Socrates of Neuroscience: Academic dissonance, unexpected paths & process with Paul Middlebrooks

Neuroscience, AI, and Philosophy with Paul from Brain Inspired
Can we think about education (and age) differently? Was it worth it to give up academia, move into an RV and create a podcast?
Can we think differently about computation and representation?

Paul Middlebrooks is no gadfly but as you'll hear, the one thing he knows is that he does not know (as Plato quotes Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing.") He quit academia and started a podcast and has since become an important voice to many of us through his questioning. #loveandphilosophy #neuroai #podcasting #neuroscience #brain #inspired Shownotes: www.loveandphilosophy.com

Brain inspired just had its 200th episode ! And this is a celebration of it.
Paul spent over 10 years as a neuroscientist studying visual decision-making in nonhuman primates. A few years as a technician, 4 years obtaining a PhD, and 6 years as a postdoctoral researcher. Then he left academia and he and his wife sold all their stuff, moved into an RV, and roamed around the country, ending up in Durango for a time. During that time, he also started Brain Inspired. Now Paul is a Special Faculty Research Associate in the Yttri Lab at Carnegie Mellon University, studying the wonders of neuroethology. 

00:00 Introduction and Greetings
00:06 Starting the Brain Inspired Podcast
00:43 AI and Neuroscience: A Changing Landscape
00:59 Philosophical Perspectives on AI
03:28 Challenges in Neuroscience Terminology
04:11 Struggles with Scientific Paradigms
12:30 Exploring Metacognition in Monkeys
20:27 Transitioning from Academia to Podcasting
23:45 Recording Single Neurons: A Phenomenological Insight
32:56 The Motivation Behind the Podcast
42:37 Selling Everything and Hitting the Road
42:56 Starting an Online Business
43:11 The Birth of Brain Inspired
44:10 Struggles and Financial Realities
45:03 Returning to Academia
45:43 The Role of Podcasts in Science Communication
49:01 Philosophy and Neuroscience
56:35 The Importance of Models in Science
01:12:20 The Human Side of Academia
01:14:31 Love and Legacy
01:20:38 Final Reflections
Patricia Churchland Neurophilosophy
Mark H. Bickhard: Mind as Process, Process Metaphysics
Join #AndreaHiott and #PaulMiddlebrooks from the 'Brain Inspired' podcast. They discuss the evolution of neuroscience and AI from 2018 to 2024, personal journeys in academia, the influence of philosophical perspectives, and the nuances of love and consciousness. Paul shares insights on the challenges of balancing career ambitions with personal values and family life, and how his podcast has become a bridge for deeper learning and connection in the scientific community. This episode is a blend of professional insights and

Transcript

Paul Middlebrooks: [00:00:00] In many ways I feel like a, what is it? A feather being blown in the wind because, you know, like I'll learn about some new approach. 

I don't know what I want to do and I'm not supposed to say that out in public

my skills were getting deeper and deeper, but narrower and narrower and.

And that just felt frustrating to me because I like, having my fingers dipped in lots of different areas and thinking from different approaches. 

I've had experiences that I'm the only person ever in the history of the world to have had that experience just sitting in my little lab alone

it's like, oh, it's real. I'm hearing the exact pattern of a neuron that is somehow related to the cognitive function that I'm interested in. 

I had to think like, do I really want to sacrifice my happiness for this career or can I do, you know, something else?

I don't care about my legacy. And I think if you care about your legacy, it's going to drive you to be in that more competitive kind of space.

we sold our house. We sold all of our [00:01:00] belongings. We kept the Children. And we, we bought a, an RV and then moved the whole family into the RV and then just started roaming around the country, 

that's one thing that I have, has only increased throughout my career is knowing how little I know and being super comfortable because I know no one knows anything. 

Andrea Hiott: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to love and philosophy. Beyond dichotomy. Which just means we're trying to get past traditional divides without disrespecting them or trying to smush them together just talk about. Differences. Beyond the differences and today's a special episode that someone who really helped me do that. His name is Paul Middlebrooks. When I was in school for neuroscience, I found a podcast that had just started called Brain Inspired. That's Paul's podcast. And it really helped me. It was almost a better teacher than some of my actual classes in neuroscience. So this is a gratitude episode to Paul and to his [00:02:00] podcast. But it's also about what that podcast has been about these past years, since 2018, when it started. Which for me is about holding the paradox. Isn't everything about that. I'm just kidding, but actually we do talk about that a bit here, because just one example, I started listening to Paul's podcast because I needed to learn about machine learning and I wanted to learn about AI and there weren't many podcasts about that. And he was doing that in the context of neuroscience. At that time, I was very interested in ecological ways of thinking about philosophy and psychology and the four E's so to speak. He was not. And at some point, as I've been listening to his podcast, he's become very interested in those sorts of things. As he says here, especially ecological psychology. And of course I've learned a lot about computation and machine learning. So I think that represents something that's happening in a lot of nested layers across the sciences. Where we're opening to one [00:03:00] another in a way that doesn't cancel out what we care about. It's hard to do comes through in a lot of ways that we use words like computation representation. Of course, there's still tons of fights about that. And as Paul says here, it's still used in really particular. Way in most of neuroscience. I won't go into all that here, but I do think Paul's podcast and what we discuss here does relate to a lot of other themes in the other episodes. Where we're trying to open the space and understand how there can be computation and representation. Even if it doesn't mean that it's necessarily in the process that we're studying. So that's all a bit nuanced, but Paul and I talk about it from his point of view also, I think something important about Paul and his podcast is just thinking of education differently. Yes. Now everyone seems to have a podcast. And there's lots of learning online. And I guess for people who started podcasts long ago, that can be annoying. But in another way you don't really do it unless you want to do it. And it doesn't [00:04:00] last, unless it's giving something it seems like there's a new way in which we're thinking about what education is and when we can learn. There's a lot of people who go back to school at different ages now for different things like me, I'm one of them. I went back for neuroscience in my thirties and that used to not be so common. But I think it's becoming very common that we learn for a whole life. That we. Maybe change what we do in our life. Paul is a good example of that. He did it at a time when it was, could've seen dangerous from an academic point of view to, stop after your postdoc and when you're right in the middle of everything and travel across the country and create a podcast. But it turned out well for him as you'll hear so this is really a conversation about how within neuroscience we may be beginning to hold what seems like binaries, not too long ago whether that's AI and technology and cognition or embodied and ecological processes and computational ism, but also in our own lives, how we're starting to open to a different idea of [00:05:00] what education might be that it might be a lifelong process for some of us. Process is a big word here at some point we talk about mark big heart. And I say Burt cart because I always say Burkhart, but it's B I C K H a R D. He's talking a lot about mind as process and process metaphysics. Paul had him on the show and brain inspired. I'll link to some of this in the show notes. 

But main point of this show is to say thank you to Paul and to so many others who put so much time into learning and sharing what they're learning with us. It's also about. What I hope we can do those of us who care about neuroscience and philosophy from whatever angle, whatever we're doing whatever title we call ourselves or are called. That we can open the space a little bit around some of these labels that have been constrictive. And find something very exciting is actually happening. For all of us. And I hope that's also true for you wherever you are, whatever you're studying. [00:06:00] Whatever you care about. And I send you. Good wishes. Love and philosophy right now.

I also just want to say thank you to the people who've reached out and shared this podcast with me and helped. And given support. It's so meaningful to me. I can't even express it., how much it means to feel your support and to learn from you too. So thank you for your support on the Substack on YouTube. On the podcast platforms. Thank you for your emails. Thank you for everything anywhere that you've supported this I read everything and I take it all to heart and thank you.

Andrea Hiott: Hi, Paul. It's so nice to see you, thank you for doing this today. 

Paul Middlebrooks: You as well, Andrea. Thanks for reaching out. 

Andrea Hiott: So I think you started your podcast, Brain Inspired, in 2018. Is that right?

Paul Middlebrooks: That sounds about right.

Around about then, right? Yeah, around about then. 

Andrea Hiott: I looked kind of for your first episodes and I think they were around [00:07:00] 2018. Maybe with Stephen Potter. What does that sound like, the first one? Yeah, and 

Paul Middlebrooks: you really did, you really have done your research. Yes. 

Andrea Hiott: Yes, of course I did. 

Paul Middlebrooks: It is because he had written Um, a paper specifically about the, how neuroscience could help AI.

And this is like right when I was getting into this kind of topic. And so it just seemed like a good place to start and he was gracious with his time. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. Well, what I'm thinking of is 2018 to 2024 in terms of AI has been kind of crazy whirlwind. Is it a totally different world or from when you started in terms of AI and neuroscience? 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, it does. And it's.

a

I'm sure we can talk a little bit more about my, my path or whatever, but, um, I've actually, I've become of two minds about the use. So what I was really interested in is using artificial intelligence to help better understand our cognition, our minds. And our brains. [00:08:00] And with the explosion of it and with my own learning more, some, some philosophical background and some outlooks, some alternative metaphors for how we think, uh, I have become less enamored with the use of artificial intelligence as a tool to study the mind brain.

Although I still think it's quite useful, but this is a time when neuroscience is very enamored with it. And it is, it's the, the tool du jour, I suppose, at least in the computational neurosciences. 

 In 

terms of modeling different brain areas and functions. 

Andrea Hiott: I like it that you use the word enamored because there's the root of love is in there.

And um, I think I've heard you maybe in, in your podcast talk about neuroscience or academia, but especially neuroscience having almost a, a relationship with AI where it's kind of on again, off again or whatever. And so it makes sense to me actually that after having spent six years really looking into every little thing [00:09:00] And seeing it all happen that you would be a little ahead of kind of the love curve so to speak Do you know what I mean at the 

Paul Middlebrooks: forefront of it?

Andrea Hiott: yeah, like everyone else is still falling in love maybe or Getting to know it. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Well, yeah, I don't know. It hasn't even 

Andrea Hiott: doubt. 

Paul Middlebrooks: I think I've come to appreciate biological processes more and process more, uh, as opposed to the static computer information processing metaphor. Uh, and I can't articulate it yet.

And that's one of the reasons why I continue to, you know, do the, do the podcast and try to learn more, but I, you know, Intuitively, now it's intuitive, uh, I feel that there are important things going on with, for example, embodiment and the flow of, I was going to say information, but that's kind of a dirty term, the flow of our cognitive processes, our [00:10:00] brain processes, and that continuum, which is very different than the static computational, approach.

Yeah. If that makes sense. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, it does make sense. And this is a very big topic and it's something you address, very well in your episodes, mostly with the way that you've gone about discovering the idea of process and with your interviews with Bikhardt, for example, and that, that kind of exploration, but because it can be a really hard thing to talk about in neuroscience. Especially computation and AI oriented neuroscience because there seems to be this dichotomy. Especially in terms of something like computation and, process or, you know, you mind and brain or, or these kinds of things.

So it can be tricky, to use these words in these very specific contexts that might think you're going over to the other side. I don't know. Does that make sense? 

Paul Middlebrooks: It does. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I mean, I, I struggle in this. It's a mighty struggle. You know, if, if I am kind of enamored by a [00:11:00] process, philosophical approach now, what does that change about the way that I'm doing science?

And it's nothing so far. It's just the outlook, right? Although it has allowed me to interpret some of my data differently, but the data are still the same data. And I'm, I'm in a, uh, state space and we use dynamical systems theory as well. So that's toward process, but we still talk about everything as a state, as a reputation, a representation, um, how does, for example, motor cortex compute, uh, behavior, you know, so we still use these terms that I'm.

headed further away from, but then I'm still embracing them because they're used in our current paradigm in neuroscience. One must publish, and there is, they do lend purchase to how to think about how our cognitive functions occur. So it's a struggle because we, I don't know if we're [00:12:00] naturally dichotomous.

Thinkers, if that's just a human bug, or maybe it's a feature, I'm not sure, but it's, it's very difficult to sort of go between the two, I, I find. And it sounds like you, I mean, are, are interested in this as well. I mean, Beyond Dichotomies is on your website, so. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. And it's really kind of the name of all this in a way. Because I think to your point that you were just making that it is, it has been really important. So I'm not trying to reject it because I, I think it's actually an important tool and maybe it relates more to why something like computation or AI is very, it can be very important.

 I think maybe in one of your more recent conversations, the one about the abstraction in the brain, um, there's 

Paul Middlebrooks: the Chiromuta probably. Yes, exactly. 

Andrea Hiott: Um, then there's this, another thing I think about a lot is that we confuse map and territory and things like this. It feels like in neuroscience, whether it's with, Buzsaki.

 Questioning the words we use or I there's a million, ways in which people are starting to try to understand [00:13:00] that the way we speak about those terms you just said, for example, like representations in the brain as if they're static coming from that computational lineage and model that's not quite right, but it doesn't mean we reject them. That's what I mean by sort of holding the paradox. You can, you've probably gotten yourself into a place where you can do that, with your research now, you can probably hold that space without having to reject it one way or the other.

You can probably see oh, this is the way they're seeing representation. This is the way they're seeing it. Um, but I don't think that's an easy or natural holding of space, well, I don't know that 

Paul Middlebrooks: I'm very good at it yet, but for example, I was, um, listening to your episode with Inez Hippolito, I believe is how you pronounce her name.

And I was I was really surprised that she rejected. The idea that you could live with both sides of, you know, that coin and in the same, she was kind of staunchly, uh, saying that you have to choose one and be in that lane. And that's uncomfortable. 

Andrea Hiott: I think she kind of came [00:14:00] around to the different way by the end in a way, because I think within, well, but that's the weird thing, right?

Where you hold the paradox because within the world she's in, which I know very well, and you've probably got some. A good understanding of it too in philosophy where you really kind of almost feel like you have to choose between The so called analytic and the so called embodied Of course, nobody really has to choose you can't choose and that's the point We're trying to get to but I think when you push people and they're in that world they're used to reacting in that certain way So it's almost like we have to widen kind of our What we mean by the terms which I think is what she and I did together in that conversation a bit and by the end It wasn't clear that you had to make a choice necessarily, but yeah um Let's get to you though and think about your kind of path relative to this and then come back To some of this holding the paradox and dichotomy because you started out back in let's say whatever year it was Let's go to 2016 or something.

You were [00:15:00] Very much in academia, right? You were, where were you? You done your PhD? 

Paul Middlebrooks: At that point I was on my first, uh, post doc. I got my PhD in 2011, maybe. I'm terrible with numbers, so it doesn't matter. Me too. But 

Andrea Hiott: you started on this road. Actually, I have to say, you first were very interested in philosophy, I know, from your podcast. And then I just found out, you studied aerospace engineering first, which kind of blew my mind. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Everyone, that's, that's the, I mean, yeah, I mean, I didn't stay in aerospace that long, only two years.

Andrea Hiott: But that was the first. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. And I didn't get like flunk out of it or anything, but it just wasn't, it wasn't what I thought it would be, you know? So then I switched to, you know, molecular biology is what I ended up getting my undergraduate degree in. But you said I began interested or studying philosophy, which, which I think that maybe the book that got me interested in neuroscience.

Was the book [00:16:00] neurophilosophy, , churchland, um, and looking, you know, well, I don't know, but, you know, even in, I took a few years after getting my undergraduate degree before and started working in a couple of labs. I worked in a, Well, like in a biology wet lab, then down the hall, there was this, developmental visual cortex, uh, neuroscience lab.

And I ended up transferring to that lab and working as a research tech. And that kind of got me a little bit more into the neuroscience, uh, in itself. Right. And so, so I never really studied philosophy. It's, it's always been an interest, but I've, uh, I have not studied it nearly as deeply Uh, 

Andrea Hiott: I didn't mean you would start it in academia and philosophy. Here's what I meant to say. You were interested in cognition or the mind or something relative to all these themes early on, like maybe even before you went to university as I understand it. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. Oh, I mean, I wanted to understand [00:17:00] consciousness. That's like the main thing, what it is, how it's, how it occurs, do you 

Andrea Hiott: remember when you first.

 Is there any memory where you were thinking about that, where you, I mean, I've talked about it before with others where I remember, you know, the first time someone in my family passed away, for example, when I was a kid and kind of having this like, Oh, 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, 

Andrea Hiott: what is going on here? You know? Kind of moment of recognition that there is such a thing as consciousness and I can be aware of it with my own consciousness.

Some kind of weird meta moment. Do you have any of those or even things you read maybe like early? I don't 

Paul Middlebrooks: for me, but I have a son who, when he was, Um, Oh, I don't know, four, maybe. He said one day, like, that he just understood that other people had minds separately from him. So he, like, realized. Yeah. And so I got to see him have that moment. What was that 

Andrea Hiott: like to see him have that especially? Oh, 

Paul Middlebrooks: it was [00:18:00] so. Well, first of all, I thought like, you're just now having that. 

Andrea Hiott: He's four though. 

Paul Middlebrooks: I know. Well, I don't know if he was actually four. I'm bad with numbers.

But, um, but then I thought that is like such a cool realization and I'm not sure he felt how cool it was. I think I might've felt it more than he did. But to have that realization. And you only get to have that once. . So it was, it was really, uh, beautiful to see. I'm still waiting on my daughter who's older than him for that realization.

No, no. She 

Andrea Hiott: probably had it long, long ago and when she, when she was born, she already knew. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Probably. Probably so. She's very intentional. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, but you're right. That's kind of the thing we're trying to understand in a way, isn't it? Like, how does your son have that realization?

I know you worked with metacognition some too, and there's this, I mean, what do we really mean by consciousness? And is it the same thing as cognition? And, I wanted to actually get into that a little bit with you, but let's bracket it for just a second, unless you have something you want to say, because I do wonder, , I'm so , you were at least curious about all of these things, of course we're orienting in it all in a certain way.[00:19:00] 

But as you found yourself in neuroscience,, going towards this through all these other ways, was it something you were still trying to, was it still motivating the interest in that? Well, you mentioned, 

Paul Middlebrooks: so I ended up, um, developing in graduate school for my PhD thesis. I went into graduate school thinking like, how can I study consciousness?

But the lab that I ended up joining was a non human primate lab. So in the vast majority of studies of consciousness and higher cognitive function have been in humans and still is. So I was like, how can I study like, what is the highest cognitive function I can study? Uh, in non human primates and we happen to be recording in various cortical areas.

So with the help of my very kind advisor who let me do this essentially and encouraged me, we developed a task, tested monkeys, metacognitive abilities, and then measured brain activity while they were doing this [00:20:00] task. Uh, and then lo and behold, in some cortical areas, there's a difference in neural activity

when the, when the.

When the monkey was performing metacognitively well versus when it was performing poorly.

So like when it seemed to be aware of what it was doing versus when it seemed to be just doing it without being aware of it. So that's the very dirty version of my Ph. D. thesis. Um, and then I realized, ah, I didn't, I didn't know, I didn't know anything still. . I mean, I didn't know that the rich, you know, historical literature.

So this was based in decision making. And there's this rich historical literature that, uh, I connected with in the Ph. D. level, kind of rode upon to help develop the experimental task and the questions. Um, But I still had a lot to learn in terms of the raw neuroscience and cognitive science of decision making.

So I ended up, like many people, I started, [00:21:00] uh, ambitious and wide, big questions. And then you learn how little you know. And then you get a little bit narrower. So then I started studying like, specific type of decision making. And so the, the questions were just got narrower and narrower as I, as I went.

So I'm not sure that the, the science itself was hard enough and the basic science questions were hard enough and unknown enough that became, More interesting, not more interesting, tangible. Mm. Because, you're gonna ask me about cognition and consciousness and what it is and, I, it's embarrassing. I, well, it's just embarrassing.

 I was gonna ask 

Andrea Hiott: you , have you gotten any closer to figuring out what it is,

Paul Middlebrooks: Not really. In many ways I feel like a, uh, what is it? A feather being blown in the wind because, you know, like I'll learn about some new approach. Like recently I've been learning more about ecological psychology, which 

even has like a 

different definition [00:22:00] for what mind is and mindedness is.

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. It's, it can be. Overwhelming, once you are too curious. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Well yeah, but that's why you have to hold paradoxes 

Andrea Hiott: together. And that's the practice we're all trying to learn in some weird way as we are able to absorb the fact that there are more and more ways of coming at something like the term consciousness or mind or cognition.

Paul Middlebrooks: But it can be an obstacle as well, because if you take on one viewpoint. You're going to go down that road as far as you want to go and, and you can get really deep. And especially if you have like blinders on to other interpretations of what you're doing, you're going to have academic success. I'm not sure if it's satisfying outside of, you know, your career, um, and maybe legacy, I guess.

Um, but it can be, you know, as soon as I can get a result, right, then I have to think, Oh, now how do I think about this from a process philosophy perspective? How do I think about this from an ecological psychology? Most people would 

Andrea Hiott: [00:23:00] rather not think about them as too much of a computational explosion of the brain or something, 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah. Well then we just go to the bars, you know? 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. Well, and then just, yeah, I don't any, but, I have to stop here because this is fascinating and something I think a lot of people are trying to deal with in a way so you started with these really big questions, which I think a lot of us do, especially those of us with philosophical proclivity, right? And I think they still inspire a lot of work. Quite a few neuroscientists that I know, or, very successful people in science, let's say, not necessarily even just neuroscientists, but it's the big questions that got them into it. And then, like you said, you find yourself getting more and more detailed because that's the process of science, that you're refining your question and you're getting the parameters set such that you can. And it can seem if you want to have success in a way, you do narrow it down let's say you're going to go into a certain kind of decision making or and you're going to read all those papers and you're going to be in that lineage and you almost have to block out the other stuff because it's just, how could you possibly read all the papers and all the, 

Paul Middlebrooks: [00:24:00] um,

Andrea Hiott: it's a narrowing, ?

That's almost necessary. It's a 

Paul Middlebrooks: narrowing, but a, but a deepening as well. Because otherwise you're just at the surface of everything. 

Andrea Hiott: But then there's this way in which when you still think about that big question and what motivates you, you can, and people have this now where you feel like, what have I done, right?

I've narrowed everything down. It ain't easy for

Paul Middlebrooks: some people it is and that's it's amazing to me that so I I mean I think that I have this Genetically because my father never knew what he wanted to do and he had like a long career And I don't know what I want to do and I'm not supposed to say that out in public Like my current advisor And, and the woman who I was just speaking with, when I was recording an episode before we're recording this, they both knew like really early on and, and were interested in very specific things.

And I don't know what that feels like. 

Andrea Hiott: They knew like, okay, I'm going to study this area of the brain or something. Is that what you mean? Or this question about 

Paul Middlebrooks: like behavior in general, [00:25:00] like how our brains enact behavior. Um, and that's more tangible. Like in the case of, I was just talking with Karen Adolph, uh, it was development and how development, uh, of behavior, um, undergirds our cognition and how cognition develops through studying infants and their, you know, development.

So those are more directed questions than. I want to figure out consciousness. 

Andrea Hiott: That's true. Good point. However, I would say, even at that scale, I think these are nested things. Of course, we're talking as philosophers, so to speak, I know you are a neuroscientist, but you have this philosophical spirit in a sense, right?

That's what we were talking 

Paul Middlebrooks: about. 

Andrea Hiott: But, even within their field, if you ask that question, you're still going to have to make decisions about which side of this or that you're going to be on. Good point. No, in the behavior realm, , if you take that scale, you're still It's not that you're narrowing in the sense that it's, a bad word, but [00:26:00] you're going to have to make certain decisions and go down a certain path.

And that's not wrong, but it can, you can end up with the same feeling of if I try to explore this now, it's gonna, it looks like it goes against this whole lineage that I've dedicated my life to. Therefore, I don't look at it. Which is actually probably what needs to happen, but at different scales, and maybe that's why we have philosophers or podcasters, uh, , you, we want to know how it all links together, and at that level, you have to start doing some of this work, which you've been doing, I guess, since 2018, where you do try to look at what are the patterns connecting this, and you go pretty deep into everything, which is quite time consuming, but, yeah, you find a way to try to do this and hold the space, or at least, open a space where people can talk about it and it can be seen.

So, let's get to how you did that. in this time period before you created the podcast, why didn't you just go down the path of academia, what was it? 

Paul Middlebrooks: So I was feeling frustrated. I guess I was in maybe my fourth or fifth [00:27:00] year as a postdoc and you know, my skills were getting deeper and deeper, but narrower and narrower and.

And that just felt frustrating to me because, because I like, uh, having my fingers dipped in lots of different areas and, and, and thinking from different approaches. Let me just back up. And it's just because I was just speaking with her, but Kara and Adolph had this experience in, I think, Graduate school where she learned about ecological psychology, and it's like boom.

That's exact. She knew that was exactly right And it was I think she phrased it like, you know, it was like God opening up to her or something like that Mm hmm, and and I don't have that kind of experience, but some people do I kind of had 

Andrea Hiott: that with philosophy Which it 

Paul Middlebrooks: what does he mean philosophy in general?

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, my first philosophy class, literally, where I realized you can think about these things I won't say like the sky's opened up or something, but I've had these moments in life. I don't know if you've had them where [00:28:00] you just know they're something important is happening just because of the physical effects It's having it almost feels like everything's lined up a little bit not to get too mystical But, it's almost like a great sports experience or something, but you're you're like,, oh Something is happening here.

If I pay attention to it, it's gonna open something up could be with a relationship too, but

Paul Middlebrooks: Or book. Yeah. So what was your first philosophy course? Was it epistemology? 

Andrea Hiott: Um it was more like a philosophy of mind, but it was

a

very, the professor who taught it did it in a A very beautiful way where it wasn't analytical, it was, looking at what mind is kind of broader, taking all beyond dichotomy in a way, like looking at many different forms of philosophy and thinking about it. Okay. So you didn't have an aha moment or whatever in terms of career. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, yeah. So I was actually feeling, uh, so I had this narrow skill set, but it's actually quite narrow. Non human primate neurophysiology decision [00:29:00] making and it was like all that with psychophysics as well like analyzing the behavior So I had kind of had to make a decision.

I couldn't be a postdoc forever But I wasn't that excited about the area that I was immersed in And so I had to figure out, am I going to look for a different postdoc? Am I going to, uh, try to search for faculty positions feeling terribly unconfident and, you know, on some level incompetent, uh, to start running my own lab?

lab and,

I mean, this is sort of a personal side about it because, you know, I was using non human primate research and that was mentally tough to do, 

Andrea Hiott: it wears on you and when you're going to dedicate your research and life to it, it's, whoa. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, yeah. It's also hard, uh, and, and takes a lot of lab, uh, you have to jump through a lot of hoops in lab and then there's, you know, a lot of caretaking [00:30:00] involved.

And so, so there was that aspect as well. 

Andrea Hiott: It's a total sidetrack, but I know when you were doing this work, you were having to record single neurons, right? 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, 

Andrea Hiott: yeah, what was that like? What is it?

What is it? What do you do to record a single neuron because can you just phenomenologically explain it in a way? Like how did what do you like do it because you were doing it every day right recording? 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yes, and I think about it a lot, 

Andrea Hiott: but I never really know how to picture it exactly I've never watched someone do it.

I keep meaning to go in the lab and actually do it, but I haven't 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, this would be good because I can, I have a moment I can tell you about. Okay. And a lot of neurophysiologists have this moment. But first, like the experimental setup is basically, you do a surgery and implant like a chronic, uh, chamber where you know you want to record.

Your neurons from, and then every day you bring the organism into the, uh, lab and you lower this is the way people used to do it and still do [00:31:00] it, uh, with like single neurons because the technology has gotten a lot better, but you lower an electrode into the brain and you're listening. So you're, you're putting the electronic signal, the voltage signal through an oscilloscope and through an audio monitor.

And so you're going down and it's kind of silent. And then all of a sudden you start hearing, and you're hearing the, the, potentials of single neurons or, and, or small groups of neurons. And in my case, so I'm not sure, does that answer your, your question? 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, I've seen those before, you mean, it almost looks like a little cap that the creature's wearing or something.

And then, so you, I guess I meant, so you, so you're removed from it, yeah.

Paul Middlebrooks: You don't sit in a lab like the so organism is in a different room. You're in the computer side about five feet away on the other side of like a thick thick curtain in my case Animal sitting in a dark room because we're tracking where their eye movement location where their eye movements are. The location of their eye movements are because in my case, we're showing [00:32:00] we were showing like dots on the screen and. On every single trial, first off a central fixation spot comes up like a little light in the center and the monkey in this case would start a trial by fixating on that central fixation dot and then the game of the trial would begin and it would make its indicate its decisions based on which target it moved its eyes to.

And we, we were recording from multiple areas, but one of the areas we were recording from is called frontal eye field and it's famous for. Um, having eye movement related activity. So, So we're recording their eye, we're tracking their eye position at the same time as we're listening to, to neurons. So you're driving the electrode down and then all of a sudden the monkey's like doing tasks while you're doing it.

Uh, and then all of a sudden you, you hear neural activity locked onto the time of when the animal makes an eye movement, makes a decision. 

Andrea Hiott: So the [00:33:00] beats are like beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, or something. Like a hippocampus, like a play cell kind of like a Geiger counter kind of thing? No, it's more, it 

Paul Middlebrooks: more ramps up.

So it's like, And, and so that was the moment a lot of neurophysiologists have this moment where, where you're hearing brain activity and seeing it on a screen. And it is related to monkey making and eye movement in this case. And it's, uh, I don't know, I haven't even heard it described well. It's just something that you don't forget.

It's almost magical to hear. 

Andrea Hiott: Is it because you, can you try to, for someone who doesn't know why, is it that kind of same, I mean, because I just said it, it reminds me of the lining up of when, I'm sitting in the philosophy class and certain ideas I've been thinking about are expressed in a certain way and there's a kind of alignment or something that, that happens where, I don't know, does it feel like that?

 Yeah. 

Paul Middlebrooks: It's, it's somehow about like, Oh, I am listening in [00:34:00] on cognition. You're the 

Andrea Hiott: only one who knows that or something secret kind of, 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh yeah, well that happens all the time where, so I've had experiences that I'm the only person ever in the history of the world to have had that experience just sitting in my little lab alone.

I mean, not profound experiences, but that happens a lot to, to people in lab because of, you know,, whatever, Accidents, you know, or accidental, uh, happiness happens that day. Right. 

Andrea Hiott: You're looking for something or you don't maybe know exactly what you're looking for and then suddenly it's there in a way, or you're witnessing it, so to speak, 

well

Paul Middlebrooks: in this case, it was just like a feeling that kind of you get chills, um, because you're connecting like actual brain activity, which is what you're doing. At the time, I thought was doing everything, right? Yeah. That's changed a little bit, but you're seeing it, uh, in real time, hearing it in real time.

And it's just a, it's like, oh, it's real. We have brains and they are active. I'm hearing the exact pattern of a [00:35:00] neuron that is somehow related to the cognitive function that I'm interested in. It reminds me of 

Andrea Hiott: people saying when they are trying to work on a math problem and they finally figure out a little thing, and it's not that it's so great that they figured it out. It's Like, Oh my God, it actually will work. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yes. And or like if you're, I don't know if you are a musician, but if you're like trying to write a song or trying to write, A poem, or in your case, a book, right? You probably have those moments all the time where you're like, Ah, I figured out the structure of how I want to do this.

And, you know, musicians are famous for saying that those ideas kind of fall out at a given point. You work really, really hard and then, and then they are kind of given to you. So it's somewhat like that feeling, but I didn't work for it so much. 

Andrea Hiott: But a lot of people did. I mean you're part of it, but I think that's, I'm not a musician, but I've been around a lot of musicians and I've in my life.

And I'm still trying to relate it to, I think , the story, of your guests and, there's this kind of way in which things align and it feels make it makes sense or something, but, and it's [00:36:00] not that you, it feels bigger than you at the same time. And yet so much work has gone into it that, um, there's also a kind of like a, Yeah, like a success feeling to it.

Yeah, 

Paul Middlebrooks: that's wrapped up in the in the history of it as well Exactly. That's 

Andrea Hiott: what I mean You're as you sitting in that little room you're you've had to you're part of something bigger than you in a way then Oh, 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah. Yeah, 

Andrea Hiott: and you feel that probably in the moment right a bit and also it kind of it's like Oh, this is actually what I've been doing It's real what other people say or something.

Paul Middlebrooks: And then you have the experience, you know, I was talking about experiencing my son's moment a few moments ago. Then you have the experience of when a new student comes in the lab and sees that for the first time, you know what they're experiencing and you see, you know, how, how it affects them.

Um, and then you, you know, yeah. Your advisor went through the same thing and he told you the same story about like the first time he heard a neuron, you know, and there's so many people who have that experience 

Andrea Hiott: in a way, that's probably the more of the motivation to because just to go to your [00:37:00] music example, I think a lot of music is actually kind of like that too, because we fall in love with other musicians.

I'm not a musician again. I could speak out of his writing too, but yeah. Music is just so immediate, you know, um, but yeah, you, you fall in love with music because yeah, what 

Paul Middlebrooks: are you going to say? Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just, I'm imagining, I'm predicting what you're going to say is that you started by imitating your heroes.

Yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: Or wanting to give other people the feeling that they gave you. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, yeah, okay. Well, that's not what I was gonna say. So yeah, um, 

Andrea Hiott: but no it's connected to what you're gonna say too Because it starts you're imitating them and you want so much to have those moments that feel kind of magical, right?

 But maybe you haven't and then it clicks and it's like oh, this is real It's it's similar to the lineage thing we were just describing in science because then somehow you've connected you're part of the You're part of it. Like whatever that person had experienced now you have and it's as if you've opened up some kind of a, a lineage or line or flow and you know it's real, right?

Yeah. [00:38:00] Um, yeah. 

Paul Middlebrooks: In my case, I'm not there yet with music, but I, but I can jive with you on this, on the science part of it for sure. 

Andrea Hiott: so there's these moments, it's beautiful in science, but it's somehow when you were going to decide, are you going to do all the work to start your own lab and be the person Spearheading all this doing the grants all that kind of stuff.

The answer back then was no 

Paul Middlebrooks: Pretty hard. No at some point. I mean you also as a postdoc Especially you're getting kind of close to that point and there are new faculty members that you see And they're always running down the hall sweating and you know, they never seem happy 

because they're working so hard because they need to get tenure and stuff so, so I had to think like, do I really want to sacrifice my happiness for this career or can I do, you know, something else?

Uh, at least for now, you know, it's also when you walk away from academia, the feeling is that it's going to be hard to get back. [00:39:00] Because you need to maintain a paper trail of, you know, publications and no one's going to want you if you've walked in a way for a while and stuff. Um, so that it was a hard choice, but, but in my, heart, it was, uh, the right choice.

Andrea Hiott: Can you tell me about deciding to, to stop and what you decided to do instead? Was it just, okay, I'm just going to stop. And how did the podcast come? And how does that connect? Were you already thinking, well, I still want to continue all this. How can I continue all this in a way that feels more, Yeah, in that space that's more natural to you of maybe questioning it and looking from this wider point of view.

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, Andrew, you're telling my story for me. I appreciate that. 

Andrea Hiott: Am I? 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. Well, I mean, a little bit, but okay, well, let me go back and say one thing, um, in terms of what, how I was feeling about whether I should continue or not, I don't care about my legacy. And I think if you care about your legacy, it's going to drive you to be in that more competitive kind of space.

And a lot of people [00:40:00] I admire, um, care very deeply about their legacy and it's just, it's just not me. So that was another factor. 

Andrea Hiott: That's, sorry, that's a really big statement. You really don't care at all about your legacy.

By legacy you mean in science or you mean you don't care? Yes, yeah, yeah. My 

Paul Middlebrooks: science, well, I don't care about my, by that you mean 

Andrea Hiott: you don't care what other people think of you? I just don't 

Paul Middlebrooks: care about being remembered. I just, it's, I don't, I don't think it's a helpful, uh, way to move through life, but I think it's, that, that is a big motivator for people.

So in some sense, I do wish I care and I'm probably being dishonest on some level. Like I'm just telling myself that story, uh, but why would I start a podcast if I didn't care 

Andrea Hiott: about being remembered? Well, maybe you care about, I mean, this is very idealistic, but maybe you care more about What you leave behind, which is different from people remembering you, or what you give, or maybe you're just Narcissistic and you just want to do what you [00:41:00] want to do.

Paul Middlebrooks: I think it's closer to that, unfortunately. I think it might be like that. I mean really there are two Most rewarding things about having started the podcast and we can backtrack and talk about that, that transition things that I didn't think about the reason I started the podcast in general is I wanted to learn.

Um, I wanted to learn at a certain level, you know, because all there, there were like a bunch of popular podcasts, popular science podcasts, but they weren't kind of going deep enough for me. And I loved like, as I was learning more, I would listen to these things. I told you brain science podcast by Dr.

Ginger Campbell was a super early, uh, major influence on me. And she did such a fantastic job of explaining, asking clarification questions and I still enjoyed her podcast, but, I wanted to explore the topic topics a little more deeply without having to explain. All of the very basic assumptions.

And that [00:42:00] means I automatically would alienate a lot of. Uh, potential audience, but I, what I found, and these are the two things that have been the most wonderful thing is a, just the gratitude listeners feel, uh, for the podcast. I get like so many people come up and it's not something that I was anticipating, but they're, they're so thankful.

And, um, Yeah. Like, I'm getting chills right now, uh, just thinking about it and, and be, you know, having some sort of positive impact on people's lives in that regard. That's amazing. It is amazing. And it's not something that I, I thought about that would happen. The other thing is just, uh, this is going to sound like sort of business y, but it's the network of friendly acquaintances and friends that I have made from the guests that have come on the show.

Like, this probably won't be the last time you and I. Uh, chat. I hope, I hope it's not. Um, and we're going to probably, unless I ruin [00:43:00] things, we'll probably end on pretty good terms today. Uh, I hope. Yeah. But, but that's also something that I wasn't anticipating is, um, I have like this awesome network now because of, 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, I guess that's what I was getting at a bit.

 I don't know what the state of podcasting was at, in, at the time you started it. Exactly. Cause , now it's just, now everybody has a podcast, right? I'm not, no offense. And I'm not, I take no offense. I like it. But, but back then.

Which is wasn't that long ago, but feels like decades ago in terms of things like AI and neuroscience and podcasting. , there was no other deep going into like podcast about issues of AI and neuroscience. And not everyone was doing podcasting and so I can't imagine you were just sitting there thinking oh, you know what i'll do is quit academia and start a podcast that's going to be successful and then therefore get meet this wonderful network and Have people who appreciate what i'm giving to them in the world. Maybe you thought that I don't know Maybe 

Paul Middlebrooks: [00:44:00] oh, I thought oh, I want to be an influencer. No, no, I didn't. No. No, of course not. No, I I so by the end of my uh First postdoc, because I'm now in a second postdoc. Um, 

Andrea Hiott: With a big gap in 

Paul Middlebrooks: between though, we should do a big gap with a big gap in between. Um, the AI using artificial intent, using, using machine learning models and loosely calling it AI models using connectionist type networks was just becoming like kind of a big thing, in computational and cognitive neuroscience.

And I didn't know anything about it. Like, I, you know, I knew things very superficially. And so I thought this is super interesting and I'd already made the decision to leave academia. And so of course I did a search for podcasts on the intersection and none existed and I thought, well, I eventually thought, well, I want to make what I would want to [00:45:00] hear.

 And so that's literally what it came from, um, and wanting to learn more about it and have, you know, learn from the people who are doing that kind of work that my podcast has evolved since then, uh, since that early kind of vision. Um, but we, you know, sometimes artificial intelligence is not even mentioned in the, in an episode.

Right. And the original envision was all about the intersection of neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's kind of almost 

Andrea Hiott: cognitive science or, I I know that's a, that's Like a tricky term to use, but sometimes because there's always a connection, it's just that a lot of it sometimes is assumed, 

so I have to go back to what I started with at the beginning. That was a really fortuitous choice to make at that exact moment in a way, right? That you saw that there was a kind of convergence coming because this was before, I mean, deep learning was getting. Deeper. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. I mean. Deep learning was the, was the term I should have used.

Yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: But there wasn't this, large language model, crazy stuff. Nobody had thought of the transformer and architecture and so on and so forth. So you rode that [00:46:00] wave, that's what I was saying in a way you kind of already can see it from a different place than others because it was just beginning.

Paul Middlebrooks: Maybe so. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like anything, there was already really kind of a, A fairly rich history of using these models, uh, to study cognitive functions, but it was just becoming more and more Seemingly useful and overlapping and that you could reliably use a deep learning model set up in the right way to model, uh, various parts of how, for example, our visual cortex works, um, And I mean, we can get into, you know, some of the, some of that alignment is very superficial and some of it is really awesome that you can even, you can predict the neurons activity, uh, based on what the model says, um, you know, four layers, four layers deep in visual cortex.

You can predict how a neuron will, uh, be [00:47:00] activated, um, based on fitting the model to like the whole neural dataset. So it's, it's really quite impressive

 But, but because of the nature of, um, the topics and the depth and I'm okay getting into like technical discussions on the podcast and sometimes I ask fairly detailed questions, you know, because it, it's, you know, kind of aliates, let's say the, uh, lay.

Yeah. Yeah. Population. Um, it has had a, you know, it's, it's continued to grow, but it's been like slow steady growth. And, you know, it's not like I exploded in, I'm not like a podcast land superstar or something like that. So, well, but you made 

Andrea Hiott: a big difference. , , I was, I, I'm one of the people who learned a lot, have, has learned a lot and continues to learn a lot.

Paul Middlebrooks: Me too. 

Andrea Hiott: Well, see, yeah, exactly. So maybe it was an accident or maybe not, but you actually found a way to be a, what, [00:48:00] to do what one might've done had you stayed in the academic world. In a way that fit to your, whatever, your energy or self in a way. , but I want to get at

well,, how were you brave enough to do that?

How were you brave enough to quit academia? And I feel like you moved across the country or something. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, I think 

my prefrontal cortex is still not fully developed, I think is the real answer here. Um my wife and I, um, you know, once I came to the, so I was married and had two very small children at the time, at the time of this potential transition.

So we had a lot of discussions. My wife is in sort of the wellness. Uh, sector. She used to be a yoga instructor. And, um, so, so she's gone down a few different roads and we came up with the idea. So, first of all, we sold our house. We sold all of our belongings. We kept the Children. Uh, and we, we bought a, an RV and [00:49:00] then moved the whole family into the RV and then just started roaming around the country, which was a lot of fun.

Also, a lot of work while we were doing that. Neither of us was employed anymore, and we focused on starting an online business for essentially my wife. So the plan was to get her online business going, get start getting some income from that. And I would figure out what the hell I was going to do. And so I came up with the idea of the podcast, but I also, um, I need to update it or get rid of it now, but I made an online course eventually about the topics.

So that was kind of the vision for Brain Inspired too, was to have some Some kind of income, you know, coming through that as well. So we were all very simple. We had a half plan and also this was a time when online business was becoming more and more normal. And so we thought we would give this a try to not have to be tethered to a location post COVID.

This is. [00:50:00] Like standard now or something, but not, not have to be tied to a location, have our own, um, income from our own businesses. And so Brain Inspired, you know, started as kind of a shot in the dark in terms of like, you know, can this become something, can I make it into something? Uh, recurring. A livable income.

So we were working like crazy, living in this RV with a two and a four year old. That must have been a close relationship that you can, or still as I hope, cause it's like you against the world, you two against the world in a way, because, but I guess you were a team or something, right?

Well, yeah, we were a team, so I, you know, I helped, Her so the main thing was figuring out how to do online business in general, you know, we had to develop her business strategy, her logo, the way her videos look and all that jazz. 

Andrea Hiott: Were you just driving around the RV discussing it all day and then working on it when you stop or something?

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, yeah. Yeah. We would do shifts and have task lists we're trying to really make it [00:51:00] work, but it was a real struggle. My wife still has, uh, her online business and I still have brain inspired. So I guess we, we kept through it. Um, but I mean, we were struggling financially, uh, so then we had to, yeah, yeah.

That's why partially why I'm back in academia now is a confluence of reasons, um, you know, we needed more income, our circumstances, we ended up living in Durango, Colorado after a year and a half traveling around in the RV and our, our financial circumstances kind of changed in Durango.

We had to figure out, you know, do I get a job? Does she get a job? I guess I'll get a job. What can I do? So I started looking around at academic opportunities partially because of this boom in deep learning. An AI of which I had learned a lot about now, I hadn't implemented anything, but I had learned a lot about it through talking with people, which I'm not sure.

Maybe we can come back to this because I don't know the, the podcast world is a little out of [00:52:00] control these days in terms of, but in terms of sort of , the self importance of that podcasts are, are important and I don't know how important it is. Maybe you have a position on that.

Andrea Hiott: Gosh, I , I don't know if any podcaster in particular is necessarily needs to be said is important, but I I think that there's something about and I'm not talking about myself because it's kind of weird but More, I'm thinking of let's talk about you. You're the guest 

 How you were saying right when I kind of imagine when you go to a conference or something now Everyone a lot of younger people would know your name or a lot of the students and it's a weird world that It's changing at this moment, and you're a part of it, but I do think there's an importance to you having taken that risk, which was not easy, and I'm not trying to make you into some kind of a hero, but you did at least listen and meet with the person that you loved and think about it, and it doesn't mean that it all worked out perfectly.

It sounds like it was quite hard, but it also didn't fail [00:53:00] because that's kind of a precious time from my perspective that you traveled around with your kids when they were still young enough there's so much richness about just life that's in that and that you then also found a way to use what you're interested in, explore it, 

in an authentic way without catering to trying to make it popular, , because that probably would have 

Paul Middlebrooks: been weird. I 

mean, I made the best 

thing that I knew how to make, and so it would have been great if it had become super popular, but I didn't really think in this

Andrea Hiott: world, I think. Yeah, in this world. You know, as far as neuroscience goes, and that's, everyone's famous in their little world these days, that's the thing, 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah, that's true. 

Andrea Hiott: So, it's all kind of, we're learning. It's a bit relative, but the important thing is the reason I'm saying the podcasters are important, some of them, right, is because they're become, I think like the new kind of teachers in a way, and this can be good or bad, 

but just in your case, what I'm saying is you opened up a forum so that A lot of people in a lot of positions that have since become [00:54:00] very important because we're talking about cognition and mind and consciousness. 

Paul Middlebrooks: And uh. It's crazy. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. This matters, right? It just, it does. And it matters because the science that gets done today trickles down in some way through whatever popular books, but also through papers and grants and money and experiments and it influences life.

And, it influences AI, even though people are saying maybe not so much now, but it does, it influences our technology. It's all connected. So I can understand why people would like, you kind of became a teacher in a way. So teachers are important . I 

Paul Middlebrooks: agree with the statement that teachers are important, um, but it's sort of indirectly teaching by asking people questions and learning about their work at a level that I could kind of kind of keep up with them and just know them know a few questions that might lead to them saying something interesting and could be helpful.

You know, teach people about things. Someone told me I was in, uh, [00:55:00] like about a year ago, someone told me I was in science communication. And it kind of took me by surprise, and I got, so, oh, I guess I, I kind of am. Do you feel like you're in science communication, philosophy communication? 

Andrea Hiott: No, I don't think about it like that.

I mean, for me, it's a more of a obsessive, curiosity, desire to connect. I just feel like I, it's, it's something that I have to do. And I liked to, , I want to give people a, a way to see that they're not , that things connect more than they think, right? Or they're not, it's okay. It's okay to get past this, either or that I've seen stifle a lot of people and stuff.

But I think what we're doing is different because I'm, I'm really trying, I mean, I'm trying, I'm, I'm really thinking of philosophy of mind and really trying to kind of build a philosophy and trying to do it in a transparent way and trying to do it in a community way instead of me being like, Oh, here's the philosophy that I've come up with.

And I'm, Here [00:56:00] it is. It's such 

Paul Middlebrooks: a cool project that you're involved in, that you, that you are spearheading because you created it. It's just really, it's. Uh, I admire, , that you're doing it this way. 

Andrea Hiott: Well, thanks. It just kind of happened, but it feels right to me, it's hard in a lot of ways, and I'm putting myself out there, but in terms of when you're trying to come up with what, an idea of philosophy in mind, I feel like it should be that way, and everyone should be able to just see what's happening and critique it.

But to, to you,, I think it's really important what you said about, uh, because you're, I said you were a teacher and you said you're opening up the space, but that's what Socrates did too, right? In a way. It's, um, a lot of the best teachers learn, you know, what they're doing is being students. And, somehow you've kind of found that format of being a student that's done a lot of homework.

And then we get to listen to it and like, we don't have to do all the homework, but we get to learn. Right. 

Paul Middlebrooks: If I do it right. Yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: But what I'm getting at is, it's, , it's fascinating that the switch, because. [00:57:00] Now, the switch of , what matters in academia is connected to this because it's becoming more like we were talking about narrowing and you go really deep and that's still very important too, but we were also talking about how we need to be able to see how things connect because that's also important for advancements in science and also just like in terms of how we understand technology and all these things.

And so you've kind of come up with a, you found a way to educate yourself in a way that. Now universities need people to have been educated. Does that make sense? So I what I'm saying is because we are skipping but you went through what five six years of trying to build The podcast trying to survive raising kids moving all this kind of stuff at the same time putting out what like almost 200 shows Yeah, 

Paul Middlebrooks: I'm nearing.

Yeah nearing 

Andrea Hiott: That's going to be a big one. 

Paul Middlebrooks: I don't know. I don't know if I don't have the bandwidth anymore to, to make it, I did a whole special for [00:58:00] my hundred. Yeah. There was like a series of them where I asked a lot of previous guests questions, you know, and I put a lot of effort into it, I'm not sure 200 might, I might just be, might be a normal episode.

We'll see. 

Andrea Hiott: Well, that's okay too. It's just, I mean, it's wonderful that you've gotten 200 and they're all very substantial and, yeah, but, I guess the point is now. In doing that, in doing 200 episodes, it means you've done so much research across so many fields. You've connected a lot of dots. And actually that's what neuroscience needs now. Just in terms of, how to think about whatever the subject matter is a little bit differently. So it's weird, isn't it? And I guess we can get into it a little bit because I want to know why you decided to go back to school.

I know it was also partly financial, but you could have studied philosophy, for example, or philosophy of science, why did you go back into neuroscience and specifically into what you went into? And does it make sense what I'm saying? Do you feel like you have a perspective that's somehow helpful compared [00:59:00] to where you were in 2017 or whatever?

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. So there's a lot, a lot there, um, that you said. Yes, I do, but I get asked that all the time. Like what? So, what is, what is the perspective now? And that still feels, you know, like, what's the answer now that you have learned so much? Um and that's really what a lot of people want to know. And that's a frustrating question to not be able to precisely answer.

I'm definitely 

Andrea Hiott: not asking what the answer is because I don't even know what the question is. I'm more thinking, have you learned how to learn better? Have you learned how to ask questions better? , it's more the practice of thinking that I think the patterning of your thinking might have changed in a way that's helpful.

Paul Middlebrooks: I think so, but I think the proof will be in the pudding as I move along in, you know, back in academia, but part of the reason why I wanted to get back in academia was to see about, you know, if I could use all these new thinking tools and machine learning tools and perspective [01:00:00] tools, right? And all of the see how it has affected not just my outlook, but yeah.

 My science and now my day to day is very much more, so I, you know, mostly like any other neuroscientist these days, depending on what field you're in, I sit in front of a computer and code. Uh, in order to analyze data, um, and the questions because of the advancement of machine learning, the questions that you can ask of the data are a little bit different now than the questions that you could ask before, but we're still mired. That seems like a strong term

 We're still very much. Embroiled in? No, that's negative as well. We're still in the, we're, we're still, um, by sort of the default perspective in computational neuroscience is that That computationalism perspective. So it's not like so it's like I've changed, but my, my surroundings haven't right, , the, the people [01:01:00] who would, um, who I could have conversations about these things haven't changed.

Right. I mean, I remember when I interviewed for the, my postdoc job, I had to describe what process philosophy was and why I was interested in it and stuff. And I'm not sure if it's changed. It has changed my. My interpretation of the data and why it might look the way it looks. This is kind of hard to, hard to describe, but I have a data set now that is messy relative to what a traditional neuroscientific data set would be.

And now I can look at that and say, oh, okay, well, it's all like, because of the process and it's from ongoing continuous behavior from a mouse. Which is messy. And now that I think about things in terms of continuous flow of motion and, uh, and motor output and. From the environment back, you know, into [01:02:00] perceptual.

And that is, that is just a continuous transformation of energy, right? Is one way to say it. Another way to say it is that, Oh, it's doing computations, but when you look at it as like a continuous transformation of energy, I'm sorry, that's not my favorite phrase either, but I'm going to use it. Um, then you start to be okay with the fact that things don't.

Look perfect in the data, um, that the data is, it can't tell you a perfect story, which we already know, you know, no model is perfect. All models are wrong. Some are good. Is that that George people are 

Andrea Hiott: better than others. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Dang it. This is something I don't have wrote in my mind anyway. All models are wrong.

Some are more useful. 

Andrea Hiott: Oh yeah. That sounds better. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Some are useful. Yeah. So that's, and that's the way I think about modeling these days too. You were mentioning the map and the territory and them getting confused. And I think early on in my career, I was right, right there being confused by, you know, if [01:03:00] you can make them a model as good as the data.

Um, then that's telling you a lot, right? And that's somewhat conflating. The model isn't real. It's not perfect. It can't be perfect. It's a, it's a metaphor. It's a model. Um, so you can use it to try to infer and interpret your data in certain ways, but you're not making the thing. You're actually making a model.

You're not making the brain region, you're making a model. And I, I think, I think I used to just kind of accept that, that if you made the model, you were, you were, you understood. If you could make a perfectly predictive model, you understood the brain, uh, region. I think it happens 

Andrea Hiott: all the time that we assume it. Having studied neuroscience, um, an fMRI image, we talk about it as if it's the brain, right? And instead of what, instead of. a picture of a really parameterized, pixelated, , one little tiny thing that's going on and with a specific, like, we just can't [01:04:00] hold all that.

We just think, oh, that's the brain. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: There is emotion right 

Paul Middlebrooks: there. There is emotion, right? 

And 

Andrea Hiott: this gets back to trying to hold the paradox and, look at it a little bit differently and, but because, I do really honestly believe that we're at a moment in science where we're, we can finally maybe do that for the first time.

However, it's very important. We understand that they're just models coming from a particular path that, and that needs to be seen. All of that needs to be accounted for in the experiment, in our understanding of the experiment, in the way we talk about it, in the way we use the words. At the moment, it feels way too big to try to do that, but I really think we can, and we're all trying to.

And you're kind of bringing that in, is what I'm saying, well, I don't, 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: It's, I don't know how to exactly say it, but you're bringing that into that world, even with just conversations you have the way you just presented it, right? if you just presented it to that too, in that way to a few people, it, it changes a lot in that little environment.[01:05:00] 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, I think. These are, yeah, these are the kinds, of course we, you know, when you, anything you learn new that changes your, your perspective, you think, oh man, if I had only learned that little bit. As an undergrad or something, you know, like before, uh, it would have changed my whole perspective. So, I mean, I, I'm coming at this kind of late also, in terms of when it, well, nah, I don't want to say that.

I'm just an old man. That's what I'm saying. But, um, uh, I feel like you're giving me a lot more credit than I deserve you're being very kind with your words, um, but hopefully that's, hopefully that's true. And I'm, I'm somewhat surprised at your, uh, and I'm impressed by your optimism that we might be on the cusp of being able to what you phrase as, uh, hold the paradox together.

Andrea Hiott: Well, yeah, just understand there's The paradox , can be what it is, and when you let it do that, you [01:06:00] notice patterns in it. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Right. Rather 

Andrea Hiott: than trying to resolve it or I think we just assume if it's a paradox, it's like a contradiction, which isn't actually true or something. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Right. Yeah, yeah. You can have the 

Andrea Hiott: computation, but you can also know that the process itself can never be computed.

 Those don't have to mutually cancel each other out. 

Paul Middlebrooks: I, I understand that and, and now that I understand that, it's hard to understand why anyone else would think any different. 

Andrea Hiott: Because you've done so much hard work though, because I think it's very hard to, it's so nuanced and it, as you were just saying it in the same way that like once you know something you wish you'd known it your whole life, but it's one of those weird things, kind of like your little son when he realized.

The mind thing you realize it only one time and then it seems like it's always been that way And this is another one of those moments I think where we just haven't articulated it in our science in a way that it's kind of shifted widely in That sense it started. I do think it's happening. Like I [01:07:00] really think we There's been so much annoying debate about the word representation for good reason.

Yeah. 

Paul Middlebrooks: From philosophers, mostly. From philosophers, 

Andrea Hiott: but from neuroscientists, too. Yes, it's 

Paul Middlebrooks: true. It's true. 

Andrea Hiott: Everybody's kind of in it. And, um, yeah, it's the same, right? We, of course, we have representations and, and they're real, but, the brain is a process, right? So it's still even hard to talk about it, these are hard things, but I do feel like we're trying to do that a bit and getting there I can see it, 

Paul Middlebrooks: you're doing that work. So that's so are you? 

but but you're you're doing it on like intentionally. I'm sort of doing it as a 

Andrea Hiott: yeah 

Paul Middlebrooks: I'm trying to 

Andrea Hiott: articulate it literally which is yeah.

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. I'm doing it in my own head 

Andrea Hiott: but you're also I'm really not trying to put you on a pedestal and give you a lot of credit. I've just seen it in labs. This doesn't get seen, but little things like a couple conversations where people just suddenly make that little switch.

I keep thinking of your son where you just, Oh, the light goes off. And if that happens in a few [01:08:00] labs, around the world right now, it's a big switch, right? And I think your podcast does that and I imagine you do that in whatever context you're in because that's who you are now.

You have this path, right? Yeah. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. I'm going back to that, that realization that, you know, that, that you can, you can hold the paradox. It's almost like what you just realized, Oh, it's okay. It's like it eases the burden of trying to think about it in one way or the other and to realize, Oh, it's all like, it's all one thing and just different.

I mean, perspectivalism is a popular word these days, pluralism, and it's all part of, um, accepting different viewpoints as explanations from different perspectives and that they're all like valid, not all. But you can have multiple seemingly contradicting things then. People assume our [01:09:00] dichotomies that are living actually together, and it's such a freeing feeling.

Andrea Hiott: It is such a freeing feeling. I think of it sometimes like a, as a landscaper, in a more general sense, because, the same, if you take a landscape or a mountain, for example, There's many ways you could explore that mountain, and you're going to see very different things, but you could go to the same kind of place, and I think models can be like that. That's different than saying, oh, all the models can be true. No,

what's the question? And then you critique which model might be best. And then you go through all that rigorous stuff too.

Paul Middlebrooks: Yep. I mean, it's the hard, you still have to do the hard science, but it's, it's with the back round in your head, it's like much easier to proceed even if you're not, if you don't feel like you're. In a fight with the concepts, 

Andrea Hiott: right? That's what I was hearing when you were talking about your, the way you look at the data now, instead of, because we often talk about trying to fit the data to the model, but maybe you can.

Again, it's very hard, I think that's of that quote of Fitzgerald that I love [01:10:00] of, , the sign of intelligence is being able to hold two opposing ideas at once and, I don't know, not go crazy or something like that. Because it is kind of hard to look at all that data and then , you can understand, okay, if I let it be a little bit loose, there's a lot of different models that I could find here and that I could use with the data.

, and then, maybe choosing one, and going with it. But there's about being able to hold the space and let it be one model among what could be more, many that might fit.

Paul Middlebrooks: That's right. And in the end, you're going to be telling a story. Either way. Um, and so whatever the, and so how you frame that story can affect how people interpret, uh, your results, right? But it's still a story about how we think things work. Um, and some, some, something could be super predictive, and then some, something else can add like a slightly different, Uh, take on it a slightly different bent on the way and not be as predictive, but it can still add to the story.

Um, I have trouble articulating these [01:11:00] things as well, so I'm glad you're, I'm glad you're doing it. And I look forward to your book coming out so that maybe that can help me help me do that better. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. Thanks. But I think you do it very well in your conversations and so on and it's a reservoir, right?

Where people can go and, and get a lot of this without having to talk about it directly because it's in there. Um, but 

Paul Middlebrooks: let me, let me just say, so you were, you know, at my place of work now, you know, we're just running into the average neuroscientist. It's still very much the default.

Um, assumption that we all think the same way and that there is the correct way to think. And it is this one, not that one. Um, and so that, you know, I, that has not changed. So among my podcast audience, perhaps it has, but they are diluted across, you know, the world. So 

Andrea Hiott: diluted, not diluted. Yeah. It sounded like I said there.

Yeah. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh 

Andrea Hiott: no. But the, still that, that's how it starts. And these things seem not to. exist and then they change and it's as if it always was that way. I really just think it's a different [01:12:00] kind of assumption. It's a different assumed starting point and , it's hard to get there but I think like we're all trying to get there in a certain way.

And, we were talking about podcasts and everyone has their podcasts and I see as in a way, a good way, I think we're at a moment where everyone's kind of doing it, but as , it's very hard to do and, it's not like you're gonna, you don't, unless you just become, you have to have millions and millions of followers to make money because it's not about, , almost already 

Paul Middlebrooks: be a celebrity.

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. Yeah. People think you're getting rich or something, but it's, it's really, you, you have to do it because you want to do it. Oh, 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah, yeah, that's, that's very true. So I think it will get, 

Andrea Hiott: yeah, or there's some motivation behind it. But I guess what I was going to say is that maybe that's part of what we're talking about too, is that's also opening up a way for us to be able to open the space a little bit and communicate. A bit differently, in our kind of assumed starting place when it comes to To science because Yeah, there's also a lot of [01:13:00] motivation in there, in there, isn't there? I, I'm thinking of philosophy where, you know, you, , you wanna debate and fight and, and so on. So 

Paul Middlebrooks: that seems to be the majority of philosophy, which is kind of a turn.

I, I really enjoy philosophy for a couple paragraphs and then, and then you kind of get lost in the nit pickiness of definitions and the philosophers can work their way around any topic. Anywhere they want, it seems, um, so that they're just, you know, good rhetoric, just the path you choose. And then you just kind of are back where you started.

And then, and then you're going to argue again about representation the next day and the next day and the next day. And so that gets a little, um, that wears me down a little bit. That's why you didn't go 

Andrea Hiott: into philosophy. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Maybe, but I, uh, I did think about going into philosophy instead of going back into neuroscience, but I thought, I would have to get like another PhD, I would have to get another degree, it'd be like starting all over and, and that [01:14:00] wouldn't be enough income either on a, like a graduate school stipend and stuff.

So that factored into it as well. But, um, but I'm still interested. Maybe I'll go back at some point. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. You could probably do it online from some school. That's true. When I first heard you say you were going back into academia, I thought you were going to be a consultant or something, be in the lab, which is the philosophical role anyway.

So who knows, as it progresses, because you're still doing the podcast and academia is changing and everything's changing. So who knows how it all evolves. Well, 

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah, they had to invent a new title for my position because of technicalities of like my experience and that it was a great thing, but I would love to be a consultant.

I just don't know that it exists yet. 

Andrea Hiott: I think in practice it definitely does. And that's what a lot of philosophers do in labs. So in a way you're already doing that. 

Paul Middlebrooks: Is that becoming more popular to have a philosopher consultant? I mean, they wouldn't use the 

Andrea Hiott: word consulting, but yeah, I think it's like that because that's what you [01:15:00] bring. Like you were just talking about the, how philosophers are such good critical thinkers. So you learn that skill. And then what happens is if you stay in a philosophy department, you just argue. Endlessly endlessly about stuff that doesn't matter to show how great of an arguer you are and it's kind of exciting and Titillating and all that but you can just end up going around and around in loops But I think and that's i'm not trying to completely disparage that but it can become that 

Paul Middlebrooks: And it can progress things.

It's just not part of the philosophy world I am interested in pursuing, right? 

Andrea Hiott: And the real, when it comes to the subjects we're talking about, consciousness, cognition, mind, trying to understand what this is and all the implications that we need each other in various fields., to speak to all these subjects, we're talking about what a philosopher can do.

A philosopher in that sense is someone who can think critically or who's looked at a lot of different, paths and arguments and can then, so in a lab, you can more or less like your best contribution is to [01:16:00] have easily a way to think through all those different paths, which is what I'm saying you've learned how to do with your podcast. Just saying, well, we could look at it this way or this way or this way. And did you know about this and this study? cause I find a lot of times people are doing redundant work or they're doing work that would connect perfectly with someone else if only they had ever heard of that person.

Um

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah, that happens more and more because there's more and more science being done as well. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's a problem. I mean, you need replication, but you don't want to be redundant in science. 

Andrea Hiott: And from your position, you probably would catch, a lot more of that stuff. 

Paul Middlebrooks: I, I would hope so.

And I think I've become more fluid in terms of being able to, uh, think between perspectives Without too much pain because it's still hard and there's still friction in terms of doing that. I think that that's one of the the more valuable things is just being allowing myself to entertain more [01:17:00] perspectives.

Yeah, so hopefully that's what 

Andrea Hiott: I've noticed in your podcast and also that you're not afraid to Make people a little bit uncomfortable, which is important. 

Paul Middlebrooks: There's that's a fine line I don't know how you feel about that because one of the early criticisms That I would get is that i'm not tough enough on on the people.

I want mostly to highlight their work I don't want to I don't want it to be a gotcha moment. No, no, that's not fun. That's 

Andrea Hiott: not what I mean at all. I don't, that wouldn't make any sense for your podcast. What I mean more that you've read it so deeply and that you, if you don't understand something, you're not afraid to say, what about this?

 That kind of discomfort where they have to actually explain it. And sometimes it's Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's what we need, right? A way where people can do that in a way that's not trying to do the gotcha moment. Cause that is not beneficial.

Paul Middlebrooks: Well, that's one thing that I have, has only increased throughout my career is, is knowing how little I know and being super comfortable because I know [01:18:00] no one knows anything. And so I'm okay by vocalizing. I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm super comfortable with that. Um, so I don't know if that's, yeah, I don't know what that's related to. It's, it's more, that's more like just showing people that it's okay to, to, Not know something. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah, I think that's part of the benefit of the podcast too is that you Can show people that being a lifelong student is okay in a weird way. That's what we're all trying to learn because I, I'm sure you've probably noticed it too.

I don't know if we go back to your early years in academia, but when you, when you do kind of make it into academia and it's never, or science often, , of course it's still very inspiring and amazing, but there's usually a moment, like there's those moments like you described of kind of, whoa, you're part of something incredible.

And then there's also moments where you're like, oh, these are just like normal people. Making mistakes, doing normal stuff. Nobody knows anything. 

Paul Middlebrooks: [01:19:00] Mostly trying their best. 

But also. This has to be true of all fields, but I have met so many amazing, generous, kind people in academia, not just smart. Of course, there's a lot of smart people too, but those don't often, those don't always go hand in hand.

Um, and so I've just met so many people. I've just enjoyed so much. And I feel so lucky to have gotten to know and interact with, um, and whom I, I feel are going to be lifelong. Friends. 

Andrea Hiott: At 

Paul Middlebrooks: this point. 

Andrea Hiott: I think that's beautiful that you said that. There are some incredible people and it's so motivating when you come across them and it's so inspiring. Just someone who you just can't believe. how much they're giving and how good they are and nobody even sees it and they don't need the recognition. And it seems like nobody sees that. But when I really look at academia, I think that's what's keeping it going. And that's really at the heart of all those big discoveries. [01:20:00] Even if the person who gets pinned with a discovery sometimes isn't doing that.

Paul Middlebrooks: Yeah. Yeah. I want to temper that also with, of course, like in any other area that it's, there's so much Politics involved and not backstabbing, but massaging things to get your view in the spotlight and trying to seem right more than trying to be right.

But, and so I should have said that at first and then ended with the super positive thing instead of ending with the dark side, right? 

Andrea Hiott: No, but it is there, but that's what I meant by that's the stuff that you even in current politics, it might seem like the kind of sexy stuff or the stuff that's powerful, but when you really start looking at it, you realize the real power is actually something else.

 Especially when it comes to just life quality, to sort of move towards back to your life and towards kind of wrapping up this talk for today, at least, that feeling that you're describing and that, that motivation, I wonder I know this word love isn't, Like an easy word to talk about, [01:21:00] but when I just having listened to your podcast now for years, and I feel like it's motivating you whether it's, with you and your wife making these big decisions, or whether it's the way you talk about your kids, even though you're very funny, but it's very clear. You love your kids a lot. And, but also the way you respect your guests and that you've created this community. And so on I know we don't want to talk about that word too much in connection to all this but 

Paul Middlebrooks: Do you get a lot of pushback from other guests on this? I 

Andrea Hiott: think it's hard to talk 

Paul Middlebrooks: about. 

It is.

I don't get pushback, 

Andrea Hiott: It's hard to talk about and I think i'm actually very careful about it because. I I want us to recognize It doesn't even have to be the word love but even just connection human I don't want it to get too saccharine where it's You know, because I find love to be quite discomfort, uncomfortable at times and a harder thing, like it has an edge to it, you know, 

Paul Middlebrooks: a feeling of love or an act of love.

Andrea Hiott: Well, how do you think of love? [01:22:00] I can, I 

Paul Middlebrooks: can sit with different, uh, paradoxical views of it, right? Cause then, and you know, on the one hand, I think I grew up assuming that love was something one felt. Um, and as I, Get older and have done had children. It doesn't matter how you feel.

It's what you do. And so I've shifted to at least include love as a behavior or action. Um, like a loving action. Uh, and I, I tend to lean toward that, uh, over the, the feeling itself. Because you can have a feeling and nothing will be different. 

Andrea Hiott: Well, we can go into all kinds of neuroscience and philosophy on that one. Like What's the difference between the feeling and the action and the mind and action and all this. And I guess like to summarize, we would say we hold the paradox right after this conversation, 

Paul Middlebrooks: but, 

Andrea Hiott: but, but I do want to dig into it just a little bit because the the feeling we're fed, fed in media that, of what love [01:23:00] is, 

where you really feel this kind of, everything is good in the world or something. , I don't think that's necessarily the feeling of love all the time. For me, because to be honest, even as a kid,, love has been a, when I feel love, I almost feel pain because you can't do anything about it. You just have to feel it. It's like with the kids, right? You can't, you can't do anything about it. You just got to be with it and it's not. It's painful in a way and yes, you have to act, acting out of that , is the real love, but yeah. So what do you mean by the feeling of love, 

Paul Middlebrooks: oh, the feel, you know, like meeting, watching my children being born, meeting and getting to know my wife and you know, that, that kind of visceral tingling sensation that, that your thoughts gets right. Like the, your current situation when it gives rise to and um, so that's kind of what I mean by, and then realizing, Oh, like.

I really, really love this person. And so that's the sort of the feeling or realization recently, a [01:24:00] little over a year ago, my grandfather died and he, I was kind of, he'd been bedridden in the hospital and he was really going downhill. I'm sorry, this, I don't mean for this to be a morbid tale, but he did the thing where he like people had gone and visited him and I hadn't been able to make it yet.

He did the thing where he waited for me before he died. You know, like that's, that's my interpretation. I know there are other, but that's what everyone has said. And I know that from, you know, nursing home situations that that happens quite frequently. So I got there, I got to say goodbye to him. I was the last person to see him alive.

I hung out with him, you know, for a couple hours in the night. And then he died, uh, you know, an hour or two after I left. So, so he was dead the next morning. And I say that like, so I don't know what that is from his perspective, but I felt such love. And I, I felt such love for him also, uh, as a grandfather, as a man, as a [01:25:00] human being, really, he was a very kind, generous, funny man.

Um, but, but I felt that connection between he and I as well. Um, and so that's another feeling of love. 

Andrea Hiott: Thank you for sharing that. I think that's very beautiful, and it actually speaks to a lot of what I was trying to express, but not so well, because there's your grandfather, right? He has no, there's no motivating factor for him to do that other than love, 

oh, he was not 

Paul Middlebrooks: in a great situation.

And you're right that it is accompanied by a sort of crushing feeling, right? It almost destroys you. That's the word. Yeah. 

Andrea Hiott: I've really felt that at times where I even the love for your grandfather, in my case, my grandmother, and she's been gone, I don't know if you still think about your grandfather a lot, but my grandfather, mother passed away, but I still have it sometimes where it's just so, it's I cannot believe how much I love this person who's not even in the world anymore.

But 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah, 

Andrea Hiott: there's a continuity, 

Paul Middlebrooks: Oh, I was just crying a couple of nights ago about it. 

Just just sitting with just the reflection and thinking about the person. And [01:26:00] if, you know, it's not just my grandfather, I'm just using that as an example. Um, 

Andrea Hiott: you can't get away from it. There's some meaning in there. There's some, even when it's painful, there's some feeling of life. Real meaning and real, you don't care about your legacy, but you have a legacy, right? And so these things you're creating and your relationship with your grandfather, how that's going to be transmitted into your kids. Like you don't, you have no choice, it's happening. 

Paul Middlebrooks: yeah, I'll go along with that. 

Andrea Hiott: You don't have to. Do you disagree? I 

Paul Middlebrooks: mean, I think you do have a choice, right? To act differently. You don't have maybe a choice of how you feel. Action is a choice. 

But the feeling, perhaps not. But, I mean, it's a cycle, right? When you act a certain way, it's going to potentially dictate your feelings as well.

 Actually, that's an 

Andrea Hiott: important point, yeah. 

Okay. Was there anything we haven't said that needs to be said or any, any final thing? I don't think 

Paul Middlebrooks: so. Um, I've just, I've really appreciated the conversation.[01:27:00] 

Slightly painful in a very good way. At times, but I appreciate your interest and your, your gratitude. I mean, you said a lot of nice things, about what I'm doing and, I just, I feel a lot of gratitude for your appreciation thank you, Andrea. Keep me posted about, uh, your book and how your work's going. I'm sure we'll be in touch. 

Andrea Hiott: Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, Paul. Have a good day and thanks for being patient and staying on.