Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
COMING UP ON "THE HUMAN SPARK..."
WELCOME TO MY BRAIN.
OK, ALAN, WE CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE A BRAIN.
COME INSIDE MY HEAD AS WE SEARCH
FOR WHAT MAKES HUMANS UNIQUE.
WE EXPLORE THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AND SYMBOLS,
OUR SKILL WITH TOOLS,
RELATING TO OTHERS...
WHO DO YOU LIKE?
EVEN A PUPPET...
THAT ONE.
AND IMAGINING TOMORROW.
YOU'RE WATCHING US PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WE ARE.
I'M NOW GOING TO PICK UP THE HUMAN BRAIN.
WELCOME TO MY BRAIN,
THE PRODUCT OF 3.5 BILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION
AND A FEW DECADES OF LIVING.
IT WEIGHS ONLY 3 POUNDS,
BUT IT'S ARGUABLY THE MOST COMPLICATED THING
IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, ALONG, OF COURSE,
WITH ALMOST 7 BILLION OTHER HUMAN BRAINS, INCLUDING YOURS,
INHABITING THE SKULLS OF PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE PLANET.
IN THERE SOMEWHERE ARE ALL MY THOUGHTS,
ALL MY MEMORIES, ALL MY PREJUDICES,
MY AMBITIONS, MY KNOWLEDGE, MY LOVES,
THE WORDS I'M SPEAKING
JUST MILLISECONDS BEFORE THEY COME OUT OF MY MOUTH.
BUT WHILE ALL OF OUR BRAINS ARE UNIQUE,
THEY ALL HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON.
THEY ALL POSSESS THE HUMAN SPARK,
THE SOMETHING THAT MAKES THEM DIFFERENT
FROM ANYTHING ELSE
THAT THOSE 3.5 BILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION HAVE CREATED.
AND IT'S NEW, THIS THING, THIS SPARK.
OUR ANCESTORS GOT ALONG QUITE WELL WITHOUT IT
FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.
WE'VE BEEN TRACING THE ORIGINS AND NATURE OF THE HUMAN SPARK,
AND IN THE NEXT HOUR, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LOCATE IT THERE.
THERE.
DOES IT LIE IN OUR UNIQUE FACILITY WITH LANGUAGE,
IN OUR SKILL WITH TOOLS,
OUR ABILITY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OTHERS ARE THINKING
AND THEN TO TRY TO OUTTHINK THEM,
IN OUR RELIVING OUR PASTS AND ANTICIPATING OUR FUTURES?
OR DOES THE HUMAN SPARK RESIDE
DEEP WITHIN OUR PRIVATE THOUGHTS,
WHAT OUR MIND IS DOING
WHEN IT SEEMS WE'RE DOING NOTHING AT ALL?
SO COME INSIDE MY HEAD.
LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN FIND.
HERE'S A HUMAN BRAIN-- HAPPILY, NOT MINE--
WRINKLED AND BEIGE AND DENSE AND UNASSUMING
AS IT'S LAID OUT ON A BENCH AT EMORY UNIVERSITY IN ATLANTA.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF BRAINS HERE,
PRESERVED FOR RESEARCH.
THIS IS FROM A CHIMPANZEE--
A LITTLE LESS WRINKLED
AND PERHAPS A THIRD THE SIZE OF THE HUMAN BRAIN,
BUT OTHERWISE NOT LOOKING MUCH DIFFERENT.
NEXT IN LINE IS THE BRAIN FROM A MONKEY--
EVEN SMALLER, BUT STILL FAMILIAR IN SHAPE.
FINALLY, THE BRAIN OF A RAT.
UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, SCIENCE KNEW MUCH MORE
ABOUT THE BRAINS OF THE RAT AND MONKEY
THAN THOSE OF THE CHIMP OR OURSELVES.
HOW MUCH CAN YOU TELL ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN US JUST BY LOOKING AT THE BRAIN?
NOT VERY MUCH.
EVERY LITTLE BIT OF CORTEX
IS LIKE A VERY, VERY SOPHISTICATED BIT OF WIRING
OR A VERY SOPHISTICATED BIT OF COMPUTER CIRCUITRY.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO KNOW
IS ARE THOSE CIRCUITS THE SAME, OR ARE THEY DIFFERENT?
AND IF SO, IN WHAT WAYS ARE THEY DIFFERENT?
AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO DIFFERENCES
IN THE WAY WE THINK AND ACT?
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO LOOK AT THE SURFACE FEATURES
OF THE BRAIN. YOU'VE GOT TO GO INSIDE.
AND SO I'VE SPENT SEVERAL HOURS OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS
IN BRAIN-SCANNING MACHINES, LIKE THIS ONE HERE AT M.I.T.
M.R.I. MACHINES EMPLOY A POWERFUL MAGNETIC FIELD
TO IMAGE THE BRAIN, AND THEY CAN ALSO FIND OUT
WHAT PARTS OF MY BRAIN ARE ACTIVE
WHEN I'M DOING DIFFERENT TASKS.
IT'S IN MY BRAIN SOMEWHERE.
BUT FIRST, AS ALWAYS WITH THESE BRAIN-SCANNING SESSIONS,
THEY'RE GOING TO START WITH THE BASICS.
OK, ALAN, WE CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE A BRAIN,
AND WE'RE READY TO DO THE FIRST SCAN.
FOR THIS ONE, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LAY BACK AND RELAX.
ARE YOU READY?
YES.
OK. HERE GOES. THIS WILL LAST FOR ABOUT 4 MINUTES.
THE M.R.I. TAKES SLICES ACROSS MY BRAIN
FROM SIDE TO SIDE, TOP TO BOTTOM...
AND FRONT TO BACK.
RANDY BUCKNER SEEMS HAPPY WITH WHAT HE SEES.
WHAT LOOKS GOOD ABOUT MY BRAIN?
WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES WE SEE AS WE AGE,
AND THESE HAPPEN IN ALL OF US.
EVEN BY THE TIME WE'RE 30,
OUR BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE WERE 18.
NOW, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT YOUR BRAIN,
ACTUALLY, I SHOULD SAY, IT'S QUITE--
IT REALLY IS REMARKABLE.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING--
WE ALWAYS SEE THAT THESE FLUID-FILLED SPACES
RIGHT HERE, THIS DARK AREA, THAT'S FLUID,
AND THOSE SPACES EXIST IN ALL OF US.
AS WE AGE, THEY TEND TO GROW.
YOURS HAVEN'T GROWN THAT MUCH.
THIS LOOKS LIKE THE BRAIN-- IF I HAD TO GUESS,
I WOULD HAVE GUESSED YOU WERE 40 OR 50.
SO FAR, SO GOOD.
THE SLICES TAKEN IN THE M.R.I. WILL NOW BE COMBINED
TO GIVE A COMPLETE 3-DIMENSIONAL IMAGE
OF MY WHOLE HEAD, BRAIN INCLUDED.
IT'S IN THIS VIRTUAL BRAIN OF MINE
THAT WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR SIGNS OF MY HUMAN SPARK.
UH-OH.
BUT WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN BY LOOKING FOR THE SPARK
IN SOME MUCH YOUNGER BRAINS.
I'M VISITING A LAB AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY
THAT CONDUCTS INGENIOUS EXPERIMENTS
TO FIND OUT WHAT CHILDREN KNOW AND WHAT THEY DON'T.
AND RIGHT AWAY, I'M IN FOR A SURPRISE.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE HUMAN SPARK,
YOU KNOW, WHAT MAKES US HUMAN?
MM-HMM.
AND WE CERTAINLY DO SEEM TO BE
VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER ANIMALS.
TO SAY THE LEAST.
YEAH. SO, ARE WE BORN WITH SOMETHING THAT,
RIGHT OFF THE BAT, IT MAKES US VASTLY DIFFERENT?
I DON'T THINK SO.
NO?
THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO ANSWER
FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS OR SO,
AND FOR MOST OF THAT TIME,
MY HUNCH WAS THAT WE WERE,
THAT WE WOULD SEE IN INFANTS SYSTEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
THAT HUMAN INFANTS ALONE WOULD DISPLAY.
BUT WHEN WE LOOK HARD AT WHAT A 4-MONTH-OLD
OR A 6-MONTH-OLD INFANT CAN DO,
WE SEE VERY CLOSE SIMILARITIES
BETWEEN THE CAPACITIES OF HUMAN INFANTS
AND THE CAPACITIES OF INFANTS AND ADULTS
OF OTHER SPECIES.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HUMAN SPARK
IGNITES EARLY IN DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT...WHAT WOULD BRING IT ABOUT?
WHAT...WHY...I MEAN, ARE WE VERY RELIANT
ON THIS CULTURE THAT WE HAVE?
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND ONE THAT'S VERY DEBATED RIGHT NOW.
MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT
WHAT'S MOST CENTRAL TO THE SPARKING
OF UNIQUELY HUMAN COGNITIVE CAPACITIES
IS OUR CAPACITY FOR LANGUAGE,
AND THAT'S IT'S WHEN CHILDREN REALLY GET GOING
ON THE TASK OF LEARNING LANGUAGE,
LEARNING THEIR FIRST WORDS AT 9 OR 10 MONTHS OF AGE,
PUTTING WORDS TOGETHER A FEW MONTHS LATER,
THAT'S WHEN WE START SEEING
THESE UNIQUELY HUMAN CAPACITIES EMERGING.
SO LIZ SPELKE SEES LANGUAGE AS IGNITING THE HUMAN SPARK.
SHE'S EXPLORING THAT IDEA BY STUDYING HOW LANGUAGE
ALLOWS CHILDREN TO INTERPRET MAPS
AS REPRESENTING THE REAL WORLD.
SO YOU TAKE A 2-1/2-YEAR-OLD CHILD--
AND SHOW THEM A 2-DIMENSIONAL DRAWING
THAT SIMPLY HAS A SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FIGURE ON IT,
SAY A TRIANGLE, AND SAY TO THEM...
NORA, GUESS WHAT.
KERMIT...HE HAS A FAVORITE BUCKET THAT HE LIKES TO SIT IN.
THERE IS ONE BUCKET THAT HE LIKES THE BEST.
AND TODAY WE ARE GOING TO PUT HIM
IN HIS FAVORITE BUCKET, OK?
HERE'S OUR PICTURE OF THE ROOM.
THERE'S ONE BUCKET, THERE'S ANOTHER BUCKET,
AND THERE'S ANOTHER BUCKET.
KERMIT, WHICH ONE IS YOUR FAVORITE BUCKET?
[AS KERMIT] MY FAVORITE IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
OH, KERMIT SAYS THAT THIS ONE IS HIS FAVORITE.
NORA, CAN YOU PUT KERMIT IN HIS FAVORITE BUCKET?
YAY!
THAT'S A REMARKABLE ABILITY.
BUT IF YOU ASK, "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
"WITH THIS CHILD TO ENGAGE THIS ABILITY,
TO ENGAGE THIS SYMBOLIC FUNCTION?"
YOU'VE TALKED TO THEM. YOU'VE TOLD THEM.
THERE'S ONE BUCKET, THERE'S ANOTHER BUCKET,
AND THERE'S ANOTHER BUCKET.
AND THAT RAISED THE QUESTION, WHAT IF YOU DIDN'T DO THAT?
WHAT IF YOU SIMPLY SHOWED THEM THE PIECE OF PAPER AND SAID...
THERE'S ONE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER,
AND THERE'S ANOTHER.
NOW, KERMIT, WHICH IS YOUR FAVORITE ONE?
[AS KERMIT] MY FAVORITE ONE
IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
Aldo: NOTICE THAT, UNLIKE NORA,
ZANDER ISN'T TOLD THAT THE SPOT ON THE MAP
REPRESENTS A BUCKET.
CAN YOU PUT HIM IN HIS FAVORITE BUCKET?
YAY! GOOD JOB.
YOU GOT HIM ON THE PICTURE.
WE WANT TO GET KERMIT
IN HIS FAVORITE BUCKET IN THE ROOM.
WHICH IS KERMIT'S FAVORITE BUCKET?
WITHOUT THE CUE OF LANGUAGE, ZANDER WASN'T ABLE
TO RELATE THE MAP TO THE REAL WORLD,
BUT WHEN HE'S PROMPTED...
I'M GOING TO GIVE HIM TO YOU.
AND THEY HAVE THIS ABILITY, YOU THINK,
BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY
MANIPULATING SYMBOLS IN LANGUAGE?
EXACTLY. EXACTLY.
AND AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, THAT ABILITY DEVELOPS
SPONTANEOUSLY IN US BY VIRTUE OF BEING HUMAN.
IT DOESN'T DEVELOP AT BIRTH.
WE DON'T SEE IT UNTIL CHILDREN
ARE ABOUT 9 OR 10 MONTHS OF AGE.
BUT AS FAR AS I CAN SEE,
THAT'S AN INNATE, UNIQUELY HUMAN CAPACITY
THAT EMERGES IN CHILDREN TOWARD THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR.
FOR LIZ SPELKE, THE KEY TO BOTH HUMAN LANGUAGE
AND THE HUMAN SPARK IS THE ABILITY
TO MANIPULATE SYMBOLS IN OUR MINDS,
AN INNATE ABILITY, BUT ONE THAT DOESN'T KICK IN
UNTIL WE'RE ALMOST A YEAR OLD.
TO FIND OUT JUST HOW OUR LANGUAGE SKILLS
DEVELOP IN CHILDHOOD, I'VE COME HERE
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON.
DO YOU THINK YOU CAN FIGURE OUT
WHAT THERE IS ABOUT US THAT ENABLES US
TO TALK TO ONE ANOTHER?
THE FIRST THING THAT YOU LEARN AS A CHILD
IS JUST THE SOUNDS-- BABBLE, BABBLE, MAKE SOUNDS.
AND THEN AT ABOUT A YEAR, THEY START LEARNING
THAT WORDS STAND FOR OBJECTS IN THE WORLD.
USUALLY NOUNS IS WHAT THEY START WITH.
SO THEY'LL SAY "BALL," "CAT."
AND THEN LATER, THEY'LL GET SOME VERBS--"EAT."
AND THEN ONLY AT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF
WILL THEY START MAKING LITTLE SENTENCES,
PUT 2 WORDS TOGETHER, LIKE, "MOMMY UP."
I HAVE A GRANDSON
WHOSE...HIS FIRST 2-WORD SENTENCE WAS
"EAT OUT."
HELEN IS FIGURING OUT
HOW WE GET FROM SOUNDS TO SENTENCES
WITH THE AID OF WHAT MUST BE
THE WORLD'S MOST ATTRACTIVE HEADGEAR.
Neville: THAT IS A LOVELY HAT.
THE COLOR REALLY SUITS YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THESE NEVER CAUGHT ON.
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN US AND OTHER ANIMALS.
IF I SAY TO A WELL-TRAINED DOG, "GET ME THE BONE,"
HE'S LIABLE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.
BUT IF I SAY TO HIM,
"GET ME THE BONE THAT'S BEHIND THE DOOR,"
HE MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT, RIGHT?
BECAUSE IT'S...HE'S... THERE ARE TOO MANY
INS AND OUTS IN THAT, IN THAT SENTENCE.
IS THAT A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US,
OR IS THAT BRIDGEABLE WITH OTHER ANIMALS?
I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY AGREES
THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUMAN COMMUNICATION
OR HUMAN LANGUAGE AND OTHER ANIMAL
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, IS THAT OTHER ANIMALS
CAN HAVE ODD, YOU KNOW, VISUAL SYMBOLS,
OR EVEN SOUND SYMBOLS CAN STAND FOR
PARTICULAR OBJECTS IN THE WORLD.
THAT'S RIGHT. LIKE MY DOG KNOWS
THE MEANING OF SEVERAL WORDS--
"CAR. WE'RE GOING IN THE CAR."
OR "BONE." "COOKIE. YOU WANT A COOKIE?"
I KNOW ALL THESE, TOO.
HA HA. YOU'RE GOOD.
SO FAR, I'M RIGHT UP WITH YOUR DOG THERE, YEAH.
BUT WHEN DOES THE DOG HAVE TROUBLE?
WELL, IF YOU WERE TO SAY, UM...
"I WANT YOU TO GET THE COOKIE
THAT IS FOLLOWED BY THE CAR," VERSUS...
OR THE COOKIE THAT'S IN THE CAR.
THE COOKIE THAT'S IN THE CAR.
YEAH. HE'D THINK, "WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR A RIDE,
AND WHERE'S MY COOKIE?"
YEAH. IT'S ALL GOOD. ALL GOOD, YOU KNOW.
YES, RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN HUMAN LANGUAGE AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,
IS GRAMMAR. I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES ABOUT THAT.
Man: SO JUST HAVE A SEAT. WE HAVE A PILLOW...
SO GRAMMAR IS WHAT MAKES HUMAN LANGUAGE
CRITICAL TO IGNITING THE HUMAN SPARK,
WHICH IS WHERE MY NEW HAT COMES IN.
OK. SO IT'S AN ELECTRIC CHAIR.
IT'S GOING TO BE CHECKING OUT MY GRAMMATICAL SKILLS
WHILE I WATCH A VIDEO.
I JUST HAVE TO WATCH IT, AND THESE ELECTRODES
ARE PICKING UP WHAT I'M THINKING?
YEAH, WE SEE A BRAIN REACTION WITHIN A HUNDRED MILLISECONDS,
WHETHER YOU'RE DOING A TASK OR NOT ACTUALLY.
THE VIDEO'S NARRATION SOMETIMES MAKES SENSE.
Narrator: A BABY PENGUIN SWINGS ON THAT DOOR.
Alda: AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T.
Narrator: THE TRUCK GOES UP AND DOWN
AND THE PAPERS OVER HILLS.
Alda: THE ELECTRODES ARE RECORDING WHERE AND WHEN
MY BRAIN REACTS TO THESE MISTAKES.
WHEN THE MISTAKE IS SIMPLY A WORD THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE...
Narrator: PINGA TURNS UP THE PENGUIN REALLY LOUD.
Alda: AN AREA IN THE BACK OF MY BRAIN, MOSTLY ON THE LEFT,
REACTS WITHIN 2/10ths OF A SECOND.
BUT WHEN THE MISTAKE IS GRAMMATICAL...
Narrator: THE CONCERT ARE STARTING.
Alda: MY BRAIN POUNCES ON THE ERROR
WITHIN 1/10th OF A SECOND,
AND THIS TIME IN A REGION TOWARD THE FRONT
AND EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LEFT.
FOLLOWING ME INTO THE VIDEO BOOTH
AND EQUIPPED WITH A MUCH MORE FETCHING HAT
IS 6-YEAR-OLD DANIKA.
WHEN THERE'S A MISTAKE OF MEANING...
Narrator: PINGA CLAPS HER BALL HAPPILY.
Alda: HERE BRAIN, JUST LIKE MINE,
REACTS IN 2/10ths OF A SECOND.
BUT WHEN THE VIDEO SAYS
SOMETHING GRAMMATICALLYINCORRECT...
Narrator: THE PANCAKE FALLS ONTO THERE HIS HEAD.
Alda: HER BRAIN IS SLOWER TO RESPOND THAN MINE,
AND THE RESPONSE ISN'T SO FOCUSED
OVER THAT AREA IN THE FRONT LEFT.
IN FACT, HELEN NEVILLE ARGUES, IT TAKES PERHAPS 10 OR 15 YEARS
FOR THE BRAIN TO ORGANIZE ITSELF
TO PROCESS GRAMMAR SWIFTLY AND EFFICIENTLY
IN JUST ONE FOCUSED, SPECIALIZED REGION.
IT LOOKS, FOR EXAMPLE,
LIKE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT AREA
FOR SEQUENCING DIFFERENT KINDS OF INFORMATION,
AND OF COURSE SEQUENCING IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF LANGUAGE.
IT LOOKS LIKE AREAS JUST BEHIND THERE
ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR TOOL USE,
IN THE LEFT SIDE AS WELL.
TOOL USE?
TOOL USE, YEAH.
TOOL USE OVER WHERE LANGUAGE IS TAKING PLACE?
ACTUALLY, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT ONE ASPECT OF LANGUAGE
IS CLOSELY TIED TO TOOL USE,
THAT WE HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO TALK.
[INDISTINCT VOICES]
Alda: NOW, THIS IS A FASCINATING TAKE
ON THE HUMAN SPARK,
THAT 2 OF THE MOST DEFINING ATTRIBUTES
OF WHAT MAKE US HUMAN--
LANGUAGE AND THE MAKING AND USING OF TOOLS--
SHOULD SOMEHOW BE TIED TOGETHER IN OUR BRAINS.
WHAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE FASCINATING
IS THAT I'D HEARD THIS IDEA BEFORE
IN A VERY DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
GOOD. YEAH, YOU'RE GETTING THE HANG OF THIS.
WHILE SEARCHING FOR THE FIRST GLIMMERINGS
OF THE SPARK IN OUR ANCESTORS,
I HAD JOINED A CLASS IN STONE-AGE TECHNOLOGY
RUN BY JOHN SHEA OF STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY.
I WAS ABLE TO PUT A PRETTY EFFECTIVE CUTTING EDGE
ON A PIECE OF ROCK.
IT'S VERY SHARP. IT'S VERY SHARP, YEAH.
BUT A KEY MOMENT IN HUMAN EVOLUTION,
A MOMENT MANY ANTHROPOLOGISTS BELIEVE
THE HUMAN SPARK FIRST IGNITED,
IS WHEN HUMANS WENT FROM MAKING SIMPLE STONE TOOLS
TO COMBINING SMALLER, FINER STONE POINTS
WITH OTHER MATERIALS TO MAKE SPEARS AND ARROWS.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS
IS PARALLELING LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE,
WHERE MEANING COMES FROM RECOMBINING
DIFFERENT ELEMENTS AND DIFFERENT ORDERS.
AND JUST AS THERE IS ONLY ONE PROPER,
A LIMITED NUMBER OF PROPER WAYS
FOR ME TO SAY THE SENTENCE I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW,
THERE'S ONLY A FEW PROPER AND EFFECTIVE WAYS
TO COMBINE THESE ELEMENTS
OF STONE AND STRING AND WOOD.
AND IF YOU DO IT THE WRONG WAY, YOU'RE DEAD.
[CHUCKLES]
NATURAL SELECTION, YOU KNOW. HA HA HA!
Man: OK. AND THEN ONCE YOU LAY DOWN...
Alda: TO FIND OUT HOW CLOSELY
LANGUAGE AND TOOL USE ARE LINKED IN MY BRAIN,
IT'S TIME FOR ME TO GO BACK INTO THE M.R.I. MACHINE.
I'M AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON AGAIN,
WHERE A RESEARCH TEAM IS TRYING TO FIND OUT
WHY HUMANS ARE SO NATURALLY ADEPT AT USING TOOLS.
YOU DOING ALL RIGHT SO FAR?
VERY GOOD. YEAH.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE GRIPPER
IN YOUR RIGHT HAND NOW.
THE PLAN IS FOR ME TO USE A TOOL
OR ACTUALLY TO IMAGINE I'M USING A TOOL
TO PERFORM A TASK I'D LEARNED JUST A COUPLE OF HOURS BEFORE.
WE'RE GOING TO DO MULTIPLE TRIALS
WITH YOUR HAND RIGHT NOW. THERE YOU GO.
FIRST, I'D HAD TO GRASP THIS ***
WITH MY THUMB AND FOREFINGER.
THE IDEA WAS TO SEE WHETHER MY THUMB
WENT TO THE TAN SIDE OR THE PINK SIDE.
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU
DO THE SAME THING WITH THIS TOOL.
AND AT FIRST IT'S GOING TO SEEM A LITTLE ODD.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS END OF THE TOOL
THAT'S MARKED WITH BLUE, THE THUMB OF THE TOOL.
THIS? THIS IS THE THUMB.
THAT'S RIGHT. OK.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASY TO DO WITH THE TOOL.
WHATEVER'S MOST COMFORTABLE. THAT'S RIGHT.
SO CHOOSE THE GRIP THAT'S MOST COMFORTABLE.
SCOTT FREY BELIEVES THAT WHEN WE USE A TOOL,
OUR BRAINS QUICKLY START TREATING IT
AS AN EXTENSION OF OUR OWN BODIES.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY MODIFYING
THE MECHANICS OF YOUR ARM.
SO IT MAY NOW BE MORE AWKWARD
TO DO WHAT YOU DID BEFORE.
YEAH, IT WOULD BE, YEAH.
I FEEL A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE NOW, DOING THIS A FEW TIMES.
I DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
I KIND OF DO IT MORE INTUITIVELY.
ONCE I'VE GOT USED TO THE TASK,
IT'S OFF TO THE SCANNER.
OK, ALAN, NOW THE FUN BEGINS.
WE'RE GOING TO SCAN YOUR BRAIN
WHILE YOU'RE MAKING JUDGMENTS
ABOUT HOW TO GRASP THOSE OBJECTS
WITH YOUR HAND OR WITH THAT NEW TOOL
THAT YOU LEARNED HOW TO USE EARLIER.
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO SEE
WHERE THOSE PATTERNS OF ACTIVITY ARE.
BECAUSE MY UPPER BODY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MOVE
IN THE SCANNER, I'M PRESSING FOOT PEDALS
TO SIGNAL WHICH SIDE OF THE *** I WOULD GRASP
WITH MY REAL THUMB OR THE GRIPPER THUMB.
AND EVEN THOUGH IN EACH CASE,
MY ARM AND HAND WOULD ACTUALLY MOVE VERY DIFFERENTLY,
THE AREAS OF MY BRAIN THAT LIGHT UP ARE THE SAME.
WHILE USING THE TOOL, MY BRAIN TREATS IT
AS AN EXTENSION OF MY BODY,
AND IT'S ACTIVELY PLANNING THE MUSCLE MOVEMENTS
THAT MANIPULATING THE TOOL REQUIRES.
ALL THIS TOOL-USE PLANNING IS GOING ON
IN THE LEFT SIDE OF MY BRAIN
AND VERY CLOSE TO THE AREAS WE USE FOR LANGUAGE.
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE SO CLOSE TOGETHER--
THE SPEECH PRODUCTION AND SO MUCH
OF THE PLANNING OVER HERE--
MM-HMM?
IS THAT...IS THAT SIGNIFICANT, DO YOU THINK?
IT COULD REFLECT THE FACT
THAT THERE ARE SOME COMMON UNDERLYING PROCESSES.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A CANDIDATE
I WOULD SUGGEST AT LEAST WORTH CONSIDERING
IS THIS ABILITY TO ADJUST A BEHAVIOR
THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
IN ANTICIPATION OF A GOAL
WE WANT TO ACHIEVE IN THE FUTURE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO SAY
THE WORD "TULIP" VERSUS THE WORD "TICKET,"
WATCH WHAT YOUR LIPS DO WHEN YOU SAY "TULIP."
YOU START TO ANTICIPATORILY ROUND YOUR LIPS,
DURING THE "T" IN ANTICIPATION
OF THE VOWEL COMING BEHIND IT.
WATCH WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU SAY
THE SAME CONSONANT, "T", IN THE WORD "TICKET."
TULIP. TICKET.
TULIP. TICKET.
I'M STARTING TO MAKE WAY FOR THE "U" IN "TULIP"
EVEN AS I'M SAYING THE "T."
BUT IN "TICKET," I DON'T DO IT.
I'M ALREADY HERE. "TULIP." BUT I'M...
YOU DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
SO THAT'S A CLUE THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF PLANNING GOING ON?
YOU'RE PLANNING AHEAD, AND IN LANGUAGE--
AND WHEN CHIMPS SAY "TULIP,"
THEY DON'T DO THAT.
AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
CHIMPS AND SOME OTHER ANIMALS DO USE TOOLS, OF COURSE,
BUT JUST AS GRAMMAR AND THE COMPLEXITY
OF MEANING IT ALLOWS MAKES HUMAN SPEECH
DIFFERENT FROM ANIMAL COMMUNICATION,
IN THE SAME WAY, IT'S THE COMPLEXITY
OF OUR TOOLS THAT SETS HUMAN TOOL USE APART.
MY GUESS IS THAT WE COULD BE GETTING VERY CLOSE
TO A KEY ELEMENT OF THE HUMAN SPARK.
SO I'VE COME TO LONDON TO MEET A RESEARCHER
WORKING WITH A FAMILY WITH A RARE GENETIC MUTATION,
A MUTATION THAT APPEARS TO INHIBIT THE ABILITY
TO MAKE THE VERY PRECISE SEQUENCING
OF FINE MUSCLE MOVEMENTS NEEDED FOR BOTH TOOL USE AND SPEECH.
STAYED. STAYED.
GREW. GREW.
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE IMPEDIMENT THAT HE HAS?
WELL, HE HAS DIFFICULTY ENUNCIATING HIS WORDS.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE WHO'S NOT PRESENT
AND IS LISTENING TO WHAT HE'S SAYING
TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT HE'S REPEATING.
SQUASH. SQUASH.
THE PROBLEM BECOMES MUCH MORE OBVIOUS
WHEN THEY'RE SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATING SENTENCES.
THERE'S A QUESTION OF SEQUENCING HERE.
THE BRAIN'S NOT ABLE TO SEQUENCE AS WELL?
VERY MUCH SO, BECAUSE THE CIRCUITRY
THAT SEEMS TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS GENETIC MUTATION
IS THE CIRCUITRY THAT'S SPECIALIZED
FOR SEQUENCING, FOR TIMING, FOR GENERATING.
SO ALL OF THESE ABILITIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED
INTO THE PRODUCTION OF FLUENT AND ARTICULATE SPEECH...
WHEN YOU SPEAK, YOU DON'T PLAN WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO PLAN
EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY,
WE'D BE SITTING HERE FOR A LONG TIME
TRYING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
YOU HAVE AN IDEA IN YOUR MIND,
AND SOMEHOW IT'S...
I HATE TO USE THE WORD "MAGIC,"
BUT IT REALLY IS LIKE MAGIC,
BECAUSE THIS THOUGHT MAPS ONTO A STREAM OF UTTERANCE
THAT COMES OUT PERFECTLY COHERENT
IN THE RIGHT ORDER, AND IT'S ACTUALLY
TIMED PERFECTLY, IN MILLISECONDS.
RIGHT. IT'S-- YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES
THERE'S A SENSE OF A GENERAL URGE,
A VERY... INCOHERENT URGE
TO EXPRESS SOME KIND OF THOUGHT,
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN,
THESE WORDS COME OUT.
AND SOMETIMES WE SAY IT
IN WHOLE SENTENCES AND REAL PARAGRAPHS.
THAT'S RIGHT.
AND IT'S AMAZING HOW THE THINKING PROCESS
IS OCCURRING DURING THE SPOKEN SPEECH.
EXACTLY.
NOW, THESE PEOPLE, THIS FAMILY, IS...
IS SOMEHOW IMPEDED IN THAT PROCESS?
EXACTLY.
Man: ACCEPT.
Alda: TRACKING DOWN THE SOURCE OF THE IMPEDIMENT
MEANT TRACKING DOWN THE GENE THAT'S DEFECTIVE IN THE FAMILY.
THE GREAT HOPE WAS THAT HERE MIGHT BE A LANGUAGE GENE,
EVEN THE LANGUAGE GENE, SURELY PROVIDING
A WONDERFUL INSIGHT INTO THE HUMAN SPARK.
THE GENE WAS IDENTIFIED HERE
IN THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY LAB OF SIMON FISHER.
...BECAUSE THIS BINDING IS SO STRONG.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONSENSUS OVER HERE...
IT'S CALLED FOX-P2,
BUT THE GENE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FOXES,
ALTHOUGH IT DID TURN OUT TO BE PRESENT
IN MANY OTHER CREATURES, FROM MICE TO FISH.
YOU MIGHT THINK THAT A GENE
THAT'S INVOLVED IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE
MIGHT BE UNIQUE TO HUMANS,
BUT IN FACT, THIS GENE IS SURPRISINGLY SIMILAR
IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES.
Alda: SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL.
THE HUMAN FORM OF THE GENE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT
FROM THE FOX-P2 GENE IN CHIMPANZEES, FOR INSTANCE,
AND EVEN MORE DIFFERENT FROM THE FOX-P2 GENE IN MICE...
AT LEAST IN MOST MICE.
THESE PARTICULAR MICE HAVE BEEN GIVEN
THE HUMAN FOX-P2 GENE IN AN AMBITIOUS EXPERIMENT
AIMED AT FINDING OUT WHAT EXACTLY
THE HUMAN FORM OF THE GENE IS CAPABLE OF.
Man: I FOUNDED THIS INSTITUTE BACK IN '97.
I'VE COME TO THE MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE
IN LEIPZIG, GERMANY, TO MEET THE MAN BEHIND THE MICE,
SVANTE PAABO.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS
"HOW DO YOU ANALYZE A MOUSE FOR SPEECH?"
SO WE TRIED TO SPEAK TO IT A LOT.
AND IT NEVER ANSWERED. SO WE HAD A BIG PROBLEM.
HA HA HA. WELL, MAYBE YOU WEREN'T SAYING THE RIGHT THING.
THAT COULD BE.
WHAT'S THE SECOND DIFFERENCE?
SO THE SECOND JUST KNOCKED US OFF OUR FEET.
THEY DO VOCALIZE DIFFERENTLY.
YES. THEY DO? WHOA.
THERE'S, OF COURSE, NO WAY TO SAY
IF THEY VOCALIZE IN A MORE HUMANLIKE WAY,
BUT IT'S DIFFERENT.
MALE MICE MAKE HIGH-PITCHED SQUEAKS
WHEN THEY'RE AROUND FEMALES, TOO HIGH FOR THE HUMAN EAR.
BUT THEIR PITCH CAN BE ALTERED IN THE COMPUTER
SO THE TRAINED EAR CAN HEAR THEM.
[MICE SQUEAKING]
COMPARED TO NORMAL MICE, THE MICE WITH THE HUMAN GENE
SQUEAK AT A SLIGHTLY LOWER PITCH.
[MICE SQUEAKING]
Man: THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THAT THOSE MICE CAN SPEAK,
BUT WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT
THE HUMAN FORM SOMEHOW IMPACTS THE NEURAL CIRCUITS MAYBE
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN SPEECH PRODUCTION.
Man: MY SENSE, FROM THE FOX-P2 STORY,
IS THAT FOX-P2 WAS AROUND FOR A LONG TIME
DOING INTERESTING THINGS IN THE BRAINS OF OUR ANCESTORS,
AND IT WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE, IF YOU LIKE,
TO BE RECRUITED TOWARD SPEECH LANGUAGE.
Alda: THIS MAKES EVOLUTIONARY SENSE,
GIVEN THAT OUR FOX-P2 IS NOT THE SAME
AS THE CHIMP AND MOUSE VERSIONS OF THE GENE.
IN FACT, THE CHIMP FOX-P2 IS ACTUALLY MORE SIMILAR
TO THE VERSION FOUND IN MICE
THAN IT IS TO THE ONE WE HUMANS HAVE.
THIS SUGGESTS THAT WHILE FOX-P2 MAY NOT BE THE LANGUAGE GENE,
IT IS ONE OF THE FEW GENES SCIENTISTS HAVE IDENTIFIED
THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ABILITIES THAT WE HAVE
AND CHIMPANZEES LACK.
SCIENTISTS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY FIND OTHERS,
BUT IN THE MEANTIME,
THERE IS ANOTHER MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN CHIMPS AND US.
I'M NOW GOING TO PICK UP THE HUMAN BRAIN.
THE SINGLE MOST NOTABLE THING ABOUT THE HUMAN BRAIN
IS ITS SHEER SIZE, MUCH BIGGER IN PROPORTION TO OUR BODIES
THAN THAT OF ALMOST ANY OTHER CREATURE.
3 OR 4 TIMES BIGGER THAN A CHIMP'S BRAIN, FOR INSTANCE,
WHICH ITSELF IS UNUSUALLY LARGE.
THE QUESTION OF WHY OUR BRAINS BECAME SO BIG
IS ONE THAT WILL DRIVE MUCH OF THE AGENDA
FOR THE REST OF OUR SEARCH FOR THE HUMAN SPARK.
IT'S A QUESTION THAT HAS LONG FASCINATED
OXFORD UNIVERSITY'S ROBIN DUNBAR.
Dunbar: THE TRADITIONAL STORY HAS ALWAYS BEEN...
MAKING TOOLS AND HUNTING, YOU KNOW,
THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGICAL EXPERTISE.
YEAH.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK IT'S SOCIAL SKILLS.
AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE GENERAL VIEW
AS TO WHY PRIMATES HAVE BIGGER BRAINS
THAN ALL OTHER SPECIES OF ANIMALS,
THAT IT'S TO DO WITH THE COMPLEXITY
OF THE SOCIETIES THEY LIVE IN.
SO THEY'RE JUST SOCIALLY
MUCH SMARTER, IF YOU LIKE.
THEIR WHOLE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
HAS BEEN TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
SOCIALLY, COMMUNALLY.
SO IN EFFECT, THEY LIVE IN A KIND OF
IMPLICIT SOCIAL CONTRACT, IF YOU LIKE.
THEY KIND OF COLLABORATE WITH EACH OTHER
IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND DEATH.
SO THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT IS
YOU'VE GOT AN ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM OUT THERE
THAT YOU HAVE TO SOLVE.
YOU SOLVE THAT BY HAVING A GROUP.
IN ORDER TO LIVE IN A BIG GROUP,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BRAIN
WITH SUFFICIENT COMPUTING POWER
TO HANDLE ALL THE RELATIONSHIPS.
Alda: A CHIMPANZEE HAS TO KEEP TRACK
OF ABOUT 50 INDIVIDUALS,
THE TYPICAL GROUP SIZE IN THE WILD.
ROBIN DUNBAR ARGUES THAT HUMANS,
BY CONTRAST, CAN COMFORTABLY HANDLE ABOUT 150 RELATIONSHIPS.
IT'S VERY ROUGHLY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
YOU KNOW AS PERSONS, AS INDIVIDUALS.
SO YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEM
THAT YOU KNOW WHERE THEY FIT
INTO YOUR SOCIAL WORLD.
YOU KNOW WHERE YOU FIT INTO THEIR SOCIAL WORLD.
YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU ASK THEM A FAVOR,
THEY WOULD KIND OF GRUMBLE,
BUT THEY WOULD PROBABLY SAY OK.
Alda: ROBIN NOTES THAT THE THREEFOLD INCREASE
IN GROUP SIZE, FROM 50 IN CHIMPS TO 150 IN HUMANS,
FITS NICELY WITH THE 3-TIMES-BIGGER BRAINS
WE HUMANS POSSESS.
TO FIND OUT JUST HOW SKILLED THOSE BIG HUMAN BRAINS ARE
AT SORTING OUT OUR SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS,
I'VE COME TO YALE UNIVERSITY,
WHERE THE BRAINS WE'LL BE MEETING
ARE ONLY A FEW MONTHS OLD.
HELLO, JESSICA. HELLO. NICE DRESS. VERY NICE.
SAY HI.
AND THAT BOW IN YOUR HAIR-- OH, VERY NICE.
JESSICA, 9 MONTHS OLD, GETS TO WATCH A PUPPET SHOW.
Woman: OK. HERE WE GO.
Alda: WHILE THE STRIPED PUPPET SEEMS TO WANT TO PLAY BALL,
GREEN JACKET IS HAVING NONE OF IT.
Woman: HERE WE GO.
ORANGE JACKET, ON THE OTHER HAND,
IS HAPPY TO JOIN IN.
HI.
SEE?
HI. HI.
WHO DO YOU LIKE?
THAT ONE. GOOD JOB. THAT WAS THE NICE BUNNY.
THAT WAS REALLY DESTINY.
GOOD JOB.
IN MANY SIMILAR EXPERIMENTS
WITH BABIES ONLY A FEW MONTHS OLD,
THE INFANTS ALMOST ALWAYS CHOOSE THE COOPERATING PUPPET.
ONE THING THAT'S CLEARLY TRUE OF THE HUMAN SPECIES
IS THAT WE ARE A PROFOUNDLY COOPERATIVE SOCIAL SPECIES,
WHERE COOPERATION IS NECESSARY TO SURVIVAL,
AND WHERE MUTUAL COOPERATION IS REQUIRED,
AND THE ABILITY TO DETECT MUTUAL COOPERATORS
AND ALSO TO DETECT THOSE WHO ARE NOT COOPERATING
IS ESSENTIAL.
AND HERE YOU SEE IT'S HAPPENING
AT THIS VERY EARLY AGE.
SHE'S GIVING ME SUCH A LOOK.
YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF I'M NICE
OR I'M THE OTHER RABBIT, RIGHT?
REMARKABLY, THE ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE
BETWEEN NICE AND MEAN EXTENDS EVEN TO OBJECTS
THAT HAVE VERY LITTLE OTHER THAN A PAIR OF EYES
TO SUGGEST THAT THEY'RE BEINGS WITH MINDS AND INTENTIONS.
THE YELLOW TRIANGLE PUSHES THE RED CIRCLE
BACK DOWN THE HILL, WATCHED BY 6-MONTH-OLD NORA.
THE BLUE SQUARE, ON THE OTHER HAND, GIVES A HELPFUL BOOST.
HEY, LITTLE GIRL.
WHICH ONE DO YOU LIKE?
THAT ONE. GOOD JOB.
THAT WAS THE NICE ONE.
TO NORA, POSSESSOR OF THE HUMAN SPARK,
IT'S PERFECTLY NATURAL TO SEE INTENT, BOTH GOOD AND BAD,
IN SIMPLE WOODEN SHAPES.
THAT'S A GOOD ONE.
SO HOW OFTEN DOES THE BABY CHOOSE THE HELPER?
ALMOST 100% OF THE TIME.
YEAH. REALLY?
OH, THIS ONE.
[LAUGHTER]
YOUR WORK IS SIMILAR.
IT INTERSECTS KAREN'S A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT?
WE WORK TOGETHER ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
I'M VERY INTERESTED IN THE ROLE
OF SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING...
Alda, voice-over: THIS READING OF INTENT,
EVEN INTO INANIMATE OBJECTS,
FASCINATES KAREN WYNN'S HUSBAND
AND FELLOW YALE PROFESSOR PAUL BLOOM.
A FAIR BIT OF OUR PROJECTS
WE DO COLLABORATIVE WORK.
HE ARGUES THAT IT EXPLAINS ANOTHER CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE HUMAN SPARK, ONE SHARED BY ALL HUMAN SOCIETIES.
I THINK WE'RE NATURAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
SO THE WAY WE WORK IS,
WHENEVER WE SEE THINGS IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD,
WE TRY TO ATTRIBUTE TO THEM
SOME SORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INTENTIONAL CAUSE.
SO ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS ANIMISM.
PEOPLE ALL AROUND, WHEN THEY SEE
THE MOVEMENT OF CLOUDS OR THE RUSTLE OF THE TREES,
WITH ATTRIBUTE AN INTENTIONAL THINKING BEING BEHIND IT.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET GOD AND GHOSTS AND SPIRITS.
ANOTHER MANIFESTATION OF IT IS WHEN WE SEE THINGS
IN THE WORLD LIKE BIOLOGICAL THINGS,
LIKE TREES OR ANIMALS, WE TEND TO ASSUME
SOMEBODY BUILT THEM.
WE CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK
AT THE REST OF NATURE THAT WAY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
THAT WE ASCRIBE TO NATURE
WHAT WE SEE IN ONE ANOTHER?
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE'RE TRIGGER HAPPY.
WE'RE HYPERSENSITIVE. AND LOOK. IT MAKES SENSE
FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY POINT OF VIEW.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO THREATEN ME,
IF YOU HAVE SOME MALEVOLENT INTENTION
OR EVEN SOME GOOD INTENTION,
I'M REALLY GOING TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT.
NOW, IF THE COST FOR ME ALWAYS KEEPING AN EYE OUT
IS SOMETIMES I GET IT WRONG,
SOMETIMES I OVERSHOOT, SOMETIMES I SAY,
"HEY, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE TREES?
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE WIND?"
OK. THAT'S A COST. BUT THE BENEFIT
OF NOTICING IT WHEN IT'S THERE
IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL.
Woman: HERE WE GO.
SO IN NORA'S ALREADY FINELY HONED INSTINCT
FOR SEEING GOOD AND BAD INTENTIONS,
EVEN IN PIECES OF WOOD MAY LIE THE BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS
OF THE BELIEF IN ALMOST EVERY HUMAN CULTURE
IN A GOD OR GODS.
WE'VE EVOLVED TO SEE INTENTION EVERYWHERE.
YOU'VE GOT A REALLY GOOD GRIP.
I'D LIKE MY FINGER BACK NOW.
BUT THE BABIES WHO VISIT KAREN WYNN'S LAB AT YALE
NOT ONLY SEE INTENTION IN PUPPETS,
THEY ALSO PREFER PUPPETS WHO HAVE SIMILAR TASTES...
LITERALLY.
ERIC IS GIVEN A CHOICE OF 2 FOODS.
ONE DISH CONTAINS SOME RATHER SLIMY
AND UNAPPETIZING GREEN BEANS, PERHAPS NOT THE BEST WAY
TO GET HIM TO EAT HIS VEGETABLES.
LIKE MOST OF THE KIDS GIVEN THE CHOICE,
ERIC CHOOSES THE CRACKERS.
A WISE CHOICE.
[MAKING CHEWING SOUNDS]
MMM! YUM! I LIKE GRAHAM CRACKERS.
2 PUPPETS THEN GET TO SAMPLE THE DISHES.
[MAKING CHEWING SOUNDS]
EW! YUCK! I DON'T LIKE GREEN BEANS!
HI.
[MAKING CHEWING SOUNDS]
MMM! YUM! I LIKE GREEN BEANS.
HI.
[MAKING CHEWING SOUNDS]
EW! YUCK! I DON'T LIKE GRAHAM CRACKERS.
WHEN GIVEN A CHOICE OF WHICH PUPPET TO PLAY WITH,
ERIC, LIKE NEARLY ALL THE BABIES TESTED,
CHOOSES THE ONE THAT LIKES THE SAME FOOD HE DOES.
IS THAT THE ONE THAT LIKES THE GRAHAM CRACKERS, HUH?
DO YOU THINK THAT THIS ABILITY
TO SPOT WHO'S LIKE US AND PREFER THEM...
MM-HMM.
HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR BECOMING WHAT WE ARE NOW?
I THINK, OUT OF ALL THE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE STUDIED IN OUR BABY LAB,
THIS MAY BE ONE OF THE ONES
THAT IS MOST UNIQUELY HUMAN.
CERTAINLY THE ABILITY TO SPOT,
IN THESE KIND OF ABSTRACT WAYS,
WHO HAS A SIMILAR PREFERENCE,
NOT EVEN WHO LOOKS LIKE US.
IT'S, I THINK, AN INDICATION
OF HOW STRONG AND PROFOUND
AN INSTINCT IT IS, IF YOU WILL,
TO AFFILIATE WITH OTHERS WHO ARE SIMILAR TO OURSELVES.
AT EVERY POINT IN DEVELOPMENT,
WE'RE SORT OF SPLITTING THE WORLD
INTO PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR ALLIES
AND TO PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR ENEMIES.
AND IT MAY LATER ON BE BASED ON RACE,
IT MAY BE BASED ON SEX,
IT MAY BE BASED ON FOOD PREFERENCES
AND WHAT SOMEBODY'S DONE IN THE PAST,
BUT WE'RE ALWAYS CHOOSING WHO TO INTERACT WITH
AND WHO NOT TO.
AND IT ALSO TIES INTO RELIGION.
SO ONE OF THE FEATURES OF RELIGIONS ARE
IT'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE THESE TIES TOGETHER.
THEY WORK FOR ONE ANOTHER. THEY WORSHIP A COMMON GOD.
THEY MIGHT EAT THE SAME FOOD.
THEY MIGHT WEAR THE SAME CLOTHING.
AND THEY'RE UNITED IN A VERY STRONG AND POWERFUL WAY.
NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU DON'T GET
THAT UNITY WITHOUT A COST.
THE COST IS THEY'RE UNITED AGAINST
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE OVER THERE
OR WHO PRACTICE THESE OTHER BELIEFS.
THE BABIES IN KAREN WYNN'S LAB
ARE EXHIBITING TWO OF THE MOST POTENT SIGNATURES
OF THE HUMAN SPARK--
OUR DETERMINATION TO SEE MEANING AND INTENTION
IN EVERYTHING AROUND US AND AN INCLINATION TO BOND
WITH OTHERS WHO ARE LIKE US.
GOING BACK TO PAUL'S EXAMPLE, THESE 2 HUMAN DRIVES
ARE MOST VIVIDLY DISPLAYED IN THE POWER OF RELIGION.
WHILE DIFFERING WIDELY IN FORM,
ALL RELIGIONS HAVE AT THEIR CORE
A BELIEF IN A HIGHER POWER,
A GOD OR GODS WHO CREATED US,
WHERE EVERYTHING IS AS IT IS FOR A PURPOSE.
ALL RELIGIONS ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN ELABORATE RITUALS
AND RULES, AND IN MANY CASES, SYMBOLS AND COSTUMES
THAT GIVE THEIR ADHERENCE A SENSE OF IDENTITY.
[ORGAN PLAYING]
[CHOIR SINGING]
OFTEN THESE RITUALS INVOLVE SINGING AND DANCING,
ACTIVITIES WITH A POWER OF THEIR OWN.
Choir: ¶ HALLELUJAH ¶
¶ PRAISE THE LORD ¶
¶ HALLELUJAH... ¶
THE EXTRAORDINARY SENSE OF UPLIFT
THAT YOU GET OUT OF THAT EXPERIENCE,
WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT AS A GROUP,
CREATES THIS SORT OF SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
SO IT'S ALL PART OF CREATING THIS SENSE OF BELONGING.
THE BIG PROBLEM FOR RELIGION, IF YOU LIKE,
IS THAT ONCE YOU GET RELIGION ON A BIG SCALE,
THE MARRIAGE OF CHURCH AND STATE IN EFFECT,
THE MECHANISMS OF RELIGION ARE SO POWERFUL,
CREATING THIS SENSE OF COMMUNITY,
THAT IT CAN BE EXPLOITED THEN
TO PROVIDE A KIND OF... YOU KNOW, SORT OF MASSIVE,
MILITARISTIC SORT OF COHERENCE,
AND OFF YOU GO ON YOUR CRUSADES
OR OFF YOU GO ON, YOU KNOW,
TO SORT OF SET THE WORLD TO RIGHTS, AS IT WERE.
Alda: WHILE RELIGION CAN LEAD TO HOLY WARS,
IT'S ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE ART, MUSIC,
AND ARCHITECTURE THAT HUMANS HAVE CREATED,
AS WELL AS OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND MANY OF THE WORLD'S
OTHER GREAT CENTERS OF LEARNING.
ROBIN DUNBAR BELIEVES THAT AT THE BRIGHT CENTER
OF THE HUMAN SPARK IS A POWERFUL SENSE OF COMMUNITY
THAT COMES FROM OUR ABILITY
TO RELATE TO AND EMPATHIZE WITH OTHERS.
THIS ABILITY REVOLVES AROUND
A SPECIAL MEANING OF THE WORD "INTENTIONALITY."
THE WORD "INTENTIONALITY" IS USED A LOT,
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "INTENTIONALITY'?
WELL, THE TERM COMES REALLY
FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIND.
IT'S THE ABILITY TO KIND OF...
UNDERSTAND OR BELIEVE THINGS ABOUT THE WORLD.
SO ANY OF THESE MIND-STATE THINGS
THAT YOU CAN REFLECT ON--
"I BELIEVE, I THINK,
I WORRY ABOUT THE WEATHER,"
ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF.
SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW,
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE
ARE ALSO THINKING IN THESE KIND OF WAYS?
SO I WONDER WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT NOW.
THAT'S A SORT OF DOUBLE INTENTIONALITY,
BECAUSE I'M IN AN INTENTIONAL STATE,
AND I'M IMAGINING YOUR INTENTIONAL STATE, TOO.
AND IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT LADY OVER THERE,
WONDERING WHAT SHE'S THINKING...
MM-HMM. THAT'S--
AND YOU MIGHT BE WONDERING
WHAT I'M THINKING WHAT SHE'S THINKING.
OK. THEN NOW YOU'RE IN THIRD-ORDER INTENTIONALITY.
SO IN PRINCIPLE, THIS IS AN INFINITE SEQUENCE.
YES.
AND THE KIND OF WHERE IT STARTS TO BITE HERE
IS THAT, AS FAR AS WE KNOW,
WITH POSSIBLY A FEW EXCEPTIONS,
ALMOST ALL SPECIES OF BIRDS AND MAMMALS
OPERATE IN WHAT'S CALLED FIRST-ORDER INTENTION.
I SHOULD SAY, THEY KNOW
THE CONTENTS OF THEIR OWN MINDS, RIGHT?
THEY THINK THAT THINGS ARE THE CASE.
"I THINK I'LL HAVE A WORM."
YEAH. "I BELIEVE THERE'S A WORM OUT THERE.
I'LL GO AND GET IT." RIGHT?
THE DOUBTFUL CASES BECOME KIND OF THINGS
LIKE THE GREAT APES.
THERE'S REASONABLE EVIDENCE, I THINK,
THAT THEY CAN MANAGE SECOND-ORDER INTENTIONALITY.
SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR MIND STATES,
NOT VERY WELL, BUT THEY CAN KIND OF DO IT.
NOW THE KEY IS, THAT'S A BIG RUBICON
FOR CHILDREN AT ABOUT THE AGE OF 5.
CHILDREN GO THROUGH THAT STAGE--
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL IT THE THEORY OF MIND,
ACQUIRING THEORY OF MIND, AND THEY HAVE A THEORY
ABOUT THE MIND, AS IT WERE.
BUT ADULT HUMANS CAN RUN THROUGH TO FIFTH ORDER.
IT STARTS TO GET PRETTY COMPLICATED THEN.
"I THINK THAT YOU SUPPOSE
THAT JIM WANTS ELLA TO WONDER WHETHER PETER'S UP TO NO GOOD."
YOU KNOW, THAT'S PRETTY HEAVY COMPUTATIONALLY.
WHY DOESN'T IT GO ON TO INFINITY WITH US?
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S COMPUTATIONALLY VERY DEMANDING.
WE CAN ACTUALLY SHOW THAT NOW,
THAT AS YOU GO UP THROUGH THESE ORDERS,
THE BRAIN IS ACTUALLY HAVING TO WORK MUCH HARDER--
THIS COMES OUT OF NEUROIMAGING EXPERIMENTS--
TO HANDLE THESE HIGHER LEVELS.
SO IT'S A PURELY, A KIND OF, YOU KNOW, MACHINE CONSTRAINT.
Woman: OK, HERE GOES. THIS WILL LAST FOR ABOUT 4 MINUTES.
Alda: SO HERE I AM, IN THE BRAIN SCANNER AT M.I.T.,
TO SEE HOW HARD THE MACHINERY IN MY BRAIN
HAS TO WORK TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER PERSON'S THOUGHTS.
ACTUALLY, NOT SO MUCH HOW HARD MY BRAIN IS WORKING,
BUT WHAT PART OF IT I'M USING.
RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT IS M.I.T.'s REBECCA SAXE
AND A COLLEAGUE FROM HARVARD, RANDY BUCKNER.
MY TASK IS TO WATCH A VIDEO OF A DOG HIDING
WHILE A GIRL GOES OUT OF THE ROOM.
THEN TO FIGURE OUT WHERE SHE'LL LOOK FOR THE DOG
WHEN SHE COMES BACK.
WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT WHERE THE DOG IS,
ONE PART OF MY BRAIN LIGHTS UP.
BUT TO PREDICT WHERE SHE'LL LOOK,
I HAVE TO THINK NOT ABOUT WHERE THE DOG ACTUALLY IS,
BUT ABOUT WHERE SHE THINKS IT IS.
THERE IT GOES AGAIN. ALL RIGHT.
SO NOW, DOES SOME OTHER PART OF MY BRAIN LIGHT UP
WHEN I THINK THAT OTHER THOUGHT--
OH, WAIT. SHE DIDN'T SEE IT, SHE DOESN'T KNOW?
EXACTLY. SO WHEN YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION,
NOT JUST TO REALITY,
NOT JUST TO WHERE THE DOG REALLY IS,
BUT TO HER THOUGHTS,
TO WHERE SHE THINKS THE DOG IS,
THEN A DIFFERENT PART OF YOUR BRAIN IS BEING USED.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE A PICTURE OF HERE.
THIS PART OF THE BRAIN IS CALLED
THE RIGHT TEMPORO- PARIETAL JUNCTION,
OR R.T.P.J. FOR SHORT.
AND THAT'S THE PART OF THE BRAIN WE NORMALLY SEE
WHEN PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT
OTHER PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS.
NO. WAIT. THIS IS, LIKE, OVER HERE?
EXACTLY. YEAH.
SO SITTING JUST ABOVE MY RIGHT EAR
IS A PATCH ON THE SURFACE OF MY BRAIN
THAT ALLOWS ME TO SEE INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S MINDS...
OR AT LEAST WONDER ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE THINKING.
IS IT ANY KIND OF THOUGHTS,
OR IT IS JUST ME TRYING TO THINK
ABOUT THE THOUGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON?
IT'S JUST WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE'S THOUGHTS.
HUH. AMAZING, HUH?
IT'S REALLY AMAZING.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS? HOW DOES THIS FIT
INTO THIS QUESTION WE KEEP ASKING
OF WHAT MAKES US HUMAN?
IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUELY HUMAN ABOUT THIS?
MUST BE, RIGHT? OTHER ANIMALS WE DON'T THINK DO THIS.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF HINTS THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.
THIS IS ONE OF A VERY SMALL NUMBER
OF CORTICAL REGIONS
THAT ARE THE MOST DIFFERENT IN HUMAN BRAINS
COMPARED TO OTHER BRAINS.
AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO ASK, HOW DOES IT DEVELOP
OVER A CHILD'S LIFETIME? BECAUSE ONE THING YOU OFTEN FIND
IS THAT THINGS THAT DEVELOP LATER IN AN INDIVIDUAL CHILD'S LIFETIME
ARE ALSO THE THINGS THAT HAVE EMERGED
MORE RECENTLY IN EVOLUTIONARY TIME.
AND SO AGAIN WHAT WE FIND IS
THIS IS ONE OF ONLY A FEW CORTICAL REGIONS
THAT TAKES A REALLY LONG TIME TO REACH MATURITY
IN THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN CHILD.
BUT THAT PATCH ON THE OUTSIDE OF OUR BRAINS
ISN'T THE ONLY REGION THAT GETS TO WORK
WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.
THERE ARE ALSO REGIONS DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR BRAINS.
IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE LOOK LIKE
OR HOW THEY FEEL TODAY OR WHERE THEY COME FROM,
WHAT RELIGION THEY ARE, HOW THEY GREW UP,
ANYTHING ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON,
YOU'LL GET THESE BRAIN REGIONS RECRUITED.
ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME,
THESE DEEP INTERIOR REGIONS OF MY BRAIN
ARE ALSO HOME TO SOME OTHER UNIQUE AND UNEXPECTED ABILITIES,
AS I WAS ABOUT TO FIND OUT
FROM REBECCA'S COLLEAGUE, RANDY BUCKNER.
WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WORDS,
AND I SIMPLY WANT YOU TO CLASSIFY THEM.
NOW, IN BETWEEN WHEN YOU'RE SEEING THOSE WORDS,
THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE FIXATION
CROSSHAIR ON THE SCREEN. I WANT YOU TO STARE AT THAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS JUST STARE AT THAT LITTLE CROSSHAIR.
OK. HERE WE GO.
AS IS OFTEN THE CASE
WITH THESE BRAIN-SCANNING EXPERIMENTS,
WHAT I WAS TOLD WAS THE TASK REALLY WASN'T.
IT TURNS OUT THAT RANDY WAS ACTUALLY STUDYING
MY BRAIN WHEN I WAS JUST STARING BLANKLY
AT THE LITTLE CROSSHAIR,
WITH MY THOUGHTS TURNING TO RANDOM MUSINGS.
IN PERHAPS THE MOST STARTLING DISCOVERY WE'VE MADE YET
ABOUT MY BRAIN, DURING THESE MOMENTS
OF APPARENTLY DOING NOTHING, IT'S ACTUALLY ANYTHING BUT IDLE.
WHAT WE THINK IS THAT HUMANS HAVE ADAPTED
THE ABILITY TO USE ALL THESE IDLE MOMENTS
WHEN WE'RE JUST LEFT TO THINK TO OURSELVES
AND MUSE, TO USE THEM TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE.
AND SO ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS
IS THAT OTHER ANIMALS, LIKE US,
ARE VERY GOOD AT SURVIVING THE MOMENT,
TAKING IN INFORMATION AND THINKING ABOUT
WHAT TO DO RIGHT THEN.
WHAT HUMANS ARE EXTRAORDINARY AT DOING
IS THINKING ABOUT THE NEXT MOMENTS,
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE,
TO BE PREPARED FOR ALL THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPEN NEXT.
IS THAT RELATED TO WHY...
I'LL GET INTERESTING IDEAS ABOUT SOMETHING I'M WORKING ON
WHEN I'M DRIVING A CAR OR IN THE SHOWER
OR THINKING I'M JUST DOING SOME OTHER ACTIVITY,
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN,
THIS STUFF WILL POP INTO MY HEAD?
IS THAT RELATED TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING,
IS YOU'RE USING THOSE IDLE MOMENTS,
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THAT MUCH
OF YOUR BRAIN POWER TO THINK ABOUT THE ROAD.
YOU DRIFT OFF. YOU THINK ABOUT WORLDS
THAT ARE FAR FROM THE ONES YOU'RE EXPERIENCING.
YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE.
AND THAT'S ONE REASON WE THINK HUMANS
ARE SO CREATIVE AND SO FLEXIBLE,
IS WE CAN USE ALL THIS DOWNTIME
TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
AND HERE'S THE BIGGEST SURPRISE--
THE REGIONS THAT FIRE UP IN THIS DOWNTIME,
WHEN MY THOUGHTS ARE WANDERING,
SEEM TO BE SIMILAR TO THE REGIONS
THAT REBECCA'S RESEARCH SHOWS I USE
WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT'S A SIMILAR AREA OF THE BRAIN.
IS IT?
MANY OF THE REGIONS OVERLAP,
AND ACTUALLY, THIS IS A FUN THING AS A SCIENTIST.
WE WERE GOING ABOUT OUR BUSINESS,
STUDYING THESE AREAS THAT ARE INVOLVED
WHEN WE THINK TO OURSELVES.
AND REBECCA CAME ONE DAY
AND TALKED TO ME ABOUT HER WORK,
AND WE HAD CONVERGED COMPLETELY
ON COMMON AREAS OF THE BRAIN THAT WERE USED
WHEN WE THINK TO OURSELVES, THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE,
BUT ALSO WHEN WE ADAPT THEM
FOR THESE SOCIAL SCENARIOS,
WHERE WE THINK ABOUT OTHER'S PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS.
AND WE FIND THAT QUITE REMARKABLE.
YOU'RE WATCHING US PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WE ARE.
THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING.
WE THINK WE'RE SEEING THE IDLE BRAIN
NOT BEING SO IDLE.
YEAH.
IS THIS REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT MAKES US HUMAN?
WE ABSOLUTELY THINK IT IS.
EVEN THE ABILITY TO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE
MAKES YOU WANT TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE,
MAKES YOU WANT TO BUILD SOCIETIES
TO TEACH YOUR CHILDREN BECAUSE YOU PREDICT,
AND YOU EXPECT THEM TO GO ON.
AND THAT ABILITY TO-- AS SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID--
MENTALLY TIME-TRAVEL,
TO THINK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES
IS WHAT PROPELS US AS A SOCIETY.
Aldo: HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME, WE'VE COME VERY CLOSE
TO THE ESSENTIAL HUMAN SPARK.
DELIGHTFULLY, IT'S CENTERED IN BRAIN REGIONS
THAT ARE MOST ACTIVE WHEN WE'RE APPARENTLY DOING NOTHING
BUT ARE IN FACT LIVING VIVIDLY IN OUR IMAGINATION.
EVERY MINUTE THAT YOU'RE NOT BUSY
DOING SOMETHING IN THE PRESENT,
YOU'VE GOT TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN TIME,
AND IT'S THE PAST OR THE FUTURE.
WHEN THE PRESENT GETS DIFFICULT,
WHEN IT'S DEMANDING, WHEN IT'S INTERESTING,
WHEN IT'S UNEXPECTED, OUR MIND COMES IMMEDIATELY TO IT.
BUT MOST OF THE TIME, MOST OF US ARE DOING
PRETTY ROUTINE THINGS THAT DON'T REQUIRE
AS MUCH OF OUR CONSCIOUS ATTENTION AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT.
AND IN THOSE MOMENTS, THE MIND GOES "ELSEWHEN."
Alda: "ELSEWHEN" ISN'T THE ONLY TERM
DAN GILBERT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
HAS MADE UP TO DESCRIBE HOW WE HUMANS ROAM IN OUR MINDS
TO OTHER TIMES.
HE ALSO USES THE TERM "PROSPECT"
AS MEANING THE OPPOSITE OF "RETROSPECT."
RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN CLOSE YOUR EYES
AND SIMULATE ANY POINT IN TIME.
YOU CAN THINK ABOUT RETIREMENT.
YOU CAN REMEMBER BEING A CHILD.
THIS SEEMS TO BE THE KIND OF TRICK
THAT NO OTHER ANIMAL CAN DO.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE ANIMAL THAT CAN LEARN FROM MISTAKES
WITHOUT MAKING THEM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHEW A MOUTHFUL OF THUMBTACKS
TO KNOW IT'S A HORRIBLY BAD IDEA.
NOBODY'S EVER WHIPPED UP LIVER ICE CREAM
TO SEE HOW IT TASTES, BECAUSE WE CAN ACTUALLY
SIMULATE THESE KINDS OF EXPERIENCES.
THIS KEEPS US FROM MAKING DRASTIC ERRORS
THAT WOULD BE VERY BAD FOR OUR WELL-BEING.
SO THIS ABILITY TO "PROSPECT," TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
ALLOWS US TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE FUTURES
THAT ARE BEST AND THE FUTURES THAT ARE WORST.
I'M STILL FASCINATED BY THE FACT
THAT DEEP IN MY BRAIN
ARE APPARENTLY OVERLAPPING REGIONS
ALLOWING ME, ON THE ONE HAND, TO READ OTHERS' MINDS
AND ON THE OTHER TO TRAVEL IN TIME.
THE QUESTION THEN IS,
WHICH OF THESE THINGS, OR BOTH OF THEM,
WERE SELECTED FOR IN EVOLUTIONARY TERMS.
WAS IT VERY IMPORTANT THAT I BE ABLE TO READ
OTHER PEOPLE'S MINDS, AND TIME TRAVEL IS JUST
A NICE PERK THAT I GET OUT OF HAVING THE SYSTEM,
OR IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND?
WELL, HOW COME? I DON'T SEE
WHY THEY WOULD NECESSARILY BE THE SAME.
YEAH. WHAT'S THE CONNECTION?
THE CONNECTION IS THAT BOTH OF THEM REQUIRE
THAT YOU ESCAPE YOUR PRESENT POINT OF VIEW.
IN ONE CASE, I'M GETTING OUT OF MY POINT OF VIEW,
AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR POINT OF VIEW IS.
AND IN THE OTHER CASE,
I'M GETTING OUT OF MY PRESENT TIME ZONE,
AND I'M GOING INTO THE FUTURE TO EXPLORE THAT.
EXACTLY SO. IN A SENSE,
YOUR FUTURE SELF IS ANOTHER PERSON
WHOSE MIND YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
OH, THAT'S INTERESTING, YEAH.
SO YOU COULD MOVE ON THE TIME DIMENSION,
OR YOU COULD MOVE ON THE INTERPERSONAL DIMENSION,
BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT MOVEMENT ON THESE 2 DIMENSIONS
IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SAME PARTS OF THE BRAIN.
SO LOOKING INSIDE MY HEAD
HAS REVEALED INTRIGUING GLIMPSES
OF THE HUMAN SPARK.
BETWEEN THE ABILITY TO USE TOOLS AND LANGUAGE
AND THE ABILITY TO COOPERATE WITH OTHERS,
OUR BRAINS HAVE EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING TRULY UNIQUE
IN THE ANIMAL WORLD.
AND LITERALLY AT THE CENTER OF OUR BRAINS
AND AT THE CENTER OF OUR HUMANITY,
IS THE SPECIAL INSIGHT WE HAVE
INTO THE MINDS OF OUR FELLOW HUMANS,
EVEN OUR FUTURE SELVES.
AND ALONG WITH THAT IS THE IMAGINATION
TO SEE HOW THINGS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY THEY ARE.
INSIGHT AND IMAGINATION--
BOTH SEEM TO BE RIGHT AT THE HEART OF THE HUMAN SPARK.
INSIGHT, NOT ONLY INTO THE MINDS OF OTHERS,
BUT ALSO INSIGHT INTO THE UNSEEN FORCES
THAT MAKE OUR WORLD WORK.
AND IMAGINATION TO CREATE FROM WHAT NATURE GIVES US
A PLACE LIKE THIS, AND NOT JUST FOR OURSELVES,
BUT FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
AND IT'S INSIGHT AND IMAGINATION THAT SET US APART
FROM OUR RELATIVES, BOTH LIVING AND EXTINCT.
WHILE OUR EXTINCT COUSINS, THE NEANDERTHALS,
WERE STILL MAKING AXES MUCH AS THEIR PREDECESSORS HAD
FOR OVER A MILLION YEARS, OUR ANCESTORS HAD
THE INSIGHT TO SEE IN A STICK AND STONE AND STRING
A POWERFUL WEAPON,
AND THE IMAGINATION TO DEVISE NEW WAYS OF HUNTING.
ALL RIGHT. THERE YOU GO.
UNLIKE THE NEANDERTHALS,
THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BECOME US
HAD THE INSIGHT TO SEE HOW A STONE WITH A HOLE
COULD BECOME A BEAD AND THE IMAGINATION
TO SEE THAT BEAD AS A SYMBOL FOR CONVEYING STATUS
AND FORGING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
ALTHOUGH WE SHARE MUCH WITH OUR LIVING COUSINS, THE CHIMPANZEES,
OUR GREATER INSIGHT INTO UNSEEN FORCES
LIKE GRAVITY, GIVES US POWERS BEYOND THE REACH OF APES,
WHILE OUR GREATER INSIGHT INTO EACH OTHER'S MINDS
TAKES US BEYOND PURE COMPETITION
AND INTO THE COLLABORATIVE VENTURE THAT IS TEACHING.
THAT INSIGHT ALSO GIVES US THE ABILITY TO COOPERATE
THAT WE CALL CIVILIZATION.
FINALLY, OF COURSE, THERE'S THE PRECIOUS LINK OF LANGUAGE,
THE UNIQUELY HUMAN ABILITY TO BUILD FROM A FEW SOUNDS
AN INFINITE RANGE OF MEANING,
SO THAT THE INSIGHT AND IMAGINATION OF EACH OF US
CAN BE SHARED AMONG ALL OF US.
INSIGHT AND IMAGINATION-- 2 TRAITS THAT IRONICALLY
ARE PERHAPS BEST EXPRESSED
WHEN WE'RE APPARENTLY DOING NOTHING AT ALL,
WHEN OUR MINDS ARE FILLED WITH YESTERDAYS AND TOMORROWS,
DAYDREAMS AND WONDERINGS, REGRETS AND HOPES.
THAT'S THE HUMAN SPARK.
IMAGINE THAT.
THAT'S THE HUMAN SPARK.
OKAY, UM...
THIS IS A PICTURE OF A GUY WHO'S...
Alda: NOW, YOU CAN IGNORE
ALL THIS TALK ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE -- ALTHOUGH, AS YOU'LL SEE,
I WASN'T AWARE AT THE TIME --
IS THAT AMY ISN'T AN INNOCENT VOLUNTEER LIKE ME, BUT ACTUALLY
ONE OF TANYA CHARTRAND'S STUDENTS,
AND WHAT SHE'S DOING
WHILE WE'RE DESCRIBING THE PHOTOS
IS MIMICKING MY BODY MOVEMENTS.
...PICTURE OF MEN STANDING ON THEIR BICYCLES.
BEING MIMICKED NOT ONLY MAKES MOST OF HER SUBJECTS
FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE PERSON DOING THE MIMICKING,
BUT ALSO MAKES THEM BETTER PERSONS THEMSELVES.
YOU GUYS CAN JUST FOLLOW ME AND WE'LL GET STARTED.
IN ONE OF THE EXPERIMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE,
SUBJECTS WERE SCORED BY HOW MANY PENS THEY HELPED PICK UP
AFTER BEING MIMICKED.
IN OTHER TRIALS, THE SUBJECT IS PURPOSEFULLY NOT MIMICKED,
IN FACT, IS ANTI-MIMICKED.
Alda: TO THE EXTENT THAT, UNCONSCIOUSLY, HE KNOWS
HE'S GIVING HER A CHANCE TO MIMIC HIM
AND SHE DOES SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT,
THAT MUST REALLY... REJECTION.
YEAH, RIGHT, THAT MUST REALLY THROW A PERSON OFF.
IT REALLY DOES, AND THAT'S WHY WE FOUND, I THINK,
THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ANTI-MIMICKED,
IT'S SO DISRUPTIVE TO WHAT THE NORMAL
SOCIAL INTERACTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE,
THAT WE FIND THAT THEY HAVE LESS SELF-CONTROL,
LESS ABILITY TO REGULATE THEIR BEHAVIOR ON A LATER TASK.
IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT WHEN I GO HOME, I NEED TO SAY TO MY WIFE,
"I NEED A DRINK AND A LOT OF MIMICRY HERE."
Announcer: "THE HUMAN SPARK" WAS MADE POSSIBLE
BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...
AND BY THE ALFRED P. SLOANE FOUNDATION
TO ENHANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
AND TO PORTRAY THE LIVES OF MEN AND WOMEN
ENGAGED IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PURSUIT.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING WAS PROVIDED BY...
CONTINUE THE SEARCH FOR "THE HUMAN SPARK" ONLINE.
pbs.org HAS STREAMING EPISODES, WEB-EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS,
PRODUCTION BLOGS, "SPARK"-RELATED NEWS,
AND YOUR SUBMISSIONS.
THE 3-PART "HUMAN SPARK" SERIES IS AVAILABLE ON DVD
FOR $29.99 PLUS SHIPPING.
TO ORDER, CALL 1-800-336-1917.