With Audible, there's more to imagine when you listen. Whether you listen to stories, motivation, expert advice, any genre you love, you can be inspired to imagine new worlds, new possibilities, new ways of thinking. And Audible makes it easy to be inspired and entertained as a part of your everyday routine, without needing to set aside extra time. As an Audible member, you choose one title a month to keep from their ever-growing catalog. Be inspired to explore your inner creativity with Viola Davis' memoir Finding Me. Find what peaks your imagination with Audible. New members can try Audible free for 30 days. Visit audible.com/imagine or text-imagine to 500-500. That's audible.com/imagine or text-imagine to 500-500. People are universally feeling disenfranchised and disillusioned, and at the same time politics is taken on a religious fervor for us. Hello, and welcome to Philosophy for Our Times, bringing you the world's leading thinkers on today's biggest ideas. My name's Dan, and I'm joined again today by Alan. Hello, it's great to be back. For the next few weeks, we're going to go on a little quest for meaning. It is often said that with modernity, the contemporary life has come a lot in terms of meaning and of our place in the world. How true is it, and what do today's leading thinkers think? Over the next few weeks, we will turn precisely to them, so three different thinkers from three different disciplines to see if they have any answers for meaning and where to find it. Today, we have award-winning Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Toronto, John Vervake, with his proposed solution to the meaning crisis of flicting us in this moment. John was an early proponent of the importance of mindfulness and of its inclusion in university programs. He also teaches courses on Buddhist psychology and emphasizes the importance of wisdom and embodied consciousness. That sounds really interesting. I remember this patch just talked from last year's London Festival, but more about that at the end. Let's hand over to John. So, the title is a little bit misleading because I wanted to really work at trying to introduce what the crisis is, in case some of you are unfamiliar with my work, and then just at the very end, point to how we should try and respond to it. So, I'm going to start with sort of, I guess, distressing news. So, especially in the United States, but around the world, it's more and more the case that people are living by themselves. That they're living alone, that they're not fundamentally woven into any kind of extended family. And as Eberstadt showed in her book, "How the West Really Lost God," great title for a book. This has profound consequences. Her point is this tending to live alone and secularization seem to go hand in hand. I'm not confident about her particular causal story, but the fact that these two are interrelated seems to be very well made. And so, people's sense of the sacred and how they're related to the depths of things, including the depths of other people seems to be seriously challenged, and that is becoming more and more prevalent. This is related to the consistent finding that across the decade, the number of close friends you have is reliably declining. And I want you to remember that all of this is taking place during a period in which we have the greatest opportunity to socially connect. And yet we're in decline. Loneliness, of course, is on the rise. People are talking about a loneliness epidemic. The UK has famously set up a Ministry of Loneliness, which sounds like something George Orwell would have written about. And so, there's a lot happening. There was a survey in the UK. I'm trying to put a lot of UK stuff in, as you can see. The trick is always appeal to the narcissism of your audience. Okay, so 2019, this was a national survey. 80% of people feel their lives are meaningless. 43% attribute it to financial reasons, even though that goes against overwhelming amount of research that once your finances get you out of poverty, finance doesn't contribute very much to meaning. You have to do huge increases in finance to get very small increases in meaning. And of course, there's a lot of famous tropes around this. Now, that's interesting, because notice if you put those two facts together, there's a tremendous evidence of lack. But there's also evidence for significant confusion about that lack. What is it that the meaning that is missing? Oh, well, I had more money. And that seems to be very indicative of both a lack and the confusion together, hence the word crisis. Now, if you take a look, 34% of those people said the reason why their lives were meaningless was because of anxiety. Now, here we're at a particular issue. We have to be very careful about that. And I like to invoke the distinction that TILIC invoked between psychological and existential anxiety. And it's unclear in this survey what which is being pointed to, because people often mix the two together. Psychological is you have sort of the distressing symptoms associated with sort of generalized anxiety disorder. Existential anxiety is you're reflecting on sort of the nature of reality and you feel fundamentally disconnected. Both of them are important, though, because they're both distinct from fear. In fear, you have an object towards which you can direct your action. There is a well-defined problem. It might not solve the problem. The tiger will still kill you. But at least it's well-defined. The thing about anxiety is it's not. It doesn't have a focused object, because it generally points to a fundamental sense of disconnection. Anxiety, you feel disconnected from something in an important way. And that is causing you significant distress. The coupling between the agent and the arena of the world is not properly in place for you. That's anxiety. So we've got loneliness and anxiety. And of course, talking about anxiety brings up the United States. Where interestingly, in the place that's supposed to be the epitome of success, Silicon Valley, we have a considerable spike in anxiety, depression, a tendency towards suicide. Now that tendency towards suicide, of course, in the younger generation is that's a much more worldwide phenomena. Of course, there's considerable variation due to socioeconomic factors. But in general, in the West, whatever that means, there's a considerable amount of mental health distress going on. Now, this shows up in-- I talk about the two ends and how they're sort of dancing with each other. These two things that people are commenting a lot on, and sort of epidemic, narcissism, and nihilism. And they're actually just two sides of the same coin, right? Nihilism emphasizes the objective sense of a lack of meaning. And narcissism is the subjective. Well, I am the seller. So I am the-- there's a great whole of meaning, and I am the answer. And of course, we can see how that is central in American politics, the bouncing between nihilism and narcissism. But, of course, the United States is just the rest of the West on speed. And so what we have to do-- we just have to understand that this is indicative of something larger happening. So another phenomena-- and I wrote a book with Christopher Master Pietro and Philip Mysovic about this, about zombies. Zombies have become a prevalent myth. And just when you think they're going away, the last of us comes out, and the zombie myth gets spun up again. Well, why? Well, what we argued in the book-- and please look at the book for the deeper argument-- is that zombies are a mythological expression of the meaning crisis. Because the zombies are unlike other monsters, right? They're not supernatural. They are us, decayed, right? And if you didn't get that in multiple times in the Walking Dead, you get, we are the Walking Dead. The humans say that to each other, just so you know, right? Really clear, right? We-- so they're us, decayed. They're in groups, but they're not communal. They drift. They drift. And this is very easy for me in Canada. Go in the streets of Toronto in February, and people are drifting. There's lots of people, but there's no contact, no communication, right? They drift. They have an insatiable desire to consume. They often want to consume the organ of meaning-making brains. That's a really freaking weird thing, by the way, right? Think about it, right? And then you get the weird thing that you get the zombie walks. People want to enact being zombies. The zombies are us. We are them, and they're the meaning crisis. And then the weird thing is the zombie myth, which is a perversion of the Christian notion of resurrection, where you come back to the renewed life. You come back to the decadent life. It found this other Christian myth, the apocalypse, which is the renewal of the world, and it brought them together in the zombie apocalypse, which is not the resurrection to a renewed world. It's the return to a decadent life into a world that is constantly in decay. Why is this myth so prevalent? Well, because it speaks about us, and therefore speaks to us in a profound way. We tracked in the book, and I'm going to use this term in a technical sense. I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm using it the way Frankfurt did, the rise in the sense of the pervasiveness of bullshit in the society. And people are more-- if you just track how more and more people are invoking the term, referring to it, explaining things in terms of there's so much bullshit. And the thing about bullshit is it's different from lying. The liar depends on your concern for the truth to manipulate your behavior. The bullshit artist tries to get you unconcerned with the truth, so that you're caught up in the mere salience of something. This is how commercials work. Here's a person. They're in a bar. They're gorgeous. There's other gorgeous people around them. They're all happy. There's the alcohol. Go into a bar. Is that what a bar's really like? You know it's not true, but it doesn't matter, because they know that you know that it's not true. They know that you're sort of laughing to yourself. And what happens, you buy the damn alcohol, because it has been made salient to you. You see, and you can't lie to yourself. That doesn't work as a model. We use that as a metaphor. It's not a good metaphor. But what you can do is you can bullshit yourself. You can direct your attention to something, and that makes it more salient, which means it's much more likely to catch your attention, which means-- and then you circle. And you deceive yourself by getting your attention spiraling into something so that you find yourself buying the product, adopting the ideology. And so bullshit and the prevalence of self-deception are interwoven. And of course, they express itself in responses to a meaning crisis with things like what's called "conspiruality," which is the weird integration we have between conspiracy theories and spirituality, a conspiracy theory that is supposed to save you and redeem the world. And of course, COVID made all of this worse. One of the weird moments I've had in my career was, at the beginning of COVID, I predicted two things-- massive sort of increase in mental health issues. And because of the increased domicide killing of a sense of home in COVID, we would get "conspiruality ramping up." And that's what happened. So I was happy as a scientist because you make a prediction, yay, and then as a human being, it's like, oh no. And so all of this, of course, is spiraling. We have the weird political paradox of our times. People are universally feeling disenfranchised and disillusioned. And at the same time, politics has taken on a religious fervor for us, in which it is pursued with a kind of religious intensity. They're turning over their identities and meaning to political ideologies. And so this weird paradox, this weird paradox. We have the virtual exodus that people in general are preferring being in the virtual world rather than the real world. And so the WHO has recently admitted that there's such a thing as video game addiction. It's now official. I mean, after COVID, the standing of the WHO is like, hmm, even anyways. But I think that was a legitimate thing they did. Think about what's in-- let's take a video game. What's in a video game? What are they finding in the video game that is obviously lacking in the real world, such that they prefer the video world? Well, think about a video game. There's a clear narrative order. There's a story, and you play a pivotal role in realizing the purpose of that story. There's a neurological order. There are rules, and they make sense of that world. And if you follow the rules, the world unfolds according to those rules. So there's a narrative order. There's a neurological order, and there's a normative order. You know how to scale up, how to actually transcend. You level up in the game. And then within the game, you get into the flow state. You get into a state of intense at one mint. So what people are finding is at one mint within the three orders-- a narrative, neurological, and normative order. That's what they find lacking in the real world. Now, these orders, of course, are at the level of our world view, how we structure our fundamental orientation to reality. I'll come back to that. Now, there aren't just negative symptoms of the meaning crisis. And some of you might know-- I've done a video with Christopher Mastipiatron on this, and we published this in a couple of places. There are also positive symptoms of it. There's what's being called now the mindfulness revolution. And I was part of that. I was one of the first people at the university-- maybe the first person at the University of Toronto where I work to talk about mindfulness in an academic setting. And when I first had to do it, it was like, I'm going to talk to you about mindfulness. And there's a Buddhist, and don't worry, don't worry. And now it's just like, there's an academic journal. I can talk about it, et cetera. That's fine. And I publish increasingly on mindfulness. I'm critical, by the way, of how the West is taking up mindfulness. It's interesting because the mindfulness revolution and how I think mindfulness is being twisted are both indicative of the meaning crisis. Because what's happening is we're getting a reduction of this rich ecology of practices around mindfulness to a single thing. Sitted meditation and the function of sitted meditation is to make you contented with being a corporate drone. That's the point of mindfulness. And the Buddha would look at this and going, whoof. So this is mixed mindfulness, as it's been called. And it's such a mixed phenomena, because the seeking of wisdom in mindfulness is part of a positive response to the meaning crisis. But the perversion is also part of the effect of the meaning crisis. We have stoicism as a revival. Get this, a Hellenistic philosophy religion that was imported into the Roman Empire. Do you know there are now more stoics alive than there were ever alive in the Roman Empire? [LAUGHTER] Like, well, what's going on there? What's going on there? Of course, we've had the longstanding influence of the Asiatic philosophy religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta. We have the psychedelic renaissance, which I also participate and do work on. We're just talking to my good friend, Ali Biner. He's got his book out, The Big Picture. Some of you know, he was-- you know, with DMT. It doesn't last very long, but he was in a controlled experiment with IV. So you could be continuously, repeatedly, and pretty cool. [LAUGHTER] And so what's going on there is people encounter what people like Yeiden and others, researchers like Yeiden and myself, called the really real. This was really real, and that's problematic, because a lot of the specific phenomenology of these things is probably not really real. Like when the hyperspace elves tell you that you should give up your day job, maybe not. Right? But that sense of-- I call it ontonormativity. Onto-- being, normativity. So when people can counter this, it's not just a realization. It's also a sense of being called, and Yeiden's done work on that, too. So people feel called to transform their lives so they can have more continual contact, being conformity with that ontonormativity. They want to be much more in touch. Notice the metaphors, the contact metaphor. They want to be in touch with this ontonormativity. They change their lives, and Yeiden's got some research showing that, by and large, by several objective measures, their lives get better. And notice that that is independent of this particular metaphysical content, because that varies like crazy. People go into this and say, now I know there's a god, or they go in this and go, now I know there's no god, right? But there is something going on there. There is something going on there. So what is going on there? What is this meaning that we're talking about? Well, it's a metaphor. It's something like this. There's something like the way a sentence hangs together is coherent and connects the world to you with the possibility of truth, right? Of course, philosophers will argue about all of that, but that's the basic part of the metaphor. And then Susan Wolf wrote an excellent book on this, Meaning of Life and Why It Matters. And what she says is, first of all, she makes very clear arguments that meaning in life is not reducible to morality, which is kind of a project that we're trying to try right now as a culture. And given a lot of the psychological research and philosophical argument, I predict that will fail. You can't get meaning in life by just having a well-organized moral code that you follow. That doesn't mean your life can be independent of a moral code. We're talking about reduced ability. We're not talking about independence. Just please remember that. It's also not reducible to environmental mastery, your ability to get success in the world. We all know the tropes of people who are amazingly successful in their life are empty and meaningless in the movie of the week. And there's truth to that. The one that you might not know, for me, is the most scientifically interesting, is that meaning in life is not reducible to subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is that sense of, my life is good, I'm happy with my life, I'm contented with my life. And our culture confuses that with wealth, and wealth is only initially predictive of subjective well-being, and then it confuses subjective well-being with meaning in life, and so we're kind of screwed, right? Because I can point to prototypical instances in which meaning in life and subjective well-being come apart. The most powerful one is have a kid. Every important measure of subjective well-being collapses when you're having a kid. Because you're in a shipwreck, you're wet all the time, there's alarm bells going off, you're hungry, you're not sleeping, the person you thought you loved the most hate you, right? You're sick all the time, your finances are reduced. Every time you have a child, you actually reduce your overall longevity. So why would you do it? When you ask people they do it, because it makes their lives more meaningful. Meaning in life, up, subjective well-being down. Again, I'm not claiming they're completely independent, I'm claiming you can't reduce one to the other. I've said that twice, so if you missed a tribute, you're just evil. So think about what that is with a child. They want to be connected to something that has a reality, and an existence, and a value beyond their own egocentric concerns, if they are good parents. That's an important if, but if they are. Now this is all connected to independent lines of research, which shouldn't be independent. Psychology may have heard this, is suffering a replication crisis, many of the social sciences is. By the way, cognitive psychology, the part that overlaps with cognitive science, is not going through a replication crisis, because it has rich theoretical debate and a lot of good experimental competition, and it pursues synoptic integration, rather than just incentivizing innovation, which is very problematic for psychology. All that being said, that was a little bit of a rant, rant over her back here. So there's a whole other body of work around sense of belonging, which I think is just another way of talking about meaning in life. And by the way, if you don't have a sense of belonging, you're in trouble. You're in trouble financially, socioeconomically, cultural, psychological, like you're just in trouble if you don't have a sense of belonging. You're really degrading across multiple dimensions. So I recommend taking a look at-- she's got a little finding thin book, which is good for popular access without being stupid, just called belonging. And she reviews some of that literature. Now, what's happening in belonging is-- I would argue, I've been arguing this year-- is it's cultural amplification of something that is continuous with biology. So we used to think that the environment shaped the organism. That's sort of a standard interpretation of Darwinian patterns. We're now coming, I would argue, and one of the best philosophers of biology is at the University of Toronto, because everything important is actually happening in Toronto. And so it's this idea around niche construction. The idea is, yes, the animal's being shaped by the environment, but the animal's also shaping the environment. So you have to actually talk about the entire dynamic local system. And then what I want you to consider, I can't give you the argument for it now, so I'm just making a gestural argument, is culture is that on methamphetamine. It's speeding this up and accelerating it. Because think of what's happening. Culture is massively shaping you to fit this environment and shaping this environment to fit you. Other animals would come in here and go, what the hell is going on? Look at how artificial this is. Other than the atmosphere in our naked bodies, everything else is technology and cultural shaping. So belonging is when there's been a co-shaping of organism and environment, so they fit well, so they belong together. That's belonging. And of course, that carries into a sense of home. Another way of understanding the meaning crisis is-- we argued this in the zombie book, and I've argued it in Awakening from the meaning crisis. My video series is people are experiencing cultural domicide. People have shelter, but they don't feel at home. They don't feel at home. One strategy is nihilism. Well, there's just no home to be found. The other is, I'll retreat as much as I can, and I'll find somewhere inside myself alone the kernel of home. So what are the four dimensions of meaning in life? Just think about these quickly. Purpose, which is our culture tries to identify meaning in life with purpose. Purpose is only one of four dimensions. It's not the most important. There's the idea of an overarching goal. Coherence, that's that nomological structure. Things have to make sense for you. Significance, you have to be connected to something that's really real. And the one that's most important, mattering, connectedness. This is how you determine if you have a mattering, which I think is the core of meaning in life. In fact, I think the other three point to the fourth mattering. Ask yourself these two questions. What do I want to exist even if I don't? And how much of a difference do I make to it? If you've got good answers to both of those, you have meaning in life. If you have only the first, but not the second, you're seeking. If you have neither, you're in trouble. Think about that purpose, coherence. Purpose is a goal. Coherence is it's well-formulated. My situation, my problem is well-structured. Significance and mattering, I'm connected to what's really relevant in this situation. We're talking about really good problem-solving structures, really good problem formulation. But not at the level of individual problems, like how to give a good talk or how to deal with your hunger. We're talking about problem-solving at the meta-meaning level, at that level of the worldview that I was talking about earlier, about how the culture is modeling to you, giving you a cognitive grammar of how you should be modeled to fit the world and how the world should be modeled to fit you, right? And I think that level is the level at which we need cultural modeling of how we deal with sort of two meta-problems. And these go to the sort of here's the cultural level, and then the meta-problems are sort of at the primordiality of our cognition, and we need the two properly connected to each other. So here's the meta-level telling us about how the agent and the arena should fit together, and what are the two meta-problems? Well, a meta-problem is any problem that you need to solve. Whenever you're solving a problem, you have to solve these two meta-problems in order to be adaptive, to be a generally intelligent being. The one is, I need to anticipate the world. The farther out I can anticipate the world, in fact, you do this intuitively. The more intelligent you will attribute to an entity. The more purely reactive it is, the less intelligent. You've got the intuitive sense, which is largely correct, that the farther out you can anticipate, the better. And I think the predictive processing framework is doing a lot to bring some clarity, and hopefully some rigor, it's still being worked out, to that notion of anticipation. We can predictably prepare for the world. That's what intelligence does for you. If you can avoid the tiger, it's way better than fighting the tiger. OK, the other, and these two are interlocked, is something you may have heard me talk about once or twice, relevance realization, which I think is one of the fundamental problems. You're facing it right now. There's way too much information to pay attention to. There's way too much information in your long-term memory, and all the possible combinations. It's combinatorially explosive. Look, in a simple chess game, just a number of alternative moves you can consider making, patterns of moves. Just calculate that. That's greater than the number of atomic particles in the universe. So what you'd have to do, it sounds like a Zen Cohen, you're intelligent by ignoring overwhelmingly most of the information. And you zero in on the relevant information. You pay a price for that. I'll come back to that. But that is the power of your ad activity. That is the thing I've tried to figure out, my whole scientific career. It's the thing that we have to actually give AGI. And by the way, the LLMs don't have that for themselves very much. They're relying on us in very many ways to supply that missing relevance realization. That doesn't mean they aren't powerful, by the way. And I won't get into that. There's another great talk. I've got a video essay on that, if you want. OK. I won't go into how I think relevance realization works. You're doing it right now, though, by the way. You have two kinds of attention. And you have task focus. I've got to try and follow this odd person, giving these, making noises come out of his face hole. And somehow, I'm supposed to turn this into ideas. That's task focus. And then you have default mode network. Your mind is wandering. You're thinking about other stuff. And it's like Darwinian evolution. That's variation. And most of that gets killed off. But some of it gets taken into the sensory motor loop. That's like reproduction. And so you're reproducing your sensory motor contact. And you're constantly evolving variation in selection, variation in selection, what you pay attention to. That's how relevance realization works. And it gives you an optimal grip on the world. That's why we had all those contact metaphors. Optimal grip means there's no perfect way to pay attention or size things up, because it depends on what's the task and what is relevant to you. Even when you're looking at an object, do you need the details? Or do you need to pull back and see the whole thing? Above, beside. And by the way, you never see a full object. That's only an imaginal thing. You imagine you see the whole object. You never do. So just publish the paper at the end of 2022, integrating those two together, predictive processing and relevance realization. So read it, because it is the one true thing that will save your soul. OK, so the point I need for this talk is that relevance realization is not called calculation. That you care about this information rather than that information. That is how you are still different from all the computational entities. They don't care about the information. They're processing. They don't care if it's true or false. You do. And you can make them act to what you care about. But they don't care for themselves, OK? And it is commitment. It's caring, and it's commitment. You are committing your precious attention, which is limited, your metabolic resources, which are limited, and your time, which by the way, you should remember, is limited. So it's caring. It's committed connectedness. So I use this word, religio, R-E-L-I-G-I-O, which is probably the etymological origin of religion, because it means connectedness. But it means connectedness in this deep way of care, commitment, connectedness. And here's the proposal that when we're talking about meaning in life and belonging, we're actually talking about religio. That's what it's a metaphor for. So we've got the top level, the agent-arena relationship, and then we have the bottom-up religio. And when it's working, they are in consonant with each other, and people aren't suffering a meaning crisis. When it's not working, they suffer a meaning crisis. The price you pay for the adaptivity of anticipation and relevance realization-- and by the way, the more you anticipate, the more the problem of relevance realization increases-- the price you pay is you're inevitably constantly prone to self-deception. Because when you're anticipating you're expecting and you're projecting, you're throwing, projecting. And when you're framing things, you're misframing them. You know you've misframed when you have a moment of insight, because a moment of insight is a correction of how you've misframed. So I thought she was angry. Turns out she's afraid. And the relevance and salience of everything changes. Insight is your experience of the fact that you were previously self-deceived. OK? So think about this. You have the culture that is supposed to give you an agent arena relationship. We have a scientific worldview that purports to give us explanations of everything, except how we generate the meaning and truth that is needed to be scientists. So the one thing missing from our scientific worldview is us. Fundamentally, epistemologically, ontologically. We're not at home in that world. So, uh-oh, not there. And the place where the Enlightenment told us to go in private, also very problematic, to get what was missing is religion. The legacy religions are breaking down for most people. Now, people aren't finding them faults. They're finding them irrelevant. And that's the important thing to note. At the bottom, we are massively disconnected from that primordial belongingness, that religio. Why? Because we need ecologies of practices, rich systems of practices for addressing the self-deception that I was mentioning, because it's happening at multiple levels in this complex, self-organizing fashion. So one-shot interventions don't work. Just affirm yourself every morning. That's bullshit. You need a complex ecology of practices. You need the eightfold path. You need these complex sets of practices of transformation to ameliorate that. Across cultures and across history, that complex set of practices and ecology of practices, sitting in a community, common unity around this, homeed within a worldview, all of that was called wisdom. Wisdom isn't arcane knowledge. It's about how to overcome foolishness and afford connectedness, and not theoretically, but moment to moment in your life. If we're going to respond to the meaning crisis, we have to renovate the culture so that we have a scientific worldview that properly incorporates us. I think four-ecognitive science is doing that right now. I think that's the mission it has, and I think it's making progress. We need ecologies of practices that are not necessarily bound to the specific religious traditions, because most people now are nuns, N-O-N-E-S's. They don't belong to a particular religious tradition. But that doesn't mean we can just say, oh, well, figure it out on your own. Right. Figure out wisdom on your own. You're opening people up to the worst kind of autodidactic fallacy. Fragmentation, following their own narcissistic impulses, egocentricism, my side bias, doing it all on their own. Yeah, that'll work. We need those two working together, and we need that to be in reciprocal, reconstructive, respectful relation with the philosophy, philosophical traditions, that have taught us about wisdom. Thank you very much. [APPLAUSE] Thanks for listening to Philosophy For Our Times. Make sure to join us for more perspectives on meaning in the contemporary age over the next few weeks. Next week, we will listen to Finnish historian Rob Otis and his thoughts on happiness today. If you are interested in exploring more from John Vravakie, check out some of the links in the description that feature some of his work that we have published on the IAI. If you enjoyed the talk, don't forget to get your tickets for this year's London Festival on the 21st to 22nd of September. Finally, don't forget to subscribe, leave a review on your platform of choice, and visit IAI.tv for hundreds more podcasts, videos, and articles from the world's leading thinkers. We'll see you next week. [MUSIC PLAYING] (upbeat music)
