On Purpose with Jay Shetty - Alex O’Connor: #1 Shift That Stops Endless Overthinking (FINALLY Get Unstuck)

Episode Date: May 25, 2026

What if certainty is what’s actually keeping you stuck? Today Jay sits down with philosopher and creator Alex O’Connor for a deeply thought-provoking conversation about consciousness, certainty, religion, and the questions that quietly shape the way we live. Alex opens up about growing up rebellious, struggling in school, and feeling disconnected from traditional systems before discovering philosophy and the search for truth. Together, they explore why so many people feel pressure to have life figured out too early, and why curiosity, self-awareness, and the willingness to question your beliefs may matter more than having all the answers. Jay and Alex unpack the mysteries of the human mind, the illusion of self, the limits of science, and humanity’s fear of death. Drawing from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern traditions, Alex challenges the idea that life can be fully explained through logic alone, while reflecting on how uncertainty can lead to deeper understanding rather than fear. This episode is an invitation to think beyond labels and rigid beliefs, and a reminder that some of life’s most meaningful discoveries begin when we stop pretending we’re certain about everything. In this episode you'll learn: How to Find What You’re Truly Good At How to Think Beyond Traditional Success How to Question Your Deepest Beliefs How to Balance Logic and Intuition How to Stop Living on Autopilot How to Become Comfortable With Uncertainty Your doubts don’t make you weak, they make you human. And sometimes the bravest thing you can do is admit you’re still learning, while continuing to search for truth, purpose, and peace along the way. If you’re ready to question everything you thought you knew about consciousness, religion, truth, and what it means to be human, Alex O’Connor’s Within Reason podcast is where philosophy becomes deeply personal. Link here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/within-reason/id1458675168  With Love and Gratitude, Jay Shetty JAY’S DAILY WISDOM DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX Join 900,000+ readers discovering how small daily shifts create big life change with my free newsletter. Subscribe https://news.jayshetty.me/subscribe   Check out our Apple subscription to unlock bonus content of On Purpose! https://lnk.to/JayShettyPodcast  What We Discuss: 00:00 Intro 00:19 What’s a Childhood Memory That Shaped You? 04:51 Why You Feel Stuck Even When You’re Trying 07:29 Everyone Has Something They’re Meant To Do  14:15 What History Reveals About The Present 20:30 The Mystery of Consciousness 26:42 Inside the New Atheist Movement 31:20 Explaining Your Worldview to Others 45:35 The Limits of Science and Philosophy 56:24 What Makes a Good Life? 58:09 Are You Living by Your Beliefs? 01:14:54 Left Brain vs. Right Brain Thinking 01:17:53 Alex O’Connor’s Final Five Episode Resources: Website: https://www.alexoconnor.com/  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CosmicSkeptic  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CosmicSkeptic/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cosmicskeptic/  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@cosmicskeptic  X: https://x.com/CosmicSkepticSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast, guaranteed human. Life changes fast and one thing shouldn't, your storage price. At XYZ Storage, lock in your rate for a full year with our industry-first locked-in pricing promotion. No surprises, no sun and increases, just secure, affordable storage you can count on. Whether you're storing a little or a lot, now's the time to make your move. Visit XYZ Storage.ca. Ready for a different take on Formula One? no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted

series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the astrology of the current grid, the story of the sports most consequential driver's strike, and plenty of other mishaped scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent, dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 2%. That's the number of people who take the stairs when there is also an escalator available. I'm Michael Easter.

I'm on my podcast, 2%. I break down the science of mental toughness, fitness, and building resilience in our strange modern world. Put yourself through some hardships, and you will come out on the other side, a happier, more fulfilled, healthier person. Listen to 2%. That's TWA% on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Why do things exist? We have swallowed wholesale this idea that everything can be reduced to scientific explanation. I just don't think that's true. What is the most dangerous idea people believe without questioning? There are very few things that people can be certain of. Pay attention when you are convinced that you know why you're doing something. What is a good life?

I would ask what they mean by good. What do you think people are most afraid to admit about life? That it comes to an end. Alex O'Connor, welcome to On Purpose. Jay, nice to meet you. It's nice to meet you, mate. I've been looking forward to meeting you for a long, long time. I've been a consumer and fan of your content.

Thoroughly enjoy watching you, whether it's debate, conversation, very, very intriguing stuff. I wanted to start off by asking you, I hope you've never been asked before. I don't think I saw this. But what's a childhood memory that you have that you feel defines who you are today? My childhood is a bit unusual, given the line of work I found myself in. grew up just sort of south of Oxford City Centre and a place called Blackbird Lees. When I think of my childhood,

what I remember is like acting up at school. In secondary school, kind of not showing up for class, I used to skateboard and I used to sort of wear jeans and the wrong shoes and have arguments with the teachers, that kind of petty stuff. I used to like playing music, so I'd like skip class to be in the school recording studio, that kind of stuff.

And, you know, somebody asked me recently, I was doing a talk with some school kids, and one of them asked, like, do you think your upbringing has affected your worldview? And that's a difficult question to answer because we never know for sure. There's someone asks, like, why are you an atheist? There's one sense in which you could say, because I don't believe that the contingency argument is sound. And there's another in which you could say, because my parents got divorced when I was eight.

You know what I mean? And those can kind of be both true. And so it's difficult to sort of psychologically. But I was thinking, like, yeah, maybe the fact that I had this slightly sort of acting out rebellious attitude that meant that when I came across the new atheist movement, something about the debate, something about the theatre attracted me to it because I had that kind of attitude as a child. My memory would be kind of like walking into school at like midday, wearing the wrong uniform and having somebody kind of say, you know, you really should be wearing black shoes and me just saying, oh, I'll sort it out tomorrow.

And that kind of just being the kind of childhood I had, which is maybe not what people would expect, given how much I care about being a bit more like studious these days and how I'm kind of associated with like academics. I'm not an academic myself, but I speak to them all the time and I've got a university degree and this kind of stuff. I find that's also kind of like helpful for people to hear sometimes because a lot of people listen to my stuff who are really interested in like philosophy or theology or whatever it is, but they don't like school. They don't do so well at school and not interested and I kind of want to say that that's that's okay like don't flunk out like do the best you can but don't take school or your your sort of desire to be in school or academia as a proxy for

your desire to like learn about the world you know so it sounds like there was a bit of a rebellious anti-establishment pushing back version of you but maybe not so strong but everyone likes to say that right everyone likes to sort of be well I was such a I was a rebellious child and I used to sort of win debates with my teachers so like yeah but you know nothing super profound just like your normal kind of slightly annoying kid in school. But you were still great at school because you went to Oxford as well, so you would have got good grades. Eventually, right, the first time I did what we call A levels in the UK, which is like the last two years of high school. I did further maths, maths and physics. Yeah, those are all a hard subject. And I did critical thinking as a side sort of thing. And I got three

U's, which is like, if you go like A, B, C, D, E, F, U stands for unmarked. It means it's so low that it doesn't even register. I actually overslept one of the exams and I got a phone call. call from my mum, to waking me up being like, you, like, I've just had a call from the school. And the disappointment in her voice, it was horrifying, you know, but I just, I just didn't care. It was really only in like the last year, I had to go back and redo A-levels because you have to stay in education until you're 18 in the UK. And I thought, you know what, why not let's give this a crack? So I got ABC doing humanities subjects. I remember I had some friends who still have these friends who wanted to go to Oxford for the longest time, you know, since they were young.

and they worked really hard at school, and I would sometimes joke, you know, about how I was going to go to Oxford too. And then they would laugh. And I'm like, okay, I am joking, but why is that so funny? Why is that so funny, you know? And I kind of got a bit motivated by these friends of mine. Seeing that, like, ambition and drive kind of helps me

and becoming their friends was just a good influence in that very crucial period of, like, sort of motivating me to get the grades, which allowed me to go to Oxford. But then again, like, you know, if you're flunking out of school right now, if you're doing your exams and you think it's like the end, of the world. Retake these exams. It's not the end of the world. And if you don't get into your dream university, there are all kinds of reasons why I might have preferred to have gone to a different

university. It's just like nice to know that there are options. I think young people, everything's so serious when it comes to like exams. And they are, you know, take them seriously. It's better if you do well, sure. But it's not the end of the world if you don't. Yeah. And you can take them again. Yeah, exactly. Talk to me about that flipping mindset though, because getting a U, not turning up to an exam and then turning it around and being able to go, this is important. Talk to me about that shift, though, because I think at that age, we do play such a heavy weight on these things, not showing up, not turning up, failing, feeling like it's not working out. But then being able to flip it around within a short period of time. It was such a long time ago and you can't fully say this is exactly what I was doing.

But talk to me about at least what it feels like when you reflect back and go, why you felt I'm going to change my mindset around this. I think it was because I knew that I could do more. I knew that I could pass the exam. I knew that I could do philosophy and critical thinking and this kind of stuff. Just sort of flunking out of school in that way, for me it was a very intentional thing. I'm not interested in this. I want to be a rock star or a professional skateboarder or something like that instead. But I kind of got the feeling that people like didn't believe me. They thought that the reason why I'm failing is because I'm not, you know, I don't have the goods. I can't do this kind of stuff. And it wasn't just that. It wasn't like I just thought I need to prove a point now. But when I suddenly got this idea in my head that it would be fun to go to university. It would be cool. And I started admiring new atheist figures like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom studied at Oxford. And I'd also started making YouTube videos. This was the other thing, right? I'm like 17 when I start making videos online, at least the videos I make today. And they were these kind of edgy new atheist type videos. And like, they started doing quite well relative for the time. And I think there was

also this feeling of like, if I'm going to be on the internet talking about, you know, God and religion and debating people and stuff, I'd better prove that I know what I'm talking about. It feels a bit weird to be doing that and then like failing school. And so I kind of knew that I could do it. I thought that it might be useful. And so I just sort of decided to give it another go. And it was very much a case of being like, yeah, see, I can, I can do this. I just didn't want to before. And I kind of regret that I didn't. But then having said that, if I'd have done further maths and physics, who knows what I've been doing now. And I'd still be interested in philosophy, but I think that it was definitely a good thing that it went the other way. Yeah, I appreciate you

addressing some things about how young people are feeling today about college or not going or university or whether attending. When you think about it from that perspective, you said you knew you had the goods. I think a lot of young people today feel they don't have the goods. They don't actually feel confident in their ability academically at school or even otherwise. what do you say to them? What do you think about for someone who's looking at that going, yeah, I don't, I don't even know what I would do. I don't know what I'd study. I don't really know myself. You got interested in atheism early. You were making content. You were almost this, you were this self-starter, it seems 10 years ago, which again was pretty revolutionary for someone

your age because there's not that many people that got started that early. What would you say to someone right now who's saying, Alex, you know, I'd love to do something like you or my own thing, but I actually don't know what I'm good at. I don't know what my strengths are. I think it's really rare to know what you want to do at any age, essentially. A lot of people fall into what they do. But certainly at that age, and I think that you kind of have to either take a guess

and realize that you can always change your mind, or you can do it later. You're going to be good at something. There's going to be something you're good at, and it might be something which isn't traditionally recognized as a form of intelligence. Intelligence is a difficult thing to define, but it's probably something like the ability to perform,

particular tasks. It's the ability to like perform tasks with a particular goal in mind. That's why we call AI artificial intelligence, even though it might not be conscious or a person or anything. The intelligence is the ability to perform tasks. And there's something you can do. People who are musically talented. It's a very particular kind of genius. They might have absolutely no idea what the quadratic equation is, but they can just intuit musical feeling in a way that other people just couldn't even comprehend. There might be skills that you didn't even know were skills. Maybe you're like really good at architecture and your school just doesn't do art. And it would take a long time for you to realize that that's the thing you're into. It took me a long time to realize

architecture was even like a subject that existed that people studied. You know what I mean? Yeah, I love that point. There's going to be something you're good at. And if you're being told that you're not good at something, it may be that you're not putting enough effort in and that you're slacking, in which case, try a bit harder. But if you feel like you are, you're doing your best, you're trying as hard as you can. and people keep telling you you need to try harder, it's probably just that they're not recognizing the things that you're good at. But we have no idea why some people are good at things and others not. It could be social, it could be genetic, it could be anything, who knows. All that matters right now, you're good at some things and bad at others. I think the best

advice anyone can give in that regard is to figure out as quickly as possible what you're good at. That's the most important thing. What are you good at and what do you enjoy doing and try to try to pursue that. And then realize that you don't have to, look, you don't have to go to university. Even if you want to be a physicist or a mathematician, eventually you'll probably have to, but you don't have to do it now, you can take some time out, you can think, is this really what I want to be doing? You can go and travel the world or whatnot. If you really want to go down the academic route, there's always options available for you. And there are so many now, you can do them online, you can do them virtually, you can do them part-time. There's always something available for you. It's so obvious to someone who's an adult. Someone who's, like, currently working in a cafe and doesn't really, like, know what they want to do with themselves. it's not going to console them to say, hey, man, you don't need to worry about academia. I didn't even think of that. But when you're a kid,

academia is like the only thing. The only thing. Unless maybe you're like a particularly talented, like football or something in school. And then maybe you're, but even then maybe your school doesn't encourage that kind of thing. And you will be told that the most important thing in your life are your exams. Don't get me wrong.

Those exams are important. Like, nail them. It will help you in the long run. But the idea that that is kind of what life's about is obviously insane. And I think kids like know that. but they haven't, like, felt it. They haven't internalized it. I speak to a lot of school kids, and they've heard this kind of stuff, you know, don't let the exams rule your life and stuff. But some of them, I think, hearing that I literally did just completely fail and then change

my mind and turn it around and it sort of relaxes them a little bit. It's no guarantee that you're going to be able to turn it around and go to Oxford, right? It's obviously not the case. I feel very lucky in that regard. But, like, there are options, man. I love the idea that you only discover subjects exist after you become an adult. I felt like that with so many things. I thought I hated science because it was biology and then learned about neuroscience later on and I was fascinated. Exactly.

And I thought, oh gosh, if I didn't have to learn plant biology, if it was always brain biology, I think I would have been, that would have been something I would have wanted to study. And you can now. That's the point, right? You can. Textiles. Yeah. But I think you can get the kernel of what you might be into.

Yes. maybe you might find that you really enjoy your art classes. And you know you don't want to be an artist. You know, you're not going to be the next, you know, Monet or whatever, but like you enjoy it. That should be enough to maybe think, okay, then I'll study that. And I don't know where it's going to end up. But that's the kind of thing that opens up these worlds that you didn't know exist. That will help with being able to be an architect. Yes. Because you will be able to draw images. It will help with doing textiles. It will help with set management. You know, you could be someone who designs sets for podcasts, a job that didn't even exist, really when I was at school.

And now it's a very specific, very niche thing that people are after. The most important thing is the passion. It would always really upset me when at a university there were people who would struggle a lot with the work and then also think, and I'm not even sure if I should be doing this. I don't know if this was the right subject. That's just, that's nihilism, man. Suffering is one thing. Being aware that your suffering is kind of meaningless. That's what nihilism is.

And that's what can be brought out if you study something you're not passionate about and then it gets hard. Because you've got this double whammy. of the meaninglessness plus the difficulty. But so many of us are stuck exactly there. You know, if someone studies theology or philosophy, it's famously a very unemployable job. What are you going to do except be a priest or a YouTuber? I can deal with the fact that, like, what's this all for?

Is this going anywhere? Is this going to get me a job? Because I've got this passion for it, because I just love it for its own sake. Maybe you're studying to be a doctor. You're doing medicine. And maybe you're not super passionate about it. A lot of people are, but maybe you're not.

But you think to yourself, well, I know where this is going. I'm going to be a doctor. I'm going to save lives. I'm going to make a lot of money. I'm going to provide my children. And that allows you to deal with the fact that you're not passionate about it. You need at least one of those. You need the passion or the direction. If you have both, then you've hit the gold mine. If you have neither, then I think you become a bit nihilistic, at least in regards to your employment. Absolutely. I've heard you say, Alex, that you're fascinated by history. Oh, yeah.

And I wanted to ask you, if you could go back in time and witness something personally, what moment in history would you choose? in a way. I'm afraid it's going to be boring in the sense that it is definitely going to be something biblical. Like there's no question about that. Really? No question. Any time. There are certain things which it might be sort of interesting to see. I'd love to see Stonehenge getting built. I'd love to see the pyramids be built, that kind of stuff. But when I came back and said, you know, it turns out they used a pulley system. And everyone goes like, oh, cool. It's not the most profound thing in the world. For me, my line of work is so much engaged in world view. and the worldview that I'm mostly engaged in talking about is Christianity.

And some of the biggest mysteries about the Christian religion are about specifically the kind of things that Jesus actually said and did, as opposed to what Orthodox Christians believe he did. The resurrection is an obvious example. Stand outside the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and see if somebody gets up and walks out. But also the baptism. I'd love to see the baptism of Jesus, because I want to know why was Jesus being baptized? Who was John the Baptist? why did Jesus seem to be some kind, I mean, historically some people think he might have been a disciple of John the Baptist, which Christians won't want to accept, but I'd love to know that fact. It's the moment where Jesus's ministry really begins, and the gospels tell us that the heaven's open and there's this voice from heaven and that this is where Jesus sort of picks up some of his initial disciples from as well. I would love to see what happened there. Because if I showed up and John the Baptist said, behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,

I would say, gosh, okay, Christianity's maybe got something going for it. But if you showed up and Jesus bowed down as head master, you know, then I think it would totally upset Orthodox Christianity. And I think that's like a really important question. What's the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist? So I'd love to see them meet. But it's hard to know. I mean, you've surely got an answer to this question yourself.

Sometimes I find myself being fascinated by so many moments in history, and mainly it's about human decision making. So I don't know if you saw this movie recently. is called Nuremberg. I haven't seen it. It's all about the Nuremberg trials and post-World War II how we make decisions on morality,

how we make decisions on how we evaluate what the Germans did. And you've got Gering, who is leading the Germans on behalf of Hitler, versus his therapist, played by Rami Malik, who's unbelievable in the movie. But I look at a moment like that,

and I go, wow, like humans had to really sit down and think about, because for the first time, ever, how do you truly go to court for post-World War II and the actions that were taken against the Jews? And I'm like, that's a fascinating moment to be a part of. Now, that's not that long ago. Yeah. So then you go, okay, where were those other moments in history? Yeah. Where big decisions were made by groups of human beings after groups of human beings went through certain amount of suffering, turmoil or subjugation. And when you don't have documents, I mean, because

when history is recent enough, you can kind of put yourself there by reading the books. And obviously there's going to be bias and misreporting and stuff like that and you've got to be careful. But like if you go far back enough, especially into ancient history, you've got like one little shred. Some of our most well-known, famous historical figures from antiquity, we only know they exist from like maybe one, maybe two sources. It's like a scrap of papyrus somewhere where the name scribbled on it. And yet these people were so important. So I think it would have to be, it would have to be an ancient event. Yes, yes.

Yeah. I would genuinely want to go back to the point at which the Bagwood Gita was spoken, which has always been my fascination and my form of study. But being at that, I wouldn't want to be on the battlefield because I could handle myself. I'll tell you that. I'd fail miserably at archery or anything like that. Do you think if you went back, you would find Arjuna, on a literal battlefield being advised by an actual deity? I would hope so.

I mean, the place Kurochetra exists. It's believed that that is where the battle took place. And so to me, I would hope, I would definitely hope so, that I would get to experience it as it's told, in the way it's told, as a historic piece. If you went back and you found there were no such historical event, or maybe there were a historical battle, but like the conversation that's had throughout the Bhagavad Gita is a fictional one, would that, like, trouble you? Because for me, I'd still quite like the Bhagavad Gita. I'd find it worth reading. I think I'd find the text still fascinating. I think you'd feel. slightly misled in the fact that you were told it was historical. Sure.

Yeah, yeah. So I think I wouldn't have an issue with what's in the book and the conversation because I find great value and meaning in that, but I would feel misled that I'd been told this was historic and it wasn't actually historic. It's so important, like, what the claim is being made by particular religious traditions. For example, for many Christians, if it turns out that the resurrection of Jesus is not a literal event that happened in history, but instead some kind of later mythologizing, the religion falls apart. It grounds itself on a very specific historical claim. It can't just be,

well, I'm a bit annoyed that my pastor told me that this really happened, but I guess this is fine. It would be like this is completely upended everything that I believe about the universe. That's one of the reasons why when you ask what historical event would I see, the key moment in the world's most popular religion seems to be quite an important one to me. Suppose you went and found out that, you know, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or you found out that Muhammad was a false prophet. What are you going to do? Like, come back to London and go, right, hear ye, hear ye.

I've got to tell you guys something. I'd rather not know, because I'd be terrified to let people know what I'd seen. Yeah, and no one would believe you anyway. Exactly, yeah. Or there would be a, you'd start developing a following on YouTube. Yeah, yeah, probably. Yeah, you'd be able to create your own cult. Talk to me about what reading you have done in Eastern traditions.

It sounds like you have done a bit of exploration that I probably haven't heard about before. Basically, it's really funny because I talk about religion all the time, and particularly Christianity. People say things like, hey man, you should talk about, you should talk about Hinduism. And I'm like, okay, I get why you're saying that. That's fair. I'd love to, but it's not quite as simple as that. Of course not. You know what I mean? It's a really, yeah. Even when it comes to like, people say, well, you should, you should have, you should have a Hindu on your show to talk to them. And I'm like, even that is tricky, because firstly, I prepare as hard as I can for every guest that comes on my show. I can't learn.

Hinduism. And even so, it's not like you can just have a Hindu on the show and that become like, oh, you've done Hinduism now. It took me a long time, like, even sort of finding my feet as to like where to start looking for interesting stuff. And my way in ultimately came through my study of consciousness. I'm fascinated by the philosophy of mind. And of course, the Indian tradition has this amazing content, essentially, on the philosophy of mind that I hadn't really encountered. before. Becoming convinced of some weird views about consciousness, about how it's not reducible to material and how it's not as simple as saying that brains just produce consciousness, that kind of stuff, sort of led me into learning about specifically the Advaita Vedanta

tradition. Advita Vedanta meaning like the Vedas are part of the Hindu scriptural canon. They're like the oldest religious scriptures in the world. I think like anter means, I think it's the the addendum anter means like end. So you get like end of the Vedas, meaning like the latter part of the Vedas, which collectively are known as the Apanishad, and Advaita meaning like A, like non, and diviter meaning dual.

So in the philosophy of mind, I think in philosophy generally, one of the biggest questions is how many types of stuff are there? Because there's this really weird sort of division of reality where we're conscious, we have subjectivity, like inner thoughts. And this mug over here, doesn't. So there seems to be kind of two different kinds of things. You've basically got three options

when it comes to explaining that. One is that there are just two types of things in the universe. There's mind and there's body. There's mental and there's physical. And they are just separate kinds of things and somehow they interact with each other. Another way is to say, actually, there's only one type of stuff and that type of stuff is the dead stuff. It's the matter, the atoms. This is the most popular of you in the West today. The only stuff that exists is atoms that are dead. And it's just that if you put them together in the right way, you get this thing called consciousness, but really it's kind of just a manifestation of the atoms. There's a third option, which is there is only one type of stuff, and it's the mental stuff. And what we call physical, what we call the physical world

around us, is a manifestation of mental stuff, which sounds super hippy-dippy, but that's only because we're not used to it. I mean, the idea that people think that, you know, they're just happy to accept that if you put physical matter together in the right order, it will produce thoughts. That is as weird to me as saying that if you put thoughts together in the right order, you could produce some physical matter. It seems like a sort of category mistake, right? But I think there's only one type of stuff. So there's this view which in the Western tradition is called idealism, which is kind of the view that everything exists as mental stuff. Some people have said that everything is kind of an idea in the mind of God. Some people think that nothing exists

except insofar as it's being perceived. It's a very sort of complicated and quite deep philosophical tradition, but it's something that the Advaita Vedanta tradition had been banging on about for thousands of years prior to its development in the Western canon. The reason it's Vedanta is because the Apanashads are particularly interested in the idea that kind of division is a, is an illusion and unity is real and it heavily implies that consciousness or like the soul, the kind of stuff that makes you yourself is kind of one thing with everybody else's self and that all of that consciousness is kind of the same thing as the universe, that there's this great big sort of unity of stuff. I thought that was really cool. So it's a bit of a sort of long-winded

way to say that I started looking into that. And then I had Swami Sava Priyananda. He's the head of the Vedanta Society of New York or whatever it's called on my show. and we talked about Advait Fadanta, we talked about consciousness. We didn't talk about the Hindu pantheon of gods. I still don't understand how Brahman manifests in like hundreds of different deities. I still don't really get that at all. I don't know about the different traditions who see different deities as their main gods and stuff like that. I don't really understand that. But I understand the philosophy of consciousness. We were able to have a great conversation about this particular Indian tradition. But the thing about Davida Fadanda is it's not really a religious tradition. It's a philosophical

tradition that comes from India. So when I do this show, yeah, I'm speaking to a Hindu and people say, great, you're talking about Hinduism for the first time. It's like, no, I'm not really. I'm talking about a philosophical school that comes from India. Yeah. Which is not the same thing. I mean, the word Hindu is very unhelpful anyway, because it's what's called an exonant, which is a word which is applied from the outside. People didn't call themselves Hindus. It's sort of got etymological roots with like the Indus River Valley, which is where a particular people were just doing their thing, just going about their business, and Europeans sort of label these people, Hindus, but it sort of refers to the geography. Someone saying, like, have a Hindu

one. It's kind of a little bit like someone saying, like, have a European on. I can get why somebody, if you'd never spoke to a European, would want me to speak to a European, because there is a different flavor of thought that goes on there, but it's such a rich and varied sort of culture. No, I appreciate the way you're looking at it. You just can't do that. So when someone says, Like you ask, you know, what's your engagement with the Indian tradition? It's sort of like somebody saying, what's your engagement in the Western philosophical canon? It's like, that's a big question. I've got to say, I'm much more specific, you know?

I'm interested in this person or that person or this school. And so for me, the stuff that I love from the Indian tradition is their views on consciousness, which I think predates the Western stuff and does it a lot more sort of intuitively. Life moves fast. And when you need more room, XYZ storage is here, whether you're moving, Cluttering or just need extra space, clean, secure units are ready when you are. Students heading home or switching apartments between semesters, save 50% off your first three months. Make space for what's next. Visit xyz storage.ca.

People who need space. How much you wait, Wanda? Right now, I'm about 130. I'm at 183. We should race. No, I want to leave here with my original hip. On the podcast, the matchup with Liliah, I pair prominent female athletes with unexpected guests. On a recent episode, I sat down with undisputed boxing champ, Coraesield, and comedian Wanda Sykes,

to talk about Wanda's new movie Undercard, the art of trash talk and what it really means to be ladylike. Open your free IHeartRadio app. Search the matchup with Alia and listen now. Brought to you by Novartis, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports Network. Hello, gorgeous, it's Lala Kent. Host of Untraditionally Lala.

My days of filling up cups at Sir may be over, but I'm still loving life in the valley. Life on the other side of the hill is giving grown-up vibes, but over here on my podcast, Untraditionally Lala, I'm still that Lala you either love or love to hate. I've been full on over-sharing with fans, family, and former frenemies like Tom Schwartz. I had a little bone to pick with Schwarzy when he came on the pod.

You don't feel bad that you told me I was a bootleg housewife? I almost flipped a pizza in your lap. Oh my God, I literally forgot about that until just now. Sorry, I don't want to blame alcohol. I got to blame that one on the alcohol. This is about laughing and learning when life just keeps on life in. Because I make mistakes so that you guys don't have to. We're growing, we're thriving, and yes, sometimes we're barely surviving, but we do it all with love.

It's unruly, it's unafraid, it's untraditionally la la. Listen to untraditionally la la la on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Are there a lot of new age atheists that are also fascinated in that way? Is that common or is that quite rare? I don't think new atheists, because the new atheist movement was a very, and it's interesting how we talk about it in the past tense now, like it doesn't really exist anymore. It was a very sort of prickly kind of criticism, and it's indebted to the so-called four horsemen, mostly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. Daniel Dennett wasn't quite as fierce, you know.

But these guys, you've got a biologist, an evolutionary biologist, and Richard Dawkins, a journalist in Christopher Hitchens, a neuroscientist, although I don't know if he did anything further than his studies, Sam Harris, and then you've got the philosopher, Daniel Dennett, and noticed that the philosopher is the one who's like the least, you know, critical in that regard and outgoing.

Although he had a lot to say about religion, the reason why these guys in other disciplines were getting involved is because, like, Richard Dawkins was annoyed that young earth creationists were saying you can't teach evolution in schools. Christopher Hitchens was getting annoyed that religious justifications were being used for geopolitical terrorism.

That was their kind of line of attack. And so to think that they would be talking about that kind of stuff, that Hitchens would be sort of standing up and complaining about the sort of the messianic undertones of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and then suddenly start going. But, you know, I think that Brahmin and Atman are maybe the same thing. But I want to critique that idea by, you know, appealing to the rival school. It just seems ridiculous to me.

So I think new atheism. No, but that's because within Eastern religions, you have the same kind of conflicts going on, which I don't think that West knows as much about, but also the kind of engagement I have is not about that. Like I say, I'm not interested so much in the deities and the gods and the sex. I'm interested in the philosophical traditions. And I don't think the new atheists were even interested in the Western philosophical traditions. They were interested in the practical reality of religion. Religion is a force for evil. Religion causes wars and that kind of stuff. That's all very well and good. But to me, I've always compared that to saying,

like, it's like saying politics is bad. Yes. Sure, you know, politics causes wars and politics drives families. It's like, that's true. But that doesn't mean we should be an anarchist. Maybe we should, but it doesn't guarantee it. It doesn't mean there isn't a correct political position. And critiquing that kind of stuff doesn't mean that you know anything about political

philosophy. You might not know anything about, you know, theories of justification of the state or whatever it is that political philosophers sit around talking about, you know, And I think the same thing's going on with new atheism. They couldn't recite Thomas Aquinas's causal arguments for God if you paid them to. Richard Dawkins does so in the God delusion. He responds to Thomas Aquinas directly. Thomas Aquinas is the most celebrated Christian metaphysician in history. And he responds to Thomas Aquinas in about two pages. It takes more than two pages even to explain the terminology that Thomas Aquinas is using, let alone to list, explain, and then debunk.

I think we have some evidence that there's just not this engagement with the philosophical tradition. I don't mean to insult these people. I like Richard. Richard's a friend of mine. I think he knows that I disagree with his philosophical musings.

And he himself just admits. He says that he's just not interested in theology and philosophy. It's just not what he wants to do. He wants to do science. I think fair enough. But then maybe don't write a book with a chapter called

Why There Almost Certainly is no God. But he did it because he cared about science. He doesn't care about the calam cosmological argument or whatever. He cares about evolution being taught in schools and that kind of stuff. And so the idea that someone who cares about that and that's their way in is suddenly going to become interested in the, even in philosophy in the West, is not very popular. The idea that these guys are going to engage with that, I think is untrue. And so that funnels down to the modern day, the sort of

teenage atheist like me on YouTube making videos took me years before I even encountered Indian philosophy. And that only came after I sort of calmed down a bit. is almost arguing something from their very, I don't know, maybe it narrows the wrong word, but everyone's looking at something through their lens and of course preaching or sharing whatever that may be whether you're religious or whether you're an atheist or whether you're agnostic. And it applies to everything in the same way as you could talk about entrepreneurship and someone could say, hey, if you don't know how to sell, then you can't be an entrepreneur. And then someone else is over there going, if you don't have to negotiate, you don't have to be

an entrepreneur. It's almost impossible to get a 360 degree view on a belief and idea of because there's so many different thoughts and ideas, how would you explain your worldview to a 10-year-old so that they simply understood it? I would probably wait until this child was taking an interest in such things. And I might ask them. I mean, it might be a bit young, 10 to start talking about consciousness, but at some point I might sort of say,

don't you think it's weird that you are conscious, you have thoughts and feelings, you have an inner sense of self? I'd use different words because they're 10. and this mug and this table and this chair don't. And depending on what they'd say, you'd ask you further questions. So if they say, yeah, I guess so, but that's because, you know, you've got a brain. And then you might start asking about what they think the brain is and how, so you'd sort of ask questions. And in my view, I think we have just sort of swallowed wholesale this idea that everything can be reduced to scientific explanation.

at least everything that is true about the universe can be scientifically explained. And I just don't think that's true. And I think it's like trivially untrue. I'm not making some profound, what about love, man? You can't scientifically. It's like, no, you can explain the chemicals that are firing. I mean something a bit more specific, which is that science isn't really in the business of explaining things.

I'm no longer talking to the 10-year-old, by the way. Science is not in the business of explaining things. It's in the business of describing things mathematically. Galileo famously says that mathematics is the language of the universe. Fair enough, but maths on its own doesn't do anything. Maths just describes all mathematical equations have an equal sign, and it describes some sort of fact about reality. It doesn't cause anything. Newton's laws of motion don't cause objects to move. They describe how objects move when they're in motion. Similarly, the example I love to give, because it's so explicit, is Newton's discovery of gravity.

gravity. What did Newton actually discover when he discovered gravity? What's the thing that he actually figured out? We had known for a very long time that objects fall to the ground, right? What's the thing that he realized? Well, Newton asked an interesting question. He looks up at the moon and he asks like, why isn't the moon falling towards the earth? And his sort of profound realization is that the moon is falling towards the earth all the time. It's just that if something falls towards my hand, it will hit my hand. But if I knock it to the side a little bit, then it will kind of do this. It will kind of miss the Earth a bit and then crash into the side. And if I knock it a little bit further to the side, it will sort of miss it even more and

maybe crash into the bottom eventually. And if you knock it just the right speed to the side, it will keep falling towards the Earth, but keep missing it. And that's what we call orbit. And Newton realized that the same thing that makes objects fall to the ground keeps the planets in circulation, which is a profound realization. And then he took to the task of mathematically describing it. Calculus, inverse square law. So he figures out that the distance between two things, if you square that distance, that is how much weaker the force of gravity is. So if something is two times further away, it's four times less attractive. And he does all of this, and it's brilliant, and the Prinket be a mathematical matter. But then there remains this question, like, why? Not how do

objects fall to the ground? Not what mathematical rules do they sort of do it by, but why do they fall to the ground. And in the scolium, which is like an addendum to the Principia Mathematica, where Newton published these findings, he answers this explicitly. You can read this online. He says, like, as to what gravity actually is, as to why this stuff is happening, he writes hypothesis non-fingo. It's in Latin. It means I frame no hypothesis. He doesn't know. And he says it's also not the kind of question that science should be engaged in. Because it can't answer that kind of question. In other words, Newton has described brilliantly planets, orbits, objects falling to the ground, this force which he

calls gravity and he just, it's sort of a placeholder. It's like the word gravity is just a word for whatever is the thing that's making this happen, but he doesn't know what's making it happen. And it's so funny to me when people like look into the past and they say how silly are the beliefs that people used to have? They used to believe in like animism. They used to believe in spirits. They used to believe that, you know, angels.

were pushing around planets and stuff. But no, no, no. Since the scientific revolution, we're much more intelligent because we explain things in terms of forces. Forces. Think about that word for a minute.

You know what I mean? Like, we're so used to hearing it. But that's it. And if you ask a scientist what a force is, they'll either have to tell you that a force is just a mathematical description of regularities that we've observed. Or they'll have to say unjustifiably,

well, it's the thing that makes things fall to the ground. But what is it? You don't know that. You don't know why that's happening. Now, to be clear, some people will say, okay, fair enough with Newton. I pick Newton because he says it explicitly. This isn't an insult to science. It's not insulting to say that it's not really interested in the why question. It's interested in the how question. Some people think the why question just shouldn't exist.

That's fine to say. But science itself is definitely in the business of describing. Scientists will happily tell you that anything which is true about physics can be described mathematically. But if you think about what maths is, it's equations. They don't do anything. Stephen Hawking at the end of a brief history of time, quite famously, I wish I could recite it from memory. It's so beautiful. He writes about how he hopes that maybe one day our basic scientific theories will condense into one great big theory of everything, that there'll be one beautiful equation that sort of governs everything about the universe. But he says we'll still be left with the question of what breathes fire into the

equations. Equations don't make things move. They describe how things move. They describe how things move when they're in motion, right? So we're left with this great big explanatory gap. If people are in any doubt about this, there's a wonderful clip of Richard Feynman. It's a BBC interviewer asking him about magnets. He says, you know, when I push two magnets together, they repel each other. What's going on there? And Feynman's like, well, you know, the magnets are repelling each other. And he goes, yeah, no, but, you know, what's, what's happening there? And Feynman's like, what do you mean what's happening there? And there's a sort of moment of confusion and the interviewer says, I've got to say, I think this is a reasonable question.

And by me goes, oh, no, no, it's a very reasonable question, but what do you mean? Because if you ask a question like, why, well, depends on your level of explanation. Like, why is Aunt Marie in the hospital? Well, because she slipped and fell on the ice. For most people, that would satisfy. But if you were like an alien who didn't know anything, you'd need to know why slipping on ice sends you to a hospital. So you'd have to explain that. And then you'd have to explain, like, why is ice slippery? Well, because when you step on ice, it evaporates. It evaporates. the top level which turns into water. Notice we're just describing what's happening.

Okay, so why does that happen? Well, now we're talking about the molecular composition of water and it's in its sort of chemical interactions. But why does that happen? Feynman's just basically pointing out that if you ask the why question, you are sent into this regress down into the most fundamental questions of reality. And in fact, Feynman then says, and if you want to know why Aunt Marie fell over,

you'd have to know about gravity. And why does gravity work? And that's where we just were a second ago, right? this thing, gravity which science will describe, but never, like, explain why it's occurring. And Feynman sort of comes back to magnets and says, so for now, you know, it will have to be enough just to say that they are repelling each other. And that's, that's fair enough, but I think that's what's going on. Yeah. Science describes, like, physics is the description of, and the theory of physical matter and its relations. It therefore presupposes the existence of matter and its relations.

One of the foundational questions I don't think science will answer is where that physical matter came from. It seems plausible. We say, look at the progress we've made. We used to think that we couldn't explain biological complexity, but now we have. We used to think that we couldn't explain why objects fool, but now we have. I want to point out that firstly, what we've actually done is describe those processes. But also, I think there's a categorical difference between explaining some kind of physical interaction at a deeper level and explaining the origin of physical matter and its interaction. actions. I don't think you will mathematically describe the origin of the stuff which the mathematical descriptions apply to. Given what I've just said about how, what scientific laws are, are observations of stuff that happens in the universe and then mathematically describing how they regularly occur. I've sometimes compared this. It's a bit of a crude analogy, but it gets across the point to discovering a book of Shakespeare's sonnets. If we came across a book of Shakespeare's sonnets and we

didn't know what they were, then we might start studying. them. And suppose that you were really, really smart and you said, okay, well, I've noticed that each of these letters comes in two kinds as a big one and a small one. And whenever there's a new line, they use the big one as interesting. And you call that the law of capitalization. And then you notice that there are all of these little symbols, unlike the letters, little dots and squiggles. And you realize that they show up in predictable ways. And you call that the law of punctuation. And you're able to predict. If you're really clever, you might notice that if you say it loud, it follows a particular rhythm.

Dun, da-dun, da-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-n. And you call that the law of iambic pentameter, because you're getting really clever now. And you can predict that if I turn over the page, I'm going to see something that follows these rules. What you're discovering, of course, are the laws of literacy. And then suppose I came along after all of that and said, okay, so where do you think the book came from?

And you said, well, we don't know yet. But look at all the progress we're making with the laws that we've discovered. I'm sure that one day these laws of literacy will explain where the book came from. You'd be making a category error. And I think the physicist does the same thing in saying that physics will one day explain the origin of physical matter, because physics is the study of physical matter and therefore presupposes its existence. A question like that, I don't think, can be answered by science. I'm really not talking to the 10-year-old anymore. I was about to say, I was about your 10-year-old is going to be really, really smart. Okay, Dad, can I just, can I get

to bed now? Yeah, but like the reason I bring that up, it's to say, I mean, I remember I was, I was kind of talking about consciousness. And it's all like related because people have a similar view of consciousness. I think that science will one day explain what consciousness is. You're trying to encourage your child to ask questions that I guess are maybe not comprehensively answered simply by science. Yeah. And also I want to be very clear here, lots of people will use this line of thought to try to sort of smuggle God in. It's like a lot of the gaps.

They'll say, okay, so science can't explain it, so God must do so. That is categorically not what I'm doing here. All I'm saying is that the lexicon of science cannot describe the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness. Those are the two things I think that science definitely can't describe. That is not to say, therefore, God, there might be some kind of what we might call naturalistic explanation. It's just not one that can be mathematicized and therefore not sort of appropriate to use the lexicon of science to describe. That's fine. No problem with that.

of course, we still have this question. We still want to know why is there something rather than nothing. What is the nature of consciousness? But I want to be very clear that this isn't some kind of underhanded way to, like motivated reasoning to leave room for God. It's just to say that when people have this sort of confidence that the scientific method will explain everything, because it's made such progress in the past, notice the precise nature of the progress it's made. It's explained things, but only at a sort of deeper level of resolution. It has described the mechanism take natural selection, brilliantly, like Darwin figures out the mechanism by which organisms

diversify and become complex, and that's great. But it is a description. It's a description of what happens. And as Feynman says, if you really do keep following that why question, you'll get down to some quite foundational questions, which it's less controversial to say science will not be able to explain. When you put it that way and you look at both sides, it seems to be more of a human mind's design.

desire for certainty and completeness in thought, which is why we end up on either side of the spectrum without the ability to navigate the messy middle, right? Specifically in this case, it's almost like I either have to believe everything this book says is absolutely correct without any openness for questioning thought or reflection, or I have to believe this book that I learned that this textbook at school, everything it says must be correct without any reflection thought or need for debate. And so it's almost like, how do we get to your point where the human mind, we allow it to have the ability to question our worldview and thoughts without losing all sense of certainty and stability, because it seems as humans,

when people watch a debate, nine out of ten times, people are just watching it to confirm their bias. So they're already on one side. You're going to watch the debate and you're going to go, yeah, you know what, I'm fully with Alex. You know, we don't know if God exists, but we definitely know science can't answer all the questions. Or on the other side, someone's like, well, I'm from that religion and that religious person is obviously. spot on. So even when we watch a debate, we don't really ever come away from it going, you know what? I just couldn't believe that he said that because we're just going there to confirm our beliefs. So I guess my question is, would you even encourage people to live in

the messy middle of not being certain about their ideas? Does that create a better human? I think that's where they do live. You think so? I mean, there are very few things that people can be certain of. In the sense of, I would argue that most of the people you debate with or most or scientific people in the world, at least in the form of how they live, are trying to live based on their belief. They have a very strong confidence, yeah. Confidence meaning with faith. Certainty.

Yeah, with faith. Fide, and the Latin faith. I think if you speak to most of those people, they will at least ostensibly say, but I'm open to having my mind change, particularly scientists. I mean, the whole thing about science is that it's open for correction. Like, no scientist believes that we've, like, completed science. Yeah, of course. Scientists are very much like, one day, they hope that Einstein will.

be proved completely wrong because it's exciting and it would like sharpen what we understand about the universe, you know what I mean? And so like, I don't think anybody has that kind of confidence that they've got it all correct. But I think there is a confidence in the method and fair enough. Have a confidence in the scientific method because it's great. And again, I love science. I'm not trying to insult it or anything. I'm just saying be very precise about what it's doing and what it's not. And I think we could avoid a lot of needless debate if we understand exactly the parameters of each of our disciplines. Disciplines, like, interact and they merge and stuff. But, like, if you're talking about mathematical models, there are things that mathematical models just can't do.

And if you're talking about, like, thought experiments in philosophy, there are things that thought experiments can't do. They cannot provide empirical proof of various phenomena. They can't provide scientific evidence for the Big Bang, that kind of stuff. But likewise, I think that the scientific method can't describe certain foundational aspects of reality and instead presuppose them. I would, of course, encourage people to recognize there's, like, lots of room to maneuver here. And I think that's one of the things that I'm trying to do. And, like, it kind of splits people, like, especially when I talk about either consciousness or I talk about the nature of science, it splits people. There's kind of three responses to the science stuff.

Some people go, that's a load of nonsense. Of course, science explains things. And then I have spent a bit of time really drilling down what they mean by explain in the Feynman sense. Other people say, this is really interesting. Yeah, cool. I'd never thought about it that way. That's great. That's exciting. And some people sort of say, yeah, science doesn't explain in that sense. Like, description is the same thing as they just sort of say it's like trivially true. It's not a very profound observation, but it has sort of some profound implications. If it is true that science only describes, then as long as you have an explanatory question left,

it's one that science is not going to be able to answer. So I'd sort of encourage people to at least explore that thought. It's totally fine to have confidence in your conclusions, but like, recognize, it's about the method. It's this optimism about the progress of science because of what it's done in the past, which is great, but you have to be very precise about exactly what it's done in the past and what it might therefore mimic in the future. And answering foundational metaphysical questions about the nature of matter, why it exists in the first place, that kind of stuff. I just don't think it's an appropriate tool. And people will be thinking in their heads, but hold on, what about like, you know, there are theories that. What about, like, string theory? What about the...

I'm telling you that if you investigate these closely enough, you will realize that these are proposed descriptions of the nature of reality. They're proposed descriptions of what's going on. They don't answer the why question. I think you're left with two options. One is to say the why question is bogus. Some people think that. And that's fair. Richard Dawkins has said, like, if you ask your question like, what is the color of jealousy? It makes grammatical sense, but it's a meaningless question. And the why question might be the same. Why do things exist? If that's the case, maybe there is no why, maybe there are only descriptions. In that case, I would slightly alter my thesis to say,

maybe philosophy is description, right? When a Christian says that God is a Trinity, they're just describing the nature of God, right? They're not explaining why he's a Trinity. Fair enough. But they would not do so in mathematical, like, language. You can't run the ontological argument for God's existence as a series of mathematical equations. It's just a different kind of language that's being used. I would just say that the scientific language will not describe.

the things which some other philosophical languages can describe, and that's not a problem. That's great. It's actually not that profound. So many scientists just are like, yeah, I mean, you can call it like functionalism or descriptivism about science that what's going on is we're just describing reality.

And that's great, and it's really useful. But I encourage people to just, like, reflect on what that means and what it should do to their confidence that science will answer these foundational questions. Yeah. I started talking about the origin of the universe because it's helpful when thinking about, like, Newton and Einstein to get across what I'm saying about science.

But really, when you ask about what my worldview is, the reason I would bring that up is to talk about consciousness, and in a similar way, say that science will not explain, or at least will not tell us the nature of consciousness. For me, consciousness is the most foundational, like mystery. It's probably the foundational fact of reality. It's the kind of thing which science can't approach. Because science sort of discharges,

sort of describes relations between things. Science uses the language of mathematics. It's like quantifying. Consciousness is a quality. It's qualitative. Not the kind of thing that science can talk about. I did a panel not long ago that was hosted by Brian Cox. It was with some neuroscientists, one of whom was Annel Seth, a good friend of mine, and the other two whose names I forgot, I'd only met them that one time. And they invited me, because it was a show called A Question of Science, and they did all of these episodes on different scientific topics, and they did one on consciousness. And I think they wanted somebody who like wasn't, I guess, like a neuroscientist. They wanted like a philosophical perspective.

And I remember thinking, okay, sure, I'll do this. I'm very grateful to be here if you really think that I'm an appropriate person. And I thought, well, what I can do is I can come along and I can talk about some philosophical perspectives. I can talk about panpsychism. I can talk about other traditions and stuff. And I remember before we started, Brian sort of looked at the questions that had been submitted by the audience and was kind of wanting to get rid of some of them.

because it was like, well, you know, like, this stuff about like panpsychism and whatnot. I don't think we should really be spending any time on this, on this kind of nonsense. And I was there, it was really awkward for me because I suddenly had to be like, oh, that's actually kind of what I'm here to do. We had this sort of slightly awkward conversation where I was a bit like, well, you know, I'm probably going to mention it. And he's like, yeah, yeah, I mean, it's good to, good to at least, you know, hear the view. I suppose, kind of that kind of thing. And then the show started. And look, I love these guys, you know, and they're obviously geniuses.

And I know nothing about neuroscientist. Well, not nothing, but, you know, I'm not a neuroscientist, but it struck me. If you watch the first bit of this, the first question is, what do we think consciousness is? Very difficult thing to define. I think it's impossible to precisely define, but a famous definition was given by Thomas Nagel in the 70s. To be conscious means there's something it is like to be you. There's something it is like to be this thing, therefore it's conscious. It's like an inward sense of subjectivity.

And we went around the panel and everyone agreed. Everyone was like, yeah, yeah, that's a great definition. I agree with that. Fair enough. And the first question came, can we see consciousness in the brain? Great question. And one by one, each of the neuroscientists said some really interesting things, but I felt just hadn't answered the question. And I'll actually said at one point, you know, we can kind of put this question of like consciousness like to the side or on the shelf or something like that. And we can talk about like the brain activity that's going on when the conscious experience happens. And there was someone else who was talking about how. when people have like hallucinations, it's like, although to them they feel as real as actual sight, different brain activity is happening when they think they see something versus when they did. That's really interesting. That's great. This is all really interesting stuff about neuroscience. But it got around to me and I turned to the question and I was like, I think the answer

is no. And I think what we've just heard has kind of proved that because what you're doing is you're talking about brain chemistry. You're talking about neurons. You're talking about the neural correlates of consciousness. You're not talking about consciousness itself. And I remember sitting there thinking, like, this is sort of quite strange to me. Because a lot of the sort of running thread throughout this one I said, but like, what about the nature of what consciousness actually is? What about the explanation of like why we're conscious? There's sometimes this feeling of like, well, that's not really a legitimate question. Yeah.

It's enough to just describe the neural correlates. It's enough to just describe the brain activity. And I'm like, that's fair enough. If that's what you think, if you don't think that's an interesting question, then fine. But then why are we here at an event called what is consciousness? It would sort of be like if we were at an event that was like talking about like football and somebody asked about why the offside rule exists. And somebody started talking about how like, well, you know, it's a bit like in basketball where this hour, it's a bit like in cricket or it's a bit like. And then I said, but hold on, like I want to talk about like actually football.

People might think I'm being a little unfair. I'd encourage them to just watch it themselves. Like I don't mean to disparage these people. As I say, they are geniuses and they do very important work. But I think it's quite clear to me that when we're talking about what consciousness is, we're just not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the experience. I'm talking about the redness of red.

I'm talking about the feeling of cold on your skin. I'm not talking about a neuron firing. And I don't think those are the same thing. So the common view amongst materialists is that experiences are just the same thing as brain activity. And I understand that thought, but they can't literally be the same thing. I'll tell you why. There's a law. It's called Leibniz's Law.

which says that if two things are identical, they share precisely the same properties. If X and Y are identical, that is, they are the same thing, then all of the properties of X are shared by Y. You can't say that two things are the same, and I don't mean the same kind of thing, I mean literally the same thing, but one of them is red and one of them is blue. Or one of them is five-sided and one of them is two-sided. That would mean that they're different things. Even spatial location. They have all the same properties except this one's in China and this one's in France. that means they're not identical. Let's think about the content of your like mental experience, right? You can imagine a triangle in your head.

I'm told that the triangle that I can literally see in my head right now is the same thing, the same thing as some neurons firing. I don't think so because they don't have the same properties. The triangle has three sides. That's a fact about the triangle in my head. The neurons firing that correlate with my experience of that triangle don't have three sides. meaning that you've got two sort of things with different sets of properties, meaning they can't literally be identical.

Maybe one causes the other. Maybe one emerges from the other. Maybe. That's fine. We're not saying anything too crazy at the moment. But the idea that they are literally the same thing, I think just doesn't make much sense. Life changes fast and one thing shouldn't your storage price. At XYZ storage lock in your rate for a full year with our industry first locked in pricing promotion.

No surprises, no sun and increases, just secure, affordable storage you can count on. Whether you're storing a little or a lot, now's the time to make your move. Visit xyz storage.ca. People who need space. Love our place. How much you wait, wonder? Right now, I'm about 130. I'm at 183. We should race.

No, I want to leave here with my original hip. On the podcast, the matchup with Liliah, I pair prominent female athletes with unexpected guests. On a recent episode, I sat down with undisputed boxing champ, and comedian Wanda Sykes to talk about Wanda's new movie Undercard, the art of trash talk and what it really means to be ladylike. Open your free IHeartRadio app, search the matchup with Alia and listen

now. Brought to you by Novartis, founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports Network. Hello, gorgeous, it's Lala Kent. Host of Untraditionally Lala. My days of filling up cups at sir may be over, but I'm still loving life in the valley. Life on the other side of the hill is

giving grown-up vibes, but over here on my podcast, Untraditionally Lala, I'm still that Lala you either love or love to hate. I've been full on over sharing with fans, family, and former frenemies like Tom Schwartz. I had a little bone to pick with Schwarzy when he came on the pod. You don't feel bad that you told me I was a bootleg housewife? I almost flipped a pizza in your lap.

Oh my God, I literally forgot about that until just now. Sorry, I don't want to blame alcohol. I got to blame that one on the alcohol. This is about laughing and learning when life just keeps on life in. Because I make mistakes so that you guys don't have to. We're growing, we're thriving, and yes, sometimes we're barely surviving, but we do it all with love. It's unruly, it's unruly, it's unafraid, it's Untraditionally Lala. Listen to Untraditionally Lala on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

With everything you just mentioned, how do you then explain what is a good life to a 10-year-old? I think one of the reasons why I wouldn't have a child at the moment is because I don't know how to answer that question. Love that answer, yeah. It's a very serious question. If you don't have an idea of what makes the good life, then it's going to be very difficult to raise a child. I mean, people say that when you choose your life partner who's going to be the other parent to your child, so the mother or father of your child, depending on who you are, one of the most important things is that you're aligned on like core values and stuff. Why? Because when it comes to raising children, you'll have to have the same idea of what a good life is, right? So in the same way, why you might not want to get married and have children with someone with whom you have. haven't aligned your fundamental values. I almost sort of am not married to myself in that way, because there's too much internal conflict. I sort of, I disagree with myself too much to have a good answer to that question. But also, I'm not confident that I ever will. And so I think, ultimately what people typically say is either they have a particular worldview and they say,

well, son, the good life is to do what God commands. And that's kind of fair enough as well, because that still leaves room for the kid to go and work out who is God and what does God command, right? It's actually quite broad, but I think if I were forced to say something, I would ask what they mean by good, you know. I'm not sure if this is the kid asking me, but the word good is a, is a difficult thing to unpack, you know, there's morally good, or there's good in the sense that this is a good table because it holds things up. And some people think that's the same thing. But I think there are probably indicators of a good life that include like contentment and calm and lack of stress and that kind of stuff, confidence

in the decisions that you've made. But I think there are probably indicators of a good life that include, I find it a very difficult question to answer. Do you find that the way you think about life and the world stops you from living practically or can or how do you balance the two? How do you allow yourself to be someone who, because that's what I was trying to get at earlier is that when you have even somewhat of a false conviction in your belief, whatever that may be, life somewhat is easier to live. Yeah.

Because you just get on with it. And I consider myself to be someone who lives more in the middle and thinks things through too. But I realize that that comes with a lot of uncertainty in the sense that you could totally have a 180 spin moment in your life because you're like, oh, well, wait a minute, I kind of believe that's true and that's kind of not. Now, I prefer living like that because I think it leads to new learning and curiosity and change and transformation, which I think are actually better than just pretending to agree with something. But I guess, where does your philosophy fail you in practical life? I think that most people don't live strictly according to philosophical.

principles. I think they develop philosophical principles based on how they live. Agreed. I think it's kind of the other way. I like that. Yeah, I like that. And I think that the best, so Ludwig Wittgenstein in his tractatus, which is like a sort of very sort of mathematical, quite short work, has this introduction. And the first words he writes are, this book may only be of use to people who already agree with its contents. And I think, think that's so fair enough. This might seem like a weird thing to say in response to your question, but like, I don't think people just read like a philosophy and become convinced by it. I think they hear somebody put something they already kind of think in the right words and they go,

yes. I like that. Yeah, that's what I think. That's what I think. Which is why, I think people are sometimes a little bit confused. If they want to get into philosophy, they look up the hundred best philosophers and they think, okay, let's go and learn about it. And just out of the blue, it says, oh, you should go and read like Jean-Poul Sartre. It's okay, so they pick it up and they read it and they're like, I don't, I don't really get this, you know? This doesn't make much sense to me. They read Spinoza and they're like, what's he talking about?

It's a bit math-y, I don't really understand, right? And it's because that's not how philosophy is supposed to be done. People sometimes ask me, where would you recommend I start? Have you got any recommendations for like how to get into philosophy? And my advice is always very simple. Just read whatever you've heard of. And the reason for that is because if you've heard of someone, it means you've been in contexts where they have come up.

Right. Like if you listen to loads of Jordan Peterson, you'll have heard him talk about Nietzsche. Now, you might never have read Nietzsche, but the fact that you are so attracted to Peterson and the fact that he's so attracted to Nietzsche means it's likely if you read Nietzsche, you're going to find something that you like in there. Likewise, if you listen to Christian apologists on YouTube, you might have heard them talk about the church fathers or Augustine or people like this, in which case, just read that. Because there's a reason why you're attracted to the people who are attracted to those bits of content. because to some degree you can read a philosophy and go, that's an interesting argument, that makes sense. But you're not going to read it and it sort of wash over you with this wave of conviction. I think unless you've already got one foot in that worldview. And it's just somebody has finally put into words what you were thinking this whole time. And so I think that we're very intuitive creatures. And I think that our philosophizing often gets in the way.

I think that we act according to our intuition and our emotional impulses all the time. And then we rationalize them after the fact. And then we debate about who was right and wrong. And there's so much to be said about this. For example, ethics, really important branch of philosophy. What is right, what is wrong? You've got meta-ethics, which is like defining what goodness is. You've got practical ethics, which is like particular case like studies.

You know, what do we do in the case of abortion, euthanasia, that kind of stuff? And if you look at how people do ethics, it's extremely interesting. They'll come up with a theory, say utilitarianism, right? the right thing to do is to bring about the least suffering for the least number, or the most pleasure for the most people, the fewest number, I should say.

And someone says, okay, that sounds good. And then how would you test that theory? Well, you think of a scenario. Okay, but hold on, what if there was a healthy person who walked into a hospital and there were five people who needed organ

transplants? And you could kill that innocent person, steal their organs, and and most people go, no, no, no, that would be wrong. Okay, then we need to go back and revise our theory. Hold on. Why? I thought the whole point of having an ethical theory was to tell us what right and wrong are. But now you're saying if you don't like the conclusion, you just go back and edit the theory? What's going on there?

It's because we already have intuitions about the outcome. And we have certain intuitions about the input. It's not as simple as like we're going to rationally work out what the standard of ethics is, and then that will tell us what to do. It's like we're going to come up with a kind of theory that captures how we already behave. And if it doesn't capture how we already behave, then we're going to edit it slightly. And so the process of meta-ethics or practical ethics coming up with these theories is in many cases actually just working out what we already believe, but doing it precisely. It's like, you know, most people care about animals.

They love animals, but then they pay for factory farming. And you could have a discussion about this and you could say, well, actually, you know, I'm not sure. So their theory might be, I think you should not cause unnecessary harm. And then you say, yeah, but you're harming animals in factory farm. They go, oh, okay, maybe then we shouldn't, and they'll go and edit the theory. Because what you're doing is you're precisely working out what you already believe. Well, you're protecting your worldview. You're allowed to have your versions.

But it's not just a case. You're not just like, you're not just like, no, this is what I believe. And so I'm going to edit the theory. John Rules, the political philosopher, had this concept of the reflective equilibrium. So he thought that what happened. You can sort of imagine this like machine, right? and we have inputs which are our theories about what's right and wrong. And those theories give us outputs.

So we input a theory which sounds plausible. We should minimize suffering. And it gives us an output. Well, then you should kill everyone instantly. And actually, hold on, that's not quite right. So then you sort of, you adapt the... It's like, okay, we actually need to minimize suffering without killing people, or also have some kind of pleasure.

And then it fits out other outcomes. And you sort of got this back and forth. and the machine in the middle like, you know, mixes it all up and gives you the output. And Rules kind of says that the way this works is you come at it from like both sides. You've got intuitive like outcomes and you've got like intuitive theoretical suggestions and you sort of do this back and forth, this tug of war between them until they kind of balance out a bit and you get this reflective equilibrium. And that that's what we're doing when we're coming up with theories. It is never as simple as somebody like writing a book and saying, right, I'm going to prove to you from first principles that abortion is wrong. specifically from the eighth week. That's never going to happen, ever. They're going to rely on intuitions

that you already have about people and the worth of humans and bodily autonomy, and they're going to convince you that way. So, if you become really learned in the traditions of philosophy, that can be really interesting, but you'll notice that a lot of philosophers can talk about these big ideas with absolutely no personal investment in them. They'd be like, oh, you know, like, so Nietzsche thought that God was dead and that this was a great tragedy, and they're sort of talking it as this historical article artifact. They've got zero personal sort of input in there. And so they're obviously not going to use that to like guide their life in any way. And if they did, it would just lead to confusion. There's like a skit I saw once, I think, like someone's on an airplane and they've, they're dying.

And, you know, they're like, is there a doctor on board? And someone shows up and says, I'm a doctor. I'm a doctor of philosophy. And they're like, well, what should we do? We need to save this man. And it's like, well, you know, the utilitarian would say that we should take resources from other people. But then the deontologists would say that that would upset their rights. And then what, if you're a Christian, maybe we should, and then they just die, right? Because you're spending too much time sort of going back and forth. I don't think that's how people actually behave, right? And I think there's some, there's some, like, neurological evidence for this to do with the two hemispheres of your brain, which is another thing I'm fascinated by. I think the most significant fact, perhaps, in the world,

is that your brain is divided into two hemispheres. Why do you think that's the most significant fact in the world? Because if you are, essentially, your brain, which, okay, I don't think consciousness is the same thing as the brain, but they're clearly connected, right? And the thing that at least gives you selfhood, I don't think it produces consciousness, just to be crystal clear, but I think selfhood, the thing that gives you your unified sense of self

is essentially your brain, and maybe the rest of your sort of neural system. And the fact that everywhere we look, every neural system we find, there's some kind of asymmetrical division in the brain, there's some evolutionarily strong reason to keep two separate hemispheres has to be super significant.

That's like the nature of you, right? That's your nature. Your nature is fundamentally lateralized. Your two hemispheres are kind of involved in different ways of thinking. It's never quite as simple as people think. I mean, Ian McGilchrist is the person to read on this. In culture, it's like the right brain is creative and intuitive and the left brain is math-y and rational. It's not as simple as that. McGilchrist likes to say that the two hemispheres sort of attend to the world in different ways. The left brain is about sort of manipulation. and the right brain is more like big picture. And we know that this is the case.

I mean, McGilchrist's theory is that the reason this occurs is because as an organism, you need to be simultaneously looking out for like prey. You need to be manipulating your environment while looking out for predators at the same time. And there's some evidence to suggest that this is the case. Birds have eyes on either side of their head or lizards, which have eyes on the sides of their head, are really useful because the right eye feeds the left hemisphere and the left eye feeds the right hemisphere. With us, it's complicated because they're on the front.

So with animals on the side, it's much easier. And there's evidence of birds, for example, if they're like building a nest, they will favor using their right eye, even when it makes it more difficult because the left brain is engaged in the manipulation stuff. And likewise, you know, you could put a lizard in a room and put a predator, and it will look at the predator with its left eye. Even if you cover up its left eye, it will still try to look at it with the left eye, right? So there's some evidence to suggest this is the case. And the same kind of thing is going on with us. we've got these two brains and they kind of do different things. And so have you ever come across split brain patients?

This was my favorite thing to discover ever in history is really famous within like brain science, I suppose. The two hemispheres are connected by this tissue called the corpus colossum, this sort of bundle of tissues. There used to be this treatment for extreme cases of epilepsy called a corpus callosotomy, which is where the connection is severed. Epilepsy is like an electrical storm in the brain.

So one way to try to minimize it was literally just to cut the two hemispheres like at their connective tissue. And so people who've had this operation done were known as split brain patients because the hemispheres have been disconnected. They can still communicate slightly through other means, but their main source of communication is inhibited. If you met one of these people, you wouldn't know. They're just perfectly normal.

They'll speak to you like I'm speaking to you now. Everything's totally fine. but in experimental conditions you can prove some really weird things. For example, speech and language of communication is broadly speaking governed by the front left part of your brain, left hemisphere. Remember, the left hemisphere controls like the right hand side of your body, and the right hemisphere controls the left hand side of your body. So with humans, because our eyes are on the front, our right visual field goes to the left brain

and our left visual field goes to the right brain. So in a split brain patient, they look at a screen. You can watch this experiment on you, by the way. They're looking at a screen and on the right hand side of the screen it will flash a word. So it goes to their left hemisphere and it will say umbrella and they'll say umbrella, car, car, chair, chair. Then they'll flash a word on the left hand side of the screen, so just the right hemisphere. And it will say, cowboy hat. And they'll say, I didn't see anything. I didn't see anything. I don't know what you're talking about. And then the experimenter gives them a pencil in their left hand and tells them to draw something and they draw a cowboy hat.

because the right hemisphere saw it and so the left hand can draw it but if you ask them they'll say that they didn't see it because the left hemisphere which controls speech broadly that's a bit of an oversimplification but broadly speaking

didn't see it and so they can't tell you that they saw it so they saw it and they didn't see it at the same time so fascinating right means you've kind of got these two brains that are both doing different things and I think the most significant experiment of this kind

is where and bear in mind these people are agreeing and thankfully so, they've already been through a traumatic experience, and now they're agreeing to do these experiments. They're waiting instructions, right? So you can flash an instruction to the right hemisphere of the brain. The instruction will say something like, get up and walk over to the window.

So the patient stands up, and they walk over to the window. And then the instructor says, why did you just do that? And do you know what they say? It would be weird enough if they said, I don't know, right? But they don't. They make something up, and they believe it. It's called confabulation, right?

Like they say something like, oh, I was getting a bit warm and I just wanted some fresh air. We know that's not why they did it. But their left brain has convinced them that that is why they did it. Now, the reason I'm talking about all of this is because this has given rise to the idea that the left brain is the so-called interpreter. That the right brain kind of intuitively does stuff. And then the left brain retrospectively sort of rationalizes and justifies that behavior. In split brain patients, you can prove it experimentally. But the idea is that in healthy brains, you couldn't prove it, but the same thing might be going on.

So you know when you see someone who, like, they're arguing with a taxi driver and you're like, why are you shouting at that guy? And they're like, because, you know, he didn't give me my change. And you're like, well, actually the reason you're shouting at him is because your dog died yesterday. That's the real reason that you're shouting at him. Like, we know that this kind of thing happens all the time. But I think it happens, like, literally all the time. I think, like, so much of our decision making, we just intuitively move throughout the world. And then our left brain interprets what we've done and rationalizes it after the first.

fact. And I think that so much of our philosophizing is like this is very like left brain dominant. And Ian McGilchrist says that one of the problems that we face as a sort of society is that we've become too left brain dominant in our thinking. Everything is sort of hyper rationalized and discreet, sort of abstracted, and none of it is intuitive, none of it is flux, none of it is continuous, but that is the nature of reality. So I'maulchrist's first book was called the master and his emissary. The master and his emissary. And the idea is that the right brain does stuff and the left brain is the emissary, but there's some kind of myth or story where an emissary thinks that he can do the job of the master. So he kills the master and then ends up doing a

terrible job. And he kind of thinks that's what's happened with our left brain. So the reason that I brought that up is because when you asked like, how do you sort of navigate the world, not having a certain philosophy, I think we all navigate the world extremely intuitively. And that when we come up with reasons and explanations for our behaviors, a lot of the time those are like post hoc rationalizations without us even realizing it. It also has profound implications for free will, of course, because we think you know why you performed a particular action, but is that just because your brain is convinced you that that's why you did it, when it's not the real reason. And the very least, whatever the reason is, it's something that the left brain might not

be able to communicate, because it might be a very right brain kind of thing. But yeah, these split brain patients, I mean, I don't know if you agree. I think that it's one of the most significant facts in the world, because also it might interest you, if you're interested in the Indian traditions that we were talking about earlier, like, the concept of the self, right, once you have experimental evidence that an individual self can both see something and not see it at the same time, I think that has profound implications for the idea of the unity of personhood. Like, how many people are there there? If you want to say there's only one person, you have to admit a literal contradiction that it is

both true and false that they saw it, which you can't do. There has to be like a part of them which saw it. At the very least, you have to say part of them saw it and part of and didn't. And immediately, at the very least, what you've done is you said that the self can be split into parts. That's hugely profound. Because if your left brain and your right brain can have independent sort of centres of awareness and yet somehow are also part of this one connective thing, I think that has some profound implications for the fact that I've got a brain and you've got a brain, but there are a great many philosophical traditions who think that we're all sort of part of one great big thing.

It at least opens a door to all kinds of interesting. And it's sort of like when I tell people this, if they haven't heard about split brain patients, they're sort of like, what? Really? I'm like, yeah. Like, this stuff is way more complicated and way more weird than I think a lot of people realize.

Is there anything that we can do to activate our right brain more? That's a question for Ian McGilchrist. But, I mean, I don't know, but I would guess that like tuning in to the way that the right brain is supposed to attend to the world, and read McGilchrist on this, and just try to tune into that part of yourself, to try to recognize that there is a part of reality that consists in that kind of stuff, that escapes the sort of hyper rationalization of left brain ways of thinking. And I think a lot of that comes through. Like, people are said to be a bit more left-brained or a bit

more right-brained, and in culture that tends to manifest as like, if you're right-brained, you like sort of music and art and poetry. Left-handedness was associated with creativity for a long time, although that would be a quite a fun fact. I think that's actually not true. That's not connected in that way. But like culturally we have these sort of associations and I think that they don't give you at a tool, a very good picture of what's actually happening with the brain. But I think it can be a sort of good way of thinking about the kinds of practices and ways of thinking that you might want to engage with to stop being so hyperrational. And also pay attention when you are convinced that you know why you're doing something. Just step back and

and really think about what might be going into it. It's literally what I said at the beginning of this conversation when I said, you know, why are you an atheist? It's because the contingency argument for God's existence is unsound. Or it's because my parents divorced when I was nine. The first of those is a very left-brained answer. The second of those is a very right-brained answer. And so if you're having an argument with your wife,

you know, C.S. Lewis in the screw tape letters, which is a wonderful little novel where there's this like demonic undersecretary, like this sort of a demonic civil service. and this demon has been tasked with a particular human who he's trying to make into an atheist. And one of the instructions that he has is like, when this person has an argument with his wife,

convince him that they're arguing about the dishes when they're not really. Because he's going to come home and he's going to say, his wife's going to say, you didn't do the dishes today, and he's going to go, for goodness sake, I've had a long day at work and she's going to go,

yeah, but you never do the bloody, and he's going to really, you're going to raise your voice at me right now because I didn't do the dishes this morning. Because it's not about the dishes. She's not saying you didn't do the dishes. She's saying, I feel like you don't pull your weight around the house and you don't listen to me and I don't feel heard. Now, this is very sort of like self-helpy type stuff.

You know, you sit on podcast like this and you sort of go like, you know, and like really you need to like listen to your. But like I think very specifically, we are literally becoming convinced that like we know why we are acting and behaving in particular ways when we're not because our left brain is rationalizing things for us. So just take a step back. Think a bit more intuitively about like what's going on in a very, in a very, sort of non-rational, abstracted kind of way. Don't try to think about this individual case and go, okay, let's trace the logic. Just step back and like feel for a minute.

You know, like, reintegrate feeling into your life. That's probably a helpful starting point. Life changes fast and one thing shouldn't. Your storage price. At XYZ storage, lock in your rate for a full year with our industry first locked in pricing promotion. No surprises, no sudden increases, just secure, affordable storage you can count on.

Whether you're storing a little, More law, now's the time to make your move. Visit xyz storage.ca. In 2023, former bachelor star Clayton Eckerd found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle

to prove the truth. You doctored this particular test twice in someone, correct? I doctored the test ones. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their tax dollars were being used for.

Sunlight's the greatest disinfected. They would uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Alesspian. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trap. Laura, Scottsdale Police.

As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news at Maricopa County as Laura Owens has been indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice is served in Arizona. Listen to Love Trapped Podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What if mind control is real?

If you could control the behavior of anybody around you, what kind of life would you have? Can you hypnotically persuade someone to buy a car? When you look at your car, you're going to become overwhelmed with such good feelings. Can you hypnotize someone into sleeping with you? I gave her some suggestions to be sexually aroused. Can you get someone to join your cult? NLP was used on me to access my subconscious. NLP, aka neurolinguistic programming,

is a blend of hypnosis, linguistics, and psychology. Fans say it's like finally getting a user manual for your brain. It's about engineering consciousness. Mind games is the story of NLP. It's crazy cast of disciples, and the fake doctor who invented it at a new age commune and sold it to guys in suits. He stood trial for murder and got acquitted. The biggest mind game of all, NLP, might actually work.

This is wild. Listen to Mind Games on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Alex, thank you so much. What a joy talking to you. I feel like I've totally had my mind expanded today and stretched in so many different directions. Yeah, both sides. I wanted to end with you on what we do on the show called the Final Five, but I've kind of edited it for you because I felt there were a few more questions.

I wanted to sneak in there. So my end of being a Final Ten. These questions have to be answered in one sentence maximum. Sure. Okay. And so Alex O'Connor, these are your Final Ten, only made for you. Brought to you by State Farm. What's the hardest question you've ever asked yourself?

What is consciousness? If you're wrong about everything you believe, which belief would hurt most? that my friends and family love me. Great answer. What do you think is the most dangerous idea people believe without questioning? That we can have certainty about the will

of the creator of the universe and that it's engaged in the peculiarities of human affairs and human political affairs. Is that one sentence? That counts. You've got it all out in one breath. That counts. What do you think people are most afraid to admit about life? That it comes to an end?

I wanted to talk to you about that as a final theme. Why does death feel so unnatural? You've talked about consciousness. What have you learned about death? Well, there are a few answers to that. You said, why does death feel so unnatural? Which is a weird way of putting it. But I think, like... You think it's a weird way? For many people, death is a part of nature. But it's interesting to hear you say unnatural. Because there are philosophical traditions. If you're someone who believes that life exists after death, you'll either believe that because you think that we're going to like heaven and this mortal realm is sort of a purgatory realm of sorts. Or maybe you think that we're all made of consciousness and we're all going to sort of reintegrate into Brahman. Either way, that would mean that our true nature is Brahman, for one of a better term right now, and that the divided physical, biological, selves that we currently inhabit are not our real selves, right?

This is one of the biggest teachings of Advaita Vedanta, is that your self is an illusion. There is one self, the Atlan, it's one self, and that Atman is the same thing as Brahman. There's just one great big thing. Such that the thing that comes to an end when you die is not yourself.

It's, or rather, it's the illusion of yourself, but it's not the self. The self persist. The self is eternal. It's another sort of huge theme of the Hindu's scriptures. And so to hear you describe death as unnatural, it's kind of interesting, because these people would say that's because it's not natural, because your true nature is eternal. The self is eternal. And what you're calling yourself is actually unnatural. And that's the thing that will come to an end.

So some people might answer to that. For me, like, death is terrifying. It can be terrifying for two reasons. One is that you think it's lights off and everything comes to an end. The other is that you think there is something after death and it's bad. Right? People are genuinely terrified of concepts of hell and divine torment for the behaviors that they engage in while they were alive. And a lot of that comes from religious upbringings, in particular doctrines about the nature of hell, which I think are not very biblical, say the least. But there's sort of two flavors of fear there. On the hell stuff, it requires essentially a metaphysical investigation into the nature of God and whether that God would allow such suffering for finite crimes. But with the

lights off kind of thing, which I think more people are kind of freaked out by. You know, some people say, oh, but it's, you know, it's like before I was born, you know, like I was dead for thousands of years before I was born and it never bothered me. That helps some people, because it at least makes you realize that you're not going to experience it, you know, if the lights really go off. And Epicurus famously said, you know, like if, like, when is death bad? It can't be bad now because I'm not dead. And it can't be bad for me when I'm dead because there's no me.

So there's no point at which it can be true. Like Epicurus kind of wants to say If something is true There has to be a time at which it's true That's to be some time at which this fact is true So if the fact is death is bad for me My death is bad for me When is that fact is true?

Can't be true now because I'm not dead Can't be true later because there's no me And people hear that and they go Oh very clever But it doesn't really do much Right? Because again that's a very left brain way of things

I'm very clever but I'm still kind of concerned Right Because of my convictions About the nature of consciousness I'm at least agnostic enough about sort of experiences, by which I mean like experiences with an apostrophe, experiences connection to physicality. I'm agnostic enough about that, that I'm kind of not super worried about the death of my physical body. I have no idea what's going to happen. I do know that if I do die and it all just sort of shuts off, then I won't be around to

worry about it. And I'm only around to worry about it now. But I, you know, I think about it like, like everybody does. But in some way that I can't quite explain, and, you know, I'm just to worry about it. And it's a reason why I wouldn't really talk about it except it sort of hinted it in a situation like this is to say that these investigations into the nature of consciousness and the nature of the brain and sweat brain and stuff in some way I can't quite describe. It just has consoled me a little bit about the fact that one day my physical brain is going to like end. You know, because I don't know if that's quite the same thing as what I am exactly, you know. Well, it is the same thing as what I am as a self and I am worried about the self coming to an end. but I guess one way of thinking about it as well is that like the thing that's scary about death is not the secession of biological like function right you could have a biological machine that has no consciousness it's not worried about death the thing that death really people think about death in terms of the end of life but really death is kind of the end of consciousness that's what people are scared about maybe consciousness has to manifest physically in which case when you die your consciousness sort of ends and that's a bad thing right what's really ending there is not a not your biological makeup, it's not the fact that your leg and your arm start disintegrating, it's the fact that your experience, your unified sense of self, has come to an end.

And one slightly naive approach to this might be to say that, like, I'm not convinced that the self exists, not just because of the sort of weird esoteric, you know, Indian philosophy and stuff, but also because of the split brain stuff. I think all of this kind of stuff points to the idea that the idea of the self, as we commonly understand it, is a bit of an illusion. And it is interesting to me that this is the same kind of truth that is discovered by ancient authors of the Upanishads and like a modern teenager who's never read a word of Sanskrit who takes LSD. And they sort of have these similar, I think that might have something to do with the usage of psychedelics in the formulation of the Vedas. That's a whole other subject with Soma, you know, the mysterious substance that brings all of these profound spiritual truths that are uncannily similar.

to the profound spiritual truths that people find today when they take psychedelic drugs. But one of the foundational things that people discover in this regard is that the self is an illusion. The self does not exist. Even Sam Harris, the new atheist, doesn't believe in the self. And so if death is not just about biological function, it's the cessation of the self. There's something about the fact that I don't think the self exists even now. That gives me some consolation, you know?

If the fear is what happens when the self comes to an end, like the self never came to a beginning. So I don't even know how to answer that question. But I don't say that. It's not going to help people. I was asked about this recently at one of these schools I was talking about as well. Like this kid sort of asked me. And I can always tell sometimes when people ask certain questions, they mean different things.

Like if someone says, should we be afraid of hell? I can tell in their face, they're asking that because they're interested in the philosophy. They want to hear about Epicurus. Or they're asking that because they're scared of death. Somebody asks me, do you think hell is biblical? They're either asking that because they're interested in New Testament studies or because they're staying up at night and afraid of death. and afraid of hell. To the person who's afraid, I find it quite difficult to approach, except to say, take heart that there are philosophical schools available to you that you should

look at at least first before you sort of lose your mind of worry. If I'm not trying to help other people, and I'm just telling you about myself, like, yeah, it opens up this world. But I think it's funny, like, I would encourage people to investigate some of the Indian philosophical traditions, not because there's this kind of idea in like Western thought that there's this sort of spiritual kind of thing over there. It's this kind of like cool, mystical thing and like, oh, there's all these profound things. It's like, actually, they're talking about the same stuff that we're talking about. They're just doing it in a different way that might make things click a little bit. And also talking about the Indian school of philosophy is like talking about

the Western canon of philosophy. The Western canon is like, you know, Kant or maybe John Stuart Mill and people. And it's not like all Westerners are running around in accordance with those principles, right? But I do think it's uncanny that somebody will say to me, I've looked, everywhere I can. I've studied philosophy. I've tried to, I've looked at religious traditions, and I've prayed and I've gone to church, and I still don't have these answers, and I'm still afraid of death, and it's like, okay, hear me out. Have you ever tried reading a word of any kind of non-Western philosophical canon? And if the answer is no, I'm not promising you're going to find it there, but I'm saying there is so much more for you to do before you can confidently have

even a view, I think, on the nature of the self, the nature of death, because most of the our philosophical convictions are so culturally embedded without us realizing it that if you don't step outside of that for a moment, you might just be following a thread that you are not the author of. And so I'd recommend stepping outside of that. And I'm not just saying that. I think people have noticed that over the course of my recent trajectory and the things that I'm talking about. This is just something that I've done. There's a lot to say about that. I spoke to a guy called Thomas Metzinger on my show about this. And so people want to kind of really know what I'm talking about when I say all that. I'd recommend they go and watch that.

that if you're worried about it, also just realize that you're not alone. This is like the foundational question of human existence. I think it's weird not to be worried about it. It's sort of strange to me that people aren't talking about it all the time. We also have a sort of cultural reticence to talk about death. You know, death used to be much more present. Dead bodies in the street, plagues, all this kind of stuff. COVID sort of brought that back into sharp focus for a lot of people. But death is a bit of a taboo. And we don't really like to talk about it in polite society. And I think maybe that's also part of the problem. Yeah. Last three, one sentence. That was more than one sentence. No, no, no, but I asked you to me. Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, no, no, I knew what I was doing. I asked you to.

All right, last three, one sentence. We asked this to every guest who's ever been on the show. What is the best advice you've ever heard or received? Enjoy it. Simple. Well, like, there have been contexts in which I've been so caught up, I remember, like, the first time I did a big cinema podcast shoot where I had, like, a whole camera crew and a big guest and I was really excited about it and I was like reading this guest's books I was looking at criticism I was like obsessive over preparing I was so ready and I spoke to a friend of mine who's in the same industry and I just asked him because he'd done this kind of stuff before and I said like he's got any advice that any last minute advice and he just said enjoy it and I was like

yeah good point we're so we're so often just like not present I think anytime anyone's about to do something important. If someone's about to like play their first gig or they're about to do some big career move that they've been waiting for for a long time, or about to get married or something, and they're sort of so in their head about it and they're like, they're living in the future and then suddenly they're living in the past. It's just, it's, you know, it's the sort of be way of fetar, like, live in the present kind of thing. But specifically, like, enjoy it. Take a moment to look around and be like, yeah, this is, this is cool. Yeah, I love that. Two more questions. we talked about this earlier.

Why have you stopped saying yes to as many debates? They're about ego. Oh, that was your reason too. Interesting. Well, I mean, if you want one sentence, that's what I would say. And it's not always about my ego. It's not always about their ego. It's either the case that you've got one person who just wants to prove a point

and one person who wants to get to truth, in which case the egotistical one is going to probably trounce them and it's going to be a bit unfair. or you've got two people who both are egotistically trying to prove a point, in which case it becomes a mess and a shouting match. If you have two people that everyone has ego, everyone. But if you have two people who recognize that, try to mitigate it, and try to give it a backseat to having a good conversation,

it's kind of just no longer a debate, almost by definition. So no one wants to do that anymore? Well, people do, and I do debate sometimes, but I don't enjoy them. They're also extremely, like, expensive time-wise. because you have to prepare. It's like preparing for an exam. You don't know what's going to come up.

If they score a point that you weren't ready for, it's going to be embarrassing. And that is fun. It's sport. You know, and look, there is nothing wrong with sport. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

It's fun, but you have to know that that's what you're doing. Debates are like boxing matches, you know. They will sometimes tell you who the better boxer is. They might not even tell you who the better boxer is. They'll tell you who box better in that match. But it won't tell you who the better boxer is overall, and it definitely won't tell you who the better boxer is overall.

fighter is. You have no idea what would happen if they met in a bar, no holds barred, and they were able to use intelligence and weapons and call their friends and stuff like that. You have no idea what would happen. Similarly, somebody in a debate, it's like a sparring match. You're going to see who's better at that particular dance, but you have no idea what would happen if you gave them a week to think about your point, consult all their resources and respond to you properly. And so I think that the sweet spot is somewhere in between those. Let's not take a week to respond, but let's not be like snapping back with quips. But having said that, a lot of people are quick to say like, oh, like I don't do debates because they're not about

getting to truth. Like, I do debate sometimes because they're fun. They're fun. And they are interesting. And you do bring up interesting points. And they do become these spectacles. And they do bring people into like thinking about these issues. And that's quite fun. But you have to recognize that that's what you're doing. Such that afterwards, if it goes really well, you go, great. Oh, cool. Oh, cool. But it's like if you win a chess match or something. And like, oh, sweet. Cool. Anyway, let's play again some time, and you might lose next time. That's the attitude you have to have. If you become convinced that you're like, Magnus Carlson because you won one chess match,

even if you are Magnus Carson, like, that only means you're good at chess, you know? Yeah, well said. Fifth and final question, we ask this to every guest has ever been on the show. If you could create one law that everyone in the world had to follow, what would it be? No playing pop music in, like, fancy restaurants. or should they play instead? Anything else, something that's suitable to the environment. I wrote a piece on this recently.

It's my least favorite thing about the world is the fact that it's not just fancy restaurants. It's like you go into like a nice cafe or you go into even like a hotel lobby or something. And you think about how much effort has been put into designing every single aspect. Which chairs have more feng shui, you know, which wallpaper is going to sort of bring about the particular mood that we're trying to. And then they just decide to just, they put zero thought into the music. You know, I've left restaurants before, because if you're going to a restaurant, you know, it's a big deal. You're spending money. It might be, you might not be able to do that very often and you go, maybe you're on a date or something.

The air is polluted with like duelieper. Don't get me wrong. I like do a leaper. I actually do. I really do. But just not there, you know, and it's become such an epidemic. It's like, it's difficult to go, I can't go to Green King pubs because all of them are playing pop. music. And these pubs are like the most, they're beautiful, like these Victorian, like wooden, like ancient, they've got these histories about them on the menus. They're boasting about how like, you know, there's like the, I think it's called the Salisbury, which I wrote about in, in central London, which has this famous history. It's where someone proposed to someone or other. It's got all this stuff and you look at the images and it's this ornate, beautiful chandelier type

stuff. And if I showed you the image and said, now just what music do you imagine is playing? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, somebody walks into a restaurant like that. and says, you know what this really needs? When I went in there, they were playing kids by Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue. And I'm just like, seriously. You know, it really gets me of. So I would probably do that. That's one of my favorite answers.

Alex, thank you so much. Such a treat. Appreciate you, mate. Thanks. That's been fun. If you love this episode, you'll enjoy my interview with Dr. Daniel Ayman on how to change your life by changing your brain. They don't do things until someone's mad at them to get it done. They need stress in order to get stuff done.

And that just makes everybody around them stress. Hello, gorgeous. It's Lala Kent. Host of Untraditionally Lala. My days of filling up cups at Sir may be over, but I'm still loving life in the valley. Life on the other side of the hill is giving grown-up vibes. But over here on my podcast, Untraditionally Lala, I'm still that Lala you either love or love to hate.

It's unruly, it's unruly, it's unafraid, it's untraditionally Lola. Listen to Untraditionally Lala on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the astrology of the current grid, the story of the sports most consequential driver strike, and plenty of other mishapsed scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent,

gumster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Stephanie Young, host of Love Trapped, the story of former Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd, caught in a pregnancy hoax. You doctored this particular test twice in so-ins, correct? I doctored the test ones. As the season continues, Laura, Scottsdale Police. Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Breaking news at Americopa County as Laura Owens has been indicted.

on fraud charges. Open your free IHeart radio app. Search Love Trapped and start listening now. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.