris, all about meditation, consciousness, free will, psychedelics, social media, and much, much more.

And as always, thank you for your interesting science. much, much more. And as always, thank you for your interesting science.