Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Part 1: Sir Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff: What is Consciousness? (#247)

Episode Date: August 7, 2022

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics. 00:00 Intro 01:00 Happy Birthday to Sir Roger! 05:00 Updates to The Emperor's New Mind 07:00 What about Schrödinger’s Cat? Part 2: https://youtu.be/OoDi856wLPM Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others. Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability’ in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing’ computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem’ in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics. Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated’ quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders. Be my friend: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list http://briankeating.com/mailing_list.php 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast.php Support the podcast: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join Shortform through my link Shortform.com/impossible and you’ll receive 5 days of unlimited access and an additional 20% discounted annual subscription! Can you do me a favor? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast! On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast https://apple.co/39UaHlB  On Spotify it’s here  on @audible_com it’s here and other ways to rate here: https://briankeating.com/podcast  Please join my mailing list; click here https://briankeating.com/list for your chance to win real space dust!! A production of http://imagination.ucsd.edu/ Support the podcast: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, Quantum Brains. You are in for a real treat with this special two-part episode of The Into the Impossible podcast with your fearful host. Dr. Brian Keating, it is I, who is still emerging from pandemic podcasting featuring one of my first most eminent guest who came on way back in early 2020, and that is, or 2019, maybe even, and that is Sir Roger Penrose. I've had him on many times, and this time we had him on to talk about a controversy, as he would say, controversy. regarding some claimed evidence against his model of gravitational collapse of the wave function that implies the conscious experience that we experience in our brains, courtesy of little devices engineered by Mother Nature, or God, if you will, called microtubules. So it's a very complex theory.

It's called the orchestrated objective reality reduction, a lot of ours, a lot of ores. And it's been transfixing many people for decades. Now there's evidence against this from an experiment, but we talked about that with famed theoretical physicists, Sir Roger Penrose. And his colleague in all things consciousness related, at least in the squishy wet computer that sits on our shoulders, and that's Dr. Stuart Hammeroff, who is an anesthesiologist, but a very interesting scientist as well. And Stewart has been doing experiments on living tissue for many, many years since he wrote

to Sir Roger after reading the Emperor's New Mind, which I read as a 15-year-old. Didn't say I understood it, but I read it at least, and I was tickled Pink when he endorsed my first book, losing the Nobel Prize before he would go on to win the Nobel Prize, as you'll find out. And this is a two-part episode, so I had a couple of difficulties with the Part 1 video crashing in the middle of it. We had an objective state collapse, so it's turned into a two-part episode. So you'll listen to Part 1 now, and hopefully you'll stay tuned to Part 2. So part one covers the basics of what is orchestrated objective reality, what are the recent complaints or conjectures against criticisms against this theory by experimentalist

at the foundational questions think tank. It's a physics think tank. Kind of interesting. They did an experiment in a particle physics laboratory that's normally populated by my friends Lena Apriel and Kaishuan Ni past guest who run the xenon experiments that look for dark matter. So it's kind of amazing the same facility. can do a lot of different things, including weigh in on the notion of consciousness. So you can learn about that, and then stay tuned for part two.

I'll have a little blurb about that. After you enjoy this first part of two with Sir Roger Penrose, winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize and Dr. Stuart Hammerov. Enjoy. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the pod bay doors, please help. All right. We are live with Sir Roger Penrose and with Stuart Hammeroff, joining us for

various locations around the world. And hopefully everyone out there will enjoy this wide-ranging conversation on consciousness, the brain, quantum mechanics, and controversy, as we say. And that has to do with some recent developments, both experimentally and in the world of the theory basis for what is called ORC-O-R, which we'll talk about. But first, a very important announcement. I to wish a happy 91st birthday to Sir Roger Penrose. Roger, how does it feel to be 91 to reach midlife? I'm not sure I am. What's the date?

Well, I think it's the 5th, 5th of August. No, I've got three days to go. Three days. Okay, so three days of being the 90, only 90, yes. But you're in the 91st year. That's correct, yes. And Stuart, you are joining us from where? Banff in Canada, where I've been attending a workshop related to the experiments we did from a Templeton grant to test OrcaWR, looking at quantum effects and microtubules.

And Roger zoomed in all week and gave an excellent talk also. Ah, that's fantastic. And there's been a lot of news. And, Stuart, I've meant to have you on for a long time. And this is kind of a special treat to have both of you guys on at the same time. And really the occasion is this dramatically kind of progressing field of consciousness. In fact, just last week, Roger, your ears were probably burning because we had a live webinar with some friends in the UK and around the world that I hosted for the Institute for Art and Ideas. And the question was about reality and the role that quantum mechanics plays.

And quite frequently, we invoked your name. In fact, we said many times we asked Eric Weinstein. Sabina Hasenfelder, Carlo Rovelli, all PhD theoretical physicist, we asked them to comment on your comment, as you have said in the past, that consciousness reeks of something quantum mechanical. So I want to ask you, Roger, first of all, how when you think about the role of quantum mechanics that you learn from Dirac and that you taught, at least to me, the first time in the Emperor's New Mind, 30 plus years ago, ago, how is your thinking evolved on quantum mechanics and its role in consciousness, if at all? Well, there is an important development, which has happened, I guess. I mean, a lot of things are very similar to what I thought in the Emperor's New Mind. The idea is I put forward there.

And I should point out, you see, people often regarded as very revolutionary or something, that quantum mechanics could be involved in consciousness. But the point is that my view is that it's even worse than that, in that it's not quantum mechanics being involved, it's where quantum mechanics is incomplete or even not quite correct. Because quantum mechanics has a big puzzle right at its roots. And some people kind of resolve this by invoking consciousness in the sort of opposite way that I do.

You see, the question is, there's a thing called the Schrodinger equation which tells you how the quantum state evolves in time. And this is an equation which is very deterministic, just like Newtonian mechanics and that sort of thing. So if you know what the state is now, it will tell you what the state will be in 15 minutes from now and so on. The only trouble is that it doesn't, because it only tells you what the quantum state is, is and the quantum state you make measurements in order to find out what the thing tells you. To make a measurement you have to involve something else that's not part of the system. You sort of wheel the measuring device out of the cupboard and get it to measure the state

and then you wheel it back into the cupboard again. The trouble is that if you were consistent, you have to consider that that machine you just wheeled out of the cupboard is also following the Schrodinger equation. And if you do that, you get nonsense. You don't get one answer to your questions. You get what's called a superposition of different alternative answers. If you want to get one answer, you've got to do standard quantum mechanics, what's called making a measurement.

And what's called making a measurement involves violating the Schroding equation. Now, Schrodinger was absolutely clear on this. He was one of the people who was completely clear. And that's why he considered this thought experiment of a cat in a box and you put this cat to into superposition. of being dead and alive, and Schroding was said, look, this is ridiculous. You couldn't have a cat that's dead and alive, but lots of people say, oh, we'll have to try and make a machine which actually makes a cat dead and alive.

What Schroding was pointing out, that quantum mechanics as understood, in other words, following his equation, gives you nonsense. It tells you that you have cats that are dead and alive at the same time. Now, some people would take a view, they did in the early days of quantum mechanics, that you need a consciousness, observer to come along and it's the conscious observer who looks at the quantum state and that makes it be one thing or another rather than both things at once. Now that's ridiculous in a way and I don't want to go into why it's ridiculous, but it was very strongly held by quite a lot of very distinguished physicists at the time. Now the view I hold is almost the opposite of that.

It is that the stake does reduce itself, that is to say the cat becomes either day or alive, spontaneously, not because anybody looks at it or even the cat looking at itself, but because this superposition is too big in a certain sense and that it spontaneously becomes one or the other. And it does this with something much, much smaller than the size of a cat. It's a very tiny effect which could make it become one or the other. And this involves, in my view, bringing the general general theory of relativity and this is Einstein's theory of gravity,

curve space time and all that sort of thing. And when you bring this into quantum mechanic, you find that you have a conundrum. And the way out of way of resolving this conundrum is to say that instead of having these superpositions at two things at once, there was a certain lifetime of that superposition and the bigger the superposition is, the shorter the lifetime is. So if it was a cat dead or alive, it would be very very much. virtually instantaneous, but you could have something much, much smaller than that, and it

becomes one or the other in a time that you can calculate. And the idea that Stuart and I have been trying to develop is that in the brain, or primarily in things like microtubules or big collections of microtubrius probably, that's where one thing or the other thing happens. the process of one thing or the other thing happening, well that's what we refer to as proto-consciousness. Protoconsciousness is sort of the building block out of which consciousness is built. So the reduction of the state, as I say, the quantum state choosing one or the other rather

than both at once, that process is something outside standard quantum mechanics, but it's something which you can make predictions about if you bring Einstein's general theories of relativity into the picture. And it gives you a time scale for how long the superposition can exist before one or the other happens. The claim we make is that each time this choice of whether one thing or the other happens, that's what we call proto-consciousness. And as I say, it's the building block out of which actual consciousness, which involves many, many of such processes, actual consciousness comes about. So that's a sort of summary of our point of view, except in detail of what's going on, which is, Stuart, have much better ideas about that than I do.

Right. Yeah. So, and Stuart, the conference that you've been at involves some kind of orchestration as well, because you've been talking about how we can identify experimentally where consciousness might take place. And I wonder if you could kind of give a slight overview, maybe a recap for the audience that might not be as familiar as I am. But I said in a tweet I put out that Sir Rogers book, The Emperor's New Mine, really influenced me. It was the first popular science book I ever read as a 15-year-old. And then I was tickled when he endorsed my book,

losing the Nobel Prize, my first book, which allowed him still to go on and win the Nobel Prize a few years later, despite his association with yours truly. But he said he was disappointed in that book because at the end, you know, he kind of speculates, and he was hoping that he'd get some fresh young people and with new ideas, et cetera. And he got, well, you were young.

I mean, you're not that old now, so you couldn't have been that old 30 years ago. You know, it was an exception. These were mainly the old retired people who got hold of me. There were a few younger people. And Stuart was one of the younger people. So what jumped out at you about that book that caused you to take the risk

and start this relationship with Roger that's persisted for the last 30. plus years. Right. Well, I had at that point in the early 90s when I read it, I've been studying microtubules inside cells and particularly inside brain neurons. I had, I got interested in microtubules in medical school and studying mitosis in a cancer lab where these mitotic spindles, which are microtubules, pull apart the chromosomes in a very highly orchestrated dance to get exact separation, duplicate pairs of chromosomes that go on to each becomes the daughter cell. And if that isn't perfect, then you can get cancer, you can get maldevelopment, and so forth.

And so everybody else in the lab got really interested in the chromosomes being the dawn of the genetic revolution and so forth in the early 70s. But for some reason, I got fascinated with these structures which seem to know where to go and what to do. It seemed to have some kind of intelligence. And I had been interested in consciousness from my undergraduate days. And so I wondered whether these structures, which turned out to be microtubules, might be processing information. And I was primarily interested in the brain and thought that they might support processes inside neurons leading to consciousness.

Because if you think about the neuron as a simple on-off switch, as most people do, the brain is a complex computer of simple. neurons, then you treat each neuron as a one or a zero. But actually, if you think of a single-cell organism, like a paramecium, it swims around, it finds food, it finds a maid, it has sex, it can learn. It's very clever. It doesn't, I'm not saying it's conscious necessarily, although it might be, but it has intelligence, and it uses its microtubules. So at that time, the structure of microtubules was discovered to be a lattice, a cylindrical lattice with, in some cases, Fibonacci geometry and I spent a number of years looking at information processing models and microtubules as basically molecular scale computers which increased the information capacity

inside neurons tremendously about a billion tubulence switching at 10 megahertz gave you 10 to the 16th operations per second per neuron whereas neural net people AI people the single the singularity people were saying, no, there were 10 to the 16th operations per second in the entire brain. And when that was met, we have brain equivalence and consciousness. And I was going around being a pain on the rear end to AI people saying, no, your target's way, way downstream, you're being naive and insulting the neuron by saying it's a one or a zero. And they would say things like, go away, kid, you bother me, you know, what do you know? And but then one day somebody said something very, very important and profound to me.

He said, let's say you're right. How would that explain consciousness? You have all this information processing at a deeper level. And you have 10 to the 27th instead of 10 to the 16th operations per second. How would that explain feelings, love, joy, emotion, the color pink? And I had to admit I didn't know. And I was a bit stunned to be categorized as a reductionist, but that's what I was. But fortunately, that person suggested I read Roger's book, The Emperor's New Mind, which I did, and I was really fascinated and blown away by it.

The bottom line being that he had a mechanism for consciousness, and nobody else did. Everybody else, or even still today, kind of hand-waving arguments about complexity, emergence. Maybe it's fundamental, maybe it's pan-psychism, but, you know, who knows. But he had a specific mechanism, which at the time I didn't understand and still don't completely understand. but I've certainly studied and pondered it for many years. And so I thought, you know, in the end of his book, he said, well, we need a quantum computer in the brain that will collapse by his OR mechanism. And he mentioned that, you know, neurons, axons firing and not firing.

That's the superpositioner was too large scale. And I agreed. And I wrote to him and I told him about microtubules and that they might be the quantum computer collapsing by his objective reduction that he was looking for. And he agreed enough to, so that we met in his office. I happen to be going to England. And I told him about microtubules, and he appreciated it very much. And that started our collaboration.

Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill, four-burner gas grill, on special buy for only $199. And entertain all season with the Hampton Bay West Grove. seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $499. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, pricing invalid May 14th or May 27th, U.S. only exclusions apply. See Home Depot.com slash price match for details.

And when, you know, most people think about quantum mechanics and I said, you know, I love you guys and you've all been generous with your time and conversing with the public. But, you know, today's not just purely a love fest because we just found out it's not Roger's actual birthday. So we can ask, does the emperor have closed? And what is the most common objection, Sir Roger? What do people say,

I know what I think as an objection, but I'm not as erudite in this field as most people. What's the most common objection? And what do you think is the best objection to Ork-O-R, if any? Maybe the best objection was my own objection at the time, which was when I wrote the Emperor's New Mind, I could see no way. I tried to learn about nerve propagation,

and I learned about the Podgkin Huxley, you know, and all this kind of stuff, which is the official way in which signals was sent around the brain, and I thought there's no hope. You see, I thought by the time I learned these things, I would finish off my book with a great dash and say, this is how you explain consciousness.

And I couldn't. It just didn't make any sense to me. And so I kind of petered off with not really knowing what I was doing. And then I got this letter from this unknown person to me, Stuart Hammeroff. I get lots of crazy letters from people who say, this is this another crazy letter? What are these?

Plenty little tubes he's talking about. I've never heard of them before. And then I look them up and I thought, my gosh, he's right. And so I communicated with him, and we got together. And this was the first time I could see a route to something where you could possibly, You see, what you need in order to, for this kind of scheme to work, you need some isolation so you can get your quantum degrees of freedom don't get sort of spread out through the brain as it would be.

If it was just nerve propagation, then there are these electromagnetic fields which spread out and they simply do what's called decoher, decoher, and you just lose everything. So you need something which has the hope of preserving these degrees of freedom, these quantum mechanical degrees of freedom. And the microtubules looked to me the best thing I'd ever seen as a possibility for doing this. I think we still have to work hard to, and I think it's, they're not any old microtubules, that they have to be organized right, and they have to do something like, well, I knew about the, I knew various things about the brain. about the brain, for example, with the cerebellum, which has, as I now know, more neurons

in it than the cerebrum. I didn't know at the time, I think they didn't have the numbers right then, but certainly they were comparable, whereas the cerebrum where the sort of conscious thoughts seem to be connected with, the cerebellum that seems to be pretty well unconscious. Yet it's got all these neurons and why are they not being conscious? Right. It comes up with now what I think is a much better understanding of what the difference could be, and that is these cells called pyramidal cells, which are simply not present in the cerebellum. And this is the first time I've heard of something where you see a key difference

and where the cerebellum doesn't have these things, and that would explain why it's not conscious. Hmm. And typically, you know, when I see people objecting to, you know, orco, etc., it's, it's, and the objection that, well, quantum mechanical effects, you know, don't take place at room temperature inside of a squishy wet environments, et cetera, et cetera. And I wonder, you know, Stuart, what objections, and you're not a quantum physicist, you're not a physicist at all, you're an anesthesiologist with a deep and abiding interest and fascination in these topics. But the question, you know, I have, you know, is how, was it a solution in search of a problem? In other words, you know, could have been any other cell? What is unique about microtubules and how can they persist not decoher at room temperature inside a wet, squishy environment? Right. Everybody said, well, obviously the brain is too warm, wet, and noisy for delicate quantum effects. They would decoher. But the brain is not a homogenous monolithic. material. The brain is highly heterogeneous, and this occurs in various ways, different anatomical

reasons, as Roger just said. But as an anesthesiologist or a pharmacologist, and we're kind of applied pharmacologists, we think about where drugs go and how they act. And the body, the brain, has different compartments of solubility. So, for example, most drugs that you're taking a pill or IV, I am, however you take it, wind up binding in an area that fits their solubility. So most drugs are polar. That is, they have charges, they are soluble in water, and they bind to charge receptors usually on the surface of cells. Anesthetics are completely different.

They are non-polar. They are hydrophobic. They avoid, they go to places where water doesn't go. It's oil and water don't mix, okay? So that's basically the idea. And there's a pretty good percentage of the brain and body in general that is non-polar, that is hydrophobic that is comprised largely of, for example, aromatic rings like benzene, which is gasoline if it's in bulk form, but in individual molecules,

it can have very delicate quantum effects. and all the psychoactive molecules, serotonin, dopamine, the psychedelics, are composed of these aromatic rings, which have pi electron resonance states. And these pie electron resonance states, they fluoresce, they luminous, they do all kinds of things, that are basically quantum optical effects. And the anesthetics, and they tend to, these amino acids that have these rings, tend to coalesce inside proteins. and that's where the anesthetics go.

They bind in these non-polar hydrophobic regions, which we've come to call the quantum underground, by the way, because that's where the quantum stuff happens. It forms a decoherence-free subspace with limited degrees of freedom that is very conducive to quantum effect. And in fact, we've shown this. And so that's where the anesthetics go, and they bind only by very weak quantum forces.

So you have molecules that are otherwise inert, even the inert gas xenon is an anesthetic that goes to these places in the brain that have these non-polar pie resonance rings, and they, in fact, they bind all over the body in fat stores. There's more anesthetic in a patient's rear end than in their brain, but obviously it works in the brain. Just like there's a lot of anesthetic in the membrane,

and lipids in the brain or the fat around the body, but that's not where they work. All they do primarily is affect consciousness. They have very, very few other side effects. They're fairly selective and specific. And these are ubiquitous, right? Stuart, these are existing, all animals, you know, so. Microturial, yes, yes. All brains.

Right. Yes, but they're arranged in a particular way in the pyramidal cells that I'll come back to. But so there's this hydrophobic region. The anesthetics bind by quantum forces, Vanderbalt's forces. So you have this strange situation where these molecules go all over the body and bind by these quantum forces everywhere. And yet all they do is affect consciousness. And what that says to me is that consciousness involves highly organized, highly coordinated, orchestrated, delicate quantum processes that are easily interrupted.

If the anesthetes go into the fat of somebody's fat store somewhere, there's no organized quantum stuff going on, so there's no effect. So it suggests that consciousness depends on highly organized, orchestrated quantum effects. And in fact, that's what we've been talking about all week at this conference, because we got funded from Templeton, as I said, and we've been doing experiments in two different labs, looking at quantum optical effects in microtubules, and then showing that those effects go away with anesthesia. And, Roger, this quantum object, you said you were surprised that these microtubules existed

and they seemed to be designed. When I think about quantum mechanics, you know, typically, yes, there are collapsing wave functions, there are superposition states. But do you think we can even have a theory of consciousness that is quantum mechanical before we solve something like the measurement problem? Or do you think that that is not necessary as a precondition? I would think it's the wrong way around. That is to say, I mean, I think that we're not going to put it like this.

I don't think we're going to have a theory of consciousness until we have a theory of state reduction. That is the collapse of the wave function, whatever you call it. Whether we will have one then, I don't know. But I think that's another step, you see. We still don't understand why or how the wave function collapses in any detail. I mean, there are schemes about this, and one of these is my own,

but lots of people have different views on this. It's certainly, and lots of people don't even believe it, you see, lots of people haven't thought it through. They think somehow you don't need a new theory in quantum mechanics. I don't quite know why they ignore the collapse of the wave. It's called collapse of the wave function. You know, the wave function is supposed to chug along, into the Schrodinger equation, then suddenly it collapses.

And this is known right from the beginning. Schrodinger, with his introduction of this theoretical story about the cat. So he was obviously very worried about that phenomenon. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, that's a wrap on part one. Stay tuned for tomorrow's episode. We go really deep. It's more than twice as long as this episode.

and it involves all sorts of very, very fascinating topics, including what is computation? Can consciousness exist in more or less fewer than two dimensions, or three dimensions of space, rather, and one dimension of time? We'll talk about artificial intelligence, the simulation hypothesis. And I want you to stay tuned because I do have Dr. Professor Nick Ballstrom at Oxford, colleague of Sir Roger, who has, of course, the superintelligence conjectures about super advanced artificial intelligence. He's coming on the show, stay tuned for that.

This coming week, Dr. Sabina Hasenfelder will be on the show talking about her new book, existential physics, and remind you, go to my YouTube channel and subscribe, Dr. Brian Keating. Because when I post videos like this one with Stuart and Roger, and like I will with Sabina, you can ask questions in the live chat and I relay them and I broadcast them and you can ask questions these eminent authors, thinker, scientists, and how often do you get to do that? It's part of my mission. I want to convince you all to really take part in the scientific enterprises. you know, I believe that scientists have a moral obligation to give to the public in terms they

can understand ideas that are at the cutting edge. And that's kind of my way to do it, is to have the scientists come on chat live with you. You can do that live on the YouTube live chat, and that's go to Dr. Brian Keating, subscribe. Also subscribe to my mail list, Dr. Brian Keating, no, it's not Dr. Brian Keating.com. Scratch that. It's just Brian Keating.com. I couldn't get the Brian Keating Twitter account or YouTube account. Somebody's squatting on it. If you know them, maybe convince them to sell it to me because I feel a little bit pomp. I was always calling myself doctor, but it's the only choice I had that was at least brief. And you can ask questions of my guests there too, Dr. Brian Keating on YouTube, Twitter, and on Instagram.

So, hope you enjoyed this episode, this is first of two parts. Now, stay tuned tomorrow. And while you're waiting, if you wouldn't mind on any of the apps that you're listening, you can leave a rating of this podcast. Just a simple five-star review will do me just fine and will make a nice birthday present for Sir Roger. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Tune in tomorrow for part two. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel

is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavah Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino,

celebrating its 40th anniversary. You in? Must be 21 to enter.