Exploring Synesthesia Research and Digital Distractions with Dr. Richard E. Cytowic by Kazuki

Exploring Synesthesia Research and Digital Distractions with Dr. Richard E. Cytowic

Kazuki

Nov 1, 2024 10:39 PM

Summary

(00:10 - 00:32) Dr. Richard Seidwig, a prominent professor of neurology at George Washington University, discusses his groundbreaking work on synesthesia, which he has studied for over 40 years, and how he brought it back to the scientific community despite skepticism.
(01:16 - 06:29) Seidwig highlights his journey in neurology, focusing on higher cortical functions and his early interest in complex cases, like aphasia, revealing the challenges he faced when his interests diverged from traditional neurology.
(09:51 - 17:34) He shares the motivations behind his research into synesthesia, explaining his commitment to exploring unique experiences and how he transformed skepticism about synesthesia into acceptance, further noting that genetic factors contribute significantly to its occurrence.
(20:05 - 27:33) The relationship between synesthesia and memory is discussed, with Seidwig emphasizing that individuals with synesthesia often possess exceptional memory skills, and synesthetic experiences may enhance cognitive abilities and creativity.
(28:10 - 33:19) Transitioning to the topic of digital distractions, Seidwig warns of the impact of smartphones and technology on attention spans and mental well-being, advocating for the importance of quiet and real-world interactions for psychological health.
(35:56 - 38:50) Addressing AI's role in society, he expresses cautious optimism regarding its potential, suggesting that while it can be a valuable tool, critical thinking is essential to assess its utility and accuracy.
(40:44 - 52:53) Seidwig reminisces about his diverse influences and current interests, including gardening and writing, and emphasizes the importance of curiosity and a positive outlook in keeping one engaged and fulfilled in life.

Transcript

Welcome back to GraspTalk. Today we have an amazing speaker, Dr. Richard Seidwig, a distinguished professor of neurology at George Washington University. And he's famous for having discovered synesthesia 40 years ago and brought it back to scientific mainstream in the face of dogmatic skepticism. And he won the Montaigne Medal for his book Wednesday is Indigo Blue. And also he is nominated to Pulitzer Prize in the past.

And so today we'd like to ask him about like, what is synesthesia and also what's happening in the research, and also digital destruction, and also his new upcoming book, Stone Age Brain. So Dr. Richard, thank you for joining today. My pleasure. Thank you for asking me. So first of all, I briefly introduce you about you, but you know, could you introduce yourself a little bit to people who don't know you yet? Well, I am a clinical professor of neurology at George Washington University.

My interests have always been not basic things like seizures and multiple sclerosis and peripheral neuropathy, but what are called higher cortical functions. That is the things that make us think and remember and feel. I remember I wrote a paper when I was a medical student about aphasia in Maurice Ravel. Aphasia is a loss of language. And when I first learned about that, I thought, oh my God, how diabolical.

Somebody can make noises and move their tongue, but they can't, they can't speak. They can't understand. How awful is that? And so that paper won a prize. But at the time, this was in the early seventies, the professors and my colleagues labeled me as quote, philosophically minded, because at that point, language and memory and Alzheimer's disease were, were, had nothing to do with neurology. No, they weren't. Nobody was interested in them.

And I thought, well, my God, you're studying the brain. How could you not be interested in what the brain is doing to make us human beings? So I was always an outlier in that, in that respect. And I, I, I continued to pursue higher cognitive functions. And that includes you. I became later on, I became interested in closed head trauma. That is people who got hit in the head and auto accidents or fell down the steps or had boxes hit on them in the head and, or had sports injuries.

And people would, you know, they, they'd get a neck X, they'd get a head X-ray or a neck X-ray or a cat scan even back then. And everything was normal. So it was like, well, there's nothing wrong with you. And it's yet these people complained of all sorts of physical and cognitive problems. And I thought, well, you know, you can't just say there's nothing wrong with you because the doctor can't see anything wrong. It's like our methods of looking at people are inadequate.

And so I, I had trained in ophthalmology before I started in neurology. And so like people were seeing, you know, they would complain about seeing all sorts of things and flashing lights and, and narrowed vision and the periphery. And so when we actually looked at them with, with appropriate methods, we found that they indeed had things like hairs in their retina that could be repaired by laser surgery.

And so that was a, that was another interesting episode in my life is that, you know, we, we just like, okay, there's nothing wrong with you. We're showing that, yes, indeed, there is something wrong with you. If only the doctors would learn how to look where they needed to look. And so let me fast forward to what I do today, which is mentor medical students at George Washington University.

George Washington is one of my alma maters, and we teach what's called patient centered medicine. So we never talk about a case of anything where there's never a patient who's a case of something. They are always a, an individual who has a particular problem that you, the student needs to solve. So it's very patient centered. So I guess I would say that that's my, that's my modus operandi really is forget what, what the establishment says, what orthodoxy says.

I mean, and this is the nature of orthodoxy. You know, whenever I, when I first started with synesthesia, I mean, the establishment was quick to say, oh no, this can't possibly be real. This cannot possibly be a real brain phenomenon. Oh no, these people are just making it up. They just want attention. They're, they're having residual hallucinations from their marijuana and LSD usage. And when all, all those excuses fail, they finally said, well, they're just being artistic.

And in America, everybody knows that artists are just sort of slightly crazy. So that's why they're, they're claiming to see all these things. But you know, it didn't take much. It didn't take million dollar machines to show that synesthetes experiences are real. You could show that they were real with paper and pencil tests and with tests that had been around to study optical illusions and perception for a long, long time. So finally but always the skeptics said that they, they wanted, they wanted proof.

They wanted a third person proof that, that of a first person experience, which meant technical pictures of the brain or scans. So finally, when they got the scans, they had to shut up because the scan showed that in fact, these, the synesthetes did in fact experience color and in other aspects when they looked at letters and numbers or heard words, et cetera. So and that's really sad in a way because Michael Watson, my index patient, who was the man who

tasted shapes, he, he had a degree in botany, so he understood the scientific method. And at one point he became quite frightened that what I was doing was going to show that, that his experiences were bogus, fake. And I thought, oh my God, Michael, you know, you're, you're willing to give up your, your first person individual experience for what the establishment is saying is fake.

And so that, that was the argument that, that the skeptics wanted a third person technological verification of a first person experiment that is you buy a machine. And of course, a machine's not going to say anything about what a person is experiencing. So of course, I'm happy, very happy to say that that whole attitude has changed over the past decades. And synesthesia is now a very, very popular topic. Young people all around the world are writing about it, doing research about it. And I couldn't be happier.

And particularly, I couldn't be happier for the, for the individuals who are synesthetes. I can't tell you early on how often I had people writing and calling and emailing that said, oh my God, no, you're the first person who's ever believed me. No one has ever believed me in my entire life. You gave me my freedom. I've had grown men crying, saying, I can't believe this is real. Nobody ever accepted it.

And for, for a, for a researcher, for a scientist, somebody say, you changed my life. It can't get any better than that. So I'm quite happy with my legacy in that regard. Yes, it's really impressive, impressive work. And, and yes. And when confronting, like when facing the dogmatic skepticism, you know, you could like many people, I think not only your case, but you know, many people facing like a difficulty say people give up and sometimes, but you kept for, kept moving forward, right? What motivated you to do the research?

Well, I, I could, I couldn't do otherwise. You know, I, it was, uh, first of all, the phenomenon of colored hearing and synesthesia, like, okay, people, people see colors when they hear music, people see colors, when they read words or letters or numbers, it was like, how could you not be fascinated in that claim? Um, so rather than saying, oh my God, this is ridiculous. This can't possibly be true.

It's like, well, what's the harm in looking and seeing what's behind this? And, and this was also something that surprised me because when I mentioned my index case, Michael Watson, the man who tasted shapes. And I said, you know, when he feels, when he tastes something, he feels it on his face and in his hand, they said, well, what does his CAT scan show? And I said, no, no, you don't understand. He doesn't have a hole in his head. He doesn't have a lesion. He has something extra.

And they looked at me like I was insane and said, oh man, you'd better stay away from this. This is too weird, too new age. It's going to ruin your career. And of course, I don't know what happened to them, but my career has been just fine. So, um, I think the lesson there is that you just have to keep barking up the right tree, um, and look where the evidence follows rather than saying, oh, this evidence is no good. We have to discount. We have to say no to this evidence.

We have to discount this because this can't, this, this isn't consistent with our theories. And what's happened is that over the years I have caused a paradigm shift in how we think the brain is organized. It used to be that we think there were these, you know, five tubes that, that went from peripheral organs to the central brain and that there was no mingling in between them. That was the orthodox theory of, uh, uh, modularity that reigned, um, in the, in the, in the seventies and

eighties. Um, and of course we now know that that's completely wrong. Um, and so, um, you know, it's nice to have been a, been a force that that's caused our change in, in perspective to that. And the other, the other thing is that people ask me, you know, why you, why did you believe these people when everybody else said they were crazy, making it up, et cetera. And at first I thought it was because my father, who was a physician and a bon vivant and a raconteur and a mission and a

magician and an archer, he was, he was a larger than life personality and he instilled in me a taste for the offbeat and the unusual. So at first I thought, well, that was just his influence. But then it took me actually quite a long time to realize that the actual reason was the fact that I'm gay. Okay. And so that as a 10 year old in New Jersey, my father's medical profession said that I was sick.

The state of New Jersey said that I was a criminal and the church said that I was doomed to hell. And I hadn't done anything. I was 10 years old. And I thought, what did these people know? They don't know me. They don't know anything about me. Who are they to make these kinds of judgments? So when people, when I told people about Michael Watson, the man who takes the chafes and said, oh no, no, no, it can't be real. I thought, oh man, I have heard this before. And so it just gave me the fortitude to keep pushing forward.

I see. Thank you. Yes. It's a yes. And so, and then I'm also interested in the research development in synesthesia and essentially, and I read your book and it says, you know, like synesthesia happens like, like, like often case in childhood and, and in research, how much do we know about synesthesia, the mechanism, how it emerged? Well, we know an awful lot compared to when I first started out.

So we know that first of all, it's inherited very strongly from and passes down from one generation to another. It is in the genes that cause synesthesia are extremely common. One in 23 people carry the genes for synesthesia because they are not expressed with a hundred percent accuracy. A smaller percentage of one in 90 has some kind of overt synesthesia. The most common kinds are perceiving the days of the week is colored. The next is colored graphemes.

It is the written language, written elements of language, letters, numerals, punctuation, signs, et cetera, are colored. And then from there on, they're less frequent kinds of synesthesia. So it's actually quite common in the population. And if that's the case, then the big question is why this is when you ask what good is it synesthetes say, well, you know, it helps you remember. And when you test them, they have extraordinary memories.

But other than that, you know, synesthesia is a pretty thing to have, but what good does it do? And why does it, why is it maintained so high in the genetic database? And so I, and a number of other people think that it's a gene for metaphor. So what is metaphor? Metaphor is seeing the similar in the dissimilar. And so if somebody says, I know it's two because it's white, well, there's something about the, about two-ness and whiteness that's equivalent. And the synesthete experiences this.

So if you have these genes being expressed in sensory areas of the brain, then you will get an overt synesthete, colored hearing, colored music, number forms, et cetera. But now what happens if these genes are expressed in non-sensory areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes or executive areas or areas involved with memory, what do you get then? Do you get a madman or do you get a genius? And I think, and this is one of the outstanding questions because a number of groups around the world are, have been searching

for genetic markers for synesthesia and they have found a number of them. And so eventually the hope is that once we get a genetic, enough genetic markers to pinpoint the fact that a person who has this array of genetic markers is going to be a synesthete, then they will allow, that will allow us to predict who is going to be a synesthete and what are they like? Because if they're not overtly synesthetic, then we can test, well, what are they like? What are they like in terms of

personality, in terms of memory, in terms of this, that, and the other. And I think that's a very, very exciting thing. And that's going to be up for younger people to come up with. Yes, it's really fascinating. And then maybe this is a, sorry, a stupid question maybe, but you know, There are no stupid questions. So does synesthesia happens to other animals or is this specific to humans? Oh, well, well, of course there's no way, there's no way to answer that.

Initially on the question was, is this an atavistic kind of trait? We know from studies with with newborn mammals, guinea pigs, rats, cats, etc, that in fact, there are connections among different sensory areas. And this is in keeping with research that Daphne Maurer at McMaster University in Ontario did. And it's brilliant and very, very difficult research where she showed that newborns between zero and three months are inherently synesthetic.

So, and that they lose this ability after three months. So I think it's entirely reasonable to say that, well, you know, young mammals may in fact have this capacity, whether they keep it and, you know, we don't know what their conscious experience is. So, you know, we just can't say, but it is a fascinating question. And it would, it would make sense because of course, we're all related, we're all mammals.

The Stone Age brain hasn't changed in its architecture in millennia. And every mammal that shares the blueprint for our brain has the same blueprint. And so it is shaped by its experience, by the creature's experience in the world. So to answer your question, yes, I mean, it's entirely plausible that they would be, but we have no way of knowing. I see. Thank you. Thank you for answering the question. And, and also I'm interested in like a synesthesia and a memory that relationships.

And in your book, you know, you said for some people with synesthesia have like a good memory in some situations and in research development, how much do we know about the relationship? Well, all, all synesthetes have excellent memories. And in fact, when you ask them, well, what good is this beautiful, but useless, obviously useless trait, they say, well, it helps you remember things, phone numbers, addresses, items on a shopping list, et cetera.

I actually first learned the word synesthesia by reading a very old book by A.R. Luria, the Soviet father of neuropsychology called The Mind of a Mnemonist. And he described a memory expert who had a five fold synesthesia, who could remember limitless amounts of information, thanks to all these extra books that he had. And this, this, this guy just named S went on to become a stage performer as a memory expert.

I see. Thank you. Yes. And so in the, in the, nowadays, so what is the research frontier in, in synesthesia or any, like what is a, like a hot topic nowadays in this area? Well, I think most people who are studying it around the world, you know, they're, they're limited by single case studies, you know, an N of one. But, and then there's, of course, imaging studies, but, you know, the imaging studies, the fMRI basically tells us what we already know from, from basic neuroanatomy that when,

when people who say they hear colors, when they hear words that the color area, the human color area, the brain V4 activates. So that's not terribly exciting. I think what's really exciting and what's going to come in the future. And what, what I would like to come in the future is a, a mapping down the timeline between, between child development and what kind of synesthesia an individual has, because really what's interesting is that you've got,

if you, for a child to have synesthesia, you've got to be born with a genetic propensity to hook different kinds of sensations together. But then you also must be exposed to cultural artifacts, just such as letters, numbers, the names of the foods that you eat, how to tell time on the clock, et cetera, mute what, what musical notes mean. And so we know from, oh, I got 60 years of, like the, the gazelle Institute of child.

So we know exactly the timeline of when children learn certain things. And so if we can get, let's say children of synesthetes who we suspect themselves might become synesthetes. If we can get them early enough and look at them and see, okay, how are there a developmental milestones coming along? And is there an indication of when synesthesia develops and when is there a time lock? Is there a time locked occurrence between the two? I think that would be very exciting, but again, it's going to be

very, very difficult because it would depend on having children of synesthetes, newborns being followed from their various earliest, their very earliest ages onwards. So that would be exciting, but very, very difficult. But, you know, people have never shied away from difficult problems before. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm curious, like, you know, if we cannot share it, so let me know, but can you tell us about the challenges and benefits that people with synesthesia experience

in their daily lives? Well, first of all, it's, it's, it's a wonderful thing to have. They, to lose it would be an odious state. They love having it. They just, when, you know, when you talk to them, it's astonishing because they'll describe a street name as delightful or a phone number as beautiful. I mean, these are mundane things and yet they have such a exciting, emotional reaction to them.

But most of all, when you ask what good does it do? They will say, well, it helps to remember. And that's the main thing is that it endows them with an exceptional memory. Some of them have an eidetic memory or what's called often called a photographic memory. So they can look at something and they can like a book and they can, they get to simply read off the page what they've seen. So it, it definitely has a benefit in terms of that. And other than just being a beautiful, fuzzy, warm thing to have, it's, it's not worth much.

But again, the people who have it, they would never give it up for an instant. You know, and once you have it as a, as a child, you never lose it all your life. It stays the same. I've had people in their sixties and seventies said, oh, now, no, the color shine as brightly as they ever did. So, and they, and they love it. So what, what can you say is you, you can't deny human happiness. And not only all people, but a lot of like artists, like it, a beautiful conversers have

conversers have like synesthesia, right? Well, yes, it turns out, you know, it turns out that we, we know many more famous artists who happen to be synesthetic than synesthetes who happen to famous artists. That said, Catherine Melvena has done research showing that indeed synesthetes as a group, as a whole, are more creative than non-synesthetes. That is, they speak a foreign language, they play a musical instrument, they're engaged in something like knitting, knitting, pottery,

sculpturing, archery, whatever. So yeah. And then of course, then the question is, well, are they more creative because they're synesthetic or are they more synesthetic because they're creative? And it's a chicken and egg problem. But it's, it is true that indeed as a group, the synesthetes are indeed more creative than the rest of us. And this fits in with the metaphor hypothesis that, that the, if you accept the metaphor hypothesis of synesthesia,

that it makes us more creative as a species, then synesthetes are proving this to be true, that they are more creative than the rest of us poor slobs who are not synesthetic. Hypothesis, yeah. And so you, you touched the, you know, previous, you know, conversation like digital age, you know, and stone age brains. So you first, firstly, you started and researched like synesthesia, but now you are researching. So stone age brain, so like digital destruction now.

Yes. I mean, because I was, I was really, I was really struck by how, you know, my iPhone was such a distraction. For years, my husband and I had what are called track phones, which basically you could just make phone calls and that was it. And one day in New York, we were looking for an address. And by that time, all the phone booths had been ripped out of Manhattan. And we finally said, we've got to get an iPhone only for the maps.

And so we got iPhones and within days, I was just mesmerized by it. And I said, my God, no wonder everybody is so addicted to these things. And that's what led me to this whole notion of digital distractions and the stone age brain. So let me say, first of all, that the brain that you and I have now resting comfortably in our heads is no different than the brain that our ancestors had three, four, five, six millennia ago. Brains just don't change that fast. But what has changed fast is culture.

And so the question is, can culture live up to what it's putting on the brain? And my answer is no, it can't. Now, many people think that they can multitask. And Clifford's mass at Stanford University showed decades ago that, no, you can't multitask. But even when he showed young students how poor they were at multitasking, they didn't believe him. They discounted him. They said, no, of course we can. Of course we can.

And so they wouldn't believe the evidence in front of their eyes and said, no, we can multitask. We can multitask, even when faced with how awful they were doing. Now, let's move forward to the today's era of smartphones. Oh, you know, almost everybody I talk to says, I'm addicted to my phone. I'm addicted to my phone. But why don't they say that if that isn't true? There must be some truth to it. Why don't they think that? And the Stone Age brain has a fixed amount of bandwidth for attention that no amount

of Sudoku puzzles, diet exercise, or you name it, is going to ever be able to change. You cannot change it. And so if you cannot change the amount of energy that's available for attention, then what are you going to do? And the answer is you're going to overwhelm it and you're going to become confused, have fuzzy memory, brain fog, you name it. And so this is the issue of screens, is that we are so addicted and distracted by our screens today,

iPhones, iPads, desktops, is that it's overwhelming the attention bandwidth that our brain has to give to it. I see. Do you have some ideas? Maybe you wrote it in the book, upcoming book, but you know, what do you think, you know, the people should say, live with screens in the future? Like, what is the best practice or, you know, good way to not to distract it much and to be productive, effective on what they do? Well, one is to understand that, in fact, you are addicted

and to react appropriately rather than be defensive and say, oh, no, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not addicted. I'm not addicted. So that would be to, and I guess the biggest thing would be to realize the importance of silence, nature, and real world interaction, real world interactions. I have a chapter called Silence is an Essential Nutrient, suggesting that we need quiet around us, not constant stimulation, Snapchat, streaks, winning thing, endless notifications,

all these endless distractions. What the brain needs is quiet and time to think and contemplate and also to interact with other human beings, not people on social media, because that's not interaction at all. That's just another distraction. And I think that this, and this has been shown by recent research in which, like, schools in California are now banning smartphones from their classes because they realized that to replace

real human interaction leads to loneliness and social isolation. And this is really a corrosive corrosive effect in young children. It's causing depression and anxiety. And the simple solution is to take the devices away and learn how to talk to one another. I see. So there, there is a profound mismatch between our ancient stone age brain architecture and the modern digital world.

That means the digital world has hijacked our attention with all these digital distractions. And so the challenge is to navigate the screen age with a brain that has not evolved past its earliest roots. I see. And then at the same time, nowadays, AI technology is advanced and improving over time. So an AI is creating new information, like sometimes false news, you know, they have state and so on.

And, but at the same, in the other hand, some people say in the new, you know, a new era with AI, you know, the people who can leverage AI will do more. So do you have any thoughts around how to deal with AI or how we should adopt AI? I mean, in digital destruction age? Well, I have used AI myself, chat, chat, GPT. And I have to say it's, it's amazing. I asked it to summarize my book and it did so within 15 seconds and gave me all the highlights in it. So that's quite an achievement. Where we go from here, I don't know.

You know, AI is here and we're going to have to deal with it. So the question is then how do we deal with it while staying as humanistically based as we can be? So I think, so I think it's a question of looking at AI critically yet. Yes. It's a one. Yes. It's a wonder. Yes. It's amazing. And then ask, well, so what, what is it doing? How is it benefiting me? Is it, is it making my life richer or is it just making me lazy? Because it, it, it beats me out to having

to think about a certain problem. I think it's really important to have to struggle with certain problems and issues and think about them for yourself. So it, so it comes down to the user and how the user regards AI as a, as a tool or a replacement. And for me, I, I think of it as a tool. It's an incredible one. I admit that. But then I, I look at it skeptically at its output skeptically and think, okay, what's it come up with? Is this good enough?

Because we know that, that it hallucinates and comes up with the wrong answer. So there always has to be a human being on the other end examining its output and saying, okay, is this useful? Is this true or is it not? So I don't think it, I don't think it's, I don't think it will replace human beings. It can't replace human beings. When people talk about connecting the dots, well, that's fine.

But if you don't know what dots are out there to connect, you're basically stupid. And this is what young people say. Oh, I can just look at anything up on Google and I'm well, but how do you know what to look up? If you don't know anything about the world, about history, about current events, et cetera, then how will you ever know what to look up? You, you can't, unless you know something about the world you're living in. So it always takes a human being with context to be able to approach these tools.

I totally agree. Yes. It's also kind of message to like new researchers in university, but I'm just curious, like in your daily life, how much are you using air? Yeah. Just daily life. Well, I, I've used it in the past to help me write a column for my psychology today column. And it's, it's been okay. Things like, you know, on oxymorons, et cetera. And I use it to summarize my book that the in talking points, but, but that's about it.

I'm, I'm, I'm very, I'm very new to this just as everybody else's. So I I'm learning as we go along and I'll just see how it goes. I mean, I'm open to seeing what it can do. And I think what it can do is incredible, but I, you know, this is what I learned from somebody like Joanna Stern at the wall street journal who writes the technology column. There is like how to write good prompts for chapi GPT. You have to learn to how to ask it questions in the right way.

And so that's another learning experience. So I think we're, we're all in this together. And, and I'm curious what you are interested in now in the future. And do you have some ideas you want to address or walk on in the near future or now, or walking, or maybe you're cooking something interesting in, in the behind, but maybe. Oh, what, what I'm interested in is my garden.

I have four gardens on each side of the house and I spend time in there every day and I love digging in the dirt. So, so it's kind of a physical Buddhist meditation to be, to be in the gardens. You know, at my age, I I've, I've done enough. I've had my time. I did my thing. It's time for younger people to take over. I guess what I'm interested in is giving guidance and advice where I can to younger scientists encouragement. There's really nothing else that I want to achieve.

I'm quite happy with the books that I've written. Those are my legacies. And, you know, I'm, I'm extremely happy that I, I told I told orthodoxy to go fuck itself and, you know, listen to the, listen to what is. And I think that's very important really to tell young people that, remind people that, you know, the nature of orthodoxy is always to deny or explain away what it can't, or it doesn't wish to explain, to understand.

And that was the case of synesthesia. That's the case of many things. I think I sent you a, I think from the New York Times Sunday article this time about a woman who's she's a, he's a hyperosmotic. She can smell things and she can smell Parkinson's disease years before it's diagnosed. And of course she was poo-pooed. Oh no, no, no, this is ridiculous. No, it can't possibly be real. And of course, after the people she was targeting were proved to have Parkinson's disease,

like these critics were silenced. So that's another example of, you know, the orthodoxy being told to shut up and not be so certain of what you think is true, but to have an open mind as to what might be, because what might be is far more exciting than this rigid certainty of what we think we know. You know, our knowledge is very, very fluid. And, and this is the beauty of being a scientist, you know, it's perfectly fine to be wrong.

You know, I've been wrong. And I remember somebody telling me, Oh my God, he was so, he was so impressed that I admitted that I was wrong. And it's like, well, you know, when you're wrong, it just means that you're not barking up the wrong, you're not barking up the right tree. So you've got to go look elsewhere. And that's the beauty of science is that if you're wrong, you can go move elsewhere and, and, and, and, and look at something else. Yes. Thank you.

And I think we can apply that, you know, to, to anything in our life. I think so too, is that, you know, the ability, I think the ability to admit that you're wrong is one of the most liberating things a person can do. You know, you've had an argument with somebody, whatever it could be, and then you realize, Oh, Oh no, I was mistaken. But do you have the humility to say, I'm sorry, I was wrong. I apologize. And to say that is so liberating, you know, and there's nothing wrong with being wrong.

Own it. Yes. Thank you. And, and, and thank you so much for all the advice and lecture and sharing your insights and so on. And we, I don't know how you, I don't know how useful that is. You said you wanted my philosophy of science. I don't know if I have a philosophy of science. It's just that I don't know. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a mad dog with a bone in my jaw and I just have kept on going following the beat of my own drummer.

And I would suggest that young people do the same thing too. And you will either be proven right, or you'll be proven wrong. But if you, if you feel in your heart that you're on to something, then you should stick with it and pursue it and see where it goes. Because if you're wrong, there's nothing lost. You haven't lost a thing. If you're right, then you should feel enormously gratified. And that's just how science goes. It is what it is. Yes, 100% agree. So, yes. And yeah, thank you so much for joining today.

And oh, thank you for inviting me. You know, I've got this book coming out as MIT Press is going to be out October 1st. And I'm really looking for a young, savvy person to help me with social media, because I used to write computer programs and I was very proud of being able to do so. But today, social media has changed so fast, so rapidly, that I just don't know what to do. So, if you have any, any suggestions or people who might like to help me

with promoting my new book on social media, I would be more than happy to hear from that. Also, I have a book. So, this is Japanese. Oh, that one. Yeah, in Japanese. The Japanese version. You know, I had a, I was invited to the Aroma Science Foundation in Tokyo. Aroma Science Foundation in Tokyo. Oh, I had a wonderful time doing that. It was so, oh, that was great. Yeah.

And so, I gave a talk in Tokyo, and then we went to Kyoto, and I gave another talk at the science village there. I had a great time. I came home with lots of incense, by the way. So, Kyoto incense. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for that. I'm so, I haven't seen that cover in years. So, thank you. Yeah. And what, how does it translate as? Because I was told in Tokyo that it was called the surprising something or other. Yeah, sorry. It's in English edition, but this is translation to the public.

So, I can see, like, any strange, strange points. It's totally makes sense. I can understand what you're talking in the book. So, how does it, how does the title translate in English? A Bright Thing for Daily Life of Sympathizer. Surprising, right. Okay. So, yeah, original title is the man who takes the shapes, but. Yeah, but, you know, it's always amazing how different, in German, it's quite different than Italian and Korean.

So, it's always interesting to see how different languages translate the title. Yeah. Oh, meaning, like, each company's publisher decide what the title. Oh, yes, they do. All right. Yeah. So, it's never a literal quote, the man who takes the shapes. It's always whatever they decide on. And it's amazing to see, like, in German, it's Farber-Schmecken-Turner-Hörnen, which is hearing, tasting shapes, hearing colors. That makes sense. Yeah. I speak German. So, that's the only one I really understand. So.

Wow. Okay. Yeah, but I love your book. So, yeah, this is, you know, I like, I love this, like, scientific approach. So, yeah, you came up with, like, you know, question at first year, and now you are interested in, so, since it's this year, then, so, you are trying to, like, so, find a clue. So, what is happening? Well, I'm also interested in art, you know, because my father was a physician. My mother was an artist.

His father was a glass, technical glassblower at RCA, who also made these beautiful glass sculptures. Whereas my mother's father was a botanist and a farmer. So, I had these two, I had one foot in science, one foot in art. And I, as a child, so, to me, as a child, like, there was no difference between the two. It was like, this is what our family is. And so, synesthesia as an artistic thing, sure, that spoke to me, as a scientific thing, it spoke to me.

Yeah, and that's, and I still say that way again. I'm very blessed at being in many times recipient of an artist fellow, a fellowship from the DC Commission of Arts and Humanities here. And these are not, these are not project based, they're merit based. So, they must like what I do, because they keep giving me money. So, I'm grateful. And I keep writing. And right now, I'm writing a, I'm collaborating with an old classmate of mine from American University,

where I got my Master of Creative Arts in Creative Writing, Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing. And we're writing a murderous suspense thriller called What She Saw. So, I'm always doing something. And I think this, I think this is what keeps people going, it keeps people alive, is that every day, every day, I wake up with a sense of purpose. And think, oh, I'm awake. Yes, let's go. Let's get at it. Now, there's something to do. It's wonderful.

I don't know how anybody could ever say that they're bored. I don't understand people who say they're bored. Because there's so many things to do every day, the world is full of endless possibilities. So, yes, you may count me as an optimist at heart. The glass is always half full, if not more full. The curiosity, let your curiosity go, right? I'm highly curious. Yeah, yeah. And I get, I inherit that from my mother, I think. Yeah.

She was, she was very, very, everything was always the best, the most wonderful, etc. Nothing was ever blah, was always the best, this, that, and the other, no matter what she was doing. And I think that's a, I think that's a gift, to be able to see the, the, the possibility in every circumstance, rather than to be sour, and turn it down. And turn it down. I think so, too. Yeah. So, I'm glad, I'm glad for my inheritance. Well, thank you so much.

All right, I won't keep you any longer. Thank you so much, the two of you. I enjoyed talking with you. Thank you for inviting me to chat with you. And I hope this was useful. It was. So, I, I'm getting into this bowing habit. Yes, yes. Very Japanese. Very Japanese. Yes, I know. People, people bow on the phone. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I think it's, I think it's beautiful. I think it's a beautiful habit. So, thank you.

Thank you. Arigato. Arigato. Bye. Bye.

Share This Audio Transcript & Summary 📚

00:0053:30