Recently, a group of vision scientists demonstrated that individuals who were told that there were faces present in half of 10,000 random dot images believed that they detected them. Not really that surprising because we tend to believe what people (especially scientists in white coats) tell us. For me the interesting finding was differential brain activity on trials when they thought there was a face present.

Differential brain activity is a bit of a methodological nightmare as the past decades of brain imaging research has proven. What does that activity mean? There are a number of real problems unpicking what this activity reflects. I don’t think imaging by itself is going to convince critics. But here is one demonstration that I learned about this week that blew my mind for elegance. Take a look at these images.

A brightness illusion - the centre on the left looks brighter

This is beautiful brightness illusion. The centre of the pattern on the left looks much brighter – but it isn’t – it’s an illusion. But here’s the kicker. If you measure pupil size of the viewer, there is significant decrease in pupil size. This is normal response to brightness and has always been considered a basic low level reflex to calibrate for the amount of light entering the eye. Clearly, an illusion produces a change in the brain and its activity from the top-down all the way to lower level mechanisms.

The British philosopher Julian Baggini recently presented a great TED talk on the self “Is there a real you?” which I highly recommend. It is aimed at a young audience but none the less makes some critically important points. However, I think that he has misrepresented my position (and Susan Blackmore’s) when I say that the self is an illusion. That’s because I don’t think that Baggini (and many other smart people) understand my use of the term “illusion.” An illusion is not what it seems and I make this point explicit every time I talk about the mind.

The experience of self is very real, just like illusions, and this sense may even produce changes that are measurable. But consider the reality of ghosts. If we think we see a ghost, then to all intents and purposes, effectively we have. That does not make ghosts real. In the same way, if we think we have a self, and indeed measure activity of the self, that also does not make it real. Just like the Matrix, you do not have any direct contact with reality.

So now I am receiving lots of emails, lots of enquiries and a few criticisms. Why did I dumb it down? Why did I not have more female scientists? How can I possibly say on national television that supernatural powers do not exist? People are interested in my opinion.

Today the Guardian newspaper asked me to write a commentary on the reports of the Italian captain who abandoned his ship before the passengers and generally behaved in a way that most would regard as cowardly. I was not there. I do not know this captain. I simply pointed out that if he panicked (and it sounds as if he did) then it is not too surprising that he was unable to control his urge to flee. That’s the definition of panic. I simply stated that panic is difficult to reign in with reason.

I agreed to write the commentary so that readers could reflect upon what they would do in the same situation. I have a book coming out on “The Self Illusion” – the narrative we all generate about who we are. Most of us have beliefs about how we would react but my point is that these beliefs are part of the self story we tell ourselves which may or may not match up to reality.

Anyway, the commentary has attracted a lot of mixed opinions. Most of the negative criticisms seem to think that I am condoning his actions. I am not. But it does make me question whether it is wise to place one’s self in the public light to face the brunt of criticism and focus of prejudices and grievances.

The trouble is that when you become a public figure, you become fair game. Guess I was asking for it.

What’s In Your Head

I think that the message of “The Self Illusion” is going to be very controversial and upset a number of people. I already know that some colleagues disagree with the premise. In effect, I am challenging the idea that we are autonomous individuals but that rather we are a product of the history and influences of those around us.

The notion of no self will be familiar to Buddhists and philosophers alike. Buddha of course, taught that the path to enlightenment required attaining ‘annatta’ (no self) and Hume argued that there was no single core self but rather a bundle of experiences and sensations. There are not many neuroscientists who disagree with this as we are constantly reminded that the experience of the self is a product of the brain and as such, is an emergent property out of a constellation of separable processes – processes that can fail and fragment revealing the composition of the self.

I think the controversial aspect of the denial of a self is the implications and ramifications of this idea. However, there are many aspects of human experience that are similarly more apparent than real. Just because something is an illusion – not what it seems- that is no reason to try to ignore it. After all, it is there for a reason. We interact with individuals and selves – not apparitions and collective histories that define who someone is. And of course, the greatest illusion is the self illusion. Even when you know this, you cannot get rid of your self.

Christmas Lecture Trailer

We chatted for about half an hour when he visited the Ri to record an interview for their new website that is launching tomorrow. David told me that doing the Ri Christmas Lectures had been the most difficult television he had ever done and that months before he was due to deliver them, he had contemplated dropping out. This was both reassuring and terrifying at the same time. After all, I consider him to be one of the giants of science broadcasting.

I introduced David to Kate, my PhD student and his eyes lit up when we started talking about her research on children’s foraging behaviour. Not surprisingly, David was well acquainted with animal foraging in the natural world and took a keen interest in Kate’s work. I had to get back to rehearsing, but we left as two very young adults who had met their childhood idol

Last Thursday I had my baptism by fire with an almost full house preview for members and families of the Royal Institution. It was an opportunity to get a sense of what it is like to give a lecture in this august theatre where Faraday began the tradition of the public engagement of science. Where Huxley championed Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Where giants of public speaking like Attenborough, Dawkins and Sagan set the standards that other Christmas lecturers aspire to. To say that I am a bit nervous is an understatement. That said, everyone seemed to enjoy themselves at the preview last week. I met the director, David and I am working with a great producer, Leesa alongside science communicator expert Debbie. The team is great. However, the trouble with a topic like psychology is that while everyone is interested in how their brain and mind works, and we can all relate to psychological experiences, finding demonstrations that will reliably work with a teenage audience is proving very hard. To begin, people do not behave naturally in front of an audience. Teenagers can be acutely self-conscious in front of their peer group. Many of the classic psychological phenomena are implicit measures that are difficult to capture in a public arena. Other demonstrations are simply not visually compelling or make for interesting television. So I have my work cut out for me. However, I am pleased to say that I have recruited some excellent talent and experts to help me out in these final weeks putting the show together. I am very pleased that I will have the wonderful Billy Kidd who I specifically requested. As you can see, she is extremely talented.

I can’t give away much more but I can tell you that theme of the lectures is 1950’s B movies which is close to my heart as I used to collect original posters from these era and I have a fascination with the horror/sci-fi genre. We will meet the Locust Lady and take a boat trip to Zombie Island so I am hoping the teenage audience will like the sorts of things I loved as a kid. Anyway, I will be gone for some time and not blogging here during the event because there is an official Royal Institution Christmas Lecture website about to be launched on Dec 12th. But I will be back here after the circus has left town.

And here is a young Tom when he worked in Richard’s lab sharing a drink and a joke and eventually waking up his infant daughter who was being looked after by another very young Sue Blackmore. Bristol was a magical place and the vision world is a little colder and darker now that they have gone.