360 | Marc Berman on the Science of Touching Grass

Modern life has, in many ways, removed us from the environments in which our ancestors lived and adapted. Not only do we spend time looking at screens, but we spend time indoors, or outdoors but in urban spaces. How does this affect how we think and feel? Psychologist Marc Berman is a pioneer of "environmental neuroscience." In his recent book, Nature and the Mind: The Science of How Nature Improves Cognitive, Physical, and Social Well-Being https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Mind-Improves-Cognitive-Well-Being/dp/1668058782, he presents evidence that spending time in nature not only puts us in a better mood, it makes us better thinkers. Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/07/06/360-marc-berman-on-the-science-of-touching-grass/ Support Mindscape on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll. Marc Berman received his Ph. D. in psychology from the University of Michigan. He is currently Professor of Psychology and Faculty Co-Director of the Chicago Center for Computational Social Science at the University of Chicago. Among his awards is the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contributions. Environmental Neuroscience Lab https://voices.uchicago.edu/bermanlab/ U. Chicago web page https://psychology.uchicago.edu/directory/marc-g-berman Google Scholar publications https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zCT_0OQAAAAJ&hl=en Amazon author page https://www.amazon.com/stores/Marc-G.-Berman/author/B0FHH7CN74?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1783334311&sr=8-1&shoppingPortalEnabled=true&ccs_id=27f214f5-70ba-4383-aa19-ffdbf690c956

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Attention, people. I have an earth-shattering announcement to make. Brace yourself. Are you ready? Are the kids and pets in a secure place? Okay, here goes. It's another ZipRecruiter ad. I know, you could probably write one of these in your sleep. I mean, what don't you already know? Let's see. You know that ZipRecruiter's matching technology finds great people fast for all kinds of roles. You also probably know that ZipRecruiter has active qualified candidates who are looking for jobs just like yours. But did you know that these qualified candidates can tell you why they're perfect for your role? So you meet them sooner? Aha! You probably didn't know that, because that's a new feature. So hey, it pays to listen. Speaking of which, right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com/zip. And yes, I know you know that four out of five employers

• 1:15Speaker 01

  who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. I mean, that's in every ad. Anyway, go to ziprecruiter.com/zip to try it for free. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/zip.

• 1:27Speaker 02

  ZipRecruiter.

• 1:30Sean Carroll?

  Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. Have you been told by one of the kids today to go touch grass? Or are you a kid today who has told people to go touch grass? I get the impression, I do not pretend, to be up on the lingo used by the youths of the world today. But in certain circles, you know, if you're having a conversation or interacting, usually online, and someone is trying to point out that maybe you've become a little unmoored, or unhinged, or unrelated to the real world, maybe it's time for you to get off the computer.

• 2:10Sean Carroll?

  Go wander outside in nature, look at a tree, touch the grass, get reconnected to the natural world around you to maybe find your bearings a little bit. And the good news is, there is science to back up the idea that this would actually be a clever strategy to reconnect yourself to the world. Or maybe even a better way of saying it is, you would become a better thinker, not just someone who is in a better mood, but you can actually use your mental capacities more effectively if you are experiencing nature in some way. At least that's the thesis being put forward in a book that came out last year by today's guest, Mark Berman.

• 2:51Sean Carroll?

  The book is called Nature and the Mind: The Science of How Nature Improves Cognitive, Physical, and Social Well-Being. And as we'll see, Mark has been a pioneer in an idea called environmental neuroscience, trying to judge how the brain functions differently in different contexts. One of those contexts might be literally you're out in nature, just taking a walk or whatever. Another might be you're in your room, in an office, or at home, or in an urban environment, walking around the street. Maybe it's not surprising in retrospect, but our brains seem to function better, some evidence indicates, when we're in that natural environment.

• 3:34Sean Carroll?

  After all, we did evolve in a more natural environment. We didn't have cities 100,000 years ago. And the development of technology and urbanization has been a relatively recent occurrence in human history. So there's something about, and this is the fun part of the conversation, is that we're not exactly sure what it is, but there's something about just looking at natural things, whether it's coastlines, or trees, or whatever, that engages our brain in a way that is restorative rather than draining. And again, it's not just about, you know, you feel good, it puts you in a good mood. You can do better on cognitive tests when you are outside, or even have recently

• 4:20Sean Carroll?

  Been on a walk through the woods. So as Mark wants to stress, we chatted about this after we actually recorded the podcast, it's not against cities. You know, we both live in cities. We love cities. There's something good and important and creative about living in a city in various methods, various measures that you could quantify. But there's also something important. If you want to be at your best, to get some nature in your life, and that might be literally taking a walk in nature, or even something as simple as having a window that looks out at a tree rather than out at a brick wall or out at a street. So I think it's very interesting as a hypothesis, and the evidence for it is very interesting. And as you'll see, we got derailed a couple of

• 5:05Sean Carroll?

  times during the conversation, just because there's interesting physics and information theory and complexity theory that comes in when you try to figure out, why is it that this kind of thing helps the brain? And as an extra treat, I'm beginning to add these extra treats more and more. We did one with Daniel Harlow a few weeks ago, where we talked like physicists at the very end. Here, the extra treat is, at the very end, Mark and I switch roles, and I give Mark a little chance to do an AMA. So he's a fan of the podcast. He's listened to many other episodes. So he asks me questions for a few minutes at the end there. You know, why not? We've already done our work in explaining the science of his research to you. Why not have an informal chit chat? It is a podcast, after all. There

• 5:50Sean Carroll?

  are no rules. And with that philosophy in mind, let's go.

• 6:12Sean Carroll?

  Mark Berman, welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.

• 6:14Speaker 04

  Thanks so much for having me on the podcast, Sean. I'm a huge fan and avid listener.

• 6:19Sean Carroll?

  Oh, great. This should be a wonderful conversation. To start, before we actually get into the specifics of what you're talking about, it reminds me of this fact that is sometimes trotted out. We all live in environments that are just changing very, very rapidly, especially compared to the time scales on which we're evolving as a species. In a very real sense, we are inheriting a genetic legacy that was put together thousands or tens of thousands or millions of years ago. And here we are, I live in a house, right? Like, my genes are not adapted to living in a house. I've tried to build a house around it, et cetera. I mean, how do you think about this?

• 7:01Sean Carroll?

  Is that not even so much a question as an observation I'd like for you to reflect on? Like, you know, how important is it or how dramatic is it that we should be thinking about the differences between what we grew up to be and the environments we're in right now?

• 7:15Speaker 04

  I think it's a great question. I think it's something we have to pay a lot of attention to. And it's kind of ironic in a sense, Sean, that even though we are living in such arbitrary kinds of environments compared to the environments that we evolved in, in some sense, because humans have so much control over the environment, I believe we think we're almost immune to it. And that's something that we've been thinking a lot in my laboratory is that, you know, we aren't immune to the environment and we're a part of the environment. I think people sometimes, you know, get this sort of feeling that humans are kind of distinct from the environment, but no, of course, we're very much part of the natural world. And it's interesting that because we have so much control over the environment, it's

• 7:58Speaker 04

  sort of this bidirectional kind of relationship. So our brains have been shaped by the physical environment. Now our brains are designing the physical environment and that new environment is now also shaping our brains. And like you said, too, it is happening very, very rapidly. I mean, we've only lived in these cubicle boxes, you know, for, you know, hundreds, a few hundreds of years, you know? It's kind of arbitrary and that's something that we think a lot about, that our brains sort of adapted to a very different environment.

• 8:28Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 8:29Speaker 04

  And so now we're kind of in this other kind of environment and, you know, that can have positives and negatives. And, you know, I think in my lab, what we think a lot about is... You know, I don't want to poo poo a lot of architecture or design, but I would say that a lot of modern architecture and design, or how we how we build things that we live in, they haven't been designed to say, okay, let's make people more cooperative, or let's, you know, let's build this environment so people have better working memory capacity or better attention. It's kind of just built, you know, to house people efficiently, move goods efficiently. So I think in my lab, we're started thinking more about this, okay, and just taking a pause and say, okay, you know, we think that this kind of, I would say, quote unquote, artificial environment

• 9:13Speaker 04

  that we kind of live in now is kind of changing our behavior, maybe changing our brains, and we need to think seriously about what that means and maybe what we can do about it or how we might want to change the environment.

• 9:24Sean Carroll?

  I mean, there's some irony there, right? Because we do have much more control over our own environments than we used to, but we don't always use that control for good, or at least we're not always, you know, thinking at the right level about what it would mean to construct the right kind of environment.

• 9:39Speaker 04

  Right, exactly. And I think part of that, too, might be that, I would say, for a lot of years, maybe this would sort of be thought of as being sort of fringey kind of science, that this isn't, you know, the most hardcore rigorous science, in part because it's really hard to do carefully controlled experiments, you know. In an ideal world, I would love to be able to move people to different environments, you know, manipulate different elements in some people's environments, but you can't do that easily. So it's, it takes a lot of hard thinking and you have to sort of triangulate research from a lot of different areas to be able to draw strong conclusions.

• 10:19Sean Carroll?

  So why don't you just tell us sort of the high level message here? And you have a book out that came out last year. So remind us the title of the book and what it's all about.

• 10:29Speaker 04

  Uh, yeah, so the title of the book is called Nature in the Mind, the science of how nature improves cognitive, physical, and social well-being. And the book talks a lot about this field called environmental neuroscience that I kind of helped to develop, which is very interested in the bidirectional relationships between the physical environment and our brains. So again, as I kind of mentioned before, our brains have adapted to the physical environment. We, as humans, have a lot of control over the physical environments, or manipulating the physical environment. And then this environment that we've created is also impacting our brains in this kind of cyclical relationship. So in the book, we, you know, I focus a lot

• 11:13Speaker 04

  in my lab on natural environment. So contrasting people interacting with more natural environments, like you could think about your local park, or, you know, the trees on your tree-lined street. Maybe you go on vacation to a lake. So interacting with those kinds of environments that are sort of been less manipulated by humans compared to interacting with more human-made environments, you know, cities, you know, towns, office spaces, schools, and, you know, we find in my work that when we interact with these more natural spaces,

• 11:54Speaker 04

  that can actually cause changes in our attention and our working memory, that people actually show improvements in their attention and working memory after spending short amounts of time in these more natural environments versus the more urban or built environments.

• 12:08Sean Carroll?

  And I think it's important to distinguish here because lots of people will say, so, yeah, I like spending time in nature. It relaxes me. So it puts me in a good mood. But you're less talking about mood and more about really like cognitive abilities, which is a different kind of claim.

• 12:26Speaker 04

  Yeah, absolutely. So, and

• 12:30Speaker 04

  There had been research done. I wasn't the first person to look to see if interacting with nature had psychological benefits. There had been other studies where they had people interact with more natural environments versus more urban environments, and people reported feeling better. Maybe their mood improved, or maybe they felt like their attention was better, but they didn't use any objective measures of performance. So, we did one of the first studies where we actually measured objectively people's changes in performance after interacting with these different environments. And one of the ways that we measured people's objective performance was with a task called the backwards digit span task. So that's a task where you would hear digits out loud at about one digit per second, and you would

• 13:15Speaker 04

  need to repeat the digits back in backwards order. So you might hear the digits 8, 3, 7, and then you need to repeat it back in backwards order, so 7, 3, 8. And we keep increasing the number of digits up to about nine digits. At around five digits, the task is very challenging.

• 13:33Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 13:34Speaker 04

  So what we did is we gave people this difficult backwards digit span task. Then we had them go for a walk in a more natural environment, or go for a walk in a more urban environment. They came back to the laboratory after the walk, and the walk was about 50, five zero minutes. They come back to the lab, they do this backwards digit span task again, and then they come back to the lab a week later, and they repeat the whole procedure again. If they walked in the natural environment the first week, they walk in the urban environment the second week, or vice versa. So everybody was their own control. It was a within-subject design. And what we found is that when people walked in the natural environment, they showed about a 20% improvement on this backwards digit

• 14:18Speaker 04

  span task. So they improved by like a digit and a half.

• 14:22Speaker 04

  Compared to the urban walk where they really didn't show any significant improvement. And again, a lot of listeners might be saying, well, you know, Mark, because people probably enjoyed the nature walk more, maybe they were more motivated. And it was certainly the case that people liked the nature walk more than the urban walk. We did have mood measurements too, and we saw that yes, mood tended to improve after walking in nature, but we didn't see a strong correlation between the improvements in mood and the improvements in this backwards digit span task. So that's, that's okay. Um, so it wasn't like the people that were just getting happier were the ones that were showing the most improvement in the backwards digit span task. But what I thought was a little bit more interesting is that we had participants walk at different times of the year.

• 15:04Speaker 04

  Some participants walked in June when it was like 80 degrees Fahrenheit. People loved the walk. They said, Mark, I can't believe you're paying me to go for a walk in nature. Healthy mood benefits, healthy, uh, backwards digit span benefits. But we also had people walk in January when it was like 25 degrees Fahrenheit. People said, Mark, I was freezing out there. That was not enjoyable. But the people that walked in January showed the same cognitive benefit, the same improvement on the backwards digit span task as the people that walked in June. So sort of the takeaway message was you don't even have to enjoy the nature walk to get these cognitive benefits. You do obviously have to enjoy the nature walk to get the mood benefits, but you don't have to enjoy the nature walk to get the cognitive benefits.

• 15:45Speaker 04

  And I think that's interesting because that's somewhat counterintuitive that this isn't some kind of hedonic kind of response like, oh, I like eating chocolate and, you know, I eat some chocolate. I feel good. That there's something deeper going on there, uh, in terms of why or how nature might be, uh, improving people's cognitive.

• 16:06Speaker 00

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 16:36Speaker 05

  We all have those house projects we've been avoiding, and cleaning out gutters is usually last on the list. But when heavy rain sends water spilling over and soaks the ground around your foundation, you're gonna wish you tackled it sooner. Don't wait for something like clogged gutters to turn into bigger, more costly home repairs. Let the pros at Leaf Filter handle your gutters for you. With Leaf Filter, you get a free gutter inspection and a no-obligation estimate. Their experts can inspect, clean out, and replace your gutters before installing Leaf Filter. It works by topping your gutters with surgical-grade stainless steel micro mesh that's made to keep common debris out. Plus, every system comes with a lifetime warranty and a no-clog guarantee. Help protect your home today with Leaf Filter,

• 17:20Speaker 05

  America's number-one gutter protection system. Right now, you can get up to 35% off when you go to leaffilter.com/gold. That's up to 35% off at L-E-A-F-filter.com/gold. Restrictions apply. See representative for warranty and promotion details.

• 17:35Speaker 04

  For farmers.

• 17:36Sean Carroll?

  I do have to say that a lot of these psychological tests seem pretty anxiety-inducing. Like, I would feel very bad not being able to say the digits backwards.

• 17:46Speaker 04

  Absolutely, and, you know,

• 17:50Speaker 04

  we try to tell people before, again, this isn't an IQ test, but it's, uh, yeah, it is anxiety-provoking. And then, you know, that could also be part of the phenomenon, too, that if nature is sort of relaxing us a little bit more, maybe you can do, perform better. And somewhat related to that, Sean, we repeated this same experiment, but this time with participants who were diagnosed with clinical depression. And clinical depression often is characterized by what's called, you know, negative rumination, that people kind of repetitively think about negative thoughts and feelings over and over again. And we kind of wondered, we actually had an NIH grant at that time to study people with depression and look for kind of working memory deficits

• 18:36Speaker 04

  for people with depression. And we thought, oh, we had this interesting result with nature. What's this going to look like for people who are suffering from depression? It might be that if you go for a walk alone, maybe that's going to increase rumination. It's going to give you more opportunity to ruminate. So actually there, we took these participants who had been diagnosed with clinical depression. We did the whole same walk in the park procedure that I outlined before, but this time we had people think about a negative thought or memory that was bothering them before they went on the walk. So we were sort of inducing them to ruminate beforehand. And we found even stronger results here. So again, the procedure was all within subjects. You know, participants walked in both nature and urban, but this time we had them ruminate about a negative thought or memory before the walk.

• 19:21Speaker 04

  And they showed even stronger improvements in backward digit span performance after the nature walk relative to the urban walk. And, you know, I know this isn't really a self-help kind of podcast, but now there's actually, you know, in the UK and in Canada, physicians are prescribing walks in nature as sort of a supplemental therapy for people suffering from depression and anxiety. So, you know, again, we're going to dig in, I think, a little more about what mechanisms are going on here. But I think many of your listeners will have this idea that, you know, being in nature is sort of calming. Even if it's not improving your mood, it might be sort of calming to your nervous system.

• 20:03Sean Carroll?

  I have to get, you know, right away, the question on the board, which is, this is an interesting finding in psychology. And we've all been trained that interesting findings in psychology should be looked at with skepticism because there's small sample sizes, they're hard to replicate, et cetera. But, you know, this was a while ago, you've been doing this. So what's the sort of state of the art?

• 20:25Speaker 04

  Yeah, so I'm pretty confident in these findings. And no one has ID'd this effect as being something that's not replicable. So many, many other labs have replicated these effects. You're right, the sample size was small, you know, relatively small. So we had about 40 participants in that study. It was within subjects. So that's like equal to like a sample of like 80 participants between subjects. But yeah, not, not millions of people, not thousands of people. There have been other studies too, outside of the laboratory where... They look at quantifying green space around people's homes and their schools and

• 21:05Speaker 04

  look at kids' working memory performance and how they're doing in school and they find that children that live in neighborhoods that have more green space have better attention and working memory even when you control for things like age, education, and income of their parents. There are some other really interesting studies that were done in public housing projects in Chicago. These are, you know, not desirable places to live.

• 21:33Sean Carroll?

  Not the greenest spaces. I've been there, yeah.

• 21:35Speaker 04

  Not the greenest spaces. In fact, they've demolished many of these facilities. And what's interesting about these facilities is that the families were randomly assigned to different apartments. So it's almost like a controlled experiment. And what these researchers looked at, this is Ming Quo and Bill Sullivan from the University of Illinois, they looked at views out of the window in these public housing projects and also quantifying sort of with, you know, satellite imagery, how much green space was around these public housing projects. And it turns out that the apartments that had the views of nature, people had better attention in those apartments. There was lower reported crime, lower reports

• 22:16Speaker 04

  of aggression, again suggesting that this nature, even if it's modest, could have some salubrious qualities to people's psychological functioning.

• 22:28Sean Carroll?

  Okay, that's good to know. Yeah, I mean, you mentioned the theoretical background, which I did want to get into. You know, I'm a physicist who always loves to say like, experiments are not real until they're confirmed by theory. So there's something that you talk about called the attention restoration theory. Tell us what that is and how it's relevant to your studies.

• 22:49Speaker 04

  Yeah, so this was a theory that was codified by one of my mentors in grad school, Steve Kaplan and his wife Rachel Kaplan, who are environmental psychologists. And one of the main tenets of this theory was sort of that humans have two kinds of attention. So one kind of attention, he called directed attention. Sometimes people call this top-down or endogenous attention. This is the kind of attention where you, as an individual person, are deciding what to pay attention to. So presumably, Sean, you're deciding to pay attention to me, your listeners are deciding to pay attention to what I'm talking about. But it's thought that that kind of attention is fatigable or depletable, that you can only sort of control your attentional focus for a limited amount of time before you become mentally fatigued and then you can't focus anymore.

• 23:34Speaker 04

  And we've all had that sensation that, you know, after a long workday, you know, three o'clock, four o'clock in the afternoon, you might be staring at the computer screen and it's just hard to focus. Or I see this when I'm lecturing. I think I'm a decent lecturer, you know, but the first five minutes of lecture, I see a lot of eyes on me, people nodding along with me. Forty-five minutes into lecture, I see a lot of students kind of tilting their head back. They're kind of dozing off. It's just hard to control your attention. Yeah. So this directed attention ability is really important because it's, you know, it it shows that humans are not just stimulus driven. We can decide what we're going to pay attention to, but we can really only do that for a limited amount of time before we become mentally fatigued and we can't really do it. So when when you can't really control your attention, we call that a directed attention fatigue state.

• 24:18Speaker 04

  That's when we think it's a good time to take a break in nature. That's different from another kind of attention that Steve called involuntary attention. Sometimes this is called bottom up or exogenous attention. And this is the kind of attention that's automatically captured by interesting stimulation in the environment. So bright lights, loud noises, those things automatically capture our attention and we don't really have control over it. And it's thought that this involuntary attention is less susceptible to fatigue or depletion. So you don't often hear people say, oh, I can't look at that beautiful waterfall anymore. It's just too interesting. I'm too tired after a look away. Or, oh, I can't watch this really interesting movie anymore. It's so interesting, I'm just getting really exhausted. I have to shut it off. So the idea with attention restoration theory

• 25:03Speaker 04

  is that if you can find environments that don't place a lot of demands on directed attention, while simultaneously having interesting stimulation to activate the involuntary attention, you could restore or replenish this precious directed attention resource. And it's thought that natural environments is one kind of environment that can do this. It doesn't mean it's the only kind of environment that can do this, but it's one kind of environment that can do this. There's one other thing that I think is important to mention too, which is we think it's important, the kind of stimulation that activates this involuntary attention. So when I look at a beautiful waterfall, it captures my attention, but I can still kind of mind wander and think about other things, looking at that beautiful waterfall. It doesn't capture all of my attentional resources.

• 25:45Speaker 04

  When I'm in Times Square in Manhattan, wow, also super interesting. Lots of stimulation to capture my attention, but it sort of does so in an all-consuming and sort of harsh way. I can't really mind wander or think about other things in Times Square. So we think the kind of stimulation that captures your involuntary attention should be softly fascinating and not harshly fascinating. And we think that's the kind of environment that's going to be able to restore our directed attention abilities.

• 26:13Sean Carroll?

  So the idea that really stands out to me here is you might have thought that attention is a finite resource, like we have a bucket full of attention and we use it up. But you're saying that some ways of paying attention do use it up, but some restore it. Even as we're paying attention, we're still gaining more ability to do so.

• 26:33Speaker 04

  That's right. So I do kind of think of directed attention as a bucket or a bank account that you can kind of cash out or empty, but that this is not a passive process. So it's like engaging another kind of attention that's like, you know, it's like a Goldilocks rule. It's sort of interesting enough that it captures my attention, but not so interesting that it's all-consuming. It kind of sits at this nexus that that, yes, that we think that can actually restore your directed attention. I mean, presumably, sleep would do something similar, but I think often when we're mentally fatigued, we're actually not physically fatigued.

• 27:11Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 27:11Speaker 04

  It's almost like our body is sort of telling us, go do, pay attention to something else, or you have to switch tasks. So that's the kind of fatigue that we're sort of talking about. And as you were saying too, this is sort of like an active process that can kind of restore, restore our attention. And people sometimes ask me, well, Mark, what about sitting in a dark room? And my answer to that is, you know, no, in part for a number of reasons. So one, most people don't like sitting in dark rooms, that they find it boring, or and boredom is fatiguing. And again, it's back to this idea that this isn't just a completely passive process. This isn't just like sleep.

• 27:55Speaker 04

  This is, this is sort of an active process of engaging maybe a different kind of attention, like involuntary attention, or a different kind of attentional process that can actually refill that directed attention bucket.

• 28:09Sean Carroll?

  This might go against everything that you believe in, but for me, I think I do that by like taking a break from work and playing little cheap video games on my iPad. You know, if you find that sweet spot where the game is engrossing enough that you want to play it for a little while, but like not really requiring too much effort and thought and everything, like that can actually re-energize me a little bit. Is that compatible with this or am I just weird?

• 28:36Speaker 04

  I think that that is compatible because again, there's nothing in attention restoration theory that says it has to be nature.

• 28:41Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 28:42Speaker 04

  It only has to meet these criteria of not placing a lot of demands on directed attention and having softly fascinating involuntary or softly fascinating stimulation to activate involuntary attention. So if these little video games do that for you, that's good. However, I would say, you know, the video games that our kids are playing out there are much different and much more engrossing, and I think that's a different kind and that that actually is more harshly fascinating. And, you know, we maybe will get there in this podcast, but you know, a lot of these new technologies, I would say are very harshly fascinating. They're designed to keep your attention and not let go, and they're addictive and most

• 29:24Speaker 04

  addictions are not, you know, really good for cognitive functioning.

• 29:28Sean Carroll?

  Is there a relationship here between this sort of directed and undirected attention versus system one and system two cognition that Condon would talk about?

• 29:37Speaker 04

  Yes, yes, I would say very much so.

• 29:39Sean Carroll?

  So for those who don't know, remind us what that is and how they might be related.

• 29:42Speaker 04

  Yeah, and I sometimes I get this wrong, but I think system one is sort of the sort of more heuristic kind of thinking. The easier kind of thinking in system two is more of the arduous. Kind of thinking, and so if we wanted to map this on here, we would say that involuntary attention is more like system one and directed attention is more like system two.

• 30:07Sean Carroll?

  And an example came to mind when I was reading your stuff. Years ago, when cell phones first became popular, there was this, I don't know, controversy or whatever about driving while you were talking on your cellphone. And there was this thought that, you know, as long as you had a place to put the phone, so you didn't have to actually literally pick it up, it shouldn't matter because you're still driving with your eyes and then your, and your hands and so forth. But I think in fact, that's not true because talking on the phone is depleting your attention. Was that impression that I had correct?

• 30:41Speaker 04

  You have it correct. And now, maybe I'll spend a moment on this because I think it's really, really important. So there's actually this, this idea that, you know, there was this peripheral hypothesis. The problem that talking on a cellphone and driving have to do with actually physically holding the phone and maybe only having one arm to do the driving? Or is it attentional, that it really doesn't have to do with holding the phone? It has to do with where your, where your attention is, is directed. And it turns out, it has nothing to do with holding the phone. And it has everything to do with attention. And one of the examples that I like to give, especially when I'm, when I'm teaching, is, you know, we've kind of all had that sensation, you know, maybe, and it's not good, but driving

• 31:22Speaker 04

  on the highway, and you might not remember what, you know, scenery was around you for the last couple of minutes, driving on the highway.

• 31:31Sean Carroll?

  Yep.

• 31:32Speaker 04

  Because your attention is somewhere else. You might be mind wandering, even though the light from the road and from the environment is all hitting your retina, right? So all those signals are, are getting to the retina, the brain is not attending to it. So that's the difference between what people call as overt attention and covert attention. So where your eyes are moving is, is the overt attention, but covert attention is actually really what, what you're paying attention to internally. And so what's the problem with the cellphone is that Your covert attention is directed to the phone call, which means you're paying less attention to the road, and that's really dangerous. And that's like, too, you know, if you're driving in an unfamiliar place, typically you turn down the radio, right? Because you want all of your attention to be driving.

• 32:17Speaker 04

  And the problem with a cellphone, the person on the other end doesn't know

• 32:20Sean Carroll?

  They don't know.

• 32:20Speaker 04

  What conditions you're in. If you've got a friend in the passenger sheet, you tell them to shut up

• 32:25Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 32:26Speaker 04

  when you're in hard road conditions. But that doesn't happen in a cellphone. So you can see all these examples of, you know, lots of car accidents happening, people talking on a cellphone, even if it's hands-free.

• 32:37Sean Carroll?

  And not to be too grandiose about it, but maybe there's a lesson here for the philosophy of mind and maybe even for AI and its relationship to intelligence and consciousness, namely that we are much more than the surface-level input-output machine, right?

• 32:56Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 32:56Sean Carroll?

  Of, you know, reading and writing or listening and talking. There's just so many layers of things going on simultaneously, all of which do indeed interact with each other and feed into that final output that we have.

• 33:09Speaker 04

  Absolutely. And that's why behaviorism failed in psychology. So, you know, Skinner and Watson, they were frustrated with, you know, late 19th century psychology and maybe, you know, early 20th century psychology that was all about introspectionism, just that we just look within ourselves and report a subjective experience, that would be enough. And they thought, you can't build a science around that. It's non-verifiable. So they went all the way to the other extreme and said, basically, we can explain all behavior and even all human behavior just mapping stimuli to responses. But that turned out to be way, way too simple. There's a lot that's happening in the mind or the brain,

• 33:54Speaker 04

  a lot of processing happening there, and you can't ignore it. So I think now we've kind of settled more in the middle ground to say, you know, there's so much the brain is doing, interpreting these different signals from the environment and then producing outputs, even though it's very difficult to directly measure everything that's going on in the brain.

• 34:15Speaker 06

  The holidays have a way of bringing out old habits. Saying yes to every invitation because you feel guilty saying no, or getting pulled into the same family arguments year after year. But what if this year you gave yourself permission to do things differently? Maybe you skip an event you don't have the energy for, or take a breath instead of reacting to that comment that always gets under your skin. Those small moments can change how you feel and how you show up for the people you love. That's what growing feels like. Growth Therapy makes finding care easier. Find a licensed therapist who fits your needs, book your first session in minutes, and start in as little as two days. Prepare for holiday glimmers instead of holiday stress.

• 34:58Speaker 06

  Visit growtherapy.com/booknow. That's growtherapy.com/booknow. Availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

• 35:07Speaker 00

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 35:38Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, that was my next question, actually, because you talk about environmental neuroscience. How much can we say, oh, like there's different levels of attention or kinds of attention, associate them with different processes or even different parts of our brain?

• 35:54Speaker 04

  Yeah, I mean, I think we can do it. And I do a lot of neuroscience in my lab. What I'm trying to do is merge the environment with the neuroscience together, but it's challenging for a number of reasons. So I don't know how many of your listeners have been in MRI machines, but that's, you know, we do a lot of brain imaging in MRI machines. We call it functional MRI because we basically make a flip book of your brain to see the dynamics. It's such an uncomfortable and arbitrary environment. It's hard to give people a nice nature experience being in the MRI scanner. There is now new technology that we're starting to use now called functional near-infrared

• 36:36Speaker 04

  spectroscopy, which is a little cap that people can wear. It looks kind of like an EEG cap. It shines infrared light into the brain and then it can measure basically blood oxygenation levels in a similar way to MRI. And this is mobile. People can wear this with like a little backpack and we can have them walk in natural environments versus urban environments. And I'm, I'm interested in that. We've started to do that. I think, you know, we know a lot, you know, the fact that we know that people's backwards digit span performance is changing after the walk in nature versus the urban walk. We know something's happening in the brain there. The question there is, okay, so what more do we need to know? Like, does

• 37:18Speaker 04

  it matter? And I think it does, but we have to think a little bit deeply. Like, it's not going to be satisfying if I put people in an MRI scanner and show them nature pictures versus urban pictures. I'll find differences. But what's causing the differences? There's many, many features that differ between the images. The nature images have different fractalness, different entropy, different amounts of curved edges, different color palette. So it's hard to zero in on what's causing the differences. And then, you know, if we find those features, is that the thing that's actually causing the changes in performance? It's not, it's not clear. So I'm still, you know, I'm, I'm very eager to bring more neuroscience in, but

• 38:03Speaker 04

  we, but we have to think hard about it. We can't just do some of these little experiments that, that people might think about, well, just put people in MRI scanners, show them nature pictures versus urban pictures, look at the differences and, you know, bada bing, bada boom, that's going to tell us why nature's restorative. It's, it's going to be more complicated than that.

• 38:19Sean Carroll?

  Well, good. That was exactly, again, where I wanted to lead to next. I mean, what is it about nature versus the urban environment that is more restorative? Because you can think of lots of different things. The colors are different, the shapes are different, the sounds are different, but also, you know, the purpose is different. We have this feeling like when we're in nature, we're there to chill out a little bit. When we're in the city, we're on an errand.

• 38:44Speaker 04

  Right, right.

• 38:45Sean Carroll?

  So what are our thoughts about? What are the salient features there?

• 38:48Speaker 04

  Yeah. So it's, it's a great question. Something we're really thinking a lot about. I'll back up just a little bit, just to say too, that we've also done studies where you can show people just pictures of nature. Or listen to nature sounds versus urban sounds, or watch nature videos versus urban videos, and still get some of these similar changes in backwards digital band performance, which suggests to us that it's something about the perceptual features of nature that might be producing these benefits. So then that kind of gets away from it just being leisure time per se. You know, if you're sitting in a laboratory just looking at nature images and urban images, I guess if you're looking at the nature images, maybe you're thinking about your vacation more often,

• 39:30Speaker 04

  but we think that's less likely and more that there's something about the stimulation there. I will go back to something you said originally about being careful about replication. These effects with the pictures and the sounds and the videos are not as strong. These effects are not as strong as going into real nature. And you know, sometimes you get the effects and sometimes you don't. It's not quite as robust. But the fact that you can get it suggests that there is something about the perceptual qualities of nature that are producing these effects. Okay, so what are those perceptual features? We've started to become really, really interested in ideas of information and compression. So I did have a student, Omid Kardan, and we used to, he was actually an electrical engineer.

• 40:14Speaker 04

  And we would talk a little bit about nature images and urban images. And we wondered, you know, maybe nature images get compressed down into fewer bits than urban images because there is a lot of repeated structure in a natural image compared to an urban image. So then a few years later, my current PhD student, Nakwan Rim, we actually tested this. So we actually took hundreds of images where we had humans rate the images for how natural they thought the images were on a scale of one to seven, with one being not very natural and a seven being very natural. And then we ran a JPEG compression style algorithm on these images.

• 40:57Speaker 04

  So, you know, I'm sure a lot of your listeners know, but just, just to kind of reiterate, you know, what JPEG compression does is you might have an image that's 100 megabytes, but to save room on your computer, on your phone, maybe you can remove a lot of information from that image. So you, you throw away a lot of information. Your eye might not be able to tell that anything has changed, but maybe you've taken this image that's 100 megabytes and now it's down to 10 megabytes. So you've saved so much room on your, your phone or your computer. So we ran these JPEG style algorithms on hundreds of nature and urban images. And we did find that more natural images tend to, tended to get compressed down into

• 41:40Speaker 04

  fewer bits than the urban images, suggesting that, you know, there is more compression, there's more, there's more throwing away of information in nature scenes and urban scenes. And then remember too, this is based, you know, the JPEG compression algorithms were based on human visual perception, right? They work well because they've been tuned to how the human eye sees things.

• 42:08Sean Carroll?

  Actually, I didn't even know that. It's not purely mechanical.

• 42:12Speaker 04

  It's not purely mechanical. Yeah, it's tuned for humans. Yeah, it's tuned for humans. Although we could ask, you know, you had LV Smith here. He probably knows quite a bit more about this than I do. So that's fine. That's interesting. Then we asked this other question, which was, okay, if nature images are sort of easier to process, maybe that might also mean that they're less memorable. And your listeners might be thinking, okay, but being less memorable sounds bad, but we think it might be good if something is not memorable. It might mean that your brain has not exerted a lot of energy to process it.

• 42:54Speaker 04

  So what we wondered too, is are nature images less memorable than urban images? So, so we did an experiment where we show people, you know, hundreds of images that vary in how natural or urban they are. And you see these images and you basically have to respond if you see an image that's repeated, which is a measure of sort of memory. And it turns out that people do not remember the nature images as well. They remember the urban stuff better, which is also kind of consistent. And to bring these things together a bit, we find statistically that part of the reason why nature images are more forgettable is because they're more compressible.

• 43:32Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. So I'm going to wander off the reservation a little bit here and make a suggestion or conjecture.

• 43:38Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 43:38Sean Carroll?

  Because what you're talking about, it sounds like it's right next to what I would have suggested, which is to think about entropy, but to think about it from the information theory perspective, not the physics thermodynamics perspective, right? So Claude Shannon taught us that information comes about because you get a little bit of surprise when you get a message, right? If you just get the same message over and over again, you're not actually getting any information, even though you're getting a lot of symbols. Whereas if you want to convey a lot of information, you invent a code where all of the different symbols are equally unlikely, so that you're learning something from every symbol.

• 44:19Sean Carroll?

  And so you can calculate the entropy of a set of messages. And the bigger it is, the broader it is, the more information it contains. And it sounds like what you're saying is right up next to saying the information input from nature is low entropy. You're sort of not surprised when you see the tree or whatever. You're expecting what to see and you don't need to do a lot of processing. Whereas in the urban environment, you know, maybe you know that there's going to be a street and a sign and whatever, but what sign is it? You actually have to pay attention. And it's that it would be a higher entropy visual input and therefore require more processing.

• 44:59Speaker 04

  Yes, and I think I would agree with you. It is interesting, though, and I can't remember all the details. I know we've run grayscale entropy measurements on these images. And that, if I remember correctly, doesn't show as big of a difference as we would think.

• 45:18Speaker 04

  Now, I don't know why that is. Maybe we have to do something actually with the color, you know, entropy or maybe the different color channels. But yes, Sean, it is, I agree with your conjecture there. Actually, when I was reading your book, The Big Picture, you have a figure in there sort of about this, which I actually took in another way. And I'll explain your figure, then you correct me if I'm wrong. But the figure that you have, you have in one of your chapters, it's "The Universe in a Cup of Coffee," I think is the title of that chapter. And one thing that's always bothered me a little bit is that, you know, the highest entropy image would be basically white noise. Right. Would be the high entropy image. But as a psychologist, neuroscience, we wouldn't think of that as being a very

• 46:02Speaker 04

  complex image per se. Like, it's complex at one level, but it's got, you know, it's just randomness, right? I know exactly what you mean, yes. Okay. So you have a figure in the book where, in the beginning, you know, entropy and complexity are very highly correlated. But then at some point, they deviate. Yeah. Complexity kind of maximizes, and then it starts to decay with increasing entropy, and entropy continues to rise. So this is a long, kind of circuitous route, but I think somehow, I think for an image to be restorative, I think actually it's got to have this kind of right amount of complexity, and maybe not too much entropy. And then, I don't know, too, there's some relationship here, too,

• 46:46Speaker 04

  that I think has to do with ease of processing, which I think later in your chapter, you talk about fractalness. Yeah. When I think about fractalness, so fractalness is sort of like repeated structure at different kinds of scale. So natural images tend to have high fractalness because it's built from the same kind of recursive process. So you can think of a tree, and the tree's structure, if we think of like a maple tree, it's somewhat sort of seen in a maple tree's leaf, the veins of that leaf that also have that same structure. So we kind of say that, you know, looking at the maple tree zoomed in or zoomed out, it's kind of got the same characteristic shape. Yeah. Those kind of natural fractal patterns are ubiquitous in nature.

• 47:31Speaker 04

  They're not very ubiquitous in the urban environment. So you look at a city zoomed in and zoomed out, it looks very, very different than like looking at a forest zoomed in or zoomed out. So there, I think there's some, and we're trying to quantify this, I think there's some ease that the brain has when there is this fractal structure where you can get the gist very quickly of a scene, just maybe looking, you know, in or out, you know what's going on, but in an urban scene, you can't get it as much. So I think that's kind of more where we've been thinking about how to try to quantify these things. So, you know, which I think is somewhat related to compression, but it also might have to do with this fractal

• 48:13Speaker 04

  structure. And it's not, you know, again, I'm not a fractal structure expert, I'm not a fractal geometry expert. It's actually not trivial to actually find the right way to measure this, but that's something else that we've been very, very interested in is saying, okay, well, maybe it's something about this fractal structure of nature that also makes it easier to process, but then maybe you not, you might not remember it as well. Another thing that, oh, sorry, another thing that might be interesting to think about too, is also our language. You know, we don't really have a language of nature like we do for the urban environment. If I go to and see a forest, I might say trees, shrubs, grass. It's not very semantically complex. If I go into a city, you know, I

• 48:57Speaker 04

  might say Volkswagen, Toyota, BMW, Gothic architecture, you know, stop sign, there's just so many more objects and so much more semantic complexity that also might make it harder to process, but maybe also easier to remember.

• 49:12Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, I think this is, I'm gonna, I'm gonna start biting my tongue, just because we should, we should talk offline a little bit, because there's too much to say. But this whole idea that it is relatively straightforward to invent quantitative measures that are small for perfect order and large for perfect disorder, but that's not what you want, right? Like, you want something that actually peaks in between. That's a whole, you know, full employment for complexity theorists to invent different ways to, to do that. Logical depth is one idea that I think is, is very relevant here. So-

• 49:48Speaker 04

  Well, thank you for saying that, because-

• 49:50Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. Exactly. It's a classic problem. But yeah, so it's great that you're suggesting. So if I can rephrase it, see if I got it. I mean, you're suggesting that somehow, you know, just as with the people who are trying to capture the complexity of these strings or these images, if you just do the simplest thing of algorithmic complexity, if you have a very long string of random numbers, that's not, you know, that's high complexity in the sense that the best way to print it out is just to print it out. Right. There's no secret algorithm that saves you room or anything like that. But that's also, you know, not very helpful just to print out the whole thing. And so what you're doing is you're suggesting

• 50:34Sean Carroll?

  that when there is some kind of structure, there's something going on that is interesting, that is more than just perfect order. But there's also structure that the brain can sort of latch on to and therefore not fret too much about every detail separately. Maybe that's our happy place. That's maybe that is what we evolved to do back in the environment we were in before.

• 50:54Speaker 04

  It's possible. And also, you know, Sean, too, it's a little more complicated too, because I think if we showed people perfect statistical fractals, like a Zierpinski triangle.

• 51:04Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 51:05Speaker 04

  I don't think we'd see restoration because that would be too boring.

• 51:09Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 51:09Speaker 04

  In some sense, it's too perfect. And so, you know, you've had Carl Friston on the show and Tom Griffiths, you know, talking about Bayesian models of the brain. And I think, again, there's this nexus where it's like, the brain likes predictability, but maybe not perfect.

• 51:24Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 51:25Speaker 04

  There's something interesting when it's something deviates a little bit, not too much, you know, because it's satisfying when the prediction is right, but having a little bit of jitter around that prediction can be good. And it seems like maybe, you know, I'm speculating here, but it seems like a lot of natural stimulation might kind of have that where it's, you know, you imagine, you know, walking in nature and there's like a curve in the path. You don't know exactly what's behind that curve. And there's something interesting about that that captures attention, attention, we think in this kind of softly fascinating way.

• 52:00Sean Carroll?

  Makes me think that psychology is not finished yet. You don't have the theory of everything right around the corner. There's still a lot of work to be done.

• 52:07Speaker 04

  Absolutely. I get you've had other, you know, Tom just wrote that book, you know, The Laws of Thought. You had another guest on who wrote the book, A Theory for Everyone. No, we don't have it yet. And that's why, you know, I joke with, you know, Luis Betancourt, who's an SFI person, and Andrew, who's an SFI, Fullstock, one of my former students, that I kind of want, I have this desire, can we make psychology more like physics? But it's very challenging. It's very difficult. But it's like a dream of mine to get these kinds of law-like formulas, or even, you know, we don't have concepts like, even defining

• 52:47Speaker 04

  mental energy is not trivial, very complicated. So, you know, we're lacking those kinds of principles that a field like physics has. And then, you know, you can do so much more with, and you can just dream that if in psychology we had that, we could do so much more in psychology and neuroscience. But we're certainly not there yet.

• 53:09Speaker 00

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. This podcast is supported by GoFundMe.

• 53:41Speaker 07

  My name is Veronica. We started our fundraiser for Mariah. She was a close friend in my heart, but she was also family. She was my sister-in-law. She unfortunately passed from a car accident. So it wasn't something that we were prepared for. Shortly after we got the news, I was put in charge of helping with the funeral arrangements and everything. And just looking at the overall cost, it didn't feel right for me to ask the family that's grieving for money. That's what made me go to GoFundMe. And it just became a network of people that were willing to come together to help. GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising

• 54:18Speaker 05

  Platform trusted by over 200 million people.

• 54:21Speaker 07

  You really do miss out on the opportunity to help people if you don't ask. When you actually put your heart, your soul into it and you're like, this is the reason I'm doing it. It helps a lot.

• 54:33Speaker 05

  Start your GoFundMe today at GoFundMe.com. That's GoFundMe.com. GoFundMe.com.

• 54:39Sean Carroll?

  Nevertheless, I'm going to ask you to do one more sort of crazy speculative thing. Because you talk about in the, in the book, I'm sorry, I like look at some papers in your book. So I don't know which is in the book and which is in the papers and whatever. But there are debates in neuroscience communities about criticality in the brain. Neither one. And power law, scale free behavior and things like that. And it all gets very heated in a way that is, it seems a little weird to me as, as an outsider. Because you're, they're fitting curves and arguing about, is it a perfect fit everywhere? Or is it just a pretty good fit in many places? But do you think that there is some, any hay to be made out of whether or not

• 55:19Sean Carroll?

  structures and behaviors in the brain, having similar architectures to what we see when we're out in nature, can play a role in the disrestorative aspect?

• 55:32Speaker 04

  Absolutely. So this is something I'm really, really excited about. So I'll, I'll take us on a little detour.

• 55:41Speaker 04

  So I, I also, you know, I'm a neuroscientist too. And I, I became really, really interested in this idea of like, how do we quantify mental effort or cognitive effort? And with some colleagues of mine, this is when I was a postdoc at the University of Toronto. I was working with this grad student there, Nathan Churchill. And he was doing some interesting things with nonlinear dynamics. And we thought it'd be kind of interesting to apply some of these measures to some of these different data sets that we had in, in the laboratory. And I had mentioned to you this idea of fractalness in space. But you can also think about fractalness in time.

• 56:24Speaker 04

  So you can have like a time series, you know, maybe you're measuring. One voxel in the brain and you're measuring its activity level over time. And you can also sort of try to measure how fractal or scale free that signal is in time. So basically that's sort of asking the question, okay, if you look at the signal at one second, 10 seconds, 60 seconds, two hours, does that signal have sort of the same characteristics? And one of the way when we talk about same characteristics here is sort of converting that signal into the frequency domain and looking at its power spectra. And it's thought that signals that show a power that's proportional to one over frequency,

• 57:07Speaker 04

  this one over F kind of shape, that that sort of maybe suggests sort of a a signal that has this sort of repeated structure.

• 57:19Speaker 04

  And so what we did is, and sort of the perfect thing to get a little bit more in the weeds here.

• 57:28Speaker 04

  It's, you know, power is proportional to one over F to the H. Or H is this thing called the Hurst exponent. And when H equals one, people say, okay, that signal is perfectly fractal in time. So what we did is we basically measured how fractal people's brains were when they were doing different cognitive tasks. So when people were doing a really easy task, or even no task at all, just sitting at rest or doing a very easy task versus a very hard task. We found that the signal when people were doing a very hard task was much less fractal than when they were doing the easy task.

• 58:08Speaker 04

  So it seemed like the brain deviated from this one over F or F to the one power to have a Hurst exponent of one. It deviated from that when you were doing something difficult.

• 58:22Sean Carroll?

  Sorry, when you were doing something difficult?

• 58:23Speaker 04

  Difficult, difficult.

• 58:25Sean Carroll?

  It deviated from that when you were doing something difficult?

• 58:28Speaker 04

  Right, so it's less fractal, like the Hurst exponent instead of being one would be like 0.7 or something like that.

• 58:35Sean Carroll?

  Can, I mean, is it, is it too cheeky to sort of conceptualize that as we're sort of focusing all of our energies?

• 58:41Speaker 04

  Yes, exactly, exactly, yeah. And maybe some frequency dominates, maybe some frequency that's characteristic of whatever task people were doing.

• 58:51Speaker 04

  And then we saw this for other things too, like this is a little bit depressing, but you could have older and younger adults and you've titrated the task that they're both having equal performance. So they're both 80% accuracy on the task. The older adults, their brains are less fractal than the

• 59:08Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, I'm not surprised by that, right.

• 59:10Speaker 04

  than the younger adults. People who are under distress, they've just been told that they are gonna have, they have breast cancer. The brain is less fractal than people who are same age, but don't have that kind of diagnosis. And what's really, really interesting, this is getting a little bit nerdy, FMRI, this is all measured with FMRI, and FMRI is a slow signal, maybe one hertz, one cycle per second. There's also EEG, which is another kind of neuroimaging technology that we have. It's got much, much higher temporal resolution.

• 59:53Speaker 04

  So it can measure things up to like, you know, 50 hertz or 75 hertz even. It's got really bad spatial resolution. So you, you know, something's happening. You don't know exactly where in the brain it's happening. I've got colleagues at UC Chicago, Ed O and Ed Vogel, they use a lot of EEG and they're very interested in using EEG signals to quantify how many things people have in working memory. And how they, what they do that, one of the ways they do that is actually find that alpha power, which is like seven to 12 hertz, that actually tells you how many things people have in working memory. So when alpha

• 1:00:34Speaker 04

  power is lower, there's not much in working memory. As alpha power starts to increase, there's more things in, in working memory. And actually, the direction there might be a little bit off because EEG, they sometimes flip the polarity. So negative sometimes is positive.

• 1:00:51Sean Carroll?

  Oh, okay.

• 1:00:51Speaker 04

  But just, just take it to me that changes in alpha power, track how many items people have in working memory. Okay. One thing that they have that's really interesting is they do these tasks where you're shown squares on the screen, like four squares, and the squares are colored. And they flash it very quick at like 200 milliseconds. And then they flash the screen again, and maybe one of the squares, the color has changed. And you need to report whether a change has occurred or not. The task is much easier to do when you're only looking at one square versus looking at three squares, four squares, six squares. But they've identified that humans really have a working memory capacity of about three items.

• 1:01:35Speaker 04

  You can't really, you can't really, you know, if you show people more than three or four squares, they can't grab anymore. Their performance falls off. So here's what's interesting. So in their task, let's say they show you six items versus three items. In both cases, you can only really remember three items. So it doesn't matter doing three items out of three or three items out of six. Your performance is going to be the same. You can only grab three items. But with our Hearst measure, we can distinguish those two. We can tell if somebody is trying to remember three things out of three or three things out of six.

• 1:02:18Speaker 04

  Because the Hearst exponent, the fractalness of the signal, is actually less fractal trying to remember three things out of six versus three things out of three. So this befuddles them a little bit because it seems like fruitless effort. You can't grab that fourth item, you know? But it seems like people are trying harder. So that's, that's kind of interesting.

• 1:02:41Sean Carroll?

  So sorry, when you, when you say you can tell, you mean by looking at the EEG?

• 1:02:45Speaker 04

  Yes, by looking at the EEG and looking at how fractal the signals. We can distinguish trials when people are trying to remember three things out of three versus as many as they can out of six, but they can only really remember three out of six.

• 1:02:59Sean Carroll?

  There's some deep lesson there. I don't even want to draw out right now. But, but I mean, maybe this is the right place to go to the, maybe not deep lessons, but important lessons. So, okay. It's fun to conjecture and theorize about what's going on in the brain, how to explain it. But there's this still empirical finding that our attention is restored rather than depleted when we're interacting with nature in some way, rather than with an urban environment.

• 1:03:28Sean Carroll?

  What can we do with that? What are the implications of this? Like, psychology matters for human life. So, does this have therapeutic value? Does this have impacts for how we should design our urban environments?

• 1:03:42Speaker 04

  Absolutely. It's got wide-ranging implications. There was another classic study done by Roger Ulrich in the 1980s, where he looked at recovery from gallbladder surgery. And then, in the 80s, gallbladder surgery was not an inpatient surgery. You had to stay, or not, sorry, it wasn't an outpatient surgery. You had to stay at the hospital to recover. And on this single hospital corridor in this hospital in Philadelphia, you know, patients are in different rooms. And some of the rooms have a window to nature, you know, modest nature, like some trees and some grass. Other rooms have like a view of a brick wall, like the hospital kind of folding back around. And what Roger was interested in was looking at recovery time

• 1:04:27Speaker 04

  from gallbladder surgery. And what he found is that patients recovered about a day faster if they had the view of nature out of their hospital window and they used less pain medication compared to the patients that had the view of the brick wall. And again, this was sort of a quasi-experiment, because patients didn't get to pick what room they were in. They were just kind of randomly assigned to whatever room was available. But it had this really, you know, significant impact on physical recovery, which is kind of wild. And I don't think this had to do with air quality. You know, I don't think the patients that had the room with the nature were exercising more or something about it. There was something about the aesthetic of nature

• 1:05:12Speaker 04

  that maybe had these healing qualities. And maybe this was also somewhat mood-related, maybe having the nature elevated mood, which had healing properties. You know, Sean, this is almost, you could do another podcast about this. So, I think there's tons of implications here, tons of things that we can do. But I would say, psychology as a science has not had...

• 1:05:35Speaker 04

  As large of an impact on society as you would want. Economics has, economics, you know, as a social science, has had a really, really profound impact on society, but psychology really hasn't gotten there yet. And I think there's a number of reasons why for that. One is that I think to really make hay in society, you have to talk in terms that people can really grab on to, which I think are economics. It's difficult for me to say now, you know, what does a 20% improvement in backwards digit span mean economically? I don't know. I mean, I think people will be more productive at work, but I don't know how much more productive at work they'll be. They know that kids are going to be more productive at school and have less behavioral

• 1:06:18Speaker 04

  issues if there's more green space around the school. But is it worth it? You know, because these things are not, they're not inexpensive. I mean, they're not so expensive that they're not inexpensive. So I think we need, as a field, we need to really quantify these things more in, in ways that I think a policymaker could really take them and do something with it. Roger's study in the hospital did have impact. People do design hospitals, I think, trying to incorporate more nature into, into hospitals or around hospitals. But I would say, in, in a large part, and this is something we're fighting against, that people view nature as an amenity and not a necessity.

• 1:07:03Speaker 04

  So they say, oh, that's nice if we had enough money, or, you know, oh, that's for rich people, you know, we don't all need to have this. And I think we're trying to make the argument that actually, no, this is kind of a necessity that maybe to achieve human flourishing, to be our best selves, we need to incorporate more of these natural elements into, into our lives. But how much? What kind? You know, I think these are still issues that we, we need to really, really work through and quantify.

• 1:07:31Sean Carroll?

  And also I wonder, going back to like the fractals or whatever, these are, I know, sort of conjectural at the moment, but is it literal nature that is the helpful thing? Or are there just aspects of nature that we could incorporate into office design or apartment design, et cetera, that would get us some of the same benefits?

• 1:07:54Speaker 04

  I think it's sort of a staircase. So I would say like, nothing beats the real nature. And as I said before, when we do the studies with the simulations of nature, the pictures and the sounds, you can get effects, but they're not as strong as the real thing. Windows or views to nature can be good, but it's not quite as good as being out in real nature. Pictures of nature can work, even having fake plants, people have found that can be beneficial. Maybe designing with the textures of nature. So as I said, you know, mimicking patterns of nature without they're actually being nature could have could have benefits too. So it's like, if you can't get out into real nature, can you look at real nature? And if you can't look at real nature, can you bring some real nature

• 1:08:36Speaker 04

  inside? If you can't bring real nature inside, can you look at simulations of nature? So I kind of look at it as a staircase like that. And, you know, I would hope that we're trying to kind of make this be a more serious and important issue that we really have to think about this. And it kind of goes back to the very first thing that we were talking about, which is that humans underestimate how much the physical environment impacts their behavior, impacts their cognition, in part because we have so much control over it. And I think we need to, you know, imagine we took that control and we really designed buildings and cities and towns with schools with this in mind. I think you know, it could

• 1:09:21Speaker 04

  have profound consequences.

• 1:09:23Sean Carroll?

  We're not that far from thinking that we're just brains in vats and, you know, or we could upload ourselves. But I there's, it seems to me, just from talking to random people on the podcast, not completely random, there's all sorts of ways, you know, the whole embodied cognition, the extended cognition theses, like, it's changing very rapidly now with AI, but we're really, you know, there are tendrils of the environment that reach into us and vice versa in crucial ways.

• 1:09:51Speaker 04

  Yeah, absolutely. So I think it's, it's folly to ignore it. And, but it's, again, it's, it's not trivial to, to, to make the case and, you know, to, to really take it seriously. And, you know, I don't want to be.

• 1:10:10Speaker 04

  If somebody really asked me today, okay, so Mark, you know, design this school that will optimize, you know, kids' attention and working memory, I think I would have some ideas, but I would feel a little uncomfortable, you know, because I'm not sure I would know exactly how to do it correctly, you know. I do believe, you know, having more green space around, letting the kids go out and actually use the green space, bringing some green space in, having, you know, natural patterns in the, on the walls or on the floors. I do think all those things would produce benefits. But it'd be hard for me if you said, okay, Mark, you know, here's $20 million, is it worth it to do that versus doing something else? That's where I think I would feel a little bit uncomfortable.

• 1:10:54Speaker 04

  I want to know more to be able to make that decision, you know, where I'd have more confidence. I have confidence it'll work, is it worth that much? That's the part that I don't know yet.

• 1:11:04Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, well, like we said, psychology's not done yet. I think that's the, that's the exciting part of it.

• 1:11:08Speaker 04

  Yes.

• 1:11:09Sean Carroll?

  Okay, I wanted to, you know, we chatted before, at the beginning of the podcast, before we started recording, that you had questions for me, based on previous podcasts and things like that. I wanted to, you know, give you a chance to ask these questions. I think this is the least I could do.

• 1:11:25Speaker 04

  Great, yeah, so I've got a number of them.

• 1:11:29Sean Carroll?

  Go crazy.

• 1:11:30Speaker 04

  You know, okay, I'll, this one might be too similar. Maybe I should have Googled this one beforehand. But when you were talking about many worlds.

• 1:11:38Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:11:40Speaker 04

  You did say that it would, it's silly to think about the amount of energy that many worlds would take up, that that's not a good argument. Could you just explain why, why that is, or why that's a bad argument to think about? Oh, that would just take so much energy?

• 1:11:54Sean Carroll?

  I have really struggled to explain this one. This is a classic question. I get it, it's a very, very good question. But it's, it's one of the very rare questions that if you know what the equations are saying, there is not a question. The equations are just perfectly transparent. And the all, the only question is how to translate it into natural English speak, right? I think the Best I can do is to say that when you say that you're making another universe by, you know, doing a quantum measurement or something, uh, in a sense, and then this is where all the difficulty is hidden, right? Like, what sense is it? But in a very real sense, you're not doubling the size of the universe. You're taking a universe you had before and

• 1:12:38Sean Carroll?

  you're dividing it in two, right? You're slicing it into copies that are almost exactly the same, but not quite the same. And so what happens when you have, you know, yourself, but also the earth and the sun and, you know, maybe you have some dumbbells in the gym that you're gonna lift up and you say, "Well, this dumbbell seems just as heavy as it was, uh, before I made this quantum measurement." The, the point is that both you and the dumbbell and the earth and its gravitational field, they've all been sliced by exactly the same amount, right? They've all been diminished in some sense in the whole wave function of the universe by the same amount. And they, there is less overall energy in the universe now, but there are more

• 1:13:23Sean Carroll?

  universes. But relative to each other, there's the same amount as there always was, right? The earth and the dumbbell and you all have the same relative amounts of energy. So even though the whole universe has half the energy it did, as far as your visible world is concerned, it's completely unnoticed to you because you're embedded inside.

• 1:13:45Speaker 04

  Got it.

• 1:13:45Sean Carroll?

  That's the best I can do.

• 1:13:47Speaker 04

  Okay, great. Um, okay, here's another one. I'm gonna start spitballing a little bit. So I, I've become a little bit, um, it's become a little of a pet project and a huge interest of mine, this concept of free will and, um, and consciousness a bit. And it's kind of interesting to me that it seems like physicists are very easy to dismiss free will, but that consciousness is more mysterious or something, or it has, you know,

• 1:14:17Speaker 04

  Almost more interesting and it's funny to me as a psychologist, I think just the opposite. It's like consciousness is not that interesting to me. It's like, yes, we have, uh, I mean, maybe that's because we're studying people all day long, but it's, uh, you know, it's not, yes, we have this conscious experience, you know, that's not interesting, but the free will bit is a bit more interesting to me because it's, you know, brings up these existential ideas. Well, you know, if we, if we're really not in control and you know, things are just following Schrodinger's equation and we're just going out there, it does, you know, it seems like,

• 1:14:52Speaker 04

  it almost seems like, what's the point? Why would we have a universe like that, that, you know, that's just, you know, following all of, all of Schrodinger's laws like that. And, and I'm, you know, I'm an environmental neuroscientist. I'm very open to the idea that so much of our behavior is determined by other, other factors, you know, that so many things are impacting our decisions. But it's, it's strange. We all have, we all feel this such a strong sensation that we're choosing what we're doing. And it's also interesting too, we don't have this Dr. Strangelove sensation where it's like, I want to do this, but I'm, you know, the, the universe is not letting me do it. It's, it's like astounding if we had no free will and yet somehow

• 1:15:34Speaker 04

  we're always picking or doing the things that's sort of consistent with our desires and our wants. So that's kind of interesting. And then the other thing I'll say is, you know, I do kind of, I think of free will as sort of being this emergent property. So it's not like everything at the quantum level has to fully, you know, I might be saying this wrong. It doesn't have to like fully explain. Maybe that's not the right word. Maybe I think quantum level does fully explain, but you might have this.

• 1:15:59Speaker 04

  I don't know what the right word is, but it's like, okay, maybe I'll just say that everything in the quantum level doesn't have to fully explain this aggregate complex idea. But you had David Krakauer on the podcast who basically said, don't, that emergence that you can't use that as like a get out of jail free card. And just apply it to like everything that you want to be true. Well, it's a complex system. So, so that, that, that sort of bought me though, although it seems to me like a concept like free will or choice or decision-making is a pretty emergent process. And then another thing that, that I've been thinking about this too, is that What is it when we're trying to make a hard decision? Like, again, if if everything was so determined, and we were just this like input-output device,

• 1:16:43Speaker 04

  it would seem like you wouldn't have to do deliberation. Like, the Schröinger equation, it would just solve it, and you wouldn't have this deliberation. But when I'm like deciding, do I want to have, you know, salmon for dinner or spaghetti? And, you know, I'm, why is there this time delay? You know, if if everything was just sort of determined? So that's that's another thing I've been kind of ruminating about a bit.

• 1:17:06Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, I I think that for me, and I don't think that physicists as a group have a take on this, to be perfectly honest.

• 1:17:13Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:17:13Sean Carroll?

  They've trained themselves for many years not to think about questions like free will and consciousness. And there's only a few who've wandered off, you know, and we've lost them. But most of most of them just, they don't want to think about the foundations of quantum mechanics, and they don't want to think about consciousness, and they don't want to think about free will. But for me, there's a very close connection between why I think that I don't understand at the detailed level how to account for free will or consciousness. But I have a strong conviction that whatever that account will be will be 100% physical, right?

• 1:17:49Speaker 04

  I'm in 100%. I'm 100% in agreement with you.

• 1:17:53Sean Carroll?

  Exactly.

• 1:17:53Speaker 04

  I'm 100% in agreement with you.

• 1:17:54Sean Carroll?

  And and I do think that, you know, reluctance to invoke magic aside, they will be emergent because they're not fundamental. Like, nowhere in the standard model are there consciousness and free will.

• 1:18:06Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:18:07Sean Carroll?

  So, you know, that's enough to convince me that that's the framework to work in, even though many, many of the details still have to be worked out.

• 1:18:16Sean Carroll?

  That's why it surprised me when I was talking to Christian List, who did, I thought, a wonderful job of doing a much more detailed examination than I had ever done about what it means to say that free will is emergent, right? Like, what are the ingredients you need? Here's the list. Here's how you sort of connect this wish list to what is going on in the brain or the person or whatever. And then I said, yeah, so it's kind of like consciousness in that way. And he goes, actually, no, I'm not a physicalist about consciousness. And I was like, wait, what? It's the same road that you're walking down. I mean, it's logically possible. Like, you know, he clearly is, like, any good philosopher is going to sometimes.

• 1:18:56Sean Carroll?

  Convince themselves of counterintuitive things because they try to think through things and make them all compatible. They just don't, they don't start with the answer and work backwards. So I thought that was very, that was very interesting, but it didn't change my own view whatsoever. That ultimately it will be explained as an emergent phenomenon and that's just all the work is to connect all the different layers together.

• 1:19:20Speaker 04

  Yep. One thing I do wonder too with this free will element is, is there this conflation between determinism and causality? That I think, you know, there are causes to my choices and stuff like that. I guess that the part that would bother me the most and it's like completely predetermined. That would be the thing that, I don't know, that's the part that maybe, maybe I'm just.

• 1:19:44Sean Carroll?

  There is an old joke, I think is, I think it was John Searle who told the joke, you know, about people who don't believe in free will. And he basically said what, what you said, like when I go to a restaurant, should I just say, when they say, ask me what I want? Should I just say, just give me whatever the universe has determined I'm going to have, right? Like, I don't, I don't have any choice on it. And to me, like, there's not even a very closed door to push against here. I think that it's just confusing two different levels of description. Like at the microscopic level, everything might be determined. Of course, it's not because there's quantum mechanics and that's, you know, constant formula to throw in there. But it's still mechanistic, right?

• 1:20:23Sean Carroll?

  Like even though quantum measurement outcomes are not determined, they're also not created by our willpower or something like that.

• 1:20:31Speaker 04

  Right, right, right.

• 1:20:31Sean Carroll?

  They're just obeying the laws of physics, even though they're deterministic.

• 1:20:35Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:20:35Sean Carroll?

  But the language that we use to describe, you know, people and choices and desires and goals and so forth. That, that's almost unescapable, inescapable. Like, I don't know anyone, I've said this many times, I don't know any hard determinist, anti-free will person who doesn't, as soon as they stop talking about free will, instantly use the ordinary, everyday language of making choices and thinking through and having reasons for making your choices and assigning responsibility for doing bad things, right? So, I mean, it's not that you should deny any of those, you just have to figure out how they're all compatible. And I think that that's doable. I mean, maybe we're determined, but I don't know what the determination is, so who cares? It doesn't matter to me.

• 1:21:21Speaker 04

  Yeah. I just, something tells me that's too simple of a universe, or that's too simple. I don't know. Again, I don't have a good argument. I mean, I've been reading Hofstadter's book too, I Am A Strange Loop, which is kind of interesting too. It's like, yes, the atoms are all, the term is, but then I'm doing stuff which is moving the atoms around. So it's, it's complicated. Again, maybe that doesn't get you to, you know, I think that to the free will that maybe somebody like Penrose wants, you know.

• 1:21:52Sean Carroll?

  But it does, it does get you somewhere, by the way. My colleague, Jenan Ismail, is the world's expert at, at this. She's really explained at a very careful level how not only can we not predict the future because there's too much information in the world. We can't be Laplace's demon because the world is just too big.

• 1:22:10Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:22:10Sean Carroll?

  But also because we're in the universe. And, you know, it's, it's just simple. It's just very easy to come up with ways that you can literally interfere with what's happening. Like, if you modeled the universe and you predicted that one thing would happen, you could then do things to prevent it from happening. And that prevents you from ever completely predicting what's going to happen in the future. I think, to me, it's like, it strikes me as a little bit of a technicality where free will is concerned, because I don't even have all the information. But still, it's, it's yet another reminder that, that we're not Laplace's demon, nor will we ever be.

• 1:22:46Speaker 04

  Right. That was Jen Ismail?

• 1:22:47Sean Carroll?

  Yes.

• 1:22:48Speaker 04

  Yeah. Okay. I think Andrew's talked to her too.

• 1:22:50Sean Carroll?

  Jenan, yeah.

• 1:22:51Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:22:58Speaker 04

  Right. But then a guy like Penrose wants to say, no, the brain's a quantum computer. So it's, it's changing. Yeah. So I don't know if I quite understand exactly what he said, but it's, it's, it's, it's changing the fundamental level. So then he's saying Schrodinger's equation cannot just tell me how my brain activity is going to unfold because it's, it's manipulating.

• 1:23:23Sean Carroll?

  That's right. I mean, Penrose, it's interesting to me because what Penrose actually says is sort of interesting and completely unconvincing to me.

• 1:23:32Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:23:33Sean Carroll?

  But also.

• 1:23:35Sean Carroll?

  People, including, I think, Penrose, relate it to consciousness. But it it kind of doesn't even relate to consciousness. It's really just about how the brain works.

• 1:23:45Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:23:45Sean Carroll?

  And it's still, you know, doesn't help you if you're concerned with the hard problem of consciousness. Like, what is it like to have these internal experiences?

• 1:23:55Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:23:55Sean Carroll?

  And whether a certain quantum effect is happening in your brain, I don't see how that helps with that at all. Penrose is concerned with cognition. He thinks that human beings have the ability to reach conclusions that computers don't.

• 1:24:09Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:24:10Sean Carroll?

  And that's where he gets quantum mechanics into the game, et cetera. And none of that has to do with consciousness, as far as I can tell.

• 1:24:17Speaker 04

  I see.

• 1:24:18Sean Carroll?

  So I'm both unconvinced by it and pretty convinced that it doesn't relate to the problem that people relate to.

• 1:24:23Speaker 04

  Got it, got it, got it. So Penrose would say you couldn't have an AI that would become conscious or something like that. There's something.

• 1:24:30Sean Carroll?

  I think that's right.

• 1:24:31Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:24:32Sean Carroll?

  I'm actually, I mean, certainly, um, he would say it's harder than you think. Yeah, I actually have never asked him exactly that question, but.

• 1:24:40Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:24:41Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:24:41Speaker 04

  Whereas I think that's totally on the table.

• 1:24:44Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, well, I think it's on the table, but like, one of the, so one of the disagreements that someone like me has with Penrose is he he really puts a lot of emphasis on Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

• 1:24:55Speaker 04

  Yes, that's right.

• 1:24:56Sean Carroll?

  So Gödel comes along and says, if I have a sufficiently powerful formal system, roughly speaking, if the system is itself internally consistent, which, by the way, I can never prove that it's internally consistent, but if it is.

• 1:25:12Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:25:12Sean Carroll?

  Then there will always be statements that are unprovable but true in that system. I mean, basically, statements that are analogous to, I cannot be proven in this system, right?

• 1:25:23Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:25:23Sean Carroll?

  So it's true, but it's unprovable. And so Penrose says, uh, therefore, there are truths that cannot be reached by calculation or computation. And the response to that is, well, wait a minute, that assumes that you knew that the system was internally consistent. And well, Penrose says, yes, but I do know that. And and the rest of us are like, how do you know that? You know, like, and how do you know that you're working with it anyway? In a certain set of assumptions about Turing machines and things like that. So I think that he's just taking a little bit too literally. The rules of mathematics and logic and applying them to the brain and therefore

• 1:26:06Sean Carroll?

  reaching very far sweeping conclusions about how the brain must be working.

• 1:26:10Speaker 04

  Right. Got it. So then, yeah, can you, Sean, tell me a little bit more about, so if consciousness and free will is emergent property, does that mean that the quantum level can fully explain it or what, what, or can't fully explain it?

• 1:26:28Sean Carroll?

  Well, sadly, the word explain is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, right? I think is consistent with is the best you can say. So philosophers invented the word supervenience to handle this question because.

• 1:26:45Speaker 04

  Oh, yeah, you're using that a lot with Christian, I think.

• 1:26:48Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, so supervenience comes, comes up. It's actually fallen out of favor a little bit. They've moved on to grounding and other, other things. That's okay. There's fads in philosophy, just like every other field of endeavor. But the idea is, look, I want to believe, let's say I want to believe that there's a sort of lower level microscopic description and there's a higher level emergent description. And people will argue till they're blue in the face about can you derive the higher level description from the lower level one? And some people will say, well, there's certain cases where I certainly can, and therefore the ones where I can't, I just haven't worked hard enough. I haven't been clever enough yet. Other people will say there are cases where even in principle, I couldn't

• 1:27:31Sean Carroll?

  derive it, no matter how hard I tried, but it is nevertheless there. And it's hard to prove that you can't derive something. That's a hard claim to make. But so the idea of supervenience was like, even if I can't derive the relationship between the higher level and the lower level, I can still specify what it means for them to be compatible, which is that I can't imagine two different situations at the higher level, which are the same situation at the lower level.

• 1:28:01Sean Carroll?

  Supervenience is I can't change the higher without also having a difference at the lower level. Like even if I don't know exactly what the relationship is, there's that strong of a relationship. And so I think that something like that is true for quantum mechanics and the world of our everyday experience, that I don't know how to, I don't know how to explain lots of things. I don't know how to explain how the table in front of me is solid, right? Like, you know, you wouldn't ask me to calculate the boiling point of water. Like, I have friends who can do that, but I can't do it. But it's doable. I'm 100% convinced it's doable. And I think the same thing is true for all of human behavior, too. I have no idea how to do it. No one else has any idea how to do it. I still am convinced it's doable.

• 1:28:45Speaker 04

  Yep. Yep. Yeah. Did you, did you read Sapolsky's book Determined?

• 1:28:51Sean Carroll?

  I did. I had him on the podcast, as you might know. And after I had him on the podcast, it was, I had him on the podcast before the book came out.

• 1:29:01Speaker 04

  Okay.

• 1:29:01Sean Carroll?

  And he actually, you know, emailed me a couple of chapters to read and comment on. And I just thought that they were bad. I mean, the psychology parts of the book are fine. But the philosophy parts are not that good, because he can't wrap his brain around the idea of compatibilism. You know, compatibilism is the idea that determinism at the lower level is compatible with our conception of free will. And he tries to argue against that by saying that the lower level is really deterministic. And everyone else is like, but that, we're compatible with that. Like, that's the whole idea. You can't argue against compatibilism by arguing for determinism. That's just a misunderstanding.

• 1:29:46Speaker 04

  Got it. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. I, there was even some things, when he was talking about the Le Bay, the Le Bay experiments, you know, like, The you could predict what they were going to choose before they choose it. That didn't bother that to me, even that doesn't bother that that you can't negate free will even from that either. Like just consciousness might be delayed, but you had some other process that really did the choosing.

• 1:30:08Sean Carroll?

  Well, also, you know, again, a compatibilist

• 1:30:12Speaker 04

  That's right.

• 1:30:12Sean Carroll?

  Does think that what we call free will and making choices and stuff like that is all a higher level collective behavior that comes out of real, physical things happening in the brain. So an experiment that illuminates what those real, physical things are is in no sense a rejection

• 1:30:33Speaker 04

  Right, right.

• 1:30:34Sean Carroll?

  of the compatibilist point of view.

• 1:30:36Speaker 04

  Right, right. But when you had Christoph Koch on, he is he a dualist?

• 1:30:43Sean Carroll?

  He's certainly a dualist curious, I think, yes. I think he's moved in that direction over the years. Panpsychism, he's very, very comfortable referring to himself as a panpsychist. But I don't, there, there are all these like, you know, splitter kind of distinctions that I can't always keep track of. So you can be a panpsychist without being a dualist. You can be sort of a monist who thinks that the the monism stuff is mind, not physical reality. So like mind comes first and the physical world is just a projection of that in in some way that I fail to quite wrap my own brain around. But so, yeah, I cannot.

• 1:31:25Speaker 04

  Then yeah, how would they explain what was the universe before there were humans?

• 1:31:30Sean Carroll?

  There was mind, but it wasn't human mind. You know, there's a little bit of mind in every particle.

• 1:31:36Speaker 04

  Okay, right, then. Okay, that's the panpsychism. Yeah.

• 1:31:40Sean Carroll?

  Yes.

• 1:31:43Speaker 04

  Yeah, I love how you talk about Copenhagen too, because that always really bothered me about that you need this observer. It just seemed.

• 1:31:51Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, and it's remarkable. It's still the most popular way of thinking about quantum mechanics among physicists. But I do think.

• 1:31:57Speaker 04

  Interesting, my favorite is the Harper reason is many worlds is also hard to digest. Like I didn't understand it, but it's like, it's difficult. And like, how come we can't? You know, again, because my knowledge is too naive, but you think we'd be able to detect some of those other worlds somehow or something, you know?

• 1:32:17Sean Carroll?

  There's, there's, there's good explanations for why we can't, but I think, you know, I'm absolutely sympathetic to people who find many worlds hard to swallow.

• 1:32:25Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 1:32:25Sean Carroll?

  But it's hard to swallow because it's really asking a lot of us sort of metaphysically. Copenhagen is hard to swallow because it's not well-defined. I think that, to me, that's a much more fatal blow than just asking a lot of the listener.

• 1:32:39Speaker 04

  Yeah. Right, right. Could free will have any, or choices have anything that plays into many worlds? Or that'd be kind of crazy?

• 1:32:47Sean Carroll?

  So I, my opinion on this has changed by a tiny, tiny amount in recent months. The short answer is no, because you're not saying in many worlds that you're creating a whole nother world by making a decision. You're saying that a quantum system that was in a superposition becoming entangled with its environment is making another world. I know that, that sounds much less sexy, but that is actually what is, what is going on.

• 1:33:13Speaker 04

  Right.

• 1:33:14Sean Carroll?

  But the other way around could be true. In other words, it's not the decisions branch the universe, but when the universe branches, that could be interpreted to us as making a decision, right? In other words, things happen in our brain and it's possible, it's conceivable, and I honestly don't know the answer, it's conceivable that if you're making a difficult decision, if you truly don't know which way you're going to go, that there ends up being a substantial quantum mechanical probability to go one way or the other. Right? Because there's small quantum fluctuations in your brain, rather than just all averaging out, which is what you might expect, there's part of the brain behavior that is chaotic,

• 1:33:58Sean Carroll?

  right, and which amplifies tiny little fluctuations. And so, maybe, you know, maybe, that's, that's a possibility. And so that would still not say that your decisions are making the universe branch, but it would say that when you make a difficult decision, there is another branch of the wave function of the universe where you made the other one, which I think is an interesting thing to think about.

• 1:34:19Speaker 04

  Right. Yeah.

• 1:34:23Speaker 04

  Super, super interesting.

• 1:34:25Sean Carroll?

  I hope that was, yeah, you know, I'm glad whenever we can all agree that all of these things are interesting and mixed up together and we should all talk about them, even though academia doesn't always encourage us to do that.

• 1:34:36Speaker 04

  No, no, for sure. But Sean, I hope it's okay if I bug you again sometime because I've been thinking a lot about this and I don't have it all wrapped around. I did have a good talk with James Evans. He's like, oh, we should write an article about this. I'm like, we would need somebody like Sean to help us. So.

• 1:34:51Sean Carroll?

  That sounds good to me. You know, where to find me?

• 1:34:55Sean Carroll?

  All right, Mark, I hope everyone buys your book and I hope I'm gonna go outside and touch some grass, you know, just to, you know, follow your advice there. So thanks very much for being on the Mindscape Podcast.

• 1:35:06Speaker 04

  Thanks so much, Sean. It was a pleasure.

• 1:35:33Speaker 02

  When was the last time you felt in control of your business finances? Expenses tracked, invoices sent, taxes ready. That's where Found comes in. Found brings your banking, bookkeeping, invoicing, and taxes together in one simple app. Manage expenses, invoice clients, send payments, and prep for tax time right where you bank. Join the hundreds of thousands who have already streamlined their finances with Found. Open a Found account for free at found.com. That's F-O-U-N-D dot com. Found is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Lead Bank, member FDIC.