WEBVTT - From the Vault: Bandersnatch 

0:00:06.160 --> 0:00:08.559
<v Speaker 1>Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name

0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>is Robert Lamb.

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 2>And I am Joe McCormick, and it's Saturday. So we're

0:00:12.520 --> 0:00:14.720
<v Speaker 2>going into the vault for an older episode of the show.

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 2>This time we're going back several years to an episode

0:00:17.600 --> 0:00:21.560
<v Speaker 2>we did on the Black Mirror episode Bander Snatch. This

0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 2>was before Weird House Cinema. Not a Weird House Cinema episode.

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.240
<v Speaker 2>We featured it in a We featured it in a

0:00:30.280 --> 0:00:32.800
<v Speaker 2>core episode and talked about all kinds of things connected

0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:38.600
<v Speaker 2>to the plot. This sorry, this was not a Weird

0:00:38.600 --> 0:00:41.080
<v Speaker 2>House Cinema episode. This pre dates Weird House. It was

0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 2>a core episode where we talked about all kinds of

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:47.200
<v Speaker 2>things related to the plot. It originally aired January ninth,

0:00:47.280 --> 0:00:48.000
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty.

0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:50.400
<v Speaker 1>Now why are we talking about it right now? Well,

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:53.400
<v Speaker 1>it's my understanding that Netflix is set to remove Bander

0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:58.360
<v Speaker 1>Snatch from its platform on May twelfth, And unlike most films,

0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:00.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, when it leaves one platform, or it can

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:02.800
<v Speaker 1>just pop up on another, right, some other streaming service

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 1>can offer it, or it'll come out on physical media maybe,

0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:09.360
<v Speaker 1>or you know, or if you can find a stream somewhere.

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:12.320
<v Speaker 1>But of course the thing about Bandersnatch is that it's interactive.

0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:16.600
<v Speaker 1>It is a choose your own path experience, and therefore,

0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:18.679
<v Speaker 1>if it's not, it's one of the it's one of

0:01:18.680 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 1>the few of the interactive experiences that they actually did,

0:01:22.040 --> 0:01:25.200
<v Speaker 1>and once it is off of the Netflix platform, you're

0:01:25.240 --> 0:01:26.840
<v Speaker 1>not going to be able to experience it in the

0:01:26.880 --> 0:01:30.480
<v Speaker 1>same way, which I thought was brilliant. I thought it

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 1>was an amazing interface of not only the technical aspects

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:38.640
<v Speaker 1>of it, but just the way that Black Mirror made

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.560
<v Speaker 1>use of that technology to tell a compelling story about

0:01:42.640 --> 0:01:44.399
<v Speaker 1>choices and the illusion of choice.

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 2>Going to be a shame to lose it, but it

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:49.600
<v Speaker 2>seems like a fitting end for an episode of Black

0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 2>Mirror to actually just be destroyed by the kind of

0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 2>whims of a technological behemoth.

0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:58.320
<v Speaker 1>It does, it really does. So Yeah, so you've got

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 1>you've literally gotten like what a couple of days, maybe

0:02:01.400 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 1>even down to hours at this point by the time

0:02:03.520 --> 0:02:07.280
<v Speaker 1>you're listening to this episode. So jump in there experienced Bandersnatch,

0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>or re experience it while you have time and enjoy

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>our thoughts from the year twenty twenty about it.

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.960
<v Speaker 2>And the Banker Inspired with a courage so new it

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:25.680
<v Speaker 2>was a matter for general remark, rushed madly ahead and

0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 2>was lost to their view in his zeal to discover

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:32.160
<v Speaker 2>the snark. But while he was seeking with thimbles and care,

0:02:32.639 --> 0:02:36.840
<v Speaker 2>a bender snatch swiftly drew nigh and grabbed at the banker,

0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 2>who shrieked in despair, for he knew it was useless

0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:43.520
<v Speaker 2>to fly. He offered large discount. He offered a check

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:46.679
<v Speaker 2>drawn two bearer for seven pounds ten.

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 1>But the bandersnatch merely extended its neck and grabbed at

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 1>the banker again without rest or pause, while those frumiest

0:02:54.720 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>jaws went savagely snapping around. He skipped, and he hopped,

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:02.760
<v Speaker 1>and he floundered, flopped till fainting he fell to the ground.

0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:06.720
<v Speaker 1>The Bandersnatch fled as the others appeared, led on by

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>that fear stricken yell, and the bellman remarked, it is

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:14.000
<v Speaker 1>just as I feared, and solemnly told on his bell.

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:22.680
<v Speaker 3>Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind, A production of

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:24.120
<v Speaker 3>Iheartradios How Stuff Works.

0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>Hey, Welcome to stuff to Blow your Mind. My name

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:33.800
<v Speaker 1>is Robert Lamb.

0:03:33.560 --> 0:03:36.040
<v Speaker 2>And I'm Joe McCormick. And Robert are you feeling more

0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:38.200
<v Speaker 2>frabjess or more frumious today.

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:42.280
<v Speaker 1>I guess more frumious frumious would be my answer. That was,

0:03:42.320 --> 0:03:45.840
<v Speaker 1>of course the poem The Hunting of the Snark by

0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 1>Lewis Carroll, But I guess a number of people are

0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:51.720
<v Speaker 1>probably more familiar with the Bandersnatch from another poem by

0:03:51.800 --> 0:03:55.720
<v Speaker 1>Lewis Carroll, that being the jabberwock Jabwacke, Yes, where the

0:03:55.760 --> 0:03:59.760
<v Speaker 1>Bandersnatch is just alluded to as another monstrous creature that

0:03:59.840 --> 0:04:02.160
<v Speaker 1>my i'd be running around the woods.

0:04:02.440 --> 0:04:05.440
<v Speaker 2>I love it when a poet first named something in

0:04:05.480 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 2>a kind of in a listical kind of way, you know,

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:12.840
<v Speaker 2>poem as listical, and then later it comes through in

0:04:12.880 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 2>another poem with more force. I think that sort of

0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:18.480
<v Speaker 2>happened with the demogorgan, right.

0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, I think so. And in this case, yeah,

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.120
<v Speaker 1>the Bandersnatch. There's not a lot really said about it

0:04:24.160 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>in the writings of Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll, by the way,

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>was the pen name of Charles Lutwich Dodgson, who lived

0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:34.359
<v Speaker 1>eighteen thirty two through eighteen ninety eight, and he first

0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:36.760
<v Speaker 1>introduced the bander Snatch again just in a list of

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>creatures that might pop up in his eighteen seventy two

0:04:40.040 --> 0:04:43.640
<v Speaker 1>novel Through the Looking Glass in that poem the Jabberwackie,

0:04:44.040 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 1>and then pops up again in this eighteen seventy four

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:48.400
<v Speaker 1>poem that we just read, the Hunting of the Snark,

0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:50.720
<v Speaker 1>which we didn't.

0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 2>Read the whole of the poem. That was just an

0:04:52.000 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 2>exerpt from it. I think where the like who's the banker?

0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:57.800
<v Speaker 2>The banker is one of these people who goes on

0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:01.120
<v Speaker 2>a voyage hunting the snark. I've read that that poem

0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:05.480
<v Speaker 2>has been interpreted by some as metaphorical of you know,

0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:07.480
<v Speaker 2>that it's supposed to be an allegory about the search

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 2>for human happiness and contentment. But then also I think

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 2>i've heard it alleged that the poem actually has no

0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:16.480
<v Speaker 2>allegorical meaning, that it's just kind of silly.

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:19.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean, in that sense, it's kind of enigmatic.

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:23.680
<v Speaker 1>And the creature itself is enigmatic, scarcely described, but certainly

0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:26.560
<v Speaker 1>best avoided at all costs. There's no way to outrun it,

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.279
<v Speaker 1>no way to escape its intensity. And by the way,

0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:34.599
<v Speaker 1>frumius is a combination of fuming and furious. Carroll just

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:37.039
<v Speaker 1>ran these two words together to make a nice new

0:05:37.120 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>adjective for a strange monster is.

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:43.680
<v Speaker 2>A perfectly cromulent word, very frabjous. And I was wondering,

0:05:43.680 --> 0:05:45.719
<v Speaker 2>do you need a vorpal sword if you go up

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 2>against a vander Snatch or is that only for the

0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:48.640
<v Speaker 2>jabberwock Well.

0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:51.159
<v Speaker 1>It certainly worked on the Jabberwockie. I don't know about

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:53.760
<v Speaker 1>the vander Snatch. There are no tales of slaying it,

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 1>are there, at least not in Lewis Carroll's original work.

0:05:57.160 --> 0:05:59.479
<v Speaker 2>Does the vorpal sword show up as an artifact in

0:05:59.560 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 2>D and D It does?

0:06:00.720 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it certainly does. Yeah, pretty good sword. Oh yeah, yeah,

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:09.040
<v Speaker 1>very good sword. Now, the name Vandersnatch has been evoked

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:11.640
<v Speaker 1>many times over the years and works of fantasy and

0:06:11.680 --> 0:06:14.840
<v Speaker 1>science fiction. I've seen it pop up as a space

0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:18.080
<v Speaker 1>slug and other such creatures. Sometimes it's just kind of

0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:21.760
<v Speaker 1>an enigmatic name for like a government project or something,

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:25.320
<v Speaker 1>because it's a great it's a great name. In depictions

0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:27.479
<v Speaker 1>of Lewis Carroll's work, it is often take on a

0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:32.839
<v Speaker 1>mammalian character. Nineteenth century children's illustrator Peter Newell depicted it

0:06:32.920 --> 0:06:36.080
<v Speaker 1>is kind of a furry, horned beast that might resemble

0:06:36.120 --> 0:06:39.320
<v Speaker 1>a cat or maybe a wolf like creature, and this one,

0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 1>this is a very popular image, and then film adaptations

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:46.359
<v Speaker 1>have depicted it as both borlike and cat like. The

0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty ten Tim Burton adaptation has a very memorable creature

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:51.880
<v Speaker 1>design for the Bandersnatch.

0:06:51.960 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 4>Oh, the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland? Is that what

0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:55.320
<v Speaker 4>you're talking about?

0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, I have, I've seen the first one.

0:06:57.839 --> 0:07:01.279
<v Speaker 4>I never ventured that far into late Burton.

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:05.720
<v Speaker 1>Well, it had some things going for it. It had

0:07:05.760 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 1>had a really good cast, it had some interesting character designs,

0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>I'll say that, and a very monstrous looking Bandersnatch. Okay, Now,

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.880
<v Speaker 1>just a couple of other interesting tidbits about Lewis Carroll.

0:07:19.880 --> 0:07:22.960
<v Speaker 1>He was a mathematician. He worked in geometry and new

0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:27.840
<v Speaker 1>ideas in algebra, logic, machines, ciphers. So between this and

0:07:27.920 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 1>other details of his life, there's a lot of black

0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>mirror to the originator of the Bandersnatch. Also, in Hallucinations,

0:07:36.040 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 1>the book by Oliver Sachs, the Late Oliver Sacks, Sax

0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:42.760
<v Speaker 1>points out that Carroll was known to suffer from classical migraines,

0:07:43.200 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 1>and that Caro W. Lippman and others have suggested that

0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 1>his migraine experiences may have contributed to the way he

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:56.720
<v Speaker 1>envisioned through the looking Glass and Alice in Wonderland, like

0:07:56.760 --> 0:08:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the skewing of time and space. Also, you have auditory

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>hallucinations that are not uncommon in migraines, as well as

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:10.040
<v Speaker 1>old factory hallucinations. I've also seen descriptions of this lifting feeling,

0:08:10.640 --> 0:08:12.640
<v Speaker 1>this feeling of being moved through space.

0:08:13.840 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I guess the extension of the lightheadedness that comes

0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 2>on with the aura and all that.

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:19.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:08:19.920 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 2>You know, there's actually an asteroid named bander Snatch.

0:08:22.440 --> 0:08:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Oh I didn't know this.

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:24.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I look this up. Nine to seven to eighty

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:27.760
<v Speaker 2>Bander Snatch. It's a Main Belt asteroid, so it's out

0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:30.640
<v Speaker 2>beyond the orbit of Mars. Discovered in nineteen ninety four

0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:35.720
<v Speaker 2>by Japanese astronomers Takashi Urrata and Yasuhiro Shimizu at the

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.960
<v Speaker 2>Nachi Katsura Observatory, and it was named, of course after

0:08:39.040 --> 0:08:40.240
<v Speaker 2>the Frumias Bandersnatch.

0:08:40.880 --> 0:08:43.719
<v Speaker 1>Awesome. Now, one of the this is just sort of

0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:47.439
<v Speaker 1>the introductory material on the Bandersnatch, because for the vast

0:08:47.480 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 1>majority of this episode we're going to be talking about

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:56.240
<v Speaker 1>what as I guess the most recent cinematic invocation of

0:08:56.280 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>the bandersnatch, and that is the Black Mirror episode. Well,

0:09:00.720 --> 0:09:03.480
<v Speaker 1>it's not even an episode. It's a Black Mirror film

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that came out on Netflix December of what was it,

0:09:07.040 --> 0:09:11.079
<v Speaker 1>twenty eighteen, so a little over a year ago, and

0:09:11.600 --> 0:09:12.920
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot to unpack here.

0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:15.559
<v Speaker 2>I actually didn't watch it until this week, so I

0:09:15.640 --> 0:09:17.480
<v Speaker 2>knew you wanted to do an episode about it, and

0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 2>I was like, Okay, I'll finally see what all the

0:09:19.280 --> 0:09:19.840
<v Speaker 2>fuss is about.

0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 4>I was very impressed.

0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:25.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'll get I'll certainly get more into my very

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:26.960
<v Speaker 1>thoughts on it later. I was impressed with it when

0:09:26.960 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 1>it came out, and then since we were going to

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 1>do the episode, I rewatched it for the first time

0:09:31.679 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 1>since its original release earlier this week, and I have

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.320
<v Speaker 1>to say it, I thought it held up. I even

0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:41.040
<v Speaker 1>got a different ending and a different dead end at

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:45.200
<v Speaker 1>one point than I had encountered previously. So it was like,

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:47.960
<v Speaker 1>why every time you watch a film that you like

0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:50.840
<v Speaker 1>again you find new things, but in this case you

0:09:50.880 --> 0:09:52.559
<v Speaker 1>can actually get a different ending.

0:09:52.920 --> 0:09:56.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, now we're going to be exploring today some of

0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:59.280
<v Speaker 2>the science and the ideas and philosophy that are alluded

0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:02.720
<v Speaker 2>to in Vanderson. But in doing so, of course, this

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:07.079
<v Speaker 2>will involve some spoilers for this strange film. So I

0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 2>would say, there are a couple of places we're not

0:10:09.160 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 2>going to like go through and explore every possible ending

0:10:11.360 --> 0:10:14.240
<v Speaker 2>or anything like that. But if you are in the

0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:16.680
<v Speaker 2>case where you haven't seen it yet and you don't

0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:19.600
<v Speaker 2>want anything at all spoiled, you should probably stop here

0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:21.439
<v Speaker 2>and go watch it first before you listen to the

0:10:21.480 --> 0:10:23.840
<v Speaker 2>rest of the episode. But if you've already seen it,

0:10:24.040 --> 0:10:25.720
<v Speaker 2>or you haven't seen it, and you don't care about

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:27.640
<v Speaker 2>minor spoilers that don't go all the way to all

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:30.240
<v Speaker 2>the endings, then you know, forge ahead with us.

0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:32.920
<v Speaker 1>Please. However, some of you may be asking the question,

0:10:33.160 --> 0:10:35.880
<v Speaker 1>what are you talking about? What is Black Mirror? So

0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:38.120
<v Speaker 1>we should probably take a few minutes to just refresh

0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:41.160
<v Speaker 1>you on what this is. It is a is the

0:10:41.160 --> 0:10:45.560
<v Speaker 1>word refresh? Would that be the word? We should shock

0:10:45.640 --> 0:10:49.320
<v Speaker 1>you to the bone? All right? So Black Mirror is

0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:54.440
<v Speaker 1>in essence a sci fi anthology television series in the

0:10:54.480 --> 0:10:57.960
<v Speaker 1>same vein as The Twilight Zone, the Outer Limits, these

0:10:58.040 --> 0:10:59.720
<v Speaker 1>various shows we've discussed in the past.

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:04.160
<v Speaker 2>I might call it pretty often techno horror. Not every

0:11:04.200 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 2>episode is the same, but there's essentially no horror movie

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:13.720
<v Speaker 2>as scary as the scariest episodes of Black Mirror, especially

0:11:13.840 --> 0:11:19.080
<v Speaker 2>the ones that manage to take fairly plausible technological scenarios

0:11:19.160 --> 0:11:23.040
<v Speaker 2>and follow them to their logical conclusions. I mean, it's

0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:26.120
<v Speaker 2>it's a show that's very good at conjuring up the

0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:31.800
<v Speaker 2>worst possible nightmares of like the intersection of capitalism and technology.

0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:37.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, definitely, episodes tend to have a technological swing to

0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:40.720
<v Speaker 1>the story, and they tend to deal on some level

0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:47.559
<v Speaker 1>with contemporary anxiety about current technology and emerging technology. What

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:51.520
<v Speaker 1>are these technologies doing to our lives? What may they

0:11:51.559 --> 0:11:54.080
<v Speaker 1>do to our lives in the future, And you know,

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:57.480
<v Speaker 1>sometimes they take varying specuative leaps there, of course, since

0:11:57.520 --> 0:12:01.199
<v Speaker 1>it is science fiction. But you, I would say, you

0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:04.560
<v Speaker 1>typically leave an episode of Black Mirror feeling a little

0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:08.080
<v Speaker 1>worse about the world. I know that Netflix, their current masters,

0:12:08.400 --> 0:12:11.240
<v Speaker 1>are very into the whole binge model, but I personally

0:12:11.240 --> 0:12:15.320
<v Speaker 1>find it very difficult to binge Black Mirror, in part

0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:18.480
<v Speaker 1>because each episode, of course, is a self contained story

0:12:18.840 --> 0:12:22.960
<v Speaker 1>with characters and a plot, et cetera. But then also

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:25.400
<v Speaker 1>It's like they're often like a punch in the gut,

0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:28.120
<v Speaker 1>and I just can't just sit there and take one

0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:29.080
<v Speaker 1>punch after the other.

0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:32.640
<v Speaker 2>Apart from one very sweet, very nice episode, there's essentially

0:12:32.800 --> 0:12:35.559
<v Speaker 2>nothing that makes me feel as bad as Black Mirror.

0:12:37.080 --> 0:12:38.920
<v Speaker 1>Well, you know, I was thinking. I was thinking about

0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:41.080
<v Speaker 1>this because there are definitely some very bleak episode. There

0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:44.240
<v Speaker 1>are episodes of Black Mirror that I admire that I

0:12:44.240 --> 0:12:48.440
<v Speaker 1>will never watch again. But then I look back at

0:12:48.440 --> 0:12:50.880
<v Speaker 1>my some of my favorite episodes. My favorite episodes are

0:12:50.880 --> 0:12:55.480
<v Speaker 1>probably san Ju Napero, The Uss Callister, and metal Head.

0:12:56.559 --> 0:12:58.640
<v Speaker 1>Two of those, one of those is still pretty bleak,

0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:02.199
<v Speaker 1>but two of those are actually pretty upbeat, probably the

0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:06.840
<v Speaker 1>most upbeat episodes of the show. And maybe that's the

0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:08.880
<v Speaker 1>reason I would come back to them, because if I'm

0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:10.720
<v Speaker 1>going to double dip, I want to double dip for

0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:13.360
<v Speaker 1>optimism's sake. Now, in terms that we can't talk about

0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:18.040
<v Speaker 1>Black Meir without talking about the creator behind it, the

0:13:18.080 --> 0:13:21.559
<v Speaker 1>main creative individual behind it, and that is Charlie Brooker,

0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:26.160
<v Speaker 1>a British writer and humorist who the earliest thing that

0:13:26.160 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>he worked on that I was familiar with was that

0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 1>he worked on Chris Morris's excellent news satire Brass Eye,

0:13:32.440 --> 0:13:35.320
<v Speaker 1>and then he also created a pretty great zombie movie

0:13:36.040 --> 0:13:39.080
<v Speaker 1>titled Dead Set in two thousand and eight, in which

0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:43.440
<v Speaker 1>the zombie apocalypse breaks out in and around a Big

0:13:43.480 --> 0:13:46.600
<v Speaker 1>Brother style reality TV production.

0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:48.400
<v Speaker 2>I feel like two thousand and eight was sort of

0:13:48.440 --> 0:13:50.480
<v Speaker 2>like maybe two thousand and seven. Two thousand and eight

0:13:50.520 --> 0:13:52.600
<v Speaker 2>was like peak zombie satire movie.

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:56.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. And the thing about this one, though, the premise

0:13:56.160 --> 0:13:59.120
<v Speaker 1>sounds like a comedy, and so I acquired a copy

0:13:59.160 --> 0:14:01.240
<v Speaker 1>of it, thinking, oh, this is a comedy, and this

0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:03.440
<v Speaker 1>is a guy that worked on Brass Eye. This is

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:06.560
<v Speaker 1>going to be hilarious. And it is not a straight

0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 1>up comedy. It is a pretty terrifying film. But you

0:14:09.559 --> 0:14:12.360
<v Speaker 1>see shades of that in Black Mirror. Sometimes there is

0:14:12.360 --> 0:14:17.079
<v Speaker 1>a premise that could sound like a joke, but then

0:14:17.160 --> 0:14:22.520
<v Speaker 1>it is taken and considered with such intensity that it works. Yeah.

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:25.680
<v Speaker 2>What if like a major tech company used eye tracking

0:14:25.720 --> 0:14:28.760
<v Speaker 2>software to make sure you were always watching their ads

0:14:28.760 --> 0:14:31.400
<v Speaker 2>and if you didn't watch them, they would ring sirens

0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:34.360
<v Speaker 2>in your brain and deduct money from your bank account

0:14:34.440 --> 0:14:37.800
<v Speaker 2>until you started watching the ads. Again, sounds like a joke,

0:14:37.920 --> 0:14:40.120
<v Speaker 2>but like if you just said take that seriously for

0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:43.520
<v Speaker 2>a bit and explore that becomes like a nightmare of

0:14:44.800 --> 0:14:45.640
<v Speaker 2>technoci fi.

0:14:46.000 --> 0:14:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely. Now. Black Mirror began in twenty ten two seasons

0:14:50.680 --> 0:14:53.160
<v Speaker 1>in a holiday special came out and ran on Channel

0:14:53.160 --> 0:14:56.480
<v Speaker 1>four in the UK. Then Netflix started carrying it, and

0:14:56.560 --> 0:15:00.320
<v Speaker 1>Netflix became the owner of the main pub We'll share

0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:02.240
<v Speaker 1>the program however you want to look at it, starting

0:15:02.240 --> 0:15:06.000
<v Speaker 1>with season three in October of twenty sixteen. All in all,

0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:09.400
<v Speaker 1>it has thus far gone five seasons twenty one episodes,

0:15:09.840 --> 0:15:13.040
<v Speaker 1>and that's not counting the film Bandersnatch, which again came

0:15:13.040 --> 0:15:14.720
<v Speaker 1>out in December of twenty eighteen.

0:15:14.960 --> 0:15:18.160
<v Speaker 2>These bits of publisher information will actually become relevant later

0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 2>on as we discussed the story.

0:15:19.720 --> 0:15:21.400
<v Speaker 4>Because the the ideas there.

0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, because at the end we definitely get into some

0:15:23.240 --> 0:15:25.760
<v Speaker 1>citiz scenarios where we have to consider the fact that

0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:30.160
<v Speaker 1>Netflix is the business daddy behind Black Mirror.

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:34.120
<v Speaker 2>So Vandersnatch the film. The Black Mirror film was actually

0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:36.560
<v Speaker 2>directed by David Slade, who I was like, where do

0:15:36.600 --> 0:15:38.840
<v Speaker 2>I know that name from? He's done several things, but

0:15:38.920 --> 0:15:41.920
<v Speaker 2>one of them was he did one of the Twilight movies.

0:15:42.400 --> 0:15:44.480
<v Speaker 1>Yes, and I've seen that that particular one. It was

0:15:44.520 --> 0:15:47.720
<v Speaker 1>the second one, I think, and it's that's a I'm

0:15:47.720 --> 0:15:50.360
<v Speaker 1>not a huge Twilight fan, but that is a very

0:15:50.360 --> 0:15:52.840
<v Speaker 1>watchable Twilight movie and it has a great soundtrack. It's

0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:55.560
<v Speaker 1>got Tom York on it. Oh yeah, yeah. He also

0:15:55.640 --> 0:15:58.600
<v Speaker 1>directed the Black Mirror episode metal Head that I alluded

0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:01.560
<v Speaker 1>to earlier, and there are some callbacks to metal Head

0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:03.360
<v Speaker 1>in the Bandersnatch episode.

0:16:03.760 --> 0:16:05.760
<v Speaker 2>Now, I guess one thing we haven't gotten fully into

0:16:05.880 --> 0:16:08.920
<v Speaker 2>so far is the fact that the Black Mirror movie

0:16:08.960 --> 0:16:13.480
<v Speaker 2>Bandersnatch is it's an interactive movie, which makes it very unique.

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Right. This was the big selling point on it, and

0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:19.760
<v Speaker 1>indeed is one of the mean it's a key part

0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:21.440
<v Speaker 1>of the way you consume it, but it is also

0:16:21.640 --> 0:16:25.520
<v Speaker 1>very important thematically, like you know, true to form, The

0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:28.880
<v Speaker 1>creators here really thought long and hard about how to

0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:35.120
<v Speaker 1>utilize an interactive system within the work and make the

0:16:35.160 --> 0:16:37.360
<v Speaker 1>work comment on that system as well.

0:16:37.440 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 2>Right, the interactive system being Netflix, like the fact that

0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:42.120
<v Speaker 2>the user can make inputs on the movie.

0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, basically, that's what it amounts to is you start

0:16:45.840 --> 0:16:49.840
<v Speaker 1>off watching it, it seems like a normal Netflix presentation, but

0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:54.720
<v Speaker 1>then your in my case, my Xbox one controller would

0:16:54.760 --> 0:16:58.560
<v Speaker 1>suddenly vibrate and then this little the screen at the

0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:01.800
<v Speaker 1>bottom of the screen. You're suddenly with two choices and

0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:05.240
<v Speaker 1>a timer, and you have to choose, you know, what

0:17:05.359 --> 0:17:07.800
<v Speaker 1>is going to happen, what the character is going to do, etc.

0:17:08.760 --> 0:17:12.040
<v Speaker 1>Now this is you know, when you're just checking out

0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:14.920
<v Speaker 1>the film, you might not realize how much work goes

0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:18.720
<v Speaker 1>into this, but it took apparently a huge amount of

0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:22.040
<v Speaker 1>work to shoot all these various branching paths, because it

0:17:22.080 --> 0:17:27.959
<v Speaker 1>becomes this tree, this branching system of possibilities when you

0:17:28.000 --> 0:17:32.720
<v Speaker 1>start presenting the user with these interactive choices. For instance,

0:17:33.080 --> 0:17:36.080
<v Speaker 1>the previously the longest episode of Black Mirror was an

0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:39.600
<v Speaker 1>episode called Hated in the Nation, which was eighty nine

0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:43.240
<v Speaker 1>minutes long. That's future length, right, what ninety minutes is

0:17:43.320 --> 0:17:47.480
<v Speaker 1>usually the length you shoot for with a shot film. Well,

0:17:47.840 --> 0:17:52.040
<v Speaker 1>when you're watching Bandersnatch, depending on your choices, the film

0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:55.320
<v Speaker 1>can run anywhere between ninety minutes and two and a

0:17:55.400 --> 0:17:59.800
<v Speaker 1>half hours. And in order to make this work, as

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:02.840
<v Speaker 1>pointed out by a Jackie Strauss in The Hollywood Reporter,

0:18:03.720 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 1>this means they had to shoot like five hours of

0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:09.000
<v Speaker 1>footage so that they could actually cover all of these

0:18:09.040 --> 0:18:12.440
<v Speaker 1>various choices. Wow, and you may watch it like, for instance,

0:18:12.760 --> 0:18:14.879
<v Speaker 1>the first time I watched it, there were plenty of

0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:17.440
<v Speaker 1>scenes I did not see, and then when I watched

0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:19.440
<v Speaker 1>it again, there were films, there were scenes that I

0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:21.400
<v Speaker 1>saw the first time that I did not see, and

0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:23.719
<v Speaker 1>I got an entirely different ending that I'd never I

0:18:23.800 --> 0:18:25.760
<v Speaker 1>didn't even know about. And then there are of course

0:18:25.840 --> 0:18:29.119
<v Speaker 1>various Easter eggs and even I've read quote golden Easter

0:18:29.200 --> 0:18:32.640
<v Speaker 1>eggs that are spread throughout, things that most viewers will

0:18:32.680 --> 0:18:35.439
<v Speaker 1>not find unless they spend a great deal of time

0:18:35.840 --> 0:18:38.720
<v Speaker 1>going through and going back through and backing up, etc.

0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:43.240
<v Speaker 2>With this interactive piece encouraging unhealthy obsessive behavior.

0:18:43.520 --> 0:18:46.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, exactly, I mean it is black mirror. Now, as

0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:52.000
<v Speaker 1>far as the choices you make in Bandersnatch, you start

0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:56.360
<v Speaker 1>off making very small choices, it seemed very consequential. For instance,

0:18:57.200 --> 0:19:01.200
<v Speaker 1>choosing the main character's breakfast series he's presently his father

0:19:01.480 --> 0:19:04.119
<v Speaker 1>shows two boxes and you decide which one he's going

0:19:04.200 --> 0:19:05.200
<v Speaker 1>to have for breakfast. Yeah.

0:19:05.200 --> 0:19:07.399
<v Speaker 2>I think it was what like frosted flakes or sugar

0:19:07.400 --> 0:19:09.840
<v Speaker 2>puffs or something. I remember what I realized after I

0:19:09.880 --> 0:19:12.600
<v Speaker 2>made that choice was I was like, oh no, I

0:19:12.600 --> 0:19:15.640
<v Speaker 2>think I chose the brand that I was more familiar with.

0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:18.800
<v Speaker 1>Ah, we'll come back to that later. That is an

0:19:18.840 --> 0:19:21.399
<v Speaker 1>important point that we'll come back to later on in

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:24.399
<v Speaker 1>the episode. But yeah, at first, it's it's what kind

0:19:24.440 --> 0:19:26.359
<v Speaker 1>of cereal does he want? All right? It doesn't doesn't

0:19:26.359 --> 0:19:28.320
<v Speaker 1>seem to matter much, and it also gives you a

0:19:28.400 --> 0:19:32.520
<v Speaker 1>chance to try out the technology low stakes. But and

0:19:32.960 --> 0:19:35.159
<v Speaker 1>then also later on, you choose what music is going

0:19:35.240 --> 0:19:38.320
<v Speaker 1>to listen to in when he's on the bus, which

0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:39.800
<v Speaker 1>is kind of fun. I think you get to choose

0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:44.359
<v Speaker 1>between a eurhythmic song and something else. I can't remember

0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:44.800
<v Speaker 1>the other one.

0:19:44.800 --> 0:19:46.680
<v Speaker 4>I think it's Thompson Twins.

0:19:46.359 --> 0:19:49.840
<v Speaker 1>That's it. Yeah. And then later on he's in a

0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:51.919
<v Speaker 1>record store and you get to choose which record he's

0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:53.840
<v Speaker 1>going to buy. And this is also pretty great because

0:19:53.840 --> 0:19:57.439
<v Speaker 1>one of the choices is Tangerine Dreams excellent nineteen seventy

0:19:57.480 --> 0:19:59.960
<v Speaker 1>four album Phaedra, which is incredible.

0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:00.800
<v Speaker 4>Absolutely.

0:20:00.840 --> 0:20:03.000
<v Speaker 2>In fact, I was listening to that again this morning

0:20:03.080 --> 0:20:05.880
<v Speaker 2>while I was doing some prep for this episode.

0:20:06.000 --> 0:20:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's excellent stuff. However, this time around I forced

0:20:09.359 --> 0:20:12.919
<v Speaker 1>myself to choose the other album instead, the other album

0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:18.320
<v Speaker 1>being a Seo Tamita's the Bermuda Triangle, which very strange. Yeah,

0:20:18.440 --> 0:20:21.040
<v Speaker 1>very strange work, but very good. I was really not

0:20:21.080 --> 0:20:24.280
<v Speaker 1>that familiar with this artist or this work, which is

0:20:24.280 --> 0:20:26.720
<v Speaker 1>apparently kind of hard to come by on streaming unless

0:20:26.760 --> 0:20:30.240
<v Speaker 1>you just find like a YouTube full album rip. But yeah,

0:20:30.240 --> 0:20:33.000
<v Speaker 1>this is just a taste of the soundtrack. The Bandersnatch

0:20:33.119 --> 0:20:36.080
<v Speaker 1>is a wonderful soundtrack, including not only these artists but

0:20:36.119 --> 0:20:40.080
<v Speaker 1>also deep esch Mode, Laurie Anderson. Great stuff. But let's

0:20:40.119 --> 0:20:43.680
<v Speaker 1>come back to the choices you make in this interactive system.

0:20:44.240 --> 0:20:48.760
<v Speaker 1>So again, they start off seeming largely inconsequential. They start

0:20:48.800 --> 0:20:50.840
<v Speaker 1>off seeming a little bit fun. You know, it's just

0:20:50.960 --> 0:20:53.639
<v Speaker 1>surface level stuff like what's his breakfast cereal, what's his

0:20:53.720 --> 0:20:57.919
<v Speaker 1>musical choice? But then they become increasingly high stakes and

0:20:58.000 --> 0:21:01.800
<v Speaker 1>even nerve racking to decide on. Suddenly, when you're controller

0:21:02.200 --> 0:21:05.800
<v Speaker 1>vibrates and you're presented with this choice and sometimes dread, Yeah,

0:21:05.960 --> 0:21:08.280
<v Speaker 1>you fill this dread because sometimes the choices neither one

0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:11.320
<v Speaker 1>is all that great. Sometimes the choices are kind of horrible,

0:21:11.640 --> 0:21:15.280
<v Speaker 1>and there's at least one point where you have no choice.

0:21:14.920 --> 0:21:18.719
<v Speaker 1>There's something to select, but there's no alternative selection, and

0:21:18.760 --> 0:21:21.840
<v Speaker 1>that feels maddening as well. And and you have a

0:21:21.880 --> 0:21:23.359
<v Speaker 1>time or you have like what I think it's ten

0:21:23.480 --> 0:21:26.600
<v Speaker 1>seconds to choose something, and if you don't choose, Netflix

0:21:26.680 --> 0:21:29.920
<v Speaker 1>chooses for you. But Netflix reports ninety four percent of

0:21:30.000 --> 0:21:34.240
<v Speaker 1>viewers actively made choices when they watched Bandersnatch.

0:21:34.359 --> 0:21:37.200
<v Speaker 2>Now, in my experience, it wasn't that they chose for

0:21:37.240 --> 0:21:39.679
<v Speaker 2>you at random. It was that whichever one of the

0:21:39.720 --> 0:21:42.240
<v Speaker 2>two options was highlighted, and it was like a you know,

0:21:42.400 --> 0:21:45.520
<v Speaker 2>on off toggle, like you couldn't select neither one. You

0:21:45.600 --> 0:21:47.720
<v Speaker 2>were just selecting one or the other, and then you

0:21:47.760 --> 0:21:50.000
<v Speaker 2>could and you could go with it or you could

0:21:50.080 --> 0:21:52.520
<v Speaker 2>not go with it in whichever one you had highlighted

0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:57.360
<v Speaker 2>would just proceed. So there's this kind of there's this

0:21:57.400 --> 0:22:00.800
<v Speaker 2>horrible sense of like helplessness that that poses on you

0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:01.480
<v Speaker 2>as the viewer.

0:22:03.080 --> 0:22:04.960
<v Speaker 1>I have not seen it. Sometimes I'll go into a

0:22:05.080 --> 0:22:07.560
<v Speaker 1>restaurant or a bar and they'll have Netflix on playing

0:22:07.600 --> 0:22:13.120
<v Speaker 1>some show. I've never seen them showing Bandersnatch. Probably for this.

0:22:13.119 --> 0:22:15.840
<v Speaker 2>Reason, letting all the bar paytrens vote to decide.

0:22:15.920 --> 0:22:18.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, yeah, or just going crazy like why is nobody

0:22:18.480 --> 0:22:20.840
<v Speaker 1>clicking a button? Why is nobody interacting with this? Don't

0:22:20.920 --> 0:22:24.200
<v Speaker 1>let don't let that choice go through. So eventually, as

0:22:24.200 --> 0:22:27.920
<v Speaker 1>you as you interact with Bandersnatch, a warping of time occurs.

0:22:27.960 --> 0:22:31.000
<v Speaker 1>You find yourself coming back around to pass choices like

0:22:31.040 --> 0:22:33.880
<v Speaker 1>a wanderer or lost in a maze. And of course,

0:22:33.920 --> 0:22:36.280
<v Speaker 1>befitting of a maze, there is a sort of minotaur

0:22:36.359 --> 0:22:38.360
<v Speaker 1>in all of this. There is the bander Snatch.

0:22:38.680 --> 0:22:41.840
<v Speaker 2>Wait is it the Bandersnatch or is it the Demon Packs?

0:22:42.000 --> 0:22:44.359
<v Speaker 1>It is the Demon Packs, yeah, but I also it

0:22:44.440 --> 0:22:48.000
<v Speaker 1>is also the Bandersnatch. Like it's design. Okay, it's design

0:22:48.080 --> 0:22:51.480
<v Speaker 1>is roughly based on that illustration of the Bandersnatch we

0:22:51.520 --> 0:22:53.760
<v Speaker 1>talked about. Okay, cool, All right, We're going to take

0:22:53.760 --> 0:22:55.720
<v Speaker 1>a quick break, but when we come back we will

0:22:55.720 --> 0:22:58.679
<v Speaker 1>get into the themes of bander Snatch and into the

0:22:58.840 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 1>nature of choice and free will. All right, we're back.

0:23:05.840 --> 0:23:09.399
<v Speaker 1>So there are a lot of interesting ideas, cool themes,

0:23:09.920 --> 0:23:13.920
<v Speaker 1>historical tidbits that are thrown together, well not thrown together,

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:19.920
<v Speaker 1>stitch together, reassembled in Bandersnatch that give it its unique feel.

0:23:20.680 --> 0:23:22.640
<v Speaker 1>Here's just a list of some of the things. First

0:23:22.680 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 1>of all, video game design circa nineteen eighty four, because

0:23:26.320 --> 0:23:27.920
<v Speaker 1>that is the setting nineteen eighty four.

0:23:28.080 --> 0:23:30.399
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it takes place in the eighties with eighties music,

0:23:30.480 --> 0:23:34.320
<v Speaker 2>eighties fashion, all that stuff. But they're also programming you know,

0:23:34.440 --> 0:23:37.960
<v Speaker 2>old school adventure games for like the Commodore sixty four

0:23:38.160 --> 0:23:38.600
<v Speaker 2>and stuff.

0:23:38.680 --> 0:23:41.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Another huge part of it are Choose your Own

0:23:41.320 --> 0:23:45.439
<v Speaker 1>Adventure books which are directly referenced. And then there is

0:23:45.480 --> 0:23:49.080
<v Speaker 1>a book within Bandersnatch titled bander Snatch that is this

0:23:49.760 --> 0:23:52.919
<v Speaker 1>enormous tone that we're told is essentially a choose your

0:23:52.960 --> 0:23:57.720
<v Speaker 1>own adventure type scenario. Do you have any fond memories

0:23:57.760 --> 0:23:59.200
<v Speaker 1>of choose your own adventure books?

0:24:00.440 --> 0:24:01.440
<v Speaker 4>I was obsessed with them.

0:24:01.840 --> 0:24:03.919
<v Speaker 2>I loved them when I was in elementary school, and

0:24:03.920 --> 0:24:06.840
<v Speaker 2>I would love them despite the fact that you know,

0:24:06.880 --> 0:24:10.000
<v Speaker 2>you die in most of the endings, like it imposes

0:24:10.040 --> 0:24:14.000
<v Speaker 2>a kind of horrible paranoid fatalism on a child. I think,

0:24:14.040 --> 0:24:17.040
<v Speaker 2>where you know, oh, this is a book about exploring

0:24:17.080 --> 0:24:19.399
<v Speaker 2>the Arctic, but almost no matter what you do, you

0:24:19.440 --> 0:24:21.879
<v Speaker 2>get eaten by a polar bear, or you fall beneath

0:24:21.880 --> 0:24:25.000
<v Speaker 2>the ice and you can't get out. I guess my

0:24:25.080 --> 0:24:27.120
<v Speaker 2>young brain was drawn to that kind of thing, though,

0:24:27.160 --> 0:24:29.439
<v Speaker 2>you know, I had that like morbid obsession with peril

0:24:29.520 --> 0:24:32.800
<v Speaker 2>and danger and death and all that. But also I'm

0:24:32.880 --> 0:24:36.439
<v Speaker 2>curious what is so appealing about the choose your own

0:24:36.480 --> 0:24:38.720
<v Speaker 2>adventure books, because one thing we should say is that

0:24:38.880 --> 0:24:43.000
<v Speaker 2>this is not the first interactive film Bandersnatch, and previous

0:24:43.040 --> 0:24:49.119
<v Speaker 2>attempts at interactive films have generally been very unpopular. I

0:24:49.119 --> 0:24:52.520
<v Speaker 2>think a lot of times people don't actually enjoy the

0:24:52.640 --> 0:24:56.760
<v Speaker 2>experience of choosing the outcome of a film, and I

0:24:56.800 --> 0:24:58.520
<v Speaker 2>think there are reasons for that. I mean, for one thing,

0:24:58.560 --> 0:25:01.200
<v Speaker 2>it's just like hard to make a story where like multiple,

0:25:01.240 --> 0:25:03.560
<v Speaker 2>like so many different options of how the story could

0:25:03.720 --> 0:25:06.119
<v Speaker 2>go would all be equally satisfying. I mean, there's a

0:25:06.160 --> 0:25:08.640
<v Speaker 2>reason that an author writes a story a certain.

0:25:08.320 --> 0:25:11.800
<v Speaker 1>Way, right. For instance, one film that we've talked about

0:25:11.800 --> 0:25:16.320
<v Speaker 1>on the show before, William Castle's Mister Sardonicus from nineteen

0:25:16.440 --> 0:25:20.720
<v Speaker 1>sixty one, was presented was marketed as having an interactive

0:25:20.720 --> 0:25:22.720
<v Speaker 1>element in that at the end of this you got

0:25:22.720 --> 0:25:25.200
<v Speaker 1>to choose the fate for the villain would it be,

0:25:25.280 --> 0:25:30.119
<v Speaker 1>you know, justice or mercy? And the thing is, audiences

0:25:30.200 --> 0:25:34.479
<v Speaker 1>never chose mercy for this horrible villain. Of course, they

0:25:34.520 --> 0:25:38.159
<v Speaker 1>always chose justice, and so there were even accusations that

0:25:38.200 --> 0:25:41.280
<v Speaker 1>they never even shot the alternate version, like there was

0:25:41.400 --> 0:25:44.919
<v Speaker 1>the idea that it was interactive was just you know,

0:25:45.000 --> 0:25:47.679
<v Speaker 1>the pitch was just the marketing, but there was no

0:25:47.760 --> 0:25:51.240
<v Speaker 1>actual interactive element. William Castle, I think, claimed otherwise, saying

0:25:51.280 --> 0:25:53.840
<v Speaker 1>yes they did shoot the sequence. I do not know

0:25:54.040 --> 0:25:57.719
<v Speaker 1>personally if that's true or not, if this footage has

0:25:57.720 --> 0:26:01.040
<v Speaker 1>ever materialized, but what I did did read was that

0:26:01.680 --> 0:26:07.160
<v Speaker 1>generally people point to nineteen sixty seven's Keino automat as

0:26:07.240 --> 0:26:10.080
<v Speaker 1>the first truly interactive film, but even that, I think

0:26:10.080 --> 0:26:12.800
<v Speaker 1>there are only like four choices that could be made,

0:26:13.080 --> 0:26:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and this film was also I think, largely comedic.

0:26:16.160 --> 0:26:19.119
<v Speaker 2>Okay, well, I mean I would say there are many

0:26:19.200 --> 0:26:22.240
<v Speaker 2>reasons why this format doesn't always work. For some reason,

0:26:22.280 --> 0:26:24.160
<v Speaker 2>it worked for me as a kid with to choose

0:26:24.200 --> 0:26:27.480
<v Speaker 2>your own adventure books. I loved those. But I mean,

0:26:27.560 --> 0:26:29.840
<v Speaker 2>one problem I think is that it's hard to make

0:26:29.840 --> 0:26:32.919
<v Speaker 2>all the narrative branches as good as each other, but

0:26:33.000 --> 0:26:34.320
<v Speaker 2>another one is just the like.

0:26:34.320 --> 0:26:36.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, like, for instance, when you finish it, I don't

0:26:36.680 --> 0:26:38.639
<v Speaker 1>think there was ever a sense where I'm like, Okay,

0:26:38.680 --> 0:26:41.440
<v Speaker 1>that's the ending I got. No, I want the good ending,

0:26:41.520 --> 0:26:43.640
<v Speaker 1>or I want the robust ending you go.

0:26:43.600 --> 0:26:45.359
<v Speaker 2>Back and do it again. It's more like a video

0:26:45.400 --> 0:26:45.840
<v Speaker 2>game or.

0:26:45.840 --> 0:26:48.200
<v Speaker 1>So I don't want the ending where I randomly die,

0:26:48.400 --> 0:26:52.160
<v Speaker 1>Like the story of Super Mario is not that he's

0:26:52.240 --> 0:26:55.800
<v Speaker 1>killed by a mutant turtle three minutes into the game,

0:26:55.920 --> 0:26:58.399
<v Speaker 1>you know, I mean, that's not an epic tale.

0:26:58.440 --> 0:27:00.520
<v Speaker 2>So in some ways, I think the choose your own

0:27:00.520 --> 0:27:03.680
<v Speaker 2>adventure books are sometimes better thought of as like a

0:27:03.720 --> 0:27:08.119
<v Speaker 2>puzzle to solve than as like a narrative to be experienced.

0:27:08.119 --> 0:27:10.600
<v Speaker 2>And another big difference I will say is that one

0:27:10.640 --> 0:27:14.240
<v Speaker 2>of the great pleasures of watching a movie or reading

0:27:14.240 --> 0:27:16.240
<v Speaker 2>a book, or you know, engaging in any kind of

0:27:16.320 --> 0:27:19.880
<v Speaker 2>narrative with an author's storyteller and you as the passive audience,

0:27:20.359 --> 0:27:24.119
<v Speaker 2>is a surrendering of responsibility for what is about to

0:27:24.160 --> 0:27:28.960
<v Speaker 2>happen in your own mind. You give up that responsibility

0:27:29.000 --> 0:27:32.280
<v Speaker 2>and suddenly you know when when bad things continue to

0:27:32.280 --> 0:27:35.199
<v Speaker 2>happen in the story, when characters make disastrous decisions that

0:27:35.359 --> 0:27:38.960
<v Speaker 2>unfold and increase the peril and heighten the drama, you're

0:27:38.960 --> 0:27:42.679
<v Speaker 2>not responsible for what's happening. You're just witnessing it, and

0:27:42.480 --> 0:27:45.440
<v Speaker 2>that witnessing is very fun. It's peaking through a hole

0:27:45.480 --> 0:27:47.720
<v Speaker 2>in the wall and what's happening to somebody else. When

0:27:47.760 --> 0:27:52.160
<v Speaker 2>they make you make decisions, it introduces this horrible tension

0:27:52.280 --> 0:27:55.680
<v Speaker 2>between what you want to see versus what you think

0:27:55.720 --> 0:27:59.600
<v Speaker 2>you should do. You know, like that, I think there's

0:27:59.640 --> 0:28:03.200
<v Speaker 2>this ten whenever. A great example would be in Bandersnatch,

0:28:03.440 --> 0:28:08.320
<v Speaker 2>I often felt, in a bizarre way, morally compelled to

0:28:08.440 --> 0:28:12.480
<v Speaker 2>make the tamer, safer options, where at the same time

0:28:12.560 --> 0:28:15.479
<v Speaker 2>I felt more interested in seeing the more kind of

0:28:15.520 --> 0:28:18.160
<v Speaker 2>like dangerous disastrous options play out.

0:28:18.440 --> 0:28:21.879
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this was definitely my experience with my first viewing

0:28:21.880 --> 0:28:26.359
<v Speaker 1>a Banterer Snatch is that when the decisions start start

0:28:26.400 --> 0:28:28.719
<v Speaker 1>hitting you, like later on they become like this horrible

0:28:28.800 --> 0:28:30.880
<v Speaker 1>choice or this horrible choice and becomes harder to play

0:28:30.880 --> 0:28:34.040
<v Speaker 1>this game. But earlier on there are moments where you're like,

0:28:34.119 --> 0:28:36.840
<v Speaker 1>are you going to do the sensible thing or the

0:28:36.840 --> 0:28:39.680
<v Speaker 1>more rebellious thing, or even the more dangerous thing? And

0:28:39.760 --> 0:28:44.320
<v Speaker 1>I found myself choosing the safer thing. Like minor spoiler here,

0:28:44.440 --> 0:28:48.400
<v Speaker 1>but he is he's offered the choice between producing his

0:28:48.560 --> 0:28:52.760
<v Speaker 1>dream game with this company at their offices, with their support,

0:28:53.200 --> 0:28:56.840
<v Speaker 1>or saying no to them, and so like the responsible

0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:58.640
<v Speaker 1>part of me is like, yes, say yes to this

0:28:58.920 --> 0:29:01.000
<v Speaker 1>is employment this is going to be good for you. Like,

0:29:01.040 --> 0:29:03.400
<v Speaker 1>clearly you're you're stuck in a weird situation at home.

0:29:03.440 --> 0:29:06.800
<v Speaker 1>You need to get out of the house, protagonists, and

0:29:07.480 --> 0:29:10.640
<v Speaker 1>and so that's the way I went. But it's ultimately

0:29:10.640 --> 0:29:12.800
<v Speaker 1>not the best choice, and it kind of dead ends

0:29:12.840 --> 0:29:13.880
<v Speaker 1>if you take that choice.

0:29:14.120 --> 0:29:16.600
<v Speaker 2>Well yeah, it almost kind of gives you a little

0:29:16.600 --> 0:29:19.080
<v Speaker 2>slap on the wrist for making that choice, you know.

0:29:19.200 --> 0:29:22.640
<v Speaker 2>So so I don't want to spoil anything, but yeah,

0:29:22.800 --> 0:29:26.320
<v Speaker 2>there's like a slight shaming of the viewer for choosing

0:29:26.360 --> 0:29:27.120
<v Speaker 2>the safe option.

0:29:27.240 --> 0:29:29.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and this is very early on, so we're not

0:29:29.120 --> 0:29:32.240
<v Speaker 1>really you know, spoiling anything, I think nature, But yeah,

0:29:32.280 --> 0:29:33.720
<v Speaker 1>I would do that a lot. I would take I

0:29:33.720 --> 0:29:36.640
<v Speaker 1>would make safe choices. And in fact, it ultimately ended

0:29:36.680 --> 0:29:39.480
<v Speaker 1>up reminding me a little bit of the Spacing Guild

0:29:39.480 --> 0:29:41.960
<v Speaker 1>and Doune, who of course used the spices to see

0:29:41.960 --> 0:29:43.680
<v Speaker 1>into the future to figure out how to navigate the

0:29:43.760 --> 0:29:46.760
<v Speaker 1>dangers of space, which is helpful if your navigating the

0:29:46.840 --> 0:29:50.000
<v Speaker 1>dangers of space. But in life and in politics and

0:29:50.040 --> 0:29:53.200
<v Speaker 1>all these other choices, it's this road to stagnation for

0:29:53.240 --> 0:29:56.680
<v Speaker 1>the Spacing Guild because they always make the safe choice.

0:29:57.000 --> 0:30:00.920
<v Speaker 1>And when we look at the narratives that we love generally,

0:30:00.920 --> 0:30:04.080
<v Speaker 1>they're not about people making the safe choice after safe

0:30:04.160 --> 0:30:07.560
<v Speaker 1>choice after safe choice. They're about people flying off the

0:30:07.600 --> 0:30:10.560
<v Speaker 1>handles or making huge mistakes and having to deal with those,

0:30:10.920 --> 0:30:12.840
<v Speaker 1>And so there is I think there's a learning curve

0:30:12.880 --> 0:30:16.640
<v Speaker 1>there with Bandersnatch, And so my second viewing of it,

0:30:16.680 --> 0:30:18.200
<v Speaker 1>I tried to do more of that. I tried to

0:30:18.240 --> 0:30:24.320
<v Speaker 1>make choices that I felt were interesting or more dramatic,

0:30:24.960 --> 0:30:27.640
<v Speaker 1>and that seemed to work really well, and I feel

0:30:27.640 --> 0:30:31.800
<v Speaker 1>like the product rewards you for doing that.

0:30:32.200 --> 0:30:35.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So I think that tension is definitely there with

0:30:35.440 --> 0:30:38.080
<v Speaker 2>the movies, and I wonder if it's more the case

0:30:38.120 --> 0:30:39.800
<v Speaker 2>in a movie than in a book, just because a

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:43.760
<v Speaker 2>movie is more sensorily visceral. The fact that you know

0:30:43.880 --> 0:30:47.160
<v Speaker 2>that it's actually visually presented to you in video and

0:30:47.240 --> 0:30:52.280
<v Speaker 2>audio makes it harder to just pursue, you know, your

0:30:52.400 --> 0:30:56.200
<v Speaker 2>sort of lust for drama and weirdness and whatever it

0:30:56.240 --> 0:30:59.280
<v Speaker 2>is you want to see as opposed to making the

0:30:59.280 --> 0:31:02.360
<v Speaker 2>safer choices. I don't recall feeling compelled to make the

0:31:02.400 --> 0:31:05.480
<v Speaker 2>safer choice the same way with Choose your Own Adventure books.

0:31:06.640 --> 0:31:10.040
<v Speaker 2>That could just be because of like the lower sensory

0:31:10.120 --> 0:31:12.479
<v Speaker 2>salience of books compared to movies.

0:31:12.520 --> 0:31:16.200
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, Yeah, maybe, So I finally finally remember

0:31:16.200 --> 0:31:18.360
<v Speaker 1>the Choose you Own Your Adventure books as well, in

0:31:18.400 --> 0:31:20.040
<v Speaker 1>part because they had them at the library and I

0:31:20.080 --> 0:31:23.520
<v Speaker 1>could check them out. Yeah. But also another series that

0:31:23.600 --> 0:31:28.160
<v Speaker 1>I finally remember, the Lone Wolf series. Were you familiar

0:31:28.200 --> 0:31:31.240
<v Speaker 1>with these? So these there's a series of these. The

0:31:31.240 --> 0:31:35.600
<v Speaker 1>first one was by Joe Deaver and Gary Chalk, and

0:31:35.680 --> 0:31:38.240
<v Speaker 1>this is they're like a Choose your Own Adventure series,

0:31:38.400 --> 0:31:42.080
<v Speaker 1>very much fantasy Dungeons and Dragon style high fantasy, but

0:31:42.120 --> 0:31:43.960
<v Speaker 1>there's more of a role playing element to it. So

0:31:44.000 --> 0:31:47.040
<v Speaker 1>for instance, when you open the book, it has not

0:31:47.080 --> 0:31:50.560
<v Speaker 1>only a map of the adventuring world you're taking a

0:31:50.640 --> 0:31:53.000
<v Speaker 1>part of, but there's also an action chart and a

0:31:53.040 --> 0:31:55.920
<v Speaker 1>combat record because you're going to end up having to

0:31:55.960 --> 0:31:58.560
<v Speaker 1>pencil in your stats as you go through the story,

0:31:59.160 --> 0:32:01.040
<v Speaker 1>picking spell and so forth.

0:32:01.920 --> 0:32:04.160
<v Speaker 2>It's more like a one player D and D module.

0:32:04.280 --> 0:32:07.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, exactly. It's like imagine it's like a Choose your

0:32:07.160 --> 0:32:09.240
<v Speaker 1>Own Adventure book and a one player a D and

0:32:09.320 --> 0:32:12.719
<v Speaker 1>D module come together into this one little tone. So

0:32:12.760 --> 0:32:15.880
<v Speaker 1>I finally remember those, and I might be misremembering here,

0:32:16.120 --> 0:32:18.880
<v Speaker 1>but I think I did get turned off later on

0:32:18.960 --> 0:32:23.240
<v Speaker 1>when I reached an artificial dead end in one of them,

0:32:23.280 --> 0:32:25.720
<v Speaker 1>like there was something broken and I couldn't go back.

0:32:25.840 --> 0:32:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Oh no, yeah, but again my memory may not be

0:32:29.440 --> 0:32:31.960
<v Speaker 1>perfect on that. If you're at all interested in this format,

0:32:32.000 --> 0:32:34.720
<v Speaker 1>I do highly recommend picking up one of these old,

0:32:34.880 --> 0:32:37.880
<v Speaker 1>fabulous used copies of the Lone Wolf series. And I

0:32:37.880 --> 0:32:40.920
<v Speaker 1>think they've republished them again with new artwork, but I

0:32:40.960 --> 0:32:43.960
<v Speaker 1>don't know. The classic artwork is exactly the kind of

0:32:44.000 --> 0:32:44.520
<v Speaker 1>thing I love.

0:32:44.880 --> 0:32:47.000
<v Speaker 2>The Choose your Own Adventure book that I brought in

0:32:47.080 --> 0:32:49.400
<v Speaker 2>today for you to look at Robert is called You

0:32:49.480 --> 0:32:52.880
<v Speaker 2>Are a Shark by Edward Packard. It has a kid

0:32:52.960 --> 0:32:56.560
<v Speaker 2>turning into a shark. He's like mid animorph sequence, oh man,

0:32:56.720 --> 0:32:59.080
<v Speaker 2>but he also looks like he's slipping sliding as he

0:32:59.160 --> 0:33:00.240
<v Speaker 2>turns into a shark.

0:33:00.520 --> 0:33:01.080
<v Speaker 4>Is pretty good.

0:33:01.120 --> 0:33:05.600
<v Speaker 1>That's pretty brilliant too, like channeling something that children, especially

0:33:05.600 --> 0:33:08.160
<v Speaker 1>of that time, would have been familiar would have likely done,

0:33:08.520 --> 0:33:10.680
<v Speaker 1>and giving this fantastic spin on it.

0:33:10.760 --> 0:33:15.280
<v Speaker 2>But the story is essentially the fingle doppling scene from

0:33:15.600 --> 0:33:19.080
<v Speaker 2>Overdrawn at the Memory Bang, where he just gets transformed

0:33:19.080 --> 0:33:21.960
<v Speaker 2>into various different animals. Do you know you get turned

0:33:22.000 --> 0:33:25.040
<v Speaker 2>into an elephant or a seagull, or of course a shark.

0:33:25.360 --> 0:33:27.480
<v Speaker 2>I think I recall one death where you get turned

0:33:27.480 --> 0:33:30.120
<v Speaker 2>into a squid and you're being chased by something, maybe

0:33:30.120 --> 0:33:31.920
<v Speaker 2>it is a shark, and you run out of ink

0:33:32.040 --> 0:33:34.960
<v Speaker 2>to disguise yourself with and you're doomed.

0:33:36.520 --> 0:33:39.600
<v Speaker 1>All right. Well, coming back to Bandersnatch, we mentioned the

0:33:39.680 --> 0:33:42.840
<v Speaker 1>video game aspect nineteen eighty four Choose your Own Adventure books.

0:33:43.200 --> 0:33:45.640
<v Speaker 1>There are a number of other elements and homages in

0:33:45.680 --> 0:33:48.840
<v Speaker 1>there as well. It deals with mental illness, it deals

0:33:48.880 --> 0:33:54.440
<v Speaker 1>with LSD. There are allusions to Philip K. Dick. There's

0:33:54.600 --> 0:33:57.840
<v Speaker 1>mention of alternate timelines, and of course it spends a

0:33:57.880 --> 0:34:00.640
<v Speaker 1>lot of time contemplating this idea of a free will

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:02.959
<v Speaker 1>and the potential illusion of choice.

0:34:03.160 --> 0:34:03.360
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:34:03.400 --> 0:34:07.320
<v Speaker 2>I think that's the main theme of it, is interrogating

0:34:07.360 --> 0:34:09.680
<v Speaker 2>the idea of what it means to be in control

0:34:09.760 --> 0:34:11.160
<v Speaker 2>of one's own actions.

0:34:11.560 --> 0:34:14.759
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. And the basic plot is as follows. A young

0:34:14.800 --> 0:34:18.000
<v Speaker 1>programmer named Stephan Butler is obsessed with a choose your

0:34:18.000 --> 0:34:22.120
<v Speaker 1>own adventure style book titled Bandersnatch that was written by

0:34:22.480 --> 0:34:25.919
<v Speaker 1>the late troubled writer Jerome F. Davies, and he really

0:34:26.000 --> 0:34:28.520
<v Speaker 1>wants to turn this into a computer adventure game, and

0:34:28.560 --> 0:34:31.080
<v Speaker 1>he's begun work on it on his own. So he

0:34:31.160 --> 0:34:34.440
<v Speaker 1>ends up falling in with this video game company called

0:34:34.680 --> 0:34:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Tuckersoft and meets its lead creative, this programmer named Colin Rittman.

0:34:40.920 --> 0:34:44.680
<v Speaker 1>And from there it departs through these varying winding paths,

0:34:44.760 --> 0:34:49.520
<v Speaker 1>reality warping, through madness and sometimes horror, and through all

0:34:49.520 --> 0:34:51.920
<v Speaker 1>of it, there's also this feeling that there is a

0:34:51.960 --> 0:34:56.400
<v Speaker 1>minotaur like monster pursuing you, pursuing our protagonist as well.

0:34:56.680 --> 0:34:59.960
<v Speaker 1>And this is the Bandersnatch, but more specifically, it is

0:35:00.120 --> 0:35:02.600
<v Speaker 1>titled Packs. Its name is Packs, and it is we

0:35:02.680 --> 0:35:04.600
<v Speaker 1>are told it is the Thief of Destiny.

0:35:05.360 --> 0:35:07.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there's a great moment where the game appears to

0:35:07.120 --> 0:35:10.640
<v Speaker 2>give you an option to either deny worshiping packs or

0:35:10.680 --> 0:35:12.160
<v Speaker 2>submit to worshiping packs.

0:35:12.200 --> 0:35:13.799
<v Speaker 1>Oh yes, this is the game within a game.

0:35:14.239 --> 0:35:15.439
<v Speaker 4>It made me want to play the game.

0:35:15.520 --> 0:35:16.760
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, it looked really cool.

0:35:16.960 --> 0:35:17.759
<v Speaker 4>So something that.

0:35:17.719 --> 0:35:20.640
<v Speaker 2>Made Bandersnatch different from most of the choose your own

0:35:20.680 --> 0:35:23.719
<v Speaker 2>adventure books that I remember reading. I'm sure there are

0:35:23.719 --> 0:35:26.920
<v Speaker 2>probably exceptions, but in the classic books I remember reading,

0:35:27.480 --> 0:35:30.879
<v Speaker 2>the story is written in the second person. The protagonist

0:35:31.080 --> 0:35:34.120
<v Speaker 2>is an unnamed you. You know, you go down the

0:35:34.239 --> 0:35:36.920
<v Speaker 2>left hall, you get eaten by a swarm of feral pigs.

0:35:37.200 --> 0:35:39.880
<v Speaker 2>You go down the right hall, you get turned into

0:35:40.040 --> 0:35:42.120
<v Speaker 2>a bowl of ice cream by magic pirate. You know,

0:35:43.239 --> 0:35:46.319
<v Speaker 2>you explore all the different dooms on offer to you,

0:35:46.400 --> 0:35:47.080
<v Speaker 2>but it's you.

0:35:47.520 --> 0:35:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Likewise, in the Lone Wolf books, as I recall you,

0:35:51.400 --> 0:35:54.680
<v Speaker 1>you kind of make choices regarding how this characters put together.

0:35:54.800 --> 0:35:58.080
<v Speaker 1>You have a fair amount of control. It is your character.

0:35:58.880 --> 0:36:02.080
<v Speaker 2>But band ver Snatch challenges this formula a little bit

0:36:02.320 --> 0:36:06.400
<v Speaker 2>by making the protagonist a third person character with a

0:36:06.560 --> 0:36:11.000
<v Speaker 2>name and pre existing individualized circumstances. You've got Stefan right.

0:36:11.800 --> 0:36:14.680
<v Speaker 2>But then this is where it starts getting even weirder.

0:36:15.040 --> 0:36:17.960
<v Speaker 2>So not only is it this definite third person character

0:36:18.120 --> 0:36:21.759
<v Speaker 2>with their own characteristics and not just a second person protagonist,

0:36:22.280 --> 0:36:25.960
<v Speaker 2>there are moments where the options are you choose, not

0:36:26.200 --> 0:36:29.040
<v Speaker 2>what Stefan does. That's how it mostly is. You know

0:36:29.080 --> 0:36:31.759
<v Speaker 2>what does Stefan pick? You know what, what does he

0:36:31.840 --> 0:36:34.920
<v Speaker 2>listen to? What does he answer to somebody who poses

0:36:34.920 --> 0:36:37.400
<v Speaker 2>a question to him? It then changes and gives you

0:36:37.440 --> 0:36:41.000
<v Speaker 2>the option to dictate what happens to him from the

0:36:41.080 --> 0:36:45.279
<v Speaker 2>outside The specific example I recall is what messages he

0:36:45.400 --> 0:36:49.600
<v Speaker 2>believes he is receiving on his computer screen. Oh yeah, Now,

0:36:49.640 --> 0:36:52.000
<v Speaker 2>of course, if you go with the most straightforward interpretation

0:36:52.120 --> 0:36:54.840
<v Speaker 2>of the story, which is that Stefan is experiencing symptoms

0:36:54.880 --> 0:36:58.239
<v Speaker 2>of psychosis, in a way, you're still dictating the activity

0:36:58.280 --> 0:37:02.239
<v Speaker 2>of his brain. Activities of his brain that he as

0:37:02.280 --> 0:37:05.960
<v Speaker 2>a character does not perceive as coming from himself. They're

0:37:06.280 --> 0:37:09.480
<v Speaker 2>hallucinations that he believes to be coming from the outside.

0:37:10.000 --> 0:37:12.560
<v Speaker 2>And you know, this makes me wonder about the framing

0:37:12.600 --> 0:37:16.160
<v Speaker 2>of how we should think about hallucinations that are generated

0:37:16.239 --> 0:37:19.480
<v Speaker 2>internally by the brain but perceived to come from an

0:37:19.480 --> 0:37:25.040
<v Speaker 2>external source. Are those hallucinations best understood as you or not?

0:37:26.080 --> 0:37:29.359
<v Speaker 2>Are there processes within your own brain that are, in

0:37:29.400 --> 0:37:32.960
<v Speaker 2>some legitimate sense not you, even though they are your brain,

0:37:33.000 --> 0:37:34.120
<v Speaker 2>they're not anybody else.

0:37:34.640 --> 0:37:38.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's not really the voice of God. It is

0:37:38.000 --> 0:37:40.960
<v Speaker 1>is it is something coming from inside your brain that

0:37:41.040 --> 0:37:46.040
<v Speaker 1>you are perhaps imagining or interpreting as the voice of God.

0:37:46.400 --> 0:37:50.000
<v Speaker 2>But is you more synonymous with your whole brain and

0:37:50.040 --> 0:37:53.600
<v Speaker 2>everything it does, or is you more synonymous with the

0:37:53.640 --> 0:37:57.200
<v Speaker 2>part of your brain that you identify as yourself.

0:37:57.040 --> 0:37:59.279
<v Speaker 1>That's going to be very key to some interpretations of

0:37:59.320 --> 0:38:03.040
<v Speaker 1>the base theme explored in Bandersnatch right, and they do

0:38:03.120 --> 0:38:07.439
<v Speaker 1>explore this theme amazingly. Well, I felt the second time

0:38:07.520 --> 0:38:11.799
<v Speaker 1>I watched it, I found all these additional layers. You know, again,

0:38:11.920 --> 0:38:14.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm I'm tempted to make the best choices for a protagonist,

0:38:15.040 --> 0:38:17.279
<v Speaker 1>or at least there's still that inclination that I want

0:38:17.320 --> 0:38:19.479
<v Speaker 1>to do that. And at one point there's this song

0:38:19.560 --> 0:38:22.279
<v Speaker 1>playing with the lyrics doing what's best for Nigel, and

0:38:22.320 --> 0:38:26.360
<v Speaker 1>it's all in the stc or I think so. Yes, Okay,

0:38:26.640 --> 0:38:28.360
<v Speaker 1>I was not familiar with that group or that this

0:38:28.440 --> 0:38:31.040
<v Speaker 1>song before, but yeah, it's playing, and the whole scene

0:38:31.080 --> 0:38:33.919
<v Speaker 1>is about like how his father is making choices for him,

0:38:34.320 --> 0:38:36.960
<v Speaker 1>or other times it's you know, it's his therapist that

0:38:37.040 --> 0:38:39.359
<v Speaker 1>is giving him advice about how to how to make

0:38:39.440 --> 0:38:42.319
<v Speaker 1>choices in his life. And so you have all these

0:38:42.360 --> 0:38:45.840
<v Speaker 1>forces that help him make his choices or make choices

0:38:45.880 --> 0:38:49.040
<v Speaker 1>for him. And then that's also what we are doing

0:38:49.080 --> 0:38:50.960
<v Speaker 1>as we interact with the product.

0:38:51.239 --> 0:38:52.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, yes, and in a weird way, it kind of

0:38:52.920 --> 0:38:56.080
<v Speaker 2>brings you back around to this question of wait a minute,

0:38:56.200 --> 0:38:58.879
<v Speaker 2>is he is he a third person narrator or are

0:38:58.880 --> 0:39:02.240
<v Speaker 2>you supposed to identify as him. So when these choices

0:39:02.560 --> 0:39:06.040
<v Speaker 2>are in some cases things coming to him apparently from

0:39:06.080 --> 0:39:09.200
<v Speaker 2>the outside, you know, they might be messages he's receiving

0:39:09.280 --> 0:39:14.040
<v Speaker 2>from some kind of otherworldly source or hallucinations, are you

0:39:14.160 --> 0:39:17.840
<v Speaker 2>still making choices for him or not? And it leads

0:39:17.880 --> 0:39:21.480
<v Speaker 2>back into this theme of whether or not you are

0:39:21.520 --> 0:39:24.040
<v Speaker 2>really in control of your own actions and what does

0:39:24.040 --> 0:39:26.440
<v Speaker 2>it mean to be in control of your own actions?

0:39:27.000 --> 0:39:29.600
<v Speaker 1>And in this we come to the subject of free will,

0:39:30.400 --> 0:39:33.439
<v Speaker 1>which is a huge topic that we return to time

0:39:33.480 --> 0:39:35.719
<v Speaker 1>and time again on stuff to blow your mind. And

0:39:35.760 --> 0:39:39.360
<v Speaker 1>we're not going to try to encapsulate everything about that here.

0:39:39.960 --> 0:39:42.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, we've talked about in the past, we're talking

0:39:42.160 --> 0:39:43.560
<v Speaker 1>about it today, We're going to talk about it in

0:39:43.560 --> 0:39:48.560
<v Speaker 1>the future. But it suffice to say philosophies vary, scientific

0:39:48.560 --> 0:39:52.759
<v Speaker 1>interpretations vary, and then it drags in additional drags in

0:39:52.840 --> 0:39:55.279
<v Speaker 1>just about everything about the human condition, right, I mean,

0:39:55.600 --> 0:39:59.160
<v Speaker 1>moral responsibility, theological quandaries, etc.

0:39:59.600 --> 0:40:03.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's a problem that it is such a huge

0:40:03.360 --> 0:40:07.520
<v Speaker 2>topic and that almost all discussions about free will that

0:40:07.560 --> 0:40:10.240
<v Speaker 2>I encounter in the wild are an absolute mess.

0:40:10.760 --> 0:40:11.879
<v Speaker 4>This is my personal take.

0:40:12.080 --> 0:40:15.520
<v Speaker 2>I noticed, do you ever notice how conversations about free

0:40:15.520 --> 0:40:20.239
<v Speaker 2>will almost never seem to clarify anything. They almost never

0:40:20.239 --> 0:40:23.400
<v Speaker 2>seem to provide any more focus or clarity than you

0:40:23.480 --> 0:40:24.319
<v Speaker 2>had to begin with.

0:40:24.960 --> 0:40:29.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Like sometimes it's at times it feels like having

0:40:29.040 --> 0:40:33.680
<v Speaker 1>a conversation with somebody in a swimming pool about whether

0:40:33.760 --> 0:40:36.759
<v Speaker 1>water is wet. Yeah, because it does get down to like,

0:40:36.760 --> 0:40:39.239
<v Speaker 1>like it seems wet to me, I am in it.

0:40:39.239 --> 0:40:41.400
<v Speaker 1>It seems like free will to me because I am

0:40:41.480 --> 0:40:44.800
<v Speaker 1>immersed in it, and it's difficult for me to remove

0:40:44.880 --> 0:40:48.440
<v Speaker 1>myself from the experience that I'm having and all of

0:40:48.640 --> 0:40:50.799
<v Speaker 1>and everything in my life that supports everything in the

0:40:50.840 --> 0:40:54.200
<v Speaker 1>culture at large, that supports the idea that I am

0:40:54.320 --> 0:40:57.840
<v Speaker 1>making choices and form choices about my life.

0:40:58.120 --> 0:40:59.840
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I feel like some dilemmas having to do

0:40:59.880 --> 0:41:03.160
<v Speaker 2>with free will or like they force you to choose

0:41:03.200 --> 0:41:04.440
<v Speaker 2>between two options that.

0:41:04.440 --> 0:41:07.480
<v Speaker 4>Are both tautologies or both absurdities.

0:41:07.520 --> 0:41:10.759
<v Speaker 2>And any time you encounter a problem like that, I

0:41:10.760 --> 0:41:13.160
<v Speaker 2>think there's a pretty good chance that the underlying disease

0:41:13.280 --> 0:41:15.920
<v Speaker 2>causing that is poorly defined terms.

0:41:16.040 --> 0:41:19.640
<v Speaker 1>Right, Yeah, and yeah, to your point, the extreme versions

0:41:19.680 --> 0:41:22.040
<v Speaker 1>of this are to tend to come off as kind

0:41:22.040 --> 0:41:23.960
<v Speaker 1>of loony, Like if someone is just like I am

0:41:23.960 --> 0:41:26.800
<v Speaker 1>a completely free moving soul, Like no, you're not dummy.

0:41:27.480 --> 0:41:27.680
<v Speaker 2>You know.

0:41:27.760 --> 0:41:30.400
<v Speaker 1>It's like when we discussed in the Thankfulness episode that

0:41:30.520 --> 0:41:33.360
<v Speaker 1>we put out, you know, like everybody's life is shaped

0:41:33.400 --> 0:41:35.560
<v Speaker 1>by these other factors. These are other individuals in their

0:41:35.600 --> 0:41:38.360
<v Speaker 1>life to some extent, and I feel like to argue

0:41:38.480 --> 0:41:41.040
<v Speaker 1>against that is just lunacy. On the other hand, if

0:41:41.080 --> 0:41:43.839
<v Speaker 1>someone is saying I am a just a pure automaton,

0:41:44.480 --> 0:41:46.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean, there you can back that argument up with

0:41:47.000 --> 0:41:50.279
<v Speaker 1>some very intriguing arguments, and we'll get into some of those.

0:41:50.600 --> 0:41:53.479
<v Speaker 1>But at the end of the day, does that match

0:41:53.560 --> 0:41:55.440
<v Speaker 1>up with your experience of reality?

0:41:55.719 --> 0:41:58.040
<v Speaker 2>I totally agree, But I think even talking about it

0:41:58.080 --> 0:42:01.239
<v Speaker 2>at that level, that's already like a level up, like

0:42:01.320 --> 0:42:05.480
<v Speaker 2>having accepted some terms as unproblematic more than I think

0:42:05.520 --> 0:42:07.600
<v Speaker 2>they should be. So like anyway, I mean, I think

0:42:07.640 --> 0:42:10.080
<v Speaker 2>the main problem with free will is people aren't being

0:42:10.200 --> 0:42:13.400
<v Speaker 2>clear what they're talking about before they start talking. And

0:42:13.440 --> 0:42:16.279
<v Speaker 2>I'm totally guilty of this as well. This is usually

0:42:16.360 --> 0:42:18.160
<v Speaker 2>the case when it comes to free will, and this

0:42:18.239 --> 0:42:20.920
<v Speaker 2>happens even when we're not aware that we're being unclear,

0:42:21.000 --> 0:42:23.640
<v Speaker 2>So we can't do it full justice. In the short segment.

0:42:23.880 --> 0:42:25.680
<v Speaker 2>I think we will try to do better than an

0:42:25.719 --> 0:42:30.440
<v Speaker 2>absolute mess. So to try to understand what our terms

0:42:30.480 --> 0:42:31.040
<v Speaker 2>actually mean.

0:42:31.360 --> 0:42:32.200
<v Speaker 4>What is free?

0:42:32.280 --> 0:42:36.279
<v Speaker 2>Will A common understanding is I am in control of

0:42:36.320 --> 0:42:39.479
<v Speaker 2>my own actions. And I think most of the time

0:42:39.600 --> 0:42:43.680
<v Speaker 2>for most people this feels true, though curiously, of course,

0:42:43.719 --> 0:42:45.640
<v Speaker 2>not all of the time and not for all people.

0:42:45.719 --> 0:42:48.440
<v Speaker 2>We can come back to that, but I would argue

0:42:48.440 --> 0:42:52.000
<v Speaker 2>that it only feels true in a general way, and

0:42:52.080 --> 0:42:55.200
<v Speaker 2>it gets stickier and thornier the more you try to

0:42:55.200 --> 0:42:58.000
<v Speaker 2>think about it, and the more precisely you try to

0:42:58.040 --> 0:43:00.960
<v Speaker 2>define those terms. So, if I'm in control of my

0:43:01.080 --> 0:43:02.479
<v Speaker 2>own actions, who is I.

0:43:03.640 --> 0:43:05.480
<v Speaker 4>We brought this up a minute ago. Is I my

0:43:05.680 --> 0:43:06.480
<v Speaker 4>whole brain?

0:43:07.600 --> 0:43:09.440
<v Speaker 2>I mean? Also, I think there's a good case to

0:43:09.480 --> 0:43:11.640
<v Speaker 2>be made that other parts of your body gets some

0:43:11.760 --> 0:43:14.319
<v Speaker 2>kind of vote in your decision making. So is it

0:43:14.360 --> 0:43:17.600
<v Speaker 2>my whole body? Is it everything with my genome? Even then,

0:43:17.600 --> 0:43:20.080
<v Speaker 2>I would say your microbiota sort of gets a vote.

0:43:20.880 --> 0:43:23.200
<v Speaker 2>I think there are questions about what the eye is.

0:43:23.360 --> 0:43:26.719
<v Speaker 2>But then also what counts as control? If I am

0:43:26.760 --> 0:43:29.560
<v Speaker 2>in control of my own actions, does it mean that

0:43:29.560 --> 0:43:33.560
<v Speaker 2>that I make my decisions with no outside influences? I mean,

0:43:33.560 --> 0:43:35.880
<v Speaker 2>that's obviously not true, as you were alluding to a

0:43:35.920 --> 0:43:39.520
<v Speaker 2>minute ago. But once you accept that outside factors have

0:43:39.640 --> 0:43:43.040
<v Speaker 2>some influence over whatever it is you're talking about controlling,

0:43:43.560 --> 0:43:46.719
<v Speaker 2>what's to stop you from assuming that they have total influence?

0:43:46.760 --> 0:43:49.640
<v Speaker 2>I mean, what part of your decision making is not

0:43:49.920 --> 0:43:53.879
<v Speaker 2>influenced by pre existing factors like your memory and your

0:43:53.880 --> 0:43:57.160
<v Speaker 2>physical circumstances and so forth, Like what part of you

0:43:57.560 --> 0:44:01.480
<v Speaker 2>can you identify that stands outside of the world. And

0:44:01.520 --> 0:44:03.600
<v Speaker 2>then from the other end, paradoxically, if you were to

0:44:03.640 --> 0:44:06.919
<v Speaker 2>suddenly act in a way that made no sense given

0:44:06.960 --> 0:44:10.120
<v Speaker 2>your own history and memory and all of the inputs

0:44:10.160 --> 0:44:12.520
<v Speaker 2>coming in that you think of as influences on you,

0:44:12.960 --> 0:44:16.840
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't that action actually feel less like something that comes

0:44:16.880 --> 0:44:20.880
<v Speaker 2>genuinely from you, whatever you are. Wouldn't by this metric,

0:44:20.960 --> 0:44:24.560
<v Speaker 2>the most objectively free action seem like something coming from

0:44:24.600 --> 0:44:25.440
<v Speaker 2>the outside.

0:44:26.560 --> 0:44:29.879
<v Speaker 1>You mean, like if you go to a restaurant where there's,

0:44:29.920 --> 0:44:32.600
<v Speaker 1>say there's a drink menu, and you always tend to

0:44:32.719 --> 0:44:35.040
<v Speaker 1>order something that is made with a base of say

0:44:35.120 --> 0:44:38.919
<v Speaker 1>rum or bourbon or whiskey, and instead you throw caution

0:44:39.000 --> 0:44:40.560
<v Speaker 1>to the wind one day and you get a mescal

0:44:40.680 --> 0:44:41.560
<v Speaker 1>or a vodka drink.

0:44:41.760 --> 0:44:46.320
<v Speaker 2>Uh, does that actually make you feel more free or

0:44:46.520 --> 0:44:49.040
<v Speaker 2>does it seem like something you know, something.

0:44:48.680 --> 0:44:50.959
<v Speaker 4>Got into you. Where does that phrase come from?

0:44:51.320 --> 0:44:53.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. When I do things like that, I

0:44:53.760 --> 0:44:55.839
<v Speaker 1>think it does make me feel more free, because I'm like, no,

0:44:56.440 --> 0:44:59.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm not gonna be the same person I've been every

0:44:59.040 --> 0:45:01.920
<v Speaker 1>time I'm gonna try I had a different direction. You know,

0:45:02.000 --> 0:45:04.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to I'm going to get a different type

0:45:04.200 --> 0:45:06.080
<v Speaker 1>of drink, I'm going to try a different type of food,

0:45:06.120 --> 0:45:08.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to walk a different way to the train station,

0:45:08.719 --> 0:45:09.160
<v Speaker 1>et cetera.

0:45:09.480 --> 0:45:11.600
<v Speaker 2>Well, I mean, I would say that this just highlights

0:45:11.680 --> 0:45:16.520
<v Speaker 2>that neither branch either acting in character where your character

0:45:16.600 --> 0:45:18.480
<v Speaker 2>has been shaped by everything that ever happened to you,

0:45:18.560 --> 0:45:21.040
<v Speaker 2>nor a by acting out of character where you know

0:45:21.120 --> 0:45:25.600
<v Speaker 2>something got into you. Neither way really cites the origin

0:45:25.920 --> 0:45:29.799
<v Speaker 2>of decisions or the origin of actions in something that's

0:45:29.840 --> 0:45:33.480
<v Speaker 2>out without outside influence. So a lot of the arguments

0:45:33.480 --> 0:45:36.040
<v Speaker 2>about whether we have free will actually seem to me

0:45:36.160 --> 0:45:39.160
<v Speaker 2>to reduce to the question of whether we feel we

0:45:39.239 --> 0:45:42.080
<v Speaker 2>have free will. But what would it actually mean to

0:45:42.120 --> 0:45:45.880
<v Speaker 2>settle the question of whether we are like physically objectively free?

0:45:46.640 --> 0:45:48.640
<v Speaker 2>So maybe we should look at like a more thought

0:45:48.680 --> 0:45:52.120
<v Speaker 2>out dictionary definition. So one that I found is quote

0:45:52.239 --> 0:45:57.160
<v Speaker 2>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.

0:45:57.360 --> 0:45:59.840
<v Speaker 1>Oh or fate. Now that that brings me back to

0:45:59.840 --> 0:46:03.480
<v Speaker 1>this demon Packs, the thief of destiny, I find myself.

0:46:03.560 --> 0:46:06.600
<v Speaker 1>I found myself with the second viewing of Bandersnatch, returning

0:46:06.640 --> 0:46:09.120
<v Speaker 1>to that title and trying to figure out exactly what

0:46:09.160 --> 0:46:14.600
<v Speaker 1>it means. Because destiny, on one hand, means like, you're predestined, right,

0:46:14.640 --> 0:46:17.400
<v Speaker 1>There is a destiny in place for you, and you

0:46:17.440 --> 0:46:19.879
<v Speaker 1>perhaps don't have any real control. It is the thing

0:46:19.960 --> 0:46:22.560
<v Speaker 1>that the gods have laid out for you. That's like

0:46:22.600 --> 0:46:24.160
<v Speaker 1>one way of looking at But another way of looking

0:46:24.200 --> 0:46:28.400
<v Speaker 1>at destiny is that destiny is the thing you aspire to. Like,

0:46:28.480 --> 0:46:32.680
<v Speaker 1>you choose your own destiny, You choose your own adventure. Right, So,

0:46:32.800 --> 0:46:36.799
<v Speaker 1>which of the two is the demon Packs stealing from you?

0:46:36.920 --> 0:46:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Is he stealing from you the power to make your

0:46:40.080 --> 0:46:44.040
<v Speaker 1>own decisions? Or is he stealing from you a pre

0:46:44.320 --> 0:46:47.960
<v Speaker 1>destined path? Is he liberating you from this from the

0:46:48.000 --> 0:46:50.880
<v Speaker 1>same tired walk to the train station and the same

0:46:50.960 --> 0:46:52.600
<v Speaker 1>tired choices on the menu.

0:46:52.719 --> 0:46:54.640
<v Speaker 2>Well, the funny thing about it choose your own adventure

0:46:54.800 --> 0:46:57.880
<v Speaker 2>is that even though you are making the choices on

0:46:57.920 --> 0:47:00.360
<v Speaker 2>each page about which page to turn to next. Somebody

0:47:00.360 --> 0:47:01.359
<v Speaker 2>else wrote the whole thing.

0:47:01.440 --> 0:47:05.239
<v Speaker 1>That's true, and I mean, to a certain extent, like

0:47:05.280 --> 0:47:07.680
<v Speaker 1>you can. You can apply that to life, like as

0:47:07.800 --> 0:47:11.000
<v Speaker 1>rebellious as you might seem, ordering something else on the

0:47:11.040 --> 0:47:13.200
<v Speaker 1>menu that you normally don't get, it's still on the menu.

0:47:13.560 --> 0:47:15.520
<v Speaker 1>And other things in life are like that too. Like

0:47:15.560 --> 0:47:19.759
<v Speaker 1>you were large, you are constrained by the possibilities of

0:47:20.760 --> 0:47:23.600
<v Speaker 1>your culture, of your station in life, of you know,

0:47:23.640 --> 0:47:25.320
<v Speaker 1>political realities, et cetera.

0:47:25.680 --> 0:47:30.480
<v Speaker 2>But even then, is the unpredictability of a behavior at

0:47:30.480 --> 0:47:35.680
<v Speaker 2>all evidence of your control or your personal volition.

0:47:35.560 --> 0:47:37.759
<v Speaker 4>Of that behavior. I don't know.

0:47:37.800 --> 0:47:40.160
<v Speaker 2>I mean those things seem perhaps unrelated to me.

0:47:40.320 --> 0:47:43.520
<v Speaker 1>Actually, yeah, I mean you can also be predictably unpredictable.

0:47:43.640 --> 0:47:47.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, But anyway, coming back to this definition, the one

0:47:47.160 --> 0:47:50.920
<v Speaker 2>that's you know, acting without constraint of necessity or fate.

0:47:51.160 --> 0:47:52.200
<v Speaker 4>So I think it can be.

0:47:52.120 --> 0:47:54.280
<v Speaker 2>Hard to pin this down to a concrete claim, but

0:47:54.360 --> 0:47:57.040
<v Speaker 2>I think what it comes closest to is saying that

0:47:57.160 --> 0:48:00.400
<v Speaker 2>for any given action or moment in my life history,

0:48:00.440 --> 0:48:04.040
<v Speaker 2>anything I do or think or say, given the exact

0:48:04.160 --> 0:48:08.239
<v Speaker 2>same inputs, I could have produced different output than I

0:48:08.280 --> 0:48:12.200
<v Speaker 2>actually did, And this would be I think, some way

0:48:12.280 --> 0:48:17.279
<v Speaker 2>of making free will a kind of like a physical proposition. Right,

0:48:17.600 --> 0:48:20.719
<v Speaker 2>If exactly the same inputs went into you, everything was

0:48:20.760 --> 0:48:23.399
<v Speaker 2>exactly the same, you could have done something different than

0:48:23.440 --> 0:48:26.319
<v Speaker 2>what you did. Unfortunately, I think this is just a

0:48:26.400 --> 0:48:30.840
<v Speaker 2>completely untestable assumption. R. You know, given the complexity of brains,

0:48:31.000 --> 0:48:34.279
<v Speaker 2>you can never have all of exactly the same inputs

0:48:34.600 --> 0:48:36.720
<v Speaker 2>that somebody had at a given moment, So you can't

0:48:36.760 --> 0:48:38.759
<v Speaker 2>experiment on this to find out what's true.

0:48:39.160 --> 0:48:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Though we certainly love ruminating on this in our fiction. Yeah,

0:48:42.640 --> 0:48:45.560
<v Speaker 1>Like any kind of time travel film, any kind of

0:48:45.600 --> 0:48:49.560
<v Speaker 1>Groundhog Day scenario is exploring this subject.

0:48:49.719 --> 0:48:50.279
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:48:50.320 --> 0:48:52.480
<v Speaker 2>Though, even with most of those time travel things where

0:48:52.480 --> 0:48:54.640
<v Speaker 2>people want to go back and relive it, what they

0:48:54.640 --> 0:48:57.000
<v Speaker 2>actually are imagining is they want to go back and

0:48:57.040 --> 0:48:59.640
<v Speaker 2>relive a moment with the wisdom and knowledge that they

0:48:59.680 --> 0:49:02.759
<v Speaker 2>have now that they didn't have then. So it would

0:49:02.760 --> 0:49:05.959
<v Speaker 2>be funny to just like replay the same instance over

0:49:06.040 --> 0:49:09.040
<v Speaker 2>and over again with exactly the same physics involved, and

0:49:09.080 --> 0:49:11.920
<v Speaker 2>see if anything different happens without having.

0:49:11.680 --> 0:49:12.960
<v Speaker 4>Any new knowledge or whatever.

0:49:13.120 --> 0:49:17.120
<v Speaker 2>Oh yeah, but even then, I mean imagine maybe you

0:49:17.160 --> 0:49:19.280
<v Speaker 2>could do that somehow, You know, you could just watch

0:49:19.320 --> 0:49:21.799
<v Speaker 2>the same period of time play out over and over

0:49:21.880 --> 0:49:25.160
<v Speaker 2>again and see if anything different happens. Even if it

0:49:25.200 --> 0:49:27.879
<v Speaker 2>were true that you could have produced different outputs given

0:49:27.920 --> 0:49:31.680
<v Speaker 2>the exact same inputs, would this really mean you were free?

0:49:31.719 --> 0:49:34.520
<v Speaker 2>Would this be what people mean when they see free will,

0:49:34.560 --> 0:49:37.440
<v Speaker 2>like they're in control of their own actions? You know,

0:49:37.520 --> 0:49:40.880
<v Speaker 2>imagine there's some random dice rolling machine inside your head,

0:49:41.000 --> 0:49:43.520
<v Speaker 2>or a ghost or a spirit in your brain which

0:49:43.600 --> 0:49:46.960
<v Speaker 2>pushes you in different directions even if every single iota

0:49:46.960 --> 0:49:50.120
<v Speaker 2>of input is the same. Is that actually freedom? That

0:49:50.200 --> 0:49:53.520
<v Speaker 2>just sounds like a different kind of impetus or control.

0:49:54.000 --> 0:49:57.520
<v Speaker 1>That's interesting. You bring up a randomization via some sort

0:49:57.560 --> 0:50:01.400
<v Speaker 1>of technology like dice or a casting of bones, because

0:50:01.400 --> 0:50:03.399
<v Speaker 1>we've discussed that in the past on the show. How

0:50:03.440 --> 0:50:06.279
<v Speaker 1>that is sometimes brought up as being like that, Like

0:50:06.320 --> 0:50:11.960
<v Speaker 1>that's the purpose of these early divination technologies techniques, a

0:50:12.040 --> 0:50:16.360
<v Speaker 1>way to randomize choice and to sometimes force us towards

0:50:16.400 --> 0:50:19.320
<v Speaker 1>a decision that we otherwise wouldn't make, like in a

0:50:19.360 --> 0:50:23.319
<v Speaker 1>way to free us from these predestined paths that are

0:50:23.360 --> 0:50:26.640
<v Speaker 1>before us, or at least, you know, lean us over

0:50:26.719 --> 0:50:29.360
<v Speaker 1>towards a different path that we would that is available,

0:50:29.400 --> 0:50:31.439
<v Speaker 1>but we normally wouldn't go for Well.

0:50:31.320 --> 0:50:31.760
<v Speaker 4>It's funny.

0:50:31.800 --> 0:50:33.879
<v Speaker 2>I mean either way you go there. So yeah, say

0:50:33.880 --> 0:50:37.840
<v Speaker 2>you're doing the etching or throwing bones. Does either or

0:50:37.960 --> 0:50:41.080
<v Speaker 2>not doing that either way is one making you more

0:50:41.200 --> 0:50:44.680
<v Speaker 2>the author of your own destiny than another? I'm not sure.

0:50:44.719 --> 0:50:48.480
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they have differences in outcomes, right, but does

0:50:48.520 --> 0:50:51.480
<v Speaker 2>that actually change what people mean when they say when

0:50:51.480 --> 0:50:52.400
<v Speaker 2>they say free will?

0:50:52.600 --> 0:50:54.720
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I mean, even if you randomize your choices,

0:50:54.840 --> 0:50:57.160
<v Speaker 1>you are the one that will then enact that choice,

0:50:57.560 --> 0:51:00.280
<v Speaker 1>Like you're still the actor in your narrative.

0:51:00.040 --> 0:51:02.040
<v Speaker 2>And the randomization is still an input on you.

0:51:03.120 --> 0:51:03.640
<v Speaker 4>So I don't know.

0:51:03.760 --> 0:51:07.359
<v Speaker 2>So anyway to sort of sum it all up, I've

0:51:07.400 --> 0:51:10.560
<v Speaker 2>got a theory here, and it is that I think

0:51:10.600 --> 0:51:13.200
<v Speaker 2>what a lot of us are actually circling around when

0:51:13.239 --> 0:51:16.240
<v Speaker 2>we're trying to figure out how to articulate our concept

0:51:16.239 --> 0:51:19.000
<v Speaker 2>of free will is this claim. And the claim is

0:51:19.760 --> 0:51:24.440
<v Speaker 2>our consciousness dictates our choices of how we act, or

0:51:24.440 --> 0:51:28.359
<v Speaker 2>in other words, we're conscious of the process by which

0:51:28.400 --> 0:51:31.560
<v Speaker 2>our choices are made or by which our actions are generated.

0:51:31.719 --> 0:51:37.080
<v Speaker 2>Right that when we act, we are able to consciously

0:51:37.239 --> 0:51:41.080
<v Speaker 2>be a part of the impetus to act, or consciously

0:51:41.400 --> 0:51:44.600
<v Speaker 2>cause the impetus to act. And I think this one

0:51:44.840 --> 0:51:47.719
<v Speaker 2>is actually testable, and we can come back to that

0:51:47.800 --> 0:51:48.320
<v Speaker 2>in a minute.

0:51:48.920 --> 0:51:50.880
<v Speaker 1>So this is, of course, this is one of the

0:51:50.880 --> 0:51:53.680
<v Speaker 1>big riddles of the human experience. And so people have

0:51:53.719 --> 0:51:57.160
<v Speaker 1>been thinking about this and you know, essentially banging their

0:51:57.160 --> 0:52:01.400
<v Speaker 1>head against the wall about this for thousands of years.

0:52:01.960 --> 0:52:06.960
<v Speaker 1>The philosophers Democritus and Lucippus saw the universe as wholly

0:52:07.000 --> 0:52:11.160
<v Speaker 1>governed by natural laws and composed of you know, essentially

0:52:11.160 --> 0:52:15.520
<v Speaker 1>indivisible atoms. They took the determinist view of life of

0:52:15.640 --> 0:52:20.120
<v Speaker 1>one propelled down a flowing stream of events. Aristotle, on

0:52:20.160 --> 0:52:21.799
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, is a great example of someone who

0:52:21.840 --> 0:52:26.000
<v Speaker 1>stressed the individual's responsibility for their actions. The indeterminists view

0:52:26.000 --> 0:52:29.760
<v Speaker 1>of life is a boat propelling itself through a body

0:52:29.800 --> 0:52:33.040
<v Speaker 1>of water. So, yeah, to what extent are you just

0:52:33.120 --> 0:52:36.080
<v Speaker 1>sailing down the river, you know, you know, with no

0:52:36.160 --> 0:52:38.160
<v Speaker 1>power on where you're going, or are you in a

0:52:38.160 --> 0:52:40.560
<v Speaker 1>boat that in which you have the power to move

0:52:40.600 --> 0:52:43.360
<v Speaker 1>about and even move upstream if you need to. On

0:52:43.440 --> 0:52:45.160
<v Speaker 1>that note, we're going to take one quick break, but

0:52:45.160 --> 0:52:47.560
<v Speaker 1>when we come back, we will start rolling through some

0:52:47.800 --> 0:52:50.280
<v Speaker 1>arguments for and against free will, and then we will

0:52:50.520 --> 0:52:58.040
<v Speaker 1>return to bandersnatch. All right, we're back. So let's start

0:52:58.080 --> 0:53:00.960
<v Speaker 1>with some arguments against free will, because ultimately I think

0:53:00.960 --> 0:53:02.840
<v Speaker 1>these are these are often easier to discuss.

0:53:03.080 --> 0:53:05.879
<v Speaker 2>Sure, I would say the most basic one, right is

0:53:06.040 --> 0:53:08.279
<v Speaker 2>just the science of physics, Right.

0:53:08.600 --> 0:53:10.120
<v Speaker 4>Physics is very predictable.

0:53:10.840 --> 0:53:14.440
<v Speaker 2>You can, you know, given given the inputs of forces

0:53:14.480 --> 0:53:17.279
<v Speaker 2>and energy and all that, you can determine what's going

0:53:17.280 --> 0:53:20.480
<v Speaker 2>to happen as an output of that action. And if

0:53:20.520 --> 0:53:23.319
<v Speaker 2>we assume that applies to everything, then why doesn't it

0:53:23.320 --> 0:53:24.040
<v Speaker 2>apply to us?

0:53:24.480 --> 0:53:24.640
<v Speaker 4>Right?

0:53:24.760 --> 0:53:28.359
<v Speaker 1>And it basically comes back to Democritus and Lucipus, right,

0:53:28.440 --> 0:53:31.359
<v Speaker 1>the idea that their natural laws and they that are

0:53:31.400 --> 0:53:33.600
<v Speaker 1>in place, and we are not above those laws.

0:53:33.800 --> 0:53:34.120
<v Speaker 4>Sure.

0:53:34.560 --> 0:53:37.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So we're acting on the inputs that come in

0:53:37.560 --> 0:53:41.399
<v Speaker 2>and you know that be being pushed in one way

0:53:41.480 --> 0:53:44.200
<v Speaker 2>or another by our life history and our brains and

0:53:44.239 --> 0:53:46.960
<v Speaker 2>all that we're going to act a certain way as

0:53:47.000 --> 0:53:51.080
<v Speaker 2>physically reactive objects. Now this is an argument, of course,

0:53:51.080 --> 0:53:53.680
<v Speaker 2>it's the most common argument I think against free will.

0:53:54.080 --> 0:53:58.520
<v Speaker 2>But one question is our free will and causal determinism

0:53:58.600 --> 0:54:02.080
<v Speaker 2>really incompatible? Not that it settles the issue but I

0:54:02.080 --> 0:54:04.800
<v Speaker 2>think the majority of philosophers who look at this issue

0:54:04.920 --> 0:54:08.440
<v Speaker 2>pretty closely actually end up becoming what are called compatibilists.

0:54:08.560 --> 0:54:11.920
<v Speaker 2>They accept causal determinism, they say, yeah, you know, we're

0:54:11.920 --> 0:54:15.600
<v Speaker 2>physical objects being pushed around by physical forces, but they

0:54:15.640 --> 0:54:18.560
<v Speaker 2>define free will in some way that it is compatible

0:54:18.560 --> 0:54:21.680
<v Speaker 2>with that. That you are a physical object being pushed

0:54:21.719 --> 0:54:24.080
<v Speaker 2>around by physical forces, and the whole history of your

0:54:24.120 --> 0:54:27.360
<v Speaker 2>life and everything, and yet somehow free will still applies

0:54:27.400 --> 0:54:30.480
<v Speaker 2>to you. This often comes down to like an understanding

0:54:30.600 --> 0:54:33.480
<v Speaker 2>or feeling of free will, like I was talking about earlier, like,

0:54:33.520 --> 0:54:37.800
<v Speaker 2>even if your actions are causally determined, somehow you feel

0:54:37.800 --> 0:54:41.120
<v Speaker 2>like you have agency, and that's what we mean by free.

0:54:40.880 --> 0:54:45.320
<v Speaker 1>Will, right right. Another take on this that I came across,

0:54:45.560 --> 0:54:47.440
<v Speaker 1>and this goes back to something we were talking about earlier,

0:54:47.640 --> 0:54:52.759
<v Speaker 1>contemporary British analytic philosopher Galen Straws, and their argument is

0:54:52.760 --> 0:54:56.280
<v Speaker 1>that that basically free will is impossible because we act

0:54:56.320 --> 0:54:59.120
<v Speaker 1>the way we are right in this argument, This argument

0:54:59.120 --> 0:55:02.920
<v Speaker 1>always makes me think of Yates in the poem No

0:55:03.080 --> 0:55:06.120
<v Speaker 1>Second Troy. There's that line what could she have done?

0:55:06.280 --> 0:55:10.240
<v Speaker 1>Being what she is? And I think about that with myself,

0:55:10.280 --> 0:55:12.399
<v Speaker 1>like what when I look back on past choices, what

0:55:12.440 --> 0:55:15.319
<v Speaker 1>else could I have done being who I am? You know,

0:55:15.560 --> 0:55:18.320
<v Speaker 1>without the you know, some sort of sci fi foresight

0:55:18.440 --> 0:55:22.719
<v Speaker 1>brought on by time travel or groundhog day shenanigans, Like

0:55:23.080 --> 0:55:25.680
<v Speaker 1>I am who I am? I am influenced by all

0:55:25.680 --> 0:55:29.399
<v Speaker 1>these these things in my life, and my mind is this,

0:55:29.880 --> 0:55:32.320
<v Speaker 1>and then what other choice would that mind have made?

0:55:32.600 --> 0:55:32.799
<v Speaker 4>Right?

0:55:32.920 --> 0:55:35.600
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this is That's a very good way of

0:55:35.640 --> 0:55:39.520
<v Speaker 2>putting it. It almost like it maybe emphasizes the fact

0:55:39.640 --> 0:55:43.000
<v Speaker 2>that free will is a difficult concept because of some

0:55:43.120 --> 0:55:46.200
<v Speaker 2>of the baggage brought by the word free. Yeah, to

0:55:46.320 --> 0:55:49.759
<v Speaker 2>act in accordance with your nature and your circumstances is

0:55:49.800 --> 0:55:51.000
<v Speaker 2>not necessarily not.

0:55:51.320 --> 0:55:55.239
<v Speaker 1>Free, right, Like it was in my nature to responsibly

0:55:55.239 --> 0:55:57.640
<v Speaker 1>come to work this morning, and so therefore I did.

0:55:58.640 --> 0:56:01.439
<v Speaker 1>Could I have decided not to come into work? Could

0:56:01.440 --> 0:56:03.640
<v Speaker 1>I have gone to the local at an arcade or something,

0:56:03.719 --> 0:56:07.440
<v Speaker 1>or whatever whatever one does when one skips quirk, I

0:56:07.480 --> 0:56:08.239
<v Speaker 1>guess I could have.

0:56:08.680 --> 0:56:10.239
<v Speaker 4>In theory, there's nothing stopping you.

0:56:10.320 --> 0:56:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, nothing at all, except that is not my nature,

0:56:13.520 --> 0:56:15.719
<v Speaker 1>and that is not what I did. Because of my.

0:56:15.760 --> 0:56:18.640
<v Speaker 2>Nature, given the circumstances of who you are and who

0:56:18.640 --> 0:56:20.960
<v Speaker 2>you were, this morning and what was going on this morning.

0:56:21.040 --> 0:56:23.440
<v Speaker 2>You didn't do it, and that's all we know is

0:56:23.480 --> 0:56:25.839
<v Speaker 2>that you know you acted the way you were at

0:56:25.840 --> 0:56:28.400
<v Speaker 2>that time because that's who you were at that time.

0:56:28.760 --> 0:56:32.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Now that being said, yes, events could have been different.

0:56:32.120 --> 0:56:34.520
<v Speaker 1>We could have had an email from our boss saying

0:56:34.600 --> 0:56:37.000
<v Speaker 1>that there was going to be like a rock concert

0:56:37.080 --> 0:56:41.240
<v Speaker 1>in the in the office today. That would never happen,

0:56:42.320 --> 0:56:44.319
<v Speaker 1>and it might make me think, well, maybe I don't

0:56:44.320 --> 0:56:46.680
<v Speaker 1>want to come into work today, and maybe the easiest

0:56:46.680 --> 0:56:50.560
<v Speaker 1>thing to do would be just to skip. I don't know. Again,

0:56:51.200 --> 0:56:54.560
<v Speaker 1>you can tease your brain all day thinking about what

0:56:54.600 --> 0:56:56.920
<v Speaker 1>if and how this would have this little detail where

0:56:56.960 --> 0:57:00.239
<v Speaker 1>this other detail would affected your choices, but ultimately we

0:57:00.280 --> 0:57:02.440
<v Speaker 1>only have the version of the path behind us to

0:57:02.480 --> 0:57:05.359
<v Speaker 1>look back on when we think about all of this. Now,

0:57:05.400 --> 0:57:08.719
<v Speaker 1>two other basic arguments against free will. This is when

0:57:08.760 --> 0:57:12.400
<v Speaker 1>I think we'll come back to Experimentation has pointed to

0:57:12.520 --> 0:57:15.440
<v Speaker 1>breakdowns between what feels like the moment of choice and

0:57:15.480 --> 0:57:17.560
<v Speaker 1>what physically signals a choice being made.

0:57:17.640 --> 0:57:20.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think this very much complicates the idea that Again,

0:57:20.680 --> 0:57:23.160
<v Speaker 2>what I think people are actually really getting at with

0:57:23.200 --> 0:57:26.040
<v Speaker 2>their idea of free will is that they have conscious

0:57:26.200 --> 0:57:28.680
<v Speaker 2>control over their actions and thoughts.

0:57:29.480 --> 0:57:31.840
<v Speaker 1>And another one, and this is again we've been touching

0:57:31.920 --> 0:57:35.760
<v Speaker 1>on this the whole episode, but myriad causal influences at

0:57:35.880 --> 0:57:39.040
<v Speaker 1>least guide our decisions, if not make them for us.

0:57:39.400 --> 0:57:41.120
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, hard to deny.

0:57:41.280 --> 0:57:43.960
<v Speaker 1>All right, So here are some arguments for free will.

0:57:44.040 --> 0:57:47.240
<v Speaker 1>The big one, of course, is that subjectively, we tend

0:57:47.240 --> 0:57:50.520
<v Speaker 1>to feel like we have rational, reflective control over our

0:57:50.600 --> 0:57:51.640
<v Speaker 1>choices and actions.

0:57:51.840 --> 0:57:54.400
<v Speaker 2>Sure, I mean, I can decide to do anything that

0:57:54.440 --> 0:57:56.400
<v Speaker 2>occurs to me to do right now. You know, I

0:57:56.480 --> 0:57:59.600
<v Speaker 2>could throw my computer across the room if I really

0:57:59.600 --> 0:58:00.080
<v Speaker 2>wanted to.

0:58:00.440 --> 0:58:03.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. And and the idea, the way that that our

0:58:03.640 --> 0:58:07.160
<v Speaker 1>brains enable us to simulate these possibilities really I think

0:58:07.280 --> 0:58:11.000
<v Speaker 1>allows us to lean into that interpretation because it's like

0:58:11.080 --> 0:58:13.880
<v Speaker 1>the Choose your own adventure book. The other choices are

0:58:13.920 --> 0:58:16.280
<v Speaker 1>in there, and if we want to, we can cheat,

0:58:16.320 --> 0:58:18.360
<v Speaker 1>and we can check one out and then back up.

0:58:18.720 --> 0:58:20.080
<v Speaker 1>And in a way, you know, we can't do that

0:58:20.120 --> 0:58:24.640
<v Speaker 1>in real life except through our ability to simulate possible futures.

0:58:25.240 --> 0:58:28.360
<v Speaker 1>And and of course that has an important evolutionary role,

0:58:28.400 --> 0:58:31.360
<v Speaker 1>It has important role for our survival. We can think

0:58:31.400 --> 0:58:34.280
<v Speaker 1>about the different ways we might try to say, steal

0:58:34.360 --> 0:58:36.840
<v Speaker 1>a piece of meat from a hungry lion and escape

0:58:37.040 --> 0:58:39.960
<v Speaker 1>with food and our lives, and then choose the best

0:58:39.960 --> 0:58:43.960
<v Speaker 1>course of action. This is this is important, but it

0:58:44.000 --> 0:58:48.440
<v Speaker 1>can also lean into these interpretations that you know that

0:58:48.520 --> 0:58:52.360
<v Speaker 1>certainly you know I have more choice than I actually have,

0:58:52.880 --> 0:58:55.360
<v Speaker 1>or even ultimately an idea that of course is explored

0:58:55.360 --> 0:58:58.680
<v Speaker 1>in Bandersnatch, the idea that these other alternate choices are

0:58:58.800 --> 0:59:01.440
<v Speaker 1>kind of alternate timeline. It's that they're out there like

0:59:01.480 --> 0:59:03.720
<v Speaker 1>I saw it in my head to a certain extent,

0:59:03.920 --> 0:59:06.760
<v Speaker 1>that reality where I tried to take more meat than

0:59:06.880 --> 0:59:09.120
<v Speaker 1>was feasible and was killed by the lion in a

0:59:09.160 --> 0:59:11.160
<v Speaker 1>way that exists because I just saw it.

0:59:11.480 --> 0:59:15.240
<v Speaker 2>Unfortunately, I would say about this argument, it does often

0:59:15.320 --> 0:59:17.640
<v Speaker 2>feel that way that you know, like I could have

0:59:17.720 --> 0:59:21.560
<v Speaker 2>done anything a minute ago, but you didn't. You did

0:59:21.560 --> 0:59:23.920
<v Speaker 2>what you did. So again, this comes back to the

0:59:24.440 --> 0:59:28.280
<v Speaker 2>untestability of this one, like there's just never any way

0:59:28.320 --> 0:59:31.360
<v Speaker 2>to prove that you could have done differently than you

0:59:31.440 --> 0:59:32.480
<v Speaker 2>did in the moment.

0:59:33.000 --> 0:59:34.880
<v Speaker 1>Like if you ever had a like a close call

0:59:35.000 --> 0:59:38.840
<v Speaker 1>where say you're almost in a wreck or you almost

0:59:38.920 --> 0:59:42.240
<v Speaker 1>do something that could have conceivably gotten you killed, and

0:59:42.280 --> 0:59:44.560
<v Speaker 1>then you have that moment of reflection granted. On one level,

0:59:44.600 --> 0:59:48.280
<v Speaker 1>like it may get you just bodily you're excited, right

0:59:48.320 --> 0:59:50.400
<v Speaker 1>because this has happened and your body's on high alert.

0:59:51.080 --> 0:59:53.000
<v Speaker 1>But on the other hand, part of it is sort

0:59:53.040 --> 0:59:57.440
<v Speaker 1>of realizing your close proximity to this other possibility, like

0:59:57.520 --> 1:00:00.720
<v Speaker 1>I was just some minor choice, some mine, or a

1:00:00.800 --> 1:00:04.720
<v Speaker 1>bit of input data away from something more catastrophic.

1:00:04.920 --> 1:00:08.200
<v Speaker 2>Yes, it makes you suddenly you come face to face

1:00:08.240 --> 1:00:10.880
<v Speaker 2>with how dependent you are on moment to moment circumstances

1:00:10.920 --> 1:00:13.400
<v Speaker 2>and awareness. Though I would say a lot of times

1:00:13.440 --> 1:00:15.760
<v Speaker 2>when I get that like that, like oh, you know,

1:00:15.920 --> 1:00:18.120
<v Speaker 2>catch your breath about what could have happened. It wasn't

1:00:18.160 --> 1:00:21.960
<v Speaker 2>because I narrowly avoided something really bad happening. It's because

1:00:22.000 --> 1:00:25.800
<v Speaker 2>I suddenly, out of nowhere, imagined something really bad happening.

1:00:26.240 --> 1:00:28.960
<v Speaker 2>Like you're going down a flight of stairs and it's

1:00:28.960 --> 1:00:32.120
<v Speaker 2>going fine, but you just imagine, ooh I could fall

1:00:32.120 --> 1:00:34.040
<v Speaker 2>and hit my teeth on that thing, and.

1:00:34.000 --> 1:00:36.640
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, oh yeah, I do that. This is of course,

1:00:36.840 --> 1:00:40.360
<v Speaker 1>this is one of my pitfalls, is to almost constantly,

1:00:42.000 --> 1:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>essentially fantasize about bad things that could happen. And I

1:00:45.880 --> 1:00:47.240
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of us do that you know, and

1:00:47.280 --> 1:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>part of that is your mind is exploring possibilities, sure

1:00:51.040 --> 1:00:54.240
<v Speaker 1>of what is happening or could happen or has happened.

1:00:55.240 --> 1:00:57.240
<v Speaker 1>But in doing that we can lean into the negative

1:00:57.240 --> 1:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>possibilities too much, and then our lives become this abysmal

1:01:01.560 --> 1:01:05.880
<v Speaker 1>choose your own adventure book of mostly terrible ends, even

1:01:05.920 --> 1:01:08.720
<v Speaker 1>though the path that you're actually on may not be

1:01:08.880 --> 1:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>leading to any of them.

1:01:11.080 --> 1:01:13.960
<v Speaker 2>It seems like the curse of all this confusion about

1:01:13.960 --> 1:01:15.760
<v Speaker 2>whether we have free will or not and what that

1:01:15.840 --> 1:01:18.880
<v Speaker 2>actually means, could just be rooted in the fact that

1:01:18.920 --> 1:01:22.880
<v Speaker 2>we can consider hypothetical alternative scenarios. The fact that we're

1:01:22.920 --> 1:01:28.240
<v Speaker 2>able to imagine counterfactuals is what makes is what gives

1:01:28.320 --> 1:01:29.720
<v Speaker 2>rise to this whole argument.

1:01:31.520 --> 1:01:33.240
<v Speaker 1>So another thing I have in the list here, and

1:01:33.240 --> 1:01:35.760
<v Speaker 1>this basically is just an extrapolation of everything we're talking

1:01:35.840 --> 1:01:40.600
<v Speaker 1>about right now, is Philosophers Stephen Cave and also Bruce

1:01:40.800 --> 1:01:45.200
<v Speaker 1>Waller have both argued that animals evolved with the capabilities

1:01:45.240 --> 1:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>we tend to associate with free will in order to survive,

1:01:48.360 --> 1:01:52.640
<v Speaker 1>such as opinion generation, deliberation, will, power to stick to

1:01:52.680 --> 1:01:55.920
<v Speaker 1>a choice, and the large human brain has all of

1:01:55.960 --> 1:01:58.960
<v Speaker 1>this in Spades. Cave argues that the level of free

1:01:59.000 --> 1:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>will that we have may actually vary from individual to individual,

1:02:03.360 --> 1:02:05.600
<v Speaker 1>and he argues that we could potentially even put together

1:02:05.640 --> 1:02:09.720
<v Speaker 1>a method of measuring one's freedom quotient or FQ in

1:02:09.800 --> 1:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>the same way that we will roughly measure one's intelligence, creativity,

1:02:14.760 --> 1:02:16.360
<v Speaker 1>and other psychological factors.

1:02:16.640 --> 1:02:18.680
<v Speaker 2>I do think that's possible, but I also think that

1:02:18.680 --> 1:02:20.479
<v Speaker 2>that would be subject to a lot of debate about

1:02:20.480 --> 1:02:21.080
<v Speaker 2>exactly what.

1:02:21.200 --> 1:02:22.360
<v Speaker 4>It is you're measuring.

1:02:22.440 --> 1:02:25.920
<v Speaker 2>There as a lot of these actual you know, human

1:02:26.040 --> 1:02:29.280
<v Speaker 2>or animal quotients are I mean, when you measure human intelligence,

1:02:29.320 --> 1:02:32.720
<v Speaker 2>there's debate about what exactly are you measuring, And I

1:02:32.720 --> 1:02:35.000
<v Speaker 2>think the same thing would be true of freedom subject

1:02:35.040 --> 1:02:37.200
<v Speaker 2>to all of these you know, crazy caveats we've been

1:02:37.200 --> 1:02:38.040
<v Speaker 2>talking about so far.

1:02:38.080 --> 1:02:40.440
<v Speaker 4>What do you mean when you say freedom?

1:02:40.720 --> 1:02:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Another take on this that I had read in

1:02:43.000 --> 1:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>the past was something that neuroscientists David Eagleman called the

1:02:46.800 --> 1:02:50.440
<v Speaker 1>principle of sufficient automatism. And the idea here is that

1:02:51.040 --> 1:02:53.360
<v Speaker 1>the more that we map the human genome and study

1:02:53.400 --> 1:02:56.880
<v Speaker 1>the brains many subconscious machinations, the more it becomes clear

1:02:56.960 --> 1:03:01.080
<v Speaker 1>that a free will exist. It's only a hitching a

1:03:01.160 --> 1:03:06.200
<v Speaker 1>ride on top of enormous automated machinery. So again it

1:03:06.200 --> 1:03:10.960
<v Speaker 1>comes there's plenty of ground in between automaton and self

1:03:11.000 --> 1:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>moving soul where you can sort of move the slider

1:03:15.320 --> 1:03:18.680
<v Speaker 1>towards one direction or the other and still have something

1:03:19.000 --> 1:03:21.360
<v Speaker 1>that we can at least refer to as free will.

1:03:21.520 --> 1:03:23.480
<v Speaker 4>But it might only be a very very little bit

1:03:23.520 --> 1:03:24.040
<v Speaker 4>of something.

1:03:24.200 --> 1:03:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it might, And it's interesting to sort of do that,

1:03:27.080 --> 1:03:29.560
<v Speaker 1>to do a little self reflection and think about that, Like, yes,

1:03:29.640 --> 1:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>I had choice in the Senate situation, but really, how

1:03:33.120 --> 1:03:34.400
<v Speaker 1>much choice was there?

1:03:35.040 --> 1:03:37.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and I think for me at least some of

1:03:37.360 --> 1:03:41.240
<v Speaker 2>the definition problems would still remain, Like, I'm not sure

1:03:41.360 --> 1:03:46.080
<v Speaker 2>that even then that's clarifying what the concept of freedom means. There,

1:03:47.320 --> 1:03:50.080
<v Speaker 2>So we can't test whether it's possible for a person

1:03:50.080 --> 1:03:53.200
<v Speaker 2>to produce different outputs given the exact same inputs. That

1:03:53.360 --> 1:03:56.880
<v Speaker 2>just seems beyond the bounds of empiricism. You could believe

1:03:56.920 --> 1:03:59.120
<v Speaker 2>that if you want, but I don't think there's any

1:03:59.160 --> 1:04:01.600
<v Speaker 2>evidence for it. But this might not be what we

1:04:01.640 --> 1:04:04.680
<v Speaker 2>really mean by free will. Maybe, as I mentioned earlier,

1:04:05.400 --> 1:04:07.440
<v Speaker 2>what we mean by free will is that we are

1:04:07.640 --> 1:04:11.320
<v Speaker 2>conscious of the process by which we make decisions or

1:04:11.360 --> 1:04:14.960
<v Speaker 2>generate actions. And I think the empirical research is pretty

1:04:15.000 --> 1:04:18.280
<v Speaker 2>clear that this is not true, at least not in

1:04:18.360 --> 1:04:21.560
<v Speaker 2>many cases. So just to look at a few studies

1:04:21.640 --> 1:04:26.040
<v Speaker 2>undercutting traditional notions that our consciousness dictates our decisions or

1:04:26.080 --> 1:04:29.400
<v Speaker 2>that we're consciously aware of how all our decisions are reached.

1:04:30.480 --> 1:04:32.240
<v Speaker 2>So first of all, I want to look at one

1:04:32.320 --> 1:04:36.960
<v Speaker 2>by us soon Brass, Hinds and Haynes, published in Nature

1:04:37.000 --> 1:04:40.160
<v Speaker 2>Neuroscience in two thousand and eight, called unconscious determinants of

1:04:40.200 --> 1:04:43.360
<v Speaker 2>free decisions in the human brain. In this study, the

1:04:43.480 --> 1:04:47.080
<v Speaker 2>authors found that they could use brain scanning to detect

1:04:47.120 --> 1:04:52.240
<v Speaker 2>a person's choice between two options before the person believed

1:04:52.360 --> 1:04:54.840
<v Speaker 2>that they had made a choice. So you've got a

1:04:54.920 --> 1:04:58.360
<v Speaker 2>very simple setup. You're supposed to freely choose between pressing

1:04:58.400 --> 1:05:00.640
<v Speaker 2>two buttons. You got a left button I pressed with

1:05:00.720 --> 1:05:03.080
<v Speaker 2>your left hand. You got to right button pressed with

1:05:03.120 --> 1:05:06.160
<v Speaker 2>your right hand. The two different hands were used because

1:05:06.200 --> 1:05:08.280
<v Speaker 2>this made it easier to see which hand was about

1:05:08.320 --> 1:05:11.560
<v Speaker 2>to be engaged through motor control and brain imaging. And

1:05:11.640 --> 1:05:14.520
<v Speaker 2>so you take your time, you decide which button you

1:05:14.600 --> 1:05:17.520
<v Speaker 2>want to press, and then you note which letter in

1:05:17.600 --> 1:05:20.360
<v Speaker 2>a timed sequence is displayed on a screen in front

1:05:20.400 --> 1:05:22.880
<v Speaker 2>of you at the moment you believe you've made your

1:05:22.880 --> 1:05:26.400
<v Speaker 2>decision about which button to push, and in some cases,

1:05:26.440 --> 1:05:30.000
<v Speaker 2>the researchers could detect brain activity of the prefrontal and

1:05:30.040 --> 1:05:33.920
<v Speaker 2>parietal cortex indicating which choice a person was going to

1:05:34.000 --> 1:05:37.760
<v Speaker 2>make up to seven to ten seconds before the person

1:05:37.880 --> 1:05:42.120
<v Speaker 2>believed they had made their choice. So this study indicates

1:05:42.120 --> 1:05:45.120
<v Speaker 2>that at least in some cases, at the moment you

1:05:45.200 --> 1:05:48.840
<v Speaker 2>believe that you have consciously made a choice to do something,

1:05:49.440 --> 1:05:52.560
<v Speaker 2>machines can look at your brain and show that the

1:05:52.600 --> 1:05:55.760
<v Speaker 2>brain has made a choice before you believe you have

1:05:55.880 --> 1:05:58.880
<v Speaker 2>made a choice and predict with better than chance accuracy

1:05:59.200 --> 1:06:00.000
<v Speaker 2>what that choice is.

1:06:01.160 --> 1:06:04.200
<v Speaker 1>This is a study that really intrigued me. I remember

1:06:04.200 --> 1:06:07.680
<v Speaker 1>when it came out because it's basically this idea where

1:06:07.680 --> 1:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>I think that I'm the lightning, but perhaps I am

1:06:09.840 --> 1:06:12.560
<v Speaker 1>the thunder, or at least my experience is that of

1:06:12.560 --> 1:06:15.760
<v Speaker 1>the thunder. But then the other question is, well, does

1:06:15.800 --> 1:06:18.080
<v Speaker 1>that mean I'm not the lightning? Am I not? Both?

1:06:18.160 --> 1:06:21.200
<v Speaker 1>And maybe just like I have a thunder level awareness

1:06:21.720 --> 1:06:24.000
<v Speaker 1>of what I am, but there is this lightning that

1:06:24.040 --> 1:06:25.840
<v Speaker 1>precedes this experience of me.

1:06:26.320 --> 1:06:28.800
<v Speaker 2>Well, I mean, I don't know, I mean the decision

1:06:28.880 --> 1:06:31.680
<v Speaker 2>is generated by the brain. So again you're back to

1:06:31.720 --> 1:06:34.480
<v Speaker 2>this question of what free will means. But if it

1:06:34.520 --> 1:06:37.800
<v Speaker 2>does have something to do with consciously being a participant

1:06:38.720 --> 1:06:42.680
<v Speaker 2>at the moment that a decision is made, there's pretty

1:06:42.680 --> 1:06:45.120
<v Speaker 2>good evidence that that's not going on. The brain is

1:06:45.160 --> 1:06:49.480
<v Speaker 2>making decisions before the person thinks I have made a decision.

1:06:49.760 --> 1:06:51.440
<v Speaker 2>But okay, that was two thousand and eight. Is there

1:06:51.440 --> 1:06:55.240
<v Speaker 2>anything since then? Sure? Here's one study with findings along

1:06:55.280 --> 1:06:58.400
<v Speaker 2>these lines but applied to voluntary mental imagery who is

1:06:58.440 --> 1:07:00.959
<v Speaker 2>published just last year in twenty nineteen in the open

1:07:01.000 --> 1:07:05.920
<v Speaker 2>access journal Scientific Reports. It's by Kenning, Robert and Pearson

1:07:06.240 --> 1:07:09.520
<v Speaker 2>in I said Scientific Reports called Decoding the Contents and

1:07:09.560 --> 1:07:14.120
<v Speaker 2>Strength of Imagery before Volitional Engagement. And again this was

1:07:14.160 --> 1:07:17.600
<v Speaker 2>published in twenty nineteen. The short version here is that

1:07:17.640 --> 1:07:20.720
<v Speaker 2>the researchers exposed people to two different images. You got

1:07:20.720 --> 1:07:24.200
<v Speaker 2>a red circle with horizontal lines and a green circle

1:07:24.240 --> 1:07:27.280
<v Speaker 2>with vertical lines. And then the researchers were able to

1:07:27.400 --> 1:07:31.320
<v Speaker 2>correlate images of brain states with mental representation of the

1:07:31.360 --> 1:07:33.800
<v Speaker 2>different pictures, so they know it's what it looks like

1:07:33.840 --> 1:07:37.080
<v Speaker 2>in your brain when you're thinking about these two images separately.

1:07:38.080 --> 1:07:41.320
<v Speaker 2>They could use this brain imaging to predict, again above chance,

1:07:41.640 --> 1:07:45.800
<v Speaker 2>which image subjects would choose to visualize in their head

1:07:46.320 --> 1:07:49.880
<v Speaker 2>before the subjects believed they had made a choice about

1:07:49.880 --> 1:07:52.479
<v Speaker 2>which one to imagine in their head, and they could

1:07:52.480 --> 1:07:54.880
<v Speaker 2>make these predictions at a rate above chance an average

1:07:54.880 --> 1:07:59.360
<v Speaker 2>of eleven seconds before the person's actual choice about which

1:07:59.360 --> 1:08:02.000
<v Speaker 2>one they were going to imagine. So, one of the authors,

1:08:02.040 --> 1:08:04.840
<v Speaker 2>Joel Pearson, was quoted in a statement I believe to

1:08:04.880 --> 1:08:08.200
<v Speaker 2>a medical express quote. We believe that when we are

1:08:08.240 --> 1:08:10.760
<v Speaker 2>faced with the choice between two or more options of

1:08:10.800 --> 1:08:14.760
<v Speaker 2>what to think about, non conscious traces of the thoughts

1:08:14.800 --> 1:08:18.800
<v Speaker 2>are there already, a bit like unconscious hallucinations.

1:08:19.120 --> 1:08:20.839
<v Speaker 4>That comes back to something we talked about recently.

1:08:20.920 --> 1:08:24.759
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, As the decision of what to think about is made,

1:08:25.080 --> 1:08:28.320
<v Speaker 2>executive areas of the brain choose the thought trace which

1:08:28.400 --> 1:08:31.639
<v Speaker 2>is stronger. In other words, if any pre existing brain

1:08:31.720 --> 1:08:34.960
<v Speaker 2>activity matches one of your choices, then your brain will

1:08:34.960 --> 1:08:37.439
<v Speaker 2>be more likely to pick that option as it gets

1:08:37.479 --> 1:08:41.280
<v Speaker 2>boosted by the pre existing brain activity. This would explain,

1:08:41.320 --> 1:08:44.559
<v Speaker 2>for example, why thinking over and over about something leads

1:08:44.560 --> 1:08:46.920
<v Speaker 2>to ever more thoughts about it as it occurs in

1:08:46.960 --> 1:08:50.120
<v Speaker 2>a positive feedback loop, and then to quote from the

1:08:50.160 --> 1:08:53.320
<v Speaker 2>study abstract, the authors say, our results suggest that the

1:08:53.360 --> 1:08:57.400
<v Speaker 2>contents and strength of mental imagery are influenced by sensory

1:08:57.560 --> 1:09:03.280
<v Speaker 2>like neural representations that emerge spontaneously before volition. So there

1:09:03.280 --> 1:09:05.280
<v Speaker 2>are things going on within the brain that we can

1:09:05.280 --> 1:09:09.400
<v Speaker 2>detect with machinery from the outside that suggest what you're

1:09:09.439 --> 1:09:12.599
<v Speaker 2>going to think about before you think about it now.

1:09:12.640 --> 1:09:14.679
<v Speaker 2>I think we should be fair that it's possible. This

1:09:14.800 --> 1:09:18.040
<v Speaker 2>isn't always the case, but there's plenty of evidence that,

1:09:18.120 --> 1:09:20.799
<v Speaker 2>at least in some of the at least in some cases,

1:09:21.280 --> 1:09:25.360
<v Speaker 2>when people think they're consciously making a choice, the brain

1:09:25.640 --> 1:09:28.800
<v Speaker 2>in a measurable way has already made a choice that

1:09:28.840 --> 1:09:32.120
<v Speaker 2>can be detected from the outside. The brain has already

1:09:32.200 --> 1:09:36.000
<v Speaker 2>set one course of action in motion before the conscious

1:09:36.040 --> 1:09:38.680
<v Speaker 2>part of our brain is aware that we're going to

1:09:38.760 --> 1:09:39.759
<v Speaker 2>choose that course.

1:09:40.320 --> 1:09:43.880
<v Speaker 1>So again, kind of a thunder and lightning scenario right now.

1:09:43.920 --> 1:09:46.080
<v Speaker 2>Of course, this stuff we've been talking about is true

1:09:46.080 --> 1:09:48.880
<v Speaker 2>of typical human brains. Once you start looking at atypical

1:09:48.920 --> 1:09:52.360
<v Speaker 2>neurological situations, you can find all kinds of evidence of

1:09:52.439 --> 1:09:56.200
<v Speaker 2>action without the sensation of conscious awareness or choice. A

1:09:56.200 --> 1:09:57.559
<v Speaker 2>lot of these are things that have come up on

1:09:57.600 --> 1:10:00.920
<v Speaker 2>the show before, like blind sight, the fact that people

1:10:01.000 --> 1:10:05.960
<v Speaker 2>can physically react to visual stimuli while believing consciously that

1:10:06.040 --> 1:10:08.240
<v Speaker 2>they are blind, or that they're blind in some part

1:10:08.240 --> 1:10:11.639
<v Speaker 2>of their visual field, like you can react to raise

1:10:11.680 --> 1:10:14.120
<v Speaker 2>your hand to catch a ball without believing that you

1:10:14.160 --> 1:10:17.280
<v Speaker 2>have seen the ball, or you got alien limb syndrome,

1:10:17.320 --> 1:10:20.439
<v Speaker 2>where something like a brain lesion can cause part of

1:10:20.439 --> 1:10:22.200
<v Speaker 2>the body to act in a way that you do

1:10:22.240 --> 1:10:25.439
<v Speaker 2>not feel in control of. The hand moves on its own,

1:10:25.479 --> 1:10:28.120
<v Speaker 2>it moves against your will, It picks up the spoon

1:10:28.240 --> 1:10:31.439
<v Speaker 2>when you meant to pick up the fork. Of course,

1:10:31.520 --> 1:10:34.639
<v Speaker 2>the experiences of split brain patients, which we did a

1:10:34.680 --> 1:10:38.200
<v Speaker 2>deep dive on in January of twenty nineteen. The short

1:10:38.320 --> 1:10:41.120
<v Speaker 2>version is that some patients who undergo a surgery called

1:10:41.120 --> 1:10:44.600
<v Speaker 2>a corpus calisotomy, in which the main avenue of information

1:10:44.680 --> 1:10:47.200
<v Speaker 2>sharing between the two hemispheres of the brain is severed,

1:10:47.600 --> 1:10:51.120
<v Speaker 2>can seem to show signs of the right hemisphere acting

1:10:51.160 --> 1:10:54.920
<v Speaker 2>and making choices without the conscious awareness or control of

1:10:54.960 --> 1:10:57.439
<v Speaker 2>the left hemisphere, which seems to be the part of

1:10:57.439 --> 1:11:00.840
<v Speaker 2>the brain that can usually talk. And example led to

1:11:00.960 --> 1:11:06.040
<v Speaker 2>hypotheses like Michael Gazaniga and Joseph Ledu's left brain interpreter model,

1:11:06.080 --> 1:11:09.000
<v Speaker 2>where they argue that part of what the left hemisphere

1:11:09.000 --> 1:11:12.280
<v Speaker 2>of the brain does is generate an ongoing series of

1:11:12.400 --> 1:11:17.120
<v Speaker 2>narrative explanations that reconcile past and present and give us

1:11:17.160 --> 1:11:20.680
<v Speaker 2>the sense of that we understand why we do what

1:11:20.760 --> 1:11:23.440
<v Speaker 2>we do now. Of course, their model could be incorrect,

1:11:23.479 --> 1:11:25.920
<v Speaker 2>but I think it's also possible that they're really onto

1:11:25.960 --> 1:11:29.080
<v Speaker 2>something that the brain seems to have a major function

1:11:29.200 --> 1:11:34.280
<v Speaker 2>of trying to convince itself that its behavior is coherent

1:11:34.400 --> 1:11:38.680
<v Speaker 2>and has rational justifications, and if possible, to convince the

1:11:38.760 --> 1:11:41.840
<v Speaker 2>conscious part of the brain that it's in control. I

1:11:41.880 --> 1:11:44.080
<v Speaker 2>think this is kind of like at work when you

1:11:44.120 --> 1:11:46.760
<v Speaker 2>give the boss three options. You know, it's like, here

1:11:46.760 --> 1:11:48.599
<v Speaker 2>are the three things we came up with, and you've

1:11:48.640 --> 1:11:51.479
<v Speaker 2>got the one you actually want to go with, and

1:11:51.560 --> 1:11:54.600
<v Speaker 2>then you've got two like terrible options that are designed

1:11:54.640 --> 1:11:57.599
<v Speaker 2>in order to be ignored and discarded by the boss

1:11:57.800 --> 1:12:00.440
<v Speaker 2>and flatter the boss and give them a sense of control.

1:12:00.320 --> 1:12:02.360
<v Speaker 1>Right, which can be a dangerous exercise.

1:12:02.520 --> 1:12:05.800
<v Speaker 2>Absolutely, I'm not advising that as a good strategy. I'm

1:12:05.800 --> 1:12:08.320
<v Speaker 2>just saying people do it to look quickly at one

1:12:08.320 --> 1:12:08.800
<v Speaker 2>more study.

1:12:08.840 --> 1:12:09.160
<v Speaker 4>I found.

1:12:09.240 --> 1:12:15.559
<v Speaker 2>This was published in twenty eighteen in PNAS by Darby, Jautza, Burke,

1:12:15.640 --> 1:12:20.559
<v Speaker 2>and Fox called lesion network localization of free will. Very briefly,

1:12:20.600 --> 1:12:25.840
<v Speaker 2>the authors here define the neurologically relevant parts of free

1:12:25.840 --> 1:12:28.599
<v Speaker 2>will as having two parts. So first of all, there's

1:12:28.720 --> 1:12:32.400
<v Speaker 2>the desire to act, that's volition. You got volitional control,

1:12:32.680 --> 1:12:36.000
<v Speaker 2>and then a sense of responsibility for that action, which

1:12:36.040 --> 1:12:39.280
<v Speaker 2>is the feeling of agencies. So you got volition and agency.

1:12:39.880 --> 1:12:42.439
<v Speaker 2>And then they looked at two neurological conditions, one that

1:12:42.560 --> 1:12:45.840
<v Speaker 2>is believed to disrupt each of these functions. They looked

1:12:45.840 --> 1:12:49.720
<v Speaker 2>at focal brain lesions that disrupt a volition causing a

1:12:49.920 --> 1:12:53.479
<v Speaker 2>kinetic mutism. And a kinetic mutism is a condition where

1:12:53.520 --> 1:12:57.120
<v Speaker 2>patients are unable to voluntarily move or speak. This would

1:12:57.120 --> 1:12:59.400
<v Speaker 2>of course be a disruption of the volition part of

1:12:59.400 --> 1:13:02.720
<v Speaker 2>the brain. And then lesions that disrupt agency, and this

1:13:02.760 --> 1:13:06.679
<v Speaker 2>would of course cause alien Limb syndrome. Again, alien limb syndrome,

1:13:06.720 --> 1:13:09.040
<v Speaker 2>that's where you've got part of your body acting or

1:13:09.080 --> 1:13:11.280
<v Speaker 2>moving in a way that does not feel voluntary.

1:13:11.320 --> 1:13:13.720
<v Speaker 4>It moves, but you don't feel like you did it.

1:13:14.520 --> 1:13:17.320
<v Speaker 2>And then they basically found that brain lesions that disrupt

1:13:17.439 --> 1:13:20.080
<v Speaker 2>volition occur all over the brain, but they're within a

1:13:20.120 --> 1:13:22.800
<v Speaker 2>brain network that is connected in some way to the

1:13:22.840 --> 1:13:26.799
<v Speaker 2>anterior cingulate cortex. And they found that lesions that disrupt

1:13:26.880 --> 1:13:30.200
<v Speaker 2>agency also occur in different locations around the brain, but

1:13:30.280 --> 1:13:32.920
<v Speaker 2>they tend to be defined by connectivity to a part

1:13:32.920 --> 1:13:35.840
<v Speaker 2>of the brain called the precuneus. Now, again I would

1:13:35.840 --> 1:13:39.479
<v Speaker 2>note that this this acknowledges physical evidence that there are

1:13:39.520 --> 1:13:44.479
<v Speaker 2>distinct brain processes involved in generating action, you know, volition

1:13:44.960 --> 1:13:49.519
<v Speaker 2>versus recognizing personal agency in that action, and typical brains

1:13:49.560 --> 1:13:52.880
<v Speaker 2>executing typical actions have both of these acting in sync.

1:13:53.200 --> 1:13:55.639
<v Speaker 2>But brains can have either one without the other.

1:13:56.040 --> 1:13:58.120
<v Speaker 1>Now, obviously we could keep going here. We could keep

1:13:58.160 --> 1:14:02.439
<v Speaker 1>discussing free will and what feels like free will and

1:14:02.439 --> 1:14:07.400
<v Speaker 1>how it matches up with neuroscientific data, etc. But at

1:14:07.400 --> 1:14:09.120
<v Speaker 1>this point the podcast, we probably do need to bring

1:14:09.120 --> 1:14:12.639
<v Speaker 1>it back around to Bandersnatch and the question like, Okay,

1:14:12.640 --> 1:14:14.720
<v Speaker 1>given all this stuff that we've talked about, what does

1:14:14.760 --> 1:14:17.920
<v Speaker 1>Bandersnatch seem to be saying about all of this? Well,

1:14:18.560 --> 1:14:21.400
<v Speaker 1>it does seem to be largely a rumination on the

1:14:21.439 --> 1:14:23.760
<v Speaker 1>idea that we do not seem to have as much

1:14:23.760 --> 1:14:28.040
<v Speaker 1>free will as we think we do that we can resist,

1:14:28.120 --> 1:14:31.280
<v Speaker 1>but it takes considerable effort to run counter to the

1:14:31.720 --> 1:14:32.960
<v Speaker 1>current that we're stuck in.

1:14:33.240 --> 1:14:35.439
<v Speaker 2>I would say a thing that is a theme that

1:14:35.520 --> 1:14:38.080
<v Speaker 2>is hammered home about free will, and it is the

1:14:38.160 --> 1:14:40.840
<v Speaker 2>more we look at the concept of free will and

1:14:40.960 --> 1:14:43.600
<v Speaker 2>think about whether we have control over our actions, the

1:14:43.680 --> 1:14:44.960
<v Speaker 2>less we feel we have it.

1:14:45.280 --> 1:14:47.559
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Like I was thinking, I'm trying to list, like

1:14:47.920 --> 1:14:53.240
<v Speaker 1>all the various factors and agents that are influencing Stephan

1:14:53.439 --> 1:14:57.000
<v Speaker 1>in the story. I mean, we have his mental health,

1:14:57.080 --> 1:15:02.000
<v Speaker 1>his past trauma, his father, his therapy, the work and

1:15:02.240 --> 1:15:06.000
<v Speaker 1>tragic life, the influence of Jerome F. Davies, his boss

1:15:06.040 --> 1:15:11.000
<v Speaker 1>at Tuckersoft, his mentor slash hero slash friend Colin Rittman,

1:15:11.320 --> 1:15:15.160
<v Speaker 1>conspiracy theories, music media, et cetera. And that's not even

1:15:15.200 --> 1:15:17.760
<v Speaker 1>getting into the speculative elopment that there is either an

1:15:17.800 --> 1:15:22.080
<v Speaker 1>actual demon entity that is the literal thief of destiny,

1:15:22.800 --> 1:15:26.000
<v Speaker 1>or that a power beyond himself is influencing his decisions,

1:15:26.000 --> 1:15:28.880
<v Speaker 1>some sort of voice from beyond or the machinations of

1:15:28.880 --> 1:15:30.439
<v Speaker 1>a player in another world.

1:15:30.760 --> 1:15:34.479
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, the story really brings home this paradox, which is

1:15:34.520 --> 1:15:37.840
<v Speaker 2>that I think it is the case that the closer

1:15:37.920 --> 1:15:41.840
<v Speaker 2>we look at free will, and the more we bring

1:15:42.080 --> 1:15:47.680
<v Speaker 2>our sharpest scientific tools and philosophical instruments to understand it,

1:15:48.000 --> 1:15:50.280
<v Speaker 2>the less it seems to make sense, and the less

1:15:50.320 --> 1:15:52.800
<v Speaker 2>it seems to be there. And yet at the same

1:15:52.880 --> 1:15:56.559
<v Speaker 2>time that we acknowledge that to feel like your actions

1:15:56.600 --> 1:15:59.599
<v Speaker 2>are not under your own control is not a heightened

1:15:59.600 --> 1:16:02.800
<v Speaker 2>state of consciousness, that is still a problem. Yeah, and

1:16:03.160 --> 1:16:05.720
<v Speaker 2>it and I don't know exactly what that signals. That

1:16:05.760 --> 1:16:09.040
<v Speaker 2>may be yet another unresolved tension in the issue of

1:16:09.040 --> 1:16:12.000
<v Speaker 2>free will, that like, the more closely we examine it,

1:16:12.040 --> 1:16:14.080
<v Speaker 2>the less we feel like we have it, and yet

1:16:14.600 --> 1:16:17.599
<v Speaker 2>genuinely feeling like you don't have it, the more you

1:16:17.680 --> 1:16:20.320
<v Speaker 2>feel that way, the more this is a serious impediment

1:16:20.400 --> 1:16:21.840
<v Speaker 2>to you living a healthy life.

1:16:22.040 --> 1:16:25.439
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely, now, this seems this may seem like a logical

1:16:25.479 --> 1:16:29.080
<v Speaker 1>place to end the conversation, but one of the things

1:16:29.120 --> 1:16:32.960
<v Speaker 1>that's really interesting here is that is that we were

1:16:32.960 --> 1:16:35.519
<v Speaker 1>talking about an episode of Black Mirror that deals with

1:16:35.600 --> 1:16:38.880
<v Speaker 1>free will and our choices in life. And certainly again

1:16:38.920 --> 1:16:42.000
<v Speaker 1>Black Mirror frequently comments on our unease regarding new technology,

1:16:42.280 --> 1:16:46.080
<v Speaker 1>but then band or Snatch itself this show on Netflix

1:16:46.160 --> 1:16:50.840
<v Speaker 1>this this movie. This movie itself factors into some user

1:16:50.880 --> 1:16:55.200
<v Speaker 1>concerns about the future of this sort of interactive viewing technology.

1:16:55.600 --> 1:16:59.240
<v Speaker 2>Yes, you know, I would say one of the things

1:16:59.240 --> 1:17:01.760
<v Speaker 2>that is a legitimate concern about free will, however you

1:17:01.840 --> 1:17:05.200
<v Speaker 2>define it as murky as it is. At least one

1:17:05.240 --> 1:17:08.120
<v Speaker 2>thing that we want is to we want to think

1:17:08.160 --> 1:17:12.599
<v Speaker 2>that we understand the incoming influences on our behavior, right

1:17:13.080 --> 1:17:15.519
<v Speaker 2>Like you'd like to think that if I did X,

1:17:16.000 --> 1:17:18.120
<v Speaker 2>I can sort of make sense of that it was

1:17:18.200 --> 1:17:20.799
<v Speaker 2>because I read this book, or I read this article,

1:17:20.960 --> 1:17:23.760
<v Speaker 2>or I had a conversation with this person, and I

1:17:23.880 --> 1:17:27.280
<v Speaker 2>connect the knowledge I gained through that or the influences

1:17:27.320 --> 1:17:31.559
<v Speaker 2>of those past experiences with the decision I just made.

1:17:32.120 --> 1:17:35.800
<v Speaker 2>Life starts getting more difficult when you have trouble understanding

1:17:35.880 --> 1:17:38.320
<v Speaker 2>what the influences on yourself are.

1:17:38.520 --> 1:17:39.320
<v Speaker 4>Does that make sense?

1:17:39.600 --> 1:17:42.280
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? Yeah, And we've we've discussed some of these in

1:17:42.280 --> 1:17:44.000
<v Speaker 1>the past. We've discussed a number of these in the past,

1:17:44.200 --> 1:17:47.439
<v Speaker 1>but technologically speaking, we have discussed advertising and we have

1:17:47.479 --> 1:17:51.800
<v Speaker 1>discussed social media, which are good things to keep in

1:17:51.800 --> 1:17:54.439
<v Speaker 1>mind as we continue here. Because there might not be

1:17:54.479 --> 1:17:57.000
<v Speaker 1>a band or snatcher, a demon awaiting you in the

1:17:57.040 --> 1:18:00.320
<v Speaker 1>maze of future interactive media technology. But there there might

1:18:00.400 --> 1:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>just be some highly targeted advertisements for example. So two

1:18:06.240 --> 1:18:09.920
<v Speaker 1>individuals that I ran across wrote about this topic or

1:18:09.960 --> 1:18:13.040
<v Speaker 1>touched on this topic. One is Matthew Galt, who wrote

1:18:13.040 --> 1:18:17.040
<v Speaker 1>about this last year for Vice's Motherboard, and then Tiffany

1:18:17.080 --> 1:18:20.040
<v Speaker 1>Schu wrote about it for The New York Times. So

1:18:20.120 --> 1:18:24.439
<v Speaker 1>Galt wrote about Michael Veil, a technology policy researcher at

1:18:24.520 --> 1:18:29.600
<v Speaker 1>University College London, who utilized Europe's General Data Protection Regulation

1:18:29.880 --> 1:18:34.240
<v Speaker 1>or GDPR law to request a copy of the data

1:18:34.560 --> 1:18:38.519
<v Speaker 1>Netflix collected about him and his choices through the use

1:18:38.880 --> 1:18:43.120
<v Speaker 1>of the Bandersnatch program. Now they complied, perhaps in part

1:18:43.160 --> 1:18:46.720
<v Speaker 1>because of veil status as a public person, but basically

1:18:47.400 --> 1:18:50.800
<v Speaker 1>Netflix acquires this information in order to carry out the

1:18:50.800 --> 1:18:54.400
<v Speaker 1>Bandersnatch experience, which makes sense, right, it has to chart

1:18:54.400 --> 1:18:59.280
<v Speaker 1>your path through this complex system. But then also Netflix

1:18:59.400 --> 1:19:02.400
<v Speaker 1>keeps this in which the company claims is in order

1:19:02.439 --> 1:19:05.920
<v Speaker 1>to quote determine how to improve this model of storytelling

1:19:06.000 --> 1:19:09.840
<v Speaker 1>in the context of a show or movie. And I mean,

1:19:09.960 --> 1:19:12.439
<v Speaker 1>on one level that sounds well and good as well,

1:19:12.479 --> 1:19:16.240
<v Speaker 1>except that Vial thinks that Netflix quote should really be

1:19:16.320 --> 1:19:19.960
<v Speaker 1>using consent, which you should be able to refuse or

1:19:20.200 --> 1:19:24.559
<v Speaker 1>legitimate interest, meaning that you can object to it instead. Now,

1:19:24.560 --> 1:19:27.640
<v Speaker 1>in Shoe's article, she points to the early choice we

1:19:27.720 --> 1:19:33.639
<v Speaker 1>make between Kellogg's Frosty's and then Quaker Sugar Puffs. Now,

1:19:33.760 --> 1:19:36.200
<v Speaker 1>both of these are real serials, though I have to

1:19:36.240 --> 1:19:39.920
<v Speaker 1>admit I thought Quaker Sugarpuffs was made up because it

1:19:39.920 --> 1:19:43.519
<v Speaker 1>has this ridiculous honey monster mascot that's like super fun,

1:19:43.600 --> 1:19:45.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of a cheddar Goblin sort of thing.

1:19:45.400 --> 1:19:45.839
<v Speaker 2>Nice.

1:19:45.960 --> 1:19:49.280
<v Speaker 1>But it turns out this was an actual UK product.

1:19:49.280 --> 1:19:52.720
<v Speaker 1>It was just a UK only product, so Americans such

1:19:52.720 --> 1:19:55.719
<v Speaker 1>as ourselves were perhaps not privy to it. But again,

1:19:55.760 --> 1:19:59.320
<v Speaker 1>both were real products, and neither one was a paid inclusion,

1:19:59.360 --> 1:20:02.560
<v Speaker 1>so it was not a official product placement or product integration.

1:20:02.960 --> 1:20:07.000
<v Speaker 1>And Netflix, of course is like an ad free system anyway.

1:20:07.800 --> 1:20:11.440
<v Speaker 1>But Shoe points to some of the words of Read Hastings,

1:20:11.720 --> 1:20:15.000
<v Speaker 1>co founder, chairman and CEO of Netflix, who pointed out

1:20:15.080 --> 1:20:18.240
<v Speaker 1>during a webcast tied to an earnings report that seventy

1:20:18.280 --> 1:20:24.120
<v Speaker 1>three percent of Bandersnatch viewers selected kellogg Frosty's over the

1:20:25.000 --> 1:20:26.080
<v Speaker 1>Quaker Sugar Puffs.

1:20:26.080 --> 1:20:28.679
<v Speaker 4>Oh no, I did too. I feel so vulnerable right now.

1:20:29.200 --> 1:20:31.599
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember what I did the first time around

1:20:31.760 --> 1:20:33.439
<v Speaker 1>the first time I watched it, I also watched with

1:20:33.479 --> 1:20:36.559
<v Speaker 1>my wife, so we were voting on which choices. You know,

1:20:36.560 --> 1:20:39.080
<v Speaker 1>we're having a discussion. I guess I should have mentioned

1:20:39.120 --> 1:20:40.920
<v Speaker 1>that earlier, because that has a whole other wrinkled as

1:20:40.920 --> 1:20:44.120
<v Speaker 1>a scenario of making communal choices and voting on something.

1:20:44.400 --> 1:20:47.920
<v Speaker 1>But on my own, I chose the Quaker thing just

1:20:47.960 --> 1:20:51.080
<v Speaker 1>because I thought it looked weirder. Okay, but again I'm

1:20:51.080 --> 1:20:54.400
<v Speaker 1>in the minority for doing so. So first of all,

1:20:54.800 --> 1:20:56.479
<v Speaker 1>I think this is a shame because I think the

1:20:56.479 --> 1:20:59.320
<v Speaker 1>cover and TV advertisement for Quaker Sugar Puffs is awesome

1:20:59.320 --> 1:21:02.160
<v Speaker 1>and weird. Again, but more to the point, as Shoe

1:21:02.160 --> 1:21:06.240
<v Speaker 1>points out, Spencer Wang, a Netflix vice president, chimed in

1:21:06.360 --> 1:21:08.280
<v Speaker 1>and joked, and let's be clear he was He was

1:21:08.320 --> 1:21:11.519
<v Speaker 1>apparently joking that this was the most critical data point

1:21:11.560 --> 1:21:12.120
<v Speaker 1>of the quarter.

1:21:13.040 --> 1:21:13.240
<v Speaker 4>Now.

1:21:13.240 --> 1:21:16.080
<v Speaker 1>She writes that while Netflix doesn't run commercials and has

1:21:16.080 --> 1:21:19.799
<v Speaker 1>stated that it would not use bandersnatch information for anything

1:21:19.880 --> 1:21:23.400
<v Speaker 1>like this, others outside the company do see the potential, namely,

1:21:23.439 --> 1:21:27.160
<v Speaker 1>in quote, the possibility of inserting brand name products into

1:21:27.160 --> 1:21:31.880
<v Speaker 1>streaming shows based on data generated by interactive programming. Now,

1:21:31.880 --> 1:21:34.840
<v Speaker 1>Shoe stresses that the technology to roll this out isn't

1:21:34.840 --> 1:21:38.280
<v Speaker 1>here yet. But I suppose we have to consider two

1:21:38.360 --> 1:21:42.680
<v Speaker 1>key factors in that statement. So, first of all, we

1:21:42.720 --> 1:21:46.519
<v Speaker 1>were in the early days of truly interactive features like

1:21:46.560 --> 1:21:50.200
<v Speaker 1>this on major streaming platforms, you know, assume, and that

1:21:50.280 --> 1:21:52.519
<v Speaker 1>is just assuming that it really catches on at all.

1:21:52.600 --> 1:21:56.680
<v Speaker 1>As we've discussed, interactive cinema is not new. It's been

1:21:56.720 --> 1:22:01.200
<v Speaker 1>around for decades and it has largely failed to catch on.

1:22:02.320 --> 1:22:06.720
<v Speaker 1>It is not like a driving force in our entertainment.

1:22:07.040 --> 1:22:08.960
<v Speaker 1>You'll find plenty of examples of it. You also find

1:22:08.960 --> 1:22:12.120
<v Speaker 1>a lot of computer games that kind of fulfill this

1:22:12.120 --> 1:22:14.560
<v Speaker 1>this niche right, Yeah.

1:22:14.240 --> 1:22:15.799
<v Speaker 4>Those are also sort of failed.

1:22:16.360 --> 1:22:20.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you know, I would have there are certainly deeper

1:22:20.000 --> 1:22:22.280
<v Speaker 1>dives and say the history of things like what Telltale

1:22:22.320 --> 1:22:24.760
<v Speaker 1>Games I think was the company maybe that did a

1:22:24.840 --> 1:22:27.960
<v Speaker 1>number of these things that were again not really released

1:22:28.000 --> 1:22:30.800
<v Speaker 1>as they weren't marketed as interactive movies so much as

1:22:30.800 --> 1:22:35.000
<v Speaker 1>they were interactive gaming experiences. So that's one thing to consider.

1:22:36.000 --> 1:22:38.360
<v Speaker 1>Interest in interactive films has essentially gone up and down

1:22:38.360 --> 1:22:40.800
<v Speaker 1>over the years, and again it hasn't really like ignited

1:22:41.479 --> 1:22:44.600
<v Speaker 1>still Netflix and also Netflix itself has only released a

1:22:44.640 --> 1:22:48.720
<v Speaker 1>handful of interactive titles, mostly kids stuff. Bandersnatch is their

1:22:48.760 --> 1:22:52.920
<v Speaker 1>only true adult drama release in this of this product type,

1:22:53.240 --> 1:22:56.160
<v Speaker 1>though they claimed to be doubling down on interactive content

1:22:56.200 --> 1:22:59.120
<v Speaker 1>in the future. Given you know how Netflix tends to

1:22:59.120 --> 1:23:02.640
<v Speaker 1>be a little bit secretive about what's coming out, or

1:23:02.640 --> 1:23:04.559
<v Speaker 1>at least they don't tell you a lot, I guess

1:23:04.560 --> 1:23:06.639
<v Speaker 1>we'll just have to know about it when we see

1:23:06.680 --> 1:23:10.400
<v Speaker 1>it pop up. But also it's also worth reminding ourselves

1:23:10.400 --> 1:23:12.840
<v Speaker 1>that a great deal of work went into creating Bandersnatch

1:23:12.880 --> 1:23:15.880
<v Speaker 1>as well. I think I've seen it written that like

1:23:15.960 --> 1:23:19.559
<v Speaker 1>three times as much work went into Bandersnatch versus say

1:23:20.320 --> 1:23:23.879
<v Speaker 1>that long episode of the show that was approximately ninety minutes,

1:23:24.479 --> 1:23:28.280
<v Speaker 1>So is it cost effective content? Are all the limitations

1:23:28.400 --> 1:23:31.200
<v Speaker 1>worked out yet? For instance, I don't believe Bandersnatch works

1:23:31.200 --> 1:23:34.479
<v Speaker 1>on many mobile formats or older models, like you have

1:23:34.560 --> 1:23:37.400
<v Speaker 1>to have something more updated. Like I tried to load

1:23:37.439 --> 1:23:41.160
<v Speaker 1>it onto my phone and I have an older iPhone.

1:23:41.479 --> 1:23:43.120
<v Speaker 1>I tried to load it on there to watch on

1:23:43.160 --> 1:23:45.960
<v Speaker 1>an airplane and it wouldn't work. I had to watch

1:23:45.960 --> 1:23:49.080
<v Speaker 1>it through my Xbox One. And another big concern is

1:23:49.320 --> 1:23:51.599
<v Speaker 1>there would need to be I guess enough interactive content

1:23:51.720 --> 1:23:54.960
<v Speaker 1>out there tuned for this sort of thing to generate

1:23:55.040 --> 1:23:58.280
<v Speaker 1>the necessary user data to then be employed.

1:23:58.840 --> 1:24:01.120
<v Speaker 2>I can really see this kind of thing being used

1:24:01.160 --> 1:24:03.680
<v Speaker 2>as a as a major data mining I mean, I

1:24:03.720 --> 1:24:07.479
<v Speaker 2>don't know, it seems very possible to get psychologically salient

1:24:07.560 --> 1:24:08.400
<v Speaker 2>information through this.

1:24:08.800 --> 1:24:09.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

1:24:09.240 --> 1:24:11.720
<v Speaker 2>Now, of course that they're already getting information through all

1:24:11.840 --> 1:24:13.840
<v Speaker 2>kinds of things. You know, the tech business can get

1:24:13.840 --> 1:24:17.960
<v Speaker 2>your information through through what you buy online, through what

1:24:18.000 --> 1:24:20.880
<v Speaker 2>websites you visit, through what you do on Facebook or

1:24:20.920 --> 1:24:21.799
<v Speaker 2>other social media.

1:24:21.880 --> 1:24:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Right Like, a website like Netflix already knows what kind

1:24:25.040 --> 1:24:28.120
<v Speaker 1>of movies you have watched, what kind you like, what

1:24:28.200 --> 1:24:31.120
<v Speaker 1>kind of movies you want to like, and then also

1:24:31.760 --> 1:24:33.880
<v Speaker 1>you know how you have rated things as well, and

1:24:33.920 --> 1:24:36.880
<v Speaker 1>then they can serve you a recommendation of what you

1:24:36.960 --> 1:24:38.240
<v Speaker 1>might want to watch in the future.

1:24:38.479 --> 1:24:41.080
<v Speaker 2>Right now, This is so, of course we're talking about

1:24:41.080 --> 1:24:44.840
<v Speaker 2>this and possibly going multiple ways. One is using interactive

1:24:45.000 --> 1:24:49.040
<v Speaker 2>choices in a film to gather data about you, and

1:24:49.120 --> 1:24:54.000
<v Speaker 2>the other side would be giving like specially user tailored

1:24:54.200 --> 1:24:58.000
<v Speaker 2>media experiences, which we already get somewhat of course on websites,

1:24:58.040 --> 1:25:00.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, you get websites loading with the ad of

1:25:00.240 --> 1:25:03.439
<v Speaker 2>stuff you searched for on Amazon and all that. But yeah,

1:25:03.439 --> 1:25:05.600
<v Speaker 2>I guess we're being forced to consider what if that

1:25:05.640 --> 1:25:08.800
<v Speaker 2>starts happening within the movies and TV shows you watch,

1:25:09.360 --> 1:25:13.280
<v Speaker 2>So you start seeing product placement for specific products that

1:25:13.320 --> 1:25:17.600
<v Speaker 2>are aimed at you individually within the shows you watch.

1:25:18.000 --> 1:25:21.840
<v Speaker 1>Right right, Like, you know, they know that given the

1:25:21.840 --> 1:25:26.840
<v Speaker 1>serial scenario, like potentially the master of the content, be

1:25:26.920 --> 1:25:31.519
<v Speaker 1>it Netflix or some other company, Hypothetically, they might know

1:25:31.680 --> 1:25:34.400
<v Speaker 1>that you are, say more inclined towards, you know, healthy

1:25:34.400 --> 1:25:39.040
<v Speaker 1>lifestyle choices, and therefore some sort of granola, you know,

1:25:39.200 --> 1:25:42.839
<v Speaker 1>health wrapped content would be ideal for you in that scenario.

1:25:43.080 --> 1:25:47.240
<v Speaker 1>Or they might know that that's not your ideal cereal,

1:25:47.560 --> 1:25:49.400
<v Speaker 1>or maybe they know that you have children in the

1:25:49.400 --> 1:25:52.280
<v Speaker 1>house and therefore a children's cereal would be more appropriate.

1:25:52.600 --> 1:25:55.560
<v Speaker 1>Like that's the kind of information that they could conceivably

1:25:55.640 --> 1:25:59.280
<v Speaker 1>have and then feed into the cereal that appears before

1:25:59.320 --> 1:25:59.920
<v Speaker 1>you on the screen.

1:26:00.360 --> 1:26:03.680
<v Speaker 2>Now, that would be, of course, something we're more familiar with,

1:26:03.840 --> 1:26:07.200
<v Speaker 2>just like inserting ads. And you might imagine a character

1:26:07.320 --> 1:26:10.080
<v Speaker 2>walking past a billboard or something in a movie like

1:26:10.280 --> 1:26:13.439
<v Speaker 2>happens all the time now except that billboard can be

1:26:13.640 --> 1:26:16.599
<v Speaker 2>you know, dynamically inserted with new imagery or something.

1:26:16.800 --> 1:26:17.000
<v Speaker 1>Right.

1:26:17.880 --> 1:26:20.760
<v Speaker 2>I think things start getting even creepier when you imagine

1:26:21.560 --> 1:26:24.479
<v Speaker 2>something more like Band or Snatch Itself, where there are

1:26:24.680 --> 1:26:27.600
<v Speaker 2>alternative versions of a film that are specially tailored to you,

1:26:27.720 --> 1:26:32.519
<v Speaker 2>that have different narrative content depending on who's watching. I mean, so,

1:26:32.600 --> 1:26:34.759
<v Speaker 2>one thing Robert and I were talking about briefly before

1:26:34.760 --> 1:26:37.680
<v Speaker 2>we came in here is the idea that you know,

1:26:37.720 --> 1:26:41.759
<v Speaker 2>we often know that movies can embody values, of course,

1:26:41.840 --> 1:26:44.960
<v Speaker 2>you know that, like sometimes the values of a filmmaker

1:26:45.160 --> 1:26:48.680
<v Speaker 2>creator come through and what happens in a story, and

1:26:48.760 --> 1:26:52.599
<v Speaker 2>then other times there are sort of like cheap attempts

1:26:52.640 --> 1:26:55.800
<v Speaker 2>to display values what would often be called like pandering, right,

1:26:55.880 --> 1:26:59.360
<v Speaker 2>you know, like you know, cheap appeals to patriotism or

1:26:59.400 --> 1:27:01.120
<v Speaker 2>something like that in a movie.

1:27:01.520 --> 1:27:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Or I don't know, I guess you could make an

1:27:03.320 --> 1:27:06.599
<v Speaker 1>argument for awards season Academy Awards bait as well.

1:27:06.479 --> 1:27:09.719
<v Speaker 2>Right, yeah, sure, you know, just like sort of cheap

1:27:09.720 --> 1:27:15.720
<v Speaker 2>attempts to exploit the specific desires or value interests of

1:27:15.920 --> 1:27:17.400
<v Speaker 2>a specific target audience.

1:27:17.640 --> 1:27:21.400
<v Speaker 4>Right, And so you can imagine.

1:27:21.000 --> 1:27:23.800
<v Speaker 2>Okay, well, now if a movie is made and it

1:27:23.880 --> 1:27:27.920
<v Speaker 2>wants to pander, it needs to at least make a choice. Right,

1:27:28.160 --> 1:27:30.439
<v Speaker 2>It's hard to pander to everybody at the same time.

1:27:31.520 --> 1:27:35.559
<v Speaker 2>But you can imagine, Okay, what if somebody just starts

1:27:35.560 --> 1:27:38.240
<v Speaker 2>making more like a Bandersnatch kind of thing where maybe

1:27:38.240 --> 1:27:40.320
<v Speaker 2>you don't make the choices, the choices are made for

1:27:40.400 --> 1:27:43.160
<v Speaker 2>you based on what is known about your user profile.

1:27:43.720 --> 1:27:46.920
<v Speaker 2>And so what I was imagining beforehand was you could

1:27:46.920 --> 1:27:49.840
<v Speaker 2>have different versions of the movie Independence Day.

1:27:49.880 --> 1:27:52.880
<v Speaker 4>You remember that speech Bill Pullman gives before they all

1:27:52.880 --> 1:27:55.439
<v Speaker 4>get in the planes and go fly off and fight.

1:27:55.720 --> 1:27:57.160
<v Speaker 1>Oh yes, So it's.

1:27:57.000 --> 1:27:59.439
<v Speaker 2>This rousing moment where Bill Pullman gives this kind of

1:27:59.600 --> 1:28:03.400
<v Speaker 2>innocus speech that could appeal to basically anybody. But you

1:28:03.439 --> 1:28:07.280
<v Speaker 2>can make that speech a much more tailored, specific interest

1:28:07.320 --> 1:28:10.120
<v Speaker 2>group pandering kind of thing, where you could have one

1:28:10.200 --> 1:28:13.080
<v Speaker 2>version of the film that plays for somebody that's that's

1:28:13.160 --> 1:28:15.840
<v Speaker 2>very inclusive. He gives a speech he's like, humans will

1:28:15.920 --> 1:28:18.320
<v Speaker 2>join arms together around the world. There will be no

1:28:18.439 --> 1:28:21.120
<v Speaker 2>more nations and borders and creeds and all. You know,

1:28:21.320 --> 1:28:23.519
<v Speaker 2>we all unite as one and stand in brothers and

1:28:23.880 --> 1:28:26.920
<v Speaker 2>as brothers and sisters against this. Or you could have

1:28:26.960 --> 1:28:29.880
<v Speaker 2>a version where he gives a speech about American exceptionalism

1:28:29.920 --> 1:28:32.000
<v Speaker 2>and how we're the first and we stand up and

1:28:32.040 --> 1:28:34.439
<v Speaker 2>fight when no one else will, or you could get

1:28:34.439 --> 1:28:36.599
<v Speaker 2>you know, you can imagine a million versions of this

1:28:36.800 --> 1:28:40.120
<v Speaker 2>depending on what kind of user they think you are

1:28:40.360 --> 1:28:41.440
<v Speaker 2>who are watching.

1:28:41.439 --> 1:28:45.400
<v Speaker 1>Right, I mean, and that that kind of personality profile

1:28:46.000 --> 1:28:49.519
<v Speaker 1>or worldview profile would be pretty easy to acquire. I mean,

1:28:49.560 --> 1:28:54.280
<v Speaker 1>basically websites like Facebook have that information. Like sure, they're

1:28:54.320 --> 1:28:59.080
<v Speaker 1>not feeding you independence day to a tailored speech in it,

1:28:59.120 --> 1:29:02.280
<v Speaker 1>but they are feeding giving you a feed that that

1:29:02.840 --> 1:29:05.640
<v Speaker 1>reflects your world views and values.

1:29:05.520 --> 1:29:09.120
<v Speaker 2>And people are very invested in like the values of

1:29:09.120 --> 1:29:12.240
<v Speaker 2>what media they consume these days. I can imagine it

1:29:12.360 --> 1:29:16.760
<v Speaker 2>being judged a very profitable enterprise by some studios to say, well,

1:29:16.840 --> 1:29:19.320
<v Speaker 2>let's just cover all the bases. You know, we'll have

1:29:19.400 --> 1:29:21.720
<v Speaker 2>way less trouble if we make a movie, you know,

1:29:21.840 --> 1:29:24.080
<v Speaker 2>a version A of the movie for you and a

1:29:24.200 --> 1:29:26.720
<v Speaker 2>version B of the movie for you. It doesn't have

1:29:26.840 --> 1:29:29.320
<v Speaker 2>to be a coherent vision or picture of the world.

1:29:29.560 --> 1:29:31.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, this is you know. I can't help but think

1:29:31.760 --> 1:29:34.200
<v Speaker 1>on past films, like, for instance, we talked about Conan

1:29:34.240 --> 1:29:37.160
<v Speaker 1>the Barbarian on the show in the past, like that

1:29:37.320 --> 1:29:39.760
<v Speaker 1>is a film that has a has a very particular

1:29:39.880 --> 1:29:43.439
<v Speaker 1>view of what strength means and what, uh you know,

1:29:43.520 --> 1:29:48.040
<v Speaker 1>how power works, et cetera. And it's not everybody's political

1:29:48.320 --> 1:29:50.920
<v Speaker 1>or philosophical cup of tea. Sure, I mean you can.

1:29:51.080 --> 1:29:53.439
<v Speaker 1>I think you can enjoy that film without focusing on

1:29:53.479 --> 1:29:58.000
<v Speaker 1>all of that. But still it's definitely there. And that's

1:29:58.040 --> 1:29:59.800
<v Speaker 1>not a film, I mean, especially at the time it

1:29:59.840 --> 1:30:02.440
<v Speaker 1>came out. It's not a film where you would necessarily

1:30:02.479 --> 1:30:05.439
<v Speaker 1>ask for an alternate version of it. But again, it's

1:30:05.560 --> 1:30:07.360
<v Speaker 1>very clear in what it's saying. But then you have

1:30:07.400 --> 1:30:10.519
<v Speaker 1>films like say Patent. Patent is often brought up as

1:30:10.600 --> 1:30:13.720
<v Speaker 1>example of a film that meant one thing to one

1:30:13.800 --> 1:30:16.439
<v Speaker 1>part of a divided America and another to the other

1:30:16.479 --> 1:30:19.800
<v Speaker 1>part of a divided America without having to have like

1:30:19.840 --> 1:30:20.960
<v Speaker 1>an ab version.

1:30:21.320 --> 1:30:22.840
<v Speaker 2>Right Yeah, I think you could say that about a

1:30:22.840 --> 1:30:25.519
<v Speaker 2>lot of like war movies, especially. I think that might

1:30:25.560 --> 1:30:28.400
<v Speaker 2>be sort of true of Platoon, right yeah, is that

1:30:28.520 --> 1:30:29.520
<v Speaker 2>like an anti.

1:30:29.200 --> 1:30:31.040
<v Speaker 4>War movie or a patriotic movie?

1:30:31.080 --> 1:30:32.920
<v Speaker 2>You know, you sort of have some elements of each

1:30:33.080 --> 1:30:34.960
<v Speaker 2>you can latch onto what you want to see there,

1:30:36.120 --> 1:30:38.800
<v Speaker 2>But yeah, I don't know. I'm somewhat disturbed by the

1:30:38.840 --> 1:30:42.880
<v Speaker 2>idea of like of media filling up with these like

1:30:43.000 --> 1:30:46.160
<v Speaker 2>personally tailored options that are designed to make a sort

1:30:46.160 --> 1:30:51.759
<v Speaker 2>of like generic media template individually palatable to the user,

1:30:52.160 --> 1:30:54.640
<v Speaker 2>as opposed to standing for something on its own and

1:30:54.680 --> 1:30:55.920
<v Speaker 2>allowing you to judge it.

1:30:56.080 --> 1:30:59.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, or having some level of ambiguity, like does the

1:31:00.040 --> 1:31:04.400
<v Speaker 1>as the modern audience and like the near future audience,

1:31:04.479 --> 1:31:07.400
<v Speaker 1>do they want ambiguity in their work or do they

1:31:07.439 --> 1:31:12.280
<v Speaker 1>want like a clear cut view that is expressed clear

1:31:12.320 --> 1:31:14.760
<v Speaker 1>cut values not only of the film, but of like

1:31:14.880 --> 1:31:18.040
<v Speaker 1>the creator or creators behind it, like they you know,

1:31:18.320 --> 1:31:21.280
<v Speaker 1>is there is there an increased hunger for that? And

1:31:21.960 --> 1:31:24.760
<v Speaker 1>if that is the case, you could easily see a

1:31:24.800 --> 1:31:27.879
<v Speaker 1>way of worming around that by taking this ABC approach

1:31:28.000 --> 1:31:31.880
<v Speaker 1>to film creation, because then nobody can say, well, I

1:31:32.000 --> 1:31:33.600
<v Speaker 1>like the character of Cone in the Barbarian, but I

1:31:33.680 --> 1:31:38.600
<v Speaker 1>think your view is pro totalitarianism and you know, I

1:31:38.640 --> 1:31:43.080
<v Speaker 1>don't know, celebrates toxic masculinity or whatever the critique might be,

1:31:43.479 --> 1:31:46.080
<v Speaker 1>And then they could say, well, that's all good, well

1:31:46.120 --> 1:31:48.360
<v Speaker 1>and good, but you're you're only talking about one version

1:31:48.680 --> 1:31:50.280
<v Speaker 1>if you watch Cone in the Barbarian.

1:31:51.000 --> 1:31:51.200
<v Speaker 2>You know.

1:31:51.240 --> 1:31:56.640
<v Speaker 1>The twenty twenty eight relaunch of the platform then you

1:31:56.680 --> 1:31:59.360
<v Speaker 1>will get what is tailored to you. It's treatment of

1:31:59.400 --> 1:32:03.679
<v Speaker 1>masculinity and power will be exactly what you want to see.

1:32:04.320 --> 1:32:07.080
<v Speaker 1>And I mean that opens the door to just a

1:32:07.080 --> 1:32:10.040
<v Speaker 1>big question of like what art is and what does

1:32:10.040 --> 1:32:13.599
<v Speaker 1>that do to you know, to the role of these

1:32:13.680 --> 1:32:15.639
<v Speaker 1>narratives in our culture.

1:32:15.920 --> 1:32:20.559
<v Speaker 2>I remember many years ago how much of like the

1:32:20.600 --> 1:32:23.759
<v Speaker 2>new Internet and the new media landscape was being sold

1:32:23.840 --> 1:32:27.240
<v Speaker 2>to us. It was so often on the selling point

1:32:27.240 --> 1:32:31.559
<v Speaker 2>of customization and individualization. You know, get what's right for you,

1:32:31.680 --> 1:32:35.639
<v Speaker 2>get an experience that's personally tailored for you. And somehow

1:32:35.720 --> 1:32:38.320
<v Speaker 2>I just feel like we were not able to anticipate

1:32:38.479 --> 1:32:41.400
<v Speaker 2>how scary and messed up that would feel when it

1:32:41.439 --> 1:32:42.320
<v Speaker 2>actually happened.

1:32:42.479 --> 1:32:44.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Yeah, I like to come back to Bandersnatch. The

1:32:44.960 --> 1:32:48.120
<v Speaker 1>first time I watched it, I think it probably was

1:32:48.200 --> 1:32:52.120
<v Speaker 1>over two hours that I spent questing after the happy ending,

1:32:52.200 --> 1:32:54.360
<v Speaker 1>and I got it, and I have to admit I

1:32:54.360 --> 1:32:57.840
<v Speaker 1>felt a little empty when I reached it. The second time,

1:32:58.080 --> 1:33:01.639
<v Speaker 1>I tried to just again make more dramatic choices, make

1:33:01.680 --> 1:33:03.280
<v Speaker 1>a choice here and there that were just different from

1:33:03.280 --> 1:33:06.200
<v Speaker 1>what I did. The first time. I got a bleak ending,

1:33:06.640 --> 1:33:13.360
<v Speaker 1>but it felt more authentic so yeah, it's interesting to

1:33:13.400 --> 1:33:18.800
<v Speaker 1>think about how choice potentially impacts our appreciation of a

1:33:18.840 --> 1:33:22.640
<v Speaker 1>work like this, especially if we're talking about increasingly interactive

1:33:22.760 --> 1:33:25.240
<v Speaker 1>work in a hypothetical future.

1:33:25.600 --> 1:33:27.320
<v Speaker 2>Had to find a good bleak note to end on.

1:33:27.439 --> 1:33:28.120
<v Speaker 2>I think that's it.

1:33:28.320 --> 1:33:31.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, I mean, if we're talking about black Mirror,

1:33:31.040 --> 1:33:34.479
<v Speaker 1>that's where we have to leave it. All right, Well,

1:33:34.479 --> 1:33:37.160
<v Speaker 1>we covered a lot of ground in there. I imagine

1:33:37.280 --> 1:33:40.519
<v Speaker 1>listeners will want to chime in, certainly on Bandersnatch if

1:33:40.520 --> 1:33:42.559
<v Speaker 1>they have experienced it. I'd love to hear from anyone

1:33:42.600 --> 1:33:44.919
<v Speaker 1>who's like, how much time did you spend on Banderstatch?

1:33:44.960 --> 1:33:46.720
<v Speaker 1>How many viewings have you given? Did you do like

1:33:46.800 --> 1:33:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Joe and go in and try and find every golden

1:33:50.040 --> 1:33:50.599
<v Speaker 1>Easter egg?

1:33:50.720 --> 1:33:52.160
<v Speaker 4>I didn't get all of them, but I got a

1:33:52.160 --> 1:33:52.599
<v Speaker 4>lot of them.

1:33:52.760 --> 1:33:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Or did you do like me? Did you sort of

1:33:54.200 --> 1:33:56.240
<v Speaker 1>go through it once and maybe go through a second time?

1:33:56.280 --> 1:33:58.400
<v Speaker 1>And maybe you haven't seen or haven't read about the

1:33:58.439 --> 1:34:02.240
<v Speaker 1>other endings. And of course free will you all have

1:34:02.360 --> 1:34:03.840
<v Speaker 1>it or maybe you all don't have it but you

1:34:03.840 --> 1:34:06.160
<v Speaker 1>think you have it, which however you want to look

1:34:06.160 --> 1:34:09.000
<v Speaker 1>at it. You all have some thoughts about free Will.

1:34:09.040 --> 1:34:11.240
<v Speaker 1>You all have some experience to share about this, and

1:34:11.280 --> 1:34:13.719
<v Speaker 1>we would love to hear from you in the meantime.

1:34:13.760 --> 1:34:15.240
<v Speaker 1>If you want to check out more Stuff to Blow

1:34:15.240 --> 1:34:18.000
<v Speaker 1>your Mind, you can find us anywhere you get your podcasts.

1:34:18.200 --> 1:34:20.040
<v Speaker 1>You can certainly go to stuff to Blow your Mind

1:34:20.080 --> 1:34:22.200
<v Speaker 1>dot com and that will redirect you to a place

1:34:22.200 --> 1:34:25.240
<v Speaker 1>where you can find the episodes and wherever you get

1:34:25.240 --> 1:34:26.960
<v Speaker 1>the show. We just have to ask that you support

1:34:27.040 --> 1:34:30.360
<v Speaker 1>us by rating and reviewing and subscribing. And don't forget

1:34:30.400 --> 1:34:33.879
<v Speaker 1>we have another show out there titled Invention and Invention

1:34:34.320 --> 1:34:37.400
<v Speaker 1>covers human technohistory, one invention at a time.

1:34:37.960 --> 1:34:40.880
<v Speaker 2>Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth

1:34:40.960 --> 1:34:43.840
<v Speaker 2>Nicholas Johnson, who is doing a heroic quick turnaround on

1:34:43.880 --> 1:34:48.040
<v Speaker 2>today's episode, So praise him, everyone, praise him. If you

1:34:48.080 --> 1:34:50.639
<v Speaker 2>would like to get in touch with us with notes

1:34:50.680 --> 1:34:53.080
<v Speaker 2>on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic

1:34:53.120 --> 1:34:55.559
<v Speaker 2>for the future, just to say hi, you can email

1:34:55.680 --> 1:35:05.879
<v Speaker 2>us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.

1:35:06.040 --> 1:35:08.160
<v Speaker 3>Stuff to Blow Your Mind is a production of iHeartRadio.

1:35:08.240 --> 1:35:10.920
<v Speaker 3>How Stuff Works. For more podcasts from iHeart Radio, visit

1:35:10.920 --> 1:35:13.840
<v Speaker 3>the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to

1:35:13.880 --> 1:35:27.960
<v Speaker 3>your favorite shows.